19

3 comments

Interesting article but I still feel like it's very patriarchy-centric.

Particularly lines like this:

Essentially, women were playing along with the gender bias against themselves.

...When the women were clearly being forced to participate. Why victim-blame like that?

I'm also pretty skeptical of the whole "matriarchy equals non-monogamy" thing. The "poly" agenda is so strong, with liberals generally treating it like the literal solution for world peace.
There is plenty of precedent for monogamous matriarchies, such as the Khasi of north-eastern India. I've seen it stated that because matriarchies tend to allow easy divorce and don't disallow people from remarrying after the death of a spouse, that they're "technically not monogamous." Excuse me? Basically no one is monogamous under those criteria, aside from certain bird species!

As matriarchy continues to grow in popularity, I think it becomes more and more important to separate the facts about actual real matriarchal societies from our assumptions and projections. Matriarchies are not like the Futurama episode, where 9' tall "barbarian" women club men over the head and force them to do things, but neither are they free-love communist utopias.

But you know, as matriarchy continues to rise, of course men are going to try to grab the reigns and steer it in a direction which serves them. Which makes it even more important for us women to stand strong in what we want our world to look like, and let the matriarchal societies speak for themselves while keeping in mind that a British matriarchy will not look exactly like the Mosuo, a US matriarchy will not look like exactly like the Khasi, a Korean matriarchy will not look exactly like the Minangkabau, etc. etc. In other words there is room for all of us to do matriarchy the way we feel comfortable, while sticking to the basic principals (matrilineality and matrilocality.)

Standing ovation for this post! Some women argue that the reason patriarchy exists is because women participate in their own oppression. I can see it, I guess...but it's very murky waters and that line of thinking usually devolves into woman-hating, which is ironic! And I don't get the obsession for poly now either. The fact these people want to argue for many partners suggests they haven't thought it through. Most poly relationships end badly and I just see it as a breeding ground for STDs. And who will benefit? Women usually don't benefit unless they are in a lesbian relationship...throwing men in there is going to increase the risk! Same with this "free love" sh*t...laypeople see that and are like "Oh well, women got sex too!" but apparently at the time it was men basically having a free harem. No thanks!!

There's lots of interesting information in there (I was thinking it sounded like it had been written by an anthropologist, and sure enough, it was), but it would have been nice to discuss cultural diversity among hunter-gatherers, too. They aren't/weren't all like the San. Some had slavery and/or bride capture and/or bride sale. I think it depended a lot on the economic substrate. But that opens up the possibility that it isn't as economic as some people want it to be (though of course economics are a major factor).