What would a true matriarchy look like?

[StandingDeskDisco]

What would a true matriarchy look like in today's world?

Is that like asking a fish what it would be like to live in the air?

I guess to start to answer, you have to identify what are the features of patriarchy, and imagine the opposite - or is that too simplistic?

Taking an idea from fiction, it could be a society in which 'paternity' was just not an important thing. DNA tests for paternity would be never done, unless there were very specific medical reasons for needing to know genes.
Women would have babies with whoever, and if they had a regular male partner in their lives, he would assume a 'fatherly' role whether or not he was the father.

Your idea of a matriarchy are as bad as the patriarchal norm we have now.
What would be good was if men were judged for abandoning their children rather than the mothers who are left struggling to fund and raise the children alone. Also if we actually had a cms system that took into account all income and wealth and jailed and/or removed the drivers licence and passports of non payers.
Also when it comes to crimes like rape it should be up to the man to prove that his victim consented rather than the victim having to prove she didn't

@Hoardasurass Good point - matriarchy is as bad as patriarchy, as neither are concerned with real equality, just with which sex has the power.

But, even if matriarchy is "bad" because it is not equality, the question of what it would look like remains. It is hard to imagine.

if we actually had a cms system that took into account all income and wealth and jailed and/or removed the drivers licence and passports of non payers.

Perhaps a matriarchal society would pay women for having children, without reference to who their fathers were.
Child maintenance would not be a thing paid by men.

Thats the patriarchy speaking.
Why should the state pay for children that men help create and allow men to run around creating them with no consequences or financial support?
Men should be judged more harshly for fathering multiple children with multiple partners and not supporting them instead of single mothers who do all the hard graft and financial burden

I think you are speaking with the voice of patriarchy. You have to really stretch your imagination to envision a society so utterly different that men are essentially "lesser" than women, and their status as fathers is unimportant.

A state run by and for women would not need the puny financial contributions of men to support the children (because of course men would earn on average far less than women in this matriarchy).

It would be far more collective, rather than it being down to nuclear families headed by men to support children.

From the few examples of matrilocal and matriachal societies, what happens isn't dominance, but group rule. Instead of competition you get community property and clear roles for each member.

For example, there is a small matriachal tribe in China where marriage is not practised. (sorry: I can't remember the name right now) The home belongs to the mother, her sons stay with her and her daughters can stay or move out as they wish. Men flirt and make assignments with their lovers (and there are long term lovers), but the children belong to the women's family, which means he invests in his nieces and nephews. From what I have read, women are responsible 'for things of life' so they tend the fields and home. Men are responsible for 'things of death' so they look after cattle, slaughter chickens etc. Everyone has a role. Expensive equipment (e.g tractors or vans) are shared. Community bonding takes place through parties and dancing.

It sounds a lot better and calmer than the patriarchal societies we have now. I've thought for a long time that men are more content when they have a clearly defined role and a place of value, whilst women get honoured for the way they network and organise.

@StandingDeskDisco have to agree to disagree with you on that.
No man should be allowed to abandon his children, regardless of his status in society or his income. Nor should women as a group have to pick up all the parental responsibilities of child rearing.
If we were really going to switch the rolls men would be working full-time whilst doing 90% of the housework, childcare and all of the emotional and mental work too. All whilst being constantly judged by women for not doing enough, earning enough and their appearance and body type would be commented on constantly.
Edited for autocorrect fail

Robert Graves writes that before people realised that men impregnated women and thought it was a magical force, e.g. the wind, the female was revered and the Godess was the basis of religion. Men were secondary.

At the heart of patriarchy lies fear of the female life-creating power and male redundancy or relegation to a secondary class of mere sperm provider

@Teribus21
I recall reading a novel about King Arthur, in which the Celtic society was a kind of 'matriarchy' (author's invention, not necessarily historically accurate).
The women were puzzled and bemused by the invading Roman's idea of a patrilinear society, in which children took their father's names, because how could anyone be sure who anyone's father was?
So even when it is recognised that men impregnate women (rather than the wind), that still leaves paternity open to question.
I agree that the heart of patriarchy is men trying to control women out of fear, whether that is some primeval fear of female life-creating power, or just fear of unwittingly raising another man's child.

I have been re-watching a lot of David Attenborough programmes on iPlayer, and it is striking how for so many species the male has to work so hard to get a female to permit him to mate. Especially birds.
Even in mammals, in species where the dominant male collects a 'harem' of females, it is often the females' choice to gather around him or ignore him.
Then when another male challenges him, the males battle it out.

But yesterday there was a section on monkeys. The male was losing control of his harem, and the females were sneaking off to mate with younger males.
Then when he spotted a pair, he didn't attack the usurping male, he attacked the female for straying, to punish her.
That was truly shocking - far too reminiscent of domestic abuse in humans.

Perhaps patriarchy goes right back to our primate origins, and there never was a the mythical golden age of matriarchy in our pre-history.