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.

[DBtoo]

Re: post #104

You sound scary. You aren't related to Ted Bundy, are you?

[longtermmemmory]

well said. I had the enlightening experience on friday of listening to three women act in stunned amazement the a collegue of theirs was proposed to.

In between the what does she have that I don't have, it was a gab fest of male bashing. (they are all relativly equal in employment and all are physically not unpleasant. No supermodels but all do spend time to look proper.) They assumed they were smart because they were well employed. They assumed something must be wrong with the guy who asked their absent friend. In invariable also lead to the comment of "I don't need a man to be happy" and "If I am unmaried at 36 I get a baby from a spermbank."

My thoughts for these special beauties:

You don't need a man: Who goes where they are not needed.
Given their attitude: Who goes where they are not wanted.

These "prize" ladies were not intersted in a marriage to be with someone, the wanted marriage like a new pair of prada shoes or a Cartier Necklace.

[BuddhaBoy]

Please elaborate. Scary can mean a lot of things. Boo!

[Desdemona]

These "prize" ladies were not intersted in a marriage to be with someone, the wanted marriage like a new pair of prada shoes or a Cartier Necklace.

Sad as it is, I've seen this in men, too. Although, in straight men, it's usually related to cars. And just exactly what is the appeal of Prada? I've never understood that. Besides, when travelling, you can get the knock-offs really cheap from illegal immigrants hawking them on the streets. And Cartier? Really beautiful stuff, but unless it's really unique, you can find it cheaper somewhere else. Besides, if you do it right, all you need is a short strand of pearls and maybe one or two others. (being a silver person, liquid silver and Navajo pearls do for me). They go with everything.

I assume these are the type who don't know how to cook (unless it's pre-made or in a crock-pot), don't keep a garden, don't have pets, might know how to do laundry...oh, the stories I could tell from college... They drive some of the rest of us insane, too.

P.S. These are the gals who don't like challenge, really. And let's face it, marriage is a challenge. There's no challenge in buying off the rack. What fun is that? Unless of course, it's something you know will never make it to clearence.

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[SauronOfMordor]

The men who supported the feminst soon learned that feminist (non-homsexual) women were easy. Support feminism and it will get you sex. That is real reinforcement.

Through the ages, women keep not realizing that men want sex, and in order to get it, many will say whatever the woman wants to hear.

The fastest way to not getting laid is to open your mouth and tell your girlfriend that her opinions are stupid. Men discover this early in life, if they have any sense, and save their real opinions for when there are no women around.

I think the value of this thread, and the various other threads of the type, is that it allows the male and female members of the forum to say what they really think, without holding back

[SauronOfMordor]

There. Close your eyes and smell the delicious aroma. Have I told you how charming and attractive you are yet? Yes? Doesn't matter, I'll tell you again.

sonserae, I think that by the time this thread runs out of steam, you will have several date requests, and at least one offer of marriage. Just keep in mind what I said in post #206 8-)

Yes, guys, she IS very cute, single, intelligent, and on the West Coast. Send her some freep-mail

[CobaltBlue]

>>Patriarchy literally means “rule by fathers” and is a system where men effectively are in control of property and decision-making.<<

My husband and I make important decisions together because we value each other's insight and wisdom.

Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong. Sometimes I am right, sometimes I am wrong. We discuss things as equals, respectfully.

I don't want to be on a pedestal. I am flesh and blood, I like to work hard, I like to make money and buy nice things for the family. He put me through law school, I put him through graduate school. We take care of each other.

[SauronOfMordor]

Patriarchal societies seem to be the ones where the fathers know their children, help raise them, and spend time with them, educating them etc. Matriarchal societies are there the women are on their own, the children don't know their fathers, the fathers don't much care about them, they tend to stay with women for only a short time --just enough to breed them. It seems obvious patriarchal would be better for everyone.
True.

Actually, I made the term I used "matrilineal" (children know who the mother is, father not really in the picture) rather than "matriarchal" (women rule) for a reason.

Look at matrilineal societies like Somalia or South-Central LA. The women don't rule. Nobody really rules, builds, or establishes anything. You just have competing gangs of men, and the women are effectively owned by whichever man chooses to offer them temporary protection from the other predatory males, or they're on their own.

I've never seen a historical record of a true matriarchal society (as distinct from a patriarchal society that happens to have a woman succeed to the throne every once in a while)

[CobaltBlue]

>>You're experiencing the problem of high-income, well-educated women: you want a man who is at least as capable as you, but you're at the extreme end of the bell curve, and there aren't too many guys at that altitude with you.<<

I think the most sensible thing for a woman who intends to become high-income and well-educated is to marry young to a man who shows good potential of becoming high-income and well-educated, and help each other get there.

The good ones are all picked early. Both sexes.

Every man I dated seriously, starting in high school, wanted to marry me. I thought each of them was potential marriage material but not right for me. They have all gone on to high achievements. Every man I seriouly dated in high school and college has become a professional -- doctors, lawyers, engineers, college professors, business owners.

Wasting time with people like BuddhaBoy means losing out.

Married for 22 years and counting.

[SauronOfMordor]

If women as a group were one day faced with the prospect of forever working to support themselves in COMPETITION with men, as opposed to being able to quit whenever they want to give birth and nurture children, you would see a kind of fear never before seen in America.

The facts of life are that it's really hard to raise kids AND earn a living at the same time. Most women like the idea of having kids, and having to raise them without support is justifiably scarey

An increasing number of men and women voters are realizing that they cannot afford to raise their own families, PLUS pay for single moms on welfare breeding a bigger generation of welfare-types. The first stage of cutback occurred under Clinton's "welfare reform" package. The next stage will occur when it's driven home that Social Security is dead, and the middle class will need to support their own parents, plus raise their own kids, PLUS pay for single welfare moms. Expect something to give, then, and it won't be pretty

[CobaltBlue]

>>It is such a treat for good men to find women who are competent and knowedgable at many things.<<

My dad is like that. My husband is like that. Coincidence?;^)

[SauronOfMordor]

My husband and I make important decisions together because we value each other's insight and wisdom. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong. Sometimes I am right, sometimes I am wrong. We discuss things as equals, respectfully.

I never said that, in a patriarchy, womens viewpoints are not heard or respected. But what happens when you can't come to an agreement? Somebody's opinion must prevail. The alternative is "okay you go your way, and I'll go mine"

In the army, the officer is not necessarily smarter than the people he commands. If he's reasonably smart, he'll ask for opinions and options before making a decision. The theory is that ANY half-way reasonable decision, energeticly followed-through-with, is better than arguing forever.

As I stated earlier, in a successful marriage, a smart final-decision-maker will decide to go with what the other person wants most of the time, in order to maintain good feelings. Having somebody designated as having the final say does not necessarily mean despotism

[x]

George Gilder advanced a similar theory thirty years ago and was roundly condemned by the rising feminist movement for it. I believe his book was titled, "Sexual Suicide."

Three comments.

1) It looks like children, and hence the species, are the real beneficiaries of what you're talking about. In any case, it's not clear who benefits and who loses most. It depends on the values one attaches to the freedom of being alone and the opportunities of a possibly fuller life together.

2) If women were the great beneficiaries of patriarchy, it certainly didn't look that way to 20th century females looking back on 19th century male-dominated society. It's one thing to say that a bargain or deal enhances one's power. It's something else to find that, in the name of that one, supposedly good deal, one's freedom to make other contracts or arrangements has been lost. It must be a bit like hearing from the government that the state has so increased one's "positive" freedom of action that there's no reason to worry about losing one's "negative" freedom from the power of the state.

3) Patriarchy was bound to suffer when women started to demand the same individual and "individualistic" rights that men had demanded and enjoyed. Given the growing influence of the idea of equality in other social questions, one couldn't split the polity forever, granting men the full rights of individuals and sheltering women behind ostensibly protective institutions. Whether the change was a good thing or not -- and whether those institutions were truly protective -- are other questions to be decided.

[GirlNextDoor]

In post # 170 the small -typed comment was in reference to my comments, not the interesting question that had been posed.

Just wanted to clarify that in case it somehow came across differently. :)

[FITZ]

I've never seen a historical record of a true matriarchal society (as distinct from a patriarchal society that happens to have a woman succeed to the throne every once in a while)

I haven't either because I think it's like you imply ---women only have equal power in a patriarchal society, the matrilineal societies, they are impoverished and raising children alone or temporarily with serial boyfriends or the government sends a check.

[arthurus]

Good but he wastes his argument by confusing his terms. Where he used "matrilineal" he should have used "matriarchal". Matrilineal refers to how descent and inheritance are reckoned and a matrilineal culture can be patriarchal. The "arch" suffix refers to authority and rule. A patriarchal family is headed by the father even if inheritance is reckoned through the mother.

[sonserae]

Wow!! Thank you for the kudos! You are the best.

[arthurus]

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

To incompatible goals. The government should not be concerned at all about any sort of noncoercive discrimination except in its own employment and activities where it should base its decisions on merit alone.

[arthurus]

they have not been around Asia much

One reason that many think that Asian women are "easy" is because the women that many men met in Asia- in Viet Nam in wartime conditions- were easy. They were surviving. In any large city prostitutes are easy to find and where the city is overrun with soldiers, the prostitutes concentrate. Prostitutes are "easy"- just takes money. The soldiers came home and all had great tales about the ease and proficiency of the women in Viet Nam or Thailand and that is what the folks back home heard about them. I have heard old men talk about how easy were the German women. Asian women are regarded as "easy" because Viet Nam was the recent war wherein many men fought for extended times. The Gulf War does not count.

And sexual integration of the services is bringing newe ideas into the society about who are the easy women.