Was Patriarchy a Women's Scheme to Control Men?

self | 10/30/2002 | SauronOfMordor

[SauronOfMordor]

Does Patriarchy Benefit Women?

Much has been said in feminist circles about how women are oppressed by patriarchy. Patriarchy literally means “rule by fathers” and is a system where men effectively are in control of property and decision-making. An important characteristic of patriarchal systems is that they are generally also patrilineal (a child’s descent is described by who his father, and father’s father were, rather than through the mother’s line).

The question I’m putting forth here is: Does the patriarchal/patrilineal system act more to oppress women, or is it actually more a way for women to tap and control male energy? My assertion is that patriarchal society creates an incentive structure that enables women to harness male energy and initiative for the benefit of women and their children.

In patrilineal societies, men tend to be confident that the children of their household are theirs, and take an active role in their upbringing. The men also tend to perform long-range planning, and invest time and effort into making life better for their offspring.

Matrilineal societies have been recorded in early history, and still exist in sections of Africa. The matrilineal societies of ancient times did not leave much in the way of historical record. In modern times, where they exist, they are generally poor and technologically primitive. To some extent, the welfare enclaves of our inner cities are increasingly matrilineal. In the developing matrilineal societies in our inner cities, the defining characteristic is that males have no permanent attachment to the children they father, nor to the women who are the mothers of their children. In such an environment, males tend not to make long-range plans for the well-being of their children, nor do they make much effort to create the institutions that would be needed for long-term stability and prosperity.

In classic patriarchal cultures, men are motivated to amass wealth through the acquisition and enhancement of productive facilities: land, ships, businesses – things that will produce revenue to support a family, and which will provide an inheritance to pass along to their children. Part of the motivation is from love and emotional attachment. A large part of it is also pride and self-image -- the desire to leave a legacy, to be remembered as a great person after he's gone.

Having children who are emotionally attached to you has mutual benefits: the children can rely on support during their vulnerable years, and parents can have the expectation of support in their declining years. This can be very important in societies where survival is not assured unless you have a committed provider looking out for you.

Once someone has property, he has a strong incentive to promote institutions to protect and preserve his property. He bands together with his neighbors, in mutual protection. He has an incentive to cooperate with his neighbors to create improvements for their mutual benefit: roads, irrigation systems, etc. The incentive system promotes the institutions needed to preserve itself

Now let’s consider the incentive system for males in a matrilineal environment. When a man cohabits with a woman, he has no assurance of any of the children being his. He is less likely to experience any emotional bonding with them, and may consider them an interference with his relationship with the woman. He will have no expectation that the children will take care of him in his old age, and will be much less likely to make any investment in the children’s well-being.

In such an environment, the male won’t expect to survive much past the point where he’s no longer strong enough to obtain food and resources through his own strength. He’s likely to be invited to share the bed of a woman as long as he provides for her and protects her, and invited to leave when she acquires a better provider. The incentive will be to acquire wealth the fastest and easiest way he can: by getting together into a strong gang and taking it from somebody else. In matrilineal societies, whether in Somalia or South Central LA, the men tend to band together into warring gangs rather than engage in productive work.

In a competition between a patriarchal society and a matrilineal society, the patriarchal society will tend to prevail. The men of the patriarchal society are more likely to stand and fight off encroachments to territory they consider their property, while the men of the matrilineal society will be more likely to seek easier targets in another direction. A man will fight for his wife, his children, and his property – they are HIS, and part of his self-identity. A man is less likely to endure long-term conflict to protect the property of a woman he considers to be just a temporary girlfriend – it’s simpler to just find another girlfriend in an area with less conflict.

Comparing a patriarchal culture with a matrilineal culture, the advantages for women become apparent. By channeling male energy and imagination into long-term planning, patriarchy creates an environment where women and children are better provided for and better protected, thus better assuring long-term survival for all concerned.

[msru]

You're wrong that the child support pays for the chrome job on the bike. Child support pays for the "handbag fund", the "shoe fund", the "gals nite out fund", the "makeup and lipstick fund", and um... well you get the idea. LOL

[BuddhaBoy]

Maybe I'll consider it, should Seven of Nine become availble. A Borg woman would not bother me with all that emotional baggage.

[BuddhaBoy]

Gotta go, pal. There are women out there on the town waiting to buy me a drink under the assumption that I am an eligible bachelor.

Hell, I may even dance tonight. LOL!

[msru]

Take it easy. I'll go out next weekend after sitting for the CPA exam next week. Later!

[DBtoo]

I just don't see that there's a war out there between men and women. It's probably because it isn't an issue with me. I get along fine with men, my husband seems to like me well enough, and my friends and people I know in general aren't having major problems with the opposite sex. However, from what both single men and women are saying, there do seem to be problems, and I don't blame it on either sex, I blame it on our corrupt culture that encourages people to behave in ways that create a sick society.

It's everywhere. You drive down a freeway in a big city and there are billboards with sexy, beautiful women selling some product, and then there are the ever pervasive strip-clubs. Most of the dramas and sit-coms on TV show people living totally deviant lives and it's portrayed as normal. Porn sites on the internet are very popular. All this destructive stimuli corrupts peoples' minds, and warps their attitudes with a false sense of reality. And then no one really knows how to act, and everyone feels confused and hurt.

And it's really sad to see this country disintegrate as a result with all the "matrilineal" societies in our inner cities and now more frequently occuring in other areas as well. It's just sad and I think we'll continue on a downward slide.

[DBtoo]

Funding for research has also been cut way back.

[Robert_Paulson2]

good movie recommendation.

[Z in Oregon]

Bottles + formula works well for millions; just look at grocery store shelves.

[Z in Oregon]

You drive down a freeway in a big city and there are billboards with sexy, beautiful women selling some product...

You know what's really bizarre? Feminist groups like NOW complain every year at the relatively decent images of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, but are rarely heard from with regards to Playboy et al. Now,setting aside the fact that Hefner contributes a lot of cash to feminist organizations, why would feminist groups object to the gentle images of SISE while giving a pass to the cold objectification of Playboy et al?

Somehow, it seems that having the cold objectification predominate is in their interest.

Why?

[BuddhaBoy]

You sir, have obviously forgotten Rush Limbaugh's 24th Undeniable rule of life:

"Feminism was invented to allow ugly women access to the mainstream of society."

The fact that looks matter in our society is the bane of Feminism, where you find the bulk of the hairy-lipped, pear shaped, butch-cut hair'd fatties populating the membership rolls of N.O.W. and other feminist organizations.

These women realize that for them to gain any power or even attention, that Female beauty must be de-emphasized as a priority or standard of appeal. There is the long running joke that men would not bother to talk to women, if they didnt have breasts, but there is SOME truth to this, and the Feminists know it.

I know myself that when I see a woman with a mustache, I am more inclined to shove my Norelco at her, than I am to buy her a drink, and I dont think I am alone in that regard.

Without Feminism, ugly woman would be relegated to the more natural role of babysitting the children of the pretty women who are off spending time with (and the money of) the men who love them.

[woofie]

I have done my duty and reproduced ...now,I can be devoured like a spider

Woofie (male)

[Z in Oregon]

Without Feminism, ugly woman would be relegated to the more natural role of babysitting the children of the pretty women who are off spending time with (and the money of) the men who love them.

Excellent point.

[CobaltBlue]

>>Why?<<

Not sure, maybe they have nothing better to do.

When I was a kid, it was widely accepted that women were inferior, and that most good jobs were reserved for men.

Times have changed, mostly for the better, in my opinion.

When I read people bitching about custody cases, I know that they come from chaotic, dysfunctional backgrounds.

You see, I handle custody cases. I know from experience that well-adjusted people don't drag their kids through custody battles. At least one of the parties has a screw loose when they fight about custody. Could be the dad, could be the mom, could be both.

Well-adjusted people work it out.

When I read people bitching about the opposite sex, I know that they don't know how to form good relationships, so they blame it on someone else. Well-adjusted people don't hate the entire opposite sex.

From my perspective, feminism has accomplished pretty much everything it set out to accomplish. I used to belong to the Virginia Women Attorney's Association, which is now inactive because the members feel that it is no longer necessary.

Feminists got women the vote, equality in the workplace, equality in government, equality in the family, for those who want it (not everybody wants to be equal).

What is there left to do? Change men so that they don't lust after nubile women? Fat chance.

[CobaltBlue]

A follow up on my post about feminism.

I was one of the first women hired by Exxon Refinery in Baton Rouge, to work in the plant, after the Feds told them that they had to or no more government contracts.

That was in 1972.

For ten or so years, I was the first, or one of the first, women to work in a "man's job" in a number of jobs.

But as time wore on, more and more women were handling "men's jobs" and doing a damn fine job.

I was one of the ice breakers, so I know how things have changed.

People who hate feminists don't know how hard it was to change things back then. It took guts, and a thick skin. We had to work twice as hard to be considered half as good, but eventually, we prevailed.

The situation now is far from perfect, but life is never perfect.

[kstewskis]

Ya know, if only one generation of men would REFUSE to marry, we could probably end Feminism, Political Correctness, and many others of society's ills in less than a decade.

Perhaps. But that would *really* screw it up for those of us who still play by the old rules!

[BuddhaBoy]

Change men so that they don't lust after nubile women?

I have no doubt that if Feminists could accomplish this, they would do it in a heartbeat. Their alternative is to try to abolish nubile women so men have nothing to lust after at all.

Then over time, men would just have to learn to appreciate hairy armpits and women with adams-apples and sideburns.