If our society had been historically dominated by women...

[twistedmic]

I don't see that there would be any major difference between a male-dominated and female dominated society. Certain kinds of art or literature might be more prominent than others, femininity and masculinity ideals would be different but in the big picture very little would have changed.
All the best and worst aspects of mankind would still exist in one form or another regardless of gender dominancy.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I don't think there any strictly matriarchal societies so it's impossible to compare.

Yes, there actually are. I come from one.

 

[Thaluikhain]

In maternal culture, abortions are not stigmatized, but not many would ever consider even having one since pregnancy and child rearing are not stigmatized as well. Everything surrounding childbirth, women, child rearing, and families is changed, not just one aspect. It is fine for women to not raise their own children, and not uncommon. No one thinks less of a woman for doing so. No one stigmatizes not being in a relationship and giving birth and with nurturing and caretaking of children being of the highest social status and importance in society, there is ample support for the pregnant mother, and the children in the community and it has no negative impact in the women for having children. Women with children are more desirable, not less in Hopi culture by single men. Children are expected to accompany mothers to work and it does not negatively impact their work environment in any way. All of these things impact how this is viewed all together. Abortions would be very rare, and only considered for health issues since women have the support they need to not feel negatively about pregnancy or being an unwed or young mother. It does not " ruin their life" or " hold them back" in any way from what they wish to do makes a difference.

You're generalising one particular maternal culture for all matriarchal (in the sense of being run by women) there.

Now, sure, it's a relevant example, but there's no reason to think that other societies couldn't function differently.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I don't see that there would be any major difference between a male-dominated and female dominated society. Certain kinds of art or literature might be more prominent than others, femininity and masculinity ideals would be different but in the big picture very little would have changed.
All the best and worst aspects of mankind would still exist in one form or another regardless of gender dominancy.

They are actually very different. early societies were either " of the father" or " of the mother" and every aspect of those societies change when you change from paternal to maternal. Coming from a maternal society, they are almost like entirely opposite. The warrior and violence is seen as repulsive, and teachers, doctors and caretakers are seen as the " best you can aspire to" and are of the highest social status and admired. Sports are not elevated or admired. Every little thing from how sex and the human body is viewed to what is the best paying jobs and the work environment itself is different in maternal culture.

snip

See above. Every little thing in the society is actually pretty different.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

In maternal culture, abortions are not stigmatized, but not many would ever consider even having one since pregnancy and child rearing are not stigmatized as well. Everything surrounding childbirth, women, child rearing, and families is changed, not just one aspect. It is fine for women to not raise their own children, and not uncommon. No one thinks less of a woman for doing so. No one stigmatizes not being in a relationship and giving birth and with nurturing and caretaking of children being of the highest social status and importance in society, there is ample support for the pregnant mother, and the children in the community and it has no negative impact in the women for having children. Women with children are more desirable, not less in Hopi culture by single men. Children are expected to accompany mothers to work and it does not negatively impact their work environment in any way. All of these things impact how this is viewed all together. Abortions would be very rare, and only considered for health issues since women have the support they need to not feel negatively about pregnancy or being an unwed or young mother. It does not " ruin their life" or " hold them back" in any way from what they wish to do makes a difference.

You're generalising one particular maternal culture for all matriarchal (in the sense of being run by women) there.

Now, sure, it's a relevant example, but there's no reason to think that other societies couldn't function differently.

Actually no, when talking to my friend who ALSO comes from a maternal island culture, these things are the same there as well. This is actually one of the primary common denominators among the varying island maternal cultures as well. Mothers are not stigmatized in maternal cultures.

 

[Zontar]

Snip

Here's something that needs to be considered: is Elizabeth even an example of a Matriarchy (and an exception to the general rule that history has shown)? Because a female leader is not the same as a matriarchy, to the point where modern feminism has that distinct separation being the case as a fundamental part of the current state of the movement.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Now, to be clear, I don't AGREE with that. In addition to being pretty sexist towards both genders, it's more of that awful "Women are great and perfect and men are pigs" crap. But if that post and it's 20,000-something notes are anything to go by, some people obviously do agree with it.

Well, to be fair, a lot of people who make it their business to defend patriarchal society also seem to associate it overwhelmingly with violence, coercion and misery.

If I were to make a post on these forums claiming that a radical feminist had described men as "possessive, flesh obsessed pigs" you can imagine the reaction. Those words, however, actually come from Robert Wright, evolutionary psychologist and a commonly cited figure in the more educated sections of the men's movement . Men, it seems, are often quite comfortable with believing they are pigs as long as being a pig absolves them of any responsibility for being men.

There is a simple ordering of the world which we must look in the face, however we choose to answer it. Men are both responsible for and victims of the vast majority of violence, the power of men is sustained overwhelmingly by coercion and violence. Men apparently suffer mental illness far less, yet they kill themselves far more. Men are over-represented in jobs revolving around authority and coercion, yet are vastly underepresented in jobs and roles requiring the display of positive emotional affect. In short, we live in a society which is male dominated, and yet simultaneously associates almost all of the pleasant, genial and desirable qualities of a person overwhelmingly with the dominated sex.

So the real question is where we see those differences as originating from. If we accept, as anti-feminists (and a very small number of radical feminists) tend to do, that the differences between men and women are "natural." If the patriarchal order is just the expression of innate tendencies playing out, then it is not really irrational to follow that the the obvious conclusion that the sociologically evident unpleasantness of men, their limited capacity to emotional expression and tendency towards violence and coercion is, in fact, an innate property of men as a sex. If that is the case, then surely Wright is kind of right, men are pigs. The connection which he doesn't make is that, if indeed men are so different to women, if they are incapable of living in a civilised society without violence, coercion and with only a truncated and limited range of emotional expression, then what obligation do we have to treat men as even equal to women, let alone superior? What wright (and I suspect, to a certain extent you, and certainly some other people on this thread) have failed to appreciate is that the liberal argument for equal treatment is predicated on inherent sameness. If men are not actually equal to women, then there is no argument that they should be treated as such, and as such a female dominated society may indeed be the most rational mode of social organisation.

I should stress here that I do not believe that men and women actually are unequal, but as long as people continue to argue that they are, and that patriarchal society is a "natural" form of social organisation, then the argument that men are pigs (or walking abortions, or emotional cripples) will follow behind it. Fortunately, I see little in the world to actually evidence that position, or which suggests that patriarchal society is anything more than a contingency. Indeed, I see very little to evidence that patriarchal society even exists in a stable historical sense. If it truly were "natural", then I don't think quite so much effort would have have been expended over the years to keep it going.

Really, though, I think what's actually being argued here is not that a female dominated society would be "naturally" superior, but that traits stereotypically associated with women could, if they were embraced or displayed by those in power, lead to a more pleasant or equitable or less coercive society overall. That's really what's at stake here, and I think it's actually kind of an interesting point because it's quite hard to refute.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Actually no, when talking to my friend who ALSO comes from a maternal island culture, these things are the same there as well. This is actually one of the primary common denominators among the varying island maternal cultures as well. Mothers are not stigmatized in maternal cultures.

Well, by definition, they'd not be. But I don't see why a matriarchal (in the sense of women being in charge) society has to be maternal, in your sense.

Of course, if the majority of examples happens to be, that makes it rather academic.

Snip

Here's something that needs to be considered: is Elizabeth even an example of a Matriarchy (and an exception to the general rule that history has shown)? Because a female leader is not the same as a matriarchy, to the point where modern feminism has that distinct separation being the case as a fundamental part of the current state of the movement.

I'd agree with that. Did the society change drastically when a Queen was in power, and then change back when it had a king again? I mean in the way society in general viewed gender. Otherwise, it'd seem that having one queen every few hundred years in charge does not mean a matriarchy.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Hmm, well, even if women were to make up the majority of political leadership, I don't think that, culturally, society would have shifted away from the patriarchal family structure. The way human reproduction and gestation occurs, being fairly debilitating for women compared to a lot of other animals, and the fact that reproduction was extremely important back during the days when medicine was mostly junk and child death rates were high, I just can't really picture women in general emerging as the dominant gender in society in ye olden times.

Of course that has no bearing on a select few women eschewing the role of mother and rising to political power. You could argue that societies evolved from families so they naturally became patriarchal as well, but that doesn't have any bearing on the ABILITY of women to have dominated politics throughout history. But in that case, would it have been very different? The idea that women are above the cruelty and savagery of men is obviously a big fat load of bullshit. They might have had less of a focus on glorious combat and more of a penchant for subterfuge, I guess, but lust for power and control doesn't select by gender in the slightest.

It probably would have been different, but I doubt it would have been better. Humans governing humans is always a messy business.

In maternal cultures, the families are not patriarchal, the mother is the head of the family, the person who conducts business, owns the property, and decides what the family will do. It isn't that women are " above" savagery, it is that in the maternal culture violence and savagery are not cultivated. the warrior is not elevated, instead violence is thought of to be gross and repulsive and not admired. In paternal culture, boys fight to " prove" themselves, that does not exist in maternal culture, instead they "prove" themselves by showing compassion and great deeds for the benefit of society. It is a matter of what is socially acceptable and promoted. The way these things were viewed in Hopi society, Bravery is seen not fighting back. To stand in the face of all horrors without becoming like those who do such things is admired. Instead it is admired to replace evil with good instead of fighting with violence and even in the face of hate, to treat them as family and with kindness and compassion and show them a better way. The "idea" that any human has authority over another is what is very different. Force is considered horrific and not even considered an option. In Hopi society, you do not " govern" anyone, in fact that is against core Hopi beliefs to do so at all. It is a voluntary society instead.

We were taught that you can give your choice to no one and only you can make your choice. That when you give your choice to another, that creates power and power will always be abused. Hopi believe that if you give your choice to another ( by electing an official) than you are responsible for everything that person does with that power. If they make orders in war that results in people being killed, you are responsible the same as if you killed them with your very hands yourself. That is how important your choice is viewed, by Hopi, so that is not possible to do and still have the ability to prevent it from happening, thus not even an option.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Here's something that needs to be considered: is Elizabeth even an example of a Matriarchy (and an exception to the general rule that history has shown)? Because a female leader is not the same as a matriarchy, to the point where modern feminism has that distinct separation being the case as a fundamental part of the current state of the movement.

No, Elizabeth's England was clearly not a matriarchy. That doesn't mean Elizabeth wasn't a matriarch, however. If she had a child, they would have been monarch. People hated the fact that she was a woman, unmarried, and eventually childless. But it still reflects how bullshit your argument actually is. Three women ascended the throne after Edward VI. Jane Grey, Mary I, and Elizabeth I. All of them 'royalty', none of them reflecting any semblance of similarity beyond that.

All of the points you put forward? All of them realized predominantly in what was the last true Empire by women. It's not even a case of Britain, we can look at Catherine the Great. The Russian revivalist and a ruthless conqueror, who basically conquered more people and lands than Alexander the Great. An endeavour where all her predecessors failed, but she succeeded.

In a time when Europeans feared the Ottomans she beat the living snot out of them, and held a cavalry parade on the broken lands of former Ottoman territories that was so insulting to the Ottomans they waged another war. Catherine, once again, personally dealt the biggest defeat the Turks had ever suffered ...and rode her horse over their corpses on the battlefield.

That ... is a monarch of the surprisingly dark 'Modern Era' ... regardless of gender, that is how a monarch acts.

Imperial conquest, mercantilism, and technological superiority. These are not relative to gender. So much so, the greatest instances of their flourishing that we have have been because of quite literal definitions of 'matriarchs'.

What reliable sense would there be to say that if governance and dominance by women in government was the norm as opposed to the odd that imperialism, mercantilism and technology would have disappeared? Because from what I see it would have meant fuck all. The values of the society didn't change, and I fail to see how simply the gender of the monarch would have altered this.

If your argument is; "war makes civilization great..." then you should be vouching for someone like Katerina as despot. Hell, you should then be celebrating Hillary Clinton as one of the architects of numerous US foreign policy makers that serve to aggressively pursue US dominance in the Middle East. Clinton is your war dog ... who at the very least can be better trusted than Trump if thr US ever finds itself embroiled in future conflicts and geopolitical scuffles.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Actually no, when talking to my friend who ALSO comes from a maternal island culture, these things are the same there as well. This is actually one of the primary common denominators among the varying island maternal cultures as well. Mothers are not stigmatized in maternal cultures.

Well, by definition, they'd not be. But I don't see why a matriarchal (in the sense of women being in charge) society has to be maternal, in your sense.

Of course, if the majority of examples happens to be, that makes it rather academic.

Snip

Here's something that needs to be considered: is Elizabeth even an example of a Matriarchy (and an exception to the general rule that history has shown)? Because a female leader is not the same as a matriarchy, to the point where modern feminism has that distinct separation being the case as a fundamental part of the current state of the movement.

I'd agree with that. Did the society change drastically when a Queen was in power, and then change back when it had a king again? I mean in the way society in general viewed gender. Otherwise, it'd seem that having one queen every few hundred years in charge does not mean a matriarchy.

The question was if all the societies had been ruled by women, then it would have been maternal by default since patriarchal society is structured as patriarchal in every little aspect from the beginning. When the warrior is never elevated in the society, you never even have a " queen" role as defined by patriarchal culture in the first place. It is a different type of relationship and role all together. Viewing a " queen" as a female king, is only placing a woman in a patriarchal created role, not actually making the role itself designed by women or maternal culture. The design of every position, what it does, it's purpose and how it functions in society changes from the beginning, not just change the person doing it to a woman in a male designed role.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The question was if all the societies had been ruled by women, then it would have been maternal by default

Why?

Are you arguing that men and women are inherently different in that respect?

 

[Terminal Blue]

I'd agree with that. Did the society change drastically when a Queen was in power, and then change back when it had a king again? I mean in the way society in general viewed gender. Otherwise, it'd seem that having one queen every few hundred years in charge does not mean a matriarchy.

Elizabeth did have a fairly huge impact on the history of gender in Britain, but you have to recognise that the concept of sex or gender as we would understand it did not exist at the time. For example, most educated people believed that men and women could actually change sex if they changed their behaviour too much. Elizabeth was a very unusual woman for her time, and adopted an almost hyper-masculine persona. This, in conjunction with her supposed virginity meant she was kind of treated as an honorary man.

If anything, the Jacobean period which immediately followed was far more of a headfuck. James was quite a flamboyant and expressive person, and quite a far cry from the stoic and manly image of a king. Economic issues during his reign also forced him to relax a lot of the sumptuary laws, which lead to a short-lived panic over women cross dressing (this is one of the first examples I've been able to find of people talking about gender in something approximating a modern sense). Regardless, there was a lot of anxiety about the potential breaking down of the differences between men and women in 17th century England.

Regardless, you are correct in that legally "patriarchy" was in full swing during Elizabeth's reign. Under English common law, a man still owned his wife and children. Like, literally. That wouldn't really change until the nineteenth century.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Elizabeth did have a fairly huge impact on the history of gender in Britain, but you have to recognise that the concept of sex or gender as we would understand it did not exist at the time. For example, most educated people believed that men and women could actually change sex if they changed their behaviour too much. Elizabeth was a very unusual woman for her time, and adopted an almost hyper-masculine persona. This, in conjunction with her supposed virginity meant she was kind of treated as an honorary man.

Ah, I thought she'd come up with that in order to be accepted as the monarch despite not being a man.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Ah, I thought she'd come up with that in order to be accepted as the monarch despite not being a man.

It probably is, yes, but you have to remember that this was an age in which people understood almost nothing about what medically made someone a woman or a man. People didn't necessarily assume that having a female-shaped body would lead to you developing female traits and a female personality (that starts to come in in the late eighteenth century). Instead the expression of male or female physical traits was generally attributed to the influence of invisible humours and quasi-mystical forces within the body (like Galenic "vital heat").

What seems to have been most important to the late 16th and early 17th century mind is maintaining the distinct but complementary relationship between men and women as part of the patriarchal family. Outside of marriage and family, however, a little bit of non-conformity could be marginally tolerated. If Elizabeth had married or had been widely known to have had relationships with men, however, then it would have been far more problematic and the demands of patriarchy would probably have required that she soften up and take a less assertive role.

So yeah, you could have a queen in a patriarchy. She just had to be asexual.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

The question was if all the societies had been ruled by women, then it would have been maternal by default

Why?

Are you arguing that men and women are inherently different in that respect?

Yes. Males and Females are actually different in numerous ways, including how their brains are " wired". Males and females experience aggression, dominance, and violence differently. Yes, there are both environmental and biological factors that impact this.

http://www.fitbrains.com/blog/women-men-brains/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17201505
http://www.medicaldaily.com/lets-work-together-gender-differences-brain-scans-389077
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-brains-wired-differently

Thus if women were actually " in charge" they would be in charge of how roles in society are designed in the first place and the structure of the society itself.

 

[Kolby Jack]

Hmm, well, even if women were to make up the majority of political leadership, I don't think that, culturally, society would have shifted away from the patriarchal family structure. The way human reproduction and gestation occurs, being fairly debilitating for women compared to a lot of other animals, and the fact that reproduction was extremely important back during the days when medicine was mostly junk and child death rates were high, I just can't really picture women in general emerging as the dominant gender in society in ye olden times.

Of course that has no bearing on a select few women eschewing the role of mother and rising to political power. You could argue that societies evolved from families so they naturally became patriarchal as well, but that doesn't have any bearing on the ABILITY of women to have dominated politics throughout history. But in that case, would it have been very different? The idea that women are above the cruelty and savagery of men is obviously a big fat load of bullshit. They might have had less of a focus on glorious combat and more of a penchant for subterfuge, I guess, but lust for power and control doesn't select by gender in the slightest.

It probably would have been different, but I doubt it would have been better. Humans governing humans is always a messy business.

In maternal cultures, the families are not patriarchal, the mother is the head of the family, the person who conducts business, owns the property, and decides what the family will do. It isn't that women are " above" savagery, it is that in the maternal culture violence and savagery are not cultivated. the warrior is not elevated, instead violence is thought of to be gross and repulsive and not admired. In paternal culture, boys fight to " prove" themselves, that does not exist in maternal culture, instead they "prove" themselves by showing compassion and great deeds for the benefit of society. It is a matter of what is socially acceptable and promoted. The way these things were viewed in Hopi society, Bravery is seen not fighting back. To stand in the face of all horrors without becoming like those who do such things is admired. Instead it is admired to replace evil with good instead of fighting with violence and even in the face of hate, to treat them as family and with kindness and compassion and show them a better way. The "idea" that any human has authority over another is what is very different. Force is considered horrific and not even considered an option. In Hopi society, you do not " govern" anyone, in fact that is against core Hopi beliefs to do so at all. It is a voluntary society instead.

We were taught that you an give your choice to no one and only you can make your choice. That when you give your choice to another, that creates power and power will always be abused. Hopi believe that if you give your choice to another ( by electing an official) than you are responsible for everything that person does with that power. If they make orders in war that results in people being killed, you are responsive the same as if you killed them with your very hands yourself. That is how important your choice is viewed,by Hopi, so that is not possible to do and still have the ability to prevent it from happening.

Hm, not sure how matriarchal the Hopi can really be counted as, as the internet tells me they have male chiefs. That already kind of shoots a big hole in it. They are matrilinial though, so it's pretty close. Even still, correlation does not imply causation. The Hopi people may be more or less matriarchal, and they may be more or less peaceful, but those two aren't necessarily linked.

Apparently there aren't any true matriarchies on Earth from what I can find on it. But then, the definition is murky. Some starkly portray it as the opposite of a patriarchy, in that women are dominant over men. Apparently some schools of feminist thought though portray matriarchy as not being simply the opposite of patriarchy, but being about "harmony with nature" which admittedly just sounds like a fanciful load of crap promoting an agenda. I'm gonna stick with it meaning female dominance because it's simpler. Which also means that patriarchy means male dominance, and you could argue that there aren't really many true patriarchal societies today either. That's not to say women are afforded all the same opportunities as men, but if say, America was an actual patriarchy, Hillary Clinton would never be considered a candidate for President. So we're more like... progressing towards a gender egalitarian society. Slowly. We'll get there.

 

[Saetha]

Hm, not sure how matriarchal the Hopi can really be counted as, as the internet tells me they have male chiefs. That already kind of shoots a big hole in it. They are matrilinial though, so it's pretty close. Even still, correlation does not imply causation. The Hopi people may be more or less matriarchal, and they may be more or less peaceful, but those two aren't necessarily linked.

Apparently there aren't any true matriarchies on Earth from what I can find on it. But then, the definition is murky. Some starkly portray it as the opposite of a patriarchy, in that women are dominant over men. Apparently some schools of feminist thought though portray matriarchy as not being simply the opposite of patriarchy, but being about "harmony with nature" which admittedly just sounds like a fanciful load of crap promoting an agenda. I'm gonna stick with it meaning female dominance because it's simpler. Which also means that patriarchy means male dominance, and you could argue that there aren't really many true patriarchal societies today either. That's not to say women are afforded all the same opportunities as men, but if say, America, was an actual patriarchy, Hillary Clinton would never be considered a candidate for President. So we're more like... progressing towards a gender egalitarian society. Slowly. We'll get there.

My understanding on the Hopi is that opinions among anthropologists are somewhat split. Some insist that they aren't a matriarchy, and have never been a matriarchy, and matriarchal societies only exist in theory. I've seen others say that the Hopi are a matriarchy, but they are the only matriarchy to have existed in recorded history. And a sample size of one is a pretty shit sample size.

But I'm pulling all of this from an Intro to Anthropology class I took years ago. Someone who's an actual, degree-certified expert on the matter would be appreciated.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

So yeah, you could have a queen in a patriarchy. She just had to be asexual.

I'd debate this. If matriarchy as government is female successorship through maternal lines, any offspring E1 would have had would have still been monarch. By the end she was effectively the last of the Tudors... though that didn't necessarily have to be. Yes if she married it would have been 'problematic' ... but you're also talking about a time when monarchs could get away with literal murder. Plus it's not without historical precedent. Hell, E1's mother was Anne Boleyn.

Not only that, but do not assume the English cannot justify improvising a workaround. I'm sure if E1 wanted to, she could have fabricated a 'Prince Consort' sort of title on a whim. She had faced harsher trials to cling to power, after all, and still came up smelling like roses... (yes, that is a pun)

Hence this is why I want an answer to what "matriarchal values" are... because all the examples of European matriarchy have donr everything that Zontar has said they wouldn't. If war and imperial conquest makr civilizations great, European matriarchs will make Europe great again (also a pun... though less witty).

You have to remember that despite a patriarchical society, E1 could still have her mother venerated as a martyr of the Reformation. Also as a means to denounce male members of her extended family and hold them responsible, and install herself properly as the principle figure of a state religion. None of this was disagreeable to the public, what the public criticised her most of was remaining spouseless and for the seeming usurpation of the throne. But even this critivism can be levelled at natural, pre-existing internal strife. E1s legacy did more to change English society than any other monarch in history. Very little but the denuncoation of her legitimacy stood in her way of achieving total power. I also doubt whether simply having a child would have altered her fate or that of her children regardless of their gender. By the end, any offspring would have been considered the only legitimate ruler.