A matriarchy would be better than a patriarchy for women?

Its also reminds me of the current obsession of colonising Mars/space "for the good of civilisation". I grew up loving astronomy/obsessing over space/dreaming of whether we would ever actually explore further out. But this leaves me cold. Its the contrast between the Carl Sagan/Douglass Adams view of the cosmos as being this amazing place we exist in that makes us feel small but also significant all at the same time. Versus the Cecil Rhodes/Elon Musk view of space which is essentially looking up at the unimaginable splendour of the universe and thinking "I wish I owned that". Vile arrogant pricks.
Carl Sagan was a bloke, so as I said it isn't that all men think like Cecil Rhodes. It is more that the people who do think like Cecil Rhodes tend to be male and we live in a world that rewards them.

I would argue that a matriarchal society would be better for all if it had a long enough time to flourish. When women are unthreatened and safe they are a lot more outward thinking than men and have more of an ability to focus on the bigger picture and greater good. Think of generations of children especially boys, brought up in a fairer and more balanced society. That’s why any women with a strong voice is ridiculed and silenced as quickly as possible, it’s a huge threat.

I don't know which threads/situation you are referring to but, and I say this as a woman who has seen other women defending some pretty horrible males, is it possible that women on those topics are more likely to enable men who are beefed up by the patriarchy? If they are powerless and rely on men for their wealth and security (maybe because that's how they have been bought up in our patriarchal society) they have learned that the woman is mainly there for breeding. You can see this is the root of misogyny in many cases. Women aren't exempt from absorbing this repeated message in a patriarchal society.

I think this also reflects the feeling that we are being run for greed and profit - it all feels very male that there are wars for "more" of everything, when really the human race is at a point intellectually where we could be finding ways to be far more self sufficient, through science and sharing knowledge and resources. We don't seem to be making the progress as a race we know we are capable of.

I was told on here BY WOMEN that i shouldnt be in social housing unless i had kids. (despite the fact i only have a one bedroom flat

So i had women telling me that i owed families more than those kids OWN FATHERS.

I think the idea that a women led society would be so super kind and gentle that other countries would invade and they would do nothing seems less likely. Women can be quite pro defense/defense spending. Assuming that in this matriarchy there would still be men as well. They wouldn't all have died of. Boudiccea, Elizabeth I, Margaret Thatcher weren't necessarily living in matriarchies but they were all quite fighty. Of course they didn't really start wars so much - Boudiccea went on the war path after the Romans humiliated her, Elizabeth I was (by the standards of the time) not a war monger. She is most famous for the defeat of the Spanish which was defensive. Whatever you think about the Falklands it did "belong" to Britain at the time of that war, so it was a war of defense (regardless of whether defending it was justified).

There is a difference between going to war to defend what you hold already which women and men tend to be equally in favour of, versus wars of expansion/conquest which is more of a male thing...
Of course, maybe the perception of weakness would be a danger in itself...

@OutsideLookingOut I also started listening to Phillipa Gregory's Normal Women (I pay for spotify and get it free) which is very interesting as in Anglo Saxon times we had a far more equal society here in Britain. Women could own and pass on land in inheritance to daughters, they could write and we didn't use a coin system but bartered for goods. 1066 changed all that and women didn't get to own land or have any say in laws for another 5 centuries. Arguably we are still suffering from that as women were forced backwards all that time (not educated,robbed of land and inheritance etc). It seems we were more advanced socially in many ways in the Anglo Saxon period.

Why? If anything women are more pro-choice than men?!
I think there is a lot of media that likes to pit women against women, but usually it is in some way to benefit a man or male business.

I've only ever seem female led charities such as Women's Aid and domestic abuse charities, which certainly don't rank women. It's odd who frequently that seems to come up from the women who choose not to have kids.

Thank you for some a great contribution to the thread. No, really!

I’d be concerned that in such a society, the only women who mattered would be the mothers and childless/free women would be considered as essentially akin to men.

We have a women’s network at work but they refuse to consider any issue that affects women but doesn’t relate to pregnancy, maternity or motherhood. We’ve had to set up separate networks to consider other women’s issues such as infertility, menopause, and caring for elderly parents. The main “feminist” network wasn’t interested in dealing with any of them, because none involved young children.

That’s what I fear would happen under such a society. Maybe it wouldn’t be any worse for us than under patriarchy but it certainly wouldn’t be better IMHO.

I also don’t agree that women are more understanding of women making different choices, either. In my experience, women are the ones who judge me the most. Men are ambivalent. And you only have to be on MN for ten minutes on the childless/free board to see that many women are the opposite of understanding.

Read the step parents board! Its full of women telling other women how much physical and emotional labour they should be giving

As a child free by choice woman this is what would worry me Why would i want to look after other peoples kids when i didnt even want my own

OK, let me stop you there. 3 things.

1. You're talking bollocks.
2. You still haven't said where women are forced to cohabit with men.
3. You're talking bollocks

@Leafy74 they get tax breaks and have legal recourse to things like half of the house if they marry, plus can leave kids more IHT. Because men earn more it is put forward as "protecting assets" for women but no one mentions the free labour men get or how single women live longer. The marriage incentives are a con for women.

There's good and things either way. The more matriarchal governments tended to be most over zealous about Covid lockdowns.

When are women " forced to cohabit with men"?

Did you spot this recent news story op? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20g7j707g8o
The Scythians are also thought to have practiced a large degree of women’s freedom if not co-rule. I’ve also been re-reading Philippa Gregory’s ‘Normal Women’ which makes it clear how women’s rights have changed and what has been considered acceptable in relations between the sexes has changed. It changed massively after 1066, and every time the economy changes for instance.

The simple answer is of course women would be better off in a matriarchy because women’s issues would matter more and society would be structured to accommodate then.

There have been numerous fictional views of different societies with different norms and relations: in addition to those mentioned, Ursula le Guin and Sheri Tepper are particularly famous for it.