One of the most vexing questions facing Women in both the Feminist and Matriarchy movements is, how to keep men from taking over once again when they are no longer in power? The prevailing view that men are inherently dangerous and always will be, and thus will need to be controlled somehow or else they will inevitably run amuck, is not one that can simply be handwaved or wished away. The problem has a name, and its name is MUTINY. So how do you do it? Psychology has an answer.
Here are the three, albeit very counterintuitive, "cheat codes":
1. Men need to THINK that they are free, regardless of whether they actually are.
2. No taxation without representation.
3. Bread and circuses galore.
All three should become very obvious to any serious student of history, and all three need to be maintained in perpetuity in order for it to work.
The first one can be seen throughout recorded history. It's self-evident and self-explanatory. Google "they thought they were free" to see the darker side of it, of course. But that darker side has really only been seen with men in charge, that is, with men using it to control other men along with the Women. Either way, it works, for good or ill, for better or worse.
In other words, men would need to have JUST enough freedom to think they are free. And both Women and men would need to be treated as sovereign individuals over their own bodies and minds. Anything less would be uncivilized.
The second one has also been seen repeatedly to one degree or another, and not just because it's catchy and it rhymes. Rather, the LACK of it is what often leads to mutiny, especially when combined with desperation. From the American Revolution to the French Revolution and so on, it has happened before and will happen again if and when the circumstances are right. But as long as men think they are being represented, and that they are getting something in return for their tax dollars, they will be willing to pay fairly high taxes, as we see in the Nordic countries (where taxes are very high, are collected simply and relatively painlessly, and they get very robust social welfare states in return, with very little to no poverty). And even in some indigenous Matriarchal societies past and present, they have men as (puppet figurehead) "chiefs" to give at least the illusory perception of male representation, and they are all hired and fired by the Women elders. (Hey, as long as men are not in any positions of real power, why not?)
(That said, too many male puppet figurehead "chiefs" or representatives can potentially be a problem simply by sheer strength in numbers, so unless one lives in an indigenous culture that has been doing it for literally centuries or more, having all or most representatives being male has the risk of backfiring. For everyone else, aim for a majority of representatives being Women.)
Again, for men, perception is everything. While I once thought it would be a good idea to openly tax men at higher rates than Women, I realize now that would be a much too vulgar display of power that would shatter such a perception. Best to tax both genders equally, at least for the non-rich, but to distribute the benefits more heavily towards Women, especially Mothers. Either way, the NET result is effectively the same over the lifecycle.
The third one is so obvious that one may overlook it, but it is true nonetheless. From most famously in the Roman Empire in reality to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World in science fiction, one of the most effective and time-tested ways to prevent revolts or mutinies is cheap and readily available entertainment plus some form of dole. And that only becomes more urgent in an increasingly high-tech and automated society where men become increasingly redundant. In the 21st century and beyond, that can take the form of Universal Basic Income (UBI) and related ideas, as well as the emerging trend for the many dead and dying shopping malls to be converted primarily to entertainment centers for everyone. In fact, in the wake of the ongoing "retail apocalypse", any currently successful mall has become at least partially if not largely entertainment-based these days (see The Mall of America in Minnesota, West Edmonton Mall in Alberta, Canada, and even smaller ones like the Palisades Center in West Nyack, New York).
(About that last bit, I recall that the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder had mentioned something like that in The Future of Male-Female Relationships, Part I.)
On a related note, in a world where in the not too distant future, Women become the richer gender, and inheritances eventually become largely (if not entirely) Matrilineal, it will eventually get to the point where the only rich men left will be lottery winners. So keeping some form of lottery in existence (hopefully with somewhat better odds than currently!) would be a form of noblesse oblige for Women to allow for the increasingly redundant gender, that will keep the fellas somewhat motivated, I guess.
(Who needs a "man tax" when you have the "idiot tax"? Also known as the lottery.)
Proactively create a society where rebellion is unthinkable, unprofitable, uncool, and impolitic in the first place, and there will be little or no need to reactively put down any kind of revolts or mutinies, in other words. It will not work on 100% of men, of course, but it will work on at least 80-90% of them, on both a small and a large scale, and those few "mavericks" and rogues who remain impervious to such control would be greatly outnumbered and outgunned, and thus rendered nugatory, God willing.
This is NOT to say that it should be all carrot and no stick, of course. Granted, a combination of both to some degree is probably necessary. But comfort truly is the ultimate cage when you really think about it, hence why the ancient Stoic philosophers had such a strong dislike for staying in their comfort zones.
In contrast, other half-baked ideas such as Femdom (at least of the popular androcentric variety), bonoboism (or rather, faux-noboism), various forms of lifestylism, etc. simply don't SCALE very well. In fact, anything that falls into the trap of androcentrism (that is, centering males) as opposed to gynocentrism, is essentially guaranteed to fail in practice.
Let the planetary healing begin!
UPDATE: While males clearly do NOT belong at the center of society, one should note that all successful Matriarchal societies past and present (both human and otherwise) are also just as careful not to marginalize males TOO much either, lest they ultimately form their own insular and dangerous subculture (think the equivalent of the "alt-right", neonazis, MAGA, MRA/PUA/MGTOW, tradcons, GamerGate, 4chan, 8chan, and worse), to the utter net detriment of all concerned. It is a very fine line and a very delicate balancing act.
