Did a matriarchal society ever exist?

[Songbird]

Good post, and I agree.

I do think in many older cultures, those harder skills were viewed as more important.

Also, female sales engineers statistically make more money than male sales engineers.

We have a work crew we can call, but they're overworked between multiple groups, so we only call them for the biggest stuff. So using their labor is indeed cheaper, but often slower. So often the manager says, "guys lets just do this ourselves" with the team of engineers, technicians, and programmers.

And people call on each other for help. I lead a small team of engineers, technicians, and programmers, but often I'm helping the technician with technician work, or writing pseudo-code with the programmer, etc. And sometimes the big mechanical engineer needs my help climbing something or reaching something in a difficult spot he can't reach.

Where I work, most males do both engineering/programming and some physical stuff, whereas most females do the engineering/programming only. They're usually not asked to help, since it often involves considerable strength for short periods of time, and if they are asked, many of them excuse themselves from it.

We don't have customer service to do in our group. Or, more accurately, we have very few, very big customers, so the manager mostly works with them.

I can see how physical labor is important in your company. I just meant to point out that in other settings, various skills are demanded. In particular, businesses which demand highly specialized skills don't often prioritize secondary skills highly. There are of course exceptions, like your company requiring both highly specialized skills and secondary ones. I don't know your setting, but I'd think the engineering qualifications vastly outweigh the physical ones. It's not as simple as two genders with equal intellect but unequal strength lend one gender more economic value. Individuals are hired, not genders (in general, not withstanding some exceptions). Individuals with unique resumes, skills, experiences, connections, and education - and that's what determines economic value today. A man with no engineering skills but significant strength is less valued in your company than a woman with engineering skills and little physical strength, I'd wager. The women (and men) landed and kept their jobs for reasons, probably not very related to gender equality. From what I know of you here, you are no doubt extremely capable and respected and should you be ranked, I'd bet your value at your company is very high.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm not granting anyone anything.

I'm pointing out why it's not surprising to me that in many separate cultures, men would end up with much of the power.

If men are viewed as broadly superior in the measurable areas in a society, and the subtle skills are less noticed or less measurable or not necessarily shown to be strengths of women specifically, it's unsurprising that men would end up with a disproportionate share of power in that society.

Well for one, I don't think being the primary economic generators should ever grant them that power.

For two, I guess they get that power if they are willing to do it and get away with it. It seems that in many societies, that happened.

Then if that's true, women don't have an advantage in that area.

I agree that it's no surprise that patriarchal societies have developed.
I'm glad to see more of them working toward becoming more egalitarian.

But again, my main point was that matralineal cultures don't count as classic matriarchies because they tended toward being egalitarian (ie males and females share political power) where most patralineal cultures count as classic patriarchies because women are generally excluded from power. The closest classic matriarchy I can think of would be the Iroquois.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

More info please

You just have to study Native American History... lots of wars between matralineal cultures going on there. Somehow I doubt that North America was some sort of grand exception to human nature.

Plus, the advent of metallurgy took off in classically patriarchal cultural areas.

wa:do

 

[Penumbra]

I can see how physical labor is important in your company. I just meant to point out that in other settings, various skills are demanded. In particular, businesses which demand highly specialized skills don't often prioritize secondary skills highly. There are of course exceptions, like your company requiring both highly specialized skills and secondary ones. I don't know your setting, but I'd think the engineering qualifications vastly outweigh the physical ones. It's not as simple as two genders with equal intellect but unequal strength lend one gender more economic value. Individuals are hired, not genders (in general, not withstanding some exceptions). Individuals with unique resumes, skills, experiences, connections, and education - and that's what determines economic value today. A man with no engineering skills but significant strength is less valued in your company than a woman with engineering skills and little physical strength, I'd wager. The women (and men) landed and kept their jobs for reasons, probably not very related to gender equality. From what I know of you here, you are no doubt extremely capable and respected and should you be ranked, I'd bet your value at your company is very high.

Well, I don't want to direct the thread off topic, but I'll put a little more detail into the example.

The example was meant to be a microcosm of a possible environment, not a depiction of how all modern workplaces are. If anything, I tied the concept in more closely with older societies due to the shared importance of physical work in both scenarios.

The work we do is our facility. Rather than sell products, our service is our technical facility, with customized research equipment. It requires engineering development, as well as significant physical assembly, which due to the complexity, expense, and delicateness of the equipment, in addition to the size and weight, is often handled at least in part by the engineers that developed it, the specialized technicians, and some support workers that do only physical work. And fixing or updating the facility often involves the engineers, and often in a hands-on manner. (It's often easier just to do something yourself rather than explain to someone how to do it.)

I do not consider my workplace to be sexist. I was fortunately able to ascend into an engineering project leadership role fairly quickly. But in my assessment of women and men in the group, this is what I see:

-The women and men are basically equal in the highly complex areas of engineering development. The best workers are both male and female; no gender has an inherent advantage over the other.
-The men do have an inherent advantage in the secondary work which is largely physical. Some of it is biological: strength. Some of it appears to be cultural; I observe that women in the group have far less interest in crawling, climbing, using hand tools, using the machine shop, lifting heavy things, getting a little bit dirty, etc.

One programmer ranted to me that she often feels overlooked. As it turns out, she's always in a computer area doing programming, whereas the guy that sits next to her does quite a bit of programming but also gets visibility when he helps with very hands on things.

When a project leader is selected for a project that involves software, hardware, and significant physical construction/assembly/integration of the hardware and software, then the leader is often picked to be someone who has broad experience in these areas in addition to focused experience in their core area, rather than just focused experience. As it turns out in the group, that's often men.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There are monotheistic Hindus both in antiquity and today. Hinduism is a very diverse religious family.

I'm concerned with antiquity.

their writings.

One of my undergrad degrees was ancient Greek and Latin. I've read these writings, and they don't reflect what you wrote..

Hypsistarians for one... but if you want a complete list you'll have to do your own research.

I have. There are few areas of history I know better than hellenistic greece.

All I said was that there was a correlation

I understand, but so far it seems as if you are conflating to very different beliefs: monotheism and henotheism. Also, I don't see a worship or acceptance of female deities correlated with increased political/cultural/social power.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm concerned with antiquity.

One of my undergrad degrees was ancient Greek and Latin. I've read these writings, and they don't reflect what you wrote..

So in your opinion Plato and Aristotle totally believed in the literal nature of the Greek pantheons? :sarcastic

I have. There are few areas of history I know better than hellenistic greece.

Then surely you knew about groups like the Hypsistarians and Pythagoreanism (evil, evil beans!)

I understand, but so far it seems as if you are conflating to very different beliefs: monotheism and henotheism. Also, I don't see a worship or acceptance of female deities correlated with increased political/cultural/social power.

Perhaps... but then you could argue that Judaism started as henotheism as did Christianity.

I didn't say that the worship of female deities was correlated with female power.

I said that lack of a female deity was correlated with extreme Patriarchy.

You can have female deities and still be a Patriarchy.... but it seems that you can't have a Taliban with one. (The Greeks were bad, but they weren't that bad).

wa:do

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So in your opinion Plato and Aristotle totally believed in the literal nature of the Greek pantheons? :sarcastic

Plato's cosmology appears to have remained rather incomplete. But neither in Plato nor Aristotle do we see monotheism. Also, they don't speak for Greek (or even attic) culture/beliefs. Plato's teacher was, after all, executed for his teachings during a period of socio-cultural/religious fundamentalism. Greece was definitely polytheistic, and the Athenians in particular identified themselves with Athena, yet remained among the most misogynist, patriarchal cultures in history.

Then surely you knew about groups like the Hypsistarians and Pythagoreanism (evil, evil beans!)

Yes, but I don't see how this suggests that

christianity was one of several monotheistic cults competing for dominance at the time.

For one thing, the Pythagoreans had been around since before Plato, and were not polytheistic. For another, we know quite little about the so-called Hypsistarians and whether or not they were monotheistic (monotheism taken to mean, as Jan Assmann puts it in his Price of Monotheism, the "revolutionary path" away from both true polytheism and the weaker expression of it in a pseudo-monotheism/henotheism that is "nothing other than a mature stage of polytheism"). Stephen Mitchell has argued in particular that the cult of Theos Hypistos was monotheistic in the way that Christianity and Judaism were, but 1) this is hardly an uncontested view and 2) even if true, there is no suggestion that they competed with Christianity for "dominance." Once Christianity went from a persecuted religion to a legalized and favored religion, only once did this progression become challenged under Julian, and this didn't last. Finally, even if the Theos Hypistos cult and some others were truly monotheistic, we don't know how (if at all) this religion altered the general socio-cultural and political structure of the region. We can't really speak of a correlation between monotheism and anything if we are going to include monotheistic groups about which we know next to nothing.

Perhaps... but then you could argue that Judaism started as henotheism

It did. But it became (and in many ways defined) monotheism. So alien was the Jewish (and later Christian) belief in one deity alone that the Romans and other pagans viewed them as atheists (and referred to them as such).

as did Christianity.

How?

I didn't say that the worship of female deities was correlated with female power.

No, but you did state:

There is an interesting correlation between hard patriarchy (women as property of men) and cultures with only a single male deity.

What's interesting about this correlation? To me, it's like saying "there's an interesting correlation between drinking water and alcoholism". Sure, it exists, but it says nothing. There are simply too few examples of cultures with a single male deity for us to saying anything meaningful about such cultures.

(The Greeks were bad, but they weren't that bad).

It's hard to say. Probably not, they were worse than the romans (a culture in which the male head of the house hold had the legal right of life and death over other members), they required women to remain covered, the kept them seperate, the men seemed to have used their wives for breeding and used younger men or courtesans (or prostitutes) for sex, women were required to have a legal male guardian (and thus a mother could find herselve legally bound to her son), and so on.

 

[painted wolf]

Plato's cosmology appears to have remained rather incomplete. But neither in Plato nor Aristotle do we see monotheism. Also, they don't speak for Greek (or even attic) culture/beliefs. Plato's teacher was, after all, executed for his teachings during a period of socio-cultural/religious fundamentalism. Greece was definitely polytheistic, and the Athenians in particular identified themselves with Athena, yet remained among the most misogynist, patriarchal cultures in history.

Yes, but I don't see how this suggests that

For one thing, the Pythagoreans had been around since before Plato, and were not polytheistic. For another, we know quite little about the so-called Hypsistarians and whether or not they were monotheistic (monotheism taken to mean, as Jan Assmann puts it in his Price of Monotheism, the "revolutionary path" away from both true polytheism and the weaker expression of it in a pseudo-monotheism/henotheism that is "nothing other than a mature stage of polytheism"). Stephen Mitchell has argued in particular that the cult of Theos Hypistos was monotheistic in the way that Christianity and Judaism were, but 1) this is hardly an uncontested view and 2) even if true, there is no suggestion that they competed with Christianity for "dominance." Once Christianity went from a persecuted religion to a legalized and favored religion, only once did this progression become challenged under Julian, and this didn't last. Finally, even if the Theos Hypistos cult and some others were truly monotheistic, we don't know how (if at all) this religion altered the general socio-cultural and political structure of the region. We can't really speak of a correlation between monotheism and anything if we are going to include monotheistic groups about which we know next to nothing.

It did. But it became (and in many ways defined) monotheism. So alien was the Jewish (and later Christian) belief in one deity alone that the Romans and other pagans viewed them as atheists (and referred to them as such).

Look, I'm not claiming to be an expert on ancient history here.... I'm just going by what I've read. Monotheism while rare wasn't restricted to simply the Abrahamics.
In some cases it was just an idea toyed with by philosophers or held by sects within larger religious families.

What's interesting about this correlation? To me, it's like saying "there's an interesting correlation between drinking water and alcoholism". Sure, it exists, but it says nothing. There are simply too few examples of cultures with a single male deity for us to saying anything meaningful about such cultures.

Really... there are few religions... but not a few cultures. Unless you equate Christianity and Islam with single cultures?

It was an observation... not a declaration of scientific fact.

It's hard to say. Probably not, they were worse than the romans (a culture in which the male head of the house hold had the legal right of life and death over other members), they required women to remain covered, the kept them seperate, the men seemed to have used their wives for breeding and used younger men or courtesans (or prostitutes) for sex, women were required to have a legal male guardian (and thus a mother could find herselve legally bound to her son), and so on.

Again, I'm not saying that they were saints. They clearly weren't. Nor am I saying that having a goddess makes you egalitarian. :sarcastic

wa:do

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In some cases it was just an idea toyed with by philosophers or held by sects within larger religious families.

In these cases, then, how what can we say about the correlation between such sects and patriarchy and/or misogyny?

Unless you equate Christianity and Islam with single cultures?

No, just singular religions across cultures. And widely varying in how women were treated depending on region and time period. Which again suggests (to me) that there is no meaningful correlation at all (if one exists). Rather, it appear (unfortunately) that for most of history misogyny and a tendency towards patriarchy was the norm, and more egalitarian cultures an exception. Moreover, it seems that whether or not a given culture was more egalitarian can't be predicted by religion. Certain asian cultures were historically borderline (and by some definitions, actually) atheistic, yet extremely misogynist and patriarchal. We don't seem to have any examples of cultures which worshipped a female deity exclusively, but among those that held one in particularly high esteem (e.g., the Athenians) we find extreme misogyny and patriarchy.

I'm interested in what factors tended to be predictors for a less misogynistic culture, if there were any significant ones. There was a time when worship of feminine deities was taken to be such a factor, but that tends no longer to be the case. More interesting, even matrilineality doesn't seem to be a particularly good predictor of egalitarianism or some sort of proto-feminism.

 

[painted wolf]

In these cases, then, how what can we say about the correlation between such sects and patriarchy and/or misogyny?

Well, correlations don't have to be 100% to be interesting or significant. There is plenty of room for exceptions.

But it is an interesting question.

No, just singular religions across cultures. And widely varying in how women were treated depending on region and time period. Which again suggests (to me) that there is no meaningful correlation at all (if one exists). Rather, it appear (unfortunately) that for most of history misogyny and a tendency towards patriarchy was the norm, and more egalitarian cultures an exception. Moreover, it seems that whether or not a given culture was more egalitarian can't be predicted by religion. Certain asian cultures were historically borderline (and by some definitions, actually) atheistic, yet extremely misogynist and patriarchal.

Agree, it has been the norm and that religious systems are not the primary factor. But could you see a misogynistic culture with a strong mother deity?

In the Asian philosophies the founders are known to have held misogynistic views. Even the Buddha who said women can not achieve enlightenment like men can.

We don't seem to have any examples of cultures which worshipped a female deity exclusively, but among those that held one in particularly high esteem (e.g., the Athenians) we find extreme misogyny and patriarchy.

It's interesting that Athena wasn't worshiped for having any classically feminine traits but was a war deity.
Would Greeks have been different if Athena was a mother deity instead?

I'm interested in what factors tended to be predictors for a less misogynistic culture, if there were any significant ones. There was a time when worship of feminine deities was taken to be such a factor, but that tends no longer to be the case. More interesting, even matrilineality doesn't seem to be a particularly good predictor of egalitarianism or some sort of proto-feminism.

I'm sure there are a bunch of factors. Agriculture and Husbandry for example.

Are there any historically patriarchal cultures that are egalitarian? (other than those who have had an "enlightenment"/"women's movement"?

wa:do

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well, correlations don't have to be 100% to be interesting or significant. There is plenty of room for exceptions.

True enough.

But could you see a misogynistic culture with a strong mother deity?

Oh yes. Mother-goddess worship was common to cultures in the ancient near-east, and during the hellenistic period specifically cult of the "Great mother" spread far and wide through-out a strongly misogynistic and patriarchical set of cultures, including roman. Views of divine, mystical, and mythical females seem to have interacted with cultures in strange ways. Mother-goddess worship used to be more widely linked to egalitarianism and a better view of women (before Fleming's 1969 paper began to unravel this view). However, cultures seem to have been able to view divine females one way which didn't at all match how women were viewed or treated. Mother godesses were linked to fertility and harvest, important for all civilizations, but you have to remember that for the most part worship of gods and goddesses was about trying to prevent destruction and get benefit. So farmers and fathers could offer sacrifices to the great mother without any particular reverance for feminitity, and indeed with a great deal of fear. In Judaism, Israel and her people were often conceptualized as the "bride" of Yahweh, almost a female deity, but this didn't change how actual females were viewed any more than did the association with the church as the "bride" of christ.

Are there any historically patriarchal cultures that are egalitarian?

No, but then I don't see how that is possible. Again, matriarchal/patriarchal and egalitarian seem to me to be contradictions in terms. Certainly, patriarchal culture tend to be among the least egalitarian.

 

[painted wolf]

Oh yes. Mother-goddess worship was common to cultures in the ancient near-east, and during the hellenistic period specifically cult of the "Great mother" spread far and wide through-out a strongly misogynistic and patriarchical set of cultures, including roman. Views of divine, mystical, and mythical females seem to have interacted with cultures in strange ways. Mother-goddess worship used to be more widely linked to egalitarianism and a better view of women (before Fleming's 1969 paper began to unravel this view). However, cultures seem to have been able to view divine females one way which didn't at all match how women were viewed or treated. Mother godesses were linked to fertility and harvest, important for all civilizations, but you have to remember that for the most part worship of gods and goddesses was about trying to prevent destruction and get benefit. So farmers and fathers could offer sacrifices to the great mother without any particular reverance for feminitity, and indeed with a great deal of fear. In Judaism, Israel and her people were often conceptualized as the "bride" of Yahweh, almost a female deity, but this didn't change how actual females were viewed any more than did the association with the church as the "bride" of christ.

Yes, but these "mother goddesses" were simply aspects of fertility... and seen as things to be feared.

The "mother goddess" that was something truly positive and reflected women as honorable full members of society. There isn't for example a western version of Selu or White Buffalo Woman.

No, but then I don't see how that is possible. Again, matriarchal/patriarchal and egalitarian seem to me to be contradictions in terms. Certainly, patriarchal culture tend to be among the least egalitarian.

I think of them on a spectrum of attitudes.... from the extreme/hard views of groups like the Taliban to essentially egalitarian like Denmark.

wa:do

 

[cablescavenger]

Or is it just an invention of some feminists?

There is one in my home, though it is slightly egalitarian because they treat our dog as an equal.

I have applied for citizenship, but am not holding my breath. :help: