Matriarchy
Matriarchy is a social system in which positions of dominance and authority are primarily held by women. In a broader sense it can also extend to moral authority, social privilege, and control of property. While those definitions apply in general English, definitions specific to anthropology and feminism differ in some respects. Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal.[1][2]
"Matriarch" redirects here. For other uses, see Matriarch (disambiguation).Matriarchies may also be confused with matrilineal, matrilocal, and matrifocal societies.[3] While some may consider any non-patriarchal system to be matriarchal, most academics exclude those systems from matriarchies as strictly defined.
While matriarchy has mostly fallen out of use for the anthropological description of existing societies, it remains current as a concept in feminism.[145][146]
In first-wave feminist discourse, either Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Margaret Fuller (it is unclear who was first) introduced the concept of matriarchy[147] and the discourse was joined in by Matilda Joslyn Gage.[148] Victoria Woodhull, in 1871, called for men to open the U.S. government to women or a new constitution and government would be formed in a year;[149] and, on a basis of equality, she ran to be elected president in 1872.[150][151] Charlotte Perkins Gilman, in 1911 and 1914,[152] argued for "a woman-centered, or better mother-centered, world"[153] and described "government by women".[154] She argued that a government led by either sex must be assisted by the other,[155] both genders being "useful ... and should in our governments be alike used",[156] because men and women have different qualities.[157]
Cultural feminism includes "matriarchal worship", according to Prof. James Penner.[158]
In feminist literature, matriarchy and patriarchy are not conceived as simple mirrors of each other.[159] While matriarchy sometimes means "the political rule of women",[160] that meaning is often rejected, on the ground that matriarchy is not a mirroring of patriarchy.[161] Patriarchy is held to be about power over others while matriarchy is held to be about power from within,[159] Starhawk having written on that distinction[159][162] and Adler having argued that matriarchal power is not possessive and not controlling, but is harmonious with nature, arguing that women are uniquely capable of using power without exploitative purposes.[m]
For radical feminists, the importance of matriarchy is that "veneration for the female principle ... somewhat lightens an oppressive system."[164]
Feminist utopias are a form of advocacy. According to Tineke Willemsen, "a feminist utopia would ... be the description of a place where at least women would like to live."[165] Willemsen continues, among "type[s] of feminist utopias[,] ... [one] stem[s] from feminists who emphasize the differences between women and men. They tend to formulate their ideal world in terms of a society where women's positions are better than men's. There are various forms of matriarchy, or even a utopia that resembles the Greek myth of the Amazons.... [V]ery few modern utopias have been developed in which women are absolute autocrats."[166]
A minority of feminists, generally radical,[145][146] have argued that women should govern societies of women and men. In all of these advocacies, the governing women are not limited to mothers:
Some such advocacies are informed by work on the matriarchies of the past:
Some fiction caricatured the current gender hierarchy by describing an inverted matriarchal alternative without necessarily advocating for it. According to Karin Schönpflug, "Gerd Brantenberg's Egalia's Daughters is a caricature of powered gender relations which have been completely reversed, with the female sex on the top and the male sex a degraded, oppressed group";[216] "gender inequality is expressed through power inversion"[217] and "all gender roles are reversed and women rule over a class of intimidated, effeminate men" compelled into that submissive gender role.[218] "Egalia is not a typical example of gender inequality in the sense that a vision of a desirable matriarchy is created; Egalia is more a caricature of male hegemony by twisting gender hierarchy but not really offering a 'better world.'"[218][219]
On egalitarian matriarchy,[220] Heide Göttner-Abendroth's International Academy for Modern Matriarchal Studies and Matriarchal Spirituality (HAGIA) organized conferences in Luxembourg in 2003[221] and Texas in 2005,[222][223] with papers published.[224] Göttner-Abendroth argued that "matriarchies are all egalitarian at least in terms of gender—they have no gender hierarchy .... [, that, f]or many matriarchal societies, the social order is completely egalitarian at both local and regional levels",[225] that, "for our own path toward new egalitarian societies, we can gain ... insight from ... ["tested"] matriarchal patterns",[226] and that "matriarchies are not abstract utopias, constructed according to philosophical concepts that could never be implemented."[227]
According to Eller, "a deep distrust of men's ability to adhere to"[228] future matriarchal requirements may invoke a need "to retain at least some degree of female hegemony to insure against a return to patriarchal control",[228] "feminists ... [having] the understanding that female dominance is better for society—and better for men—than the present world order",[229] as is equalitarianism. On the other hand, Eller continued, if men can be trusted to accept equality, probably most feminists seeking future matriarchy would accept an equalitarian model.[229]
"Demographic[ally]",[230] "feminist matriarchalists run the gamut"[230] but primarily are "in white, well-educated, middle-class circles";[230] many of the adherents are "religiously inclined"[230] while others are "quite secular".[230]
Biology as a ground for holding either males or females superior over the other has been criticized as invalid, such as by Andrea Dworkin[231] and by Robin Morgan.[232] A claim that women have unique characteristics that prevent women's assimilation with men has been apparently rejected by Ti-Grace Atkinson.[233] On the other hand, not all advocates based their arguments on biology or essentialism.
A criticism by Mansfield of choosing who governs according to gender or sex is that the best qualified people should be chosen, regardless of gender or sex.[234] On the other hand, Mansfield considered merit insufficient for office, because a legal right granted by a sovereign (e.g., a king), was more important than merit.[235]
Diversity within a proposed community can, according to Becki L. Ross, make it especially challenging to complete forming the community.[236] However, some advocacy includes diversity, in the views of Dworkin[167] and Farley.[237]
Prof. Christine Stansell, a feminist, wrote that, for feminists to achieve state power, women must democratically cooperate with men. "Women must take their place with a new generation of brothers in a struggle for the world's fortunes. Herland, whether of virtuous matrons or daring sisters, is not an option... [T]he well-being and liberty of women cannot be separated from democracy's survival."[238] (Herland was feminist utopian fiction by Charlotte Perkins Gilman in 1911, featuring a community entirely of women except for three men who seek it out,[239] strong women in a matriarchal utopia[240] expected to last for generations,[241] demonstrated a marked era of peace and personal satisfaction, although Charlotte Perkins Gilman was herself a feminist advocate of society being gender-integrated and of women's freedom.)[242]
Other criticisms of matriarchy are that it could result in reverse sexism or discrimination against men, that it is opposed by most people including most feminists, or that many women do not want leadership positions.[r] governing takes women away from family responsibilities, women are too likely to be unable to serve politically because of menstruation and pregnancy,[248] public affairs are too sordid for women[249] and would cost women their respect[250] and femininity (apparently including fertility),[251] superiority is not traditional,[252][s] women lack the political capacity and authority men have,[t] it is impractical because of a shortage of women with the ability to govern at that level of difficulty[250] as well as the desire and ability to wage war,[u][v][w] women are less aggressive, or less often so, than are men[259] and politics is aggressive,[260] women legislating would not serve men's interests[250][261][262] or would serve only petty interests,[250] it is contradicted by current science on genderal differences,[263] it is unnatural,[264][265][x][266] and, in the views of a playwright and a novelist, "women cannot govern on their own."[267] On the other hand, another view is that "women have 'empire' over men"[268] because of nature and "men ... are actually obeying" women.[268]
Pursuing a future matriarchy would tend to risk sacrificing feminists' position in present social arrangements, and many feminists are not willing to take that chance, according to Eller.[228] "Political feminists tend to regard discussions of what utopia would look like as a good way of setting themselves up for disappointment", according to Eller,[269] and argue that immediate political issues must get the highest priority.[269]
"Matriarchists", as typified by male-conceived comic book character Wonder Woman, were criticized by Kathie Sarachild, Carol Hanisch, and some others.[270]
In religious thought[edit]
Exclusionary[edit]
Some theologies and theocracies limit or forbid women from being in civil government or public leadership or forbid them from voting,[271] effectively criticizing and forbidding matriarchy. Within none of the following religions is the respective view necessarily universally held: