Why has it always been a patriarchy?

That depends how you measure equality, or what you mean by equality, surely.

Since we have had the general principle of equality in law, i think a large measure now, in most how people arrange their private and public life comes down to individual temperaments, characteristics, preferences and circumstances.

Of course i'm aware that women in some other cultures are genuinely oppressed - but I don't think that sex is necessarily the main locus of oppression in the West anymore.

I am, of course, of an age to be more than aware of all of those situations and restrictions you mention. I'm not discounting the gains made - but I am now re-evaluating, and have been for some time, my general 'ideology', if you like - so that it resembles more of practical, lived experience. In fact I've been re-assessing and re-evaluating all of my former political positions and certainties - a lot like Mary Harrington, even though she is younger than me we have a broadly similar trajectory.

It is O.k to say men "should" and women "should" - and of course most of us have been in a life long process of such negotiations and accommodations. I've been lucky to have been with a man that positively wanted children, and who has been a full-on/ hands on father - and yet still I'm the mother - and as a result I've felt, quite naturally I feel, interest in, and attention to the sorts of details that he hasn't naturally felt or had a facility for.

We have had fairly gendered roles that have suited both of us in many respects, though I've always done as I wanted and largely suited myself - and in many ways it has been me that has made the major decisons about our lifestyle.

I haven't called myself a feminist for a long time, though I am a woman and I think that women and women's issues matter. -which is why I'm posting here.
I don't really subscribe to ideas about 'the patriarchy' anymore - I tend to see that sort of position as being part of a type of intersectionalist style of analysis - with victims and oppresssors - and I don't see myself as a victim just because I'm a woman.

I guess that is because I've been fairly privileged ( even though I've been poor, homeless and a single parent - having my first child at age 19),and I appreciate that many women are not in as fortunate circumstances as I have subsequently enjoyed; but then I also recognise that many men are in 'oppressed' or difficult circumstances too. I don't think all men are responsible for what some other men do, or have done in the past.

What an educational trip this thread has been.

Thanks to everyone.

I entirely agree with your last point. My^ main point is that we all have bias, or biases, and noting the bias of others shouldn't lead us to imagine that we are free of it ourselves.

Theories of 'patriarchy' are hugely contested and debated, and trying to transpose that onto animals is I'm going to guess quite a complex endeavour - as noted above, how is one defining the terms? The dynamics?

In some tribes the women's council had the veto power about going to war, or so a Cherokee woman once told me. I can't remember if that had been the case in her tribe or not. The chiefs could propose war, but the women's council had the right to veto that.

Also in some tribes it was women who owned the cultivated land because women did the cultivating, and the land was seen as something to be passed on in the female line as a form of insurance against starvation.

@NotHavingIt

I think a lot of us are actually re-evaluating the gains made via second wave feminism in the light of the many negatives, and also in the light of gender ideology which pre-supposes that sexed differences aren't real or consequential and i know I, for one, have been thinking along the same lines as Mary Harrington in recent times - there's something quite 'zeitgeisty' about her 'reactionary feminism'.

That re-evaluation should compare the situation today to what it would have been without second wave feminism.

I recommend finding out the tremendous legal discrimination against women which then existed (things like being able to take out a mortgage or open a bank account in many countries were not simple things for women), the percentage of women who became physicians or lawyers in those days or how many women were in any kind of decision-making position, the way things like marital rape were legal and "what she wore" was used widely to justify rape, the average wages offered to male and female workers, how it was legal to advertise jobs separately by sex etc.

An overall re-evaluation should include all those things and the fact that the second wave got an enormous amount of important changes done, but failed to address other things which also mattered and/or failed to get those things changed.

I thinks comparisons to countries which never had that second wave is also insightful. I doubt many here would prefer to live in societies organised on those grounds.

As others have pointed out in this thread, men's social role expectations have changed much less than women's, and this is one reason for the current problems. More fathers should become involved in hands-on care of their children, more men should share the care of the elderly and ill within families etc, for women to be able to fully participate in the society.

Those feminists who believe that such differences in gendered roles (not the sex-based ones about giving birth and breast-feeding) are largely innate should provide an alternative feminist road map about how to alter the society to be less patriarchal and fairer to women. I would be very interested in seeing such proposals.

'Men' aren't alone responsible for creating a workable solution that best mets everyone's needs.

No but they didn't change in the face of women taking advantage of their ability to act "more like men" because of improved contraception.

re-evaluating the gains made via second wave feminism in the light of the many negatives

Most of the negatives are because men / male structures didn't change. ie capitalism was able to respond to more women entering the workforce to make the cost of living so hight that the norm became 2 wage packets to maintian a home (now more) rather than creating a work pattern of everyone working part time, with everyone then able to spend more home time

in the light of gender ideology which pre-supposes that sexed differences aren't real or consequential

Not sure what you are referring to? Queer politics, or ... ?

It isn't about hating or blaming men, but recognising that men have not adapted to the new realities, because they are used to their right not to change. ie effectively men as a group dont value women enough to make the change.

A parrallel example would be all those white people who say they are totally opposed to racism, but in practice do nothing to change ingrained racism, or structural racism.

https://isreview.org/issues/02/engles_family/

Engels wrote on family as the root of women's oppression.

@Treaclemine which programme was that?

Yes, social accommodations are necessary to enable people to fulfill their various potentials - whether they be male or female, but sexed differences will remain, which effect the choices that people make. You'll be waiting a long time for that them to disappear. 'Men' aren't alone responsible for creating a workable solution that best mets everyone's needs.

I think a lot of us are actually re-evaluating the gains made via second wave feminism in the light of the many negatives, and also in the light of gender ideology which pre-supposes that sexed differences aren't real or consequential and i know I, for one, have been thinking along the same lines as Mary Harrington in recent times - there's something quite 'zeitgeisty' about her 'reactionary feminism'.

I don't hate or blame men. I like men, in general, and get on with them - though I recognise the ways in which men operate, think or prioritise differently to women. Having children causes you to realise this and just being around men and boys a lot.

Oh, is that where all the aquatic ape and dog dolphin stuff came from?

I visited a matriarchal society in the San Blas islands. The indigenous community actually moved to a relatively isolated spot from across central América when the Spanish chucked them out and killed off most of the population and that isolation helped their society survive as is. My theory is that an awful lot of societies in that region probably were matriarchal in the 15000 years they weren't connected to Europe/Asia/Africa but societies and people were wiped out by colonisation so all we have is biased interpretation. I reckon there's also something in there about scarcity driving patriarchy because fighting over resources and allocating thm to your gene pool matters more.

I saw a programme about Lilith last week and it was eye-opening. Written by men, of course and not older then the Bible it attempts to explain the two Genesis stories of the origin of women. So God says let us make man in our own image, male and female created he them. So equal? But Adam decided that Lilith, the first wife should be subservient, and Lilith rejected that and ran way to become a demon. Hence Eve.
I had heard Lilith didn't always want to be underneath during sex, whtch tradition regarded as wrong, but not realised that that implied that Adam was wrong. It's his fault, not Eve's. Whoever wrote that myth down knew how ancient male dominance was, andndidn't question it.

Nrtft yet but my 2p worth is that there is emerging archaeological evidence to suggest that prehistoric (pre-roman) Britain was far less patriarchal- possibly even the opposite.

re reference in my post above:

Although there was a clear division of labour by sex in pre-class societies, women’s work was not regarded as inferior to that of men.

The movement from simple subsistence to the production of a surplus laid the material basis for the development of trade, the appropriation of labour and the concept of private property.

With the emergence of class societies came the attribution of an inferior status to woman’s work and control over her reproductive capacity.

Mother right which characterised pre-class societies was overthrown. Engels refers to this as “the world historic defeat of the female sex.”

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/womens-oppression-origins-family-and-condition-working-class

I typed quite a long reply last night so want repeat, but as said upthread, the big difference was once the role of men in pregnancies was understood the power balance shifted.

Women may have been constantly pregnant or breastfeeding, but as is still the case in many agricultural societies, continued to grow and harvest food.

I think relative strength differences was not the issue, men may have done more hunting because it was easier for them because they weren't pregnant / breast feeding.

The difference is, and we will never be able to say why, that the once is some parts of the world men realised they had a connection to a child, why they then turned into an "ownership" issue. Why didn't it continue that the children remain linked through the mother, why did some societies start to organise into families rather than tribes or clans.

As others have said matrilineal socities still exist.

But is some cultures it didn't for instance mean that a clan or tribe society continued to exist but acknowledged patrilineal relationships, but that paternity was turned into a superior right, and as a result women become properties of men.

This lowering of their status, though many continued to do as much if not more work that before, is what set in train patriarchy ie somehow infering that having sperm made you superior to having a womb.

Did men start or become more aggressive to each other once they became / created themselves as the owners, therefore the protectors of women?

I cant remember which socialist / communist writer it was, but they put forward that the family is the root of women's oppression.

And it isn't a conincidence that improved contraception, ie the pill became more available at the time that second wave feminism became influential.

The problem was / is that during the 70s when women's role in society started to change, men didn't.

So the patriarchal structures, conventions continued and women's liberation became the right to be doubly oppressed, ie go out to work, but come home to work.

Unless and until men change the patriarchy will remain a negative social factor for women.

Sorry, hit send too soon. A good friend of mine is actually a feminist ecologist - there’s a whole field on this. She did work in Uganda with elephants and male scientists resisted the idea that elephants could be healed from violence by connecting them with older women…it’s fascinating stuff. Anyway, I wasn’t writing a peer reviewed paper on here, my main point was that so much of what we think we know about nature is filtered through male bias and then installed as fact.

I’m not basing it on “one article,” that was just an example. And much other research shows many other species, not just 8.

@4plusthehound only read your posts OP, sorry if someone else has mentioned this. In the prologue of a book on Greek mythology, it elaborated how society was matriarchal (and the mythology reflected that) and they worshipped goddesses in temples because they thought they became pregnant from the air by Mother Nature (whatever that was). The temple goddesses lived independently and slept with men. Once it was realised the seed came from the men and not the air, by Mother Nature blessing the goddesses, the power shifted.

It hasn't in all societies though...

www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g28565280/matriarchal-societies-list/

It isn't in every civilisation.
My belief is that they took control because in reality women have the power with the ability to pro create and nurture. Men are only needed for sperm once.
It's also why religion demonises women.

And here's an article critiquing the book quoted above. Interesting points on the word choice of 'matriarchal', which seems to be largely dismissed as ambiguous and inaccurate, and other possible terms:

'“Matrilineal” is inadequate, focusing on the single criterion of descent. "Matrifocal" is too ambiguous, since it could be argued (and has been) that many patriarchal societies retain a strong emphasis on the mother. A variety of names have been proposed for egalitarian matrilineages, including "matristic," [Gimbutas, 1991] "gynarchic" societies, [Gunn Allen, 1986] "woman-centered" societies, or "gylany." [Eisler, 1987] My preferred term is "matrix society," which implies a social network based on the life support system as well as mother-right.'

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20051203215431/www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/eller.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20051203215431/www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/eller.html

That’s interesting- the distinction between leadership and dominance.

It makes the difference.

Lionesses can’t do anything if a lion murders their cubs or takes the ‘lion’s share’ of the meat, but they do cooperate over the hunt and show leadership.

Lions are definitely not 'matriarchal', for a start. - actually that article directly contradicts that assertion, apologies.