Has there ever been a well documented matriachal society?

[ChickensHaveNoEyebrows]

I was just wondering , if the power balance was tipped in womens favour, how society would define masculine roles iyswim? Would it be a fairer society generally, or would it still have equality problems? And if it has ever happened, what exactly were those problems?

Interesting point about female-led dictatorships.

I don't know of any in the modern sense, apart from Maggie Thatcher but in history there have certainly been authoritarian queens. Mary Tudor was hardly a cuddly figure, Catherine the Great of Russia is another example, the Byzantine empire had an empress (Poulcheria, if memory serves me correctly, but don't quote me on this) who was particularly nasty and dictatorial.

A quick google has not revealed any women military dictators, although there have been women in supporting roles to male dictators.

Minoan culture of Crete.

I do think the idea of a matriarchal society is probably more 'natural' given the immense amount of force and propaganda that is needed to uphold patriarchy.

Google Umoja in Kenya. They are starting a new tradition of matriarchy there.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_Sparta

many not matriarchal, but certainly unusual.

The time for matriarchies to arise is now. The key to unlocking this social revolution is birth control and an abundance of resources, such that dominance and dispute between factions aren't required. I think if you looked at the few existing examples of matriarchies you'd probably observe that there were abundant resources and methods of birth control (including infanticide).

@Guineapigbridge

The time for matriarchies to arise is now. The key to unlocking this social revolution is birth control and an abundance of resources, such that dominance and dispute between factions aren't required. I think if you looked at the few existing examples of matriarchies you'd probably observe that there were abundant resources and methods of birth control (including infanticide).

The problem with that is the number of women prepared to sell other women down the river so their own offspring get a leg up. Twas ever thus.

@alexpolismum

Lenin - I like Heide Gottner Abendroth from the previous link. She has done a lot of research into matriarchy, if you put her name in Google something should come up. It's fascinating!

I actually have her book and am in the process of reading it. Modern matriarchies do exist within societies in lots of places from Nepal, Korea, China, South India and parts of Africa among other places. I say modern they are in the sense that they are still there but most seem to be part of an older culture (so far the book is long and detailed and I haven't read even most of it yet). These matriarchies have evolved over time though and have had to adapt so they are as modern as any other culture which has had to adapt. I have to work now but I want to come back and say more - likely won't be until tomorrow when the thread may have petered off. One of the most ineresting things I have noted thus far is the lack of hierarchy (not mimicking patriarchal structures). They seem more democratic. Like I say I haven't read enough yet really - you should see this book it's a monster and very thin pages tightly packed with text. I am fascinated with this subject and I think Heide Gottner Abedroth is a fantastic inspirational woman covering a subject that really should get more air time.

@alexpolismum

Interesting point about female-led dictatorships.

I don't know of any in the modern sense, apart from Maggie Thatcher but in history there have certainly been authoritarian queens. Mary Tudor was hardly a cuddly figure, Catherine the Great of Russia is another example, the Byzantine empire had an empress (Poulcheria, if memory serves me correctly, but don't quote me on this) who was particularly nasty and dictatorial.

A quick google has not revealed any women military dictators, although there have been women in supporting roles to male dictators.

What is notable about those is the political machinations of men behind the scenes. I'm not sure a woman could be fully in charge (so to speak) within a patriarchal structure which lends more credence to the voice and thoughts of men. That's not to downplay the parts of influential women and female leaders but just to say they would be constrained by the structures and forces around them.

What is notable about those is the political machinations of men behind the scenes. I'm not sure a woman could be fully in charge (so to speak) within a patriarchal structure which lends more credence to the voice and thoughts of men.

Er, Boudica ?

Matriarchy is incompatible with Christianity (and Islam). It's interesting that there were early flavours of Christianity that treated the sexes (more) equally, but they had to go. One of the lesser known facts about the Augustinian "conversion" of England was that when he landed he met Christians. Only the "wrong sort".

englishcatholichistoryassoc.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/christianity-in-britain-before-st-augustine-fr-r-whinder-oct-2008.pdf

"Claudia Brittanica" - I like it

A zombie thread bumped by a marketing troll, but interesting nonetheless, so happy to pitch in.

My understanding is that there are various matrilineal societies (the Mosuo in Yunnan, SW China, some groups in Kerala in S India, historically the Iroquois nation among indigenous people in America), but this isn't the same as "matriarchal". Women may share power in some societies (and matrilineal inheritance structures seem to help with this - for e.g. among the Iroquois, women had a veto over the men going to war with neighbouring tribes) but I don't think there's any documented cases of societies where women held the bulk of the political and economic power at the expense of men.

@ProfessorSlocombe

What is notable about those is the political machinations of men behind the scenes. I'm not sure a woman could be fully in charge (so to speak) within a patriarchal structure which lends more credence to the voice and thoughts of men.

Er, Boudica ?

Matriarchy is incompatible with Christianity (and Islam). It's interesting that there were early flavours of Christianity that treated the sexes (more) equally, but they had to go. One of the lesser known facts about the Augustinian "conversion" of England was that when he landed he met Christians. Only the "wrong sort".

englishcatholichistoryassoc.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/christianity-in-britain-before-st-augustine-fr-r-whinder-oct-2008.pdf

"Claudia Brittanica" - I like it

I'm sorry I admit I don't know enough about Boudica so I'm likely wrong

Agree with your other comment about the plethora of women prepared to sell other women down the river.

I'm sorry I admit I don't know enough about Boudica so I'm likely wrong

In an age when it's incredibly trendy to big up Britain against Europe, it's telling that the UKIPers don't like to remember her. Well worth studying for all sorts of reasons. One of the few named leaders who really gave Rome a spanking. The fact there's a "Boudican destruction layer" across much of the South East of England is a testament to the truth of the myth.

I'm sure there was a previous thread on here linking various studies which concluded that men collaborate better than women, and that women will actually collaborate better with men than one another. This could be a factor.

Another surprising point was that all but one study found that women unanimously preferred a male boss to another female.

Kenya. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umoja,_Kenya

Here are six. The Mosuo women in China are well known. www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g28565280/matriarchal-societies-list/

I think lions have an equitable system. Male lions live with their brothers or cousins in a coalition, which protects a territory, including prides, from other males.

Female lions live in prides with their mothers and sisters. They care for cubs communally, put up with the males dropping by for food or mating and otherwise live and hunt with other females and sub-adult males.

Male lions kill cubs if they take over a territory; they’ll protect the cubs of their own coalition members.

Sorry, lion digression.

I rather like this woman: personal.lse.ac.uk/chant/ though she seems to be concentrating more on poverty and gender these days.

Don’t know if it’s been mentioned but I saw a documentary about one in South Asia. I can’t remember exactly where. I feel like it might have been a Stacey Dooley or someone similar.

I guess the best known are the Mosuo people in China, the Garo and the Khasi in India and the Minangkabau in Indonesia. They are matrilineal societies but the women aren’t necessarily dominant.

Might have been this actually - www.dailymotion.com/video/x6b18jy

@DianasLasso

A zombie thread bumped by a marketing troll, but interesting nonetheless, so happy to pitch in.

My understanding is that there are various matrilineal societies (the Mosuo in Yunnan, SW China, some groups in Kerala in S India, historically the Iroquois nation among indigenous people in America), but this isn't the same as "matriarchal". Women may share power in some societies (and matrilineal inheritance structures seem to help with this - for e.g. among the Iroquois, women had a veto over the men going to war with neighbouring tribes) but I don't think there's any documented cases of societies where women held the bulk of the political and economic power at the expense of men.

Yes, this is also my understanding. Part of the problem I think is that while matrilineal or patrilineal have a clear meaning, often people are a little unclear just what is meant by patriarchal though. Matrilineal societies often have male war leaders and mainly male warriors, for example, and it's easy to see why, that wouldn't mean it was exploitative of women. It's just because men are general stronger and unhampered by childbearing and nursing. But it could limit women's roles in significant ways. Is that patriarchy, and therefore bad?

I read somewhere that patriarchy started when people started to farm and 'own' land. Suddenly it was important for men to know that a child was actually theirs for inheritance purposes so women's fertility was something that they needed to control.

Thank you for the interesting thread

established just because men on the whole are bigger, stronger and could make it happen, iyswim

I think the vulnerability of women due to reproductive capacity cannot be underestimated in terms of societal developments and social standing. The protection and support of other women has been crucial to women managing pregnancy, birth and child rearing.

And to the poster implying it’s because women can’t collaborate with each other or cope with female bosses. A bit like trans research needs to be redone to reflect the very different landscape of young women and ROGD, earlier access to medicalised pathways (prepubertal) and shift to affirmation only, research on working with female bosses will need updating as they stop being anomalies and socially more normal.