Under what conditions could a matriarchal world have emerged?

According to what I've read in regards to evolutionary biology, the rise of patriarchy was a result of the transition to farming and the rise of civilization.

Human society before agriculture was pretty gender equal, with men and woman of tribes sharing in duties.

So under what conditions could a matriarchal society have emerged? What evolutionary or geological incident could've lead to the rise of a woman-ruled world once humans started to farm?
 
As was mentioned before me, not all cultures were patriarchal. Many Native American societies (the Haudenosaunee are the first I can think of) had mostly matriarchal societies -- as well as a couple African societies I don't remember from the top of my head.
 
As was mentioned before me, not all cultures were patriarchal. Many Native American societies (the Haudenosaunee are the first I can think of) had mostly matriarchal societies -- as well as a couple African societies I don't remember from the top of my head.
I've read about that. But what allows certain societies to become matriarchal and others patriarchal?
 
Beginning of Mosuo matrilineality[edit]
Historically the Mosuo lived in a feudal system where a larger peasant population was controlled by a small nobility. The nobility was afraid of the peasant class gaining power. Since leadership was hereditary, the peasant class was given a matriarchal system. This prevented threats to nobility power by having the peasant class trace lineage through the female line. This system has led to numerous distinct traits among Mosuo society.
 
Maybe delay the Neolithic stratification of society or perhaps even return many people to older Tribal social structures after a more severe Bronze Age Collapse.

Matriarchy is closer to Nature than Patriarchy and the result of Patriarchy in our world was natural familial, motherly, and sexual instincts eventually being superseded by proto-philosophy and proto-religion promoted by men acquiring surplus wealth and increasingly seeing their wives, daughters, and concubines also as property.

One of my favorite Matriarchal societies is the society of the Blood Trolls in Nazmir in World of Warcraft.

Blood is seen as the medium which carries life and soul and is intimately tied to the female menstrual cycle and childbirth. People worship the agendered Blood God G'Huun, and make blood sacrifices to them. Males call all females in the tribe "Ma'Da" (meaning "Mother") and are subservient to their will remembering that how nice it was when their mothers made decisions for them in their childhoods and organized their lives.

I'm male, but I would rather live in such a society than our OTL masculinity-dominated one.
 
Maybe delay the Neolithic stratification of society or perhaps even return many people to older Tribal social structures after a more severe Bronze Age Collapse.

Matriarchy is closer to Nature than Patriarchy and the result of Patriarchy in our world was natural familial, motherly, and sexual instincts eventually being superseded by proto-philosophy and proto-religion promoted by men acquiring surplus wealth and increasingly seeing their wives, daughters, and concubines also as property.

One of my favorite Matriarchal societies is the society of the Blood Trolls in Nazmir in World of Warcraft.

Blood is seen as the medium which carries life and soul and is intimately tied to the female menstrual cycle and childbirth. People worship the agendered Blood God G'Huun, and make blood sacrifices to them. Males call all females in the tribe "Ma'Da" (meaning "Mother") and are subservient to their will remembering that how nice it was when their mothers made decisions for them in their childhoods and organized their lives.

I'm male, but I would rather live in such a society than our OTL masculinity-dominated one.

So was the need to gain surplus wealth and luxury directly connected to women losing that glorified status? And would man have risen from tribe to nations without it? Is our technologically advanced world impossible without patriarchal values? Did woman have to become second-class citizens for things like writing to exist?
 
I presume it's differing from society to society. There's no through-and-through formula that dictates who is matriarchal and who is patriarchal.
So is the rise of matriarchy and patriarchy a conscious choice rather then something born from the switch to farming?
 
So was the need to gain surplus wealth and luxury directly connected to women losing that glorified status? And would man have risen from tribe to nations without it? Is our technologically advanced world impossible without patriarchal values? Did woman have to become second-class citizens for things like writing to exist?

In our OTL, societal and technological progression in the Neolithic, then the Bronze Age seemed to correlate to increasingly Patriarchal values in societies as diverse and distant as the Greeks and the Aztecs.

There likely could've been an alternative way for humanity to develop with matriarchal values, but it would have needed to prevent the rising prominience of male warlords, priests, and philosophers.
 
Last edited:
Many societies practice and continue to practice forms of matriarchal, matrilocal and matrilineal culture. Some were mixed with patriarchal practices. Agriculture did not inform the settlement/ marriage or lineal practices of societies.
 
In our OTL, societal and technological progression in the Neolithic, then the Bronze Age seemed to correlate to increasingly Patriarchal values in societies as diverse and distant as the Greeks and the Aztecs.

There likely could've been an alternative way for humanity to develop with matriarchal values, but it would have needed to prevent the rising prominience of male warlords, priests and philosophers.
Well...what is valued in a matriarchal society? And would these things still lead to the scientific revolution?

Many societies practice and continue to practice forms of matriarchal, matrilocal and matrilineal culture. Some were mixed with patriarchal practices. Agriculture did not inform the settlement/ marriage or lineal practices of societies.
The theory is that farming led to men gaining prominence over woman because strength became the essential tool of early farmers.
 
Written language is the province of the winners of history, which by definition is written.. We cannot with any certainty determine whether an ancient society was matrilineal or patrilineal without a deep DNA study of individual sites.
See the Taino on a mixed matrilineal society with men clearing/digging/tilling fields and women planting/weeding/harvesting crops.
 
Well...what is valued in a matriarchal society? And would these things still lead to the scientific revolution?
What would be valued would widely vary between societies, just like in Patriarchal ones.

The OTL scientific revolution arose from very specific circumstances in a very specific society. It would be entirely plausible in an even slightly different OTL that we would still live with technology similar to the 17th century and we would still think matter is made up from the four classical elements.
 
Written language is the province of the winners of history, which by definition is written.. We cannot with any certainty determine whether an ancient society was matrilineal or patrilineal without a deep DNA study of individual sites.
See the Taino on a mixed matrilineal society with men clearing/digging/tilling fields and women planting/weeding/harvesting crops.
But was that cultural or was all that born of necessity.

What would be valued would widely vary between societies, just like in Patriarchal ones.

The OTL scientific revolution arose from very specific circumstances in a very specific society. It would be entirely plausible in an even slightly different OTL that we would still live with technology similar to the 17th century and we would still think matter is made up from the four classical elements.
From a big history lens, it took thousands and thousands of years of innovation, trade, and exchange before data could accumulate to the point that collective learning could accelerate exponentially.

While racists portray white culture as being inherently inferior, but many mathematical concepts (including the number "zero") came from India.

But would a matriarchal society create an impetus for such innovation?
 
I have family who went to live in Mayotte and who explained to me that there the woman in the family unit had the control on the education of the children and the preparation of the meals being able to even prohibit the men to enter the house during the meal (what in Occident perhaps seen like an ungrateful stain to see a degradation of the condition of the woman is a pride for them there).
Is it possible, then, that our terms "matriarchy" and "patriarchy" are not too simplistic? Because my example in Mayotte takes place in an Islamic society where the woman plays a very essential role in the education of the child and in the running of the house (two very important elements in a traditional society).
Does the fact that a society is patriarchal or matriarchal depend on which sectors of society are owned by men and women? Or does it depend on the weight that both groups have in society? If it is the latter, how do you measure this weight? Can it change according to the scale we take (household, city, civilization)?
Moreover, during prehistory, wasn't there already a form of "division of labour"? I find it hard to believe that everyone in a community did exactly the same thing. Otherwise we could talk about gender balance?
As I read above, I don't see why a matriarchal society would be "better" than a patriarchal society. Why couldn't the matriarchal society fail as a patriarchal society too? Why couldn't it be found as revolting as the patriarchal society?
 
Last edited:
I have family who went to live in Mayotte and who explained to me that there the woman in the family unit had the control on the education of the children and the preparation of the meals being able to even prohibit the men to enter the house during the meal (what in Occident perhaps seen like an ungrateful stain to see a degradation of the condition of the woman is a pride for them there).
Is it possible, then, that our terms "matriarchy" and "patriarchy" are not too simplistic? Because my example in Mayotte takes place in an Islamic society where the woman plays a very essential role in the education of the child and in the running of the house (two very important elements in a traditional society).
Does the fact that a society is patriarchal or matriarchal depend on which sectors of society are owned by men and women? Or does it depend on the weight that both groups have in society? If it is the latter, how do you measure this weight? Can it change according to the scale we take (household, city, civilization)?
Moreover, during prehistory, wasn't there already a form of "division of labour"? I find it hard to believe that everyone in a community did exactly the same thing. Otherwise we could talk about gender balance?
As I read above, I don't see why a matriarchal society would be "better" (depending on what you mean by "yes") than a patriarchal society. Why couldn't the matriarchal society fail as a patriarchal society too? Why couldn't it be found as revolting as the patriarchal society?
Well OTL, women in power wasn't always an improvement.

Catherine the Great oppressed Russians just as much as her predecessors. But she a product of a society that revels in power and conquest?
 
I think - but I hope I’m wrong - it might actually Be due to child bearing and testosterone. Men are less vital to a healthy population plus due to their hormones more likely to be aggressive. It’s then pretty much might makes right from there.

So I’d say for women on top you’d need some pretty big changes.
 
Well OTL, women in power wasn't always an improvement.

Catherine the Great oppressed Russians just as much as her predecessors. But she a product of a society that revels in power and conquest?
To be honest I would answer you from my point of view that it is not society that makes us "bad" and that we can be very cruel no matter what kind of gender we are. Otherwise why wouldn't we have tried to make society more matriarchal all over the world if it is better? Why wouldn't humans have sought the best from the beginnings of humanity rather than wait for our times?
 
Top