A matriarchy would be better than a patriarchy for women?

[OutsideLookingOut]

I don't just mean women in charge, for example when Margaret Thatcher was PM that wasn't a matriarchy - she upheld typical patriarchal systems. I mean in a world primarily shaped by women - some examples might be medical research using female bodies, women seen as the default human.

Would we fall into the inverse problems the patriarchy presents? i.e. the patriarchy can hurt men as well as women - they can't express emotions other than anger because that would be gay or feminine. I wonder if motherhood would be put on a pedestal (though patriarchy has done this forever without actually ever helping women), would we still have capitalism...?

Or would the world be a better place?

Apparently King Charles the second observed that if women could tolerate each other they would be a far mightier force than men.

another misogynist prick then

Yeah it is so tough to analyse. I think that we would always have self-interest right? I too wonder about the population of women vs men and how they behave. For example if we say that the majority of men are more competitive that doesn't mean every man is however the majority with power win. If women are more cooperative and in the majority and able to exert their will against the minority then would cooperation win? That doesn't mean the world would be a utopia to me. I just think the problems might be different... perhaps less individuality? More biases to people who do not want to have children? Would unconventional women fare better or worse than now?

I can't help but feel that we all grow up with some internalized misogyny. It is had to evade. We also have to be the biggest implementers of the patriarchy as women for it to function smoothly and when we depended on men financially we had even more incentive. While we should challenge this I think it is understandable.

One poster actually suggested eugenics, but it's my crap joke that bothers you!

Wow... what a vile and misogynistic attitude, to think that women as a whole are incapable.

That poster wasn’t suggesting it - they were discussing a book. Plus you know that doesn’t constitute eugenics - no genes were being altered.

How/ why would all that happen though?
Wars and the weapons they are fought with are about power, do you think female leaders/ politicians would just be able to get along nicely and share resources, respect each other's territories? I don’t think so.

Would matriarchal societies be more conformist? For example the need of a "village" with childbearing etc. Would most women be "enlisted" or have childcare duties expected of them? Would there be more or any emphasis to fatherhood and paternity? Do you think mothers would have higher status than childless women?

I learn towards there being less wars but I think my biases are showing here and female army recruits seem to manage aside from the threat from men including their own colleagues.

🤣

Read her post again.
She was initially horrified ... but then she thought about.

She said there must be ways to 'silence genes'.

I agree, I’m quite bemused by the thought that all women will, as a whole, dedicate themselves to a goodwill action plan. Comments like these highlight how much women over estimate other women. Over the years I have come across plenty of women who are there just for themselves, don’t care about others and are really hard and shrewd. Whilst other men I have met are easily more compassionate and generous. Why would anyone think that the sweet compassionate women of the world are the ones to occupy positions of power and influence under a matriarchy? Any more than men under a patriarchy?

We don't know though, do we? We do know that men can't.
Not many other options.

I'm not sure why they would need to be more conforming - Trump is trying all that trad wife rubbish and most women aren't fooled that not getting an education is progress. We don't need to go backwards, just cut out making more munitions globally and change the focus. Imagine getting infrastructure into Syria and other war torn countries, to help them settle and rebuild their lovely countries. The wars there can happen anywhere if we continue down the road that violence is some sort of necessary evil.

I am also assuming you aren't gettting rid of men totally? Just finding new things for the army to do (maybe helping infrastructure building in other countries alongside other countries). Most people in UK wouldn't have to change their jobs at all and no need to "rank" women.

I assume OP means they would be more conforming because women would enforce the conformity (which might be to a different standard than we see today). Even your comment shows this I think - a women-led society would be very interested in bringing the bottom up (e.g. through interventions in impoverished or wartorn countries). We've traditionally done that through things like the welfare state, minimum wage, support for destitute families etc - and with social norms against "tall poppies" who take money away from the deserving poor. Source: see any Mumsnet thread about someone daring to earn more than £30k a year - imagine if that energy was country-wide!

A matriarchy would need to be more extreme than a patriarchy. Patriarchy has formed naturally through our evolution, it's the natural state. Most species have a dominant sex, and in most it's male. Even in a matriarchy women would still be the ones who got pregant and men would still be the ones who were stronger.

I don't think a matriarchy would be better, it would just bring a separate set of problems. It would be interesting to see how the transgender thing played out, I can't see men ever getting particularly bothered about transmen in their changing rooms because they'd still be stronger than them. Extremism is the problem. It's better to have a system that works for everyone rather than switch between systems that punish half the population.

Given the increase in women in positions of power, it's clear that they are no better than men in positions of power. Better in some ways, worse in others, just as bad overall.

If you're talking about a fantasy world where every role is reversed, i.e. women are stronger and men get pregnant, yes it would be called a matriarchy but it would literally just be the opposite of it now.

If you realise matriarchy as being principally concerned with the protection and wellbeing of children / future generations, which is of course traditionally been a primary female focus…it all starts to make a bit more sense. And yes it would be better, I think.

Has not is.

The women that Charles 2nd knew probably didn't like each other because he was sleeping with all of them.

There's no real consensus on 'evolution' in this area but it's interesting that other highly intelligent species that experience menopause are matriarchal societies.

I'm not sure if it is the word "conformity" that is bothering me as it suggests strictness, rules and loss of independence. I think in my version, it would be more focused on making the men work in more caring roles, than consumer driven ones, for example. Begining with a shift in pay away from high paid sales execs to nursing and care roles. If you switched the pays you'd attract more men into caring roles (so they keep saying) but even if it didn't rewarding looking after each other over conning each other sets a much healthier community outlook when we spend our lives working.

A world where motherhood is put on a pedestal would not be a better place for childless/childfree women.

I don't like the word conformity either but I can't think how else to explain it. There are patriarchal countries that are collectivist so perhaps there would be a range of matriarchies. I lean towards more conformity because women are the sex that gives birth, goes through menstruation and menopause and so may have the greatest need of systems that can help with these periods of life be that a centralised and universal healthcare system, caring etc etc...

Would men then be different in a matriarchy do you think? Or do you think they would be more caring because caring would be a more valued role? I can't help but remember that even morgues prefer not to hire men because of inappropriate behaviour with dead bodies. (Of course not all men! but too many clearly)

Do you think they necessarily would? There are patriarchies that tell women their main or only value is in having children. I do wonder how it would play out in a matriarchy.

I'm trying to think of what animal species are matriarchies? I can only think of ones which have the model that the females live in a group (potentially with hierarchy within that group e.g. alpha females) and the males live as loners or in small groups and occasionally come in to mate with the women and then leave. With fierce intra-male fighting in between. I think this is sort of like a harem situation, but it seems to work in practice.

I'm not sure if I can think of any where the males and females live together in equal numbers and the females are "in charge".

Maybe this aligns with OP's theory and my question about economics - a workable matriarchy could be collectivist within the female society only, with the women providing for themselves and their children and the men living outside society and competing violently for the right to reproduce. So, probably not fewer wars!

This pretty sums up my thoughts.