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.

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

In the long term, economic affluence is not as relevent as survival is. In that context, traditional Islam may turn out to be the superior ideology by the only criterion that matters: they will be the ones that are left

Same thing is happening in the US, at least in Texas and the Southwest. Through massive immigration and marginally higher birthrates, Central and South Americans are becoming the "ones who are left."

[bcoffey]

" I also believe that foundation was intended in the original patriarchal system."

At one time I was putting together a weekend seminar called "Foundations for Living, Foundations for Life." I had lots of support from women, but I wonder how many men would have come.

[bankwalker]

Hello Girl, it takes some weakening of that grasp in order for another group to grab a footing.

I don't have a lot of time to give this deep thought, so I'll pose a question to you instead. (borrow your brain?)

Could this have all started when women were given (and took) the right to vote?

bank ; )

[weikel]

In modern war economic superiority should be decisive excess numbers should just increase the numbers of useless mouths. The numbers problem is only relevant because of political correctness and the Democratic system itself. If the USA were a right wing monarchy free from political correctness superior numbers wouldn't save them.

[longtermmemmory]

Why should me come: Non religious based relationship seminars include: "If women ran the world there would be no wars." "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." (wrong birthing would become the next macho contest.) "Men are threatened by a woman who <>"

[bcoffey]

ummm... you lost me.

[MEGoody]

I don't know about patriarchies or matriarchies. I just know that both parents are essential for kids to flourish.

[SauronOfMordor]

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?

Men are not used to fighting women. When a woman screams and demands to have her way, most guys tend to let her, in order to keep the peace. This worked when men and women were mostly on better terms with each other.

What changed? One contributing factor is more women attending college classes taught by radical Marxists, and buying into the "We is oppressed" mentality.

[SauronOfMordor]

With our two income households, we are really not so different than we used to be, except that now we neglect our children far more.

We had a simple solution. Rather than deciding on a mandated standard of living, and deciding that the only way to do it is to have two incomes, we decided she would stay home with the kids and our standard of living would be determined by what I made as the sole income.

Driving a 10-year-old Nissan instead of a new Lexus is not a big sacrifice for me.

[hocndoc]

You're attending the wrong seminars.
Or allowing someone else to define "non religious based relationship seminars."

[waterstraat]

...but most guys don't want to be with a woman who's smarter and richer than they are. You can say that again. Try playing Trivial Pursuit with a guy who isn't a bookworm. It's very painful for them. They don't want a woman who's better at their profession, either (which is why I'm looking outside of mine). They also don't want someone who's interests don't fit into a neat little box. When a guy I knew called my interests hi-felutant (sp), not that I was really interested, I wrote him off.

Seriously, You DEFINITELY are really looking in all the wrong places.

The men I meet, think it is grand that I have such varied interests, intellect, that I am successful, I know how to invest, Im involved in conservative politics, that I can handle guns, and can hunt and fish, etc. it turns them on. Most of the men I meet, not only would want a successful woman, but love women whos interests do NOT!!! "fit into a neat little box. "

The only men I know who "don't want a woman who's better at their profession" are the incompetent ones, the ones who are good at their professions, really admire a woman who is also good. So who cares about the insecure and incompetent workers?

The best calf-puller in Loop county Nebraska is a very feminine woman(when she is not calf-pulling), and she is so popular, with the men, because of her skills. I also know some very talented computer professional women, who attract good men like honey. It is such a treat for good men to find women who are competent and knowedgable at many things.

Sounds like maybe you are meeting men/losers in bars? or what? You need to find some intelligent and secure men.

[Desdemona]

Sounds like maybe you are meeting men/losers in bars? or what? You need to find some intelligent and secure men.

No, computer geek I met work. We had a couple things in common - we're both of the same faith and both baseball fans.

I don't go to bars often. I did get hit on a number of times the last time I went, but...no. Just...no.

I live in St. Louis. (A city that's somewhat been forgotten. And neglected.) I'm a lyric soprano - classically trained (and I sing a lot) - and I like high art. That was the big thing. Around here it's not just men, but a lot of women, too. I mean the grief I get because I won't cut my hair short and actually can name opera singers other than the three tenors....

I'd rather go to the opera or the symphony (although, now that I'm in the chorus...) than go line dancing. It's just not my thing. I belong to the cultural institutions here, which are really world class. I like to go to museums. Jane Austen is my favorite author.

But I still am a baseball and hockey fan. There's nothing like a good hockey fight. I listen to rock in the car (to keep myself from burning out) and jazz when I get the chance. I'd like to travel more often than I can. I don't like beer, but a nice dry white....mmmm.

Sometimes guys just don't understand....

[waterstraat]

Could this have all started when women were given (and took) the right to vote?

Pardon me, but if you know anything about history, that is such a stupid thing to say.

The fact is, that the time period when "men-only" had the right to vote was extremely short in all of human history. There was not even one lifetime, 1789-1859, that "some" men and no women could vote. There was never any long period of time in America when men could vote and women could not.

The system of only men voting was only from 1789 to the 1850's, when the first states gave women the right to vote. Furthermore, in 1789, and into the early 1800's, only a few men, white property owners, etc, had the right to vote, but not most men. By the time when most men did have the right to vote, in the middle 1800's, quite a few states, were already started granting the vote to women, Kansas, Utah, Wyoming, etc.

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

SoM, thanks for posting this essay. One of the more insightful, thought-provoking articles we've had here in a long time. The thread has me thinking a million different directions at once, so I'll post blurbs when I can.

The firefighter-awareness that swept the nation after 911 was, in all it's grim earnestness, a darkly comic display of the media's realization that, "hey, there are some men under these rocks over here. Have they been here the whole time?" Manly men who like to hang with other men, shooting the breeze, until it's time to put on some heavy protective clothing, ride on a loud fast vehicle to a dangerous situation. Who carry people out of fires and smash down doors with heavy axes. (not necessarily in that order) It was a national swoonfest, "funny" for the fact that it stopped short of stating the glaringly obvious: That this is generally what men are like by nature. The guys who do these jobs now are the exception, rather than the rule, in cities, because cities run more smoothly when everybody goes along to get along. Not exactly the ideal environment for Joe Average Male.

As our society has evolved from agrarian -> industrial -> information-based, the traditional heavy-lifting roles are disappearing rapidly. We are becoming increasingly urbanized, in which environment the traditional gender roles are made almost irrelevant. This environment is the perfect breeding ground for radical feminism, because in this latest paradigm, men really don't matter so much. Men and women can both stand at a cash register, both operate a computer, and both be bureaucrats. In cities the typical male characteristics of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility for family and property are sublimated by reliance on police, pool cleaners, jobs to pay for it all. The qualities that most distinctly define human males as a group are made redundant or irrelevant. Women are freed from their tradional roles of kid-bearer and raiser, housekeeper. They can willfully abandon that natural fit, while men are made to sit in an ill-fitting "Woman" costume and told to be quiet about the discomfort.

[waterstraat]

I'm a lyric soprano - classically trained (and I sing a lot) - and I like high art. That was the big thing. Around here it's not just men, but a lot of women, too. I mean the grief I get because I won't cut my hair short and actually can name opera singers other than the three tenors.... I'd rather go to the opera or the symphony (although, now that I'm in the chorus...) than go line dancing. It's just not my thing. I belong to the cultural institutions here, which are really world class. I like to go to museums. Jane Austen is my favorite author. But I still am a baseball and hockey fan. There's nothing like a good hockey fight. I listen to rock in the car (to keep myself from burning out) and jazz when I get the chance. I'd like to travel more often than I can. I don't like beer, but a nice dry white....mmmm.

Hmmm, I never thought Missouri was much into hockey, none of my relatives there like it. Go to Canada if you want to find men that like hockey.

Well, anyways, you sound great, and a fine catch for a thinking man who is himself secure( although I dont know how you appearance is).

For one thing, do not cut your hair short, it is your crown of glory, and most men I know love women with long hair. It will also keep you looking young, since so few women over 45 have long hair, and almost none over 50.

Too bad about line dancing, because most men do not like to dance, and only dance to pick up women, to the dismay of many a housewife. On the other hand, Country men, those who go to country bars, will dance until their teeth fall out and one foot is in the grave. If you can learn to like country, you will be able to dance your life away.

The trick is, to find an intellectual and cultured man, who likes country, as well as symphonies. There are some, and when you do find him, he will like you.

It is much harder to find men who like opera unless they know the language, and thus can understand it. Almost no man likes opera if he cant understand what they are singing, but then again, you dont have to share "all" your interests.

[waterstraat]

I was also going to say that at shooting ranges, you are much more likely to find old-style gentlemen, in my experience

I can vouch for that! ..and the men love the women that go there.

[waterstraat]

Yes...and HE asked me for coffee. When I arrived, I was on time. He had already bought coffee for himself...so I stood in line and bought my own and he didn't offer. Believe me, I have a whole list of stories like this.

My , My, what on earth were you thinking?

Why would YOU?? stand in line for coffee? I would never have done that, never would have went in line, nor would I have bought my own coffee. Why did you not just sit down and tell him outright that you were thristy( if he did not offer to go get you some right away)? Why didnt you just come out and ask him if he was going to buy you coffee or not?

Clearly, you were not posturing, or presenting, yourself as a lady, who demands to be treated as one. YOu must present yourself as one who is to be catered to, to be waited on.

If he will not get you a coffee on your first date, just how do you think he will treat you after 10 years of marraige? You have to get started on the right foot, from the getgo, with each man you meet.

Also, even if you are carrying your own handgun, you should still have expected an escort to your car.

This guy was a total loser, and you did nothing to help him learn how to correctly treat women. Good riddance to that guy, but you must learn how to make men treat you the way you want.

[bcoffey]

"You must present yourself as one who is to be catered to, to be waited on. "

I must strongly disagree.

Anytime a person misrepresents his or her true self they are sowing the seeds of trouble down the road. Contrary to your statement "you must learn how to make men treat you the way you want" you cannot make someone to be anything.

True change comes from deep within, not from being imposed from without.