Who Benefits Most from a Patriarchal Society?

[Sunstone]

It seems to be a common assumption that a patriarchal society substantially benefits all men. However, I have seen some authors assert that is false.

On the contrary, those authors maintain that a patriarchal society unevenly benefits men. A minority -- 2% to 4% of men -- reap enormous benefits from it, while the remaining men get relatively little benefit from it, and might even find it largely disadvantageous to their own interests. What do you think? Does patriarchal society substantially benefit few men or many? Why?

 

[idav]

Question: Is a patriarchal society like Islam or the momma boy mentality we find in the US?

People in charge tend to find ways of exploiting the people under, not any more so than a female dominated society might find themselves doing.

 

[freethinker44]

Poor old Mr. Bradshaw benefits from a patriarchal society.

[youtube]VOxGRuKFwJg[/youtube]
The Trouble With Women (1959) - YouTube

 

[Sunstone]

Question: Is a patriarchal society like Islam or the momma boy mentality we find in the US?

Both. I wouldn't characterize American society as a momma boy society, unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by that phrase.

People in charge tend to find ways of exploiting the people under, not any more so than a female dominated society might find themselves doing.

There are very few genuine matriarchies left in the world. The one or two that actually exist are poorly studied. But what little we know of matriarchies suggests that they are not as hierarchical as popular imagination would have them be. That is, in the popular imagination, matriarchies are just patriarchies, but with the difference that the powers that be are women rather than men. That, as it turns out, is most probably an ignorant assumption. Instead of a hierarchy of power, as you would find in a patriarchy, think of something closer to a non-hierarchical social organization in which power is much more broadly shared by both male and female players.

 

[Qhost]

Is it not clear that in a traditional patriarchy society, where the patriarch rules the family, men will hold more power across the board? Nevertheless the power held by the patriarch isn't substantial, despite being more than the wife. Consider, how much power did the average serf really have? In reality, the people who will benefit most, whether it is a patriarchy society or not, are the ones with the most money. A patriarchy society ensures that these money holders are male.

 

[Aquitaine]

Both. I wouldn't characterize American society as a momma boy society, unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by that phrase.



There are very few genuine matriarchies left in the world. The one or two that actually exist are poorly studied. But what little we know of matriarchies suggests that they are not as hierarchical as popular imagination would have them be. That is, in the popular imagination, matriarchies are just patriarchies, but with the difference that the powers that be are women rather than men. That, as it turns out, is most probably an ignorant assumption. Instead of a hierarchy of power, as you would find in a patriarchy, think of something closer to a non-hierarchical social organization in which power is much more broadly shared by both male and female players.

There are genuine Matriarchies currently in existence? Where?

 

[Sunstone]

There are genuine Matriarchies currently in existence? Where?

The one I know for certain is a dying culture in China, whose people I can not recall the name of at the moment, but they are non-Chan Chinese. The tragedy is, they are both dying and very little studied, but what is known of them is absolutely fascinating! For instance, there is no formal marriage in the culture. Men and women become lovers, stay lovers however long they want, and then often enough move onto new lovers. The man visits his lover in her house for the night, but is expected to have left her house before breakfast the next day. The fact formal marriage is unknown suggests that marriage might not have arisen in other cultures to protect women or as a "woman's right".

Another culture -- again, I cannot recall the name -- is a group of people living in India. Interestingly, they have some of the same practices as the Chinese group. For instance, the maternal uncles have more to do with their niece's and nephew's
upbringing than do the ostensible fathers. It's thought that cultural trait evolved in both groups because in a matriarchy there are fewer guarantees that a child belongs to the ostensible father. On the other hand, a maternal uncle still knows for certain that he is related to a particular child.

It's been quite a while since I read up on either culture, but those two are the only genuine matriarchies that I know of which exist to this day. There were several historic matriarchies in the Pacific islands at one time, but they fell victim to Christian missionaries.

EDIT: I've heard rumors -- but nothing more than rumors -- that there are still matriarchal societies in New Guinea. But I've never so much as seen one paper on them. So, if there are, they too are little known.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Well Sunstone, look at society now with its male dominated political world. Women are inkling into it obviously but look what type of women we have... Sarah Palin and Bauchman.

No society benefits from a gender preference of rule. This is why I am a communist, people think it may be a joke of some kind to humor myself but it is not. The only true society where any sort of party is equal is in a classless society.

In a Matriarchy or patriarchy, it will only be a select few who really hold the power

 

[Sunstone]

In a Matriarchy or patriarchy, it will only be a select few who really hold the power

I think you've drawn a false equivalence between matriarchy and patriarchy. But see my earlier post on it.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I think you've drawn a false equivalence between matriarchy and patriarchy. But see my earlier post on it.

I was addressing the same issue which is why I brought up Communism dude :yes:

non-hierarchical social organization in which power is much more broadly shared by both male and female players.

That is Communism . Pure Communism at that

 

[InformedIgnorance]

There are always variations in the distribution of power, those who are powerful are inclined to take the rewards for themselves - those at the top of the society, those with the most influence and power will always thus have the most power. The term Patriarchy suggests it is 'Men' (entire) and has been used to try and make it seem like all men are trying to dominate women, but in reality it is a subset of 'men' who are at the top of the society who obtain the most benefit and seek to dominate all people - they merely use Patriarchy as their tool, roping in those further down the hierarchic (but not at the bottom - the middlemen so to speak) too stupid to recognize that the small benefits they receive are vastly outweighed by the benefits they give up.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

EDIT: I've heard rumors -- but nothing more than rumors -- that there are still matriarchal societies in New Guinea. But I've never so much as seen one paper on them. So, if there are, they too are little known.

It's possible. The country has regions which are ridiculously isolated, and technologically backwards. But in my time up there, I only ever came across patriarchy, and extreme patriarchy. Choose your flavour.
[edit]If I think about this, you might mean New Guinea as an island rather than PNG as a country? The Irian Jayan side (part of Indonesia, politically) has regions which are even more remote and technologically backwards. So all bets are off.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I think you've drawn a false equivalence between matriarchy and patriarchy. But see my earlier post on it.

I find it really interesting that even amongst apes, a matriarchy is not equivalent to a patriarchy. Bono society for example is far less violent then chimpanzee society.

 

[Sunstone]

[edit]If I think about this, you might mean New Guinea as an island rather than PNG as a country? The Irian Jayan side (part of Indonesia, politically) has regions which are even more remote and technologically backwards. So all bets are off.

Yes, I was thinking of the Island.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

There are always variations in the distribution of power, those who are powerful are inclined to take the rewards for themselves - those at the top of the society, those with the most influence and power will always thus have the most power. The term Patriarchy suggests it is 'Men' (entire) and has been used to try and make it seem like all men are trying to dominate women, but in reality it is a subset of 'men' who are at the top of the society who obtain the most benefit and seek to dominate all people - they merely use Patriarchy as their tool, roping in those further down the hierarchic (but not at the bottom - the middlemen so to speak) too stupid to recognize that the small benefits they receive are vastly outweighed by the benefits they give up.

I agree. Patriarchy means "rule of the father." As in a family where there is more than one son, the youngest son gets the shortest end of the stick compared to the father himself and the oldest. The transfer of power is not granted by merit, but by birthright.

 

[Falvlun]

There are always variations in the distribution of power, those who are powerful are inclined to take the rewards for themselves - those at the top of the society, those with the most influence and power will always thus have the most power. The term Patriarchy suggests it is 'Men' (entire) and has been used to try and make it seem like all men are trying to dominate women, but in reality it is a subset of 'men' who are at the top of the society who obtain the most benefit and seek to dominate all people - they merely use Patriarchy as their tool, roping in those further down the hierarchic (but not at the bottom - the middlemen so to speak) too stupid to recognize that the small benefits they receive are vastly outweighed by the benefits they give up.

At least back in the day, though, a patriarchal society didn't just benefit the top man. Think of family structure, women's rights to own property, choose various vocations, or to vote. Women literally had no say in anything.

Sure, a poor man might think "This society hasn't benefitted me much", but in comparison to a woman, that man is much more free.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

At least back in the day, though, a patriarchal society didn't just benefit the top man. Think of family structure, women's rights to own property, choose various vocations, or to vote. Women literally had no say in anything.

Sure, a poor man might think "This society hasn't benefitted me much", but in comparison to a woman, that man is much more free.

True that. When it comes to birthright, patriarchy benefits males first before it benefits females. Some may argue that females benefit because of the protection they are provided by males, the "women and children first" myth, and because of the rates of suicide, stress, heart disease, etc are much more prevalent in males than females.

I'm not sure being caged (in a way) to where one might be protected from the outside elements is favorable. I prefer to experience the wilderness, too.

 

[Sunstone]

At least back in the day, though, a patriarchal society didn't just benefit the top man. Think of family structure, women's rights to own property, choose various vocations, or to vote. Women literally had no say in anything.

Sure, a poor man might think "This society hasn't benefitted me much", but in comparison to a woman, that man is much more free.

The poor man rightly thinks "This society hasn't benefited me much". For what patriarchy has done is throw him the bones. True, in traditional societies, he is better off than most women, but that neglects the huge gap between him and those at the top of his society.

 

[Me Myself]

Both. I wouldn't characterize American society as a momma boy society, unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by that phrase.



There are very few genuine matriarchies left in the world. The one or two that actually exist are poorly studied. But what little we know of matriarchies suggests that they are not as hierarchical as popular imagination would have them be. That is, in the popular imagination, matriarchies are just patriarchies, but with the difference that the powers that be are women rather than men. That, as it turns out, is most probably an ignorant assumption. Instead of a hierarchy of power, as you would find in a patriarchy, think of something closer to a non-hierarchical social organization in which power is much more broadly shared by both male and female players.

I am not following. Do women have more political power or not? If yes, then they... Well, have more political power.

If not, then I cant see how it is a matriarchy o.o.

I mean, at least someone needs to be discriminated against based on gender for it to be a patriarchy or a matriarchy.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It seems to be a common assumption that a patriarchal society substantially benefits all men. However, I have seen some authors assert that is false.

On the contrary, those authors maintain that a patriarchal society unevenly benefits men. A minority -- 2% to 4% of men -- reap enormous benefits from it, while the remaining men get relatively little benefit from it, and might even find it largely disadvantageous to their own interests. What do you think? Does patriarchal society substantially benefit few men or many? Why?

I find that people with money and influence have the most benefits in our society, regardless of whether they're male or female, and that people with no money or influence have the least benefits, regardless of whether they're male or female. I also find that people who blame patriarchy for their lack of status or resources, tend to have far more relevant causes for the lack of those things.