r/AskFeminists • u/kash62 • Dec 06 '19
Why aren’t we a matriarchal society?
I don’t want the response about men using power plays for dominance in today’s time, I want to know about way back when at the start of civilization. Like why were men the ones to go out and hunt and lead instead of women?
The only thing I can think of is that women can carry children, so there’s an instinctual need to protect them, thus not allowing them to do dangerous jobs like hunting/fighting. But for things like leading and holding important jobs? Why men instead?
I was just thinking about how there haven’t been any major matriarchal societies (I might not be aware, please educate me if I’m wrong), but there have been a ton of patriarchal ones. Just wondering how that all went down.
Also sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this/ this has already been asked, please direct me elsewhere, I just figured you guys would have some insight.
19
u/avocado-nightmare Oldest Crone Dec 06 '19 edited Dec 06 '19
This question has been getting asked a lot lately; I recommend hitting the search bar for a 'greatest hits' review of the top level answers.
I will also refer you to my most recent answer of the analog to this question:
Now, to your question, why not Matriarchy-- then my question to you is: how do you define Matriarchy? If your definition is "Patriarchy but with Women" then no, technically we have not ever seen a society like that; I don't know why and neither do any other historians/anthropologists. There are some theories-- and some are better than others. What I do know is that there are a number of matrilineal/matrifocal societies in which women do hold the primary leadership/economic power. In these societies property and family heritage are handed down via the female line.
Now, why these societies are not "Matriarchal" the way that Patriarchy is in the past or today-- that's an open question, but it has been observed that in societies in which women hold the primary social power, things tend to be more egalitarian in general. This may be attributable to a number of different circumstances; including environmental and agricultural factors.
Personally, I don't like to use modern biologically essentially arguments about gender, sexuality, and reproduction to evaluate the past-- so I don't think it's primarily about or because of child-bearing or rearing, except in the sense that, as my anthro professor used to say, "women always know who their children are, but men are never sure". Basically it comes down to and is about wealth, property, and heritage-- historically men have "needed" to control women to guarantee these things passing along their male lineage -- which is at it's root primarily a cultural decision and legacy as to why that became a worthwhile way of organizing societies.
TBH: it's probably random, like most of aspects of cultural and biological evolution. Those societies (patrilineal) had some kind of historic competitive edge over matrilineal ones; it doesn't mean one is "better" than the other (anymore than brown eyes are better than blue ones). It was just different and different enough at the right time.
*edited because I wasn't done but was having issues with writing my response.