209
Mat(rule)archy
(i.pinimg.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
209 points (100.0% liked)
196
18144 readers
1730 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
honestly I think historically it would have made way more sense for inheritance to go through tha matrilineal line. I mean even if everything remains the same it makes more sense for a guy to be king because his mother is part of the family line. I am in no way endorsing monarchy in modern times I am just talking about the past. It seems obvious to me that family lines are more definitive by who actually bore you as opposed to who possibly inseminated.
Counterpoint: Women were often seen as invaders to the family lineage because of heavily misogynistic ideas like the idea of all women being evil.
Yeah it doesn't make sense, but misogyny typically doesn't.
I totally get why it might not be so historically. I mean im talking to some degree about the definition of the bloodline so if it was a thing they could not be seen as invaders. Just seems like it makes so much more sense. Like you think about the crazy royal stuff about witnesses to consumation and it like just have witnesses the kid came out of the right womb.
It might have more to do with men being able to safely father so many more children. 50ish seems the record for mothers, but fathers could have hundreds of kids. On top of that, maternal mortality rates were high, so a matriarch has a chance of dying with every kid.
well you could still have kings its just the bloodline would run through the female side and you can still go back like when a king dies. Also contrast that with no combat deaths.
Why would there be no combat deaths? It's not like the more matriarchal societies throughout history didn't go to war.
I mean if we are talking all the other stuff the same with medieval europe basically. Doesn't have to be but it went with the still king thing and matrilineal just being the inheritance line.
@HubertManne @jawa21 matrilineal inheritance (including crowns) existed among booking and Asian cultures.
There's historical precedent for how it worked
whats booking?
@HubertManne @jawa21 Viking.
I didn't notice Google replacing the word.
ok that would make more sense. thanks.