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.

[bcoffey]

In almost 30 years of marriage, I can think of only one time I had to make a decision contrary to what my wife and family thought was best. (It was in an area I knew much more about, and in the end everyone agreed I made the right decision.)

My point is this: I took the patriarchal position once in 30 years, but it was not necessary to do so in day-to-day living. Why would anyone want to marry someone only to always have to "correct" his/her opinions? It must be hell on earth.

Let's not confuse courtesy and serving others with patriarchy. Anyone can serve someone else, have their best interests at heart, value their input and opinion, and genuinely love them for who they are and not try to mold them into who they aren't. The latter takes a terrible amount of energy and is always frustrating (to put it mildly!) to both parties.

A wise friend told me years ago that the best gift to give a woman is to let her 'be' who she is.. It's always worked for me.

[SauronOfMordor]

My point is this: I took the patriarchal position once in 30 years, but it was not necessary to do so in day-to-day living.

A patriarchal arrangement works to my wife's advantage.

The bottom line is when there's disagreement on what to do, and I feel strongly about it, it happens my way. But I try to bend over backwards not to abuse the situation, so when it's not something I feel strongly about, I go along with what she wants to do. The net result is she gets her way most of the time.

[freedox]

"In a competition between a patriarchal society and a matrilineal society, the patriarchal society will tend to prevail."

Yes it will......because we all know that "Who's your daddy?" is one great line. Pity that it should fall by the wayside.......

[GirlNextDoor]

Hi, bcoffey.:)

My point is this: I took the patriarchal position once in 30 years,

But that's limiting the patriarchal position to that of only decision maker.
In the patriarchal system, as originally intended, women *are* actually allowed to make decisions. ;-)
In fact, she is the main care-giver, making and carrying out the decisions on the everyday-type running of the home/family. Freeing the man for his other duties.

Matters that effected the family/finances in a major way were what the head of the family concerned himself with. And in the context of a relationship which truly honored one another, the woman's opinion would be considered, as well.

Let's not confuse courtesy and serving others with patriarchy.

Agreed. :)
But let's not be confused into thinking that patriarchy doesn't have courtesy and serving others as basic principles, either.

A wise friend told me years ago that the best gift to give a woman is to let her 'be' who she is.. It's always worked for me.

Here! Hear!
Maybe it's just me? Can you nag at your spouse to change who they are, always be insistent your ways be the only way, and still be considered to be honoring them? I should think not...

[sonserae]

Amen brother!

[GirlNextDoor]

equality of honor? I like that

I'm glad!
Hope I'm not arrogantly assuming you *weren't* being sacrcastic, though. ;-)

Modern women, for whatever reason, have changed standards and are looking to marry under their new new rules.

Question:Who allowed women to gain such a position?

[jimt]

Your essay was extremely well written and thought provoking, Illbay's ill considered comments not withstanding.

[Mark17]

Question:Who allowed women to gain such a position?

I am not 100% sure, so don't quote me on this, but possibly politicians who were married to these types. They made the laws as such, to placate their wives.

[bcoffey]

Question:Who allowed women to gain such a position?

That's a tough question, and I can only suggest a partial answer.

Society - both men and women - seems to have this "It's all about me" attitude. I think women have been deceived by the allure of the promises of the feminists, especially those women who were in the middle of a smothering relationship. I think men have been deceived by the measurement-oriented definition of success, that is, the more I have, the better I am. This can manifest itself in the need for a bigger bank balance or the desire for a woman with a bigger bust size. (Both topics mentioned earlier on the thread)

The solution is the realization that in building a relationship with someone else, there's an "us" in addition to a "me" and a "you." The "us" is a hybrid of both partners, not an excuse to cast the other person in the mold of the first person's desires.

The fruit of such an approach is that it frees both partners to honor and respect each other for who they are. Such an attitude is the foundation of a love that lasts.

[bankwalker]

Question:Who allowed women to gain such a position?

I don't think anyone "allowed" them. I think they just reached out and took in, totally unaware of the unintended consequences.

[longtermmemmory]

equality of honor? I like that
I'm glad!
Hope I'm not arrogantly assuming you *weren't* being sacrcastic, though. ;-)

Modern women, for whatever reason, have changed standards and are looking to marry under their new new rules.

Question:Who allowed women to gain such a position?

_____________________________

Nope not sarcastic.

Who allowed?

We all did. The same way a communist will use our first ammendment in order to impose a communist system without free speech.

The feminsts used civility in order to acieve an uncivil result.

(you see it on the media when the leftist shouts over the comments of the conservative. Ie carvile)

We were used..... I feel so dirty.

[GirlNextDoor]

I think both your replies carry the view that it was a combination of the women pressuring for more and the men willing to trade some of their power .Or did I read something into them?

Then, trade power for .... what? Was it for the easier path of having less pressure/responsibility? Was it for easier access to sex with "liberated" (ha!) women?
Whatever - it was a combination , not one-sided.

Personally, I think bcoffey is right, both were "deceived". Decieved into believing promises built on a flimsy foundation.

Now the foundation is crumbling around us and each gender wants to blame/resent/punish the other rather than fix the problem, again choosing the easier path... *sigh*

[GirlNextDoor]

BTW...

The solution is the realization that in building a relationship with someone else, there's an "us" in addition to a "me" and a "you." The "us" is a hybrid of both partners, not an excuse to cast the other person in the mold of the first person's desires.

The fruit of such an approach is that it frees both partners to honor and respect each other for who they are. Such an attitude is the foundation of a love that lasts.

Excellent and thank you. I couldn't agree more!
I also believe that foundation was intended in the original patriarchal system.

[GirlNextDoor]

Hi bankwalker. :)

I don't think anyone "allowed" them. I think they just reached out and took in,

I hate to disagree with you, but when history shows one group having the balance of power firmly in their grasp it takes some weakening of that grasp in order for another group to grab a footing.

How could it not be a combination of one releasing and another taking?

But I DO agree with your comment "totally unaware of the unintended consequences..
Except for perhaps the truly distorted minds who still relish what our society has become and want to push even further, I believe the majority didn't see it turning out this way.

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

It works EXTREMELY well when both sides buy into it...

key, absolutely. When both sides respect their position in the relationship, and approach it with a sense of humility, it's an upbeatable combo. Nowadays, when the "Obey your husband" stuff gets smeared by the fems, they don't bother to mention that a woman might feel more inclined to "obey" if the guy is spending a great deal of time putting her on the proverbial pedestal.

[hocndoc]

bcoffey,

You made an informed decision,not necessarily a "patriarchal" decision.

The secret (in my opinion) is monogamous marriage for life, with the man and woman (or boy and girl) each believing he or she got the better deal. Marriage is the healthy choice for both wife and husband, and the best environment for the children. It is a fact that married women and men live longer than their single counterparts and that their children are more likely to have healthier lives.
http://www.medinstitute.org/medical/index.htm
See the November 6, 2000 article, "Teens from two-parent families are significantly less likely to be sexually active."

Unfortunately, far too many (even on this "conservative" forum) consider marriage a temporary thing (like a lease aggreement with penalties for breaking the contract), rather than a true union of two people into one family (Where everyone works to maintain the union as though their very life depended on the life of the marriage - as though they loved the other as much as themselves).

You and your friend are both wise.

A wife for 28+ years,
B. Nuckols

[GirlNextDoor]

Who allowed?
We all did.

Agreed!

The same way a communist will use our first ammendment in order to impose a communist system without free speech.

We were used..... I feel so dirty.

:-D
"I feel your pain"...as I run out the door...

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

Feminism is not only a hate movement against men but a rebellion against reality.

Bump.

The modern liberal ideology cannot exist without a cohesive bond that is DEFINED by rebellion against reality. They have successfully contructed a worldview that antithetical to the laws of nature AND developed a defense mechanism that labels their detractors in the most inflammatory, damaging rhetoric of the day (racist, homophobe, etc.)

[hocndoc]

Ooops, I should have read a little more before I replied. You said this very well, Sir.

Marriage is about love for each other, not power and authority, or who is the "best".