Would love to hear input on this from all angles. I posit that it is likely that we actually live in a matriarchy due to the set up of the legal system, the deference women get in in social settings and the extents that society goes to rid women of accountability for their choices and actions.

There are actual systemic biases and discriminations set up in our governance that disadvantage men.
Any social setting that men try and set apart as a place for men is eventually forced to include women (or at least highly pressured to do so)
Education is set up to favor feminine attributes over masculine attributes.
Abortion, no fault divorce and the heavy tendency to favor women in family court takes many consequences out of the picture for women. This has lead to (iirc) ~70% of all divorces being initiated by women.
Female domestic abusers are very rarely held to account for their actions. (see property destruction, physical abuse and mental abuse towards men that does not get prosecuted)
There are vast sums of money set aside by the government at all levels to help single moms and victims of domestic abuse. This does not exist the other way.
There are more facets to this, but this is probably a good starting place...


Could it be claimed rightfully that society has shifted to being matriarchical?

It would make sense considering how ****ed society is..

I wouldn't call it matriarchal, but there's definitely a female "privilege" in the US as OP gave numerous examples.

If we did, Hillary and Kamala would not have been so unceremoniously tossed to the curb.

Quote:

---

Education is set up to favor feminine attributes over masculine attributes.

---

This is a favorite topic of Jordan Peterson.

1919: we gave up alcohol
1920: we gifted women the vote
1933: women's voting patterns drove us back to drinking

Would they have even sniffed the stage if we didn't? Neither of them are impressive figures and failed up the ranks due in part to their sex

I think mature democracies and Republics trend that way, at least in Western cultures, but possibly also in others. Females are the social power in a stable society and culture, as they tend to motivate and give purpose to most male behavior and also to be the driver of organization of social order once the threat of violence is diminished. It almost seems like the more dense and interdependent population becomes, the more females passively dominate it. There are likely some deep biological reasons why this is. Females tend to be driven to secure resources, establish a means for security, and organize and compete socially, whereas males tend towards very small scale personal relationships, status amongst peers, and developing a competency or mastery of skill or ability.

Females are culturally and socially more valuable in most societies as the ability to birth and raise children is supremely valued as well. Males are perhaps, bigger, stronger, and dominant as decisive leaders, but they aren't the motivation for action in and of themselves for the most part. All together this results in an accumulation of subtle and overt deference to female influence and a large number of subtle cultural and social privileges that might not be apparent at first glance but become evident over time. There is a risk in this as an excessively female dominated polity can become smotheringly so.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

Would they have even sniffed the stage if we didn't? Neither of them are impressive figures and failed up the ranks due in part to their sex

---

The Democrats were dying to try a female candidate and thought Hilary would win in a landslide both on name recognition and getting women to vote by the bucketful. They miscalculated badly and never understood just how unliked she was.

They didn't have any choice in Kamala. Once Donna Brazile started making phone calls and the Sunday TV rounds followed by the idiots Monday morning on the View talking about "most qualified and don't you dare pass over a sitting VP woman of color because if you do we won't show up to vote" they were stuck with her. Chuckle and Nancy tried to stifle it but two days after Joe bailed and wrote his letter of support (after his first letter ignored her) they were dead ducks. I have never seen two seasoned politicos get railroaded so fast. Like them or not they are both very savvy political animals and neither saw this coming.

Mathguy64 said:

---

If we did, Hillary and Kamala would not have been so unceremoniously tossed to the curb.

---

"women understand women and they hate each other!"

2 data points do not an argument win.

It is obvious that there are spheres of matriarchal control within our current culture / society. Schools, Media, Social Media, & HR departments being obvious examples. And even those apparatuses which remain patriarchal have heavily feminized (deference to political correctness & shifts in focuses).

Hell, ESPN used to show sports and has now devolved into "the view" with a patina of sports. Disney, despite having male CEOs, feminized ESPN, Star Wars, and Indiana Jones irreparably.

In part due to the massive spending imbalance between the sexes society caters predominately to women.

I would posit that, legal/judiciary is not the only branch of governance, and that though a singular branch might be weighted there… not all of them are.

Further, I'd argue that the pendulum swings both ways and what is currently far leaning one way, will always end up far leaning the other way… so on, so forth. Unless it's met by unceasing resistance or complete abandon… which I find to be unlikely given human history. I'd argue we're in the middle of a course correction right now.

All true...but would they have even been considered if they were not women? We know Kamala's "talents" that got her foot in the door. Hilary was a radical that groomed her way into power through her husband and family connections. But the driving force was that they were women...

The simplest test on whether we're in a patriarchy or a matriarchy is how conflicts play out. Which tools are allowed is a function of which sex sets the societal standards.

Masculine aggression is heavily penalized (physical violence) while feminine aggression (gossiping, shaming, & rallying) is ubiquitous.

Equal rights + simps = matriarchy.

look at the recent accommodations to voting in the legislature aimed at women because of maternity leave concerns. Also pointing out the justice system includes the other branches...the judiciary is just using the laws put in place and signed by the legislative and the executive.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

The simplest test on whether we're in a patriarchy or a matriarchy is how conflicts play out. Which tools are allowed is a function of which sex sets the societal standards.

Masculine aggression is heavily penalized (physical violence) while feminine aggression (gossiping, shaming, & rallying) is ubiquitous.

---

Taking averages:
Men are superior in physical might.
Women are superior in emotional persuasion.

The male advantage of might has been removed but the female advantage of emotional persuasion has not.

Therefore, women remain armed with their most potent survival skill and men are disarmed.

Interestingly physical strength is largely irrelevant in modern western survival but emotional manipulation and persuasion is more important than ever. This gives women a natural advantage in modern society over men.

For those reasons, women living in western democracies have it much easier than men. They may not perceive it that way, but their biological predisposition for empathy and emotional relationship building is more useful than men's physical strength.

Fact that women make 80% of consumer decisions also causes a trend in that direction.

Don't forget how movies, tv and overall culture depict husbands as the idiots and the wives as the brains and ones that are in control.

Yes. This is called "The Longhouse"

Mathguy64 said:

---

If we did, Hillary and Kamala would not have been so unceremoniously tossed to the curb.

---

Oh contraire....

Hillary won the popular vote.
Kamala competed despite 1) hiding out the entire time, 2) the media dragging her across the finish line, and 3) being as dumb as Rhino balls.

Females have priv.

Men have stopped being men over the last 25-30 years.
Maybe it is low T or whatever, but I rarely meet a man who is manly. When I talk about some manly decisions I have taken which go against the grain, the same men look at me in horror. Example is not giving my kids smart phones until 2nd year in high school. 1st year was just a flip phone. And banning TikTok and Instagram for my kids while in middle and high school. The "men" in my circle were shocked and looked at me as if I was committing child abuse by saying no. All of them boast about how they are slaves of their wives ("happy wife, happy life").

I blame men. Start manning up, stop kowtowing to public opinion, do the right thing that your heart tells you. Until that happens, women will rule you.

It is always the fault of the MEN in POWER. Whether it is corporations or government who makes and enforces the laws. Always virtue signaling men who have ruined society.

Women have always had a ton of power. What kind of power has often changed over time.

Think about the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Men held the power of government and business.

Women held almost absolute power over society.

Today is more intermingled to a degree, but women still have much more pull over society then men do.,

All that said, women still possess one power which is the only undefeated power since time immemorial.

bmks270 said:

---

Equal rights + simps = matriarchy.

---

Most men these days are simps. Many are proud of it.

Gigem_94 said:

---

Don't forget how movies, tv and overall culture depict husbands as the idiots and the wives as the brains and ones that are in control.

---

I called my mom a few hours ago and this topic came up and I brought up what you say above. The man in TV shows are always doofuses who cannot do anything right and his wife is the smart mature one who saves him from himself.

In reality in most homes things are the opposite. But society plays shocked if you say it.

Mathguy64 said:

---

If we did, Hillary and Kamala would not have been so unceremoniously tossed to the curb.

---

More people voted for Hilary than Trump.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

If we did, Hillary and Kamala would not have been so unceremoniously tossed to the curb.

---

More people voted for Hilary than Trump.

---

Not the ones that mattered.

Mandatory car safety seats prevented 140 births for every life they saved.

Safetyism sucks the life from our culture, figuratively and literally. pic.twitter.com/lLVDpvQZJC

— Dr. Insensitive Jerk (@DrInsensitive) May 11, 2025

Another interesting twist on this issue regarding the decline in birthrate.

We are in a patriarchy. It should be noted we are more so under a senior patriarchy then at any other time in history. Meaning men in 60s-70s are in much more power relative to 20-50s men.

Why is that?

1. Improved health.
2. Jobs being more position head / delegating allowing for more senior leadership.
3. People aren't handing off responsibility to a son so there is no desire to step down before health necessitates it
4. Increased pleonexia
5. Decrease emphasis on family and society. People don't care about their community and making it better.

Under this structure, I'd argue, older men in power will seek to maintain their power. The best way to do that is to inhibit the abilities of the younger men. It is a sign of a very ill soceity.

Well, if we are in a matriarchy I can tell you who is ultimately going to cause the pendulum to swing the other way.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I think mature democracies and Republics trend that way, at least in Western cultures, but possibly also in others. Females are the social power in a stable society and culture, as they tend to motivate and give purpose to most male behavior and also to be the driver of organization of social order once the threat of violence is diminished. It almost seems like the more dense and interdependent population becomes, the more females passively dominate it. There are likely some deep biological reasons why this is. Females tend to be driven to secure resources, establish a means for security, and organize and compete socially, whereas males tend towards very small scale personal relationships, status amongst peers, and developing a competency or mastery of skill or ability.

Females are culturally and socially more valuable in most societies as the ability to birth and raise children is supremely valued as well. Males are perhaps, bigger, stronger, and dominant as decisive leaders, but they aren't the motivation for action in and of themselves for the most part. All together this results in an accumulation of subtle and overt deference to female influence and a large number of subtle cultural and social privileges that might not be apparent at first glance but become evident over time. There is a risk in this as an excessively female dominated polity can become smotheringly so.

---

The following is a generality:

Most men, deep down, don't actually want the responsibility of leader, despite their capacity to handle it. Most women want the leadership role, despite in their inferior ability (generally speaking) to handle the stress of it.

With that in mind, when there is clear and present danger, women are intelligent enough to let the men lead. Men, having no competition for the role, do their job. But when the imminent dangers are removed and we start discussing voting rights, abortion, etc., women are desperate to take the lead. Men, not wanting the responsibility in the first place, acquiesce.

Now there are obvious examples to cut against this mold, but this is generally true. One of my favorites is Joan of Arc. But she wasn't some crazy feminist that could do anything a boy could do. The facts are that she never picked up a weapon. She inspired men to do their damn job and go win the damn war.

So, to the OP, we aren't in a matriarchal society (yet). We're just in a society where men are ready and willing to abdicate their leadership.

Let's just say I'm glad I have daughters instead of sons for their own sake.

(Well that and being a girl dad is awesome, but that's off topic.)

texagbeliever said:

---

We are in a patriarchy. It should be noted we are more so under a senior patriarchy then at any other time in history. Meaning men in 60s-70s are in much more power relative to 20-50s men.

Why is that?

1. Improved health.
2. Jobs being more position head / delegating allowing for more senior leadership.
3. People aren't handing off responsibility to a son so there is no desire to step down before health necessitates it
4. Increased pleonexia
5. Decrease emphasis on family and society. People don't care about their community and making it better.

Under this structure, I'd argue, older men in power will seek to maintain their power. The best way to do that is to inhibit the abilities of the younger men. It is a sign of a very ill soceity.

---

You are right that older men have the power.
But older men love young women. Powerful old men (usually white) have nothing left to prove, so they move into the virtue signaling move. In other words, they get wokey and DEI-ey. People like Jamie Dimon who is a white rich old coot but still wants DEI until the trend changed.

So ultimately rich old men have sold out to young women, and feminists in order to get praise and brownie points.

Look at Bill Bellichick. That chick makes him do stupid things at his age for instagram. I am almost a generation younger and I won't do this.

Will WFH and flex work schedules, combined with both spouses working, combined with Gen Z and Millennial males trending solidly right, end up being the catalyst that resets this countries arped path? I know that thanks to only having to commute into town two days a week, I am MUCH more present and involved with my child than I would have been pre-Covid. At the very least, I have two more hours of family time 3 days per week. That is pretty damn significant.

I saw a stat the other day that millennial dads are spending THREE TIMES as much time with their children than their fathers spent with them. That 43% of fathers in 1982 admitted to never changing a diaper, while this number is down to 3% now.

I would like to think that more present fathers will make a difference.

The Banned said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I think mature democracies and Republics trend that way, at least in Western cultures, but possibly also in others. Females are the social power in a stable society and culture, as they tend to motivate and give purpose to most male behavior and also to be the driver of organization of social order once the threat of violence is diminished. It almost seems like the more dense and interdependent population becomes, the more females passively dominate it. There are likely some deep biological reasons why this is. Females tend to be driven to secure resources, establish a means for security, and organize and compete socially, whereas males tend towards very small scale personal relationships, status amongst peers, and developing a competency or mastery of skill or ability.

Females are culturally and socially more valuable in most societies as the ability to birth and raise children is supremely valued as well. Males are perhaps, bigger, stronger, and dominant as decisive leaders, but they aren't the motivation for action in and of themselves for the most part. All together this results in an accumulation of subtle and overt deference to female influence and a large number of subtle cultural and social privileges that might not be apparent at first glance but become evident over time. There is a risk in this as an excessively female dominated polity can become smotheringly so.

---

The following is a generality:

Most men, deep down, don't actually want the responsibility of leader, despite their capacity to handle it. Most women want the leadership role, despite in their inferior ability (generally speaking) to handle the stress of it.

---

I don't agree.
Men just deal with leadership and grow into it sooner or later. No option. Women hate it. They even hate having to decide where to go to dinner, they want their husbands to decide. And sometimes even read their minds.

Or maybe I understood you wrong?
Women don't want it because they love it. They want it because they want to show up other women and boast about "girl power" and things like that. If that is what you meant, I agree with you.

But you say men don't want the responsibility, I don't agree.