Why has it always been a patriarchy?

Some African tribes, it's been a long time but I remember learning about this in one of my Anthropology classes at Uni. It's fascinating.

It's not just greater muscle power. If it was, it would work that way among men too. King Charles would look like Mr Universe and poor men would look like, well, like King Charles.

Plus, group action can bring down any individual, no matter how strong. You'll notice patriarchies put a lot of effort into preventing women from developing group action or even solidarity. Any time groups of women form without men, there's massive suspicion that it's some horrible plot.

Social power is socially conferred. Women generally don't care as much about it. And any group, once it has power, starts consolidating and wanting more. Muscle power just helps nudge it along the way. Getting off that track takes huge effort.

I know it's just a Forbes article, and we are confounded by a small sample size of female heads of state, but this is an interesting article discussing the bellicosity of male vs female heads of state.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2022/03/08/sheryl-sandberg-says-female-leaders-dont-go-to-war-heres-what-research-says/

It posits that while women as a group are less warlike, female heads of state tend to be equally aggressive as men.

Hunter-gatherer societies are somewhat less patriarchal, probably because they are less hierarchical overall, given that they can't really accumulate material resources while staying nomadic. So it's not clear if early human societies (probably based on extended kin) were that patriarchal, but the invention of agriculture may have altered matters.

It allowed the accumulation of material resources and then the fight over who could control those resources. Here physical strength, aggression, and the fact that it is women who fall pregnant affected the balance of power between the sexes. Agriculture also seems to have made it possible for the average number of children per woman to grow which tied women more and more to child-rearing and kept women away from those arenas where power was doled out.

There's a fascinating article which I once read that looks at areas where women's status is the lowest, and that is in nomadic herding cultures (horseback herding, not moving to find food sources) (such as those in the Middle East) where the fact that the tribe keeps moving makes it hard for women to engage in any activity which contributes to the survival of the family in the economic sense.

Those early societies which were based on agriculture in one place tended to value women's contributions more, partly, because it was possible for women to combine children with the kind of agriculture which resembles gardening, with weaving, pot-making etc., and then to trade the products of that work for other things the family needs.

The interesting point for me in that piece is the possibility that environmental factors and what we call technology probably also affect the status of women in a society.

Modern technology, for instance, allows women a higher status not because reproducing the next generation wouldn't be extremely important, but because it allows women to have more agency by having their own sources of incomes in both the decision-making within families and also in the more public spheres.

I think history, and also comparisons between various countries today, show both the fact that male-domination is common and that it's not a natural law which could never change. Women's status varies between different countries, cultures and belief systems. That gives me hope for the future that more egalitarian societies are feasible.

Not all societies are, some places have a matriarchal society 🙂

I would be concerned that the school has asked or phrased the question in that way.

As many have already said, most early civilisations are thought to have been matriarchal, or rather matrilineal.

It may have been true that in early days men did the hunting etc., but by and the the heavy work, agriculture was carried out by women.

But women had more status as the sex that gave birth.

What is said to have changed it, is the knowledge that pregnancy was dependent on men, and that whereas previously cultures had been matrilinieal, descending through women, men started to assert their right to be seen the primary line. And with that, and to ensure that children were their children, women had to be linked / tied to a man. ie it was necessary for women's to became subservient to men, rather than autonomous individuals.

There are quite a lot of historical novels about this period, et Mary Renault who wrote the period of time in Greece when the matriarchal culture was losing its status to patriarch.

But needless to say contemporary concepts may have misinterpreted historical artefacts, eg was the prevelance of statues and carvings of pregnant women, to to celebrate women being (somehow) pregnant and through that continuing life.

Soldiers, sailors, miners and those in heavy industry often faced death or injury on an almost daily basis. Women often died in pregnancy or during childbirth.
Among nomadic peoples with little property ownership, matriarchy or patriarchy may prove equally successful. However, when most land is owned and controlled by a few, those people will be able to dictate the structure of society.
I see no reason why there shouldn't be broadly similar numbers of male and female CEOs, doctors, lawyers and other trades that don't rely on absolute physical strength. But on day 420 of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I have yet to see anyone demanding places for more female combatants on the front line.
Should Putin be conscripting as many women as men?

on twitter, @ aliceevans has some great threads on the patriarchy and why it differs between different cultures - a combination of religion and agriculture and all sorts of things - I always learn something new from her threads.

https://twitter.com/_alice_evans

Women die younger?? In Victorian times 1 in 10 pregnancies ended in the death of the woman. Maybe even more before then.
Interestingly, In the Anglo Saxon time period women had lots more rights. They could inherit, own there own property etc. and crimes against women such as rape were very severely punished. All changed when we got the monarchy in 1066.

Women get distracted and are busy with children and restricted by menstruation. I think women do need protection from men at this time. Some men interpret this (what is actually women's power!) as a weakness, they step in to take advantage, to gain free labour, weak men notice this and join in. The good men are lazy and sometimes selfish. The women suffer. Older women have to remind the good men to do their jobs. Well that's my theory.

Not all cultures are patriarchal btw - google matriarchal cultures - https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g28565280/matriarchal-societies-list/

For fascinating (and some slightly batty) theories on this, I rec 'The Descent of Woman' by Elaine Morgan. It provides a great counterpoint to evolutionary theory usually focussed on a default male and male's presumed needs/drives.

Instead, Morgan places the mother/baby dyad at the centre of society and theorises around that. While some of the theories are very much contested (she favours the 'Aquatic Ape' theory) it's really useful to reconsider evolution through a female lens.

Men are stronger. That was always the reason. The strongest / best gets the best land, money, capital whatever. Ultimately taking what you want gets you it.

I thought it was linked to the beginnings of agriculture and land ownership? People needed to know who their children were to pass on the land to them, and because women carry the babies that means men needed to control women to know whose baby was theirs. So marriage/monogamy/ownership of women became important.

I think I heard that’s in Ian McGilchrist’s book The Master and His Emissary but I haven’t read it and might be misremembering.

That author seems from the guardian article as if she is somewhat tilting at windmills. I don't think many people seriously argue that the patriarchy is "one monolithic, conspiratorial, overarching plan of male domination that somehow just swept the world in a very homogeneous way"

It hasn’t.

Angela Salini recently published a book on the history of the patriarchy. Here is a link to The Guardian about it.

If the whole book is too grown-up for your DD you can find a fair bit of press about the book, excerpts and so on online, or probably podcast episodes. She’s doing quite a bit of book touring so if she’s coming near you you could see if you could catch her. (I’ve seen the talk but not read the book myself - lots of my friends rave about her writing and her previous books though.)

It’s not always been a patriarchal society worldwide though. Lots of African tribes were (and are) matriarchal. Women did hunt too.

In essence, we were both always patriarchal but have been more and more so for about 12,000 years (introduction of farming).

Archaeological evidence suggests that pre farming societies were more egalitarian but the introduction of non nomadic farming created a series of issues for women eg saving food for the strongest member of the family (not so much with hunting gathering) and the ability to pass on land through the generations (patriarchal residence).

Really? Because men have a physical advantage over women, can kill or seriously injure a woman with their bare hands. And want to guard and control women's reproductive capabilities in order to ensure the parentage of their children. Women are also disadvantaged by pregnancy, childbirth and early parenting meaning they are less able to defend themselves or escape controlling situations. En masse, that means men can dominate women.