It's always the patriarchal conquerors like the Ancient Romans or the Ancient Greeks that they idolize and never the people like, say, the Picts or the Celts or the Gaul that rebelled against the brutal Roman empire. It's never the Scottish or the Irish heroes who fought back against the British Empire that followed in Rome's footsteps. None of them probably even know who Boudica is.
Ironically, a lot of the stuff you could call "white culture" was burnt at the stake, banned, brutalized, and literally demonized by the Empires that chuds think are so civilized. A lot of pagan culture was lost to time, or warped by Roman 'scholars' for propaganda purposes. If they truly cared about their 'culture', then "Muh Christian trad wife' would be seen as killing the identity of pagan women, rather than an aspiration.
We have functionally no evidence at all for what any European culture was like pre-Indo-European migration. I'd like to know what reason we have to think they were a matriarchal society.
We know that the Minoans had lots of images of women, and that those women were frequently depicted as high status, but that's not really evidence that the society itself was matriarchal.
Were the women depicted regular people? Priestesses? Rulers? Deities? We don't know. But there's a lot of space between "not as patriarchal as their neighbours" and "A Matriarchal society".
Archaeology without an associated written record is necessarily speculation, and while we can always interpret more interesting conclusions from them, they're not any more valid than the less interesting ones that can be supported on the same evidence.
Minoan dudes were simply paypigs who loved making art of their findoms.
yea we do, the Etruscans. Romans would write about how embarrassing it was that their women were full equals and stuff
The Etruscan language was not Indo-European, but all historical accounts we have of them are all well past the Indo-European migration.
So? That would still mean their culture was more reflective of the native Europeans