Politically and Biologically

Men and women have oppositional biological imperatives, males tipping conditions to their advantage for the last few thousands years doesn’t change this greater truth. That greater truth being disparity and competition within a species - the actual purpose and function of sexual reproduction. We have billions of years worth of non-human ancestors who did not reproduce under the parameters of pastoral patriarchy. We have trillions of creatures alive today that reproduce just fine without total male control. In fact, many species are at a stage of development where females have maintained the advantage.
How much hubris does the human male have to suggest he domesticated the female so thoroughly he completely changed the parameters of which life has obeyed for billions of years? How stupid do you have to be as a woman to fall for their copes and manifestations? I could go into autistic detail over every little variable that points to the opposite being true.
The fact that it’s taken less than a century after male conditioning has been (just slightly) alleviated from women for men to start reeling in their irrelevancy should clue you in.
Do you think white slave masters were in shock seeing their slaves gain autonomy once the whip was taken away?

Women are happier without men by every conceivable metric, it's men who crash and burn without mommy bangmaid doting on them.

>>17789111 (OP)
It's gonna be hilarious when a woman becomes President and nuclear war happens. Future tribes will tell stories about what happens when women lead

>>17789111 (OP)
Women's liberation is a punishment from God.

>>17789111 (OP)
>>17789118
Patriarchy benefit both men and women
Matriarchy only benefits women

Note to self: always ask the female if she’s pro-choice or pro-life when it comes to abortion before having sex with her.

>>17789126
Matriarchy doesn't even benefit women heh

>>17789111 (OP)
You need to be 18 to post here.
>also, trolling outside of /b/

>>17789111 (OP)
What's this barely hidden fetish doing here? Can the jannies actually do their job?

>>17789141
>>17789126
Depends, if looking at bonobos, then yeah it would probably benefit only women, but bonobos only work because of the abundance of resources, which isn't something you probably want your species' social structure to depend on.

The closest matriarchy that I can think of that is under heavy resource constraints and DOESN'T depend on a garden of eden are hyenas, and...well just look at the image to see why that would do more harm to women in the long run.

Additionally, the reasons hyenas are even like that is because their pregnancy was hard enough to necessitate the aggression and size, which...how would that even work in people?

This post is stupid.

>>17789237
Celts were matriarchal and advanced
And Check-out the medieval queens

>>17789237
>Depends, if looking at bonobos, then yeah it would probably benefit only women, but bonobos only work because of the abundance of resources
This is our case, haha, women today can even be the providers of the households and earn more than men. If with the "egalitarian" laws we are already in a matriarchy, imagine if it were really structured for this model. But is it fair? This idea keeps me up at night for reasons I would probably know... especially older women. Furthermore, female bonobos avoid conflicts with other males with sex. It would be paradise, haha, and I wouldn't have to take care of children.

>>17789237
Do you know that 1/3 of all species are matriarchal, isn't? mammals included

>>17789267
Celts weren't a single unified tribe

>>17789285
were a large group that shared similar characteristics, this argument was quite weak. but even in your opinion, what do you say about the Britons? or the Neolithic Anatolians of Çatalhöyük? or the Scythians? Sarmatians? the latter were matrifocal for example

>>17789111 (OP)
Nice bait but you forgot one thing:
Liberal women (the kind pushing this kind of narrative) don't have kids.
While conservative women have lots of kids.

You know where this ends.

>>17789126
>Patriarchy benefits both men and women
Lol. Lmao, even. Patriarchy actually harms both as a class with only the top 10% of men benefitting from such a corrupt system. patriarchy is essentially aristocratic in nature, with a ruling class of the few who step on and exploit the many. Feminism serves as a useful response to such a slanted system but must ultimately dissolve into egalitarianism which is the only system that will actually benefit everyone. The division of labor between the sexes has became less pronounced with the advent of the industrial revolution and the divide has only gotten smaller and smaller with every major technological innovation and and the modern organization of society in developed countries. Humans have become more neotenous than their pre-historic ancestors and this trend is continuing slowly but surely. The future is androgynous.

>>17789318
Much text

>>17789318
Absolutely not
In patriarchal countries like muslim countries
Everybody get a woman

>>17789111 (OP)
Go back to crystalcafe.

>>17789138
Just get a vasectomy.

zoomers are the most hyper masculine anti social people yet, eventually both sexes will just revert to being apes

>>17789111 (OP)
the hellhole we live today is literally a ginecocracy, ignore these tranny freaks on the comment

>>17789292
>Britons? or the Neolithic Anatolians of Çatalhöyük? or the Scythians? Sarmatians?
I don't know enough about them, got any recommendations for reading? I know the Scythians or at least a group of them were led by a queen

There not a board of directors in the world with more than 2 women in it. If all men disappear tomorrow women will starve to death. Civilization was build and is run by men and this is just a temporary experience.