Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

What Would a Matriarchy Look and Behave Like?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Genghis View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
  Quote Genghis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: What Would a Matriarchy Look and Behave Like?
    Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 16:30

How do you all think a female-dominated power structure would look and act like?  Would it possibly act exactly like a patriarchy because male and female gender roles are created by society anyway?

I really can't say much, I don't think it would be the inverse of a patriarchy just because it's run by females as opposed to males.  One thing I do think could happen would a greater durability of alliances and enmities.  I notice many men who get into arguments and fights and are able to forget about them almost instantaneously but many girls I know surprise me with how hard and how long they hold a grudge.

I'd especially like to see some of our female member's thoughts on this subject.

Member of IAEA
Back to Top
cattus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1803
  Quote cattus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 16:33
Look to Europe
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 16:36

Power Corrupts, even women.

Politically realities and necessities wouldn't change, so I think no difference whatsoer.

Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Mila View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4030
  Quote Mila Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 16:37
It would look like my house.

You'd have an older matriarch whose oblivious to the fact she's been overthrown (Nena), you'd have a matriarch (Me ), lesser females organized by rank (Neva, Zorjana), and a single male for labor purpose (Bojan).
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 18:18
Most people who have studied the matter at least those that I've read) seem to think that Matriarchy is an erroneous term: it's just mirroring patriarchal society in a fantasy, like that of Amazons.

In fact what seems evident from the wide anthropological data gathered about the peoples of the world in these last centuries, it seems that we can only talk of Matrifocal peoples. Peoples that accept a somehow central role to women as mothers and grandmothers but that have also their role for men. What happen in matrifcalities is that men go to live to the house and clan (and village) of the women they marry. This makes looser the cohesion of men (in comparison to patrifocal and patriarchal societies) and greater that of women.

One example of such societies used to be the Iroquois - but there are many others. The Iroquois, as you may know were no Amazon people, though maybe women fought on occasion but were a Matrifocal people, whose warriors (as often happen in Matrifocal societies) had much free time for war and were able to carry campaigns more than 1000 km. away from home even before the introduction of the horse.

In Matrifocal societies normally the inheritance goes via the mother (inside the clan always): girls inherit from the mother and boys from the mother's brothers (not from the father). As the home belong to the wife, the husband can lose his home in case of divorce, which is normally easy: a not very honorable position to be in.

Guess that due to matrifocality, women are more protected from violence and abuse from men. Not just relative women would succour any victim easily but also the men would feel less solidarious to the agressor due to lack of direct relationship.

In general the position of men is weaker in common matters but in socio-political matters and in case of war they still have the lead often.

There are many types of matrifocal tendencies even in patrifocal societies, for instance the West African "palabres" (assemblies) used to be suspended to consult with the women at home and retaken some days later. That was important before taking any major decission for them. Africa, while much patriarchalized also ratins many matrifocal archaisms.

Europe may have got matrifocal societies before IE expansion, as probably did the Near East too. The many godesses that we see in early history are remains of a more glorious past. Yet I don't know of any hsitorically documented people that can be assured that were matrifocal over here. Etruscans and other pre-IE Mediterraneans seem tohave been much more open in regard to women. Etruscans shared reclinarium with their women, Romans didn't share the meal with them at all (just an illustrative detail).

Overall I feel that matrifocal societies are clearly more balanced: they ofter certain socio-economical guarantees to women (the central reproductive element, the core of any reproducing group), while men still have a clear role to play.

But this matrifocality seem more to belong to the tribal stage (though it had perdurations in civilizations such as Egypt or arguably Crete), when the clan was central. Nowadays the family tends to be nuclear, and this is actually a third model (though it has many remains of patriarchy - patriarchy is not dead yet).

It is possible the most simple and natural form of family but it can also be unstable. Either it becomes +/- patriarchal or women need a public support that grants their socio-economic rights. That was offered clearly by the matrifocal clan, where the great family of women cared of each other (and of their men).

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
white dragon View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 27-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 356
  Quote white dragon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 18:35
once a month, a nation would be almost wiped out

just kidding.

something along the lines of what gengis said probably
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 20:38
Hi,

Nowadays, some societies are supposed to be matriarchal or at least to
lend a greatter amount of power to women: Touareghs in North-East
Africa and Na in Central China. Not being a ethnologist I won't go
forward.

In early modern Europe some periods were more femal-power friendly
(speaking or matriarchy would be too much) than others. For instance,
the 16th has seen many women ruling countries for some time many
years (Marie of Bourgogne, Isabelle the Catholic, her daughters and
grand-daughters, and Elizabeth,...). It was of course no matriarchy but
the times were much more open to feamales ruling states than let say
XVII century. And clearly, no real tendancy can be drawn out of it, they
kind of ruled as any male would have done.

On the other hand, recent studies (but a bite too dramatic to be taken
100% seriously) comparing patriarchal and war-regulated chimps
societies and matriarchal sex-regulated bonobos societies tend to prove
that in simple primate social relationships female have a peacefull impact.
Talking about that I personally think that genders are far from being only
culturally invented...

Bye.
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
Genghis View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
  Quote Genghis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 21:19

Originally posted by Maju

Most people who have studied the matter at least those that I've read) seem to think that Matriarchy is an erroneous term: it's just mirroring patriarchal society in a fantasy, like that of Amazons

I know a matriarchal society hasn't existed, but how would society look if it's leadership was made up predominantly of women?

Member of IAEA
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 21:53

I believe it was women who once said, the difference between men and women is....

When a group of men are joined by another man they don't know, they treat him like a mate and assume he's nice until proven otherwise.

When a group of women are joined by another woman they don't know, they treat her cattily and assume she's bad until proven otherwise.

 

I guess in a matriarcal international nuclear diplomatic context this means.... Meow, scratch, scratch, we're all gonna die!

Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Odin View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 04-Apr-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
  Quote Odin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 22:00

Originally posted by Mila

It would look like my house.

You'd have an older matriarch whose oblivious to the fact she's been overthrown (Nena), you'd have a matriarch (Me ), lesser females organized by rank (Neva, Zorjana), and a single male for labor purpose (Bojan).

Damn, that sounds just like my aunt's house!

"Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now."

-Arnold J. Toynbee
Back to Top
Mila View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4030
  Quote Mila Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 22:15


My point: it would exactly the same.


Edited by Mila
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2006 at 13:47
Originally posted by Genghis

Originally posted by Maju

Most people who have studied the matter at least those that I've read) seem to think that Matriarchy is an erroneous term: it's just mirroring patriarchal society in a fantasy, like that of Amazons

I know a matriarchal society hasn't existed, but how would society look if it's leadership was made up predominantly of women?



To start with it should be matrifocal or some other sort of society that takes care of its mothers (particularly).

I personally think that such a society may well have (though not necessarily) more women in positions of power. I don't know but I'm pretty much used to women being ministers and such. Decades ago it was sort of novelty but not anymore - I don't think it would make such a difference by itself but it would surely mean that the status of women (practical liberty, respect, prestige) in such society has improved a lot.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2006 at 05:34
Originally posted by Genghis



Originally posted by Maju

Most people who have studied the matter at least those that I've read) seem to think that Matriarchy is an erroneous term: it's just mirroring patriarchal society in a fantasy, like that of Amazons


I know a matriarchal society hasn't existed, but how would society look if it's leadership was made up predominantly of women?


The Iceni were supposed to be matriarchal. I don't know much about Pre-Roman england, but I read a book on Boudiecia ages ago, and I am sure that power was transfered from mother to daughter.

Originally posted by Maju

In general the position of men is weaker in common matters but in socio-political matters and in case of war they still have the lead often.

Lots of cultures (I'm thinking Arab and Paki but this is just due to my experience) are very women dominated. I suspect that most cultures with a strong family structure are women dominated.
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2006 at 11:32
But you have to consider the importance of property, inheritance and who moves to whose's home? That's what makes a matrifocal and patrifocal society different:

1. Locality:
  • (M) Husband goes to live with wife (to the village/district/clan where she has her roots, sisters, mother, aunts...)
  • (P) Wife goes to live with husband
2. Property/inheritance:
  • (M) Everything stays in the wife's clan: daughter inherits from mother, son from mother's brothers.
  • (P) Everything stays in the husband's clan: son inherits from father, daughters almost too (if they inherit anything at all). Women normally own nothing of value and are dependent on the dowry and/or the social rules that force husbands to provide for them.


NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
arsenka View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 27-Nov-2005
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 104
  Quote arsenka Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Apr-2006 at 10:57
 

Somewhere in the backyard of my mind I have an idea (it's not properly formed though) that promoting of matrifocal culture is more usual in agricultural societies, which tend to be less agressive than other ones. Religious priorities there are given to the earth-related cults which are mostly female by their nature. Matriarchy is psycological > cultural > social point.

 

arsenka
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Apr-2006 at 15:59
I agree. But it's also an economical process: as far as women have control of the product of the farms, which they probably labor more than their husbands (who possibly have other complementary occupations), they have a relatively safe economic position. Instead in sepherd societies, the main economic activity tends to fall with the more movile males. This can be seen in Bushmen who have recently adapted to cattle-herding: in the transition women have lost virtually all economic power. 

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Pieinsky View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 21-Apr-2006
Location: Ireland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 207
  Quote Pieinsky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 15:52

 I notice many men who get into arguments and fights and are able to forget about them almost instantaneously but many girls I know surprise me with how hard and how long they hold a grudge.

This has been proven but if women were the domineering sex throughout history would they be a lot more like men.  Read on Bonobos they are the one-ape breed that have females at the top of that old hierarchal ladder. Bonobos are extremely promiscuous. I wonder if this has anything to do with Bonobo females taking over. The native Africans are also very promiscuous. Does anyone know what equality of the sexes is like in Africa? Promiscuity and sex equality maybe intertwined. The facts that the females are promiscious points out the male doesnt have the female by a leash. Therefore the male does not have more power then the female there. It also means the female could be doing the choosing. Our nature also sets the course of our species actions. Males are on average physically stronger then the females so they get put in the rulers army. Now men arent going to be very happy if they dont get anything in return for going to war. So what does the ruler say? You get land! And land means power. Also females get pregnant and males dont. So guess who's anchored to the home. Since they will find it hard to go of home hence we can conclude its more difficult for them to mingle with the powers in the local government buildings. A mother raising 5 kids may find it hard to run a state, city, nation etc.chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>



Edited by Pieinsky
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2006 at 18:25
Promiscuity as you say, or rather poliamory as it's more neutrally called, may have easier place in a matrifocal society as it doesn't matter so much who's the father: the lineage, surname and inheritance all come via the mother's side. In patriarchal societies instead the "stallions" need (or they need) to be very precautionary to avoid becoming the "cuckoo victim" and feeding other's son as one's. That's why patriarchy is anti-nature and creates a state of paranoia, posessivenes and jealousy. Yet, it has some advantages, else, it would have never become dominant as it is now. I think the main advantage of patriarchy is its simpler social system: the strongest one domains, the weak one obeys. It's beasty. 

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Pieinsky View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 21-Apr-2006
Location: Ireland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 207
  Quote Pieinsky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 06:51

In patriarchal societies instead the "stallions" need (or they need) to be very precautionary to avoid becoming the "cuckoo victim" and feeding other's son as one's.

Is that a good thing? I mean would it reduce rivalries and unify the group. I am sorry if I got what you were trying to express wrong.



Edited by Pieinsky
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 08:43
Originally posted by Pieinsky

In patriarchal societies instead the "stallions" need (or they need) to be very precautionary to avoid becoming the "cuckoo victim" and feeding other's son as one's.

Is that a good thing? I mean would it reduce rivalries and unify the group. I am sorry if I got what you were trying to express wrong.



I didn't mean that it is a good thing: it's just what happens under Patriarchy. In Matrifocal societies instead the biological father means little, as all goes via the mother's lineage. So men don't need to act as jealous stallions but just as normal sexual apes (like bonobos maybe).

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.145 seconds.