Anyone know about any books on the worlds governments being matriarchal?

Any good books about reddit nine thousand remaining on their board?

>>9487679
I have no idea what you are talking about

>>9487672
Matriarchal does not mean only beautiful women, op.

>>9487754
Yeah it doesn't, that was more of an afterthought really.

>>9487672
Get an office job working with a bunch of women and see if you still think that.

>>9487754
My main focus is on women being in a dominant position in society or just out right having control over how men view reality.

>>9487764
Sorry if I implied I thought being controlled by hot women wasn't a bad thing, I just wanted to see what everyone else thought. I think not having control over oneself is bad in any given situation.

>>9487754
And neither does it mean justice for all.

Early ethnologists like Henry Morgan.

>>9487765
>>9487767
We don't know what a female oriented system would look like, i don't think. Womens rights and entry into the political sphere is pretty recent. Motherly instincts won't be good running things desu, stop thinking with your dick. It would probably be some form of radical female pc authoritarianism. Mothers protect the infants from the predators. So you're either an infant being coddled or you're a predator being stomped underneath a boot

>>9487863
That was never assumed, women I think want to be violent but for the most part lack the strength.

File: 834982139813.jpg (20KB, 650x400px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 650x400px

>>9487672
>subjugated by beautiful women
you may be overly optimistic about the women who want power

>>9488974
Thanks for sharing, anon. Interesting read. I kek'd at the conclusion:
>Without legitimate authorities and binding traditions, without authoritative concepts and creeds, there is no end in sight.
This guy's obviously a proddie, but at least his insecurity is showing through. He'll return to the Church in no time if he keeps (gasp!) questioning as he does here.

>>9488980
>who has never read these things and just believes stupidly. It's all bullshit basically are you kidding me? Creator in flesh? What? Senseless nonsense.
No one ought to believe stupidly. That said, perhaps one of the most influential books and ideas in history merits some consideration beyond this. And of course it's "Senseless nonsense"! That's exactly what the people said as they had him crucified. The whole point of the Christian message is that it's not common sense for God to interfere in creation but it is supposed to have happened this once.

The rest of your response misread mine above and carries no logical thrust, so I'll leave it at that.

>>9489046
Wrong thread? I don't know why you are mentioning this here.

>>9488975
Regardless of the women who want power, have you seen the concept in any literature?

There will never be a matriarchal society until men no longer have balls.

Random African tribes don't count.

Aristophanes wrote a play about a matriarchy apparently, called "Assemblywomen."

>The play invents a scenario where the women of Athens assume control of the government and instate pseudo-communist reforms that ban private wealth and enforce sexual equality.

It's pretty hilarious that even thousands of years ago people were making fun of commies and sjws.

>>9490609
Aristophanes is making fun of democracy if anything in that one. Lysistrata has a similar gender split but any of his works have hilarious reductio ad absurdum arguments that still work today.
>>9487672
Consider Her Ways by John Wyndham. She by Haggard. Herland by Gilman.
Everything Romantic from the 11th C until they decided the weather was scarier than a woman scorned.

>>9490380
We have one

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/apr/01/the-kingdom-of-women-the-tibetan-tribe-where-a-man-is-never-the-boss

>>9490380
>the celts don't count
>on the literature board
you're going to fuck with some meabh type and she's going to take all your cattle and kill all your friends and then have your marriage annulled and pain and suffering awarded to her, and you'll be lucky for that because you didn't get a macha type and squander her.

File: 1494411009827.jpg (23KB, 552x468px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 552x468px

Declaration of Human Rights is one that comes to mind

>>9490647
>but any of his works have hilarious reductio ad absurdum arguments that still work today.

Well, you could say the same pretty much with any FICTIONAL work. That's why you can't use these things as arguments. If the author wants a certain outcome, of course he's going to get it. What impedes me of writing something that would portrait a matriarchy as the best system? Nothing. Also, the OP just asked about shit were women dominate. You are just being pretentious.

>>9490735
>sperg on overload
I thought it was a nice way of alluding to the fact that most people thought Socrates could have survived if only Aristophanes hadn't written a hilarious play about him. They were friends, but putting politics in a comedy can make stupid people do more stupid things than killing all their generals for not getting killed. Aristophanes' jokes worked a little too well for most people's liking with The Clouds.

I don't think you've read his shit. Aristophanes has very favourable views of women, and puts more of them on stage to mock Athenian males than any other major playwright. He also shows more nonAthenian women in roles of power and as smarter than the cleverest playwright like Euripides than other playwrights. He's not antiSJW or commie, he's not even antidemocracy when he's mocking it, he's a deeply skilled and complex comedian. You either missed every joke in the play or you're being a pretentious twat for trying to fit a wikipedia article in as having read or seen a play.

He has many plays were women dominate, and the play you chose of them isn't critical in the way you think it was. I'd hate to see what you'd do to Socrates after reading the wikipedia page on The Clouds

>>9490609
Thanks anon

>>9490609
Only good answer.