How and why did the patriarchy evolve?

[toptramp]

I mean surely it's within everyone's interests, both men and women to have equality right? Is it something to do with capitalism? Are there any equal societies in the modern world or indeed in the past?

Also I feel so conflicted between wanting to find a big love in my life pitted agianst a fear of being controlled by a man again and a big cultural pressure urging me to find someone.

What about bonobos? I thought they were pretty egalitarian with strong female alliances - and that it's a tossup whether we are more related to the more aggressive chimps or the hippified bonobos.

I'm going bonobo - it's just like Gryffindor and Slytherin all over again....

Lol, yes, I remembered the bonobos after I'd posted. You're right, matriarchal and highly promiscuous; also sadly endangered, so maybe matriarchy isn't an evolutionary sound way to go? (Yes, I know it has more to do with humans taking their territory, and eating them. :( )

Matriarchal and highly promiscuous - ah, where do I sign up?......

But thinking about it, a patriarchal society is more likely to survive when up against a matriarchal one because the former is competitive and aggressive and the latter isn't. A tribe that is slow to go to war is probably not going to win it. So it's more likely to dominated and subsumed by the more aggressive/competitive one.

We don't know that a human, matriarchal society would be peace-loving; there would still be men, who would be as innately violent as any other men, they just wouldn't be calling the shots.

I've not heard of hidden evolution before. Just been reading about it - quite interesting but I can't believe women would ahve been unaware when they were ovulating

Many women aren't aware today when they ovulate; I used to know because I got that slight pain, but we wouldn't need all the contraptions folk use when they're ttc'ing if every woman actually knew. If, say, our arses turned bright red.

I think it is far more recent than pre-human. I'm not an authority, but I would have thought it came about at the time that farming was introduced, and people needed to store their surplus food and protect it from other groups.

This would have meant a warrior class, and even a priest class, would have developed to keep order. They would have been feted, supported by the work of others, and there would have to have been some ideological justifications made for that. I can see how a male-dominated society would be the result of that kind of set-up.

Is there any species which is neither patriarchal nor matriarchal but truly egalitarian?

Most insects, reptiles and fish etc don't form long-term partnerships, so I imagine they're fairly egalitarian. The dependency of child-rearing may be a factor?

I must admit I was thinking mammalian - well bees sure as heck aren't egalitarian. And then there is the lovely exception to every rule, the seahorse. (sorry, wandering OT!)

Many women aren't aware today when they ovulate; I used to know because I got that slight pain, but we wouldn't need all the contraptions folk use when they're ttc'ing if every woman actually knew. If, say, our arses turned bright red.
Perhaps they wouldn't actually be able to say they were ovulating but I'm sure women centuries ago would have been much more in tune with their natural cycle than a lot of women today and aware of differences in their bodies, feelings etc

Surely the fact that there were in the past, and still exist today in some places, socities that are not patriarchal, shows that patriarchy didn't evolve in distant, pre-human times. It would be very depressing to think it was inevitable, which is what some posters seem to be suggesting. Wouldn't that fact add strength to any arguments that women are inferior?

I'm sure that a lot of past societies were organised in ways quite alien to our way of thinking. There are many theories about kingship/queenship in Ancient Egypt; we tend to judge by our own experiences.

The thing about Iceland was interesting. I'm sure I've heard something similar before. I don't think the poster was saying there was resentment towards ICelandic women, more that that has happened in other places.

I've not heard of hidden evolution before. Just been reading about it - quite interesting but I can't believe women would ahve been unaware when they were ovulating
Hidden ovulation, even.

Rosy - the point about hidden ovulation is that human beings have recreational sex at times when they could not possibly get pregnant - e.g. wrong time of the month and when they are already pregnant. Few other animals do this. In most species males are only attracted to females when they are ' in heat' and/or females are only receptive at that time.

From an survival point of view it is a dangerous strategy - it wastes energy, and it would have made people more open to attack by predators. So there must be some evolutionary benefit to it to one or bothe sides.

It's thought that it's part of the evolutionary 'battle of the sexes' - the way in which females and males negotiate who to have children with and who to invest resources to enable child survival in the long, long period of dependency.

... Which is a large part of the male- female relationships that underpin social structures.

Women in ancient times didn't have many cycles (unless they were infertile). They would have spent more time pregnant or breastfeeding. It's very unlikely they would have known when they were ovulating, or what it meant.

wouldn't [the fact that aspects of patriarchy have roots in pre human evolution] add strength to arguments that women are inferior?

No - it just means that males and females evolved tendencies and behaviours that tended to promote survival and reproduction in the environment they evolved in.

Caucasian people are better at producing vitamin D in overcast weather. Black people are better protected from skin damage in sunny regions. Doesn't make one superior to the other.

Men are on average taller and stronger than women ...it doesn't mean they are superior.

What if it were found that men are on average marginally more intelligent than women, would that make them superior? Only if you think less clever people are inferior.

Remember that human civilisation (in terms of forming any kind of social structure) is kind of a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. And we are evolving beyond patriarchy because it doesn't work all that well. Men compete for access to women, kill children who are not their own, spend more time fighting than co-operating... Don't forget that it's widely recognised now that the best way to help developing countries that are really struggling is to empower the women.

oh dear. How I loathe evolutionary biology. I want to cite Katharine Hepburn 'Nature, Mr Allnutt, is what we are put into the world to riiise above.'

Rosy, there is no matriarchy. There never has been one. This does not mean patriarchy has to continue. It's up to us to rid ourselves of it.

Rosy71 -

Thinking a bit more about your post, I don't think the way that we evolved was inevitable. Our ancestors might have taken a different pathway, or died out altogether. Any number of things could have happened.

I'm glad that evolution took this pathway, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Looking backwards we can be certain that we are this way through evolution. But that is different from saying it was always inevitable that humans would evolve in a certain way.

On the question of superiority/inferiority...I guess you are talking about the argument that 'women are not cut out to lead'...?

I think it is true that males had more to gain and less to loose in evolutionary terms in competing for status and leadership (as warrior, despot, chief whatever...) because success could mean attracting many women and having control over the wealth to be able to raise many children (100s), whereas for women it made more evolutionary sense to invest in protecting and nurturing the children you have given birth to (at great risk, and knowing them 100% to be yours) than to go out and seek riches and status.

So yes I think this has led to men (on average) tending to have more of the characteristics (single mindedness, arrogance, glory-seeking, all that alpha male stuff) that tend to get you into leadership positions.

But the key distinction to make is that these characteristics don't necessarily make you a better leader, just more successful in becoming one.

sieglinde - great quote - one which none other than Richard Dawkins has used. We have intelligence and conscience which allow us to rise above our biological evolution.

I find the evolution of the spotted hyena to be fascinating. Females are larger than males.
There's is a matriarchal group with a pecking order, alpha female cubs take priority when it comes to feeding and after the females have fed the males take what's left.
Female cubs have an great way of ensuring they have limited competion from their sibling sisters, as they normally kill them.

Sieglinde - how can you loathe evolutionary biology ?! It's like loathing gravity or covalent bonds

Maybe she means she loathes it when people try to make out we're totally defined and trapped by it. Which as I sort of mentioned, arch-evolutionary biologist RD refutes.