Ostatnimi czasy na forum Racjonalisty często gości temat matriarchatu. I nie byłoby w tym nic zdrożnego - gdyby nie fakt, iż w wielu wypadkach jest on prezentowany jako pewnik, rodzaj aksjomatu nie podlegającego żadnej dyskusji. Tymczasem nic bardziej błędnego. Koncepcję matriarchatu można przyrównać do teorii kreacjonizmu. Nie ma żadnych naukowych dowodów na to, iż w przeszłości była to dominująca forma relacji międzyludzkich. Przeciwnie, wszystko wskazuje na to, iż tak nie było. Źródła owego błędu tkwią w ideologii, konkretnie ideologii feminizmu - aczkolwiek należy stanowczo podkreślić, iż obecnie wiele feministek odżegnuje się od koncepcji matriarchatu uważając ja - ze względu na swój pseudonaukowy charakter - za kompromitację ich ideologii. W upowszechnieniu koncepcji matriarchatu kluczową rolę odegrała amerykańska archeolożka litewskiego pochodzenia Marija Gimbutas, która na bazie prowadzonych przez siebie wykopalisk archeologicznych napisała trzy książki - o jakze znamiennych tytułach:"The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe (1974)", "The Language of the Goddess" (1989), "The Civilization of the Goddess" (1991). Postawiła w nich ideologicznie motywowane konkluzje, interpretując znaleziska archeologiczne w sposób tendencyjny, niepełny i wybiórczy. Obecnie jej interpretacja znalezisk archeologicznych jak wyżej jest powszechnie negowana przez świat nauki.
Zainteresowanych problemem zachęcam do lektury podlinkowanych materiałów - informując przy okazji, iż jeżeli za parę tysięcy lat jakiś archeolog znajdzie zachowany materiał pornograficzny ukazujący namiętny seks dwóch piersiatych lesbijek - nie będzie to wcale dowód na to, iż w roku anno domini 2018 na naszej planecie dominował matriarchat.

"Mainstream archaeology dismissed Gimbutas's later works.[21] Anthropologist Bernard Wailes (1934–2012) of the University of Pennsylvania commented to The New York Times that most of Gimbutas's peers[22] believe her to be "immensely knowledgeable but not very good in critical analysis. ... She amasses all the data and then leaps from it to conclusions without any intervening argument." He said that most archaeologists consider her to be an eccentric.[19]
David W. Anthony has praised Gimbutas's insights regarding the Indo-European Urheimat, but also disputed Gimbutas's assertion that there was a widespread peaceful society before the Kurgan incursion, noting that Europe had hillforts and weapons, and presumably warfare, long before the Kurgan.[19] A standard textbook of European prehistory corroborates this point, stating that warfare existed in neolithic Europe and that adult males were given preferential treatment in burial rites.[23]
Peter Ucko and Andrew Fleming were two early critics of the "Goddess" theory, with which later Gimbutas came to be associated. Ucko, in his 1968 monograph Anthropomorphic figurines of predynastic Egypt warned against unwarranted inferences about the meanings of statues. He notes, for example, that early Egyptian figurines of women holding their breasts had been taken as "obviously" significant of maternity or fertility, but the Pyramid Texts revealed that in Egypt this was the female gesture of grief.[24]
Fleming, in his 1969 paper "The Myth of the Mother Goddess", questioned the practice of identifying neolithic figures as female when they weren't clearly distinguished as male and took issue with other aspects of the "Goddess" interpretation of Neolithic stone carvings and burial practices.[25]
The 2009 book Knossos and the Prophets of Modernism by Cathy Gere examines the political influence on archaeology more generally. Through the example of Knossos on the island of Crete, which had been represented as the paradigm of a pacifist, matriarchal and sexually free society, Gere claims that archaeology can easily slip into reflecting what people want to see, rather than teaching people about an unfamiliar past."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marija_Gimbutas



"Has there ever been a matriarchal civilization in history?
The answer lies in biology and game theory.
Matriarchies didn't happen throughout history for the simple reason that women were too valuable to partake in war or in deadly leadership competition.
Say a tribe of a hundred people sends 50 men to war and keeps 50 women in the village. The battle is lost, 45 men have died in a battle. However upon their return the remaining five surviving men can impregnate the 50 women and the tribe will soon have 50 children. If however the same situation happens in some fantastic Amazonian tribe where women are sent to battle, and only five women return from battle to a village of fifty men.... the next generation will contain only 5 children. It's clear that one of these methods is a surer survival strategy for a tribe.
In this way women are not biologically expendable while men are, and we aren't talking just about war, but also about dangerous jobs such as hunting, exploration or mining. Because men do the dangerous jobs more often, men are likely to develop skills which put them head and shoulders in terms of leadership above any woman competitor.
Also consider that during the early parts of human history, leadership competition was deadly. The leader was usually the individual that killed or physically subdued all competitors. Ignoring sexual dimorphism ,who is likely to win in a fight to the death: a skilled hunter and warrior - OR - a hunter gatherer and basket weaver? Now consider the fact that due to sexual dimorphism the average man is usually twice as strong and fast as the average woman.... ergo men became leaders almost exclusively throughout history."

www.quora.(*)archal-civilization-in-history