1. What do you think of matriarchy and Why? 2. Would you rather live in a matriarchy or a patriarchy if you couldn't live in a gender equal society (and had to choose)? 3. What do you think of the matriarchies in these documentaries?
If you HAD to choose between THESE options, which one would you choose and WHY? Gender equality isn't an option in this if-scenario. I asked 3 questions.
Updates
+1 y
I want you to EXPLAIN WHY. by the way, READ the description.
1. I think it depends on the specifics of the culture and ways a society is structured. Under the label of "matriarchy", one can still find a great number of individually differing societies and systems. For example in some matriarchies, it is literally the "matriarchs" (aka the mothers) who hold all of the power. In other words: these are cultures where the idea of the elders holding power is at the core of the power structure. They are in this sense not much different from tribes that have councils of elders that are all men - except that here they are all women. However, there are also matriarchies where women overall (all women) are holding positions of privilege and usually power. Another important distinction is that of "power" in its different forms. For example there is political power and there is societal power. These two powers CAN co-occur but they don't have to. In some matriarchies, women hold a lot of social power (for example through polyandry) but they don't actually hold much political power. A rather "extreme" example for this would be the country of Bhutan, where women are the head of the household and only women are allowed to inherit property. Yet the leader of the country happens to be a male king. In other societies, direct political power might exist as an additional factor. Finally, matriarchies also differ in how they focus on different topics that they consider particularly important.
Having said all of this, I am not generally opposed to the idea of a matriarchy, though I would be opposed to certain aspects of such a system. For example I would want to live in a matriarchy where all women (including young ones) profit from this societal model. Also, I would want to live in a matriarchy where social and political power go hand-in-hand, because I believe women are generally better leaders (which is not to say men should be excluded from such positions). I would be happy living in a society where women are typically the head of the household and in a society where it is "normal" and socially acceptable for women to have more than one partner; be it just for sex or for romantic relationships/marriage (polyandry). However, I would want equal rights regarding things like inheritance or custody.
2. I would much rather live in a matriarchy. History has proven that patriarchies are generally brutal, violent and barbaric/uncivilized. There are too many men out there whose brains are stuck in the Stone Age.
@asker I disagree. Overall, women have proven to be much more peaceful leaders. That isn't to say all of them are peaceful but the difference is large enough to be statistically relevant. Also, Elizabeth I. is a particularly bad example because England under her rule was attacked by the Spanish kingdom. In other words, she was fighting in national self-defensive. In fact, Elizabeth I. was a rather isolationist leader for her time. Under her rule, England experienced a period of great political stability and economic/cultural flourishing.
@englisc I don't know what you're trying to say. There are numerous matriarchal societies in the world (albeit small ones) and clearly, they haven't been destroyed by neighboring patriarchies. Also, I am not the kind of person who believes in the right of the strongest aka social darwinism, which is why this argument isn't convincing to me. Something isn't bad simply because someone else can destroy it. If a pacifist hippie community where everyone is kind to each other would meet the Nazis, the former would be destroyed. That doesn't mean they are somehow morally inferior (quite the opposite).
Sure, they're allowed to exist because they're small. But the fact that patriarchal cultures are stronger is the reason that most cultures are patriarchal. Morally that may be true, but for a society to be successful it needs to be able to protect itself. It doesn't matter whther or not you believe in the right of the strongest, the strongest determine what rights you have/don't have.
We are physically stronger, that's a biological fact. We have thicker, stronger bones, more muscle mass in the upper body especially, and more strength pound for pound - all side effects of testosterone. Even when it comes to weapons, male soldiers are more physically capable than female soldiers, that's why they had to lower the physical standards of entry for women to allow more of them into the military as well as the police force. They tend to get injured a lot more during training too.
@englisc That's complete nonsense. For starters, one can have a matriarchy and a military made up of men. Those things are not mutually exclusive. Also, as a side note, the Swiss army has women and we don't lower the standards for them. Also, in Norway they have a special force team (kind of like the Seals), which is entirely made up of women and the entry standards are the same as for the male special force teams.
But there's an even more important point here. You seem to live in a parallel universe where everyone is out to get you. Reality doesn't work that way. In the real world, peace is established through diplomacy, not through brute power and force. The reason China or the US or Germany don't suddenly decide to attack the UK is not because of the glorious British military but because such an act would be detrimental to the attackers economically.
And finally, your little hypothesis can also be easily be disproven with real-life examples. For example Bhutan is a (cont.)
matriarchal society that has been peacefully existing right in between China and India (which are both very patriarchal). The same can be said for the Mosuo people in Tibet, which have been tolerated by the Chinese Party to exist in their own ways for the past 60 years.
Maybe it's true that one can have a matriarchy with a strong military. But throughout history the cultures that have dominated, because they had a stronger military force, have been patriarchal. JD Unwin, a social anthropologist, studied past civilisations and tribes and noticed this pattern. The patriarchal cultures in general would advance more quickly, become more powerful, and either outbreed or invade matriarchal cultures. Often eventually, just like ours, these cultures would reach a certain level of success and then become more matriarchal themselves, only to be overtaken by another patriarchal culture. Matriarchal cultures are usually short-lived. That's why the only matriarchal cultures you can point to are small, insignificant ones.
I don't live in a world out to get me, you always come with this argument about "fear". I'm just a realist, and I deal with the world the way it is rather than what I wish it was. Peace is established with violence (cont.)
For example, the reason we live in peace here is because we have law right? Every law is enforced with violence. If you break any law, even a minor law, maybe you'll get lesser punishments such as fines, but if you disobey all the way and you don't want to go to jail, cops will drag you there kicking and screaming. If it weren't for that, the law would be just words.
The same goes for conflict between countries. Sure, economics have a lot to do with it, but if what you were saying were true then we wouldn't need a military force. The only reason people can afford to be pacifists is because there are others who are willing to use violence to protect them.
1.) Every single matriarchy has either failed, crumbled to a society led by patriarchy, or is only present in 3rd, if not outright 4th, world countries; if it's limited to a specific piece of land inside the country that isn't 3rd/4th world country itself, then it's severely underdeveloped and heavily relies on benefits from the state which mainly consists of men. 2.) I'd pick patriarchy, of course; if civilization would've been left in female hands, we'd still be living in grass huts. 3.) Don't really have time, nor desire to watch documentaries to verify what I already know.
I would argue that the advancement of humanity is more closely tied to the concept of freedom and liberty rather than one sex over the other. The more freedom we achieve for ourselves, the greater we become. Whether males or females run things doesn’t matter.
But I would argue that female led society would tend to go against freedom, because females have an innate desire to share and to make others share. Therefore it’s unlikely a female led society would realize it needs freedom as quickly as a male led one where violence and force would be more easily digested and thus freedom would come about sooner than in a society where forced sharing is the biggest detractor to freedom.
@Kaazsz Males are much more driven, riskier and ambitious than females. Since men know they're stronger than women (physically; I do acknowledge women have a higher pain threshold) and in general men are more logical (while women are more emotional), being "under foot" of female rulership (aka matriarchy) would eventually lead men to a nationwide depression, effectively rendering them discouraged from achieving anything of an importance, while women seldom have interest in complex discoveries, such as math & science (with very, very few exceptions). Why it's important? Because that's the nature of men and women: women attract mates with their looks, while men attract mates with their feats. Such society would eventually lead (as history shows) to being overrun by a society by more masculine men (where masculine men lead masculine men) either technologically or by force.
OP I really don't understand what you're trying to achieve with this question.. To have people argue with each other? Both patriarchy and matriarchy are equally bad in my opinion
Neither of these have anything to do with inequality in and of themselves but rather who is the leader, the one who takes charge. Though I would argue that matriarchies are a net negative (which is fairly evident from the videos) they are not about one being oppressed by the other (as that is not how things work, just because a parent has authority over a child doesn't mean the parent is inherently bad and the child is oppressed though that can happen obviously).
@Partywithtom how. Look at the examples. The second doesn’t really count because it’s artificial and women only but in the first men aren’t limited in the same way women generally are in the reverse situation
@Journeyman11 I’m not talking about the west, it’s not really strictly patriarchal anymore. We consider ancestry to occur through both mother and father, generally there’s equal inheritance rights and women can gain top positions of power. What the feminist are talking about is a more abstract process and a remnant of historical patriarchy, it’s not the same thing really (I personally think they should give it a different name) so I’m not talking about the west. I’m concerning other groups of people. Funny you should talk about the “mud hut” thing because similarly, most patriarchal societies also aren’t particularly advanced in terms of technology either. True patriarchies, are usually considered backward, think of many African tribes. They also have a greater tendency towards conflict interestingly.
What I’m talking about is generally in patriarchal societies women live just as difficult if not more difficult life than men, whilst in matriarchial ones this usually isn’t the case. The men in the Chinese example aren’t really required to do much work.
well first you would have to actually show that women's rights where stripped away which you cannot because they where not. Second you would also have to show a much more honest view of matriarchal societies (if you look at female rulers their where many who where as violent and oppressive as males (which is hilarious because the feminist mantra is that we are all equals, until they are forced to criticize women and then suddenly its about how women are great and prefect and men are pieces of shit). You'll note that also in these societies the women are basically on their own doing the work and as a result no progress or technological advancments are made. Meanwhile they have shorter life spans and harder lives then the "oppressed women" of the west (you know the women who have more legal rights then men and always have). Clearly your not paying attention, just living in a fantasy world.
@hellionthesagereborn a female ruler does not equate a matriarchy FYI, you clearly don’t understand that it’s a much larger process that beyond individuals. Every female ruler in European history was in that position by chance and good placement, if the option for a male ruler was viable those women would have never been able to rule. Their character isn’t exactly a reflection of anything either. Seriously do some reading because you sound incredibly uneducated
I don't think he said that. He's only implying it because that's how the "patriarchy" is implied by women who like you and how yourself stated are "uneducated". Today's education doesn't make you any smarter by the way so that's not really a good choice of words.
I'm more educated then you will ever be (sadly). Their where cultures that had female rulers as a matter of tradition (Ethiopia for example), and your argument is not a particular good one as if the ruler being female does not make a matriarchy (female ruled society) then what does? Also again, your showing your ignorance as we can see quite clearly that men are being limited as is the society. In the first example who raises the children? Not the men, how advanced is the society? Not particularly advanced. In short we can see conclusively, even from this biased source that its a terrible system. Meanwhile claiming that women had their rights stripped away in patriarchal societies and where oppressed (despite having more legal rights and social benefits and living longer happier lives in the process) is inaccurate to say the least and is also an assumption you have made with no backing evidence.
Is that why in the usa courts will force men to pay child support even for children that DNA tests show are not related to them? Because matriarchies are kind to men's rights? Haha f off.
@RationalMale Yep also interestingly they data shows that women will always vote for a stricter and more controlling government, its been quite consistent, which itself crushes freedom and by extension prosperity: www.people.fas.harvard.edu/.../LottKenny.pdf
Patriarchy. Men are biologically wired to sacrifice for women, they are the ones who build the society, maintain it and protect it (over 80% of all police are male, over 90% of the military and especially combat roles are male). They provide for women (80% of US spending is done by women, 70% globally but women only account for between 30% - 40% of all income generated.), however women do not do the same for men. Biologically women are wired to sacrifice men just as men are biologically wired to sacrifice themselves for women. You cannot empathize with some one you expect to fight and die for you. A woman cannot see her husband/lovers/fathers/uncle/brothers/sons life as equal to hers and still be able to abandon him to his death whether that be a sinking ship where the men have to stay and more then likely die while the women got to stay on life boats or war where they willingly send their men to death. Now it does make sense biologically, women dictate the speed of reproduction therefore their lives do have greater value to the species (if you have ten men and ten women and nine men die you can still get ten offspring, if you have nine women die instead however you can only get one (who is entirely dependent on her for years)). So when you get a matriarchal society you will get a society that is overly willing to sacrifice the males which would disrupt the balance of the society and its progress (as male competition is what generates innovation and technological growth which will not be as probable if the males are more likely to be put in lower roles and more dangerous positions then what they already currently have). In order to combat that you would have to have one, an outside force to keep things functioning i. e. environmental factors that prevent any other way of doing things and two strict rules for society to follow. I did not get a chance to watch the videos (I don't have an hour) but I can say that they are more then likely understating the environmental factors and the negatives of the society (which their will be as that is inevitable). For example the first video, they mention no fathers, that is a result of promiscuous mating (as no male (as far as I know in any species) is willing to raise young that they do not know are his), we know that fathers are vital to development and the absence of has many issues from academic failure to increased rates of promiscuity and criminality. (I would also note flower houses where a term for brothel).
Its also important to note that the documentarian clearly has a particular leaning (feminist) and seems to be ignoring (again, I have not watched the full video so I cannot say for certain) analyzing other aspects of the life i. e. crime rates, and the like). Its been quite common for the west to romanticize other cultures that seem "freerer" when it comes to sex or in this case that are matriarchal compared to those that are not (which is strange when you consider the fact that every major civilization (and the vast majority that are/where not do not function like this showing that their is a convergent evolutionary reason for the formations of societies that are currently dominating today (like societies with one mother one father, marriage, taboos on casual sex etc.).
None of these are matriarchies. A matriarchy is a society where at the top of the social hierarchy there are women. That requires there to be a meritocratic hierarchy in the first place.
Most of the things these documentaries inaccurately refer to as matriarchies are in fact matrilinear societies - matriliear as in a society that is centered around motherhood. Essentially it's a family tree society. The list of human matrilinear societies is short and their lifespan is even shorter. There are no large scale matrilinear societies for the simple reason that you can't build a complex society on biological relationships. The largest these will ever get is basically communes of a few dozen people.
Additionally matrilinear societies are generally unproductive, given that meritocracy doesn't control who's on top. Also, young men tend to suffer from a barrage of mental issues in matrilinear societies, least of which is their insane mommy issue, where they have a stronger bond with their mother than their eventual partner.
In short, matrilinear societies are incapable of existing, and I do not support them to any extent. If I had to choose between a social model that has existed for thousands of years of our known history, and one that has barely any examples, I'd stick with patriarchies.
Lastly, it's appalling to me how women in the comments are so quick to jump on the feminist bandwagon, and how these videos essentially portray these societies as ones where men are oppressed, and say it as if it was a good thing. No. Matriarchies are not characterised by male oppression. Far worse. They are characterised by mental illness. THAT is why I do not support it to any extent, and I feel utter disdain for anyone who does. No woman I know who supports it (or man for that matter) shall be my friend, or even approach my vicinity without fear of harm. I might sound dramatic, but I am actually serious. I feel the same way about communists, anarchists, femininsts and particularly male feminists too, just to mention a few. Weakness and the advocacy fo weakness disgusts me.
1. I find the idea of a matriarchy arousing and a key part of my favorite erotic fantasies, but I don't think it makes sense for any practical civilization 2. I'd live in a patriarchy if I had to choose, but there is nothing about matriarchy or patriarchy that makes them good or bad forms ways to order a society. What makes a society good or bad comes from other features, which could exist in either one, but are complicated by trying to give either men or women innate authority that neither deserves to be innate. 3. I'd be curious to learn how the first one got started. The second one is a natural reaction to abuse, and exists as a natural reaction, just like MGTOW does in other societies.
Power leads to abuse, abuse leads to pushback. Pushback either corrects the abuse or makes the next reaction even worse and polarizes things.
The idea that matriarchy is better than patriarchy is absurd because women are not innately more nurturing, caring, or compassionate than men are, despite common belief to the contrary. They exhibit these traits in different ways.
Ultimately a stable society needs what men and women both naturally contribute. Men and women naturally have power over each other, though power that you have often looks invisible.
Power by its nature tends to be abused, so there always need to be mechanisms that balance power and spread it out. This makes it unwise to give all the power to any single group, even one as spread out as men and women.
We reprimand six year old children for believing that they are better than their classmates because they are taller or can run faster but somehow all of that gets excused when its becomes a men and women issue. Seriously? Grow up all you people who think that men are supposed to lead because of biology. Its a social construct. Unless we are in a post apocalyptic world, living a life where nobody has big ass trucks and electric tools to do that "lifting and providing" shit, then I am NOT going to assume some person with a worm between their legs is more intelligent, diplomatic, persuasive, and egalitarian than someone who doesn't. I'm not saying that women are inherently better, but I can say I am sick of living in a patriarchal society where people DO assume this, are too afraid to admit they don't, or don't care enough about 50% of the population that is thought of this way.
I live in the western matriarchy, and it is killing our society. We now have STD epidemics, violent mobs led by #metoo witch hunts which demand #believeher above fair trials and evidence, gender discrimination, man spreading laws, near total lack of shelters for men, men being arrested for being abused by women, women demanding more pay while ignore men's hours, conditions, safety, education and occupation, and a general malaise that will likely never end fully. At this point, I don't simply want a patriarchy, I want a gender segregated patriarchy. Let women go do their own thing, but just leave white men alone. They have already driven us to make up 70% of suicides. Also, an African rape shelter is not a society. A matriarchy must be independent of patriarchal support to be any kind of success, or even independently sustainable.
So, those who have accomplished the least in society should 'lead' those who have not only accomplished the most for that same society, but are also the vast majority of those who die/have died for said society as well as actively keep said society's infrastructure running every single day, and when something goes wrong with any aspect of it, are the ones who fix it.
I think that both systems are unfair and unfortunate and if there was a third option I'd choose that. Between the two, I'd prefer a patriarchy because I'm a male.
I'm interested in the opinion of the female who would rather live in a patriarchy (in the poll results).
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(18-24)
+1 y
Matriarchies existed, and can exist again. But in the long run they always die out, cause ; imagine two groups of 200 people. In one men fight and lead, in the other women. One day they fight, and both lose 90. The ten surviving men can easily impregnate the 100 women in their group. While the 10 surviving women can only bear 10 children no Matter what their 100 men do. So the patriarchy will have 100 kids, and the matriarchy 10. So in the long term, a society where women tend to take more risks then men, will die out via natural selection, cause men are more evolutionarily disposable.
Matriarchies work great until a Patriarchy comes along and blows them away.
Sort of like how Europe is largely a matriarchy and they are being colonized willingly by the Middle East and Africa. At this rate there won't be a Britain or Germany or France left soon!
Dude, check out Sweden. Their mostly female government welcomed with open arms a ridiculous number of migrants into the country in 2015. Guess who has the worst sexual assault/harassment problem in all of Europe.
If I had to, I'd rather live in a patriarchy, because I don't like being the one to make tough decisions. There's nothing wrong with either way of living, it just depends on what the couple is most comfortable with.
All first world matriarchies are ghettos. Look it up. Every city devoid of men or fathers in the first world becomes a GHETTO. As for places like Africa. South America and the Carribean. *I've seen first hand that in these areas boys are treated like aniimals from birth and made to feel like shit at every turn. What you end up with is a reverse of the misogynistic hellish nightmare women in the middle east go through.
I honestly can't say it makes a huge difference Any society structure that is heavily skewed to either side won't be great It may be slightly different what exactly the issues are but ultimately one side jas most of the power but also most of the responsibility The former is nice the latter sucks And if you are on the other side of that you have little power and little responsibility the former sucks while the later is nice... Plague or cholera
Patriarchy or matriarchy, I would choose whatever one is less oppressive of the other gender.
Interestingly, in most matriarchal societies and ethnic minorities that I know, they never mistreated men or oppressed them of their basic human rights.
@Journeyman11 So true. Most women do not have testosterone like men and therefore do not have the drive to build and advance as quickly as possible at all costs. Not all men do either but personally all I can think about is build build build work work accomplish shit. Literally have worked 80 hours a week at points and risked all my money to start businesses and such. Women just don't have a natural drive to do this sort of thing.
So if you were as competent as a man you would have read what I said before getting all flooded with emotions. The keyword is "most" its right at the beginning. Thanks for proving my point. Too busy worried about a perceived slight to women in general instead of cold hard facts.
Hey its simple numbers but i know most women aren't good at math. Great things achieved by women 0.1% and by men 99.9%. Hell even women getting the right to vote was achieved by men!!! How many women start businesses and grow them to huge levels in our most important industries? Energy finance real estate defense... almost none. All you have to do is sign a form for secretary of state website and pay $50 and you have a company. Even women should be able to figure this out. They just dont want to do it in general. Very few do and all the statistics say so.
Lol excuses. You know how many men didn't go to school in the past? Men invented schools. Why didn't women? When someone says to a woman she isn't allowed to do something she says ok. When you say that to a man he won't take no for an answer. Women could stand up but they dont. Its just not something women as a whole are capable of.
@bamesjond0069 the first University was founded by a woman. Also, there have been women who did things by themselves, and men decided to punish them without things like burning to death and what not. Even today it happens.
Amazing how history is entirely men holding down women then you guys complaining women can't do anything. Nice.
Lol men have been threatened and still do it anyways. History is filled with men who aren't afraid to take a chance even if it means dying. See American revolution. So simply saying they could be punished is not a good excuse... why does threat of punishment not stop men?
Matriarchies never exist in the natural world for long because they are weak, ineffective, vulnerable and subject to overthrow by pretty much any patriarchal society who wants to have their way with them. That is human nature; always has been and always will be.
I'm split. I like the idea of a matriarchy, becuz women tend to be more compassionate. But I guess I'd vote for a Mattiarchy. As leader of the free world, I promise to do absolutely nothing.
1. I'm fine with it. Often times, women are more rational, empathic, compassionate, intelligent and more organized. 2. Matriarchy, hands down. 3. They aren't loading on my end.
I think matriarchies are useful for certain things, but not everything. I think patriarchies are useful for leading certain missions, but not every mission.
Typically, things that interest males are better accomplished by male leadership. Hunting parties, warfare, building giant shit. I think women have different kinds of intellect that do come in handy, just not for building pyramids.
Women are so loving and caring. They make any environment more cozy. Women tend to think with their hearts, which is not the type of intellect you want for building canals, but it's very complimentary to it.
Historically most homes were matriarchal because the men were working to put food on the table or defending the home while the women were warm by the fire with the kids.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions