How comes that during whole history of mankind, there were so

>>3148606
If you believe Will Durant, matriarchal societies were the norm in prehistory, it's only after the invention of agriculture and property that needs to be transferred through a lineage that it turns over to the eldest males ruling.

>>3148606
Easy to explain. Woman always watch for their children. Men take of the Woman and for the children. There now we got a reason as to why. You can see the same thing with most mammals .

Women are not meant to rule, so matriarcal societies always remained irrelevant shit (Pacific islander shits..etc) while patriarcal ones florished

>>3148669
Then how comes that countries with high gender equality are much more wealthy and powerful than those without?

>>3148691
Wealthy and powerful countries have women trying to pretend theyre important outside of raising and creating children.
Mouse utopia soon

>>3148691
Sweden isnt powerful

Women were generally viewed as subservient so a woman who wanted to rule had to be extremely ruthless and ambitious (e.g. Irene of Athens) to maintain a grip on power, whereas many weak willed and lazy men could become rulers

>>3148606
Sexism

>>3148691
Prosperity comes before gender equality, and not the other way around.

>>3148743

If half your labor force is fucking the plumber at home instead of being productive, you are going to have less productivity than a society that actually has useful women.

>>3148704
Sweden is pretty powerful for a country with such a small population

>>3148606
Physical strength used to matter more and it was harder for a population to grow due to plagues, war and bad harvests so having and raising children was deemed more important. At average women are also slightly less competitive and aggressive than men.

>>3148709
I will say that that does lead to a situation where female leaders were generally more or equally competent as some of the great male rulers (i.e Elizabeth I).

This only seems to have changed in modern democratic societies where weak women can become leaders by licking people's boots. Needless to say that regimes lead by those types of women tend to be disastrous (i.e Merkel).

Because women are by and large childish creatures who are not fit to rule a nation.

>>3148691
It's the other way around. Being rich and powerful makes it easier to play stupid games with less risk. Less privileged nations cannot afford the luxury of being unefficient on purpose.

>>3148798
Except low class women have been working since the dawn of time and this has nothing to do with them holding any political power.

>>3148606
Because women tended to die young and in childbirth.

>>3148798
That only works in modern economies where people outsource childcare.

>>3148798
don't forget chilluns.

>>3148615
Seems unlikely considering that we ran into all kinds of hunter gatherer societies upon arriving in the New World and anything resembling a matriarchy was practically non-existent

>>3152116
>A larger workforce
>inefficient

What the fuck am I reading?

File: Severina.jpg (128KB, 500x493px)

128KB, 500x493px

Did she actually reign the RE, /his/?

>>3148606

Throughout history, the leader of a country was typically expected to make important military decisions, and in many cases, directly take part in battles. This only really changed after WW1 as far as I can tell. Anyway, women have a weaker physiology which typically keeps them out of military affairs.

>>3152169
>Throughout history, the leader of a country was typically expected to make important military decisions, and in many cases, directly take part in battles.

Most kings did not participate directly in military battle after the 17th century.

>>3152134
See>>3152119

Women don't need equality to work. That's a meme.

>>3152130
B-but muh mother earth

>>3152186

The King of Belgium took a very direct role in WW1.

>>3152226
I didn't say all, I said most.