Origins of Patriarchy

[AK]

Where, when and why did sexism and patriarchy originate?

[bcbm]

i don't think any of those questions can be answered conclusively, as patriarchy developed in different societies at different times and, most likely, for different reasons. that said, patriarchy probably developed around the same time as other social stratification in early sedentary societies.

[AK]

i don't think any of those questions can be answered conclusively, as patriarchy developed in different societies at different times and, most likely, for different reasons. that said, patriarchy probably developed around the same time as other social stratification in early sedentary societies.
What would have been a likely cause for males thinking that they are superior?

[bcbm]

there are a number of theories but, again, its really difficult to say because we simply don't have the necessary historical information. i'm somewhat partial to the theory that as the accumulation of property became more important, having clearly defined heirs became important as well, leading men to push women towards monogamous (for the woman) familial relationships and control various aspects of their lives to protect this arrangement.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'd recommend checking out: "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State". I don't think men ever sat around and thought: hey, we are superior to women because of X, Y, and Z... so let's oppress them, take away their rights and treat them as our property.

More likely it was a result of the marginalization of women from production and the early development of class differences. If you have a hunter-gatherer society it is more difficult for men to cut women out of the decision-making process because even if men hunt and women collect food, the food they collect is just as important to the mini-society as the game. With agricultural society, there were the first classes and the first divisions of labor in society. In general farming and animal domestication became the central elements of production and if men were doing this while women were sidelined to secondary tasks, then women loose their social-power in society.

This arrangement more or less stood through slave and feudal societies and it has only been since the development of capitalism that women have become important to the main production of wealth in society. Many of the early industrial mills were run with the labor of women and many early strikes were led by women. In the Victorian era, the bourgoise saw the need to re-establish gender divisions and so women were once again pushed to a secondary position in regards to production: caring for children and supporting their laboring husbands. This was useful to the ruling class because it privatized the upbringing of the next generation of workers through the family unit and also imprinted a microcosm of capitalist hierarchy directly into the lives of working people: men became the "boss" of the home.

[bcbm]

great post, but i'm going to be a jerk and nit-pick. ;)


If you have a hunter-gatherer society it is more difficult for men to cut women out of the decision-making process because even if men hunt and women collect food, the food they collect is just as important to the mini-society as the game. With agricultural society, there were the first classes and the first divisions of labor in society. In general farming and animal domestication became the central elements of production and if men were doing this while women were sidelined to secondary tasks, then women loose their social-power in society.women in gatherer-hunter societies were often more important, with gathering producing more food than hunting. this eventually developed into horticulture and its fairly likely that women were the ones who set off the agricultural revolution.



This arrangement more or less stood through slave and feudal societies and it has only been since the development of capitalism that women have become important to the main production of wealth in society.i think its important to stress that women have not always been sidelined from the agricultural production process. in many european societies of the middle ages, women were as active in the fields and cities (and revolts!) as men and while patriarchy still existed, their social position wasn't as diminished as you suggest here, its degradation coming later during the primitive accumulation of early capitalism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Please - nit-pick, comrade! Building knowledge and a strong understanding of the world is a collective process:)

[Rjevan]

Like JH said, have a look at "Origins of Family etc.", especially this chapter (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm). But as bcbm said, there are many other theories.

Engels argues that the origin of private property lead to patriarchy and sexism. The early clans living together had common property, only the things the woman needed for the houswork belonged to her and the things the man needed for hunting belonged to him. As humanity learned to tame animals, overproduction of food and clothes occured and the man enjoyed the profit he gained from this developement because he was responsible for hunting and thus for the animals, too. This way the man accumulated wealth while the woman had no chance to earn wealth for herself. She also had no right on the man's wealth and he was eager to ensure that it stayed this way and that his offspring inherits his property.
Untill that time, Engels outlines, the female line of ancestry counted, as it was impossible to identify the father due to ruling polyamory. Therefore the father had to find a way to make sure that his wealth is inherited by his sons only and so the monogamous family developed.

But this developement is the developement of male domination over and suppression of women. The new type of family mainly affected women, it was strictly ensured that they keep to the "monogamous" rules while men still had their hetaeras or prostitutes, a fact which was totally accepted and even encouraged by patriarchic society. Women in contrast were almost locked away at home and were treated as private property of their husband, while the prostitutes were stigmatized and conddemned by hypocritical patriarchy. The gender roles were firmly established, the man went to work and earned the money while the woman was excluded from social production, stayed at home and had to do the housework, which was no longer seen as real work but as a "natural" service taken for granted.

[bcbm]

what sort of critique or refutation do you imagine?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Something based on the latest science and using historical and archeological data.Well most academic don't even take Engels seriously - so you are more likely to find a variety of different theories about the historical development of women's oppression than a critique of Engels. Personally, I think a lot of it is pseudo science and lazy ideas about men being stronger physically and able to just dominate women... as if opression is just natural and based on opportunity, not material conditions and so on.

Interestingly, the book "Guns Germs and Steel" actually recreates Engels' wheel and covers a lot of the same ground as (and often backs up) "Origin...".