yes i did read it and i've read quite a bit on matriarchal, matrilineal and matrilocal societies. i love your assumptions. guess what. not everyone who reads the same things as you jumps to the same conclusions you do.
i don't care how "not opressive" matriarchal societies are, it's still leadership by one sex. it's still a hierarchy, and it's still hypocritical and wrong.
i don't have to prove that feminists want to institute a matriarchal society, you said it yourself.
and frankly, i think abandoning a man and leaving him without a home is pretty opressive. and that's beside the fact that i don't think sexual freedom for anyone (as you describe it) is a good thing. but then i'm probably the only non fundie who thinks that.
matrilocal only means that the family lives where the mother's family lives... even the hebrews started out matrilocal. matrilocal doesn't have anything to do with this.tons of american indian tribes are matrilocal. congratulations.
moreover, i'd argue that your discussion of the evils of patriarchal societies are exaggerated. while i really don't feel like bothering to find it, i'm sure there are examples of patriarchal societies which are even less opressive than your dear little pet nations of matriarchs.
oh yes. and these crazy broads? i don't afford them any respect because they're all alive. except, i'm sure, there were some killed at kent state or some other protest and maybe some who did too much drugs during the late sixties and early seventies. you know. just like everyone else.
i'm tired of your self-righteous condemnation of everyone who doesn't agree with you. i hate everyone. you only hate people who call you on your hypocrisy.