What would a true matriarchy look like?

A third option so neither sex dominates the other.

It is interesting that such a question is posed and the dominant theme at the heart of the debate is men and the patriarchy. So is the question less about a true matriarchy and more about opposition to the dominant hierarchy. Which is totally understandable.

I don’t see a true matriarchy fundamentally as a project of replacing the patriarchy, I see it as recognition of the dominant hierarchy with the aim of potentially replacing dominant male virtues of power and control with different virtues, values and principles, to be worked out in our manifesto.

Ok, thanks.

Ok, thanks. Recently there have been quite a few posts that are “anti men”. When I read them, I always wonder if the posters have sons? To me, it sends an awful messsge to boys and young men.

I didn't say it would be better. I said I thought it would be necessary, and that, on my bad days, I would welcome the necessary. It's a thought experiment, isn't it?

ed. bloody spelling

@BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth Quote “I think that for truly matriarchal societies to develop, worldwide, we would need to have some way of making men truly terrified of women, whether physically or psychologically. We would also have to control all the information (online, in real time, and in real life).”

What about the boys being born? Are they going to fear their mother and all women?

How would this be any better?

What would a true matriarchy look like in today's world?

Surely the issue with these thought experiments would be that men would still be physically stronger than women and why would they put up with such treatment?

I agree that the heart of patriarchy is men trying to control women out of fear

Some interesting comments on this.

I think that for truly matriarchal societies to develop, worldwide, we would need to have some way of making men truly terrified of women, whether physically or psychologically. We would also have to control all the information (online, in real time, and in real life).

Just my opinion, but I think that's the only way it would work. Men as a sex are simply stronger than women, so we would need to ensure they could never use their strength. It has been shown time and again that men really don't care about women, in fact, we are invisible to them. So we would have to ensure that we are very visible and yet untouchable because they are afraid of us and what we would do.

On the one hand, on really bad days, I would welcome that shift. Gladly. On the other hand, I'm not really sure I'd want to live in a world where only some people control all the information...

(except that we already do)

So the women would have dominance? Would women hold all the primary power?

Alice Evans pointed out that whilst matrilineal societies exist there have not been any truly matriarchal societies because that would involve holding of political power. Any example of how matrilineal societies can work was an african tribe where lineage was matrilineal and the children were regarded as part of their mothers tribe, but it also meant their maternal uncles had the right to pawn them, so on the surface it looks like a win for women but often power still resides with men. I’ll see if I can dig out which tribe it was when I have time.

I doubt it would necessarily be much nicer tbh, women who rise to power will have to be dominant personalities and have a high tolerance for conflict and ambiguity. I think it would be a bit like patriarchy but just with women being able to exploit men more easily than the other way round. “The Power” by Naomi Alderman is a good read.

The novel "The Power" is an interesting version of this, where women have a superpower to control / hurt men. In that society, women become socially dominant (earning more, considered more intelligent) and men are "beasts of burden"

In the real world, there have been matriarchal or matrilineal systems in Kerala (link below) and in China and in Malawi, among others. These can be stable and give women more power and security than the patriarchy, but are still very hierarchical and have a 'ruling family' plus some 'peasants'. So I'm not sure we could make the modern world transition to this system.

enrouteindianhistory.com/ammachi-and-the-matrilineal-tradition-of-kerela/

@StandingDeskDisco How would the women in this matriarchal society raise their sons? Are daughters going to be the “favoured” ones?

Surely the issue with these thought experiments would be that men would still be physically stronger than women and why would they put up with such treatment? Most oppressed groups eventually fight back, I’d imagine even more so if they were the physically stronger more aggressive sections of society.

It's a really interesting thought experiment. You could imagine a world where only women had the right to own land / property or inherit wealth. Women could decide if they wanted to couple up with a man/woman or pool their resources with other women and live together. Men would either need to find a female partner or rent from a women-owned collective.

That would make women the dominant force politically so they could push for policies that benefit them e.g. generous state benefits for mothers, town planning that favours women's needs, female-focused health care.

I'm not sure why you think matriarchy would be like opposites day. Women and men aren't opposites (well only in that they are opposite sex) they aren't opposite in behaviour, abilities or personality.

Gendered difference are limited (and likely caused by nurture as much as nature) so it's hard to say if a female led society would be more nurturing for example, if women were in power or came to power some decades ago.

The main difference I can see is testosterone. If the power wasn't held by hormonal men, would society be less aggressive and sexual (as we would see fewer examples in media, ) it wouldn't be held up as aspirational to be aggressive, angry or violent.

I suspect it would be more child focussed, CMS would be sorted pdq. Childcare would be government funded, absent father's would socially shunned/shamed and as a result there would be fewer of them. Possibly there would be more absent mothers as the stigma would be less.

Court may be biased in women's favour, child custody especially as men are more of a 'risk'. With their violent ways and big muscles....

I don't think it would be the same but with women on top. We are not driven by sex to the same extent. Power maybe, control? Possibly. But just that one thing could make a huge difference.

Interestingly, every time I try to type "matriarchy" my phone "corrects" it to begin with "p". We have a long way to go, wims.

I think it would be different depending on when the matriarchy happened. If we'd always been a matriarchy, would we even HAVE money? Would capitalism exist? Or would we have done something different, potentially with the same sort of technological and scientific development but for different motives?
I don't think it'd be a case of "women no longer needing support from men because we'd earn more" - that sounds a bit like something from the old Two Ronnies sketch, I think called "The Worm That Turned" where basically women were dominatrices.

Ha, the fish-in-air thing is a good way in. I think you're right that "flip patriarchy upside down" just gets you patriarchy with different people on top...same structure, different winners.

A proper alternative probably has to start somewhere else entirely, not with who's in charge but what actually gets valued. Like, right now the whole economy runs on a huge amount of unpaid work that just doesn't count for anything, GDP-wise, pension-wise, anything-wise.

A matriarchy, or genuinely anything different, might just start by counting that. Actually there's a site doing exactly this, link--> patriarchyowes.me , prices out unpaid care and housework at what it'd actually cost. Bit of a tangent but it fits the thread.

Robert Graves writes that before people realised that men impregnated women and thought it was a magical force, e.g. the wind, the female was revered and the Godess was the basis of religion. Men were secondary.

At the heart of patriarchy lies fear of the female life-creating power and male redundancy or relegation to a secondary class of mere sperm provider