Good question. But I think it might help to have some definitions of what constitutes "patriarchy" and "matriarchy". And, if possible, some examples.

I imagine benefits and problems of a gender based social structure would match pretty closely to the benefits and problems of the genders themselves.
Of course a problem common to both a patriarchy and a matriarchy is that it ignores merit in favour of an accident of birth. Anyone who thinks gender is more telling of leadership or social order than individual merit is a fool imo.

What are the benefits and the problems with patriarchy and with matriarchy? — Athena

I agree with @Apollodorus, it is difficult to have a fruitful discussion if you don't give us definitions to work with. "Patriarchy" and "matriarchy" mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

Every time I log on to this site, yet another thread of interest to me catches my eye...

Not to usurp the OP, but I think the useful definitions would be "authority/leadership/rule by men" (an expansion of the more etymological "fatherly authority/leadership/rule") for patriarchy, and so "authority/leadership/rule by women" for matriarchy. Athena will have to confirm this, but the juxtaposition of these two terms naturally leads one to that conclusion.

I have actually thought some about this in the past. I will hold off commenting on advantages and disadvantages for the moment, since it grows late and my pillow seems to beckon, but I have a couple of thoughts about the origin of, and reasons for the ubiquity of patriarchy in the human experience. My general belief is that patriarchy is a type of evolutionary artefact held over from our pre-human mammalian ancestors. If one adopts the sociobiological perspective on this, he will note that every species of social mammal, from wolves, to lions, to our closer simian cousins, displays the trait of male dominance. This is, perhaps, natural in a world, the world of the animal, wherein such social establishments as the rule of law cannot be concieved, and so "might makes right", as brute force trumps all other virtues. It is unfortunate, though I think telling of the nature and composition of the human mind, that the differing aspects of the human psyche seem not to have developed apace. The Superego, which has concieved of the need for law at the service of justice in general and social justice in particular, has outpaced the Id, which remains rooted in the more primal motives of the pre-sapiens hominid. Thusly, the patriarchal urge has remained with us despite the social edifice we have created.

Okay...good night, all.

The problem is the -archy part of both.

:up:

It's hard to say what the negatives of a matriarchy would be that are specific to matriarchies, and not just any hierarchical society.

Ruthless competitions like war and capitalism are sometimes seen to have their origins in patriarchy, with the implication being that a non-patriarchal (though not necessarily matriarchal) society would not have these things. This looks to be an empirical question though, and given the paucity of actual matriarchal societies that have existed, there doesn't seem to be a solid reason to believe that matriarchal societies would be free of these things. Women can be just as capable and willing to crush and kill each other as men are, though men have had a better opportunity of doing so, given their physical biology.

It's hard to say what the negatives of a matriarchy would be that are specific to matriarchies, and not just any hierarchical society. — darthbarracuda

Can society exist without hierarchy?

So... why do we not have examples of matriarchies to work with?

What's that about, then?

Indeed; why didn't the men stay home while the women went out and stabbed one another with spears in the olden days?

Ruthless competitions like war and capitalism are sometimes seen to have their origins in patriarchy, with the implication being that a non-patriarchal (though not necessarily matriarchal) society would not have these things. — darthbarracuda

Perhaps the converse is true. It is just as concievable that patriarchy has it's origin in the particularly pretechnological competitive milieu of prehistory as the other way around. For primitive sapiens and his hominid forerunners, physical/bodily strength was generally the primary determinant for survival. In such an environment, patriarchy seems nearly inevitable.

Can society exist without hierarchy? — Noble Dust

The salient question. I would speculate that it can on a small scale, but maybe not on the "macro" scale. It is in our human nature, as a result of the history of natural selection upon the evolutionary development of the human brain, for we humans to be wilful creatures. Like it or not, what Augustine termed the "libido dominandi" (but I myself term the "libido dominari" for purely semantic reasons), the desire/lust to dominate, is as natural to us as any other basic human instinct. As an aside, I note my opinion that this thing, this innate human trait, is what Nietzsche called the "will to power", but that man's conception thereof was skewed by the thinking difficulties latent within his mind. I much prefer Augustine's terminology for this, in any case.

This instinctual drive is now, as a result of innumerable millennia of natural selection and in common with all other social mammals, an inexorable component of the common human psyche. It can be mastered, but only under favorable conditions, and even then the basic instinct to dominate and impose our will upon others of our kind and upon nature in general will constantly seek to re-assert itself. Human beings tend naturally to recoil from, and to oppose any exertion of the will by any other person, which fact seems to be rooted in the instant aspects of human nature. Such exertions tend to be opposed in like manner, by means of an exertion of the will, an expression of the libido dominari. It must be understood, therefore, that individual mastery of the libido dominari is only tenable within an environment where in the individual can feel assured that no exertion of will or any presumption of dominance will be exerted against his person by any other individual person. This is key; any percieved threat or presumption of dominance will utterly subvert the effort. Unfortunately, the characteristics which are generative of heirarchy within large, complex societies render such a situation impossible.

This type of nature is by no means unique to humans, but rather is evidenced in all social mammals, all those mammals which naturally tend to live in groups. Every mammalian social group in the world, whether a pride of lions, a pack of wolves, or a troupe of baboons, displays the characteristic of heirarchy, and indeed, displays a near obsession with "social status". Once the needs of survival have been met, the social position within the group is the primary concern of every wolf, lion, baboon, chimpanzee, etc., among both males and females. At the top, you have the "alpha male" and the "alpha female". Since the males of mammalian species are physically bigger and stronger, it is the males who have the higher general position, with the "alpha male" at the top of the pecking order. The obsession of every social mammal is, to be as close I the order to "alpha" as he/she can. It is mammalian nature.

Because the avoidance of heirarchy seems to involve a violation of basic mammalian/human nature, I think it possible under only certain circumstances. Large scale societies such as modern nation states, are heirachical by their very nature. I think I remember reading that social anthropologists have estimated that, historically, heirarchy has arisen naturally when a human social group grows to over 250 individuals, almost as a rule of nature. Benoit Dubreuil has written extensively on this topic, and Christopher Boehm renders an excellent treatment among primates in his book "Heirarchy in the Forest". This natural development of heirarchy occurs because of the needs for administration in the group, along with the need for authority to hold members of the group accountable for expressions of the innate "libido dominari". We have discovered ways of administering social groups in a more equitable manner, using democratic principles, but those princies must be altered...adulterated to deal with anything over a small, localized group such as a commune, for instance. In order for social groups to be administered democratically, everyone must participate and have their say directly, and not by proxy, and everyone's desire must receive recognition in some way...no person can be ignored. This is simply not feasible on the macro scale. The best that we can do on the scale of the nation state, is to have "representative democracy", which automatically involves the introduction of heirarchy and the dilution of individual influence into the model.

In addition to the foregoing, the introduction of money as a store of value and the inevitable subsequent facilitation of the amassing of wealth in a society naturally subvert the egalitarian motive, for what is a massing of wealth other than the implicit open statement to all that, "I am of greater value than you"? This post, however, is already too long, so I'll let that consideration lie for the moment. In summary, the type of purely democratic group administration which has the ability to defeat the extant natural human wilfulness and the innate lust/desire to dominate others seems only possible in very small, local social groups, such as are exemplified by the true commune or perhaps the tribal village, the very type of groups which, in general, cannot maintain independent existence in today's politically and technologically complex modern world.

It is just as concievable that patriarchy has it's origin in the particularly pretechnological competitive milieu of prehistory as the other way around. For primitive sapiens and his hominid forerunners, physical/bodily strength was generally the primary determinant for survival. In such an environment, patriarchy seems nearly inevitable. — Michael Zwingli

But we already know that, generally speaking, prehistoric groups of H&Gs were much more egalitarian than any of the agricultural states. Slavery and war came with civilization.

So... why do we not have examples of matriarchies to work with?

What's that about, then? — Banno

Good question, I think it could be that women simply haven't had the opportunity to, given that men have monopolized power structures.

Women can be scientists, athletes, philosophers, CEOs, soldiers etc just like men. It stands to reason they can also be dictators, warlords and gang leaders. The only thing keeping them from doing any of these things are the conditioning they receive during childhood, and the social pressures that limit their options.

The question of why patriarchy came first, and is so ubiquitous, seems related to the physical attributes of men, which are the clearest differences between them and women.

But we already know that, generally speaking, prehistoric groups of H&Gs were much more egalitarian than any of the agricultural states. Slavery and war came with civilization. — darthbarracuda

Perhaps egalitarian, as many of the social structures which enable social stratification, and in such small groups the administrative problems demanding heirarchical structures, were not present, but certainly uncontestedly patriarchal, male dominated, nonetheless. I hardly think that Cro-Magnon man, for instance, gave much consideration to equality of the sexes.

Slavery and war came with civilization. — darthbarracuda

:fire: And temple whoreship too.

Most children throughout history have spent their formative years under the tutelage of their mothers. The rapid cognitive, physical, emotional, and social development of children occurs in their cauldron. All systems are, in this sense, matriarchal.

It's true that the women who raise the next generation are usually complicit with the patriarchal status quo. No wonder why motherhood is so vilified by radfems.

but certainly uncontestedly patriarchal nonetheless. — Michael Zwingli

And why was that? As you said, the communities were so small that stratification wasn't possible. What was it that made H&G groups patriarchal? The only reason left as I can tell is the physical nature of men, who are generally stronger and so better equipped to bash a woman's skull if she questioned his authority.

My working definitions:

Patri-archy, n. – exclusive sovereignty of males which benefits ancestors (monuments) at the expense of descendents.

Matri-archy, n. – an inclusive community guided by elder females which invests ancestral surplusses in descendents.

Ideally I prefer (left libertarian) An-archy, or a decentralizing extension of matri-archy.

Ideally I prefer ... An-archy, or a decentralizing extension of matri-archy. — 180 Proof

I, as well, embrace the ideal of anarchy (though not modern anarchism, which to my mind arises from the same inspirational motus as fascism, as evidenced by similar motus operandi), and though I begrudgingly admit the necessity for it, am philosophically opposed to the concept of the nation-state. Even so, embracing my inner monkey (so to speak, remembering that all that differentiates me from a chimp is 0.1% of my genetic code), I could not support matriarchy, as being contrary to all we see in nature, and you must admit, your offered definition of matriarchy is somewhat assumptive. On the other hand, I view patriarchy as natural, but not ideal by any means. Patriarchy could never claim to possess moral standing, yet could stand on it's claim of being natural in a pre-ethical world. In a world in which we humans have come to pursue ideals, patriarchy seems to have lost that standing, as well.

(left libertarian) — 180 Proof

I am on that train, as well, though not a member of "the party".

The only reason left as I can tell is the physical nature of men, who are generally stronger and so better equipped to bash a woman's skull if she questioned his authority. — darthbarracuda

You have, in brutal fashion, answered your own question. A complicated heirarchy is not necessary for there to be male dominance. There are different levels of complexity at which patriarchy can be expressed, from the simple masculine dominance of the hunter-gatherer group to the utter male orientation and social dominance of the Roman Patrician gentes (plural of "gens", the Roman lineage) and the ancient Vedic gotra (plural of "gotram", the collateral Sanskrit concept and a fundamental concept underlying the caste system). The simple fact is that these more sophisticated forms of patriarchy were based upon the more simple (and I must argue, natural, as it is seen in every mammalian social group) male-dominance of the hunter-gatherer group. By the Classical period of history, patriarchy was taken for granted as a "given". We need not continue with this paradigm today, having all the tools necessary to avoid it, save the ability to establish and maintain the proper social environment.

The problem is the -archy part of both. — StreetlightX

I would consider the thread closed after this response.

In principle I'm nonpartisan as well. I also think that matriarchy is more eusocial than antisocial, which makes it more consistent with our "monkey brains" than Patriarchy, that is, more adaptive for long-term survival. Bonobos (our Great Ape cousins), elephants, orcas & lions, for example, tend toward matriarchal groupings; thereby matriarchy might be a strong mammalian trait which we h. sapiens probably share to some degree. I suspect the last dozen or so millennia do not comprise 'the representative era' of our species compared with the two hundred or so millennia of modern humans which had come before; at any rate, we have evident capacities for socially cultivating habits and practices which mitigate our more atavistic and aggressive instincts, so we're not reduced to, or pre-determined by, our "nature". Anatomy, someone has said, is opportunity rather than "destiny".

So... why do we not have examples of matriarchies to work with? — Banno

Cause it's still on the way. We will get there too some day. Not sure if we will be alive to witness it though.

you raise some important considerations.

The problem is the -archy part of both.
— StreetlightX

I would consider the thread closed after this response. — dimosthenis9

Only, "-archy" only exists within the world because it is inherent within us, proceeding from the aforesaid "libido dominari". We cannot escape it or write off it's power and attraction for us so easily.

We cannot escape it or write off it's power and attraction for us so easily. — Michael Zwingli

Not easily at all. But that doesn't mean that it isn't still the most important problem.

:up:

patriarchy and with matriarchy — Athena

You mean Scylla and Charybdis? Not much of a choice there - do you want a female prison warden or a male prison warden? Either way, you're in prison. :joke:

Yeah, but there's a world of difference between 24/7 solitary confinement and working on the prison farm (or so I've been told).