3 ms·

Agreed. The entire thing is based upon a false premise. Also weren't most very early societies without marriage matriarchal? Addition: Isn't this also ignori

• mikebenfield 10y ago
  Well, I hate to crap on someone agreeing with me, but no, I don't think so. There are no known societies that are clearly matriarchal. The idea that early human society was matriarchal comes out of wild speculation by certain authors with a political bent.
  • at-fates-hands 10y ago
    actually there are quite a few in Asia and Africa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_matrilineal_or_matrilocal_societies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_matrilineal_or_matrilo... The Akans of Ghana, West Africa, are matrlineals. Akans are the largest ethnic group in Ghana. They are made of the Akims, Asantes, Fantis, Akuapims, Kwahus, Denkyiras, Brongs, Akwamus, Krachis etc. "Matrilineal" means property is passed down through the maternal line on the death of the mother, not that of the father.
    • Kadin 10y ago
      Matrilineal != Matriarchal. There are a substantial number of matrilineal societies, probably due to the ease of knowing who your mother is compared to your father, before genetic testing was developed. They are quite often not matriarchal, though.
      • jnaz343 10y ago
        I recall a quote from Margaret Mead stating that there is no evidence that a matriarchal society has ever existed.
  • ap22213 10y ago
    Not saying your wrong, but I just read "Sapiens" by Yuval Noah Harari, and my take away was that there were plenty of matriarchal tribes before agriculture and industry. And, generally it's not an unusual thing for primates. He even goes into a lot of detail on why things changed within the last 12,000 years. No offense, but I'd rather trust that guy's story than some random dude on the internet's.