Anonymous #1 19h

Less violence

10

Anonymous #1 19h

I learned my lesson on here. My DM‘s are off for all my posts. You’d be surprised the length people will go to make totally irrelevant posts sexual. Over it.

5

Anonymous #2 19h

What evidence supports this?

14

Anonymous #2 19h

Lesbian relationships have the highest rate of domestic abuse

25

Anonymous #3 19h

Men being the leaders in physical and sexual assault plus murders

17

Anonymous #2 19h

Even if women were in power, men would still exist and do those things. Show me evidence of women led societies being less dangerous

9

Anonymous #1 19h

Lmao reducing women’s leadership capacity to stereotypical same sex relationship dynamics, which are not at all representative of the general population is such a sexist ignorant stance. I will no longer put any stock in anything else you have to say. It’s clear you are not trying to have an open minded conversation. Please go away now you’re contaminating the vibes of my post

15

Anonymous #1 19h

That just isn’t true. The data said lesbians report having been abused by more partners. That includes any men they may had been with before coming out dumbass

11

Anonymous #6 18h

What was it and how long ago was it

1

Anonymous lightbluehater 18h

The agoje tribe of the dahomey kingdom from 1600-1900

11

Anonymous lightbluehater 18h

In fact even the movie about the tribe portrayed them as the resistance against colonists even though in reality, they were selling slaves of other tribes which seemed pretty big to leave out

6

Anonymous #6 18h

Were they woman ruled the whole time?

1

Anonymous lightbluehater 18h

Yes it was an entire matriarch. There was rumors of a male monarch but its only been used as a theoretical placeholder for a specific custom that wasn’t fully understood by historians

10

Anonymous #6 18h

Were other kingdoms doing similar things (that had the power to)

1

Anonymous lightbluehater 18h

Like in the area?

6

Anonymous #6 18h

The other African kingdoms in the time of the transatlantic slave trade

1

Anonymous lightbluehater 18h

No. That’s why the agoje got away with it cuz no one was willing to fight back without a direct threat

4

Anonymous #4 17h

Holy cope 🤣

-1

Anonymous #1 17h

They’re not crazy. Countless submissive men would 1000% dm

7

Anonymous #1 16h

And don’t forget the highest divorce rates too!

0

Anonymous #13 16h

The ppl who post this type of slop or support it are either one or a combination of the following: -ignorant -idiotic -pick me

-3

Anonymous #13 16h

Damn, instead of elaborating on a semi good point you made you decided to be an ignorant asshole. What an idiot. Not going to bother listening to you now.

7

Anonymous #6 15h

Cool story! Currently with men ruling civilization we had: eight crusades, a Transatlantic Slave Trade, two world wars, a global nuclear arms race that nearly led to Armageddon TWICE, and now more war in West Asia

7

Anonymous #14 15h

Yes I’m so happy women are able to leave unhealthy marriages with women unlike when they’re with men and are financially trapped in marriage. Holy shit I beg of you educate yourself

3

Anonymous #4 15h

to say the least 🪦

5

Anonymous OP 15h

Asshole perhaps, ignorant no—that is what *you* undoubtedly are with the most charitable interpretation. Most people are ignorant; there’s nothing wrong with that per se, but willful ignorance is another matter altogether. The doubling down on not listening just vindicates the claim of idiocy absolutely. And the pick me part is evident with the pathetic attempt at emotional manipulation there at the end. Those aren’t immutable qualities though, they are conscious, active decisions you’ve made

1

Anonymous #4 15h

All I’m saying is that a woman-run civilization wasn’t very anti slave trade themselves and was the dominant threat across the dahomey kingdom. Saying men also did it too just makes it apparent that no gender dominant society would work feasibly

3

Anonymous #6 15h

But it was the dominant threat to the world. The patriarchy was. Matriarchy worked just fine in America, India, and Indonesia. Also, the Dahomey was not matriarchal and it’s literally called a kingdom. The Agoje were simply an all-women army directly loyal to the king. It’s like saying England was a matriarchy because there were a couple women as Queen. It’s not about strictly who is in charge but also a system of inheritance/influence.

4

Anonymous #4 15h

Holy fat finger, it was not the dominant threat to the world

3

Anonymous #4 14h

It was a dominant threat in that country. They were able to get away with it because no other tribe or part or the kingdom was able to fight back

1

Anonymous #4 14h

There was rumors of a king and yet we have more biological records of soldiers of the military than we do of the king

1

Anonymous #6 14h

Yeah I get that but you can say that about any military power. I’m strictly focusing on the fact that it’s not a matriarchy as you describe it

1

Anonymous #4 14h

But if we’re talking about women governance in general then we got a lot to work with, we can also bring up ranavalona I who was reputable for abusing power during her ruling in madagascar during the 19th century with systems of routine forced labor and normalizing isolationist policies which is regarded as one of the most brutal monarchs of the time across both genders

4

Anonymous #4 14h

And I bring this up not shitting on the idea of a matriarchy cuz I do trust a matriarchy more than a patriarchy, but what I’m saying is that it’s not the solution and it won’t lead to a perfect utopia like everyone glamorizes it especially since we can barely visualize the concept or mapping out of a perfect utopia

6

Anonymous #6 14h

Okay but she was still a cog in the patriarchy. She took over after her husband, the KING, died, while ruling the KINGDOM. You can have female rulers in a patriarchy and vice versa. Again it’s not strictly about gender of an individual ruler

1

Anonymous #4 14h

Then we have jiang qing who had a massive reputation during the cultural revolution for widespread persecution with politic purges and suffering comparable to that of some of the most severe plague outbreaks which is disturbing in of itself and then was convicted by Chinese authorities for how out of hand it gotten

1

Anonymous #4 14h

But to what extent can a monarch not have responsibility in that position? Yeah most of the society had been developed by male elites but she still assumed superior command of the numerous militaries and aristocrats and proposed and implemented herself the numerous forced labor institutions and persecution of enemies as she sought fit. She didn’t just go on autopilot during all of this

1

Anonymous #16 14h

Often times, but not always. The worst people we know are drawn to power like moths to a flame, sure, but that doesn’t absolve us of responsibility in getting the right people to those positions. There have been good leaders before

3

Anonymous #13 14h

It’s less of a gender thing and more of a regulation thing atp. To attribute it to any small of a factor like these would backfire incredibly on us as a society

1

Anonymous #2 14h

😂😂 if you want to see how true this is look at the black community which is more matriarchal than any other race

2

Anonymous OP 14h

Cope harder

5

Anonymous #4 14h

Crusades were based lol

8

Anonymous #6 13h

Obviously she has responsibility as a vile leader but that is not indicative of individuals it’s indicative of the power structure. Queens can serve in the same seat as a King and it can still be a patriarchy. My entire point is that leaders speak not for their gender but for whatever the specific power structure is. In your latest example, may I remind you that she was the empress of China, WHICH WAS A PATRIARCHY

1

Anonymous #4 13h

So what would a matriarchy change other than a set back to zero for any preestablished power dynamics?

0

Anonymous OP 11h

The Spartans were ruled by women and they were the one of if not the most violent societies in history? 😂

1

Anonymous #19 11h

no they weren’t. did you get your history textbooks from temu?

2

Anonymous #19 11h

That’s kinda badass

1

Anonymous #6 10h

Matriarchy aren’t opposites in seated power they’re opposing values. Matriarchies are built on values of need. The goal is to support and protect all members of society (like a hen protects her chicks). Meeting everyone’s needs to the greatest benefit of everyone. It’s biological practice incorporated into a cultural model. Most importantly, you don’t have to simply be a woman to have any sort of power because it functions through group dynamics (lions, pheasants, cows, etc.)

0