Americastan.....Patriarchy Or Matriarchy?

[Midnight Rain]

You might start a thread to attempt to find a common useful definition of "patriarchy" or "matriarchy".
But for this thread, we'll stick to the ones I provided.

The definition is useful enough as it is. It doesn't displace my concern however.

 

[Revoltingest]

The definition is useful enough as it is. It doesn't displace my concern however.

Actually, I don't want to deflate anyone's concerns.
This thread is just to discuss my thesis.
I expected many to disagree.
But hey, that's why we're here.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

We often hear about the "patriarchy" which rules the country.
But what justification is there for this claim?
Is it that men are the majority in government leadership?
The wage gap.....home bound wives....glass ceiling.....etc, etc?
Or is it necessity for political movements to have a boogeyman?

Some contra-indicators based upon the premise that women (more than men) are nurturers are......

1) Women are the majority of voters who elect those in charge.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p20-577.pdf
(Note: The linked data provide strong evidence for a geezerocracy. Btw, get off my lawn.)
1a) Women are the majority in the most powerful political party.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

2) As women became the single most powerful voting block, government policies have changed.
2a) Government moved from conquering other countries for material gain, to conquering
other countries for humanitarian reasons, ie, to force them into our progressive image.
(The issue of inhumanity committed in the process of ostensibly humanitarian acts is for another thread.)
2b) Government has moved from treating citizens as rugged individuals to treating them
as protected beneficiaries of largesse, eg, welfare, health care, Social Security.

3) Women have preserved special privileges from patriarchal days, eg, immunity from military draft, dower rights.

4) Women have gained new privileges, eg, preferential treatment in child custody & divorce.

5) Women have no governmental restrictions from winning any political office.
The fact that women vote more often for men is their unhindered choice.
Thus, the matriarchal element of government is carried out thru mostly men.
Ironic, eh? Well, gals often tell us we're "tools".

Posters are welcome to support either side.
But it isn't about feminism, neither attacking or defending it.
And I require civility....if you want to call each other names, then start your own ^%@^$ thread.

In all honesty discrimination against all three sexes occur all the time and should be reduced.

 

[Revoltingest]

In all honesty discrimination against all three sexes occur all the time and should be reduced.

Aye, there's a lot of room for improvement.....especially for the 3rd option.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In all honesty discrimination against all three sexes occur all the time and should be reduced.

What third sex?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

What third sex?

Intersexual.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Aye, there's a lot of room for improvement.....especially for the 3rd option.

I think there should be a movement against sex discrimination in general.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think there should be a movement against sex discrimination in general.

Our society is working on it in fits & starts.
Gay marriage is the big recent victory.
(Some might not see that as sex discrimination, but it strikes me as such.)
What thoughts have you on where you want progress?

 

[Revoltingest]

I ran across an example of female legal privilege today....
A heating/cooling contractor I know is doing a job in a housing project in Ypsilanti MI.
He couldn't do the whole job because federal money involved mean that a portion of
work must go to minority contractors. The supervising authority (SA) has been having
trouble with them...improper material specs, slow performance....running behind schedule.
SA wants my friend's company to finish the job, but he's just a white guy.
What to do....what to do?
Ahah!
He put the company in his wife's name.
He now has the whole job.

 

[Revoltingest]

I heard an interesting interview on NPR with, Jay Newton-Small, the author of,
"Broad Influence: How Women are Changing the Way America Works".
She's also seen that being the majority voting gender, women have shaped
the country's agendas. (Note: Jay is a female, & works for Time, not Fox.)

 

[Akivah]

Those seem to be mostly safety equipment and medical gear. While I agree that the medical supplies should not be taxed I don't see how hard hats are in the same category as feminine products. Its much along the same lines as "winter coats" or "gas masks" rather than vitally essential items for daily life.

Speaking as a sales tax expert, exempt medical products are typically defined as those which are issued under prescription. In general, taxable medical products are over-the-counter products, sundry products, and hygiene products. Specifics differ by state.

 

[Revoltingest]

Speaking as a sales tax expert, exempt medical products are typically defined as those which are issued under prescription. In general, taxable medical products are over-the-counter products, sundry products, and hygiene products. Specifics differ by state.

I'm glad someone knows this stuff.
I found it particularly resistant to getting a full picture.

 

[lovemuffin]

We often hear about the "patriarchy" which rules the country.
But what justification is there for this claim?
Is it that men are the majority in government leadership?
The wage gap.....home bound wives....glass ceiling.....etc, etc?
Or is it necessity for political movements to have a boogeyman?

I would nitpick your implicit definition of "patriarchy" a bit here. The phrase "rules the country" implies something like a cabal, some explicitly organized system that actively exercises power, but I don't think that's quite what patriarchy means. Rather, it is the observation that social systems and institutions, including but not limited to political institutions, concentrate power in the hands of men.

Historically speaking, there is no real controversy about the fact that most societies since the dawn of the historical period have been patriarchical, although there is evidence that some pre-historic societies were more egalitarian. I assume you wouldn't deny the assertion that western societies at the turn of the 20th century were highly patriarchical and had been for hundreds of years. I think the history is worth keeping in mind prior to evaluating the question about American society in the present. The title of the thread presents the question as a dichotomy; either patriarchy or matriarchy, but even if those terms represent two extreme ends of a spectrum, there is a lot of room in the middle. Western societies are less patriarchical now then they were in 1900. I don't think anyone will deny that either. But it doesn't really follow that they have become "matriarchical" in the sense of concentrating power in the hands of women.

I think that this is not the case is more evident from the arguments you didn't make. For example:

1) Women are the majority of voters who elect those in charge.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p20-577.pdf

1a) Women are the majority in the most powerful political party.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

Here is the data you didn't cite:
- the Senate is 80% male, and the House 81.7% (Rutgers)
- 75.6% of state legislators are male (National Conference of State Legislators)
- 88% of state governors are male (List of Female Incumbent Governors)
- 6 of 9 Supreme Court Justices are male, which is noteworthy in part because it's an historic low.
- 65% of Federal Court of Appeals justices are male (National Women's Law Center)
- 66% of Federal district court judges are male (ibid)

To argue that we have become a matriarchy because there are demographically more women than men, while ignoring the actual demographics of those holding power is, in my opinion, clearly fallacious. It is either disingenuous or it reflects a great deal of naivety about political power. One is reminded of the Stalin quote about what matters being those who count the votes, not those who place them. In this case, who you can vote for (who is running) also matters. It's difficult to successfully run for office without support -- from political parties, donor networks, and other political interest groups. The actual numbers suggest that it is still more difficult for women than men to succeed within these social structures. Having a small demographic advantage among likely voters doesn't remove that factor.

Beyond that, your other arguments about political representation reflect an ideologically-based bias more than anything else. You argue that social welfare programs reflect an essentially feminine point of view ("nurturing"), over against an apparently "manly" individualism, but this lens appears to be quite a revision of history. The modern social safety net owes to FDR and LBJ more than anyone else, and there is no evidence that they were motivated by feminist concerns. One doesn't have to be opposed to patriarchy to support those programs.

3) Women have preserved special privileges from patriarchal days, eg, immunity from military draft, dower rights.

I think most of us expect that the draft is vestigial at this point, unlikely to ever be invoked. I expect many feminists (and others) would prefer the draft was done away with simply because it is out of date with the modern military, but feminists have also supported allowing women in combat roles, and many would support extending the draft to women if we were to keep it. They would do so for the same reasons they support equality for women in combat roles. Basically, the status of the draft would seem to represent more the quirks of our political process than anything else.

4) Women have gained new privileges, eg, preferential treatment in child custody & divorce.

I've never seen any compelling evidence for this with regard to custody. For example, more than 90% of custody cases are decided without a court order, and there is evidence that the reason mothers win custody more often reflects the attitudes and desires of both parties. (cf. Divorce stats) What is interesting is that these attitudes reflect cultural assumptions about gender roles that are in and of themselves sexist. To a large extent those attitudes reflect the historical patriarchy of our society, rather than an advantage for women. Women are simply expected to be primarily caregivers.

I think you could probably make a better argument that "maintenance" (alimony) payments in divorce are too often unfair, although it is also my understanding (from reading during my own divorce) that courts are generally trying to move away from maintenance as a standard practice in divorce. But here too, the underlying gendered cultural norms that explain the phenomena are sexist, they are vestiges of patriarchy. The desire of feminists is to dismantle those very norms. Obviously progress happens slowly and in a not-entirely-rationalized way.

Then there is the wage gap, which you mentioned but didn't address. Here is some relevant data:

"After accounting for college major, occupation, economic sector, hours worked, months unemployed since graduation, GPA, type of undergraduate institution, institution selectivity, age, geographical region, and marital status, Graduating to a Pay Gap found that a 7 percent difference in the earnings of male and female college graduates one year after graduation was still unexplained. Similarly, Behind the Pay Gap found a 12 percent unexplained difference in earnings among full-time workers 10 years after college graduation."

(American Association of University Women)
​

Statistics about the wage gap are often disputed, with difficulties accounting for all the variables pointed out. And it is true that there really is no such thing as perfect data that can remove every factor beyond gender discrimination. Yet the study cited above does an excellent job accounting for many variables to get a fair comparison. In fact, every measure shows a disadvantage for women. In the same report you can see the consistency of the wage gap by state.

If you look at BLS data by occupation, you will be hard pressed to find any where women earn more than men on average. The purpose of segmenting by occupation is of course to get a comparison where in theory the qualifications and skill levels between men and women are close to equivalent. And it's not just a question of average wages either, you can observe how occupations like "Chief Executive" are highly male dominated.

I think a common mistake is thinking that "patriarchy" as an explanation for this kind of data entails all men being consciously misogynistic or sexist. But that's not the case, and it misunderstands the cultural and social nature of gender norms in the same way that the phrase "rule the country" did in the OP. This is demonstrated in this article in the NY Times:

"Last year, the consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers voluntarily released its gender pay gap in Britain, one of five firms in the country, including AstraZeneca, to do so. Simply saying the number out loud “created much more momentum internally” to close it, Sarah Churchman, who runs the firm’s British diversity and inclusion efforts, told me.

PricewaterhouseCoopers’s analysis showed that most of its 15.1 percent pay disparity (compared with a Britain-wide gap of more than 19 percent) reflected a lack of women in senior jobs. So the firm focused on whether it was promoting fairly. In 2013, the grade just below partner was 30 percent female, yet only 16 percent of those promoted to partner were women. A year later, the percentage of women promoted to partner had more than doubled.

The firm’s executives were also stunned to find a bonus pattern that favored men. The analysis showed that men who were passed over for partnership were routinely offered retention bonuses to keep them from quitting. Women weren’t." (NY Times)​

The point here is that the evidence suggests that the gendered wage gap at the firm really was the result of discrimination, but not a maliciously motivated one. Simply raising awareness is enough to help correct the problem, because people do want to be fair. But the very fact that "fairness" is not often obvious reflects the cultural history of patriarchy. It's not an accident that all of the unconscious or culturally-based biases work against women in the work-force. That is the very definition of patriarchy.

So I think your "contra-indicators" are very poor arguments if the goal is to establish that we now are trending towards a matriarchy. Rather, from the wage gap to political representation, to gendered cultural norms and representations of women in media, there is a tremendous amount of evidence to suggest that our culture is still predominantly patriarchical. There is no doubt we've made progress, and there is also no doubt that there are imperfections in our political and social institutions, some of which even hurt men disproportionately (prison rape; norms that influence divorce proceedings, etc), but I think feminists are very clearly justified in talking about patriarchy even in the present.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would nitpick your implicit definition of "patriarchy" a bit here. The phrase "rules the country" implies something like a cabal, some explicitly organized system that actively exercises power, but I don't think that's quite what patriarchy means.

A cabal is not implicit, because it could simply be the way the society functions.
I'd expect that a patriarchy would have de juro, de facto & societal components.

Rather, it is the observation that social systems and institutions, including but not limited to political institutions, concentrate power in the hands of men.

No argument here.
But concentration alone is not enuf.
A component of any such concentration could be due to gender based preferences.

I assume you wouldn't deny the assertion that western societies at the turn of the 20th century were highly patriarchical and had been for hundreds of years. I think the history is worth keeping in mind prior to evaluating the question about American society in the present.

I'm addressing Americastan's current state, not history.

The title of the thread presents the question as a dichotomy; either patriarchy or matriarchy

No, on RF, I've long been proposing the opposite of a dichotomy, ie, government & society have elements of both patriarchy & matriarchy.
This is a continuation of other threads & posts in that vein.

Western societies are less patriarchical now then they were in 1900.

Now, we're on the same page.

But it doesn't really follow that they have become "matriarchical" in the sense of concentrating power in the hands of women.

Think instead of it being one or the other, that it's both to changing degrees.

I think that this is not the case is more evident from the arguments you didn't make. For example:
Here is the data you didn't cite:
- the Senate is 80% male, and the House 81.7% (Rutgers)
- 75.6% of state legislators are male (National Conference of State Legislators)
- 88% of state governors are male (List of Female Incumbent Governors)
- 6 of 9 Supreme Court Justices are male, which is noteworthy in part because it's an historic low.
- 65% of Federal Court of Appeals justices are male (National Women's Law Center)
- 66% of Federal district court judges are male (ibid)
To argue that we have become a matriarchy because there are demographically more women than men, while ignoring the actual demographics of those holding power is, in my opinion, clearly fallacious. It is either disingenuous or it reflects a great deal of naivety about political power. One is reminded of the Stalin quote about what matters being those who count the votes, not those who place them. In this case, who you can vote for (who is running) also matters. It's difficult to successfully run for office without support -- from political parties, donor networks, and other political interest groups. The actual numbers suggest that it is still more difficult for women than men to succeed within these social structures. Having a small demographic advantage among likely voters doesn't remove that factor.

I've mentioned that men dominate in politics.
But the fact that women elect them is significant.

Beyond that, your other arguments about political representation reflect an ideologically-based bias more than anything else.

I'm neither opposing or favoring the welfare state herein.
To make it about whatever ideology you believe I have is an ad hominem red herring.
Let's stick to the claims & counter-claims.

You argue that social welfare programs reflect an essentially feminine point of view ("nurturing"), over against an apparently "manly" individualism, but this lens appears to be quite a revision of history. The modern social safety net owes to FDR and LBJ more than anyone else, and there is no evidence that they were motivated by feminist concerns. One doesn't have to be opposed to patriarchy to support those programs.

Their election was the result of women being a powerful voting block.
Again, the gender of the politician becomes irrelevant if they represent the will of the voters.

I think most of us expect that the draft is vestigial at this point, unlikely to ever be invoked. I expect many feminists (and others) would prefer the draft was done away with simply because it is out of date with the modern military, but feminists have also supported allowing women in combat roles, and many would support extending the draft to women if we were to keep it. They would do so for the same reasons they support equality for women in combat roles. Basically, the status of the draft would seem to represent more the quirks of our political process than anything else.

It is nonetheless a female (& trans-gender) privilege.

I've never seen any compelling evidence for this with regard to custody. For example, more than 90% of custody cases are decided without a court order, and there is evidence that the reason mothers win custody more often reflects the attitudes and desires of both parties. (cf. Divorce stats) What is interesting is that these attitudes reflect cultural assumptions about gender roles that are in and of themselves sexist. To a large extent those attitudes reflect the historical patriarchy of our society, rather than an advantage for women. Women are simply expected to be primarily caregivers.

I know a great many men & women who've had custody battles.
My observation is overwhelming favoritism for the mother.

I think you could probably make a better argument that "maintenance" (alimony) payments in divorce are too often unfair, although it is also my understanding (from reading during my own divorce) that courts are generally trying to move away from maintenance as a standard practice in divorce. But here too, the underlying gendered cultural norms that explain the phenomena are sexist, they are vestiges of patriarchy. The desire of feminists is to dismantle those very norms. Obviously progress happens slowly and in a not-entirely-rationalized way.

I don't find "the desire of many feminists" to be specific enuf to affect the issue.

Then there is the wage gap, which you mentioned but didn't address. Here is some relevant data:

"After accounting for college major, occupation, economic sector, hours worked, months unemployed since graduation, GPA, type of undergraduate institution, institution selectivity, age, geographical region, and marital status, Graduating to a Pay Gap found that a 7 percent difference in the earnings of male and female college graduates one year after graduation was still unexplained. Similarly, Behind the Pay Gap found a 12 percent unexplained difference in earnings among full-time workers 10 years after college graduation."

(American Association of University Women)
​

Statistics about the wage gap are often disputed, with difficulties accounting for all the variables pointed out. And it is true that there really is no such thing as perfect data that can remove every factor beyond gender discrimination. Yet the study cited above does an excellent job accounting for many variables to get a fair comparison. In fact, every measure shows a disadvantage for women. In the same report you can see the consistency of the wage gap by state.

If you look at BLS data by occupation, you will be hard pressed to find any where women earn more than men on average. The purpose of segmenting by occupation is of course to get a comparison where in theory the qualifications and skill levels between men and women are close to equivalent. And it's not just a question of average wages either, you can observe how occupations like "Chief Executive" are highly male dominated.

I think a common mistake is thinking that "patriarchy" as an explanation for this kind of data entails all men being consciously misogynistic or sexist. But that's not the case, and it misunderstands the cultural and social nature of gender norms in the same way that the phrase "rule the country" did in the OP. This is demonstrated in this article in the NY Times:

"Last year, the consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers voluntarily released its gender pay gap in Britain, one of five firms in the country, including AstraZeneca, to do so. Simply saying the number out loud “created much more momentum internally” to close it, Sarah Churchman, who runs the firm’s British diversity and inclusion efforts, told me.

PricewaterhouseCoopers’s analysis showed that most of its 15.1 percent pay disparity (compared with a Britain-wide gap of more than 19 percent) reflected a lack of women in senior jobs. So the firm focused on whether it was promoting fairly. In 2013, the grade just below partner was 30 percent female, yet only 16 percent of those promoted to partner were women. A year later, the percentage of women promoted to partner had more than doubled.

The firm’s executives were also stunned to find a bonus pattern that favored men. The analysis showed that men who were passed over for partnership were routinely offered retention bonuses to keep them from quitting. Women weren’t." (NY Times)​

The point here is that the evidence suggests that the gendered wage gap at the firm really was the result of discrimination, but not a maliciously motivated one. Simply raising awareness is enough to help correct the problem, because people do want to be fair. But the very fact that "fairness" is not often obvious reflects the cultural history of patriarchy. It's not an accident that all of the unconscious or culturally-based biases work against women in the work-force. That is the very definition of patriarchy.

The wage gap is real, but there are factors over & above gender discrimination.
One cannot dismiss gender related differences in choices which affect career, & consequently pay.

So I think your "contra-indicators" are very poor arguments if the goal is to establish that we now are trending towards a matriarchy.

Poor, eh?
I'm hurt!

Rather, from the wage gap to political representation, to gendered cultural norms and representations of women in media, there is a tremendous amount of evidence to suggest that our culture is still predominantly patriarchical. There is no doubt we've made progress, and there is also no doubt that there are imperfections in our political and social institutions, some of which even hurt men disproportionately (prison rape; norms that influence divorce proceedings, etc), but I think feminists are very clearly justified in talking about patriarchy even in the present.

They can talk about whatever they want.
But I see a lack of cromulence in blaming "the patriarchy" for the typically accompanying complaints.
This thread is not about the legitimacy of feminism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The reason for women voting more frequently (it's been a trend nearly as old as American women's suffrage), and also now excelling in school, probably has more to do with that fact that many of our mothers and grandmothers did not get even half of the opportunities that we are provided with today. When our mothers and grandmothers were born and growing up, a woman was a wife and mother. Today a woman can be those things, or she can pursue a Ph.D., she can pursue a corporate career, or follow another path entirely.

 

[Revoltingest]

The reason for women voting more frequently (it's been a trend nearly as old as American women's suffrage), and also now excelling in school, probably has more to do with that fact that many of our mothers and grandmothers did not get even half of the opportunities that we are provided with today. When our mothers and grandmothers were born and growing up, a woman was a wife and mother. Today a woman can be those things, or she can pursue a Ph.D., she can pursue a corporate career, or follow another path entirely.

There are no doubt reasons behind women voting at higher rates.
Whatever they are, the exercise of power is still power.

 

[Thana]

We often hear about the "patriarchy" which rules the country.
But what justification is there for this claim?
Is it that men are the majority in government leadership?
The wage gap.....home bound wives....glass ceiling.....etc, etc?
Or is it necessity for political movements to have a boogeyman?

Some contra-indicators based upon the premise that women (more than men) are nurturers are......

1) Women are the majority of voters who elect those in charge.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p20-577.pdf
(Note: The linked data provide strong evidence for a geezerocracy. Btw, get off my lawn.)
1a) Women are the majority in the most powerful political party.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

2) As women became the single most powerful voting block, government policies have changed.
2a) Government moved from conquering other countries for material gain, to conquering
other countries for humanitarian reasons, ie, to force them into our progressive image.
(The issue of inhumanity committed in the process of ostensibly humanitarian acts is for another thread.)
2b) Government has moved from treating citizens as rugged individuals to treating them
as protected beneficiaries of largesse, eg, welfare, health care, Social Security.

3) Women have preserved special privileges from patriarchal days, eg, immunity from military draft, dower rights.

4) Women have gained new privileges, eg, preferential treatment in child custody & divorce.

5) Women have no governmental restrictions from winning any political office.
The fact that women vote more often for men is their unhindered choice.
Thus, the matriarchal element of government is carried out thru mostly men.
Ironic, eh? Well, gals often tell us we're "tools".

Posters are welcome to support either side.
But it isn't about feminism, neither attacking or defending it.
And I require civility....if you want to call each other names, then start your own ^%@^$ thread.

Well, from the Global Gender Gap report of 2015 America is rated at 28. (Up from 60th in 2013)
So things are improving, but there is no way we're even close to equality and yes, America is still ruled by men.

A quote from an article I found written in 2014 -

Those who say the fight for women’s rights is over need only look at these two numbers: In the past year alone, more than 468 bills related to restricting women’s health and access to reproductive rights have been introduced in state legislatures. Shockingly, zero restrictions regarding men’s bodies have been brought to the floors of statehouses

And that's not to mention that among the fortune 500 women lead less than 5% of companies, and there are still states in America that have never elected a woman to the goveners seat.

But atleast America isn't as bad as Australia. In 2013 we were rated 23rd, now we're 36th. Can you believe that? And the disparity from women to men in Parliament is 27 to 73. That's madness. How I miss labor, and heaven help me, Julia Gillard.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, from the Global Gender Gap report of 2015 America is rated at 28. (Up from 60th in 2013)
So things are improving, but there is no way we're even close to equality and yes, America is still ruled by men.

To be ruled by mostly men (you forgot the word, mostly) does not a patriarchy make.
As I pointed out, women are the most powerful gender voting block, & they affect policy.
I even cited a feminist author who offers supporting evidence for their control.

A quote from an article I found written in 2014 -

I'd never say the fight for women's rights is over.
But neither would I say the fight for men's (or humans') rights is over.
What we see is a balance of patriarchy & matriarchy, with power shifting towards the latter.

And that's not to mention that among the fortune 500 women lead less than 5% of companies, and there are still states in America that have never elected a woman to the goveners seat.

This is the result of how women choose to exercise their greater voting power.
And more importantly, the males they choose are steering the country in the direction of their choice.
Men are leaders, sure.....but these leaders are the tools of voters (who are mostly women).

But atleast America isn't as bad as Australia. In 2013 we were rated 23rd, now we're 36th. Can you believe that? And the disparity from women to men in Parliament is 27 to 73. That's madness. How I miss labor, and heaven help me, Julia Gillard.

Everyone knows that the fictional country of Australiastan is horribly backward.

 

[Thana]

To be ruled by mostly men (you forgot the word, mostly) does not a patriarchy make.
As I pointed out, women are the most powerful gender voting block, & they affect policy.
I even cited a feminist author who offers supporting evidence for their control.

I'd never say the fight for women's rights is over.
But neither would I say the fight for men's (or humans') rights is over.
What we see is a balance of patriarchy & matriarchy, with power shifting towards the latter.

This is the result of how women choose to exercise their greater voting power.
And more importantly, the males they choose are steering the country in the direction of their choice.
Men are leaders, sure.....but these leaders are the tools of voters (who are mostly women).

Everyone knows that the fictional country of Australiastan is horribly backward.

"Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property; in the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children."
So I'd say that to be ruled by 'mostly' men is exactly what makes a patriarchy.

And I don't see how women voting more than men makes a matriarchy. Men still dominate your political system, your lawmakers are predominantly men and your economy is absolutely dominated by men and you've still yet to ever have a female President. I'm not going to claim a decent understanding of America's political system but a quick look tells me that it is predominantly populated and governed by men and the fact that women are voting more doesn't make that any less of an issue.

Progress is great, But you haven't even gotten to equality yet so I don't see how you could be a matriarchy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There are no doubt reasons behind women voting at higher rates.
Whatever they are, the exercise of power is still power.

But how much does it really matter? Women may vote in larger numbers than men, but we still had an all-male panel that discussed women's health care issues, and the things for women's health that the ACA mandated were challenged because men won't use them, even though men are getting the health things they need that women won't use.