Why has it always been a patriarchy?

[4plusthehound]

DD came home from school the other day and asked this question.

Am stumped.

Can anyone help me? 😂

sorry to derail the thread

I don’t think it is derailing. There’s bias in the way we perceive things and interpret .

My instinct is that more peaceful, gentle cultures or species are also more likely to have sex equality. I think ‘warring’ without is a sign of male dominance/patriarchy within.

Although it was interesting upthread someone said about a Native American tribe, where the women decide to go to war. In Roman and Greek mythology, the female Goddesses like Athena or Venus also advise on war.

Chimp status also comes from the mother. Males do jockey for position as adults, and a lower status one can rise by violence, but they tend not to last. More reliable routes to seniority are maternal lineage and forming alliances - with females as well as other males. Food sharing, grooming and looking after youngsters are more important than fighting.

Many other group-living primates show similar patterns. Even with a nominal male 'in charge' of the troop there's often significant female influence on who that is (for example, colobus monkeys select a primary male and if they get fed up with him they band together to chase him off).

Evolution and what other mammals do is pretty much a red herring.

Whatever the surrounding or supporting structures in any given human society - human females ovulate once a month, become pregnant and then most bond with their child in a very fierce and instinctive way that males do not.

Perhaps what you are calling 'dominance' or 'hierarchy' are just value judgments that are based on the reality of male pattern behaviours and potentials.

Misstache, that's one rather scant article to base such a sweeping generalisation on. Lions are definitely not 'matriarchal', for a start. I was looking for more in depth research/evidence.

This article has a bit more substance to it:

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180925-with-females-in-charge-bonobo-society-is-more-chilled-out

'New research has found that of the more than 5,000 known species of mammals, just a handful are led by females ... eight species that exemplify female leadership: hyenas, killer whales, lions, spotted hyenas, bonobos, lemurs, and elephants.
To find this group, the team first had to pinpoint the social species that show any leadership traits at all – by looking at things like movement, foraging, or conflict resolution, they identified 76 such mammals. Then within that group, the team searched for evidence of female leadership, and for the characteristics which define these female leaders....
The researchers note it’s important not to confuse leadership with dominance.'

Based on this paper:

https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1048984318302947

An archived article here with some interesting notes on contentious issues on patriarchal/matriarchal theories:

'In the course of my critique of feminist matriarchal myth, I do not intend to offer a substitute account of what happened between women and men in prehistoric times, or to determine whether patriarchy is a human universal or a recent historical phenomenon. These are questions that are hard to escape—feminist matriarchal myth was created largely in response to them—and intriguing to speculate upon. But the stories we spin out and the evidence we amass about the origins of sexism are fundamentally academic. They are not capable of telling us whether or how we might put an end to sexism. As I argue at the end of this book, these are moral and political questions; not scientific or historical ones. The enemies of feminism have long posed issues of patriarchy and sexism in pseudoscientific and historical terms. It is not in feminist interests to join them at this game, especially when it is so (relatively) easy to undermine the ground rules. We know enough about biological sex differences to know that they are neither so striking nor so uniform that we either need to or ought to make our policy decisions in reference to them. And we know that cultures worldwide have demonstrated tremendous variability in constructing and regulating gender, indicating that we have significant freedom in making our own choices about what gender will mean for us. Certainly recent history, both technological and social, proves that innovation is possible: we are not forever condemned to find our future in our past. Discovering—or more to the point, inventing—prehistoric ages in which women and men lived in harmony and equality is a burden that feminists need not, and should not bear. Clinging to shopworn notions of gender and promoting a demonstrably fictional past can only hurt us over the long run as we work to create a future that helps all women, children, and men flourish.'

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/e/eller-myth.html

This is the author's book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Matriarchal_Prehistory

Lions are definitely not 'matriarchal', for a start. - actually that article directly contradicts that assertion, apologies.

That’s interesting- the distinction between leadership and dominance.

It makes the difference.

Lionesses can’t do anything if a lion murders their cubs or takes the ‘lion’s share’ of the meat, but they do cooperate over the hunt and show leadership.

And here's an article critiquing the book quoted above. Interesting points on the word choice of 'matriarchal', which seems to be largely dismissed as ambiguous and inaccurate, and other possible terms:

'“Matrilineal” is inadequate, focusing on the single criterion of descent. "Matrifocal" is too ambiguous, since it could be argued (and has been) that many patriarchal societies retain a strong emphasis on the mother. A variety of names have been proposed for egalitarian matrilineages, including "matristic," [Gimbutas, 1991] "gynarchic" societies, [Gunn Allen, 1986] "woman-centered" societies, or "gylany." [Eisler, 1987] My preferred term is "matrix society," which implies a social network based on the life support system as well as mother-right.'

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20051203215431/www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/eller.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20051203215431/www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/eller.html

It isn't in every civilisation.
My belief is that they took control because in reality women have the power with the ability to pro create and nurture. Men are only needed for sperm once.
It's also why religion demonises women.

It hasn't in all societies though...

www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g28565280/matriarchal-societies-list/

@4plusthehound only read your posts OP, sorry if someone else has mentioned this. In the prologue of a book on Greek mythology, it elaborated how society was matriarchal (and the mythology reflected that) and they worshipped goddesses in temples because they thought they became pregnant from the air by Mother Nature (whatever that was). The temple goddesses lived independently and slept with men. Once it was realised the seed came from the men and not the air, by Mother Nature blessing the goddesses, the power shifted.

I’m not basing it on “one article,” that was just an example. And much other research shows many other species, not just 8.

Sorry, hit send too soon. A good friend of mine is actually a feminist ecologist - there’s a whole field on this. She did work in Uganda with elephants and male scientists resisted the idea that elephants could be healed from violence by connecting them with older women…it’s fascinating stuff. Anyway, I wasn’t writing a peer reviewed paper on here, my main point was that so much of what we think we know about nature is filtered through male bias and then installed as fact.

I typed quite a long reply last night so want repeat, but as said upthread, the big difference was once the role of men in pregnancies was understood the power balance shifted.

Women may have been constantly pregnant or breastfeeding, but as is still the case in many agricultural societies, continued to grow and harvest food.

I think relative strength differences was not the issue, men may have done more hunting because it was easier for them because they weren't pregnant / breast feeding.

The difference is, and we will never be able to say why, that the once is some parts of the world men realised they had a connection to a child, why they then turned into an "ownership" issue. Why didn't it continue that the children remain linked through the mother, why did some societies start to organise into families rather than tribes or clans.

As others have said matrilineal socities still exist.

But is some cultures it didn't for instance mean that a clan or tribe society continued to exist but acknowledged patrilineal relationships, but that paternity was turned into a superior right, and as a result women become properties of men.

This lowering of their status, though many continued to do as much if not more work that before, is what set in train patriarchy ie somehow infering that having sperm made you superior to having a womb.

Did men start or become more aggressive to each other once they became / created themselves as the owners, therefore the protectors of women?

I cant remember which socialist / communist writer it was, but they put forward that the family is the root of women's oppression.

And it isn't a conincidence that improved contraception, ie the pill became more available at the time that second wave feminism became influential.

The problem was / is that during the 70s when women's role in society started to change, men didn't.

So the patriarchal structures, conventions continued and women's liberation became the right to be doubly oppressed, ie go out to work, but come home to work.

Unless and until men change the patriarchy will remain a negative social factor for women.

re reference in my post above:

Although there was a clear division of labour by sex in pre-class societies, women’s work was not regarded as inferior to that of men.

The movement from simple subsistence to the production of a surplus laid the material basis for the development of trade, the appropriation of labour and the concept of private property.

With the emergence of class societies came the attribution of an inferior status to woman’s work and control over her reproductive capacity.

Mother right which characterised pre-class societies was overthrown. Engels refers to this as “the world historic defeat of the female sex.”

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/womens-oppression-origins-family-and-condition-working-class

Nrtft yet but my 2p worth is that there is emerging archaeological evidence to suggest that prehistoric (pre-roman) Britain was far less patriarchal- possibly even the opposite.

I saw a programme about Lilith last week and it was eye-opening. Written by men, of course and not older then the Bible it attempts to explain the two Genesis stories of the origin of women. So God says let us make man in our own image, male and female created he them. So equal? But Adam decided that Lilith, the first wife should be subservient, and Lilith rejected that and ran way to become a demon. Hence Eve.
I had heard Lilith didn't always want to be underneath during sex, whtch tradition regarded as wrong, but not realised that that implied that Adam was wrong. It's his fault, not Eve's. Whoever wrote that myth down knew how ancient male dominance was, andndidn't question it.

Oh, is that where all the aquatic ape and dog dolphin stuff came from?

I visited a matriarchal society in the San Blas islands. The indigenous community actually moved to a relatively isolated spot from across central América when the Spanish chucked them out and killed off most of the population and that isolation helped their society survive as is. My theory is that an awful lot of societies in that region probably were matriarchal in the 15000 years they weren't connected to Europe/Asia/Africa but societies and people were wiped out by colonisation so all we have is biased interpretation. I reckon there's also something in there about scarcity driving patriarchy because fighting over resources and allocating thm to your gene pool matters more.

Yes, social accommodations are necessary to enable people to fulfill their various potentials - whether they be male or female, but sexed differences will remain, which effect the choices that people make. You'll be waiting a long time for that them to disappear. 'Men' aren't alone responsible for creating a workable solution that best mets everyone's needs.

I think a lot of us are actually re-evaluating the gains made via second wave feminism in the light of the many negatives, and also in the light of gender ideology which pre-supposes that sexed differences aren't real or consequential and i know I, for one, have been thinking along the same lines as Mary Harrington in recent times - there's something quite 'zeitgeisty' about her 'reactionary feminism'.

I don't hate or blame men. I like men, in general, and get on with them - though I recognise the ways in which men operate, think or prioritise differently to women. Having children causes you to realise this and just being around men and boys a lot.

@Treaclemine which programme was that?

https://isreview.org/issues/02/engles_family/

Engels wrote on family as the root of women's oppression.

'Men' aren't alone responsible for creating a workable solution that best mets everyone's needs.

No but they didn't change in the face of women taking advantage of their ability to act "more like men" because of improved contraception.

re-evaluating the gains made via second wave feminism in the light of the many negatives

Most of the negatives are because men / male structures didn't change. ie capitalism was able to respond to more women entering the workforce to make the cost of living so hight that the norm became 2 wage packets to maintian a home (now more) rather than creating a work pattern of everyone working part time, with everyone then able to spend more home time

in the light of gender ideology which pre-supposes that sexed differences aren't real or consequential

Not sure what you are referring to? Queer politics, or ... ?

It isn't about hating or blaming men, but recognising that men have not adapted to the new realities, because they are used to their right not to change. ie effectively men as a group dont value women enough to make the change.

A parrallel example would be all those white people who say they are totally opposed to racism, but in practice do nothing to change ingrained racism, or structural racism.

@NotHavingIt

I think a lot of us are actually re-evaluating the gains made via second wave feminism in the light of the many negatives, and also in the light of gender ideology which pre-supposes that sexed differences aren't real or consequential and i know I, for one, have been thinking along the same lines as Mary Harrington in recent times - there's something quite 'zeitgeisty' about her 'reactionary feminism'.

That re-evaluation should compare the situation today to what it would have been without second wave feminism.

I recommend finding out the tremendous legal discrimination against women which then existed (things like being able to take out a mortgage or open a bank account in many countries were not simple things for women), the percentage of women who became physicians or lawyers in those days or how many women were in any kind of decision-making position, the way things like marital rape were legal and "what she wore" was used widely to justify rape, the average wages offered to male and female workers, how it was legal to advertise jobs separately by sex etc.

An overall re-evaluation should include all those things and the fact that the second wave got an enormous amount of important changes done, but failed to address other things which also mattered and/or failed to get those things changed.

I thinks comparisons to countries which never had that second wave is also insightful. I doubt many here would prefer to live in societies organised on those grounds.

As others have pointed out in this thread, men's social role expectations have changed much less than women's, and this is one reason for the current problems. More fathers should become involved in hands-on care of their children, more men should share the care of the elderly and ill within families etc, for women to be able to fully participate in the society.

Those feminists who believe that such differences in gendered roles (not the sex-based ones about giving birth and breast-feeding) are largely innate should provide an alternative feminist road map about how to alter the society to be less patriarchal and fairer to women. I would be very interested in seeing such proposals.

Very interesting!

In some tribes the women's council had the veto power about going to war, or so a Cherokee woman once told me. I can't remember if that had been the case in her tribe or not. The chiefs could propose war, but the women's council had the right to veto that.

Also in some tribes it was women who owned the cultivated land because women did the cultivating, and the land was seen as something to be passed on in the female line as a form of insurance against starvation.