Matriarchy in fantasy

>>53798876
Modern liberal democracies are basically matriarchies, just take inspiration from places like Canada and Sweden.

Warmongering society of pragmatists.

Why waste good warriors on government positions when they could be out there killing? Might as well let the queen and princess do the strategy behind the front lines while the king does killing.

>I don't want a magical realm in a fantasy setting
that's pretty hard to accomplish, remove magic then, but you won't have fantasy...

File: smirk.jpg (85KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 550x550px

>>53798876
Good bait, 9/10, will enjoy the thread.

>>53798876

Magic. Basically, it's divine intervention.

The only way women could maintain primacy would be by the direct efforts of a God or Goddess. Arcane magic can be learnt by anyone, so it's going to come down to some goddess only granting magic to her priestesses.

Otherwise, men simply have an overwhelming physical advantage in every way.

>>53798876
If men are the warriors, then women are the magic-users. They stay home and govern stuff, occasionally cast powerful spells to keep themselves in charge, while the boys go out to smash things.

That's really all it takes.

>>53798876
the government is matrilineal, with a ruling queen
women are the head of the households, and "woman" work like cooking, weaving, and motherhood are held in high esteem while "man" work like manual labor are seen as the lower kind of work
legends tell of princesses who rescue men from dragons, using wit, cunning, or martial skill

>>53798952

This. It's like how, in the Wheel of Time, the Aes Sedai were the only ones who could really use magic. The moment male channelers became an organized force, their entire society more-or-less fell apart.

>>53798952
I too remember how all the senators in Rome earned their positions through wrestling their competitors and throwing rocks the farthest.

File: the_sorceress_by_halloweenholidaydoor-d7g64fv[1].jpg (133KB, 761x1049px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 761x1049px

>>53798876
Pretty much you're limited either to religious cause of such society reinforced by tradition (women priest sorceress class stereotype governing by divine right) or for women-only society which only from time to time mingless with men to produce offspring. Anything else will be largely improbable given male-female dynamics stemming also from evolution or you'd risk magical realm, with exception of that state of society being temporary - disproportionate birthrates due to curse or whatever or nation where almost all men and boys died due to, say, invasion/warfare - but even that is close to being suspiciously magical realm-y.

Well I do remember in one story I read that there was a city state that only allowed female rulers due to its early history basically where bad things happened when men were in power, but when women ended up in power things were fine. So the people of the city became superstitious about the gender of their ruler and ruling class, and though they admit they probably don't have to have a queen, they aren't willing to risk it.

>>53798979

You're aware that consuls lead armies, right? Military success went hand-in-hand with politics. Also, women don't really make good soldiers. I mean, I don't recall any historical armies that were largely composed of women, at least - You'd think if they were really good, we would have at least one notable success in the cultural zeitgeist. (Did the Amazons exist?)

File: 095c6bd4cc6bb006ca2de790fa286fe7.jpg (306KB, 962x1454px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 962x1454px

>>53798876
Like the Gerudo from Zelda?
While the Gerudo is deep within my personal magical realm it is mainstream enough for no one to notice.

>>53798979
>wrestling
There was a lot of stabbing and showing your martial prowess in battle though

>>53798979
Maybe not, but they could physically browbeat women into submission, after which they could just ignore the weaker sex completely. It snowballed from there.

>>53799035
>Like the Gerudo from Zelda?
Wasn't their whole thing that the moment a male child is born to the Gerudo, they immediately make him king and give him the Triforce of Power in hopes that his glorious BBC would bless them with children?

Doesn't sound to matriarchal to me.

>>53798876
I did this in a setting of mine.
Lizardfolk all had matriarchal societies for simple reasons.

First, like in all common reptiles i know of, female are bigger and stronger than males.
Female lizardfolk also tend to be smarter, but much less aggressive than male ones, making them a poor choice for soldiers unless you're fighting defensively.

My lizzies also had a deep religious respect for the miracle of laying eggs, so females were seen as inherently magical and respected for their "life-giving" magic.

Also castes. Females in lieu of their inherent magic, usually occupy the magic and religious castes, working as priestesses, oracles and druids. Males were of the warrior and worker castes. They did the manual labour around the village and defended it against beasts and other tribes. They also work as hunters and scouts because they have a natural wanderlust females usually don't have


So my point is: play it on magic.
In ancient cultures the woman was usually respected because she was seen as a magical creature, walking the hedge between the human world and the mystical one. In the viking culture, for example, magic users and sorcerers were usually females. Same thing in ancient greece, were oracles and seers were usually women

>>53798876
It would have to be temporary. Depopulation of males via war or plague, leaving only women to step into power.

It would last until the next generation or so when gender ratios stabilize.

>>53798975

They were basically irrelevant the moment the Dragon Reborn shows up, i.e. all the way from Book 1. By Book 3 they're literally having catfights.

File: 35f17636b6b380dcbfa5021547719674-d57etsd.jpg (872KB, 1126x823px) Image search: [Google]

872KB, 1126x823px

>>53798876
It isn't that hard, OP.

In a fantasy setting, your goal is to encourage adventure for the PCs (who tend to be male). Since PC adventurers are essentially homeless vagabonds, they do not need to be part of "polite society". So here's how it works:

By long-standing tradition, land can only be legally owned by women. (This is similar to how in some places even today, land can only be owned by men.) Only landowners get to vote, and the constitutional monarchy is passed down the female line. Generally, people take the family name of their mother, not their father.

The reasoning behind this tradition is that women, being the ones who need to settle down (they get pregnant, men don't), are the ones who are most suitable to be just caretakers of the land. There is also a divine proclamation in the holy writings of the Gods that mothers are the rulers in the household, and in the queendom. Men, being the active but less "civilised" sex, are limited in their legal standing and encouraged to be nomadic and to take up the more dangerous professions.

>>53798921
"Mgical Realm" has a specific meaning in this context. Please lurk more.

Make them not human in where the women have an overwhelming physical or mental power over men, otherwise you'd need an external force because as it's, human men are stronger than human women and those physically stronger ruled over the weak for a long time in history.

File: venus_of_willendorf.jpg (96KB, 461x682px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 461x682px

>>53798876
The way I remember it working historically is that around 2000 B.C. women were viewed as incredibly powerful for their ability to give birth and nurse children, this is incredibly important since human communities were small at the time and every hand was needed to sustain a society. Elves might be your best bet in this case, since they don't reproduce often and therefore would consider their women to be blessed with the ability to give birth. Women would hold political power due to this form of worship.
Source: Took a semester of ancient history in college and therefore am an undisputed master of the subject

>>53799084
As of breath of the wild it's that male Gerudo are just really rare. They don't even know that Ganon was actually a Gerudo. Though in Ocarina of Time he did become king purely because he was a male Gerudo, it seems that at some point after that everything that happened with him likely soured them to having male leaders.

File: innsmouth rules lawyer fish.jpg (116KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 500x375px

>>53798952
>men simply have an overwhelming physical advantage in every way.
Unfortunate facts: they also have an overwhelming mental advantage and overwhelming aggression advantage.

IQ distributions are dominated at the high end (and also low end) by men, 10:1. Men are the greatest, most prolific inventors, and would dominate magic as much as they dominate science IRL.

>>53798876
In general, those that do control - as a class group. So if the warriors are men, they are going to demand that men are in charge - following only men. And society will have little choice in the matter.

So my suggestion would be to change that. You can mess with the physical descriptions of men/women so that women are naturally the warriors in a culture - but that might be a bit jarring and even in a world with magic not seem believable.

The most likely method I think would be to have some form of magic, that is important to the survival of the nation, only run through women. Perhaps they are the only mages, or sorcerers, or clerics (of a God that is needed to survive, that the nation actively depends on). Something like that.

To have more fun with it make it the cleric/God thing. Only women can perform ritual X that must be performed yearly and requires a majority of the women of the nation. The twist is that the ritual is faked, it does nothing and is not needed (or at least not needed, but perhaps pleasing to the God all the same). All of the women in the lower ranks believe though. Only the very top percentage of elite rulers know it is bullshit.

File: thats-a-penis.gif (5MB, 400x317px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 400x317px

>>53798876
Magic: Women have powerful magical abilities, while men do not, so a magicracy develops with the women in governing positions. It's smart to take orders from someone who can divine the future.

Belief system: Women are divinely ordained to be leaders and administrators, as the Mother-Goddess nurtures the world, so shall her daughters nurture the people of the world.

Tradition: Noble lineages are passed through the female members of a family. A noble lineage cannot exist without the womb, after all, so women should inherit it.

Biology: The females of the society are less numerous but live much longer lives. As such, they are valued for their wisdom and their ability to keep up populations.

Is OP's picture what I think it is?

>>53798876
It's dead simple: don't include in the setting that females are inherently weaker than males. Anyone that complains loudly is either a hardcore realismfag or a FATAL player, in which case you can freely discard them and find another player.

>>53798952
The fun thing is, you don't even need women to be magically superior. You just need them to have been magically superior. Let's say in the distant past, a powerful sorceress conquered the realm with magic. She then set up her daughters as rulers - we can say it's for a reason, or just for the hell of it. Now let's say the daughters followed in their mother's footsteps, and now tradition will do its thing. The leaders are women, because obviously women make the best leaders. After all, we've had women ruling us all our lives, and if a society would be better off led by men it would have happened by now.

>>53799189

Well, we have to pretend women are good at something, for the purposes of the argument. Otherwise, any society under a matriachy would be inherently crippled and an obviously worse option.

>>53799189
If this is true, then it's far less immediately noticeable and therefore utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

Nobody gives a shit.

>>53799209

Wouldn't this fall apart when a powerful male Wizard or Sorcerer shows up?

Depends. Do you mean matriarchy as a society where women are generally considered better than men in mamy aspects, or an average society ruled by a female leader?

If the latter is your problem, just make the woman in charge a strong and capable leader. History is full to the brim with women that in moments of need showed balls of steel bigger than the head of a minitaur. Just do a quick research and take your pick

>>53799235
Probably, but as long as that doesn't happen the realm is matriarchal, so use that span of time for your realm

>>53799084
Yeah, but that's once in forever and a half.

>>53798952
>Arcane magic can be learnt by anyone
This is true in all settings.

>>53799235
nah, he's just an exception

>>53798876
>How do I create a functioning matriarchal society and government for a fantasy campaign that doesn't make it a magical realm?

Well, the simplest thing to do is just reverse all gender roles except those for which reversing would make limited or no sense. Midwives, for example, should remain female.

You could also check out the details behind the mythological Amazons, which were *not* in the actual myths held to be an all-women people.

>>53798876
Why don't you start by taking example of real world matriarchal societies:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/31274/6-modern-societies-where-women-literally-rule

>>53798876
Can't be done.
Best bet is a race of female humanoids that are compatible with male humans/elves but somehow can only birth more women and have to rely on travelers for reproduction.

>>53799235
You say that like 90% of wizards and sorcerers aren't completely into being dominated by powerful women.

There's probably some unspoken agreement between all of the 10th level or higher casters to never do anything that would endanger their femdom paradise.

>>53799319
>You could also check out the details behind the mythological Amazons
Didn't the Amazons constantly get raped by an all-male tribe hanging out nearby?

File: shrug.png (130KB, 442x353px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 442x353px

I would just make men and women equal in physical and mental potential. Strongest woman is as strong as the strongest man and the weakest man is as weak as the weakest woman. That gets rid of basically ALL of the problems.

first generations created by the gods were 90% female for procreation purposes so they ruled at the beginning and it just stuck.

>>53798876
Sparta is about as close to a real life version of what you're after as you're likely to find. Women run most things because the men are all off training and/or screwing one another.

>>53799371
Only if you consider the Greeks to be an all-male tribe.

>>53799368

Wouldn't that be the opposite? If I was a Wizard (i.e. a fucking nerd) I would want to dominate as many women as possible. Sorcerers, meanwhile, are high Charisma. That means they're used to taking what they want from women, too.

>>53799235
Only if they're strong enough to conquer the nation. Otherwise he's running into the weight of tradition, where he might be a powerful wizard but he's both and usurper and a man.

Now, it's possible he could try to overthrow the social order. But he might not be able to replicate the Empress' feats. She might have been the first Empress, meaning she united a bunch of warring kingdoms under one banner. Now you'd have to take on an entire powerful nation rather than a bunch of rival factions. Or their military has caught up to the point where a single powerful sorcerer can't just conquer them anymore. Maybe they've got enough battle mages and summoners, or just enough troops. Or maybe she had some secret source of power that means nobody can match up to her without replicating it. Maybe she made a pact with a demon, or had dragon blood.

Or maybe he is conquering the Empire, and it's up to the PCs to stop it. After all, nobody likes their home to get conquered.

>>53799396

I don't know about you, but I'd side him with.

>>53798952
You're thinking too much like a man. If you're going to imagine a society run by women then you'll need to set brute force aside and think of how women use power.

A matriarical society will be focused on diplomacy and trade. It will encourage arts and building. It will use a mostly male army as a way to allow men to blow off their masculine aggression. Sexuality likely will be used to control men but there mostly be other means such as is used with any powerful animal.

Its one of many options but i imagine a "queen bee" situation where a woman plays the more physically powerful men off of eachother, at first forcing conflict and slowly manipulating the men so that they no longer feel as much need to compete for her attention.

Alternatively, the culture simply values a woman more than man (see the Lakota tribe). Such reverance is not uncommon amoung very early societies.

>>53799395
>Wouldn't that be the opposite?
Anon, you've wandered into his magical realm where "90% of wizards and sorcerers are completely into being dominated by powerful women". It's folly to argue at this point.

>>53799029
The Amazons were probably inspired by the Scythians, who do not appear to have had any cultural baggage surrounding the idea of female warriors. While the Scythians themselves left little records, multiple sources confirm that men and women were both warriors.

The Scythians were horse-nomad archers, though, which might have played a role in that - the physical demands of someone riding on horseback and firing an arrow are substantially less than the physical demands of someone standing in a phalanx formation.

Likewise, when you're a nomadic people and you have to defend yourself against an attack, you don't tend to have a large enough population to get uppity about someone with boobs picking up a bow and arrow. It isn't much of a leap after that to decide that, having defended yourself and now needing to go on a raid, the females should also get to come along, to shore up your numbers.

>>53798876
Bees, ants, eusocial insects in general.

>>53799411

So what happens when they're invaded?

Look into various American indigenous nations, many in the modern mid-west had matriarchal arrangements.

>>53799410
Why would you side with someone trying to violently conquer your peaceful kingdom?

>>53799433

Because I'm male, and I stand to gain more under the new regime.

>>53798876
You have to make them of a species where females are larger and stronger like insects, lizards and fish. Or bullshit them full of magic.
Nobody follows a rule they can break, and as cute and endearing as women can be, they are very easy to break.

>>53799426
The men fight the invaders?

>>53799379
>Be fertility goddess
>Be lazy and want to increase the numbers of followers
>Make an absurd female:male ratio to speed up their growth rates
>Women become dominant in every layer of society and men are just a tool for breeding and sexual gratification
>Meh, not my problem, they'll sort it out with enough time at a more normal birth ratio
>It never does
>Be too embarrassed about it to try and correct the all-female clerical order when they start praising me as the one who teaches the truth that men are meant to submit to women.

File: inspirobot 53.jpg (50KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 650x650px

>>53799433
for profit and power, people can be surprisingly assholish for those

>>53799441
>get executed by new regime, since you were so willing to betray the old guard, you are a liability in the future who may betray the new order

>>53799411
these seems like a very believable one

>>53799462

You've never seen an adventuring party topple a kingdom before?

>>53799441
Historically speaking, this never actually pans out within the lifetime of the rebels. The previous underclass benefiting from the new regime, that is.

Tsarist Russia had a higher standard of living for the average Russian than Communist Russia did until about the late 1940s, for example.

This also leaves aside that all we know about this powerful Sorcerer/Wizard is that he wants to conquer the Empire, not that he'd actually be any good at running it. Hell, we don't even know that the current Empire is unpleasant for men.

>>53799450
And lose.
Look at france for an example of what happens when masculinity is systematically villified. You're not gonna birth a Herakles in a matriarchy, and all it takes is a roving band of omegas kicked out from their tribe for being violently disruptive and your political and diplomatic matriarchy is gone.

>>53799029
Consuls didn't comprise the vast majority of the Senate nor really did any military leaders comprise any political body of Rome during any of it's three eras. Partially why powerful generals went on to seize the crown during the Imperial era.

File: __mucchan_dekkano_drawn_by_synecdoche__sample-03133485310b85e2930d44772088320e.jpg (265KB, 850x1258px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 850x1258px

Just flip the sexual dimorphism and be done with it.

>>53799506

> Partially why powerful generals went on to seize the crown during the Imperial era.

Isn't that proving my point?

>>53799479
So following the reply chain, your argument is that as a male citizen of a matriarchy, you would help in overthrowing the government by a foreign patriarchy because "muh males", then when the new government tries to kill you, you would overthrow that government all by yourself because "muh XP".

Anon, you might be a murderhobo.

>>53799502
anon, plenty of manly men societies have been over run, wiped out or assimilated. Saying they could get wiped out by a more powerful force doesn't change the viability of the scenario.

>>53799099
Lizards normally have larger males. It's snakes with the larger females.

>>53799515
>...that doesn't make it a magical realm?

>>53799411
The only reason men listen to women in civilized countries is because a government of smarter men will send a police force of stronger men to fuck you up if you don't.

Men are much less valuable than women in western society, and yet they control the show.

>>53799532
If RPGs have taught me anything, it's that the fastest way to enlightenment is genocide.

File: Ianmcneicebaronharkonnen.jpg (20KB, 328x442px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 328x442px

>>53799479
Never trust a traitor. Not even one you create.

>>53799189
>Q distributions are dominated at the high end (and also low end) by men, 10:1
This part could very easily be a product of a male biased society.

>>53799554
Is such a thing even possible?

>>53799126
Pff

At a tribal level

Matrilineal society with emphasis on women as a core of continuity in the community because of the trace of descent through maternal lines.

Loosely organized council of tribal mothers dictating domestic affairs - division of tribal resources, official approval on marriages and thus composition of family units, internal matters such as arbitration.

External matters of the tribe such as war and trade handled by the older and experienced men - men of the community are more mobile and loosely associated with the core community of women and children, as they are primarily concerned with hunting, territorial security and trade/politics with neighbours.

A war chief and a hearth mother are two different and powerful stations in society, but more of the core mechanics of your daily life are going to be determined by hearth mothers than war chiefs - if that makes sense.

>>53799549
Don't komodo dragons, common lizards and crocodiles all have bigger females than males?

Be as it may, my point still stands

>>53799574

Actually, you do have to trust SOME traitors, because in a revolution, the people who side with you against the government are traitors to the established order.

I mean, you'd have to kill everyone otherwise.

>>53799548
>just because a brick house can collapse, doesn't mean my tissue paper house will!
If your society is weak to random murderhobos from within or afar, it's no society at all.
You need to device a way to make sure men as as strong or stronger as any enemy force and yet completelly happy to serve women. Emasculating men either by threating them like children or like animals is a surefire collapse and your proposed matriarchy might be better off not having men at all.

>>53799612
No, just checked. Males tend to actually be substantially bigger. For example, male komodos tend to be 8 or 9 feet long, while females are usually more around 6.

Then again, female komodo dragons are capable of parthenogenesis - self-impregnation. Males aren't technically necessary for the species.

>>53799612
Both of them have larger males. The largest Croc in the world is male even.

>>53799592
No, that's just genetics. Men have a greater incentive to be genetically varied than women do.

>>53798876
Women are administrators and magistrates.

Men are philosopher warriors.

Slaves are the labour force.

Sparta 2.0

>>53799592
Yes but not because of the reasons you may be thinking about.
Men have higher and lower IQs because some men have to try exceedingly hard to mate, and some women open their legs for anyone.
On the other hand most females mate and don't have to try particularily high.

If women were the courting sex, they'd be the ones with IQ extremes.

>>53799647
Oh well i might be retarded then.

>insert The more you know pic here

>>53799612
Hyenas have larger females.

>>53799687
Hyena females also have dicks and more testosterone than the males. Hyenas are just a race of futas

>>53799687
>>53799740

Hyenas are not a problem since i'm talking lizards here.

Anyway, even if i fucked up the size thing, it still works and none of my players called me out on my bullshit yet

>>53799814
There is one bunch of lizards with 3 types of males, one of them being traps.

>>53799557
>Men are much less valuable than women in western society, and yet they control the show.
That's true in most societies.

Men have less value, but more power.

>>53799662
Because it is a male-biased society. See >>53799678

>>53798876
Read about Bretonnia or Kislev from Warhammer Fantasy.

Give women the ability to naturally abort a pregnancy without emotional consequence. That makes any sort of mating by force impossible. Further, aggressive men would likely be rewarded with death by a group of people rather than the ability to start a family.

>>53799924
Sounds more like a female-biased society, not a male-biased one.

>>53799625
>you'd have to kill everyone otherwise
Yes, that tends to happen after the revolution is over. The new regime doesn't like rabble-rousers any more than the previous one.

>>53799029
Historically women were more valuable as livestock. It's not that they couldn't hold spears or loose arrows, but in order to have 10 pregnant women, you need 10 women, and only 1 man. Nordic women took part in war, and while it's not the case in most cultures, you have examples like the Chinese pirate queen, or Sigarda's (this is probably the wrong name sorry) that wandered into an enemy encampment pretending to be friendly and killed all the men when they didn't expect it. It's not the women don't make good soldiers as much as they generally aren't allowed to be soldiers. It would be like people 100 years ago saying women aren't good at voting.

Main problem with women as soldiers (as compared to men at least) is a lower strength and muscle mass, as well as a slower reaction time on average and lesser spatial recognition. Higher pain tolerance though.

>>53799189
I'm sure I'm going to be called /pol/ or some shit, but part of the reason women are less represented in the sciences is how we taught sciences. When a teacher desires a student isn't good at something (male or female), that student tends to get worse and worse as the teacher's bias shines through. So when teachers assume girls suck at math and science for a few decades, it's no surprise that less women become scientists and mathematicians. You've had subjects you hated because the teacher, right.

Can't speak for the IQ distribution you mentioned though. Haven't had a class or looked into it.

>>53800007
Yeah...or you end up with situations like the French where their resistance force killed more civilians after the Krauts left than the Nazis did.

>>53800112
Or the WWII Greek, where various guerrilla troops fighting the Nazi occupation occasionally joined forces with the Nazis because they hated the other guys even more.

>>53798876

Only women own households and other shit due to the constant threats to the nation requiring all men to be on the front lines - men rarely survive long enough to reach old age and the legal system, on the long run, needs stability.

While women are decisive on the legal field they still have societal obligations to properly equip males from their families as well as to bear children in order to not only survive, but also to gather more power and influence in the family hands.

>>53800166
Yeah...most people hated Nazis, but everyone hated commies.

>>53799502
>Look at france for an example of what happens when masculinity is systematically villified.
I'm not a historian, but are there many other battles in which France "surrendered" besides WW2?

I was just thinking how it would be funny if the "surrender monkey" meme was applied to the US because we "ran away" in Vietnam.

>>53799145
>Elves might be your best bet in this case, since they don't reproduce often and therefore would consider their women to be blessed with the ability to give birth.
Other way around.

Short lifespan, rapidly reproducing populations put a greater importance on reproductive capability because they are less flexible in the event of disaster. If half of elven women died in some disaster, practically every single other one could still get pregnant. With humans, a large proportion of them would be old, infirm, prepubescent, etc, or have other conditions which make them either incapable, or unsuitable (ie. likely to die) to have children.

>>53800260
The US didn't run in Vietnam, we secured a treaty and the North Vietnamese didn't try anything until 2 years after we left.

France fell to the Germans faster than Poland did when invaded by Germany and the Soviets, so between that and their horrible mutiny rates in WWI they kind of earned their nickname.

>>53800260
Despite hating the frog-eaters myself, people should give credit when it's due.
Frenchies are a bunch of bloodthirsty motherfuckers who will stab you in the throath given half the chance

Much like italians giving absolutely 0 fucks about rules, human losses or having to fight with sticks and stones if they're cornered or if they really, REALLY want you dead

>>53799517
Rome was a republic longer than an Empire (fuck off with that Byzantine shit), it arguably was thriving more as a republic than an empire, and that period of time when the line of Julio-Claudian emperors was broken, and generals started seizing control, marked the decline of Roman power in the ancient world.

Point being that ruling by might, while respected, wasn't successful in Rome.

>>53798952
>>53798975
>>53799189

>ignores reality
>quotes shitty books

Tips fedora

>>53800372
>defeated in every and all fields
>an extremely high rate of drug use
>soldiers wearing necklaces made out of ears

You're right, you didn't just run away.First you became the parody of yourselves and gor your ass kicked by farmers in the jungle, then you ran away, leaving the vietnamese to clean your mess

>>53798876
>functioning matriarchal society and government

Oxymoron

>>53800447
If you were any more divorced from reality I'd think your name was Nancy Pelosi.

>>53800436
>OP asks about how to matriarchy in a fantasy campaign
>"Check out these fantasy books that contain fantasy matriarchies in a fantasy setting"
>anon complains about ignoring reality

>>53799647
>Males aren't technically necessary for the species

They are if you care about genetic diversity. They're just not completely indispensable to the process in the short term.

>>53799121
Everyone was having catfights in WoT. The men, the women, everyone. I've never read another book with so many people on the same side so completely incapable of working together

>>53798876

The lands experience a great deal of wars and political marriages.

Newly married kings often die in wars and the queens are left in charge until they can find a king.

Functionally however this makes the queen the most stable form of government for these various fiefdoms... at least until a male takes over "temporarily".

The macho culture means that a king that does not take to war on a constant basis is viewed as weak and unworthy to keep being king and ironically invaded.

The queens are typically considered off limits.

>>53800702
They can keep going with a race of clones, they're just highly vulnerable. Hence "technically".

men, being in number hugely more inclined to violent crime/murder/rape/abuse/war/etc., are seen as physically strong but mentally weak, unable to resist the corrupting influence of their devil-analogue that tempts people into doing cruelty like women can. Men are made subordinate to the women in society for their own protection and their own good - they cannot help their inherent weakness, and certainly can't be trusted with any power. look at history!

basically, flip the chivalry convention and base it on will saves instead of strength checks. use all the same dumbass logic. matriarchy established.

File: arya seven hells.gif (744KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

744KB, 500x281px

A matriarchal society and government can exist, but it likely would be very small, traditionalist and/or insular.

Because men are bigger and stronger than women (though, I will grant you, they are not necessarily smarter), they will always seek power, as the strong do. Historically speaking, men have held power because of this strength. Take two healthy children, a boy and a girl, train them to fight, provide them the same care and nutrition and force them to fight with nothing but their bodies as weapons, the man will win nine times out of ten.

That being said, if women in your world are more powerful than the males or more important in some way (men are meek/women are strong, women know spells/psionics, breeding castes (example: queen bees), they may take the place of the males, but this is just a patriarchy of women, not a true matriarchy.

Smaller societies that do not constantly war with one another and possess a strong cultural/religious tradition on how to live are more likely to have women rulers, or at least mated co-rulers. This basis for society cannot be challenged, however, and though many North American Indians had the occasional female ruler, they could and often would be challenged by men.

The problem here is that when we think Matriarchal, we think traditional patriarchy, and saudi-style patriarchy at that, but reversed, which is just nonsensical.

Recent fictional example: the Nora from Horizon. Its actually a very EGALITARIAN society that just happens to be run by female elders.

Also, their go-to punishment is The Silent Treatment.

Modern society is becoming...kinda matriarchal. Or at least feminized in a bunch of areas.

Women tend to do really well in structured environments where you get ahead by keeping your head down and being a good little worker bee, and ESPECIALLY where mistakes/risks carry a heavy penalty. They drift ahead of men, because men tend to eventually make some kind of mistake and get fired/culled. So, modern office/call center work, and school.

None of that makes for a very interesting RPG, though. So go with the Nora example. Anything else will come off as either MRA dystopia or SJW utopia.

>>53800111
>I'm sure I'm going to be called /pol/
>women underperform at science because of how we teach them, not because they're inferior
That's pretty much the opposite of what /pol/ believes, friend. You might be called reddit or tumblr though.

>>53800868
>Take two healthy children, a boy and a girl, train them to fight, provide them the same care and nutrition and force them to fight with nothing but their bodies as weapons, the man will win nine times out of ten.
Maybe not.

See, the girl knows from the beginning that she's the weaker one, meaning she'll work harder while the boy relies entirely on his natural advantage. Her determination to be the best, his idleness, will even the odds, perhaps even tip them to her favor.

>>53801330
>See, the girl knows from the beginning that she's the weaker one, meaning she'll work harder while the boy relies entirely on his natural advantage. Her determination to be the best, his idleness, will even the odds, perhaps even tip them to her favor.

Just like that episode of The Brady Bunch where Bobby bets Greg that he can do more pull-ups than Greg!

Greg, being a cocky high-schooler, thinks there's no way a little kid could beat him so he never bothers training, but Bobby busts ass around the clock and is able to outperform Greg, despite being one-third his size.

>>53801330
Let's say they're raised in isolation from each other
They'd probably just start fucking anyway

>>53799330
why is it the only real world examples are a mere half-dozen literally who cultures with tiny populations?

>>53798876
>I'd like to make it seem plausible
Can't be done. It flies right in the face of mammalian social structure and gender dimorphism.

>>53798876
>functioning matriarchal society
That goes a bit far, even for fantasy

>>53801360
Dumb cliches aside, it's one logical conclusion that'd come to happen fairly often - probably more often than the 1:10 odds provided - in the given scenario.

>>53801413
Might still happen, though with less odds, lesser still if she's taught from birth that women are stronger or other such bullshit.

>>53799209
>Now let's say the daughters followed in their mother's footsteps, and now tradition will do its thing.
Nope. It really won't. Men are biologically inclined to find being ruled by women repugnant. It typically wouldn't even take one generation until some man decides to test it in a takeover, and within two generations it would have been toppled one way or another.

>>53800395
Name one significant Italian military victory in the past 300 years.

>>53799029
No amazons didn't exist and don't believe shit you read about Egyptians and female warriors either.
Legends.

>>53801511
>Men are biologically inclined to find being ruled by women repugnant.
Source?

Besides you

>>53801511
This
Is
Fantasy

One must remind oneself that the biological tendencies that arguably shape OUR society don't need to exist in OP'S fantasy setting, and in fact probably shouldn't for the sake of fun.

>130+ Posts
>55 unique IPs
>Over half the replies in this thread are arguing the semantics or someone being trying to be cheeky

>>53801525
WWI but that's beside the point.

It's about how willing you are to fight and at what lenghts you'd go to stab someone in the face, regardless of if you actually manage to do it

>>53801511
Haha, this is great, is it pasta or something original?

>>53801565
>This
>Is
>Fantasy
Wait, you mean this thread is about fantasy, or what >>53801511 is saying is?

>>53799145
>The way I remember it working historically is that around 2000 B.C. women were viewed as incredibly powerful for their ability to give birth and nurse children
This is a total myth, largely made up in the 19th and early 20th century. There's literally no evidence for it.

t. actual historian

>>53801442
>gender dimorphism
Those are social constructs. Gender is on a scale so there can't be set dimorphism. Do you guys learn anything in biology anymore?

>>53801614
You could really save some time and effort by just posting pictures of turd logs instead of bothering to type it out.

File: 1406392622678.jpg (990KB, 2170x1450px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 2170x1450px

>>53801578
Sure worked out well, huh?

>>53799124
>>53799145
>around 2000 B.C. women were viewed as incredibly powerful for their ability to give birth and nurse children, this is incredibly important since human communities were small at the time
Educate yourself and don't think one example that may or may not have existed once applies to humanity, 4000 years ago isn't even that much, read up on ancient societies.

>>53801653
>end war on winning side
>get all the territory they wanted to conquer from austria
You tell me

File: 1493217729106.jpg (163KB, 421x986px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 421x986px

>>53801775
I guess Italy won WWII as well, since they ended the war on the winning side there, too?

>>53801775
damn you're dumb

>>53798912
This is the closest to the Iroquois form of governmrnt, which is more or less the only patriarchy ever achieve civilization.

Blood for the blood god.

ITT: armchair historian talking about their favorite subjects, womyn and war

>>53799202

Not sure, it might be Your Highness.

>>53798876
Men go out to hunt and fight. Women stay home, tend to the hearth. But in this case, the Hearth is basically congress. There are exceptions of course, but they're outliers, typically a single parent trying to do both when their opposite mate is too sick or otherwise unable to perform their typical duties.

>>53799592
>>53799924
How about no. Intelligence is entirely hereditary, not learned by education or suppressed by mean teachers.

>>53798876
Look at what gives power in the first place.
In organized societies, the ones that dominates the world given sufficiently long times, individual martial or divine or arcane might is irrelevant.

It does not matter if you are epic X if other guy can field thousands of troops. You will eventually run out of HP, or spell slots or mana or whatever.

In organized society power comes from laws that gives you wealth by right of ownership or from other right to rule. Often right to rule grown from right to a land as land was most valuable thing in time where farming was main branch of economy.
All of this rights comes from inheritance. Or other way it is extremely hard to accumulate enough wealth to install yourself as ruler in just one generation.

So you just need to come up with the reason why women inherits the land or titles.
Unfair inheritance in favor of women is not unheard of, where I live there was man rights revolt in XVI century as men could not inherit any money, as it was classified as "precious metals" so a thing for a lady, while merchant's son could inherit such important in merchant's trade things as a sword or armor.

So for example in time of hunter gatherers, men hunted and women gathered plants.
When society will start to move towards agriculture, it will be woman's job to gather the plants still and men will still hunt or herd animals.
In such system women will inherit the land as she takes care of the field, where man's animals use shared land.
In time role of farming will grow, and due to inheritance there will be more and more power in hands of the women as they will be sole landowners
And so we have a society that due to old small quirk, have given a land to females so they will rule.
On the other note it do not have to discriminate against males, there could be powerful male landlords, but their lands would be granted to theirs daughters so matriarchate would continue.

File: dahomeys.jpg (96KB, 431x267px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 431x267px

>>53799029
>I mean, I don't recall any historical armies that were largely composed of women
To put in context, these gals initial job was killing war elephants.

>>53798876
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey_Amazons

>>53802000
Correction: potential intelligence is (essentially) entirely hereditary. Various factors such as nutrition and childrearing practices do affect outcomes, but the range of potential results is determined by genes.

File: 1495299303297.jpg (108KB, 456x386px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 456x386px

>>53798876
Step one: Use a non-human race to avoid fucknuggets like >>53798952 bringing up that men are 100% better all of the time in HUMANS specifically
Step two: Do the common thing in nature and make the women the larger, more powerful, and more aggressive sex (E.G. Spiders, most insects in general)
Step three: Base society off of that sexual difference there, since that's literally the only reason we have a ""patriarchy"" in humanity

>>53799379
>That gets rid of basically ALL of the problems.
Evolution and birth fuck up your plan.

>>53802056
Please stop tying military structure to matriarchy. The one that holds the guns does not always rule. The Dahomey were very strongly patriarchal but had elite Amazon units. Furthermore, the role of violence was still held to be male, such that the Amazons claimed to be retarded by the king in the same manner that the God of iron forges weapons.

Iroquois, man. Hold councils by the hearth, conflate the concept of home with homeland, rule via political power.

But hurrdurr/tg/ matriarchy threads wat do always turn into circlejerking MALE strong neckbearism and magical realms anyways.

>>53802103
Nutrition, absolutely -- but it only ever affects it negatively, i.e. malnutrition preventing you from achieving your genetic potential. Your math teacher being a fag won't even do that, though.

>>53802129
>the Amazons claimed to be retarded by the king
Not sure I follow.

>>53802056
>>53802030
Why not just post Scythians instead, those gals who the myth of the Amazons were based off of. You know, recently added to Civilization VI who's female leader Tomyris who defended her lands from the greatest military powers of antiquity.

>>53802154
I'm having a hard time seeing how not getting a proper education wouldn't limit your IQ

>>53799330
>http://mentalfloss.com/article/31274/6-modern-societies-where-women-literally-rule
They seem to give politics to men, and are ruled be men, being males the chiefs etc. Those are mostly matrilinial without the lineage of the father counting for shit and the girls being the ones to inherit tough.

>>53799458
>women bevor the dominant Sex because there are more
Nope, men would simply have it easier to find partners and build harems, since one man can impregnate many women their numbers don't really matter.

>>53798876
I'm having trouble deciphering what she's squeezing in the image. Is it a dick or what?

>>53798952
How does a physical advantage help you run a government?

>>53802201
Reforged. I got autocorrected because I am phonepostimg.

>>53802448
You wrestle those who refuse to sign off on the legislation for increased background checks for assault wands.

>>53799506
Every Senator Served in the army during the cursus honorum and when the fuck do you think Rome became a republic?

>>53802448
I guess if this was a batshit military government where the soldier with the most ears and scalps in his pack gets to be the Fight Master, or if you needed to serve in the military to carry any political power, it would make sense.

>>53802404
It's a severed minotaur dick

>>53802154
Not talking about shitty teachers. There's a lot of evidence that early childhood experience of being talked and read to has a significant impact.

>>53802448
Normally you or your ancestors got there be force, specially in antiquity. Nobles in Europe were the warrior caste, only after gunpowder you see the common man gaining more power because makes long years of training and the money to equip yourself less relevant.

File: Sword Magic.jpg (41KB, 704x400px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 704x400px

>>53798876

For that to work, there must be a function that is either exclusively or predominantly used by women, and that must carry extreme social prestige.

Maybe women are preferred as priests, because gods/spirits like them for whatever reason. For example, in a city-state dedicated to a goddess who a) prefers female clergy and b) actively aides the city, it is not far-fetched that the cult could dominate city life. Or perhaps females have a natural propensity for magic and very few men can become mages.

Apart from that, a heroic female figure could lead to females being preferred as leaders, at least for a time, because of tradition and ancestor worship.

>>53802104

>Step one

Men are generally better in every field than women. It's just an intrinsic fact developed by the 'desirable mate' aesthetic of being better than your competitors which women never really played ball in hence why men differ so much case by case but women are standardised for the most part.

>step two

So basically make it so women are better men than men. Gotcha!

>Step Three

So basically you can't creatively think up a reason and have to insult a vastly better idea that's standard across history outside of Abrahamic religions where female priests were the majority.

Especially pagan ones.

>>53802448
Tradition. In primitive hierarchies, the leader is whoever's strong enough to defeat whoever is currently leader and fend off any challengers. Once you start developing actual societies, physical strength stops mattering so much - but everyone's already used to the idea that the big strong guy is in charge. Even once we objectively know that doesn't need to be the case, it's an incredibly persistent meme. Hell, there's a truism the taller person wins in politics - doesn't matter if it's actually true, the fact that we think it's true shows that we still think his way, or at least think everyone else thinks this way.

>>53800111
>It's not the women don't make good soldiers as much as they generally aren't allowed to be soldiers.
Retard.
There are some wonderful articles written about why women shouldn't be in battle by female soldiers with first hand experience, go Google them.
And that's with modern guns.

1 in 20 births are male. Done.

Egglaying species instead of live birth. That, or a very early live birth where childrearing can be left to the physically weaker men.

>>53799557
>Men are much less valuable than women in western society
This is what women actually believe.

>>53801525
Italo-Turkish War (1911-12), in which Italy seized Libya from the Ottoman Empire. This was also the first war where aerial bombardment happened, from Italian planes and airships. Further the Turkish defeat led directly to the First Balkan War, which caused the Ottoman Empire to lose almost all of its European territory.

The Italians solidified their hold over Libya by the early 1930s (WWI understandably slowed things down on that front) and, had it not been for a certain German asshat and Mussolini making a single major mistake, would have resulted in Italy controlling the largest source of oil in Africa. Not that the Italians knew that at the time, as the technology didn't exist in the 1910s to detect the oil in Libya, or get at it even if it could have been detected.

>>53802850
>this is what MRAs actually believe
FTFY.

No, really. That's pretty much redpill 101 - men aren't valuable anymore.

>>53802448
>How does a physical advantage help you run a government?
It does not.
And never ever did.

There is a reason where all:
>muh masculinity
>muh warrior culture
Civilizations were raped by civilizations that did not give as much fuck about warrior shit.
Stability, prosperity and industry growing from it gives civilization a power. And all of this things are often based on legal institutions.
Fuck in battle muh individual strength is worth a shit and often a hindrance as all hyper masculine glory hound could fuck overall battle plan by making a charge when not needed, discipline and blind obedience is a king of battlefield.

So gender role in government of any advanced (like bronze age advanced) society is mostly a cultural thing.

File: 1471975513512.jpg (314KB, 900x1538px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 900x1538px

>>53798876
>How do I create a functioning matriarchal society and government for a fantasy campaign
Last names are passed down by the mother to their offspring. Head-of-household, head-of-state, etc households default to female leads. Command positions tend to have more females than males, and females tend to have elevated social status.

>that doesn't make it a magical realm?
Don't make it a society of dominatrixes and don't obsess over sexual details.

>I'd like to make it seem plausible, not merely fetish fuel.
Start with the logic of "we know the child is of the mother because they came from her, so we pass the line down from mother to child". Now progress with that as your core assumption to why this spreads to other areas of life.

>Also, I need character art for female warriors and mages.
Gotchu senpai.

>>53802926
Like how hyper-masculine and military Rome was constantly stomped on, right?

>>53801330
Boy will work harder to beat other boys, and will completely obliterate the girl.

>>53802878
>rolling over a numerically inferior force of arabs and t*rks
Am I supposed to be impressed?

>>53802977
The reason they got good at armies is exactly because they got stomped on, and they won through discipline and sheer numbers instead of through masculinity.

Amusingly this argues even more in favor of why matriarchies can be theoretically legitimate when given a foothold to get started.

>>53802977
Rome was less masculine than the Germans and Celts. They cowered in a giant shield-turtle, while the tribal guys charged like real men. That's why Rome won.

>>53802977
Yeah because Rome was built by dudebros and not philosophers and lawmakers right? They just kept stabbing people until a functioning civilization fell out of the epic level German boss?

Fucking retards

>>53800112
Unfortunately, they didn't kill much of the Vichy government.

>>53802977
Did you get your understanding of Rome entirely from movies and video games or something?

>>53803048
? You say that as philosophers in those times weren't the biggest dudebros, going to war, working out etc.

File: 1329049579846863398.jpg (43KB, 636x358px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 636x358px

>>53798876
Make them knolls. Hyenas have alpha females full of their equivalent of testosterone (e.g. male hormones). And if it devolves into magical realming somehow, Alpha females have protruding clitorises that could at first glance be mistaken as a penis.

Jesus christ there's so much shitposting on every board

>>53798876
First, answer the important question: why women in power, and why men can't take it from them? IRL, men in old times held power with violence, and men are generally better at violence. So women either must be better at violence, or violence shouldn't be an option for gaining power. Answer this and the rest will be clear.

>>53798876
First, a society being matriarchal doesn't mean that gender roles are eliminated or even change. Most probably, men are still seen as active bread-winners and protectors and women as passive mothers. It's just that this second role has more prestige and political capital than the first. It's probably a relatively pacific society or at least one where soldiers are not very respected, may rely a lot on foreign mercenaries like Egypt in some periods.

>>53803104
Summer fun

>>53802792
>Hell, there's a truism the taller person wins in politics - doesn't matter if it's actually true, the fact that we think it's true shows that we still think his way, or at least think everyone else thinks this way.
It's a US truism, I think. I never encountered this kind of thinking and this obsession with height anywhere else. They bring it up all the fucking time, it's mindblowing.

>>53802977
Rome was not a warrior culture but soldier culture at best, that raped warrior culture of germans and celts by using unmanly tactics and logistics.
Not to mention such feminine things as road building, architecture, trade, philosophy and law(most important roman thing that survived the time).
Plus roman culture was quite egalitarian between men and women when pater familias died and all his children became sui iuris as opposed to alieni iuris, where son and daughter had the same rights of not having any rights.

Coincidentally after Julius Ceasar claimed power bu using force, Rome started it way into decline.
State is build on institutions not on personal might.

File: Wrong.jpg (201KB, 541x458px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 541x458px

>Control f
>Only result from 'viking' is a mention of how women were seen as mystical
>No hits on Irish, Sarmatian, or Amazon

History harder, please. In nations with traditions of seasonal warfare women often held power because a percentage of the men would raid for X months and not all of them would come back alive. It was sometimes better to maintain continuity of governance by putting women in administrative positions, if not at the very top of the food chain. And they were sometimes at the very top. It wasn't uncommon for a man to be in charge during the off-months and a woman to be in charge during the raiding months, either.

>>53803026
And yet, Rome was quite patriarchal.
>>53803029
Smarter than != less masculine than

>>53801548
>>53801511
Ehhhhhh, I think that men are biologically inclined to be LESS TOLERANT of being dominated by ANYONE, than women are.

Given that, plus on average men being physically stronger, and the result is what we see in the world: dominant people are usually male.

>>53803273
>Rome was not a warrior culture but soldier culture at best, that raped warrior culture of germans and celts by using unmanly tactics and logistics.
What you call "soldier culture" is more manly than what you call warrior culture. Celts were considered to be femenine. Germans were considered to be masculine, but only because they were used as an example of how early romans were.

>such feminine things as road building, architecture, trade, philosophy and law
None of these is femenine at all. They're all done by men. Road building is a soldier's task, law is written by rulers (men) and most important classic philosophers were also soldiers.

>roman culture was quite egalitarian between men and women when pater familias

Nice of you to ignore that it was a pater familias, not a mater, in the rest of the sentence.

>>53803273
Lel are you retarded ? How is building things, trade or philosophy a female thing?

>>53803202
Maybe it has something to do with american diets letting people get as tall as their genes will allow.

You see it in immigrant families. Mom and dad are mexican or chinese or whatever, and they're short stubby peasant-diet dwarves, and their kids tower over them.

>>53803029
Bravery is masculine, but attacking head-on like a retard is femenine (emotional) while adopting a proper strategy is masculine (rational).

>>53803446
>when its suits my argument it's masculine, otherwise it's feminine

>>53803313
None of those was matriarchal at all, except the amazons who didn't exist. Not being a taliban-tier patriarchy like the greeks doesn't stop you from being patriarchal.

>>53803421
>>53803446
>everything good is masculine, everything bad is feminine
>at the same time hurr durr if you're not stabbing people you're a fag

opinion discarded

>>53803325
>Clean shaved, literal fags, deviants in togas
vs
>Bearded, strong, manly men that don't need pansy armor and go into berserker rage
Anon, Romans were feminine fags that liked small dicks and tits.

Also they were not patriarchal, they were institutional. If you elected women as a consul or senator or praetor, system would work just the same. As power came from function not holder of title.

>>53803313
There's like seven or eight mentions of the Amazons, senpai.

>>53803202
I partially blame women. They keep bringing it up on Tinder and OKcupid.

Generally, whenever I see men consistently doing something stupid or obnoxious, I ask "is it possible this is also WOMEN'S fault?"

If women just agreed to not fuck dudes with snapback hats, dudes would stop wearing snapback hats.

>>53803477
I've never stated that being emotional was masculine and being rational was femenine. It's not "what suit my argument", it's how it is and how ancients perceived it.

>>53803504
Oh, you are a poor excuse of a a troll I see, are you canadian?

>>53803540
Oh yeah, when you see a big guy charging with a knife at someone, I'm sure you're thinking "god, what a pussy, he looks like my sister"

>>53803507
>If you elected women as a consul or senator or praetor, system would work just the same.
Except this was literally forbidden.

The rest is aesthetic irrelevant bullshit fed by what you consider masculine based on your bear fetishes.

>>53803583
You can be a big guy charging with a knife without being an over-emotional fag.

File: 1443192372803.jpg (650KB, 860x1200px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 860x1200px

>>53798876
I utterly detest women women yet gfd is also my greatest fetish, this gives me incredibly mixed feelings.

While he doesn't provide citations, in his book "On Power"/"Du Pouvoir" Bertrand de Jouvenel notices that in our history only isolated matriarchies survive because patriarchies tend to overrun and destroy matriarchies by virtue of being able to produce more and better warriors. Whatever we do, to create a functional matriarchy that isn't some stone age tribe in the middle of nowhere, first and foremost we need to adress the warrior problem.

The solution that sounds the easiest but is the most difficult is to make women as strong as or stronger than men. What makes men the disposable gender is not their strength but their genitals: a man can simply produce much more of his reproductive cells (every ejaculation has about a million, if we assume a man can have sex once per hour and is awake for 16 hours he can technically impregnate 16 women a day on his own) while a woman only produces a low number of these reproductive cells every month and needs to guard her unborn child for 9 months after that. We don't so much need to change the strength of the genders as we need to change their entire reproductive model. Birds are low dimorphism creatures, and in some birds (like penguins) the parents take turns brooding their eggs. Alternatively seahorses: men impregnate the women, but they also end up carrying the unborn child to term by some incredibly magical realm process. Alternatively women give birth to children incredibly rapidly (after a month, maybe less?) but the children are born incredibly vulnerable (rubbery bones, born blind and deaf et cetera). From that point onward, whoever takes care of the child is purely a social thing rather than a biological imperative. This means that the death of a significant number of women has significantly less impact on the reproductive ability of the group than in humans as we know them today.

>>53803607
Did you papa do bad things to your poo-poo place when you were little anon? Why that butthurt.

>>53803632
Yeah, not like anger issues are more common in men. Crime of passion doesn't exist, and men are not usually more violent.
We're all stone cold rational, all the time.

What is or is not masculine is widely dependant on the culture, and among the ancient greeks a city state could say that X was masculine and good and Y was feminine and bad, while a rival city state could say the exact opposite.

File: Choice of Broadsides.png (270KB, 408x272px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 408x272px

>>53798876
“Choice of Broadsides”

You can choose to either play as a man or a woman, but the fun part is if you choose to play as a woman, it sets the game in a world that has reversed gender roles.

It is a short game, but you get to try to work your way up to a captain and woo a few beautiful boys. You guys should definitely check it out. This one game is free, and they have a few other free ones too!

>>53803675
Some attributes are universally atributed to men. No patriarchal culture has associated women with reason ever.

File: 1400322108456.png (1023KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1023KB, 1280x720px

>>53803655
Another solution is to maintain men as the warriors of the society, but put women above them for some reason or another as the non-military ruling class. Perhaps women are the only ones who can access a highly prestigious religious class? What I once read somewhere in fanfiction was an alternate history where the Catholic Church was not founded by St. Peter but by Mary Magdalene. As such Catholic institions started promoting patriarchy and eventually this led to a society where, in the modern time, women effectively behaved like men and vice versa. The warriors would probably still be mostly men, but this would lead to a society dominated by women due to culture, tradition and religious dogma.

But we're talking about fantasy here, so magic is a real and tangible thing. Perhaps there is something special about women that means only they can learn magic, or only they can learn a certain kind of magic, or maybe everyone can learn magic but for some reason women are better at it? This is more or less the Infinite Stratos solution, but with magic instead of mechs (though you can use mechs for a modern setting). For those who haven't seen it, fourth best girl Cecilia establishes that IS are mechs that only women can use, and they tipped the military balance of power in favor of women so heavily that a literal battle of the sexes would be over in hours.

>>53803407
>soldier culture" is more manly
There is nothing manly in being soldier.
Being good soldier is inhuman by design.
It was steel discipline and blind obedience that allowed you to hold the fucking line despite all human instincts ordering you to run away.
In traditional army good soldier is not a human anymore because being human might make him break formation and get all of them killed.

>>53803655
>I utterly detest women women yet gfd is also my greatest fetish, this gives me incredibly mixed feelings.
>I detest myself and pretend I detest women

>>53798876
Where is that gif from?

>>53803532
You don't like taking responsibility for yourself, do you?

>>53798876
Caster supremacy + magic is for women (a very common theme around the world).

It doesn't even have to be actual mechanic caster supremacy. As long as casters are seen as better in this society everything is fine.

File: 37e3e8eb179a7e2206d75c034e9359f2.jpg (40KB, 598x897px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 598x897px

>>53798876
Imagine a world where women outnumber men by a factor of something like twenty to one. Women are the soldiers, the butchers, the bakers, and even the candlestick makers. Women do all the jobs that, in another world, might be considered “men’s work”. Because of their scarcity, men are heavily protected and valued for breeding (if a husband) or for building alliances in trade or sale (if a brother). The gender roles in this world are completely flipped.

File: Rape of Pluto.png (1MB, 800x1023px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x1023px

>>53803818
The women ride about tending to the land and keeping the law and drinking beer straight from the bottle, while the few men in the book stand about wringing their hands and getting rescued by the women. The female characters are strong and independent, while the males either passively accept what the women say is best (and are thus marked as good), or are prone to tantrums and sulking, (and so we know they are bad).

>>53803771
Your Highness, a shitty movie starring Natalie Portman and some other people, featuring a minotaur's chopped-off cock as a battle trophy.

>>53803751
That's manly as fuck, sorry. Only the manliest can beat their own instincts with their iron nerves. Women and fags lack self-discipline and are unstable and self-indulgent instead.

>>53803838
>>53803818
Whatever floats your magical realm anon.

>>53803607
>Except this was literally forbidden
You missed the point.
If Romans would decide that offices would be held by women it would not change how system worked. Because it was based on power of legal institution.
Nobody gave a fuck that X is consul. They were listening to orders of the consul not orders of the X, so any personal qualities of X are secondary.
That is what happens in highly organized societies, title and it's power becomes separate entity from it's holder.
Just like it happened with concept of "crown of kingdom" that was something separate from the king. Like Jadwiga of Poland was King(female) of Poland and not Queen of Poland.

>>53803818
>>53803838

How do women enforce this system? It looks like your situation would actually create a polygamic super-patriarchy akin to how lions live.

>>53799146

Does Breath of the Wild have a Male Gerudo? I know there's the male Gerudo armor set, but don't remember seeing such an NPC.

File: mngrir6tlB1s21s6lo1_1280.jpg (166KB, 600x504px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 600x504px

>>53803918
Men are the fragile sex. Women are tall and strong and numerous.

You're DM and you say it works, that's how.

If players can't suspend their disbelief that there is a matriarchal society, they take games too seriously and need to stop or stop playing al together.

You never have this kind of bitching in scifi campaigns, it's always the fantasy fuckers complaining about plausibility.

>>53803903
>They were listening to orders of the consul not orders of the X

You clearly know jack shit about roman history. Personal popularity and influence was way more important than institutional power, and you probably didn't have the second without the first to begin with. In order to have the first appart from a shitload of bribes you needed to be seen as a good roman, which included being manly and virile (amongst a lot of other things) which is why most enemies of caesar focused on all the aspects that made him look femenine when attacking him. It's no wonder that he was called Queen of Bitinia. In a society that respects women just like men and doesn't care about masculinity, queen can never be an insult.

File: caste_lineup15_800.jpg (160KB, 800x554px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 800x554px

>>53798876
As a warrior culture, Loroi society is heavily stratified, and its institutions and customs can be very rigid. Details of specific traditions and rituals can be diverse, having progressed in parallel on three separate splinter colonies, and having since spread to dozens of additional worlds. There are, for example, many diverging dialects of the Trade Language that the Loroi jointly inherited from their Soia predecessors. Most of the core features of Loroi society are, however, common to most of the sub-cultures, and in almost all cases, society revolves around the warrior class. Loroi society is sharply partitioned into three segments: the females of the warrior class, the civilian females, and the males. The warrior class, accounting for roughly half of the population, fill nearly all military and governmental functions, and are themselves subdivided into numerous specialized castes that are similar (in division of duty) to our armed services. The civilian population is considered to be inferior in rank and importance to the military, but they are organized by profession in a similar way into groups that resemble trade guilds. Civilian institutions exist almost solely to support the military. The males, roughly one tenth of the population, exist mostly outside the normal structure of class, family and caste. Excluded from many professions and under pressure from the practical demands of reproduction, males nevertheless form an important element of the Loroi social machine.

>>53799235

He immediately becomes a pawn in local politics. Different magical lineages play him like a deck of cards so that their family can breed him with one of their own to strengthen their magical bloodline. The moment he looks at another woman, he's dead. Preventing him from benefiting a rival house is the only thing more important than making good use of him.

He is essentially livestock scheduled to be butchered the moment he is discovered, and the only people in a position to teach him magic to defend himself are his future executioners.

He's getting assassinated, its just a question of when and by who.

>>53803974
You don't need to make men outnumbered if that's how it is, then.

>>53803866
>Women and fags

One of the best fighting forces that Greece ever produced, the Lover's Army of the city-state of Thebes, were considered the equals or near-equals of Sparta on the field of battle. The Theban army was made up entirely of gay lovers, one holding the spear and the other the shield.

The Spartans were pretty damn gay too, for that matter. If anything the least gay Greeks were the Athenians...and they were still pretty gay. Also they lost the Peloponnesian War (basically Greek World War I). Had Philip of Macedon not rolled in and conquered Greece, Sparta would have been the master - in multiple senses of the word - of Greece.

Also, noteworthy fact: the Thebans - those super-gay Greeks I mentioned - were allies of Sparta in the war and after Sparta and her allies were victorious, the Thebans wanted to destroy Athens and enslave the population. It was the Spartans, of all people, who refused to do that.

>>53803750
Sauce on image? Search turns up nothing.

>>53802685
Nice belligerent argument for the sake of argument
Fuck off and kill yourself

>>53799209
This wouldn't happen for a long time unless there's no near civilized peoples.

>>53801565
Then just put women in charge without stupid explanations.

>>53798876
You fundamentally change the way women think and act. Then you go from there.

File: 1492850930253.jpg (207KB, 1280x1440px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1280x1440px

>>53804068
Infinite Stratos season 2. Episode 5 from the top of my head.

>>53804064
For you information.
Homosexual sex in intrinsically more manly than heterosexual as it requires two males.

>>53803857
Tell me anon, what genetic part of us being males helps us to suppers our primal instincts?
Ability to do it is considered manly but I have a feeling that this consideration is cultural not biological so in fantasy realm it could be considered as women ability.

>>53804064
Okay man, you're gay or have a gay friend and don't like the word fag. I'm sorry, after all I'm part of western culture where being gay is associated with being unmanly unlike in classic greece.

Change it for "pussy" or whatever word for "unmanly man" and read the sentence again, this time without being triggered by words.

File: Gustave_Moreau_Salomé_1876.jpg (559KB, 1024x1514px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 1024x1514px

>>53798876
First, you need an origin story: how did the women get separated from the state of bondage that existed in 99% of pre-1900 societies? I'll give you an actual example: Herodotus gives two origin stories of the Scythian people (one of the few examples of actual warrior women in history), one plausible, one fantastic.
In the plausible story, Greek slavers were carrying captive women from North Africa when a storm hit their ships. In the chaos, the women slaves rose up and killed the exhausted slavers, and their ships came to rest on the northern coast of the Black Sea, near Crimea. The women were forced to create a primitive society, and eventually bonded
In the fantastic origin story, Hercules was herding goats (I think) through that region north of the black sea when one night a gigantic snake woman hid his herd and told him she'd only release it if he fucked her. He did, and that was the genesis of the Scythian people... I mention this because conceivably all of the babies could have been female, as an example of a gynocentric fantasy origin story.

Second, you need to provide some means by which the women maintain their independence. Usually this is due to some technology that mitigates the relative physical and emotional fragility of women relative to men; for example, the Scythians were horse archers in a vast and barren land and the women were said to have cut off one tit so as to fire their bows from horseback. As such, they could fire showers of arrows and then quickly retreat without risking melee with Greek phalanxes or Persian mountain men, which would have resulted in capture and unlimited rape.
That's the best-documented example of an egalitarian warrior society, but to posit another tech that could stand in for horse archery, consider sniping, which doesn't require a soldier to carry heavy equipment all day.

File: 1419517816211.png (147KB, 313x319px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 313x319px

>>53804163
>Tell me anon, what genetic part of us being males helps us to suppers our primal instincts?
The problem is that you assume a very humanistic world view, in which what makes us human is automatically good. A more traditional world view (especially from the Christian and Greco-Roman perspective) assumes the exact opposite: we are all flawed, horrible beings and there is nothing more good, more dignified and more worthwhile than overcoming our beastly instincts and desires and so effectively becoming closer to the divine. It is inhumane, but that's what makes it so good. It is deemed manly because women are less inclined to do the same, being more emotional in nature where men are generally more rational (or at least more stoic/detached).

That guy can't answer your question because, from his perspective, it's the wrong question.

>>53804235
Addendum: For a fantastical example, consider magic. It's mainly the domain of women in several fantasy settings (the Witcher, 7th Sea's Italy stand-in) and in some historical cultures, such as among the Vikings.

Also correction, fourth line: eventually bonded with young men from a local tribe.

>>53803655
>Bertrand de Jouvenel notices that in our history only isolated matriarchies survive because patriarchies tend to overrun and destroy matriarchies by virtue of being able to produce more and better warriors.
I thought matriarchies don't exist, and never existed?

>>53798876
you know how chivalry has knights pledging themselves to the service of some fair lady or whatever? just make it like that except the women own all the land and the men fight to defend it.

>>53804163
Men don't have periods. Like it or not, this is the basis for men=rational women=irrational (unstable emotionally).

>>53804235
>plausible

How fucking pants on head retarded is the other one, then?

>>53804064
One of the best militaries ever produced were a literal horde of rapists, and they conquered more land and ass than any fag army.

Heteros: 1
Fags: 0

>>53804377
>In the fantastic origin story, Hercules was herding goats (I think) through that region north of the black sea when one night a gigantic snake woman hid his herd and told him she'd only release it if he fucked her. He did, and that was the genesis of the Scythian people... I mention this because conceivably all of the babies could have been female, as an example of a gynocentric fantasy origin story.

>>53804298
There are some tribes today that could be characterized as matriarchal.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/31274/6-modern-societies-where-women-literally-rule

Yes yes, I know mentalfloss isn't exactly the golden standard of academia, but you get my point. I'm sure you could somehow come up with a definition of matriarchy that doesn't fit any of them, but then we end up playing semantic games.

Have civilization adopt the ideas of champions and castes widely. Your power comes from the caste you're born into and how strong your designated fightman representative is.

>>53804404
Sorry, I was cooking at the same time and mixed some sentences making it all part of the same tale.

Why did you (or he) didn't mention Herodotus tale that actually explains how Sarmatians became matriarchal? Because scythians are never depicted as matriarchal in Herodotus and were just a patriarchy that didn't treat women like shit, unlike athenians. Sarmatians as well were probably like that.

>>53804235
>state of bondage that existed in 99% of pre-1900 societies
>some people believe this
Separation of duties and one person having more formal power dos not equate bondage.
And it was mostly until man died, widow often held big power.

Preindustrial societies were quite egalitarian in being repressive toward all it's members. People had to play genders strengths right if they wanted to survive. And forcing people to compel to societal roles was similar hard for both genders.

>>53804298

Matriarchies existed plenty, they just got out-competed by patriarchies over time.

The idea that matriarchy has never, ever worked on any level is simply a convenient lie by omission that any patriarchial society finds useful. No sense in presenting the alternative as a viable option.

Patriarchies outcompeted matriarchies because, historically, matriarchies prioritize order and building up what you have against disaster, while patriarchies prioritize smashing peoples heads in with big rocks. Patriarchial society isnt inherently better to live in, it was just more predatory until it was the only game left in town.

A N T S
A
N
T
S

>>53801330
I think that that would be the one in ten chance.

>>53804447
>>53804542
Pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

>>53798876
Don't sexualize it; it's that easy. So long as the world around them isn't obligatorily misogynistic, it should be fine. I'm assuming you mean a typical pesudo-medieval fantasy setting, in which case there's no need to enforce actual feudal-era societal norms. Just have people treat them like any other kingdom/country, despite being ruled by a king in stead of a queen, or whatever else your plan entails. So long as you don't sexualize it, or make it literally them vs. everyone else on earth, then there shouldn't be a problem.

File: IMG_0268.jpg (72KB, 474x522px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 474x522px

>>53799206

>>53798876
There were several in Europe and in Aboriginal cultures.
Horizon Zero Dawn is also a good example in fiction.

File: 1384063911860.png (119KB, 392x366px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 392x366px

>>53804542
>Matriarchies didn't not work, they just got outcompeted by societies that weren't patriarchies
>Patriarchal society isn't inherrently better to live in, unless you live in an area where there is competition for the resources that make a society a better place to live in
You're free to live in any of the non-competitive, non-advancing and utterly backwards matriarchies still around, friend.

File: man-who-has-it-all-twitter-720x547.jpg (88KB, 720x547px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 720x547px

>>53804028
Well, otherwise they might start demanding rights with their silly meninist agenda.

>>53804542
>Patriarchies outcompeted matriarchies because, historically, matriarchies prioritize order and building up what you have against disaster, while patriarchies prioritize smashing peoples heads in with big rocks. Patriarchial society isnt inherently better to live in, it was just more predatory until it was the only game left in town.

That's bullshit. Patriarchal societies are better at being predatory for obvious reasons. The rest is just nonsense.

>>53804542

This is, by the way, western civilization is slowly moving back towards matriarchal power over time, much to the autistic shrieking of some. The circumstances that rewarded predatory practices have shifted. You may have noticed that while world peice isnt a thing, war isnt a tool that anyone in any real power wants to use anymore. Only chickenshit nations try to solve their problems with violence now, because all of the major players know the real game is measured in billions of dollars, not millions of soldiers. The US and China wont be going to war in the nect 50 years, because the economic penalties for doing so would cripple both more than any bomb.

Since the playing field has moved out of simple violence, Women have been buying their way back into the table a bit at a time.

>>53804575
Kind of, half the people are saying they never existed because women can't lead. Then there's this, they did exist but women can't lead so now they don't exist. Both supporting the same kind of narrative that women can't lead.

File: 1470234691658.jpg (888KB, 1136x1933px) Image search: [Google]

888KB, 1136x1933px

>>53804484
That's the best example I could give, as actual matriarchal societies are nonexistent outside of tiny primitive tribes (unless you count patriarchal societies that sometimes have God-Queens i.e. Elizabeth, Catherine, Theodora)
>>53804503
>Preindustrial societies were quite egalitarian
I'll humor you and assume you mean "stone age societies were/are quite egalitarian"
That's where I have to stop humoring you. While it's true that in most primitive societies women are allowed to gather food and weave baskets, that doesn't mean women were rarely treated as chattel. To this day uncontacted Amazonian tribes raid each other for women and records of primitive people everywhere in the world speak of similar behavior.
Now, I'm not saying that NO groups have ever been matriarchal, as there have been some exceptions. Tribes that are totally isolated from other tribes have occasionally become matriarchal; examples being a poorly-documented tribe that existed around the base of the Ural mountains in ancient times, and a tribe of people that once existed on Crete. All of these disappeared as soon as they were forced to compete with warrior tribes.

>>53804671
Well, but one is a lie and the other is more or less true. Something not working doesn't mean that people isn't retarded enough to try it.

>>53804664
>war isnt a tool that anyone in any real power wants to use anymore
That's a utopian fantasy at best. America is still engaged in wars around the world, Europe is only safe because it has effectively surrendered sovereignity by appointing the aforementioned America as its hegemon (who was leading negotiations against Russia when they were invading Crimea? Not Germany or France, that's for sure!). Russia and China are expansionist powers that have everything to gain from expanding (especially resource starved China). The Islamic World is waging war by alternative means (including, as a president of Algeria mentioned in his warning to France, with the womb). A situation in which war is something that will never happen again is a pipedream, and idiots believe this because we've had half a century of relative peace. Not only is half a century nothing when looking at the expanse of human history, but this only works if we utterly ignore the conflicts that did happen in Europe in that time (Balkan, Northern Ireland) and regions where the threat of conflict loomed but was narrowly avoided (East and West Germany, Iberia, Greece). And now Turkey, for decades the posterchild of an Islamic democracy, is stirring up shit.

We're ignoring the adagium of the patriarchal Romans: let he who desires peace prepare for war. Currently Europe is horribly underprepared for war and practically welcoming its enemies by literally the millions, and wars don't have the politeness to announce themselves 20 years ahead of time. This bullshit reeks of a teleological interpretation of history.

File: 1390908763189.jpg (39KB, 736x483px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 736x483px

>>53798876

pick your favorite

Their Founder was considered a divinely chosen woman who then passed her title to her daughter and now it's tradition wether its true or not the people still believe that it is

a caste system that favors women

a religion that favors women

an actual God or Goddess says women should rule

or finally their not Human so their Sexual Dimorphism results in women being in charge instead of men

>>53804664
On the contrary, nonviolent people in Europe and America are being bullied and demographically outcompeted by more violent, androcentric people; Muslims and Africans in Europe, Mexicans in America. Western civilization is indeed moving back towards matriarchal power, and will continue to do so until it is inundated or overthrown by more violent or androcentric people, either the outsider groups I mentioned, or nationalists.

More to the point, gynocentric societies have always remained in mud huts not because they're nonviolent but because (by nature) women are rarely motivated to undertake great tasks; great construction works, risky exploration, the harvesting of concentrated wealth/energy through mining and oil drilling, actual scientific inquiry (with the exception of basic medicine, as modern sociology et al are not science by any rigorous standard) are all outside of the feminine prerogative

>>53804823
>or finally their not Human so their Sexual Dimorphism results in women being in charge instead of men
Interestingly, in all animal species where the females are more dominant, the females have massively more testosterone/androgens than the males

>>53798952

>believes the direct efforts of a Goddess are responsible for England being ruled by a Queen

>>53804447
Have you read the article anon? Nearly all of them have male chiefs and politics, those are mostly matrilineal and woman owning the land, but going as far as say they are matriarchal is a stretch.

>>53804894
To be fair, queens didn't suddenly make England patriarchal. They just happened to land there by succession, but the ruling class was still overwhelmingly male. The "Victorian" era could debatably be more the machination of Palmerston than Victoria, who was at the time basically powerless.

>>53804823
>>53804894
A matriarchy is a society ruled by women, not a state ruled by a women. A matriarchal society could have the odd male ruler just like plenty of historical (patriarchal) societies have or had queens.

>>53799625
therine lies the reason most revolutions failed

>>53804064
First of all, the "one holding the spear and the other the shield" part is bullshit.

Second, Thebes would've been the one to exercise hegemony over Greece, not Sparta, if it wasn't for Philip. For some reason you don't even mention it, but the "super-gay" greeks warred and defeated Sparta after "greek world war I".

I know it has nothing to do with your point or the argument, but please avoid using history examples when you know jack shit or are so bad at showing your knowledge. I say this because lately I've seen in this board some comments related to history and culture that could be in a History Channel docummentary and make /his/ and /int/ look like bulwarks of human knowledge in comparison. Let's all make /tg/ a better place.

>>53804882

and?

>>53798876
Sparta

>>53805147
Hmmm... I leave you to draw your own conclusions despite your obvious discomfort

>>53803790
No, I just think its useful to double-check what women can/could do to affect men's behavior that they object to.

>>53804599
But, as I already said, that was an egalitarian society that was run by three old women. Its a good example of a matriarchy.

When people think Matriarchy, they're thinking of Saudi Arabia, but gender-swapped.

>>53798876
Probably the best way to do it is to do what what was claimed back in the day.

"The Queen's ancestor was the daughter of [insert god here] and a human. Because of their divine parentage they were able to [insert awesome deed here] and thus became queen. She passed the crown down to her daughter, and so on through history."

Then add one the following.
A) Inheritance laws follow the mother and thus they always pass the crown down through the mother's bloodline to a daughter because it is harder to prove who a father is, but guaranteed who the mother is.

B) The child who gets the crown is the oldest who displays the divine power that has been passed down through the bloodline of these God Queens. As the power favors females they have for the most part been ruled by queens, occasionally by a king (often as an interim ruler till his daughter was old enough to take the throne.)

C) Culture and society because of their founding queen, and her descendants built a glass ceiling for men, society views men as impulsive, isolationistic, and thinking with their dicks more than their brains, and only good for their brawn, and what's between their legs. The society favors art, education, and public works. It also feels the ideal woman is skillful, cunning, social, and expressive.

And because this is a fantasy setting, "Women warriors favor weapons of precision, accuracy, and skill. They give men weapons that require less skill and are built for more brute force, less skill. A woman will often be a Major or general, while a man a is stuck likely never rising above a Captain, or Lt.

>>53805363

I seriously have no idea what you're talking about or why you think am upset

the op asked for plausible reasons for a matriarchy and I gave some

you brought up testosterone which I don't see the point of bringing up for a fantasy race which is the option you seem to dislike

it's a fantasy race all the women could throw fireballs or be ten feet tall and talk the to birds and either answer could work for why their in charge

>>53802127
What a shame that his RPG fantasies don't adhere to your ideals

>>53798900
>majority of leaders men
>matriarchy
Egalitarian=!Matriarchy

>>53799411
It would take maybe ten minutes for the most competent male military leader to realize he could easily take over and just let women be merchants.

>>53804882
Not in all. Thinking about it I'm not even sure that's the majority among mammals. You have several marmosets, meerkats, bonobos, elephants, killer whales, etc all with matriarchal power structures but with physically smaller/weaker females. There's also sort-of cases like horses where they have a head stallion that appears to be in charge, but then there's also a lead mare that directs the herd. Some baboons are another sort-of case where there's a dominant male, but the females can and will eject him if they're displeased. In a lot of these harem scenarios we, being humans, think the male is living the life but because he is but one outsider in a group of closely related/bonded females he can very easily end up under threat.

>>53798876
The drow from forgotten realms seem like a good example, what with woman's natural cruelty and hatred of each other.

File: 1494883093646.png (13KB, 599x605px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 599x605px

>>53800423
Boom, there you have it.

The easiest way to do it from what I can see is to play it out like this.
>Early society was split down the middle based on types of labor like normal(field work/home work), but both are seen as equally important to the survival of the village.

>Both sides of the division of labor are used in decision making for the village, creating a ruling family with clear responsibilities.

>Over time the society shifts importance to the home, seeing a solid and stable home as necessary for a complete life.

>Add in fertility worship if you want.

>Over a millennia or so, the hunters and warriors begin to act more in the interest of the home than in their own in the two person rulership dynamic and fall into line with the Matriarch. This change is slow and natural, not forced.

>Years down the line, you have a power dynamic where women sit clearly at the top and traditionally "male" activities and those who participate in them are largely supposed to act... not subservient but with proper deference to the traditional "female" roles

>No society is without its issues, add in women who are tyrannical and men who want to gain more power, but try and keep it believable, these are politicians and likely not trying to make a statement, just hold onto/gain more power.

All you need to kick it all off is a reason for the initial spark of egalitarianism to happen, which can really be anything. This idea seems fairly plausible to me, not perfect, but it can work.

>>53804846
Marie Curie, Ada Lovelace, and a few others would like a word with you, sir.

Let's get real - female geniuses exist and they're rarer than male geniuses, but female idiots are also rarer than male idiots because there's an approximately equal average IQ between the sexes, with larger deviation among males.

Do you have any evidence to back your claims about female nature?

>>53800447
Yeah, that can happen when the American President forces the military to fight like retards so the DoD has to buy up the soon to be obsolete WWII bomb stockpiles from companies who's CEO's are friends with said President.

>>53805864
>baboons
That actually sounds like an interesting premise on a sociological level, although I don't know how it could be exploited outside of an eroge. I'm interested in the idea of puppet rulers in general, and contrasting it with a harem that actually pulls the strings is intriguing since it gives the man that much more apparent privilege. Add to that a desire by the man to make some drastic change that would require their assent, and a developing romance with one of those women, and you have all the ingredients for a visual novel filled with political intrigue and potential backstabbing.

>>53803748
And yet, oddly, masculine methods of killing are generally violent and emotional, while feminine methods are passive and cold. Beating someone to death or attacking them with a gun versus poison or killing them in their sleep. The former is also punished far less harshly than the latter. We acknowledge that men can't always control themselves.

>>53798876
It is a fantasy setting so you can just say that in the world or country women lack any of the physical disadvantages they do in the real world, then just have the reason be tradition.

>>53806142
This all stems from the reality that men are physically stronger, so they can easily just beat someone to death, while women need to poison them or choke them with a pillow.

>>53800112
>majority of so-called "Resistance" members that were involved in those atrocities had no connection to actual resistance groups active before liberation, and were usually trying to cover over their own petty collaboration by scapegoating others.

>>53806142
>The former is also punished far less harshly than the latter. We acknowledge that men can't always control themselves.
Women largely get lighter sentences for the same crimes for really complicated sociological reason, and people are often more repulsed the more violent a crime is. Violent male criminals are practically dehumanized. You'll hear genuine arguments that execution, torture and enslavement is a-okay if done to such an offender.

We are not gentle on men at all, partially because we believe they can or should be able to take it. I imagine it all plays back to the male agency/female objectification duality.

People ITT are completely missing the point. While it was a social structure that women did not partake in politics in earlier civilizations, that social structure emerged from something that was "real" I.E a biological fact. For example: in the very early societies strength and soldiering capability and leadership went hand in hand and over the years it became a codified "rule" even when leaders didn't have to be generals or warriors. Something along these lines. This happened almost everywhere civilization emerged. Matriarchal civilizations are extremely rare, and please note that matrilineal does not mean matriarchal. Thus it makes little sense that in a fantasy setting, with regular humans, that a matriarchal society would come about.

You could just say that women are more in tune with magic or something and voilá, you have a perfectly reasonable and sound reason for a matriarchy. Or just make a matriarchy regardless, it doesn't really matter if it is so unrealistic.

>>53806142
>The former is also punished far less harshly than the latter.
Objectively false. For all time periods in history almost.

>>53806176
Except men also violently kill each other. If your theory held true, men would murder stronger men with poison or the like, when they just turn to weapons to even the odds.

>>53806268
Ok, but compare the sentences for first degree murder to second degree, and note the exceptions for voluntary manslaughter. Women may get less harsh sentences overall, but "womanly" murder is punished far more harshly.

>>53806340
See above.

File: 1447129236371.jpg (56KB, 800x804px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x804px

>>53804163
>Homosexual sex in intrinsically more manly than heterosexual as it requires two males.

>>53806478
>but "womanly" murder is punished far more harshly.
I think it's more that "womanly murder" I.E poison can't be argued to have been manslaughter, it is pretty much always a murder. If you violently butchered someone you can argue voluntary manslaughter even if it was a murder. But if someone who violently butchered his victim admitted that it was murder, he'd probably get a stronger sentence because, as >>53806268 said, people get more repulsed by excess violence

>>53806478
That has more to do with pre meditated vs sudden than "manly" or "womanly" murder methods used. Unless it is a man doing it in one of those ultra macho societies where being soft is a crime in and of itself for men. In which case he both committed murder and was un manly at the same time.

>>53806478
First degree murder can be violent, and if someone does plot out gutting another person like a fish we'll look at that as worst of all.

Poison is considered an underhanded or cowardly way to kill, at least when a man does it, because it implies he was too pussy to just stab a guy in the face. It's not so much we forgive him having a hot temper, but more that we frown on him for not being macho enough. It's a bizarre situation when you think about it

>>53803974
>basically just reskin males as females and vice versa
That sounds a little boring. I think it'd be more interesting to have that little twist at the end where, head for head, a male is still physically stronger, so difficult for an individual female to victimize, but outnumbered and suppressed in the grand scheme.
It's like the "princess is a surprisingly competent fighter instead of deadweight" schtick but reversed.

File: Byzantine-Republic[1].jpg (125KB, 900x400px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 900x400px

>>53800423
>Rome was a republic longer than an Empire
>fuck off with that Byzantine shit
Oh boy, do I have a book that will trigger you!

>>53806478
I'm not a legal expert but I'd think a woman smothering her husband in his sleep with a pillow would be looked upon less harshly than a man leading his wife out into the woods and beating her to death with a tire iron, all else equal.

>>53800423
>Byzantine shit
Nah, you fuck off. You still don't have and never will have any reasonable arguments for why Rome suddenly stops being Rome. You just didn't grow up with the idea, it doesn't conform to your warped notions on what Rome was and you hate it.

>>53806786
I'll kick it up a notch for you: a woman leading her husband out into the woods and beating him to death with a tire iron is looked upon less harshly than a man smothering his wife with a pillow.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html

>>53806786
Depends. The tire iron situation can be argued to have been voluntary manslaughter (if you live in a country that has voluntary manslaughter), while smothering someone probably couldn't. But women can always say the man beat her and it was "battered wife syndrome" and get a lighter sentence.

>>53806140
Well if you're looking for other interesting matriarchal social structures there's the pygmy marmoset that always has twins and recruits two husbands to take care of them. Neither can tell which is theirs so they're pretty much forced to get along and share the burden of protecting the young while the female gathers most of the food.

You know it's curious how the biggest variety of matriarchal social structures comes from fellow primates.

>>53806534
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecr27Q_L9l8

should i make a second thread?

>>53807876
Why? Nobody has any opinions worth posting that haven't already been posted.

More to the point, fantasy gaming already presents two matriarchal societies: elves and dark elves.

>>53808249
Normal elves aren't matriarchal, they're patriarchal with strong egalitarian leanings

>>53808345
Eh, it depends on the setting, but for ooooold D&D they had a queen and it was implied heredity ran through the matriarchs. (ergo Drow were just goatee elves)

>>53807876
You've got a couple of plausible ideas to work with, a second thread would just end up being more /pol/ bullshit.

>>53808345
what? the elven queen rules the land

the faerie queen does too