Matriarachal societies did exist, but they were all stone age, tribal, tyrannies.
Any technological advancement beyond skin tent villages requires men for a simple and, now, very obvious reason; women care more about getting along and men care more about doing things.
Both of these are important but for something like a city to exist there needs to be tasks that are completed and done well. At the hunter/gatherer level most people could survive on their own, at least for a while, so the value in leadership is keeping people together instead of the strong going off on their own. At the city level, people are not able to do better on their own because there are now specialised roles that, in cooperation, produce far more than could be done individually so very few even want to leave and it's usually only the low status that would even consider it.
Ironically, even thiugh they don't care as much about people being "nice", men are better at organising and/or enforcing cooperation than women. When you have a society as complex as ours, lack of cooperation quickly becomes catastrophic.
Fair, I would say that’s stretching the definition of society a little thin though, almost every matriarchy collapsed within a few generations.
Women are more interested in maintaining a social hierarchy over a functional society. That’s why high functioning societies left women in charge of household management and communal social interactions. In Ancient Greece women were in charge of the household slaves while men maintained the state and in the antebellum south women were also in charge of the household slaves while men maintained the state. Same with western society throughout with how church functions worked, women’s were the drivers of social aspects and in charge of women and children while men maintained the actual church and pulpit.
Matriarachal societies did exist, but they were all stone age, tribal, tyrannies.
Any technological advancement beyond skin tent villages requires men for a simple and, now, very obvious reason; women care more about getting along and men care more about doing things.
Both of these are important but for something like a city to exist there needs to be tasks that are completed and done well. At the hunter/gatherer level most people could survive on their own, at least for a while, so the value in leadership is keeping people together instead of the strong going off on their own. At the city level, people are not able to do better on their own because there are now specialised roles that, in cooperation, produce far more than could be done individually so very few even want to leave and it's usually only the low status that would even consider it.
Ironically, even thiugh they don't care as much about people being "nice", men are better at organising and/or enforcing cooperation than women. When you have a society as complex as ours, lack of cooperation quickly becomes catastrophic.
I know you meant tents made out of animal hides but skin tent villages sounds like something straight out of MotherHorseEyes.
I'm not ruling anything out, these people literally worship animals.
Fair, I would say that’s stretching the definition of society a little thin though, almost every matriarchy collapsed within a few generations.
Women are more interested in maintaining a social hierarchy over a functional society. That’s why high functioning societies left women in charge of household management and communal social interactions. In Ancient Greece women were in charge of the household slaves while men maintained the state and in the antebellum south women were also in charge of the household slaves while men maintained the state. Same with western society throughout with how church functions worked, women’s were the drivers of social aspects and in charge of women and children while men maintained the actual church and pulpit.