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.

[Lorianne]

Oh brother. You're not bigotted are you?

I did not call "natural rights" unsavory, I was instead referring to the human tendency to be corrupted by power which our Founders understood and wisely feared.

They understood that absolute power corrupts the one weilding it. That is why they set up a system where no individual or small elite group could grab all the power. They understood implicitley that previous "patriarchal" (and I use that word much more broadly than you do) systems depended on the unassured benevolence of the king or the ruling elite, which they wisely did not trust. This is why they set up the balance of power between ruling bodies and wanted a lose federation of states rather than a strong centralized government. This is also why they wisely separated church and state realizing that religions at the time were modeled on strict elite heirachies which demanded absolute allegiance, anathema conceptually to what they wanted to try. (Note, they were not anti-religious, but rather anti-unilateral elite control).

I do not know what you mean by "natural rights" but I assume from your posts you mean male domination. It also wouldn't surprise me in the least if the "natural" dominating class in your retro view is a smaller category than males.

[Lorianne]

You're simply affraid a patriarchy places more power in the hands of men.

Half right. I'm afraid of any one group, particularly one based on biology, having unilateral power. Therefore, for example, I would be equally afraid of women having more power than men.

You might be thinking, who is going to regulate the men? Men don't get pregnant, women do.

Women don't get pregnant through parthenogensis. It is YOUR attitude which omits men's role in procreation and separates pregnancy from conception that is the basis for the decline in the family. You unwittingly are in bed with pro-Choice feminists in this belief! You probably don't even recongnize that you'e supporting their viewpoint.

If biological lineage is important to "patriarchy", it makes no sense to only control 1/2 of the conception equation. This is illogic. Men who pro-create outside of marriage are equally to blame for the decline of the "family". But then, you illogically discard conception and focus only on the pysiological state of pregnancy which results. Odd logic for a patriarch.

Obviously, biological control of lineage is not the concern or you'd advocate strict control of males and females. Therefore you agenda seems to be control of females "just because" as in fundementalist countries where they stone women adulterers but not their partners in crime. Heaven's, even Jesus himself had a problem with this kind of hypocrisy!

That might be the case, but it is the only way to regulate a woman's natural sexual promiscuity, and the distruction of the family.

More illogic. A woman cannot be promiscous without a male or males willing to be promiscous with her! The math simply doesn't compute. (Unless you are referring to homosexual unions. But even there, men have women statistially beat. Males homosexuals are 15% of the male population, female homosexuals are 5% of the female population). Therefore, if heterosexual promiscuity is the benchmark as you suggest, males are equally to blame for destroying families since it takes on of each to commit a promiscous act! This is simple mathematics.

[right2parent]

Your not listenning. Read the article again.

You unwittingly are in bed with pro-Choice feminists in this belief!

I think there would be a few that disagree with you there.

[right2parent]

I do not know what you mean by "natural rights" but I assume from your posts you mean male domination. It also wouldn't surprise me in the least if the "natural" dominating class in your retro view is a smaller category than males.

Please get a clue. Good night.

[Ippolita]

Very good points check out my post at :

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/956535/posts

You may find it interesting.

[SauronOfMordor]

Yes, thank you

[SunkenCiv]

A Blast from the Past. This topic is from 2002. I found it while looking for something else.

Just adding this to the GGG catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)