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?

@OneAmberFinch bonobos are matriarchical and famously females avoid conflict with each other with a mutual masturbation - literally making love not war - while the men run around on the floor of the jungle making a racket and threatening each other with branches. Weirdly I posted about that today on here because the upshot is that the male bonobos show more violence in total than chimps, but less severe violence (murder etc) and they don't sexually assault the females at all unlike the chimps.

Which kind of answers your question too @OutsideLookingOut - the issue with the patriarchy is that men often feel they have no need to answer to anyone and so can do what they like (necromancy, peadophilia, rape - abusing weaker humans and their power for humiliation and pain to others). Matriarchies seem to focus on the collective, meaning caring roles being more desirable than non-useful anger driven ones. I suspect that then self-selects the mates and the overly violent males don't get partners to continue their genetics.

Anyone remember the 2 Ronnies sketch "The worm that turned"? I was only a little kid but I seem to think that was basically reversing the gender stereotypes.

Whilst I think a matriarchal society probably would be better for women, I think something in the middle would be better for all. Ultimately, I can't see a world where this would happen. But if our world leaders were 50/50 men and women, I think we would see a very different world.

You raise such a great point. For generations women have not really been able to choose mates freely. I agree that perhaps selection would be different. The incels are always moaning that women only want the top 1-2% of men but maybe that would be better so long as it is a free choice. And if it is out of want rather than need I think it would be such a game changer.

It is on youtube! Not sure if I can stand the whole thing though 😂

I am not sure about 50/50 being best because I find any system has a way of selecting people who would favour that system anyway. You get diversity in sex but not often in thought but maybe I am being too cynical. I always think of 50/50 relationships where woman are still often doing more housework. The problem is that when you've been on top any lessening off power feels deeply unfair far before it gets to 50%.

I've often thought this.

There have been interesting studies into group behaviour with more or less women involved.

Company's with more women in the leadership teams tend to be more stable with gradual consistent growth. With more men they tend to be more likely to both be greatly successful - OR go bankrupt.

It makes me think that a matriarchal society might be more supporting and collaborative but less risky which could lead to innovation.

Don't forget other observed results. Girls who go to single sex schools often gain a host of advantages without the effect of influence of boys. So women can't be that bad together if it's better then mixed sex.

I certainly think that if men are socialised In a female lead way, the negative effects of testosterone might be mitigated. Negative 'male ' testosterone driven behaviour (violence, anger, overly sexual behavior) will be less acceptable, possibly leading to less sexual and violent crime. I hope it would lead to more severe sentencing for DV, sexual crimes.

The question is, without the pressure/fear of punishment from men, would women's behaviour change. Women aren't as violent as men. Is this solely because of testosterone or is it social? Maybe we are less violent because it's inherently more risky for us to have physical altercation. Would we become more violent? I doubt it, or certainly not to the extent of a male cohort in the same situation. I think a matriarchy would be less violent overall.

I saw a film once where women ran the world. Then men were exiled to a primitive compound with the exception of a lucky few who were permanent 'breeder'. The women lived in futuristic communal luxury. The women in general acted like men were these strange scary creatures to stay away from, with their violent ways. I must say that part appealed to me some what. The moral was some guff about the women being wrong to treat the men like that and everyone is better together but I wasn't convinced.

Also stats show female led companies do 30% better and women do not over-estimate profit for the flashy sales pitch - i.e they are realistic and have done their homework. When I heard that the other week I was not at all surprised.

I do think women need men for some things, but I do not agree that we should be forced to co-habit with them (it is far more dangerous for women than men to have relationships and live with a man). I don't really believe that men do things women can't and I feel progress to get women into STEM and other well paid careers has been hugely slow and still no where near parity.

It's an interesting idea whether women become competitive around men (as in trying to be more attractive to them by not being a geek/being preoccupied with appearance) which is what the single sex schooling benefiting girls also suggests - if followed into workplace, does this mean women do this in work because usually it is a patriarchal structure?

It is interesting though, when women are allowed to go to school and university, to run businesses, to enter companies they often times end up doing better than men (think of the problem and it’s usually phrased of a problem in school because boys are falling behind) and then you get a backlash. That is why I think women need systems that do not depend on the food opinion of men - it can be rolled back just as easily and they will deny its merit based even if all that is done is to remove active discrimination.

As for women’s behaviour in the workplace especially a male dominated one - it is an excellent question, I think the answer is yes but to what degree I could not say. If those in power with the highest positions are make then ultimately they have to think you are worthy.

Did you spot this recent news story op? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20g7j707g8o
The Scythians are also thought to have practiced a large degree of women’s freedom if not co-rule. I’ve also been re-reading Philippa Gregory’s ‘Normal Women’ which makes it clear how women’s rights have changed and what has been considered acceptable in relations between the sexes has changed. It changed massively after 1066, and every time the economy changes for instance.

The simple answer is of course women would be better off in a matriarchy because women’s issues would matter more and society would be structured to accommodate then.

There have been numerous fictional views of different societies with different norms and relations: in addition to those mentioned, Ursula le Guin and Sheri Tepper are particularly famous for it.

When are women " forced to cohabit with men"?

There's good and things either way. The more matriarchal governments tended to be most over zealous about Covid lockdowns.

@Leafy74 they get tax breaks and have legal recourse to things like half of the house if they marry, plus can leave kids more IHT. Because men earn more it is put forward as "protecting assets" for women but no one mentions the free labour men get or how single women live longer. The marriage incentives are a con for women.

But are they matriarchal just because a woman is in charge? Women do tend to be more cautious though/less risk taking so I can see why a martiarchy would.

OK, let me stop you there. 3 things.

1. You're talking bollocks.
2. You still haven't said where women are forced to cohabit with men.
3. You're talking bollocks

As a child free by choice woman this is what would worry me Why would i want to look after other peoples kids when i didnt even want my own

Read the step parents board! Its full of women telling other women how much physical and emotional labour they should be giving

Do you think a matriarchy would enforce shared parenting though? I think women are more than capable of understanding we are all different. This is one point I'm too sure about. We all agree that mothers need more of a village, that raising children is hard and needs more resources and respect... but that doesn't mean everyone has to do it... And why have anyone round your children who doesn't want to be?

hmm... I'd guess fathers don't pull their weight a lot of the time and women still take on most childcare and domestic duties in the relationship? Also a stepparent (depending on the age of the child) is another responsible adult for that child.

I think relationships could be very different in a matriarchy to begin with never mind stepparenting. Is your point that you think women would want other women to take care of their children too?

I’d be concerned that in such a society, the only women who mattered would be the mothers and childless/free women would be considered as essentially akin to men.

We have a women’s network at work but they refuse to consider any issue that affects women but doesn’t relate to pregnancy, maternity or motherhood. We’ve had to set up separate networks to consider other women’s issues such as infertility, menopause, and caring for elderly parents. The main “feminist” network wasn’t interested in dealing with any of them, because none involved young children.

That’s what I fear would happen under such a society. Maybe it wouldn’t be any worse for us than under patriarchy but it certainly wouldn’t be better IMHO.

I also don’t agree that women are more understanding of women making different choices, either. In my experience, women are the ones who judge me the most. Men are ambivalent. And you only have to be on MN for ten minutes on the childless/free board to see that many women are the opposite of understanding.

Thank you for some a great contribution to the thread. No, really!

Why? If anything women are more pro-choice than men?!
I think there is a lot of media that likes to pit women against women, but usually it is in some way to benefit a man or male business.

I've only ever seem female led charities such as Women's Aid and domestic abuse charities, which certainly don't rank women. It's odd who frequently that seems to come up from the women who choose not to have kids.

Your workplace is terrible (sorry I remember previous threads with you, hope that doe snot sound creepy). Out of interest, is it female dominated?

I get that children are important but like you mentioned there are so many other issues women face. It would be sad if outside of childbirth we are seen as men. I think knowledge of female health issues might be better - more research with women for things like endo, pcos, fibroids, menstruation, menopause, etc etc and how female bodies respond to drugs and medications so I can see a benefit from that POV.

Also if we are not centering men perhaps many problems women currently have in the workplace wouldn't be an issue? e.g. not have to prioritise the man's career because it pays more i.e. not having to take all the sick days or an unfair burden of childcare? Perhaps women interested in motherhood form a commune? (If men are ignored altogether?). And that in turn helps the childfree colleagues?

I've been adding the books mentioned in this thread to my reading list. Someone mentioned matriarchal animals like elephants where the older males live alone aside for mating. I can't see humans following this (was that what the Amazon women did in myth?) and so maybe men would take care of/watch their children more... like lions... though I always thought the lioness had a raw deal of it. (Just musing).

@OutsideLookingOut I also started listening to Phillipa Gregory's Normal Women (I pay for spotify and get it free) which is very interesting as in Anglo Saxon times we had a far more equal society here in Britain. Women could own and pass on land in inheritance to daughters, they could write and we didn't use a coin system but bartered for goods. 1066 changed all that and women didn't get to own land or have any say in laws for another 5 centuries. Arguably we are still suffering from that as women were forced backwards all that time (not educated,robbed of land and inheritance etc). It seems we were more advanced socially in many ways in the Anglo Saxon period.

I think the idea that a women led society would be so super kind and gentle that other countries would invade and they would do nothing seems less likely. Women can be quite pro defense/defense spending. Assuming that in this matriarchy there would still be men as well. They wouldn't all have died of. Boudiccea, Elizabeth I, Margaret Thatcher weren't necessarily living in matriarchies but they were all quite fighty. Of course they didn't really start wars so much - Boudiccea went on the war path after the Romans humiliated her, Elizabeth I was (by the standards of the time) not a war monger. She is most famous for the defeat of the Spanish which was defensive. Whatever you think about the Falklands it did "belong" to Britain at the time of that war, so it was a war of defense (regardless of whether defending it was justified).

There is a difference between going to war to defend what you hold already which women and men tend to be equally in favour of, versus wars of expansion/conquest which is more of a male thing...
Of course, maybe the perception of weakness would be a danger in itself...

I was told on here BY WOMEN that i shouldnt be in social housing unless i had kids. (despite the fact i only have a one bedroom flat

So i had women telling me that i owed families more than those kids OWN FATHERS.

I think this also reflects the feeling that we are being run for greed and profit - it all feels very male that there are wars for "more" of everything, when really the human race is at a point intellectually where we could be finding ways to be far more self sufficient, through science and sharing knowledge and resources. We don't seem to be making the progress as a race we know we are capable of.