Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
This is not what a matriarchy would look like at all, since men are physically stronger overall. A matriarchal society would have to be based on respect or some other acknowledgement by men that women should lead, since a domineering, physical, might-makes-right society would not end up this way. Not sure why or how (some) women feel the need to physically subjugate men and rule on men's terms, to use the rules of patriarchy to form a matriarchal society. It simply can't work.
As I have stated previously; this is a joke of post. No-one should expect this as a reality, nor ethically desire it.
The US is already a matriarchy and I love it!
To be honest, when I found out the patriarchy wasn't about horses, I lost interest anyway.
Step on me mommy
I for one welcome our hot mommy overlords
Feminists see that the world is dominated almost entirely by a small handful of men who control all the news we consume, all the policy decisions that get made, and see all the massive inequality all throughout our society, and decide that the only problem with this is that the person that this power imbalance benefits isn't a woman.
Power corrupts, idiot. Dismantle the system. Don't paint it pink.
if you genuinely think that feminism is "painting it pink" and not changing the system to be more equitable then youve been in the wrong circles, this meme is making fun of people like you who hold the belief that feminism is a matriarchal ideology rather than an egalitarian one
It varies a lot between different groups of feminists. There are plenty that unironically want a system where some rich women are in charge instead of just rich men. In fact I would say this is the majority of feminists as communists and anarchists aren't that common plus lots of communists are against identity politics to begin with.
You would be correct IF the post wasn't literally and directly asking for women to behave the same as all the problems in patriarchy...
Learn to fucking read before you put others down. The post is a joke but you unironically defending matriarchy based on a joke that is asking for toxic matriarchy is not a joke. Do better.
Because subtext doesn't exist.
Ah yes, the famous strategy of making fun of an ideology that some (few) actually believe by saying outright that you believe it and giving no hint that you are joking
the OP explicitly stated that they dont support the idea of an actual matriarchy and that this is just a shitpost in another comment, feel free to scroll down
this is being posted in a shitposting community
I feel tis extremely clear given the context of where this is posted that OP just wants to get stepped on lol. It's hilarious that people are having actual discourse about a meme with a picture of a woman stepping on a man.
I, for one, will not rest until we have a woman committing genocides and atrocities. It's only right.
The OP is merely a joke. Probably. 196 is an intensely left-leaning shitposting culture.
Toying with Poe's law one shitpost at a time.
I would say Poe's Law isn't in effect here as the majority of 196 instance users (posters NOT lurkers) are anti-heirarchy as a soft prerequisite to jiving and understanding the humor.
I'll say this, have we tried Yassifying the Kleptocracy? I mean have we run the numbers????
No gods, no mistresses (unless...?)
It's the logical extension of JDVance's illogical proposition: Only people who are physically invested in the future by bearing children within their bodies deserve to rule. Those matriarchs can then decide to include people who would be capable of birthing children if they chose to do so. The mere sperm donors can shut up and do what they're told, as they frequently waste their potential contribution to the future on the couch or in a sock or the shower.
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.
@HubertManne @jawa21 matrilineal inheritance (including crowns) existed among booking and Asian cultures.
There's historical precedent for how it worked
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.