For the record, “another white guy” was a pretty dumb turn of phrase. But as I am myself of the Caucasian persuasion, I claim the right to use the expression.

Also, contrary to your assertions about “modern society” and “nature”, I quote Aristotle, “Man(kind) is by nature a political animal.” and that was more than a few centuries ago. I think it is pretty obvious to most people that modern society is not about raw, physical struggle but is political in nature, unless one goes around mugging people on the sidewalk or is a professional fighter.

The most relevant passage that rendered the entire article meaningless is right at the very beginning: “For the last century, historians, anthropologists and other scholars have searched both human history and the continents to find a matriarchy — a society where the power was in the hands of women, not men.”

That’s really all you need to know: by virtue of their extreme rarity, these (alleged) matriarchies simply do not exist anywhere near the numbers that can be classified as common or workable in nature. They are simply curious anomalies.

That whole example (from a woman, BTW) actually came off like some desperate mad scramble to find something - ANYTHING - that fits her notion of what her perfect matriarchal society should be like. Very ideological (i.e., feminist) in the way she presents her findings.

And anyway, even granting the truthfulness of this example, this really has nothing to do with the reality of modern western society today - or just reality, period. Of course males are dominant - they are stronger and more intelligent as a group than females are. So naturally, men will dominate. That is a function of nature, not ideology or politics as the women’s movement would have you believe. It is a core aspect not only of Korean/Asian society or of western societies, but of ALL societies. Take away that aspect and you destroy society.

. . . “Neither male nor female rule is possible because of the Minangkabau belief that decision-making should be by consensus,” Dr. Sanday said. “In answer to my persistent questions about ‘who rules,’ I was often told that I was asking the wrong question. Neither sex rules, it was explained to me, because males and females complement one another. As with everything else, the Minangkabau have a proverb to describe the partnership relationship between the sexes: ‘Like the skin and nail of the fingertip.’”

Your contention is anti-social, flawed, untenable and does not help “tiqtoRI”s sense of well-being either.

Patriarchy, as a cultural and societal norm, best ensures and delivers long term stability, human decency and widespread well-being amongst the population at large.

It is contemptible that women are described in (undeserved) glowing terms in such a way that men are simultaneously defiled and degraded - it frankly reeks of self-hatred. Thatcher, BTW, is not held in high esteem by many British conservatives. She once famously said that ‘”there is no such thing as society” - and she ran the country with that in mind.

She was extremely narrow minded who cared about nothing except making sure the books balanced. For her, money defined everything - morality, honor and the definition of self. The ethics of me, me, me, me. She was a zealous disciple of monetarism: for her, it was her ethics, defining everything and for all time, from soul to bank balance. And it hugely strengthened the dreadfully mistaken belief that women could not be fulfilled people if they chose family and motherhood as the cornerstone of their lives.

When a political party or a nation chooses a woman as its leader, it has lost its soul and has sold its integrity to the pimps of political correctness.

And the more influence women gain in whatever political, academic, technological, economic or artistic field you can think of - the greater will be its decline.

And I’m just as suspicious of Hollywood flakiness as you are…overall, the movie was kind of silly, but it had its moments, and was much more a standard Chris Rock vehicle than a standard Hollywood flick.

“kind of like the Chris Rock character in Head of State, who’s selected by his party to be its first African American presidential candidate, but only because it’s assumed the party’s going to lose anyhow, so he could be safely shunted aside after the election loss, and replaced with another white guy.”

Let me guess, as a Hollywood picture, the offending party was those evil Republicans, right? And even if it were the Democrats, the story still plays to the leftist mindset of the ‘evil rich white patriarchary’.