this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
205 points (98.1% liked)

196

16542 readers
2521 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world 78 points 3 months ago (9 children)

How about a Me-archy were I, Roflmasterbigpimp, decide everything?

You can absolutely trust me with this much power.

[–] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 21 points 3 months ago

Sounds good to me

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

Im ok with this.

[–] magic_smoke@links.hackliberty.org 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

But how do we know that you're as big a pimp as you say you are?

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago

Look at the size of the cane!

[–] Maven@lemmy.zip 10 points 3 months ago

I'm on board

works with me

[–] Alsjemenou@lemy.nl 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)
[–] ZombieMantis@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

🫡 I serve the Roflmasterbigpimp Union.

[–] 6mementomorib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 3 months ago

i will absolutely take that over what we have now

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 58 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

Feminists see that the world is dominated almost entirely by a small handful of men who control all the news we consume, all the policy decisions that get made, and see all the massive inequality all throughout our society, and decide that the only problem with this is that the person that this power imbalance benefits isn't a woman.

Power corrupts, idiot. Dismantle the system. Don't paint it pink.

[–] dharmacurious 35 points 3 months ago

I, for one, will not rest until we have a woman committing genocides and atrocities. It's only right.

[–] Cattypat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 3 months ago (3 children)

if you genuinely think that feminism is "painting it pink" and not changing the system to be more equitable then youve been in the wrong circles, this meme is making fun of people like you who hold the belief that feminism is a matriarchal ideology rather than an egalitarian one

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You would be correct IF the post wasn't literally and directly asking for women to behave the same as all the problems in patriarchy...

Learn to fucking read before you put others down. The post is a joke but you unironically defending matriarchy based on a joke that is asking for toxic matriarchy is not a joke. Do better.

[–] tb_@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

Because subtext doesn't exist.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Ah yes, the famous strategy of making fun of an ideology that some (few) actually believe by saying outright that you believe it and giving no hint that you are joking

[–] Cattypat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 3 months ago (1 children)

the OP explicitly stated that they dont support the idea of an actual matriarchy and that this is just a shitpost in another comment, feel free to scroll down

this is being posted in a shitposting community

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago

I feel tis extremely clear given the context of where this is posted that OP just wants to get stepped on lol. It's hilarious that people are having actual discourse about a meme with a picture of a woman stepping on a man.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] araneae@beehaw.org 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The OP is merely a joke. Probably. 196 is an intensely left-leaning shitposting culture.

[–] luciole@beehaw.org 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Toying with Poe's law one shitpost at a time.

[–] araneae@beehaw.org 7 points 3 months ago

I would say Poe's Law isn't in effect here as the majority of 196 instance users (posters NOT lurkers) are anti-heirarchy as a soft prerequisite to jiving and understanding the humor.

I'll say this, have we tried Yassifying the Kleptocracy? I mean have we run the numbers????

[–] Clear@lemmy.blahaj.zone 56 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Genuine question, why peope don't want a patriarchal society but wish for a matriarchal one? Isn't it better to just have equality between all genders?

Don't get me wrong, I also don't want a patriarchal society and I understand what are the problems with it, but I never understood the desire to have a "main" gender

[–] i_love_FFT@lemmy.ml 64 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Form time to time, i encounter these dominant toxic woman. It's very rare compared to dominant toxic men, but just as annoying.

It's the toxic domination that we needs to be rid of.

[–] jawa21@lemmy.sdf.org 59 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah. This post should be only taken as a joke.

[–] Alsjemenou@lemy.nl 12 points 3 months ago

Too late. Already finished my dissertation on it.

[–] jawa21@lemmy.sdf.org 60 points 3 months ago

Honestly, this is just a joke of a post. You're right in that ideally there would be no gendered hierarchy at all. It just tends to be male gendered people that punch down.

[–] OrnateLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I haven't encountered people really advocating for a matriarchy (except the Barbie movie for some reason) so I don't really think it's a popular belief

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Wasn't the matriarchy in the barby movie done specifically to parody the patriarchy in real life?

They aren't so much advocating for it as using it as an obvious 1 to 1 allegory.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SomeGuy69@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I want all the privileges of women. Let women have the ones of men and have them find out it sucks. (Half sarcastically)

[–] flicker@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Both men and women have struggles. I wouldn't argue one has it worse than the other, just that both have problems and all those problems are awful. We should all be working to eliminate all of them.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 3 points 3 months ago

People who honestly think this don't know history.

Throughout history, society has, when having an excess of young men gone to war to control their numbers. Yes there have been other reasons but having an excess of young, low education men is extremely destabilizing.

Having a matriarchal society doesn't necessarily mean that the male part of the population is suppressed or oppressed, but the few people that I have met that honestly think that replacing the current patriarchal system with a similar matriarchal society, also what men to "pay" for the historical treatment of women.

Having a large group of men that are low education, is such a bad idea, they are easily radicalized to do terrible things. Men will continue to be physically stronger than women, this fact along with radicalization would lead to massive societal problems.

What we need is too move further towards equality and equity, unfortunately boys are not doing well in schools girls are out performing them all over the board.

As an aside, years ago (on reddit) in a movie discussion someone asked why we don't see any "crazy ex-boyfriend" movies? When we see movies poking fun at "crazy" ex-girlfriends.
One insightful commenter replied: it is because ex-girlfriends are generally not a physical threat; there isn't really anything a girl can do to a boy, whereas "crazy" ex-boyfriends are a massive physical threat and therefore not funny, in the real world many murders are motivated by emotional issues and these are overwhelmingly committed by males against females.

[–] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago

No gods, no mistresses (unless...?)

[–] Twinkletoes@lemm.ee 26 points 3 months ago

Step on me mommy

[–] SaltyIceteaMaker@lemmy.ml 23 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Yes mommy😩

(I am so glad that my online persona isn't really connected to my real persona. My digital footprint is diabolical)

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 10 points 3 months ago
[–] Alsjemenou@lemy.nl 3 points 3 months ago

You guys distinguish personas?

[–] Track_Shovel 18 points 3 months ago

I for one welcome our hot mommy overlords

[–] Masamune@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

To be honest, when I found out the patriarchy wasn't about horses, I lost interest anyway.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 months ago

It's the logical extension of JDVance's illogical proposition: Only people who are physically invested in the future by bearing children within their bodies deserve to rule. Those matriarchs can then decide to include people who would be capable of birthing children if they chose to do so. The mere sperm donors can shut up and do what they're told, as they frequently waste their potential contribution to the future on the couch or in a sock or the shower.

[–] ekZepp@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

We are all people = we are all idiots

[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is not what a matriarchy would look like at all, since men are physically stronger overall. A matriarchal society would have to be based on respect or some other acknowledgement by men that women should lead, since a domineering, physical, might-makes-right society would not end up this way. Not sure why or how (some) women feel the need to physically subjugate men and rule on men's terms, to use the rules of patriarchy to form a matriarchal society. It simply can't work.

[–] jawa21@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 3 months ago

As I have stated previously; this is a joke of post. No-one should expect this as a reality, nor ethically desire it.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

honestly I think historically it would have made way more sense for inheritance to go through tha matrilineal line. I mean even if everything remains the same it makes more sense for a guy to be king because his mother is part of the family line. I am in no way endorsing monarchy in modern times I am just talking about the past. It seems obvious to me that family lines are more definitive by who actually bore you as opposed to who possibly inseminated.

[–] bloop@eepy.express 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

@HubertManne @jawa21 matrilineal inheritance (including crowns) existed among booking and Asian cultures.
There's historical precedent for how it worked

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Counterpoint: Women were often seen as invaders to the family lineage because of heavily misogynistic ideas like the idea of all women being evil.

Yeah it doesn't make sense, but misogyny typically doesn't.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I totally get why it might not be so historically. I mean im talking to some degree about the definition of the bloodline so if it was a thing they could not be seen as invaders. Just seems like it makes so much more sense. Like you think about the crazy royal stuff about witnesses to consumation and it like just have witnesses the kid came out of the right womb.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

It might have more to do with men being able to safely father so many more children. 50ish seems the record for mothers, but fathers could have hundreds of kids. On top of that, maternal mortality rates were high, so a matriarch has a chance of dying with every kid.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SeattleRain@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

The US is already a matriarchy and I love it!

load more comments
view more: next ›