Do you think Matriarchy and Patriarchy are ever changing cycles?

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

Do you think they are the cycles that change each other after a few thousands of years?

During extreme Patriarchy, women had to marry much older men not specifically because of love but because of his resources, because she couldn’t have anything of her own,

Then once she’d age and reach the end of her reproductive period, she had to literally become a CuckQueen to somehow enjoy her husband’s affairs with younger women and if she’s not able to do that, she had an alternative to become a miserable and an unhappy woman who sold her youth away to be used as a baby factory only to have an unhappy future in her personal life.

Now that women have far more resources than before and the power dynamic is getting relatively equal, women will marry for love, which sounds pretty good, right? We’d assume men would like it too. However, men are growing more and more unhappy and they feel more and more emasculated. Funnily enough, Cuckold fantasy is getting more and more popular.

I wonder, Is there a way for both of us, men and women, being happy, in a balanced society? (without patriarchy or matriarchy) or do you think we will lean to more extreme versions of these two and they will keep changing each other every few thousands of years?

[Anonymous]

I think you are correct. Things are swinging in favor of women and that is very dangerous.

Look at incels. The portion of the male population who are incels is increasing. Once it becomes too high, there will be a beta male revolution.

This will cause the beta males to revolt and basically men will re-capture female reproductive power by force.

I believe the biblical religions are about sex and control of female sexuality. Don't ask me to explain that lol. I'm still working on it.

I have seen that some men are becoming women. Not because they are Trans, but because women don't want them.

They have fetishes to be cuckolds. The fetish is rooted in the idea that they are beta males. Inferior males who according to biology, shall not be mated with.

These men are becoming women and taking hormones and surgery so that they can become valued in society.

So there will either be a beta male revolution once women have ceased to date men who are not at the top of the hierarchy. OR the beta males will all become Trans women and we will have hoards of MTF Trans, a few men, and a lot of women.

Since most women will not be able to share the alpha males they truly want, many women will become FTM Trans.

Basically one day there will be the alpha males and females together. And then there will be a majority of people who are Trans of all flavors fucking eachother and developing new fetishes and it will go on until some kind of societal collapse.

I am not a conservative and I can't stand conservatives. But in a sense they might be right about Trans people. They are conditioned by the society around them. It isn't just biology. It is society.

People's fetishes can become their main sexuality.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

Interesting.

I think many men will turn into Trans women,
so they can somehow imitate the women and if they can’t reproduce, at least compete for the resources.

But I don’t think many women will become Trans Men and the reason is that, men, you know better than me, are opportunistic animals, they’ll cheat, when given the perfect opportunity.

There will just be the high numbers of single mothers, who’ll give birth to very attractive sons of those attractive fathers.

That will also raise the competition between women.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

I remember I had a stalker, who was a cuckold man and he had a crush on me, he was messaging me some disturbing and extremely creepy things and once, he even used my photo to talk with a guy. He sent me the screenshots of their conversations. He was telling me that guy (who was very attractive) was ready to fly to Georgia to have a child with me (my photo but that cuckold guy).

I had to block that guy and then report him.

But I have thought about the messages he sent me, I wondered how was it possible for a sexy man like that to consider traveling so far to possibly impregnate a sexy woman.

So, imagine, the lengths men will go for women. I think women will definitely not need to become trans.

But I think lots of women are engaging into lesbian or bisexual sex, just because they don’t feel that desired by men.

Or some argue, bisexuality in females can even be the mate attraction strategy, as males are famously very aroused seeing two women together.

[Opinion Owner]

You're right and now I remember that I think we may end up like bonobo ape society.

Basically everyone is gay. Males only have sex with males. And females only with females.

How do they make babies than? Well, basically the females do mate with a very select few males. Even less so than in chimpanzee societies.

In chimpanzee societies the males control sex. The alpha male and his lieutenants have most of the sex. Also sometimes the females will sneak off to have sex with a beta male. These females are often tired of being dominated by rhe alpha and prefer a softer male.

In bonobo society it is matriarchy. Access to sex for males is far more restricted than in chimpanzee society and the females are extremely selective.

But instead of us humans all being gay, we will be on a spectrum of gender and sexualities. But reproduction and making babies will be restricted by women.

Either that or the beta male revolution will be very violent and a lot of women are going to be hurt. Burned. Tortured. Acid on their faces and so on and so on.

I think it's coming soon too. Society needs to teach men how to either be attractive to women, or realize the truth that women only want the top males and make preparations for the times to come!

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

Males do want the pretty women too, men are too selective about female looks and there are tons of “meh” men in a relationship with hot women.

I don’t think they have any rights to start a beta revolution, instead have some realistic standards and don’t throw tantrums just because the hotter girls don’t pick you.

[Opinion Owner]

Might is right. When the majority of men becomes incrls, they will rise up and take back female reproductive power by force.

Maybe they won't be able to. But they might try. Maybe it will become a terror thing like we had in the middle east when men were throwing acid on women's faces.

I'm just calling the future. That is all.

I don't know whether men can do better, or whether men are trapped by female choice in mates.

There is no way for me to know. Women like me. I'm Mr. Tall and handsome all the bitches love me. I don't see it from the woman's perspective OR the rejected beta male perspective.

[Still-alive]

"Basically everyone is gay. Males only have sex with males. And females only with females."

I think its time to lay down the crack pipe sir. www.banyantreatmentcenter.com/.../...-1000x480.jpg

Also a lot of incels and MRA types are unfortunately being roped into Nazi far right groups. So in that way they may turn to violence.

"Things are swinging in favor of women and that is very dangerous."

Lol this is such fearmongering... so why is this dangerous? in my opinion women might make things better. they may bring a bit more empathy into our political systems. of course they are just as susceptible to desire power above all else as men are but i think less so. I think you are being hyperbolic. in fact this whole post comes across as some kind of fever dream you have and yeah you been smoking a bit too much crack there.

[aceleon]

Sorry to tell this but equality is not real nothing in this universe is equal to each other, what you call equality is the reason why Man turned to either incels, playboys or cucks because being equal to a female instinctually feels like you are also a female which emasculates you and even worse womans are the gender that is values in the sexual market they can find several males to have sex by only offering it while a Man needs to be either at top of his game or willing to settle/give womans what THEY want and this makes Man either resent womans because of this inequality of universe (whether womans are to be actually blamed for it is irrevelant there are womans Who doesn't like this and wants to be wanted because Who they are instead of what they are and there are also womans Who likes this inequality and uses it to their advantages which a Man can do only one of 2 things against hate it (and move on or be edgy) or love it as an unhealthy choping mechanism (cucker/simphood) and no balance can not exist world is an extreme place, what you call peace might be hurtful to another person it is Just the way it is, some people hate what you like or love what you hate there is no perfect solution for everything unless we don't live inside the infinite tsukuyomi.

[Anonymous]

No. There's historically never been a matriarchy. Human societies development due to the physical differences in male and female bodies. Female bodies are weaker than males because we are designed to bear children.

[Jumpintoadstool]

Lol... you're joking, right? Are you seriously comparing thousands of years of oppression to men getting their fee fees hurt because they are expected to show some respect now? Don't make me laugh.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

I don’t think we have Matriarchy now :)

I feel what you are saying but I stated my question this way, to make it sound less antagonistic and get into their skin painlessly ;)

So they’ll actually think about it, instead of thinking how to defend their positions as males.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

Just like giving a necessary medicine shot to the child, you confuse them, try to shift their attention to something else, allow them to relax and then give a shot,

They’ll feel the twitch, but their muscles are relaxed and it won’t hurt that much for them.

So, I stated this question this way for a reason and now you are ruining the experiment by the antagonism.

I am there, I feel it, I know what you are saying.

But do you really think it’s better I take out the sword and fight with men, instead of trying to let them talk about the issue in a civil manner and try to find a solution together?

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

If you read my question again, you’ll notice you and I have more in common than you think, I just shaped the question differently.

[Jumpintoadstool]

The way you framed the question feeds into the delusion that men are oppressed. They are not. It is possible to have a conversation without starting it on the basis of a false equivalencey.

[dynamicyandere]

Hmm. I think historically men have held more power than women, simply because of the physicality of men and how that has given them the advantage in war.


During a time when technology was primitive, it was men who went to war and defended their women and children. Thus, those who won wars were men, and naturally were recognized as the ones in charge.


Those who are most powerful often end up as the ones in charge, and that pattern is also seen in the animal kingdom when animals fight over territory or mates.


Now, for the first time (within the last century or so) technology has advanced enough to even the playing field, where now power is not as dependent on physicality.


With technology, women can be as capable as men because before they were limited by their physical strength, but not their intellectual capabilities.


Technology has becoming the great equalizer.


However, the response to this newfound power and freedom has caused things to swing the other direction to an extreme.


In the United States for example, when you look at the legal system, women hold more power and leverage than men now. And men are more oppressed than ever, as compared to the past.


I believe the next stage would be to reach a natural equilibrium, where technology is the equalizer, and men and women reach a balance where neither side is overreaching and together they can find a system that stabilizes, rather than destabilizes, society.

[Jumpintoadstool]

Name one right women have that men dont. Men are not oppressed. They still represent the majority of positions of power. So whatever system flaws we have that affect men, you can thank other men for that by and large.

[dynamicyandere]

To name one: Child Custody

To be clear, I’m not blaming women for discriminatory policies. But policies that are made should be fair to both men and women, regardless of who is making those policies.

[Jumpintoadstool]

Men still have a right to child custody. Its just the majority of them settle out of court. The ones that do go to trial actually tend to favor the father.

[dynamicyandere]

Fair. I double-checked and you’re right that although 90% of custody does to the mother. About 60% of the time custody does to the father, if contested in court.

There are other aspects of divorce that are currently very skewed towards women, which is the very reason why there are entire communities of men who are terrified of marriage because of how much power women can leverage against men in a divorce.

But, as you said — this isn’t BECAUSE of women. It’s the people who are in charge of drafting policies that have made it this way for whatever reason.

[love_conquers_lust]

I think the two are in an endless waltz vying for the upper hand. Strangely enough, we're so adaptable we've learned to find enjoyment in all arrangements. The West is closer to complementarian and egalitarian.

I generally try to live by three governing principles: Extropy, altruism, and felicifics. The highest quality, for the highest quantity. I don't want women living in constant fear. I think it's freeing for them to have agency to overcome it. I want a woman, and I need her to choose me.

That's a cute picture, @lafemmefatale_1 I wish it wasn't blurred.

[love_conquers_lust]

I think an interesting followup is, from either gender's perspective, would you want the responsibility of the power the opposite gender holds? Could you handle that privilege?

Patriarchies have been the predominant model. Matriarchies typically could not defend themselves. Consider that the women of other societies figured this out and selectively chose to empower their men for the betterment of their own... at the expense of others.

I believe I've said before women can be attracted to the very thing that scares them. "Oh, he's tall. Oh shit, he's tall.". How would women adapt to that? The stereotype is women have a monopoly on emotional intelligence seems a logical adaptation to that. Engaging in an emotional debate with a girl is often a fool's gambit for a guy. IQ very much factors into it where the shapes of our curve distributions are not the same. But the average is the same between both genders.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

I understand what you mean, for example, I am scared of tigers, but I used to create art, where my fiancé was portrayed as a tiger. He was scary as well as lovely for me. But the fact that he was scary to others, but very vulnerable to me, always made me feel special.

He was very fearless, dominant and masculine, outside - people feared him, at home though, he was a total puppy to me. Treating me like the Goddess. He always told me we had a good power dynamics, as I was a strong woman but strong in a feminine way.

He was willing to take on my last name… And follow me anywhere I went… I was the one who told him to keep his last name, as he had a royal last name and I wanted him to be proud of his origins and not lose himself by my side.

[love_conquers_lust]

I saw that in your AI art. I've seen that before. It's a taming of the beast, so to speak. But is that true strength? When you have a biogical advantage, have you really triumphed when the odds are ever in your favor? I think women enjoy "controlling" that with the tools at their disposal.

That's why I love debating with girls on here. I know it makes them mad at me sometimes, but I'm very competitive. I know I'm stepping into an arena where I'm at a disadvantage. It also engages them, encourages me to listen to them which I very much enjoy, and it gives me a chance to show my emotional side.

I can see you're still pining a bit over your ex. I know you said you're trying to get over him. It's very attractive seeing that kind of loyalty and devotion.

It doesn't have to be a power struggle. Your spouse is your partner, not your competitor. It's okay to compete with one another for fun, but at the end of the day, you're there to support one another. Complement one another. I believe that's what people mean by loving someone unconditionally.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

Nope, I am over him.

It’s just he was a very influential person in my life, as he was the first man I ever got close to outside of my family and the only man I loved and got close to sexually,

So, in a way, he’s the person I refer to in my answers, not because I miss him or I am not over him, but because he’s the only man I’ve been with and in my mind I have no more associations when thinking of love, relationships or sex, he comes to my mind as my only experience.

I believe that will change when I fall in love again and meet someone who’ll I trust enough to allow myself to fall in love with. But I am afraid, before then my ex is the only man my mind keeps up reminding as I rid the questions that are about relationships or so on.

[love_conquers_lust]

What I see in your relationship based on your musings, was two people who thought the world of themselves. When their paths crossed, they decided to gift each other those worlds. You are my world and I yours. It was you and him against the world. Which can seem intensely romantic, but it's communally unhealthy. To say it's you and me against the world says you and I are better than everyone else. This is far from humility. It also creates division and can be extremely isolating from those around you. It creates this dynamic where you fill each other's void created by your own isolationism from friends or family or other couples.

The reality is, the traits you see in your spouse, are shared by others. Girls are hot yes, they're all unique, yes. But none of them have exclusive rights to a nice ass or beautiful eyes. No matter how much our individualism desires it so. What makes love and commitment special, is that DESPITE these commonalities we share with others, we CHOOSE to devote ourselves to one. That's what unique. That's what special. That's what no one can take from either of you. Despite ALL these people who were available, you chose THIS person. When you look at it through that lens, you don't see family or friends as competitors, but allies. You're they're to support one another. Life is hard enough as it is. We should compete, to support one another.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

You are right. You don’t compete with loved ones. I never competed with my ex. I admired and loved him and ditched my career and country to reunite with him and create a future together.

It didn’t work out but it comforts me to know we have tried and I have tried my best for the love I believed in.

[love_conquers_lust]

Meh, I'm going to call foul on that one. I remember you saying you changed in the relationship after you got together. You said HE said that, too. He liked your strong, outgoing nature and you slid into a more compassionate role. So I don't know the specifics of how it ended, but it sounded like a lot of fighting went on. Some of those AI depictions were horrible and I saw a lot of pain.

It's not a good sign that people fear man everywhere he goes. A man who inspires fear does not inspire devotion, he inspires obedience.

[love_conquers_lust]

But still, that was incredibly brave what you did. I hope you rediscover that person and venture out once again older and wiser. Your life is far from over.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

What exactly don’t you believe? That I tried my best? I did try.

He didn’t try his best.

I think all it took for us to get the initial dynamics back was to meet face to face again.

I was powerless through distance.

My flirting techniques, my charisma, my sex allure, everything I am - I am in person. I can’t be that way online. So it messed up our power dynamics.

I didn’t change until after long distance, and we have never met since then.

I do strongly believe just one meeting with me and we’d be back to our real selves, the one he was with me and the one I was with him. I am a very charismatic person. He waited for me for two years, which means in a way, I still did great, as I could in long distance, but I was avoiding fighting, I knew it was no benefit to fight during long distance, I think that’s what he disliked.

Because I remember once he tried emotionally abusing him and he ended up being chained on floor and apologizing.

I am not proud of that, but I don’t forgive and won’t tolerate abuse, through long distance he could hurt me and knew I was forgiving with the hope we’d meet in real life and figure out things better. I think that’s what he leant by me not being as strong as before. He was used to have his villainous nature controlled by my feminine dominance.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

*emotionally abusing me - I mean.

He was quite abusive and toxic and still is, he needs a person who keeps his demons in check and lets them out through other, safer ways.

I did not love him any less for that though.

And I see the mistakes I did and am willing to work it out and I have tried bettering myself.

The Break Up AI pictures shows me after break up, they don’t show what our relationship was like 😊

[love_conquers_lust]

Long distance relationships are VERY hard to maintain. Being in someone's presence does wonders for communication. SEEING someone's actions in the flesh gives you a picture worth 1000 words. Texting online is sterilized. It takes a lot of words and effort to articulate what could be expressed near instantaneously in someone's presence. Texting will never be a an adequate substitute for face to face interaction.

Believe me, @lafemmefatale_1. I can feel your charisma through your words. It's there. I can only imagine what it's like in the flesh.

I think getting back to your career and moving on is healthy. Holding out for him probably won't help. Consider this, if he is "royalty" and adored you so, why did he choose to keep you at a distance in a long distance relationship? If he had the means to do so, he could have had you two joined at the hip in a week. But he didn't. Why?

[love_conquers_lust]

^^^ignore that "SEEING someone" link, I have no idea why the text did that.

[love_conquers_lust]

Those "demons" are for him to control, not you. It's irresponsible to expect others to deal with one's demons.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

His last name is of a royal origin. He was poor at that time. All he had were his ambitions. After break up he moved to another city and got an amazing career but before then, he was poor and he couldn’t change anything, as China didn’t allow him to leave and didn’t allow me to enter.

Thank you.

I am over him.

[love_conquers_lust]

Have a good day @lafemmefatale_1. I enjoy your posts.

[JustMeQ2]

I think it will repeat until we as a society change our goals. Now this new equality is not a goal, nor a priority.


When we decide to create a better world for all, not just for oneself. Where also everyone contributes +/- the same. We will have that equality.


Supporting universal pay, 4-day work week, universal healthcare (at private hospital quality), free remote education (valued as college), taking money from the legal entities and giving it to the people. This is the first set of changes we just do.


For this, our social consciousness needs to be on a whole new level.

[Inbox]

YES!!! A girl finally sees it!!! You must have been sent by Jesus! It usually caused due to excess security in a county (simply because all human beings dream of a better tomorrow and once we're secure, we turn more inwards individually).

The cycle works like this: 1) A country starts off very conservatively as it is clawing its way to power and success, 2) Once success is achieved and most external threats are eliminated, the rise of Feminism and Leftist ideologies begin to emerge (simply because we can AFFORD to do so), 3) The Gender wars begin, and 4) The enriched and equalized women... and demasculated men (as it is happening here in the West) then become killed by a rival/rising power.

For obvious reasons, the significant different between today's time vs the old days is the threat of nuclear and economic retaliation (at least for now - I personally think AI will make these weapons useless over time, but that's for another time).

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

Why should enriched women get killed, if enriched men shouldn’t?

[Inbox]

If that’s all you got from my comment, please try reading it again - when a country is taken over, it’s usually those in power (enriched men, women, and weak men that go first).

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

I don’t think anybody’s got to get killed.

[Inbox]

Well, I'd suggest you pick up a history book. Alexander the Great's heir was assassinated after his death by his rivals, as did Julius Caeser's heirs, etc.

[RavVid]

Marrying for love only started in the 1800's due to womens magazines promoting it. Till then it wasn't a concept and Hypergamy ruled.

You are really talking about a very small section of society when referring to young women marrying older men. Upper aristocracy in fact. Men had to get their colonels permission to marry before making captain, because married men might put their family above their duty was the thinking. So yeah men would be somewhat older but not as much older as you appear to be thinking. More like 10 or 15 years.

Henry VII is thought to have been the only king of England who never had a mistress. But still, by marrying the king, the woman got to be queen so it wasn't that bad for her if the king had a few mistresses. and that applied to the upper aristocracy. No biggie.

I don't think guys and gals are ever going to happy together in a balanced way. Those early 1800's women mags stuffed it all up.

[Miristheiss]

I don't know when these things became buzz words that everyone knew. Maybe in the last 10 years? I think everyone who goes down this disease of this evil man hating form of feminism cuts their own legs out from under them.

You are free to be as miserable as you want and to claim victimhood over everything.

Go be miserable. Leave the rest of us alone.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

I have been very interested in this topic ever since I was 12-13 and I am not being a victim of anything, I am asking a question empty from my emotions, and I’d like to expect the similar answers.

Yours is written by your emotions.

[Anonymous]

Euality for women is a good thing, and most men support it. The problem is that women and society generally view gender issues from a very gynocentric perspective, which does not promore equality at all.

That will change eventually, but it's sad it is taking so long. But once we get to a point where men's rights and issues are given the same attention and priority as women's, we will untimately achieve a state of equalibrium where both sexes are satisfied and care about the happiness and wellfare of the opposite sex. But we are still a long way from that, and as long as men's rights and issues are ignored or marginalized, men will continue to be increasingly angry and bitter.

Cuckhold fantasies are very uncommon, and are just a consequence of the proliferation of pornography. Totally unrealted to what we're discussing here.

[cbaymesee]

Romantic 'love' is a concept popularized for the purpose of sales and merchandising. Disney movies, diamond rings, expensive flowers and perfume are a few examples, and most of it revolves around what women want. Men are expected to spend their money to prove their 'love' and it cheapens it so much that we find ourselves wondering just what we're paying for. If we're ever going to be happy and enjoy equality among all genders and orientations, it's not going to happen until we stop allowing capitalism to manipulate our values and beliefs for their own financial benefit. 'Love' brings out the worst in us. It isn't real. Let's start by trying mutual respect, empathy, and way less Internet porn. Thanks and goodnight.

[Naruse]

It's possible to construct a fairly egalitarian worldview that doesn't shit on either sex, now will that happen? Probably not a lot of Feminist theorists tend to skew their ideas more towards systemic inequalities towards women as a result of their lived experiences and those are the people who have cultural cachet. Of course you never know how movements develop and I have met intelligent Feminists who get it, but they don't tend to scream the loudest.

[Sevenpointfive]

short of a joe biden assassination you'll never get another woman in a presidential situation. the only reason biden isn't impeached is because we know kamala is there. that's not going to happen again. i sure as hell trump doesn't fall for the liberal game they are playing.

i have nothing against women. women run half of the world. but they aren't the face of it and it probably will never happen.

[RealMarek]

If you study history heavily, it is clear barbarism (the strongest men do what they wish and all others do what they must) or—in the case of high cultures—patriarchy of one sort or another, is the norm. With the exception of the odd primitive tribal society, only during the late decline phase of a great culture, when religiosity and fertility rate plummet, does society become gynocentric.

[Grond21]

I don't believe there has been a significant patriarchy or matriarchy except in isolated societies.
They confusion comes from only looking at one gender and ignoring the general circumstances that can be oppressive to both.
It's bad science, not bad history.

[disgustingweebtrash]

Balance was patriarchy, matriarchy is not balance, it relies on men to not be violent in order for it to work and sure that might be the case for men in your society, but men outside your society are violent and will likely just kill the men who aren't violent and subjugate the women, this is what usually happens with matriarchies

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

I don’t think oppressing women and selling, buying and abusing young females was a balance.

[disgustingweebtrash]

Balance is good & the bad, not just the good, you fail to understand what is meant by balance
In order for matriarchy to thrive, you need a tyrannical government to subjugate the men which would require women to get men to subjugate other men. For patriarchy, you just need men to subjugate women.
I'm not here to lecture you on 21st century western morality and ethics being a complete outlier for most of human history, but it is. We are no different now than we were before. Plus women are the biggest supporters of immigration, demographics are destiny. If a Western country become majority muslim, do you really think they will entertain your nonsense about egalitarianism? No. They will not. Women support their own downfall, ironically.

[pickles77]

There’s a lot that goes into men being unhappy besides patriarchy or matriarchy. Guys never say damn I wish my wife couldn’t vote. Or my wife deserves to be paid less because she’s a women. Not at all. Your one unit and stronger together. But will women supersede men collectively? Some may but you have to be willing to compete and that’s just not for everybody.

[Hanrej]

Yes, if each gender lives by their own merits. I. e women had to work themselves up the ladder all the way from the ground floor with all the manual labour that requires and men in order to advance would have to educate themselves above their peers.

No more living at the expense of the opposite gender and therefore no reason to fear or mistrust.

[Dargil]

Patriarchy is the natural condition of humankind. Matriarchy is a fluke.

[DextroShade]

They tried a matriarchy once before; the result was the Dark Ages.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

Dark Ages aka Patriarchy

[Still-alive]

Can you explain? what do you mean? like the Byzantine empire or something?

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

@Still-alive me?

[Still-alive]

@lafemmefatale_1 no him. as far as i know no country in western civilization has ever been part of a matriarchy. you may have to go real far back for that like the stone age or something lol. I mention the Byzatine empire because its during the so called 'dark ages' and Empress Theodora along with her husband Emperor Justinian was considered a Golden age of that era.

So im not sure what else he could mean...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy

[justabuddy]

Interesting question. I don't think patriarchy works as well as some would think. The dynamic tends to just flip 180. Girls don't always marry for love, some do, some don't. Power corrupts even weman.

[Anonymous]

have no idea what that means but im sure it makes sense to the spiky haired professor at some university that made it up before cunnulinging the next gullible teen

[Danny_dan92]

Everyone just needs to grow up