The matriarchy

Benj96

This is sort of an offshoot from a previous thread I did on incels.

It's the year 2045, the world is for the most part matriarchal.
Women earn more, have higher education profiles, social standing and political clout. More access to education, engage more in business, medicine and law/the judiciary system, call the shots and misogyny has diminished to a rare and highly unpopular view, or at least one rarely expressed.

Men being no longer the bread winners, often assume the role of stay at home dad - raising the family.

Perhaps, men become the more pursued sex, rather than the pursuer. Women make the moves, ask men out on dates, do the proposing. Maybe men are more often objectified, their looks and demeanor becoming more important than their career prospects, finances or social status. Men are cat-called on the streets, harassed, groped inappropriately in the club, expected to be highly sexualised and submissive. The feminine becoming ever more dominant and brazen towards men.

Firstly, would this dynamic likely lead naturally from a change in education/earnings and political impact? Can the tables truly turn to such a degree? Or is there something about the attitude/ innate instincts of men and their physical strength that would disallow such a turntable to occur?

Can we at most expect equality but never matriarchy?
How would men feel about such a state of affairs? Would it be readily accepted or resented?

What other animals in the animal kingdom display such female lead social dynamics? I can think of elephants as one such case. The matriarch elephant leads the group, holds the wisdom and authority of the group. Maybe also spiders - in which the male is sacrificed (eaten) by the female to ensure adequate resources for reproduction. Could we expect such matriarchy from humans?

Personally, I don't see much of an issue with this set of affairs apart from the sexual harassment/groping. I think this is wrong regardless of what sex commits such offences. However, I think the physical strength of men vs women has always been the kernel that propagated patriarchy in the past - physical threat or the intimidation that grows from it, at least the acknowledgement of both sexes that it is always a possibility that men have to intimidate/oppress women.

I'm not saying that's right, at all, one should never use the potential for physical abuse as a mode to gain authority, but I wonder would men ever surrender that biological fact in favour of self restraint and allowing matriarchy to prevail.

Would society be better off as a matriarchy? If so, why? Or simply, would it be better off if both sexes were in balance, leading as a cooperative.

Vera Mont

Would society be better off as a matriarchy? If so, why? Or simply, would it be better off if both sexes were in balance, leading as a cooperative. — Benj96

I very much favour the latter, as practiced by Native Americans.
Efficient and harmonious use of people-potential.

Benj96

I very much favour the latter, as practiced by Native Americans.
Efficient and harmonious use of people-potential. — Vera Mont

Me too Vera. Absolutely. I think both sexes have incredible traits, ones that work best when in cooperation. I wish modern societies were run by co-op presidencies between one male and one female president or prime ministers.

In a way this sort of reflects a king and queen. But unlike kings and queens, I think the two rulers should be elected democratically from the entire of society.

I think the balance afforded by such a dynamic would be more beneficial than one sex having total control.

The woman embodies female values, the man embodies male values. And they both work synergistically to foster an equal society. It would be a sort of "parental framework" of governance.

Vera Mont

The woman embodies female values, the man embodies male values. — Benj96

Values, I'm not sure are so different. Some human traits are statistically more often and/or strongly expressed by one sex, but all human traits are present in all humans to some degree. Co-operation also tends to foster inclusion and avoid the socially abrasive resentment caused by some people feeling redundant or rejected. It seem to me, the most important thing is that every member of the society is invested in every facet of the society's endeavours: if you feel that you own a piece of it, you take better care of it.
It's obviously good for the children's physical and emotional development to see and participate in all kinds of role and activity - it gives them a wider choice of identity, mentors and occupations, and thus the opportunity to employ their talents to the advantage of their society.

Benj96

↪Vera Mont

absolutely. I agree. I think all in all values dont differ massively between sexes. However they can slowly migrate towards sex based extremes if not moderated by the other. Hence I think a matriarch and patriarch co-op may be a self moderating dynamic that ensures a society neither becomes too patriarchal nor too matriarchal but remains in a happy middle ground. Representing equally every facet of the nature of human beings.

Perhaps neither is neccesary. Maybe we can have one president or prime minister that is either or - male or female. But I don't see why 2 minds are not better than one. That's just personal opinion to be honest. And definitely not absolute.

At the end of the day, whatever works. But I am a proponent of trying new formats until we establish on that works best.

Ludwig V

Maybe we can have one president or prime minister that is either or - male or female. — Benj96

Well, it's certainly true that we can't ensure that a member of every group - sex/gender, race, class, religion, profession etc. etc. can be in the role of supremo, even if a committee is appointed/elected to take that role. We can't even ensure that every group has proportionate representation in the body of representatives - parliament, council or whatever.

It's essential that everyone learns to take sympathetic account of everyone. I realize that's a big ask and requires consistent educational effort. The good news is that any progress towards that goal is good news.

Gnomon

Would society be better off as a matriarchy? If so, why? Or simply, would it be better off if both sexes were in balance, leading as a cooperative. — Benj96

I just read a historical novel about Cleopatra and her relationships with Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. In those days, men & women had little contact with each other outside the home. And both of those Roman generals, although married, were portrayed as casual womanizers.

Yet, when confronted with a woman of high intelligence, social position, and education --- daughters of the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt were educated in Alexandria along with sons --- both of those manly men were inclined to "cooperate" with her --- at least in private. Even to the point of reluctantly accepting wise military strategy. But their own Roman leaders and military compatriots kept urging them to get rid of that "gypo" witch, who had beguiled them.

Nowadays, in some societies, women have gained some economic & educational equality with men. But for the population at large they still seem to be judged by ancient standards of hierarchy. And the resurrected appeal of Fascism, seems inclined to return women to lower levels of the social hierarchy, along with dark skinned people, and other Others. :smile:

When We were Gods, by Colin Falconer

BC

's the year 2045, the world is for the most part matriarchal. — Benj96

2045? maybe 2145 or 2245. Given a severe social upheaval (do not under any circumstances hope for one) men and women could, perhaps, rearrange roles. Perhaps. Maybe. Possibly. ???

For a good time, read The Dispossessed. The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia is a 1974 anarchist utopian science fiction novel by American writer Ursula K. Le Guin. It is one of a small number of books to win all three Hugo, Locus and Nebula Awards for Best Novel. (So, that's a strong recommendation!)

It's the "archy" as much as the "patri" or "matri". Actual egalitarian democratic socialism, with a diminution of stultifying sex roles would be pretty radical, if you want to establish a wild-eyed revolutionary goal.

Flipping from the alleged patriarchy to an imagined matriarchy would probably yield far fewer grand results than feminists expect, everything else being equal. Supposing that women are super social workers who know how to fix everything (men and women included) in a few years is a female chauvinist day dream. Female chauvinism is lame coming from women. As @T Clark put it, "from men it's pathetic."

Vera Mont

Flipping from the alleged patriarchy to an imagined matriarchy would probably yield far fewer grand results than feminists expect, everything else being equal. — BC

Nothing else is ever equal. Whatever happens, happens in a historical context; includes and is formed by all that's happened before. I haven't known any feminists who envisioned a future matriarchy - the ones I knew were only fighting for fair wages and the legal right to live their own lives.

180 Proof

Would society be better off as a matriarchy? — Benj96

A scarcity-driven society? No. A post-scarcity society? N/A

TheMadMan

Men being no longer the bread winners, often assume the role of stay at home dad - raising the family.

Perhaps, men become the more pursued sex, rather than the pursuer. Women make the moves, ask men out on dates, do the proposing. Maybe men are more often objectified, their looks and demeanor becoming more important than their career prospects, finances or social status. Men are cat-called on the streets, harassed, groped inappropriately in the club, expected to be highly sexualised and submissive. The feminine becoming ever more dominant and brazen towards men. — Benj96

This is not Matriarchy. This is just Patriarchy ruled by females.
In the future you mention there is not much change of the world, you just put the women in place of men and the system remains more or less the same.

Matriarchy and Patriarchy are created out of feminine and masculine qualities, not gender (although obviously there is correlation there.)

Benj96

↪TheMadMan

Interesting I see your point

Vera Mont

Okay.
Matriarchy means organized on the principles of, and ruled by, motherhood.
How do we see motherhood and fatherhood operate in a traditional family? The father protects, provides and disciplines. The mother tends, nurtures and advises. In modern families, there is considerably more sharing and overlapping of roles - and I think that's beneficial to the children and makes the family more cohesive than it was with separate spheres of influence.
A society needs both kinds of agencies to function well.

T Clark

Matriarchy and Patriarchy are created out of feminine and masculine qualities, not gender (although obviously there is correlation there.) — TheMadMan

I've never thought of it that way before. You're right.

NOS4A2

I assume (maybe wrongly) that most people are raised by women in their "formative years". This suggests the influence of the mother at a time when a human being learns the most is at its highest, and in a way sets the conditions of the majority of human behaviors and impacts everything from simple relationships on down to the formation of entire societies.

Benj96

A society needs both kinds of agencies to function well — Vera Mont

They do. And sharing such responsibility, allowing them to overlap, requires breaking down prejudice and stereotyping regarding what it is/means to be a man, and likewise what it is/means to be a woman. What roles either ought to play.

So long as society perpetuates clear distinctions (roles) they pigeon hole both parties into assigned behaviours that they shouldn't deviate from.

In reality, neccesity is the mother (or father) of all dissolution of strict and pretty much arbitrary roles. Life is not a play with stringent character profiles assigned to players. The players ought to be free to act in a manner they deem fit to bring about benefit, regardless of whether people assume it is "un-lady-like" or "not manly enough".

Our greatest feat as humans is our adaptability.

Benj96

I assume (maybe wrongly) that most people are raised by women in their "formative years". This suggests the influence of the mother at a time when a human being learns the most is at its highest, and in a way sets the conditions of the majority of human behaviors and impacts everything from simple relationships on down to the formation of entire societies. — NOS4A2

I see what you mean. However we must not ignore single mothers and single father's raising entire families alone. To assume that a mothers role in the early years of raising a child is the most influential not only negates the place of single father's and upholds the "nuclear family model" as the prudent one, but also doesn't reflect that the children of such single parent families are also just as well adjusted and capable of being decent citizens as their nuclear double-parent family counterparts.

For me, as long as a single father can adapt to provide the feminine qualities and impart those values to their children, and so long as a single mother can likewise adapt to provide masculine ones to their children, the outcome ought to be much the same as children raised by a couple.

And that I believe is proof that the feminine and masculine "roles" are more of an artificial construct than anything innate.

Vera Mont

I assume (maybe wrongly) that most people are raised by women in their "formative years". This suggests the influence of the mother at a time when a human being learns the most is at its highest, and in a way sets the conditions of the majority of human behaviors and impacts everything from simple relationships on down to the formation of entire societies. — NOS4A2

In healthy societies, the child and mother are not isolated: there is extended family; grandparents are an important influence very early in life, as are older siblings and cousins. In tribal cultures, the mother carries a suckling babe wherever she goes, so that it's naturally socialized, and once the child is weaned and walking, the whole community becomes involved in its development. Even in a modern, urban setting, it is greatly beneficial for babies and toddlers to have close contact with a other adults, especially the father

Researchers who study father-child attachment confirm what active, involved fathers have known in their hearts for years—that the father-child bond is no less important than the mother-child bond. Over 80 percent of studies that have examined father-child relationships have concluded that there’s a strong connection between a father’s involvement and his infant’s well-being.

Single-parent families may work out all right, but they face a lot of obstacles. The most difficult is usually money, but even if the parent can earn enough, the shortage of time is an ever ever-present problem. One person can only do so much in one day.

Benj96

. In tribal cultures, the mother carries a suckling babe wherever she goes — Vera Mont

Women in such societies even share the responsibility of breastfeeding. With a rotary system of feeding. I think this is great from a biological point of view because each babe accrues antibodies to an even larger set of diseases due to the shared collective immunity of all participant mothers in the breastfeeding process.

Secondly, though we may not have the same degree of communal upbringing that tribal societies have, the school system operates as a stand-in for "communal child raising" where the child has exposure to other teachings, nurturing and systematic education outside of the family unit.

Sure it may not be as fluid and diverse as communal parentage but it is better than nothing.

unenlightened

Patriarchy is the necessary accompaniment to patrilineal inheritance. It is important to understand this because the essence of patriarchy is the control of women's sexuality. It is easy to see this in how attitudes to promiscuity differ between the sexes — "Boys will be boys", but girls must never.

And the reason is that fatherhood is uncertain ( short of the very modern DNA test) unless the man has control over the woman. There is very rarely any question of who a child's mother is, and for this reason, a matriarchal society is by no means an inversion of patriarchy; the need to control sexuality simply does not arise.

The logic is very straightforward: IF men inherit property, name, and status from their father, THEN the father must be confident that his son is his; and therefore that his woman is exclusively his. Therefore marriage, therefore virginity, therefore monogamy, therefore patriarchy, therefore rape culture.

Matrilineal inheritance means that a woman's daughters inherit property, name, and status from their mother, then biological fatherhood loses its importance former and women alike. A man's allegiance is as much to his sister's children as to his wife's, and maybe more so. Thinking through the implications is difficult, and needs great care because the patriarchal model is the default, and almost none of its needs regarding sexual politics are needed in matrilineal matriarchy.

Vera Mont

Secondly, though we may not have the same degree of communal upbringing that tribal societies have, the school system operates as a stand-in for "communal child raising" where the child has exposure to other teachings, nurturing and systematic education outside of the family unit. — Benj96

In a way, yes. And it can be a very good one. But it begins relatively late in the child's life, doesn't permit close relationships with other adults and can be - often is - repressive and oppressive. (I'm also not crazy about the artificial cohort stacking and subject dividing. But that's another topic.)

Thinking through the implications is difficult, and needs great care because the patriarchal model is the default, — unenlightened

In a given circumstance: the society be centered on the economics of property and money and the question of ownership be inextricable from DNA. Neither condition is necessary to the functioning a society.

The matriarchy

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions