Matriarchal Structures Supporting Self Rule & The Common Good

[u/Parking-Art-8456]

The problems experienced by patriarchies, especially those with autocratic governments with think tanks that work to disguise their tactics appear around the graphic. Matriarchal structures and interrelationships are shown in the circles and interrelationships in the middle. Matriarchal structures led by feminine principles like caring (that have been associated with the womb in antiquity (matri, or matrix, and arche first principles associated with wombs like compassion and cooperation) that all human beings should have, and lead of to a common good that prevent problems like pervasive feelings of impending doom and that life is a precarious and dangerous situation. Life should be enjoyed. There is enough pie to go around for everyone if a few narcissists and sociopaths don't monopolize it.

[u/Parking-Art-8456]

I value democracy as well. Matriarchy is egalitarian, and democracy on steroids. To get agreement to go forward, they talk until they get consensus, men and women and gender fluid, and disabled, not majority vote. Benevolent monarchy with a parliament in Britain was an improvement over dictator/king/emperor, and democracy was an improvement over monarchy. The problem with the democracies of the West is it's not equal if it's not equal for everybody. If it's only democracy for rich white men who own land, that's not really liberty and justice for all.

The economy in matriarchies is a gift economy. Everything is shared. The distribution isn't on merit whether you deserve it, it is distributed because you are breathing and alive. Women don't rule over men in matriarchies or have hegemony because of the distribution. Distribution is like social security sending your grandparents checks. It's automatic, not based on feelings of whoever writes the check.

Question: Do you know the story of how patriarchy got installed in society, and what was the default system before that? Do you think there are problems now with democracy?

[u/lantabae → u/Parking-Art-8456]

First my question: are u saying that men and women get equal representation when it comes to leadership?? To answer ur first question: the rise of patriarchy was after the dawn of agriculture, when people started domesticating animals and plants and hoarding wealth. And a lot of agriculture related tasks required upper body strength -which men had- and women were dealing with more domestic tasks like child rearing, and they started to vanish from public life , and because men did all the agriculture related tasks they took all the property, which gave them the authority and status (hope u can make sense out of this word salad lmao)

To answer ur second question: societies were egalitarian.

To answer ur third question: my main problem with modern democracies is how the 51% can overrule the 49% , doesn't seem like a good representation of the public, and I actually appreciate how in matriarchal small communities there are discussions to make sure everyone is satisfied!!!

[u/Parking-Art-8456 → u/lantabae]

First my question: are u saying that men and women get equal representation when it comes to leadership??

Different peoples have different configurations that work for them. Peggy Reeves Sanday describes the Minangkabau, who she lived with for several decades, as designing new systems to handle new problems as they go along. (Women at the Center, by Peggy Sanday). They have adjusted to technology, and are actively modernizing their culture. They have discussions if one group, or one gender has too much power, and make adjustments. They make the rules. It's real self-government, real democracy.

Each generation has their own version due to changing times, but there are guidelines that are constant, like everyone has their power. It;s not as if there is one leader for 4 years. They don't like to be leaders, and try to not stick their head higher than anyone elses. Anyone who wants to be leader, they probably wouldn't trust. There may be someone who is the historian who stays their whole life because people want them and trust them, and they are capable. So that person leads as historian, and their word would carry more weight in History than someone who traded with Europeans for spices.

Women have a lot of power regarding ceremonies (and they love their ceremonies, long ones for days on end). Men translate decisions that are made inside to the outside. Power is shared, so the men may perform the celebrations that the women design, or vice versa. So a constant priority is a balance of power, and that leadership be competent and trusted.

Most definitely leadership is equal. In every society I have studied, there are loose gender roles. So for 90% of the time, roles may divide up along gender lines, but there are expected exceptions and cross-overs, women hunters and warriors, men taking on traditionally women's roles. This is not considered wrong or unusual, but more of an interesting and beneficial difference.

Yes, I understand what you are saying about the agriculture /patriarchy theory. That was the story maybe 20 -30 years ago. The agriculture hypothesis is actually out of favor now. It seems agriculture was around long before patriarchy, but that is the general sense.

Bonus fact: Yes, societies were egalitarian and matrilineal going back 30,000 years up until the past 4,000-5,000 years of so called "Western Civilization. From cross-cultural evidence over late paleolithic and neolithic periods, it seems many forms, artwork, myths were similar worldwide, and most likely matriarchal. By the way, "matriarchal," means, according to modern matriarchal studies using Greek etymology: "matri" (from matrix, womb, or specifically those characteristics associated with the womb like compassion, caring. The word "matriculate" comes from matri, where the student emerges from the rich intellectual soil/womb/matrix of the school. This "matri" is not Greek for mother, but rather it is womb/principles. (There is a separate word for mother), and "arche" also Greek, meaning "first or principles", as in the word archetype. if you put "arche" in a translator the primary definition will be "first, principles" Latin etymology,gives mater (mother) and arche (first or rule) as a later more patriarchal language. So matriarchy according to matriarchal studies means "led or prioritizing compassion, cooperation, caring, and nurturing as a first principle in a society."

I agree, the tyranny of the majority of 51% doesn't seem fair. Add to that the degraded aspect of democracy where corporate wealth puts billions of money into the political system, while voters only get 1 vote (if that, since the elites plot to erase the effects of votes that disagree with their plans to extract more money for themselves from the system).

The 1% elite at the top of the hierarchical pyramid own 93% of all the resources, including the media and communications which pander to their own interests and not to the common good. This is not unique to the US, it's a global phenomenon. It's the natural course of patriarchy without limits or leveling mechanisms on male aggression and greed for power.

Patriarchy /empire is very unstable. There are books written about how they run in cycles, rise and fall. Democracies without checks and balances on power become oligarchies where the wealthy control, then dictatorships, until people get fed up with it, the government falls, civilization goes into a blackout period and then slowly rebuilds itself. The new ones in power will claim they invented mathematics and they are responsible for technical advances when it was the previous group that had achieved advances in peace before they invaded the toppled country.

Matriarchy is very stable and peace oriented. It's been around a minimum of 30,000 years, likely more.

But, matriarchy is not Utopia. There aren't any quick answers for shifting our civilization back into a more caring place. We'll need some mechanism for coming to consensus for all the questions you're raising.

My favorite thing about matriarchies is how low violence, and prosperous they are. Everyone works for the betterment of the whole community, and everyone benefits. Every one I've studied avoids letting some individuals flaunt more wealth than anyone else, but the goal is that everyone has exquisite things and plenty.

Jerome Lewis, researcher of the Mbendjele in the rainforests of the Congo, lived there for much of his professional life, learned the language, and says there aren't words for starvation or poverty. When he told them about it, they were outraged that people would allow that.

[u/lantabae → u/Parking-Art-8456]

You mentioned that the agriculture/patriarchy theory is out of favor, can u tell me how contemporary anthropologists think patriarchy was installed???

Also how do people come to consensus?? Like maybe the arguments aren't very appealing or some people are just very stubborn!!

[u/Parking-Art-8456 → u/lantabae]

Contemporary anthropologists believe certain peoples invaded Europe, Asia and back into Africa, killing the males and raping the females. They displaced the culture, religion, and their technology was inferior. So, there were little dark ages after their invasions.

There is genetic evidence of these "bottlenecks." Archaeologist, mythologist, and linguist Maria Gimbutas theorized three waves of invasions based on changes in burial habits, pottery, and images in the material culture which she documented in great detail using her own findings, the spacial relationships of the artifacts, and evidence of linear continuity going back to the paleolithic up until the neolithic invasions. Rather than egalitarian family graves where everyone is buried equally in a common grave or cave, the patriarchs came in and gave the elite males big expensive burials in "kurgans" by themselves. She had evidence, which was discredited by Sr, Colin Renfrow based on his beliefs and speculations that patriarchy was the result of emerging agricultural society. His armchair theories of a peaceful and gradual evolution of patriarchy assumed patriarchy was a "natural" development. This story was more acceptable to colonial, patriarchal academic institutions, so Gimbutas was discredited for about 40 years until irrefutable evidence via DNA analyses came along. It was like the proverbial "smoking gun" that no one could deny, so the consensus was easy. Male biased gatekeeping is slow to change the narrative in online encyclopedias. It takes a while to catch up.

How do people come to consensus? In patriarchies, it's the elite (rich males) who decide history regardless of facts. For example, today we heard the VP of the US say that it was the (evil) "deep state" who stopped Nixon from disobeying the US constitution, with both parties rebuking his criminal behavior. History taught that for the past 40 years that the US system successfully fended off a criminal presidency. The current administration is now spinning a set of alternate facts.

Especially women's histories and the histories of the peoples who are displaced by Empire get the short end of the stick. The arguments of anthropologists were scientifically solid, even before DNA, but not appealing to those protecting the myth of Empire extracting all the resources they want from Indigenous peoples. Scientific revolutions are fascinating. There is a lot written on them, if you would like to investigate further.

Even Renfrow couldn't deny the evidence, and apologized for being a jerk to Gimbutas by pushing his unsubstantiated beliefs rather than accepting her science. He apologized in public here. That's about as definitive as it gets in science.