Posts from [PROJECT] History Lessons

But the problem is that it was men who performed the protective function. And whoever has the club in their hands is in charge.

That's a solid point.

That's how it was until the 20th century, roughly. Then a woman took the club and said, "I'll do it myself." "OK," the man replied and turned into a vegetable.
But seriously, matriarchy today is more of a trend towards the masculinization of women and the feminization of men. A natural imbalance that indicates the degeneration of civilization. Why natural? I think this is about some kind of mutating phenomenon in human nature. I believe (imho) that the percentage of sex mutants in the world is now far more than 50% of the total world population. A kind of hermaphroditism without primary sex characteristics (and often without secondary ones), unlike classical hermaphroditism. There are many women with a clear masculine beginning (mental and sexual) and many men with the same feminine beginning. Hence, reverse marriages, where the woman dominates, she is also the breadwinner, and the man is a homemaker, taking care of the child. This, essentially anomalous, situation is gradually becoming the norm.
The cause of this may be a violation of the ecological balance, as well as the radioactive background, affecting the genetic structure of humanity.
IMHO

I apologize for the off-topic

Ganymed - I completely agree... I think it's more accurate to call it emancipation rather than matriarchy... everything is good in moderation. In ancient times, there was a matriarchy, they worshipped the Great Goddess-Mother - and everything was fine until the cult of Zeus appeared))) what happened next - the decline of the Roman Empire, but that was not the only reason.

No, there was no matriarchy! Worshipping a goddess is one thing, and women holding power is quite another. Worshipping goddesses is a necessity related to fertility. But, if you pay attention, in all cultures on Earth, the Earth (the feminine principle) is subordinate to the Sky (the masculine principle). This alone disproves the assumption that there was a matriarchy in ancient times.

Hmm... you can argue about this for a long time, but I think it's pointless to argue about whether male or female is superior. If you think about it, in all religions there is a male – the supreme deity – and next to him, a female deity.

I don't disagree. But there was no matriarchy. And this has been proven by reputable researchers. I personally learned about this back in my first year of university.

But the problem is that it was men who performed the security function. And whoever has the club in their hands is the leader.

Some insects (like ants) have a "position" in their colonies – a guard, a fighter. But that doesn't make him the "brain" of the community...:smile32:

Added 2 minutes later

But there was no matriarchy. And this has been proven by authoritative researchers.

Tell me more.
And then, I heard that in some backward tribes in our time, matriarchy still exists... although I don't remember the exact names of the tribes and their geographical location. I didn't think it would be useful.

But there was no matriarchy. And this has been proven by reputable researchers.

Could you provide more details? Or a link to where all this evidence is presented? I've always been sure that matriarchy existed... :confused:

I'll take a look and search for my old lectures. I seem to have misplaced my notebook somewhere too; I didn't think I would have to talk about this. But I want to quote a work published back in 1986 edited by Yu.V. Bromley (History of Primitive Society. Era of the Primitive Tribal Community. Moscow, 1986, pages 368-369). In response to claims about matriarchy based on the discovery of female sculptures: "Firstly, numerous ethnographic materials allow for a wide variety of interpretations of these figurines, even if one proceeds from their cult purpose. Secondly, the emergence of belief in a female deity as a symbol of fertility is possible even in a patrilineal society, examples of which are known among Papuans. Finally, thirdly, there are no rigid links between the high social status of women and the form of tribal organization."

So, the Tatars were still protecting the Russians. From the Germans?
And Mamai betrayed the Horde, right?

Mamai was just an ordinary usurper, and there have always been plenty of them. He simply became the de facto ruler of the Horde after the Great Turmoil. But he was never a Khan. However, Tokhtamysh was. And that's why, at the Battle of Kulikovo, the following actually happened. A loyal vassal defeated the usurper and thus helped the legitimate ruler to take the throne. And Mamai, realizing the precariousness of his position, sought alliances with everyone, including the Lithuanians and Genoese. In fact, there were few Tatars and Mongols in his army.

I don't disagree with that. But matriarchy didn't exist. And this has been proven by reputable researchers. I personally learned about it back in my first year of university.

Well, there wasn't one in Ancient Greece, that's clear. But it existed in the early stages of the primitive communal system. And I also clearly remember that we were told about it in our first year. And it wasn't expressed in worshiping a female goddess, but in completely different things. Such as the dominant position of women (tracing lineage and inheritance through the maternal line, a husband from another tribe would move in to live with his wife's tribe, etc.).
And in general, it's logical... there is a word for patriarchy (not just for nothing).

Well, now they tell me that some Fomenko has distorted history, claiming that there was no Mongol Yoke, that there were several Ivan the Terribles, and so on. I don't know Fomenko. I know Professor Orlov.

There's this one guy... His last name has become a household name. Now, all sorts of nonsense is referred to as "Fomenkovshchina."

Fomenko is a mathematician who wanted to gain fame as a historian. Since everyone here is an expert in three things: history, religion, and medicine, he decided not to be left behind. He claims that professionals don't know anything, and those who do know remain silent. He intends to reveal the ultimate truth to everyone. I wouldn't recommend reading his work – it's utter nonsense. Apparently, he decided to cover up his mistakes with lengthy formulas, hoping that no one will bother reading them. As for matriarchy, it never existed. Bromley proved that. Tracing kinship through the maternal line does not necessarily mean matriarchy. Take Israel, for example. Kinship is traced through the mother there.

Fomenko is 100% right. Unfortunately, nowadays history is being written (and most importantly, published!!!) by anyone who feels like it and believes they are opening everyone's eyes. It's better not to even analyze their "works," otherwise... it will definitely end badly. You won't find any references to sources or even the slightest hint of understanding history in general. For such "authors," history is something like a fantasy world. I won't argue about the matriarchy, as I don't have the opportunity to delve into it in detail right now. But I still think it existed somewhere in the archaic period. However, it was underdeveloped, and that's why it was replaced by a more "productive" patriarchy. P.S. AlexeyPank, how was your exam session? Did it end?