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.

[GirlNextDoor]

Seems like a balance to me, with maybe the women getting the better of the deal.

Dang it! If you'd just left off that last sentence. ;-)
Proves how easily we are side-tracked. *L*

It was, as established, the best system for the man, the woman, etc. If we are agreed on this, then why should either of us tag on an opinion relative to our own view of our own side the balance?

It was a balance that was to allow the man to obtain all the benefits that could enable him the best, the most complete being. It was meant to do the same for the woman, the child, right on down the line.

It was a "better deal" for ALL. It enriched ALL.
The woman benefited from the man and his role, the man benefited from the woman and her role. UNTIL the distortions became the norm.
Today, the man is no longer given the sole responsibilities you mention above. Is he better off for having them removed? Has he somehow, now that his role is more femanized, got a better deal? Is/has the woman? The child? Society?

Man, this site is waaay sloooow. Took up all my time just to make two posts! :-)

[sonserae]

This is a great concept. Wish it was true today. When you go on dates and the man leaves you to walk 6 blocks to your car at night while they pass you in their car, when they don't show any side of being protective of your safety or welfare, it's hard to want to go out with someone a second time. If men actually stepped up to the plate and acted like they cared for and wanted to protect the woman, you would have a lot more women trusting them to make decisions...but because the women get the clear indication that they aren't interested in their well-being, the woman has to take that role just to ensure her own protection and security. I've seen this over and over again.

[sonserae]

This is a great concept. Wish it was true today. When you go on dates and the man leaves you to walk 6 blocks to your car at night while they pass you in their car, when they don't show any side of being protective of your safety or welfare, it's hard to want to go out with someone a second time. If men actually stepped up to the plate and acted like they cared for and wanted to protect the woman, you would have a lot more women trusting them to make decisions...but because the women get the clear indication that they aren't interested in their well-being, the woman has to take that role just to ensure her own protection and security. I've seen this over and over again.

[SauronOfMordor]

Man, this site is waaay sloooow. Took up all my time just to make two posts! :-)

Try beta.freerepublic.com. It's way faster

[SauronOfMordor]

. When you go on dates and the man leaves you to walk 6 blocks to your car at night while they pass you in their car, when they don't show any side of being protective of your safety or welfare, it's hard to want to go out with someone a second time. If men actually stepped up to the plate and acted like they cared for and wanted to protect the woman, you would have a lot more women trusting them to make decisions...

It feeds on itself. The underlying culture is broken.

You actually had guys say bye to you at the end of the date, and not offer to walk you to your car? (Then again, a female friend of a business associate, if she's decided the date is not right for her, tends to just excuse herself to go to the ladies room, then bail out the door)

[weikel]

Im a deist rationalist but I agree nature, god, biology, evolution whatever you want to call it decreed the system thus feminism stands in rebellion against reality.

[sonserae]

This happens a lot. You can't think about even dating someone twice because the basic human considerations are missing from many men in the Los Angeles area. If I was with a girl friend or a guy friend, I would give them a ride to their car...but I have countless stories of men not having manners or human considerations at all..

Yes, on this occasion, the man asked me to coffee...when I arrived there, I had to buy my own coffee. We talked until about 11 pm. I asked if he parked close and he said, "Yeah, I got lucky. I parked right outside the door." I said, "Oh, I parked 6 blocks away." He said, "Well, see ya later"...and he drove off and I walked to my car in Los Angeles in the dark at 11 pm. Everytime this happens I think, "Well, the guy doesn't like me so he's trying to turn me off by doing something rude."...but everytime they call back and ask me out again. When a woman constantly comes across men like this, it's no wonder they have had to be the one to protect themselves and step up to the plate. Women would love to trust the man making the decision if they knew that they had the woman's best interest in mind...but we are constantly reminded that they are lately only interested in their needs. It's sad and don't know what to do about it.

[weikel]

I'd walk you to the car your pretty( one piece of advice though lose the golf as a hobby there is something very unfeminine about playing golf).

[sonserae]

Everytime I go on the golf course I get asked out...so I think I'm quite feminine. I think most guys that play golf would love for their love interests to enjoy it too...

[msru]

when I arrived there, I had to buy my own coffee.

You actually had to buy your own coffee? Is that true?

[Mark17]

American women of my acquaintance offer several explanations, all of them wrong. For example, they say that Asian women are sexually easy.

I would venture to guess they have not been around Asia much, because, for the most part, that is BS.

[SauronOfMordor]

Everytime I go on the golf course I get asked out...

get a membership at your local shooting range -- you'll find yourself surrounded with guys there too

[BuddhaBoy]

You can't think about even dating someone twice because the basic human considerations are missing from many men in the Los Angeles area.

That is because basic human consideration among men has been replaced with basic human survival instincts. Too many women have become offended at men who open doors, and act protective towards a woman, that today many men would not risk offending the little princess.

When in doubt, men usually do nothing. I think you have women(with chips) to blame for this. Men LOVE women, and would default to treating them well, if not for the risks involved in treating a woman like a woman, instead of as an equal.

[SauronOfMordor]

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

[sonserae]

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. Men want to be the man...and we women will let them...but they have to earn our trust first. This kind of behavior makes the woman not want to trust a man making decisions. A woman wants to feel safe with a man. When she feels safe, it's easy for her to let the guy take the lead...but THIS IS NOT WHAT IS HAPPENING OUT THERE.

[sonserae]

In my experience, the women who were offended at a man being a "gentleman" aren't real women at all...they are lesbians. The real women love it...so guys...if you want a real woman, keep opening the doors...if the woman gets offended...she's a lesbo.

[BuddhaBoy]

No, thats too far.

There are millions of heterosexual women who bought into the idea from feminism that suggests that women should act like men, if they wanted to be taken seriously.

I dont know of anything a man could take MORE seriously than a feminine sexy women.

However, their feminist teachers were not feminine, nor were they sexy, so they had no hope of gaining a man's attention. So, everyting that draws a man to a woman was de-emphasized in favor of their idea of "equality".

Men and women are not equal, with neither superior, and if a woman gives me the attitude of a feminist, she can open her own doors and buy her own coffee, if I was stupid enough to want to spend time with her anyway.

If a woman acts like a woman, and acts like she LIKES being a woman, she wont have to worry about buying coffee, because men will line up to buy her coffee FARMS.

[sonserae]

You obviously don't live in L.A. The guys here want their coffee bought for them...

[Mark17]

I believe the patriarchal system was established by God, the ultimate patriarch.

Amen sister. The Apostle Paul said husbands, love your wives, and wives respect your husbands. Does this mena the man or woman should lord it over their partner? Absolutely not, but I think there is precious little love and respect these days. It just goes to show you, that when people get off the path that God set up, they ultimately screw it up, and with some exceptions, this is what we see in today's society. This is sooooo slow, I am outta here till it works better.

[Illbay]

I love women.

Is there a club for that?