[ SECRET POST #2709 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2709 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 041 secrets from Secret Submission Post #387.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Why

[(Anonymous)]

Well usually they cite the fact that historically, matriarchal societies have been peaceful and not actually oppressive to men. I haven't studied up a lot on them myself, so that fact might be oversimplified... I think women would behave differently from men if were in power on a global level, but different doesn't mean better.

Re: Why

[ariakas]

Well a lot of anthropologists argue that there have never been any matriarchies (just matrifocal, matrilineal societies where women inherit and men don't, men marry into women's families, and women lead the group) because in the sense of being reverse-patriarchies, they just don't pan out. Men always have considerably more freedom and legal recognition and the ability to wield power in those societies than women do even in some modern patriarchal societies.

I suspect that this is less because women are kinder and gentler and fairer with power, and more that they can't physically force men to extremes that men can force women - stoning and beating to death and setting on fire and gang raping women as men do to control women (see the latest news from Pakistan, ugh) in patriarchal societies. If we could, I bet we would. But we can't, so matriarchies are by necessity more open-handed. Remember, it was only in the 20th century that spousal rape was considered a crime and that beating your wife wasn't considered "normal" even where it wasn't legal. It still is, in many places. Without corporal punishment and sexual abuse as means of control, you have to rely on society as a whole (and thus men) to maintain your power structure.

Re: Why

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, I think that is kind of what I was getting at. If we had found some way for women to get the advantage over the usual ways men have traditionally gained control -- like the physical advantage -- there would be a completely different type of oppressive power structure.

Re: Why

[(Anonymous)]

True, that was badly put - I should have said "any better" instead of "any differently".

But yeah, there never have been long running, big giant matriarchies in a way that's compareable to the patriarchies throughout history. Maybe some, here and there, for not a terribly long time. They definitely weren't the majority. So there really is no way to compare it.