You must have learned that in your feminist studies class. There are precious few examples of functioning matriarchal societies in history. The few that are known to have existed were conquered the minute that a warlike, patriarchal tribe showed up at their doorstep. Yes, food mattered but so did physical protection. Tribes often went to war over territory, i.e. access to food.
Traditional religions go back a long way and nearly all of them are misogynistic, even Buddhism.
There's a reason why patriarchy became pretty much the "default" mode of organization in human societies. The reason is that it works. Matriarchy, by contrast, doesn't work. Under matriarchy, males basically sit around doing nothing except waiting for the females to have sex with them. Some species of apes live in this manner.
Under patriarchy, males have an incentive to compete against one another for sexual access to wimmin. This competitive drive was the impetus behind great male achievements which advanced civilization. Wimmin, by comparison, have no such incentive. They are rewarded in life first and foremost on the basis of their looks, not on the basis of their achievements (whether they have any or not). This partially explains why so few wimmin have made any noteworthy achievements throughout history.
No there can't. Any so-called "healthy medium" will inevitably regress towards extreme or the other. This is due to the "Dynamical Laws" as espoused by Simon Sheppard (e.g. females have no power besides that which is given to them by males, and the only thing they do with this power is to use it against males). If there is a healthy medium to be had at all, it is (or was) best represented by the traditional western institution of marriage and monogamy, pre-feminism.
Patriarchy is better than matriarchy because males are objectively better than and more useful to society than females. Females have only one essential role, while males have literally hundreds. Any honest person should be able to admit this.
Bookmarks