How advanced would a matriarchy be?

[Annie11111]

I've always wondered about this, what if the world had been a matriarchy from the very beginning to this day, what would society look like? In terms of socio-economic systems, philosophy, religion, human rights, science, technology and so on. How much would it differ from today's world?

Btw there is a matriarchal society in China , the Mosuo.

I suspect men would have no rights to their children and would be infantilised versions of themselves. Women in an oppressive matriarchy would be much more able to treat men as disposal sex objects than the reverse, simply due to the very short term contribution (one orgasm) that men make to produce a child. At least in the current system, a man must stay in contact with a woman as it takes a 9 month pregnancy and (biologically intended, therefore the norm for millennia) breastfeeding over many years of he wants to have any access to rights to his child - which in patriarchy where things are passed via the male line is important. Pass it all through the female, then men become E very disposable.

Their violent tendencies, particularly in adolescence would make them unwelcome members of a tribe,so they'd probably get kicked out at puberty (and would avoid in-breeding) leaving them to wander.

Their big appetites (2500 cals is expensive in food shortages) would also make men undesirable to have around. To keep a tribe going you need all the women you can get but not many men. Just like a stud bull, you could easily end up with extensive male infanticide.

I think a (repressive) matriarch would be as bad, if not worse, than a repressive patriarchy.

I'm female BTW, in case anyone thinks I've got a fathers for justice agenda.

How advanced do you think it would be in terms of science and technology? Since I'm assuming men would not be able to make any advancements in their new found role. I once saw a quote by a woman saying something like if women were in charge we'd still be living in huts.

Well that's nonsense. Women are as curious, resourceful, creative and intelligent as men

Yes, why would technological advances not happen, unless you think that women can't do science? (and even then, wouldn't we figure that out and put the men to work doing science?)

I think the FWR board is 'infected'

Here's a quote from a woman for you Annie1111:

"If women were in charge, no way would we all be still living in huts"

By me. A woman.

With regards to technology, a lot of things have been invented which initially had a military application. Maybe some people would argue that in a matriarchal society there would be less war and so less dual use technology. I don't think we'd still be living in huts but I can see a scenario in which the space race didn't happen.

I think science and technology would look very different. We probably wouldn't have been to the moon, maybe not even into space. However I think everyone would have enough food and access to clean drinking water.

I think science would focus less on doing things just to see if we can and more on things that actually solve more immediate problems.

Cross post with thatstoast

you see i don't think we can know what a matriarchy would look like, because we are so socialised into gender roles that any assumptions we make now are clouded by that. who knows whether women would be more or less warmongering, compassionate and nurturing, keen to reach the moon, likely to develop a cure for PMT

and of course any group oppressing another (if that is the set-up of the matriarchy - it's unclear whether that would be the case or not) is not a good thing

I agree with Petula. It would be nice though if what BloominNora suggests is correct.

Sometimes I console myself with the multiple universe theory - you know, every time someone makes a decision it splits off into another one, so there are infinite worlds with all possibilities. Maybe somewhere they've got it right!

You lot would all be in government, and I'd be on Dadsnet plotting your downfall

I think progress would have happened in a more considerate way, Empathic joined up thinking. Scientific and technological advances would still have happened, because we'd still have brilliant scientists of both sexes, its just that they would have been taught and encouraged towards a more compassionate and conscientious use of their brains after being brought up and educated in a matriarchal society.

Daft stuff like sharia law wouldn't exist and i like to think that all organised religion would have evolved and be inclusive of everybody under a "we are all our mothers children" sort of ethos.

I've often wondered how much further ahead we would be if our technological advances had more focus on support and enrichment of society and less on weapons and destruction. Even a small shift in that direction would make a huge difference given how much time, energy and money is currently spend on combat.

Not exactly an answer to your question, but The Cleft by Doris Lessing is a really fascinating consideration of what a (primitive) matriarchy might look like. It also raises a lot of questions about how history is written and how history changes depending on who is in control of the writing/remembering of it...

How could it be any different, apart from reversal of roles? Under the covers, men and women are exactly the same, bar a couple of appendages. We'd still have the same shit going on all around us.

Curwen

Hmm, that's an interesting point. A lot of counterfactual imaginings r.e a matriarchal society (e.g. the old canard that "if women ruled the world there would be no wars") make assumptions based on gendered behaviour that has been formed in a specific patriarchal cultural context. If we had a matriarchy, "typical women's behaviour" would presumably be different...

I agree with petula.

I don't understand the idea there'd be less fighting and more empathy. Power corrupts etc. People like to have resources. The sort of people who are natural leaders often seem to be nutso arseholes.

Maybe it would be a lovely cooperative fair just place, maybe it would be even more violent a tribal than it is at the moment. Impossible to say.

Balls to the suggestion that girls can't do sums or science by the way. Fuck that.

The OP wrote: "there is a matriarchal society in China , the Mosuo."

I disagree.

The Mosuo are more matrilineal than matriarchal. Athough Mosuo women are often the head of the household, inheritance is through the female line, and women make business decisions, the political power is held by the men, and the women do the housework.

Any matriarchal female influence in the affairs of the Mosuo people is now subservient to the patriarchal Communist Party of China, so the Mosuo are not in control of their own destiny or free from patriarchal oppression.

There is similar patriarchal domination of other supposedly matriarchal societies including the Nair and Bunt peoples of India and the Minangkabau people of Indonesia etc.

It reminds me of how some mothers in western societies are sometimes described as matriarchs, but that doesn't make western societies matriarchal instead of patriarchal.

no, those matriarchs only exert power within the spheres of influence allowed by men with more power

"you see i don't think we can know what a matriarchy would look like, because we are so socialised into gender roles that any assumptions we make now are clouded by that. who knows whether women would be more or less warmongering, compassionate and nurturing, keen to reach the moon, likely to develop a cure for PMT "

Yy to this.

It would be interesting to know what a matriarchy would be like, wouldn't it?

Would, for example, capitalism have flourished as it has under a matriarchy?

I would be more interested in a feminist society than a matriarchy tbh because a feminist one would be more egalitarian.

I do think men would do better in a matriarchy than women have done under patriarchy though.

I have to ask again, why does anyone, especially a feminist, think that it would be in any way different, apart from role reversal? That kind of thinking flies in the face of everything I have read on here about feminism. I am lost.

Curwen, we are talking about a baseline rewrite, not "if we woke up in 1900 and the government was all female and men didn't have the vote" For example - if property were inherited down the maternal line, would marriage have even developed as there would be no requirement to be "certain" of paternity?