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.

It wouldn't be any better.
I am not assuming that a matriarchy would be any better than a patriarchy.

I didn't say it would be better. I said I thought it would be necessary, and that, on my bad days, I would welcome the necessary. It's a thought experiment, isn't it?

ed. bloody spelling

Ok, thanks. Recently there have been quite a few posts that are “anti men”. When I read them, I always wonder if the posters have sons? To me, it sends an awful messsge to boys and young men.

Ok, thanks.

It is interesting that such a question is posed and the dominant theme at the heart of the debate is men and the patriarchy. So is the question less about a true matriarchy and more about opposition to the dominant hierarchy. Which is totally understandable.

I don’t see a true matriarchy fundamentally as a project of replacing the patriarchy, I see it as recognition of the dominant hierarchy with the aim of potentially replacing dominant male virtues of power and control with different virtues, values and principles, to be worked out in our manifesto.

I don’t see a true matriarchy fundamentally as a project of replacing the patriarchy
I am not sure what you mean. Matriarchy is the exact opposite of patriarchy, so by definition a true matriarchy would replace patriarchy.

Of course the third option is to have neither.

A third option so neither sex dominates the other.

That would be great, but it would not be matriarchy.

Your original post of what a true matriarchy could look like didn’t sound very appealing!!

You assume a man’s only contribution to child rearing is a financial one. Children benefit from having both parents actively involved in their lives. I think a more equal society would value the non-monetary contribution more so no throwing some money at mum and considering it a job well done. Men take equal responsibility for childcare, routine and discipline, disappearing from your child’s life considered abandonment in the same way it would be if the resident parent did it.

Perhaps in a matriarchal society men would have been socialised to be less violent and sexual.

Most could live active physical lives doing the work that requires their strength.
In their free time they would be exercised a lot in organised sports to blow off steam.

Afterwards they would go to their campus bath house and be looked after to prevent injuries, like prize race horses.

They could be housed in catered dormitories, no worries about food or bills and the like, football or cycling everyday if they wanted.
A lot of men would love this!

Others with talent for hosting, the arts or sciences could be siphoned off for training to join the society of women.

I believe that no one should rule in the way that patriarchies have ruled, historically and in the present day.

I don’t see true matriarchy as a question of who holds the power but more of a question about the society that is created.

PPs have stated that power held by any sex would be much of the same, that men are stronger and would therefore wrest power back and the point you make -

“How were/are women raised in a patriarchal society? By mothers who taught them to comply and be obedient? It would be the same for men teaching their sons in a matriarchy” is quite apt, I think.

A better society doesn’t necessarily come down to defining itself by who holds the power. It is not therefore merely a patriarchal vs matriarchal question, it should become instead a societal aim, which could be to create more nurturing, stable relationships, across families and institutions, to diffuse power strong holds by distributing authority, and to promote and uphold personal and civic responsibility. Aims that should be the joint pursuit of both the sexes.

Did you see the post by @Bringemout above that said in some societies the children are the property of the mother's brothers, i.e. maternal uncles.

It takes a big stretch of imagination to see a society where 'fatherhood' as we know it is just not a thing.

Would you want this sort of life for your sons? What age would boys go and live in these catered dormitories? Do you actually believe men would be compliant?

Some people seem to be misunderstanding this thread.
I am not advocating for matriarchy.
It is a useful mental exercise to imagine dystopias as well as utopias.

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

Yes and yes. Although still patriarchal, before the Abrahamic religions combined with the Roman Empire, women in the ancient civilisations had more rights and were less unequal.

A utopia is impossibly idealistic!!! It would probably lead to totalitarian control, forced conformity, and the suppression of essential human freedoms.

Equally a dystopia is impossibly unrealistic. Humans would never let it happen.
(Atrocities do of course happen, but a whole dystopian society? No)

Still, intriguing to imagine how a matriarchy could actually exist in today's world.

I agree. I’ve read enough dystopian novels to know that a dystopian society would be an awful existence!!!

I've read of similar societies in Thailand and Cambodia. The line of succession is through the female and they make the main decisions about how the community runs. I've heard of women in Cambodia living alone and being 'visited' by men of their choosing. In Africa, there was a also a female group of rogue soldiers who had escaped war, got hold of weapons, learnt to shoot etc, and formed their own community.

So you would have children growing up in a dysfunctional society with male role models who flit from woman to woman (and vice versa). We have a version of that already and it provides poor outcomes from its child victims. Stable, loving, faithful relationships are what is needed that the community supports.

A matriarchal society would perhaps not put as much value on CM as provided by parents because naturing and bridging up children would be a societal value and would not be dependent on the model that we have now where children miss out if they are abandoned by their fathers.

It should not be for mothers and children to be deprived of financial support because fathers don’t hold providing all levels of support to the children they sire as a fundamental value. But that is what we have.

A matriarchal society would have to put changing values at the heart of everything rather than trying to change male behaviour.

So you would have...

No.
This is a thought experiment. I am not advocating for matriarchy, just imagining what it might be like.

There is no "true" matriarchy just like there isn't a "true" patriarchy.

Social organisation isn't according to some ideal form, it's something real. Typically it means women hold all or most concrete positions of power and property and lineage are through the female line - the opposite for patriarchy. Rather than the abstraction that seems to be what is meant in a lot of feminist discourse.

In practice societies are often mixed to a greater or lesser extent.

The thing is, even if women were in charge, it's not like the men would not have testosterone or would change their essential biological qualities. They would still be more prone to aggression and would be more sexually motivated than women.

I'm not sure why the OP things no one would care about who the father actual was, that doesn't seem to follow at all.