Just swapping bodies is not what this is about. — Baden

Because matriarchy does not need to control sex. The difference that makes the difference is that man is born of woman so the woman knows her lineage with complete certainty, whereas for the male to have the same confidence requires that he control the woman's sex life. and hence all the related threads and their contortions of attempted justification of the status quo. In a matriarchy there is no sexual politics, in the sense that it does not ever matter who fucks who.

The question of "what would happen if women became fully equal to men" isn't answered as your OP proposes. It is actually opposite as you predicted:

"The answer: the more egalitarian and wealthier the country, the larger the differences between men and women in temperament and in interest. And the relationship is not small. The most recent study, published in Science (by researchers at Berkeley, hardly a hotbed of conservatism and patriarchy) showed a relationship between a wealth/egalitarian composite measure and sex differences that was larger than that reported in 99% of published social science studies. These are not small-scale studies. Tens of thousands of people have participated in them. And many different groups of scientists have come to the same conclusions, and published those results in very good journals.

Given that differences in temperament and interest help determine occupational choice, and that differences in occupational choice drives variability in such things as income, this indicates that political doctrines that promote equality of opportunity also drive inequality of outcome."

This is to say, in Scandinavian countries where women have the most equality and can choose to do however they want, they choose female stereotyped occupations, leaving a reasonable explanation that when you eliminate social pressures and create freer choice, the biological pressures become more evident and revealed. That is, genetics heavily drive feminine and masculine behaviors, so your OP assumed outcome would not occur.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-the-gender-scandal-in-scandinavia-and-canada

In a matriarchy there is no sexual politics, in the sense that it does not ever matter who fucks who. — unenlightened

Don't you think that's a bit naive? Women can be just as possessive of their partners as men.

Don't you think that's a bit naive? Women can be just as possessive of their partners as men. — Tzeentch

That is not politics. Women can be just as anything you like as men, except just as unsure who their children are. That makes the big difference between matriarchy and patriarchy, not that people of either sex cannot be possessive or monogamous, but that it has no economic dynastic implications whether they are or not. The pressure is off .

Are you talking about the modern age? Because it's rather hard to see 'economic dynastic implications' being the driver of the behavior of modern people. Equal inheritance is the norm as far as I know.

Equal inheritance is the norm as far as I know. — Tzeentch

I'm talking about matriarchy, not equality.

Does equal inheritance not include patrilineal inheritance? I'm talking about history, and the legacy of history. I'm talking about royalty and nobility and nationality and people with names that inherit. I'm talking about incels and philosophy departments.

After the French revolution, equal inheritance became law. before that the firstborn male was usually the heir to the estate. The result of this after many generations was that land was so divided into tiny parcels, that was terribly inefficient, and measures had to be taken to consolidate ownership into usable holdings.

There has obviously been some movement in the last century towards equality of the sexes. It has obviously not been complete. But equality in the matter of inheritance still requires the social control of female sexual behaviour, for the reason stated. This is a simple matter of fact that I do not understand why you have difficulty accepting.

You seem to believe we currently live in a patriarchy, correct?

Enough idiotic questions, already. Do you understand that in general biological motherhood is known, whereas biological fatherhood is questionable, because infants appear from between the legs of the mother, and not from between the legs of the father? I say "in general" because surrogacy, gene splicing, babies swapped at birth, babies abandoned in baskets of rushes, and miraculous virgin births are also possibilities, allegedly.

Yes, yes. And you seem to believe that this is a fundamental driver of human behavior.

How many normal couples you know have a DNA test done to confirm the father? Very few, I imagine. I know none. So perhaps it's not as fundamental as you believe.

Also, why is it an 'idiotic question' to ask whether you believe we currently live in a patriarchy? I think that is a pretty key question since it determines whether we're limited to judging your theory in a historical context or in a contemporary one, and I think there's very little substance when judging it by a contemporary one.

Also, why is it an 'idiotic question' to ask whether you believe we currently live in a patriarchy? I think that is a pretty key question since it determines whether we're limited to judging your theory in a historical context or in a contemporary one, and I think there's very little substance when judging it by a contemporary one. — Tzeentch

Un has been stating his belief that we currently live in a patriarchy across at least three different threads over the past month or so. Why is there little substance to his theory? He's taken a clear biological human distinction and drawn cultural and ideological conclusions from it. Where does he go wrong? Do social values of modern consumerist societies not seem broadly more masculine to you? Is corporate and political power not still predominantly in the hands of men? Refuse to call it a patriarchy if you like but then give your theory as to why this has been and continues to be the case.

Yes, yes. And you seem to believe that this is a fundamental driver of human behavior. — Tzeentch

No. it is a fundamental driver of the organisation of patriarchy. It is not a driver of the organisation of matriarchy.

Also, why is it an 'idiotic question' to ask whether you believe we currently live in a patriarchy? — Tzeentch

It is idiotic because we have been living in a patriarchal society for at least 2,500 years, and a brief glance at the makeup of any government you care to consider will confirm that we still are. As could be expected after a mere century or so of agitation for women's rights, and zero consideration of the obvious impossibility of equality for the reason already explained in tedious detail and repetition. An equal society with property inheritance is not possible, and property inheritance has not been abolished.

Now to your ridiculous argument that parents do not test their children's DNA, as if modern men do not care about their fatherhood! On the contrary, it is the result of the patriarchal society that we live in, whereby society is so structured as to control women's sexual behaviour sufficiently well that men are fairly confident, not always justifiably, of their fatherhood.

Do social values of modern consumerist societies not seem broadly more masculine to you? — Baden

No, they don't.

They seem neither masculine nor feminine to me. Confused and ungrounded are some of the milder terms I would use to describe modern society.

Refuse to call it a patriarchy if you like but then give your theory as to why this has been and continues to be the case. — Baden

Men used to be in charge because physical security was much more of an uncertain factor historically, and warfare a much more physical activity.

So ultimately the structure of society (especially large societies) is a result of power dynamics (security dilemma, prisoner's dilemma, etc.), much in the same way political realism views geopolitics.

Ironically, in the past there used to be some counterbalance through moral systems, usually in the form of religion (but also, for example, chivalric codes). In the modern day of moral relativism and moral confusion, all that's left are the dynamics of power, which is why nothing has truly changed.

Now to your ridiculous argument that parents do not test their children's DNA, as if modern men do not care about their fatherhood! On the contrary, it is the result of the patriarchal society that we live in, whereby society is so structured as to control women's sexual behaviour sufficiently well that men are fairly confident, not always justifiably, of their fatherhood. — unenlightened

If your argument is that the uncertainty of fatherhood is the fundamental driver of human society for the past 2,500 years, then access to DNA testing should have to be revolutionary. But it turns out it's really not.

This isn't ridiculous - it's a strong indicator of whether your argument holds any merit.

If your argument is that the uncertainty of fatherhood is the fundamental driver of human society for the past 2,500 years, then access to DNA testing should have to be revolutionary. But it turns out it's really not.

This isn't ridiculous - it's a strong indicator of whether your argument holds any merit. — Tzeentch

It is used in matrimonial disputes such as divorce where it has immediate financial consequences (property, that is). In normal relationships it would currently be a very damaging, insulting expression of distrust, because of the social expectation of sexual exclusivity that patriarchy depends on. Perhaps it will become a normal feature in time, it is still very new. It has been suggested that DNA screening become automatic at birth, but there are implications for insurance to be dealt with, and also privacy issues. If such were to happen, it might prove to be an equalising intervention, that would make possible an equal society, but I'm not holding my breath. It would certainly be a very complicated society in terms of family units, if it led to women being as openly unfaithful to their partners as men are.
Perhaps you could just think through the implications of things a bit before you start your revolution?

In normal relationships it would currently be a very damaging, insulting expression of distrust, because of the social expectation of sexual exclusivity that patriarchy depends on. — unenlightened

Ah, but then you have put the cart before the horse, haven't you?

Your claim was that the fundamental driver was uncertainty of fatherhood. But apparently social bonds of mutual trust and fidelity are more important. So important in fact that to put said uncertainty above trust would be essentially unthinkable in a healthy relationship.

To loop that back to patriarchy is, as I said, putting the cart before the horse.

Your claim was that the fundamental driver was uncertainty of fatherhood. But apparently social bonds of mutual trust and fidelity are more important. — Tzeentch

*Sigh*. Ask yourself why it is so important to prove me wrong? Because your criticisms are getting desperate and feeble.

DNA analysis is a rather recent option. Society is not therefore built around it. On the contrary, it is built around the state of affairs previously prevailing, which is (sorry to bore you) that men could not be certain of their offspring unless they could control women's sexual behaviour. Therefore, a patriarchal society can be expected to promote ideals of either monogamy or polygamy but almost certainly not polyandry.And this is what we find around the world, that polyandry is very very rare.

The promotion, or at least the enforcement of these ideals can be expected to be applied more rigorously to women than to men, and stories about men's needs, and their inability to control them completely will abound, and this is the beginning of the induction of rape culture, that sows fear in the minds of women, and downplays the responsibility of men.

But we are supposed to be discussing Matriarchy.

Imagine therefore, a society where no importance at all is placed on fatherhood.It is not even a thing to be named and talked about. A child's important male role models will be his maternal uncles, who will be part of the matriarchal family in a way that unrelated males who share the maternal bed from time to time are not.

Familial relations are not based on sex at all, in contrast to the patriarchal nuclear family which is founded and maintained entirely by the sexual relationship of mother and father. This makes for a much more stable and extended matrilineal family unit with a matriarch at it's head, with her adult children of both sexes, and the children of her daughters (her sons do not have children of their own, but are co-responsible for their sisters' children).

Sex, whether consensual or non-consensual, loses its importance socially. Rape as a weapon of war is completely disarmed and just looks silly.

The main point of going through all this is to emphasise that matriarchy is not at all a mirror image of patriarchy. We can argue about whether it might be better or worse in all sorts of ways from different points of view, but the main difficulty for people is to understand the necessities of the patriarchy that prevails at present, and take seriously the possibility of other ways of organising society.

Ask yourself why it is so important to prove me wrong? Because your criticisms are getting desperate and feeble. — unenlightened

No need for posturing. You're posting your views for others to engage with, and you can stop engaging with mine any time you like.

DNA analysis is a rather recent option. Society is not therefore built around it. — unenlightened

In what sort of timeframe can we expect men to wisen up to the fact that the answer to their thousands-year-old struggle has finally arrived?

And this is what we find around the world, that polyandry is very very rare. — unenlightened

It's in fact not rare at all among history's female rulers.

It turns out that people who have power will use it to collect the objects of their desire.

... and this is the beginning of the induction of rape culture, ... — unenlightened

The idea of 'rape culture' is nonsensical for reasons I have already explained. The sentences and social repercussions are harsh. Even being suspected and/or acquitted of rape can ruin one's life or encourage people to take the law into their own hands.

It's one of the few crimes for which "innocent until proven guilty" does not seem to apply. It all implies the exact opposite of what you're arguing.

Familial relations are not based on sex at all, in contrast to the patriarchal nuclear family which is founded and maintained entirely by the sexual relationship of mother and father. — unenlightened

I think the nuclear family is maintained by a shared responsibility for the well-being of the offspring.

It's difficult to imagine how one arrives at this pitch-black image of modern male-female relationships you espouse, but it does start to paint a picture.

The main point of going through all this is to emphasise that matriarchy is not at all a mirror image of patriarchy. We can argue about whether it might be better or worse in all sorts of ways from different points of view, but the main difficulty for people is to understand the necessities of the patriarchy that prevails at present, and take seriously the possibility of other ways of organising society. — unenlightened

Matriarchy, like patriarchy, is about heirarchy. Heirarchy is about domination, and domination is about power, and therefore subject to the dynamics of power (which I will argue are the actual drivers behind human society).

We can imagine all sorts of ways to organize society, but societies tend to organize in ways that are dictated by necessity. When societies forego necessity for idealism that's called decadence (which historically preceded collapse).

Physical security has been the necessity that has dictated the structure of society for the past millennia.

During the era of industrialisation and mass warfare, physical security started to encompass the entirety of society, which also started to include women on a large scale. This is the mechanism through which we have arrived at today's situation of equality.

A matriarchy will only happen when the balance flips the other way, and women become more important to physical security than men.