Challenge: A Matriarchal World

I don't really think a matriarchal society is possible in the long run at any point in the past. Men are naturally stronger and better suited to warfare, so even in societies where production is mostly in the hands of women, the army/warrior class will almost inevitably be male. All states in the end are based around force of arms, so the ruling class has to be from or be able to dominate the warrior class. Even if a matriarchal society is able to dominate a male army, eventually some general is going to realize his own power and take over. If on the other hand, a matriarchal society is supported by a female army like the hypothetical Amazons, eventually some other society with a more efficient male army will come along and conquer them.
 
xchen08 I don't really think a matriarchal society is possible in the long run at any point in the past. Men are naturally stronger and better suited to warfare, so even in societies where production is mostly in the hands of women, the army/warrior class will almost inevitably be male. All states in the end are based around force of arms, so the ruling class has to be from or be able to dominate the warrior class. Even if a matriarchal society is able to dominate a male army, eventually some general is going to realize his own power and take over. If on the other hand, a matriarchal society is supported by a female army like the hypothetical Amazons, eventually some other society with a more efficient male army will come along and conquer them.
But what about the Native American tribes, like the Iroquois? Their army/warrior class was male dominated, yet it was the women who were the head of the family. We know from early American settlers that the women made the decisions that governed the tribes. And the Iroquois Nation was a successful military force until the European settlers overwhelmed them. But they were never conquered. So, it has been done in history.
 
But what about the Native American tribes, like the Iroquois?

Native american societies are an important exception to the rule. It is believed that many tribes were matrilinial. This is almost certainly due to their system as a hunter-gatherer society. whilst men might do the fighting and the hunting ,the vast bulk of the diet(in the eastern woodlands anyway) would have come from gathering ,a niche filled by women.

so no respecting the women = no food.

However , this role ended with the transition to full scale agriculture , where the role of the male as the labourer comes into play, reversing the position of power.

Sir Scott
-AKA, he-who-dances-with-atractive-bulgarians
 
However , this role ended with the transition to full scale agriculture , where the role of the male as the labourer comes into play, reversing the position of power.


And when exactly was that? The Eastern woodland tradition had an agricultural society during the colonial period, yet we know from the settlers that the culture was matrilinial. And women were still given the responsibility of handling all agricultural decisions.
 

Trolim

Banned
And when exactly was that? The Eastern woodland tradition had an agricultural society during the colonial period, yet we know from the settlers that the culture was matrilinial. And women were still given the responsibility of handling all agricultural decisions.


matrilinial != matriarchial

Many modern day native american tribes are matrilinial but NOT matriarchial. Might have been mentioned already, but matrilinial just means you trace your descent through the female line (sometimes because there is less knowledge of how human fertility works).
 

Keenir

Banned
After all, early Israelis worshiped Ashera, and we all know how matriarchal they were... ;)

I think you have to go to the time of the Judges to get a woman leading the Israelis....and there was only Ruth.

(did Deborah lead?)

But what about the Native American tribes, like the Iroquois? Their army/warrior class was male dominated, yet it was the women who were the head of the family.

that's matrilocal...or its (forgot the word), where the society is divided in two - half for men, half for women....not matriarchal.
 
Ok, let's just set the record straight on definitions here.

Matrineal societies are those in which children belong to the mother's group and the family lineage is traced through women.
Patrilineal societies, where children belong to the father's group and the family lineage is traced through men.

Matrilocal societies are those in which families live with the mother's group. i.e. After marriage, the husband and wife live with the wife's family.
Patrilocal societies are those in which families live with fathers group.
i.e. After marriage, the husband and wife live with the husband's family.

Matriarchal societies are those in which women dominate the group.
i.e. Holding most of the political offices, etc.
Patriarchal societies are those in which the men dominate the group.
i.e. Holding most of the political offices, etc.
 
if I may ask (again), what evidence?

Honestly, it's been a while since I read the book, so I cannot state matter of factly what the specific evidence is. I believe she cites achaeological evidence from different temples, and linguistic trends from the Semitic languages through the Indo-European languages of the time. I'm no social anthropologist, so I cannot adequately evaluate the quality of her evidence. And I do know her conclusion are considered a bit radical and not widely accepted.

However, if we assume that the goddess and fertility worship was the norm before the Indo-European invasion, and the society did have a matriarchal bent to it, then there is no reason to assume that an established culture would change without the external influences of the Indo-Europeans.

I guess I'm looking at the Old Testament more as a cultural text than a historic one. I'm looking at it as an insight into an emerging culture (the proto-Hebrews influence by the Indo-Europeans) opposed to a dominant/residual one (the goddess worshipers). Marxist CUutural Theory at its best ;-)
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
Honestly, it's been a while since I read the book, so I cannot state matter of factly what the specific evidence is. I believe she cites achaeological evidence from different temples, and linguistic trends from the Semitic languages through the Indo-European languages of the time. I'm no social anthropologist, so I cannot adequately evaluate the quality of her evidence. And I do know her conclusion are considered a bit radical and not widely accepted.
However, if we assume that the goddess and fertility worship was the norm before the Indo-European invasion, and the society did have a matriarchal bent to it, then there is no reason to assume that an established culture would change without the external influences of the Indo-Europeans.

I guess I'm looking at the Old Testament more as a cultural text than a historic one. I'm looking at it as an insight into an emerging culture (the proto-Hebrews influence by the Indo-Europeans) opposed to a dominant/residual one (the goddess worshipers). Marxist CUutural Theory at its best ;-)

The Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler

The bolded part is putting it mildly, my understanding is that many see her as just this side of von Daniken.

But I believe others do see her as a serious, if possibly flawed, scholar in the field, so I dunno.

WI the Catholic Church successfully uses the "Cult of Mary" as a counterweight to the Protestant Reformation? I think this was as important a part of Catholicism then as it is now, (and it was in the 1990s that the doctrine of Mary as a "co-savior" almost caused the second use of ex cathedra in the Church's history) What if women are admitted as priests, then Archbishops and finally a real Pope Joan (or Mary, Rebecca, Catherine.) What if the secular revolution is based on women's rights instead of just the Rights of Man?

I lack the expertise to even begin to speculate on how the details of that would work out, but I do think it could be interesting.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
And I think I've just made my fortune;

"Trans Ams of the Goddesses, Hot Lesbian Deities from Outer Space" :D

How can it fail?
 

Eladrimstar

Banned
I disagree with the notion that a matriarchy would have less wars. The more power a person has, the more aggressively they use it. Trust me, women have aggression, we are just taught not to display it. True, it'll probably hurt someone less if I punched them in the face than if my male counterpart would do it, but that doesn't mean I never have the urge.

Sexism would be worse in a matriarchal world. Sexism against women is based on the fact that they are weak and defenseless. But the social sexism against men would probably involve the notion that men are expendable. Look at the Drow in the Forgotten Realms series of books. All though, the Drow are not a matriarchy. They are a psycho-bitchery.

I disagree with the fact that before the Indo-Europeans came around, everyone only worshipped women. And goddess worship=/=equality for women.
 
probably not going to happen

Primarily for hormonal reasons. THe major reason men are stronger than women is because our bodies generate 10-20 times a smuch testosterone, we typically have nearly double a womans upper body strength and are 80% stronger over-all. Testosterone also has a psychological affect, men are more agressive than women, more prone to seeking dominance.

Women, meanwhile are hardwired to be more nurturing, so as to take good care of their children.

Those are some of the reasons we live in a patriarchal world, men hold more power because thoruhgout most of history muscle counted, and men had that, and men are more pre-disposed to seeking power and dominance over others, so typically more will to power combined with a greater means of taking power means that group will almost inevitably hold power.

note: I am not some chauvinist bible-thumper, I am(in humorous conversation) pastafarian, and in serious conversation agnostic, and I believe men and women both have different strengths and weaknesses, for example if somehow women DID rule the world there would be fewer words because women have more gray matter and less white matter in their brains, meaning they are less impulsive on average... except for that one magical week of hell women put men through every month.

Also theres the fact that teh way reproduction works doesn't help, when a woman is pregnant she is, for quite a fwe things, out of commision for over half a year until the kid pops out, then she has to raise it until it can take care of itself, meaning throughout most of history women had to much working against them. Where-as men had very little in the way of inherent inconveniances.
 

ninebucks

Banned
I once posted a WI on the ASB forum, 'what if humans were impervious to physical attack' - and realistically, I think thats the only way to get a thoroughly matriarchal world history.

However, if matriarchy were to be achieved, it probably would result in a less violent society, but a society that is much more oppressive. Women grow up in a society that forbids them from considering violence as a problem-solving technique, and so other, more complex methods of social control are developed within the female mind - indeed, by the time children enter school, the girls usually possess a level of skill at social manipulation that is completely incomprehensible to their male counterparts.

In such a society, males would be faced with constant attacks against their hunter-gather sense of personal autonomy, and loyality to the social unit will make notions like liberty obsolete. Successful matriarchies will manage to get so far inside male heads that the idea of violent opposition will become literally unthinkable, psychological power will eclipse physical power (at least on the more intimate levels of society), and governance and manipulation shall become one and the same.
 
Top