I find it very odd that the Iroquois allowed women to elect chiefs. Were they based or cringe?
I find it very odd that the Iroquois allowed women to elect chiefs. Were they based or cringe?
I find it very odd that the Iroquois allowed women to elect chiefs. Were they based or cringe?
I read this on a feminist forum
how america was based on matriarchal political plans.
the same with the Basques, where they say that they were matrilineal and their women had power in society, mainly political, and that they were really "the mistresses of the house".
Well I really don't know.
but I assume that when I went to the Basque country, I saw some matriarchs. I ended up obeying her LOL.
but I regret it.
Never mind the voting rights, post the iroquis constitution in the whole if you have it.
This is based because it's a stable system.
Who's going to retaliate against a group of women for not electing them? Nobody, that would make you look like a b***h.
Whereas retribution against men for spurning your leadership could absolutely happen, and split an entire tribe.
Lol
Look at this matriarchal
Prove me wrong.
You can't, or you'll look like a b***h for hitting a woman and you're probably about to get jumped by all her homies.
Seems like a good idea until you start noticing that they only elect the most handsome candidate during each election
source now
IIRC they tended to respectfully take their husband's advice into due consideration, though there is at least one famous instance when they didn't for reasons.
Many NA Indians were originally open to intermarrying with Euros, they didn't really see it as being any different than marrying into another friendly tribe. They would even adopt war captives into the tribe on occasion.
It happened somewhat regularly in the less autistically Puritan areas of the British territory, but much more regularly in French territory.
Why do I need to prove myself wrong? you are wrong just looking at the historical context.
This rubbish "model" is so stable that it has never been applied continuously in history....
And regarding your argument about "not attacking" because it seems bad, you realize that the Indians didn't have the same view that we have today in relation to women, don't you? what I mean to say;
no one would be arrested or tried for "sexism". Have you ever read what the Indians did among them and what they did with the captured white women? moronic.
the fact that there are women in leadership positions for any reason, and especially involving tribal leadership, IS AN incredible REASON to attack them.
do you know why? because the attackers would know better than to shitty cucks who choose women and were probably weak and effeminate.
Indians were sexist, not that that's a bad thing.
I don't really understand your post, but my intuition says you're trying to say something moronic
>the iroquois clan mothers allowed whites to settle with them for BWC
can't make this shit up
I grew up in a matriarchal environment, and honestly??
It's nothing like what they tell us and all the evils they tell us about being women, I don't see any.
maybe you guys were just following the feminist path?
What?
Even in our feminist society, I don't think this is common.
tell me more
The meaning of matriarchy?? refers to a social system where women hold primary power and leadership positions, contrasting with the common patriarchal structure. In matriarchal societies, women often play central roles in decision-making, governance and family matters.
Based
Sabe quem é melhor que você? Sua mãe seu Otávio.
>y u no post Iroquis constitution?
it had to do with clan control of territory, however like every other historic "matriarchy" the women had only ceremonial power, the real authority was the warriors
Still being a matriarchal cuck
Muh women leadership n shue
So that's a no on the Iroquis Constitution posting, then?