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.

[Desdemona]

If a woman was raped at knifepoint and called the police, what would you say if the cop told her: "You're just being selfish. You should have just cooperated" ?

Rape is a completely different category of crime.

What you're seeing is that men are looking at the deal, and in increasing numbers deciding that what they're getting out of it is not worth what they need to put into it, plus assuming the risk of getting thoroughly screwed at the end.

What I see is men making bad decisions, having no judgement, etc., when it comes to women and other men looking in the wrong part of the forest for the right tree. Whole species are being painted with a single brush which is a very bad thing.

[Desdemona]

You are really going to suggest that there are women who would consider marriage to a man without an income?

Do you want names? I have a cousin, now married to his grade school sweetheart, who refused to marry her because he didn't have a job at the time which caused a break-up. That lasted all of four weeks. He wouldn't marry her until he could support her. A year later, he had a job and they got married.

I dare any woman to tell her fiancee prior to marriage that sex will be an iffy commodity, and see if he doesnt run for the hills. There isnt anything more to it than that for men until or unless children come into the picture.

Excuse me?

[Woahhs]

I think you got me confused with the person I was responding to.

[right2parent]

Maybe it's just me, but I doubt a complete return to patriarchy, at least as hard as is being discussed, will solve any problems. When people start behaving less selfishly and actually sacrifice, on both sides, the problem might well diminish somewhat. Of course, a return to religion wouldn't hurt.

What you're advocating is a return to religion, sort of. A "kind of" faith, and a belief in "some" of the Lords patriarchal laws. What kind of religion did you have in mind? What I'm advocating is a complete return to lawful government. Show me the authority to take custody from a father without fault, and I'll show you an abuse of process.

[Desdemona]

What you're advocating is a return to religion, sort of. A "kind of" faith, and a belief in "some" of the Lords patriarchal laws. What kind of religion did you have in mind?

I'm a member of a mainline church. One that's very much maligned, in fact. Oddly enough, one of the strongest marriages I know is one where the wife is the breadwinner and they don't have any religion at all. I think it really boils down to the individuals.

What I'm advocating is a complete return to lawful government.

I don't have a problem with that.

Show me the authority to take custody from a father without fault, and I'll show you an abuse of process.

I don't have a problem with this either. Why would you think I would?

[BuddhaBoy]

I think we are arguing apples and oranges here.

[Desdemona]

I think we are arguing apples and oranges here.

Care to elaborate?

[Z in Oregon]

The system is biased towards women<<

When the children are young, the system is biased towards the primary caregiver. If the father was the primary caregiver, then he's likely to have primary physical custody. You and I both know that typically the mother is the primary caregiver, so that's why typically she winds up with the kids. The courts don't want to fix something unless it's broken.

There are flaws with that descrption.

First, many cases are not stay-at-home-mother and workaholic father. Many cases are two-career couples who both want the kids; in such cases, if one has over 50% of marital parenting time, they are decreed "primary caregiver".

Second, it's not like courts typically decree a primary-secondary caregiver custody award where each parent's post-divorce parenting time is reflective of the parenting time they had within the marriage.

Instead, it is an all-or-nothing endgame, in which one parent gets to continue being a parent, and the other is reduced to Visitor status. Many "standard visitation" schedules are one evening...every other week...and one Saturday...every other week. Your having handled more balanced arrangements does not lower the prevalence of "standard visitation" situations.

And such situations occur even when the fathers spent a whole lot of time...even if less than half...parenting their children within the marriage.

Of course, a lot of women write this off by subhumanizing men, saying well, "standard visitation" is probably all they want.

Were that the case, there would be no father's rights movement.

There is, and it is the core of America's next civil war of politics.

[Z in Oregon]

You're an embarrassment to all men. You're one of the poster boys for those who wish to claim that all men are hounds.

[Z in Oregon]

Whole species are being painted with a single brush which is a very bad thing.

"Species" meaning...????

I would say that the objection of most men is to a system that is proactively and systemically biased against men.

It also seems that some women jump on that legit objection and take it personally.

Does a Black person's "venom" towards slavery indicate a hatred of Whites?

[Z in Oregon]

...daycare providers and cleaning ladies can do the job as well...

What "job"?

Sitting around eating bon-bons and watching soap operas???

[ValerieUSA]

Never have I known a woman who does that. What an insulting caricature.
My divorced, then widowed, Grandma watched soap operas and baseball throughout her 60s and 70s - but before that she raised her own four children and then my uncle's four children after his wife abandoned the family when the kids were little. People depended on her and she was there for them, but she never had a "career". She depended on the grown children she raised to provide a home for her when she was elderly - and they happily kept her in their homes as a beloved member of the family, and she provided all of us with wonderful meals, crocheted afghans, great stories, and favors that made each of us feel special - including her sons-in-law.

[BuddhaBoy]

I'm an embarrasssment to all those feminized men who want women to think that we are NOT hounds.

I tell it like it is, because I dont have to answer to anyone. Most men do, so they keep their mouths shut.

[CobaltBlue]

Hi Z-

I don't pretend to know everything or have all the answers.

All I know is what I have experienced myself.

My own experience is that courts where I practice are not biased against fathers.

Maybe men have a hard time finding a lawyer who really will fight for their rights.

My own dad got custody when my parents got divorced, 25 years ago. I think this was for the best.

My own husband is a very good father, maybe a better parent than I am.

Notice something interesting? I am an admitted feminist. I believe in legal equality between the sexes. And I fight like really, really hard to get men custody when I think they are the better parent.

If I believed that someone else's belief in God, or the Bible, or patriarchy, was a better answer than equality, would I work as hard for men to have custody?

I think not.

My own belief about God is that the essence of God is unknowable. We are the created, not the creator. We are told what is right, and what is wrong, and it is incumbent upon us to do right and avoid wrong.

God never told me that women are inferior, or superior. As far as I can tell, God thinks we are all individuals, with our own faults and abilities, and we should all be treated as individuals.

Sorry everybody else is bogged down on the conformation of their genitalia. What really matters is what is between your ears, inside your heart, and what you have the strength and courage to accomplish.

[CobaltBlue]

>>Sitting around eating bon-bons and watching soap operas???<<

Oh, dear. I see I was mistaken about you. Sorry I wasted my time trying to talk to you.

[CobaltBlue]

>>I just hated to see all the venom and selfishness.<<

Me, too. It's such a long time since I was dating, I wonder if the men on this thread are characteristic of men in general these days.

If so, Heaven help the human race.

[CobaltBlue]

>>What you're seeing is that men are looking at the deal, and in increasing numbers deciding that what they're getting out of it is not worth what they need to put into it, plus assuming the risk of getting thoroughly screwed at the end.<<

The legislatures are primarily male. The courts are primarily male. The executive branches of government are primarily male. The government agencies are primarily male. Big business is primarily male.

It's not as if women have ever been able to force any of them to do what women want.

To argue otherwise is to argue a lie.

The status quo doesn't benefit women. If it doesn't benefit men, either, who is to blame?

Take a look around you. Who is running things? Not women.