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.

[expatpat]

Interesting.

[RobRoy]

Very good! I went to a seminar on "the role of the man in the family" about 12 years ago that talked of this issue. One of the interesting examples/questions he used was: Gentlemen, if your wife is driving down the road and the oil light comes on and she keeps driving, who's responsibility is it when the engine feezes up? Answer: It's your responsibility. Is that a good deal for the woman? You bet. Is it a good deal for you? It just is. But since you're responsible, maybe you will always make sure there is oil in the car so the problem won't occur.

When men understand and TAKE their responsibility which, btw, also implies AUTHORITY, they are empowered to control their own destiny and the destiny of their family. REAL women want exactly that in a man.

[SauronOfMordor]

ping

[weikel]

Bump

[Illbay]

Are unbridled Vanity posts a scheme by Yahoo! to assimilate Free Republic?

[Savage Beast]

Your observations are valid, Sauron.

Furthermore, in contemporary society, men show all the signs of an oppressed minority: lower life expectancy; higher proclivity of almost all diseases; higher alcoholism, suicide, imprisonment, depression, heart attack, hypertension. It is men who die on the battlefields, who are last in the lifeboats, and who stand as the ladies sit.

It can be argued that the toll that stress takes on men, e.g. the heart attacks and early death rates in the corporate world, is the result of the exploitation of the male minority by the female majority.

However, as the father of a daughter and a son, and as someone who loves people, whether they be men or women, I definitely favor a healthy balance. I'm sure you do too.

The best way for this to happen is for government to prevent discrimination on the basis of sex and for society to encourage everyone to pursue happiness in his or her own way.

I think there has been a balance throughout most of the world's history. E.g., when women were not allowed to own property, it was men who died on the battlefields.

I am not disagreeing with what you have said. I'm just making a few observations.

[Centurion2000]

bump .. interesting point and probably correct.

Women flourish where they are treated as people to be put on pedastals.

[Jim Noble]

>>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?<<

Both are true (your propositions are not mutually exclusive), although I would dispute the term "oppress".

Patriarchy is a mutually beneficial arrangement among men, women, and children which allows civilization to exist and which protects and provides for children.

It requires from all of the participants a certain surrender of self-actualization. This surrender is incorrectly described as "oppression", since the benefits derived over time are greater than that which is given up.

Also, the refusal of consent (in our time, principally by women) can destroy the arrangement, which is also not a feature of oppression as I understand it.

It may or may not be possible to restore patriarchal social relations in our time. The massive amount of angst and unhappiness about socio-sexual relations that is so visible in mass media and on the dating circuit suggests it may be possible, but who knows?

[nygoose]

...and who stand as the ladies sit.

And many times get to listen to a woman's silence after holding a door for her.

[Z in Oregon]

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.

Very well said.

You might've subtitled this: "From Patriarchy To Matriarchy: The Decline And Fall Of Western Civilization."

[Z in Oregon]

Why was that done?

[BuddhaBoy]

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.

Today, marriage and children are close to a death sentence for a man, and I dont understand why men still willingly walk down the aisle with these pampered, pre-plump princesses.

Men should be holding out for a better deal.

[SauronOfMordor]

Both are true (your propositions are not mutually exclusive), although I would dispute the term "oppress".

The term "oppress" generally means to impose burdens without compensating benefits. My job does not oppress me: I have to spend lots of time at it, but I get paid. If I was forced to work at it without payment, then it would be oppression. My point is: did patriarchy generated benefits to women that exceeded the costs to women? I think it did.

[Free the USA]

fyi

[weikel]

It was a great post I was unaware Jim died and left the site to you.

[Lurking2Long]

Having another "illday", Illbay?

[RobRoy]

I am now in the classic patriarchal model family and neither myself or Robroys Woman would have it any other way.

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

[weikel]

Ill marry if I can get a very rich girl to agree( or when Im 50 want a son am rich myself and can get a prenup worth the paper its written on) otherwise you get screwed due to the "no fault" divorce laws of today.

[weikel]

Its the most natural system. Feminism is not only a hate movement against men but a rebellion against reality.