Did a matriarchal society ever exist?

[-Peacemaker-]

Can you imagine the kind of "men" that lived in such a society? Such "men" represent the most compelling evidence yet that one can have male genitalia and yet be a female in gender:biglaugh:

 

[Songbird]

To my knowledge there haven't been any, at least in the way the term "patriarchal society" is used. Matrilineal? Sure. Tribes with ruling councils of women? Yes. Tribes/societies/etc. ruled by women and only women? No. The professor of women's studies Cynthia Eller wrote a book on this titled The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory. Ronald Hutton, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Philip G. Davis, have also either indirectly or directly addressed the question of matriarchal societies.

I haven't read this book, but I know of the debate. As far as I know, although there's little evidence of matriarchal societies matching all the qualities of patriarchal societies, some scholars still call some of them matriarchal.

 

[Penumbra]

I wouldn't be particularly surprised if, throughout history, the bigger, stronger sex has had the majority of power almost every time. Women are smaller, have less muscle mass, deal with the vulnerability of being pregnant, and psychologically, are more likely to be agreeable than physically aggressive.

It'll be interesting to see where the future goes, with more women going to college than men.

 

[painted wolf]

Matriarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the problem with defining most matralinial/matrilocal cultures as matriarchal is that they are by and large egalitarian societies that value the input of both genders in making decisions for the people.

The Cherokee for example had both male and female leaders (called the "beloved man" and "beloved woman"), though Europeans mostly dealt exclusively with the men... out of their own biases.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I wouldn't be particularly surprised if, throughout history, the bigger, stronger sex has had the majority of power almost every time. Women are smaller, have less muscle mass, deal with the vulnerability of being pregnant, and psychologically, are more likely to be agreeable than physically aggressive.

It'll be interesting to see where the future goes, with more women going to college than men.

IMHO patriarchy (where the men use physical might to subdue women) comes about when males compete with each other for exclusive (or nearly so) access to women. When a mans wealth is measured in how many wives he has (or by his ability to produce an heir) then women in the culture are strong armed into submission.

When women are more free to choose their own mates and remain with their families, then a society is more egalitarian... no woman wants to choose a bully for a husband and no husband wants to deal with a group of angry in-laws.

wa:do

 

[Penumbra]

IMHO patriarchy (where the men use physical might to subdue women) comes about when males compete with each other for exclusive (or nearly so) access to women. When a mans wealth is measured in how many wives he has (or by his ability to produce an heir) then women in the culture are strong armed into submission.

When women are more free to choose their own mates and remain with their families, then a society is more egalitarian... no woman wants to choose a bully for a husband and no husband wants to deal with a group of angry in-laws.

wa:do

This is true, but even in the developed world where women and men are basically free to choose their partners, CEOs and politicians are still significantly statistically male.

I think there's more than one phase involved here.
1) Men are stronger and set the rules, and measure their power by wealth, land, wives, animals, etc.
2) Society develops, and women have potentially equal familiar and political power, but humans still rely on a significant amount of physical work to survive, including the ability to defend against invaders. Males, being physically stronger and more capable of this work, are viewed as superior. With the more subtle necessities of taking care of and teaching the children, transmitting culture, and so forth, being minimized. Plus some of the old concepts still survive.
3) Society develops further, and women have potentially equal familiar and political power, and are equally educated or even educated in statistically greater numbers, and the exchange of information rather than physical labor becomes key in a society, but due to putting less importance on careers, due to taking time to have children, wield less real political and economic power. Plus some of the old concepts still survive.

 

[painted wolf]

This is true, but even in the developed world where women and men are basically free to choose their partners, CEOs and politicians are still significantly statistically male.

Poor example... Europe and the USA are patriarchal societies that are attempting to be come egalitarian. (women were valued in as much as they produced heirs..ie. male sons)
Not traditionally egalitarian societies.

I think there's more than one phase involved here.
1) Men are stronger and set the rules, and measure their power by wealth, land, wives, animals, etc.
2) Society develops, and women have potentially equal familiar and political power, but humans still rely on a significant amount of physical work to survive, including the ability to defend against invaders. Males, being physically stronger and more capable of this work, are viewed as superior. With the more subtle necessities of taking care of and teaching the children, transmitting culture, and so forth, being minimized. Plus some of the old concepts still survive.
3) Society develops further, and women have potentially equal familiar and political power, and are equally educated or even educated in statistically greater numbers, and the exchange of information rather than physical labor becomes key in a society, but due to putting less importance on careers, due to taking time to have children, wield less real political and economic power. Plus some of the old concepts still survive.

Or you look at older traditional societies and find that egalitarianism is an inherent need for survival. Hunter-gatherers and semi-nomadic agrarian-gatherers can't survive by placing half of the population in a position of subservience or treating them as chattel.

wa:do

 

[Penumbra]

Poor example... Europe and the USA are patriarchal societies that are attempting to be come egalitarian. (women were valued in as much as they produced heirs..ie. male sons)
Not traditionally egalitarian societies.

I'm not sure what you mean by traditionally egalitarian societies. Meaning, they were not always egalitarian, therefore they are not currently egalitarian? Do these cultures currently base a man's worth on how many wives he has or his ability to produce an heir?

Or you look at older traditional societies and find that egalitarianism is an inherent need for survival. Hunter-gatherers and semi-nomadic agrarian-gatherers can't survive by placing half of the population in a position of subservience or treating them as chattel.

wa:do

Suppose a hunter gather society constructs itself as follows:

-Men hunt big game and protect the group from threats.
-Women take care of children, and forage for small game and plants.

From my limited understanding, that's more or less how many societies operated.

In times of hardship, if men can gather small game and plants equally as well as women can, but women cannot hunt big game and protect the group physically as well as men can, then is there an imbalance? If a group of men can build structures equally as well as women or better than women (because their intellect is equal but their bodies are stronger), then is there an imbalance? It seems to me that in such cultures, the skills that women are inherently better at are more subtle.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm not sure what you mean by traditionally egalitarian societies. Meaning, they were not always egalitarian, therefore they are not currently egalitarian? Do these cultures currently base a man's worth on how many wives he has or his ability to produce an heir?

Societies where women were not seen as the property of men for a start.

Suppose a hunter gather society constructs itself as follows:

-Men hunt big game and protect the group from threats.
-Women take care of children, and forage for small game and plants.

From my limited understanding, that's more or less how many societies operated.

In times of hardship, if men can gather small game and plants equally as well as women can, but women cannot hunt big game and protect the group physically as well as men can, then is there an imbalance? If a group of men can build structures equally as well as women or better than women (because their intellect is equal but their bodies are stronger), then is there an imbalance? It seems to me that in such cultures, the skills that women are inherently better at are more subtle.

Except that is a stereotype.
Woman can (and sometimes did) hunt big game and there are several good examples of women going to war with the men. It doesn't take prodigious strength to use a bow, blowgun or atlatl with accuracy.

Women among first nations were recorded by Europeans to be prodigiously strong... They did most of the heavy carrying and other heavy work.
And in paleoanthropology the only way for a small band of hunters to take out and process something truly large like a mammoth is to have the entire community participate.

The idea of "man the big game hunter" and "woman the gatherer" is a hold over from a bygone era.

wa:do

 

[Penumbra]

Societies where women were not seen as the property of men for a start.

That didn't quite answer the question, though.
-Are societies not currently egalitarian because, at some earlier time, they were not egalitarian? Should the current state of a culture be judged based on its past?

-Do these cultures currently base a man's worth on how many wives he has or his ability to produce an heir?

Except that is a stereotype.
Woman can (and sometimes did) hunt big game and there are several good examples of women going to war with the men. It doesn't take prodigious strength to use a bow, blowgun or atlatl with accuracy.

Women among first nations were recorded by Europeans to be prodigiously strong... They did most of the heavy carrying and other heavy work.
And in paleoanthropology the only way for a small band of hunters to take out and process something truly large like a mammoth is to have the entire community participate.

The idea of "man the big game hunter" and "woman the gatherer" is a hold over from a bygone era.

wa:do

So in a society that requires quite a bit of physical ability to survive, and if men and women are intellectually equal but men are statistically superior physically, this isn't a likely recipe for inequality?

I could provide a modern example.

Where I work, there are engineers, technicians, and programmers. Engineers and programmers are paid basically equally given an equal level of education and experience, whereas technicians have less education and are paid less. Due to it being a group of modest size, and due to the tough economy where management is trying to keep everything as lean and overworked as possible, employees often have to do things that are a bit outside of their core job area.

Sometimes engineers have to do a whole lot of physical work. Sometimes something is so heavy, or so complex, that they have to get the programmers to help. They always get the male programmers to help, because the female programmers are less willing to help, and they are comparatively less physically strong when they do help anyway. Even the female engineers often do not help for the same reason.

I could point out that I'm an exception to the rule. That as a female engineer, I'm always right there doing the physical stuff (and often do the roles where being small or light is helpful, like crawling or climbing). But statistically, this doesn't change the statistical observation that, men are in the group are equal programmers to the women, and yet superior laborers. Should this affect their pay and status, if they can all do one task equally, but some can do a second task in a superior way? If it doesn't affect pay, would it still be unreasonable for it affect levels of respect within the group?

 

[painted wolf]

That didn't quite answer the question, though.
-Are societies not currently egalitarian because, at some earlier time, they were not egalitarian? Should the current state of a culture be judged based on its past?

Depends on how recent that past is. In the USA there are still thriving groups such as the "Christian Patriarchy" movement that insist that women be subservient to men and states that still struggle with the idea of marital rape.
Equality on paper and equality in practice are quite different things.

Afghanistan wrote women's equality into their constitution, but no one would argue that it is an egalitarian culture.

-Do these cultures currently base a man's worth on how many wives he has or his ability to produce an heir?

Some do, however subtly.

So in a society that requires quite a bit of physical ability to survive, and if men and women are intellectually equal but men are statistically superior physically, this isn't a likely recipe for inequality?

Why should it be?
Unless you think that men are universally incapable of not physically bullying women into subservience.

I could provide a modern example.

Where I work, there are engineers, technicians, and programmers. Engineers and programmers are paid basically equally given an equal level of education and experience, whereas technicians have less education and are paid less. Due to it being a group of modest size, and due to the tough economy where management is trying to keep everything as lean and overworked as possible, employees often have to do things that are a bit outside of their core job area.

Sometimes engineers have to do a whole lot of physical work. Sometimes something is so heavy, or so complex, that they have to get the programmers to help. They always get the male programmers to help, because the female programmers are less willing to help, and they are comparatively less physically strong when they do help anyway. Even the female engineers often do not help for the same reason.

I could point out that I'm an exception to the rule. That as a female engineer, I'm always right there doing the physical stuff (and often do the roles where being small or light is helpful, like crawling or climbing). But statistically, this doesn't change the statistical observation that, men are in the group are equal programmers to the women, and yet superior laborers. Should this affect their pay and status, if they can all do one task equally, but some can do a second task in a superior way? If it doesn't affect pay, would it still be unreasonable for it affect levels of respect within the group?

The united states is a perfect exammple of a patriarchal culture struggling with the transition to egalitarianism.

wa:do

 

[Caladan]

Or is it just an invention of some feminists?

Since I believe you are speaking about a global matriarchal society deep into our prehistoric past. Then no, there are no evidences for such, although some have projected about it in the last two centuries, usually in Romantic movements while projecting on contemporary politics. For example, in these theories, Balkan states represented an ancient matriarchy while the invading Germanic-Aryans with their superior military technology were the war-like patriarchy.

 

[Ragnarson98]

Ancient Egypt at one point, has evidence that suggests it did.

 

[Caladan]

Ancient Egypt at one point, has evidence that suggests it did.

Ancient Egyptian history stretches on thousands of years. Don't you think you need to list which periods are we talking about, some background information about such an Egyptian matriarchy, or academic sources that we can look into?

 

[Penumbra]

Depends on how recent that past is. In the USA there are still thriving groups such as the "Christian Patriarchy" movement that insist that women be subservient to men and states that still struggle with the idea of marital rape.
Equality on paper and equality in practice are quite different things.

Afghanistan wrote women's equality into their constitution, but no one would argue that it is an egalitarian culture.

Some do, however subtly.

You stated:
"When women are more free to choose their own mates and remain with their families, then a society is more egalitarian..."

Isn't that how it works in most developed countries? Women have an equal say in mating. Or by "remain with their families", do you mean in a literal sense that avoids the nuclear family situation?

Why should it be?
Unless you think that men are universally incapable of not physically bullying women into subservience.

The united states is a perfect exammple of a patriarchal culture struggling with the transition to egalitarianism.

wa:do

With due respect, didn't that sort of completely avoid and not answer the example?

 

[painted wolf]

You stated:
"When women are more free to choose their own mates and remain with their families, then a society is more egalitarian..."

Isn't that how it works in most developed countries? Women have an equal say in mating. Or by "remain with their families", do you mean in a literal sense that avoids the nuclear family situation?

Yes, but you need to remember that this is a recent development (and not universal, ie. Christian Patriarchy Movement). Societies don't become truly egalitarian overnight or even in a couple of generations.

When talking about preindustrial societies I'm using "remaining" in a non-nuclear sense. Extended family is a vital support system both practically and psychologically.

With due respect, didn't that sort of completely avoid and not answer the example?

Not entirely.
You essentially suggested that males can't help but use their larger size as a tool for forcing women into a subservient position.

Your real world example is just a demonstration that the USA is still working on moving from a culture where women were essentially the property of their husbands, not allowed to work except in the most limited capacities and not allowed to engage in cultural decision making to a truly egalitarian system.

wa:do

 

[Penumbra]

Yes, but you need to remember that this is a recent development (and not universal, ie. Christian Patriarchy Movement). Societies don't become truly egalitarian overnight or even in a couple of generations.

When talking about preindustrial societies I'm using "remaining" in a non-nuclear sense. Extended family is a vital support system both practically and psychologically.

Not entirely.
You essentially suggested that males can't help but use their larger size as a tool for forcing women into a subservient position.

Your real world example is just a demonstration that the USA is still working on moving from a culture where women were essentially the property of their husbands, not allowed to work except in the most limited capacities and not allowed to engage in cultural decision making to a truly egalitarian system.

wa:do

That's not what I suggested at all.

The observation was that men and women have basically equal intellect, but that men are physically superior in most cases, statistically speaking, in terms of strength and speed. So in a world where both mental and physical abilities are prized, and men and women are equal at the mental ones and yet men are better at the physical ones, it doesn't surprise me at all that in most cultures around the world, patriarchal societies would form. The fact that, in an unarmed scenario, a given man could typically overpower a given woman is secondary.

So the observation has almost nothing to do with force, and everything to do with perceived social or economic value.

In times when hunting, building structures, doing rigorous farm work, and so forth, were the most important things, it doesn't surprise me that men would end up being perceived as more useful. The skills women bring to the table in such a scenario are more subtle.

I don't see how the real world example had anything to do with moving from one culture to another. It was the observation that, among programmers in the group, if both men and women are equal at programming, but men are better at the secondary physical tasks that they are sometimes asked to do, then it would not be altogether irrational for men to end up being more respected or well-paid within the group, since their intellectual skills equal the women of the group, and their physical ones surpass the women in the group. Even if nobody in the group has an ounce of sexism, if they assess an individual one-by-one based on the skills they bring to the group, it wouldn't be surprising if pay or respect is a bit imbalanced towards the men.

In an environment where it was even more shifted towards the physical and away from the intellectual (this given example is mostly information work with physical work secondary), then it seems likely that this imbalance would assert itself even more.

In a scenario where the work is 100% information based, the scenario is likely less imbalanced. But then again, if women are more likely to take a career break due to childbirth, then males have the slight edge again.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

The observation was that men and women have basically equal intellect, but that men are physically superior in most cases, statistically speaking, in terms of strength and speed. So in a world where both mental and physical abilities are prized, and men and women are equal at the mental ones and yet men are better at the physical ones, it doesn't surprise me at all that in most cultures around the world, patriarchal societies would form. .

I am reading the book The Alphabet versus the Goddess. I am about 1/2 done it's a good read but I have reservations about the conclusions. Any way he feels like the written word plays into the strengths of a mans mind. This was part of the reason why patriarchy spread so well all over our planet.

I do believe that there were many societies that were much more egalitarian before the invention of the city state. I think with the whole invention of organized warfare to protect the wealth and food that humans were able to store up from year to year. The strength of men became supreme at this point.

 

[painted wolf]

I don't argue that there are reasons that patriarchy develops.

My original point was that "matriarchal" societies are less "women in charge of everything" than they are egalitarian... with women and men sharing the important decision making. So that the idea of the "women ruled" culture is not really supported by anthropology in the way that hard Patriarchy is.

And it is still a fact that the USA is changing in its treatment of women away from hard patriarchy to more egalitarianism.

In jobs where physical strength isn't an issue (CEOs) then the fact that a man is physically stronger shouldn't matter. Your example isn't about equal pay for equal work as the woman isn't being expected to do lifting. Not that women are incapable of lifting heavy loads just like men. There are very few jobs where the difference between women's ability to lift and men's ability to lift is a serious issue. It's more a cultural issue than a biological one.

The western concept that women are too weak for "men's work" is not based on biology but on cultural bias.

wa:do

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Why should it be?
Unless you think that men are universally incapable of not physically bullying women into subservience.

No, but this has been the problem.

A culture had to train there men to be aggressive. There was just no choice if you wanted the culture to survive. To be aggressive is to value aggression.

Some Native American tribes were much more egalitarian. Look what happened when the white man showed up (I know there was a lot more to it like sickness and technology but the point still stands).

I hope that humans have turned the corner on all this patriarchal aggression. There is just no way to tell.