You seem to me to label any society that isn't dominated by men as a matriarchy, but I think that is an over simplification. I also read you as seeing every conquest of a country (of which there have been countless during history) as owing to being lead by a matriachy.
incorrect reverse logic, not every conquered nation was a matriarchy, but every matriarchy was conquered. not the same


Interesting. What statistics are those?
from upenn: http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys..._Happiness.pdf
freakonomics: http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/10/...en-so-unhappy/
huffington post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus..._b_289511.html

What evidence? This is the first I have heard of this, especially since polygamy is often not even voluntary for women.
That, to the best of knowledge, also goes for the mormons, where men marry several much younger women, often under 15. There was a program with Dr Phil I saw one boring day in which he complained bitterly that nobody interveded, though a significant number of brides were under age.
well that's just a crock of shit. contrary to what some people think, women cannot be forced into marriage. not even the mormons do that, as they give the girl the chance to leave the religion at any time (furthermore, they often force to leave for a period of time around 16 so she can decide what she truly wants for herself). John Stossel had a feature about polygamy and sister wives, and they seemed happy and even advocating it. but here's some evo psych for you:
we are a historically polygamous psecies, geneticists have shown we are decided from 2 to three times as many women as men. think about it in these terms:
would the average woman want to be ryan reynald's third wife? or john smiths first and only wife? i rest my case
and before you say "that'sdumb, nuh-uh!" http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...it-polygamy-an it's completely true
furthermore, dr phil is not there to actually confront any real issues, he's there to entertain and get ratings, most of which are from women