Advocating matriarchy?

[bropasaran]

Would it be unfeminist to advocate matriarchy? To say that women generally have better qualities then man and that we should have a system where women decide about stuff?

I presume that such a view could be only argumented by referencing the qualities that women in general have as result of the culture of patriarchy, being that there are no biological differences that express themselves as general psychological difference between men and women, as far as I know (I suppose that PMS is not that big of deal, I don't know pretty much anything about that expect that I've heard of it).

[Atsumari]

Given that I as well as other feminists spend hundreds of hours telling people that we are not about matriarchy but rather egalitarianism, I would say it is unfeminist and very inefficient.

[Deep Sea]

According to Origins of the Family, matriarchy or "Mother-Right" is the natural state of affairs, overturned only fairly recently in human history.

[Deep Sea]

The ancient myth of partible paternity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partible_paternity) no doubt played an important ideological role in sustaining the Mother-Right.

But then the Man and the Cow teamed up to defeat the Mother-Right. Hence, "the cow is the enemy of matriliny (http://courses.washington.edu/evpsych/cows%20&%20matriliny.pdf)."

[Redistribute the Rep]

PMS is a myth constructed by the patriarchy, DUH!!!11

No but seriously there have been some recent studies that question the existence of such a phenomenon. Anyhow, with regards to your question, Wikipedia actually says that some people define matriarchy as being the opposite of patriarchy, so it could include egalitarian societies by that definition, although it's not universally accepted. So If that's what you meant I wouldn't disagree with you, but judging by the way you framed your question I'm guessing that's not what you meant

[Rafiq]

Would it be unfeminist to advocate matriarchy? To say that women generally have better qualities then man and that we should have a system where women decide about stuff?


Unfeminist or not, what we do know is that it is wrong. There are no biological predispositions for either sex to have "better qualities" with very few exceptions. Neurologically there have been studies that confirm both of our brains are almost completely identical and that most chemical differences are socially derived.

[Rafiq]

According to Origins of the Family, matriarchy or "Mother-Right" is the natural state of affairs,

This is exactly what I was talking about in a previous thread. This is not what Engels implied. What Engels implied was that societies were largely matriarchal before the neolithic revolution. That does not mean we ought to seek a return, or that it is our "natural" state.

Rather than being feminist this is completely reactionary and anti-feminist. It tells us that Women's liberation has to be legitimized by nature, or cosmic harmony, or some kind of genetic structure, lineage to something, our "roots". Not only is this completely anti-feminist and not only does it reproduce the same presumptions that ideologically render women oppressed and enslaved, it is wholly anti-Communist and dare I say anti-enlightenment.

It coincides perfectly with all the new age post modern shit brought forth following the collapse of the Left.

[Deep Sea]

This is not what Engels implied. What Engels implied was that societies were largely matriarchal before the neolithic revolution.There is no "largely" to it. The entirety of all societies were at one point matrilineal. It took, in Engels' words, a revolution to change this state of affairs.



Thus, on the one hand, in proportion as wealth increased, it made the man’s position in the family more important than the woman’s, and on the other hand created an impulse to exploit this strengthened position in order to overthrow, in favor of his children, the traditional order of inheritance. This, however, was impossible so long as descent was reckoned according to mother-right. Mother-right, therefore, had to be overthrown, and overthrown it was. This was by no means so difficult as it looks to us today. For this revolution – one of the most decisive ever experienced by humanity – could take place without disturbing a single one of the living members of a gens. All could remain as they were. A simple decree sufficed that in the future the offspring of the male members should remain within the gens, but that of the female should be excluded by being transferred to the gens of their father. The reckoning of descent in the female line and the matriarchal law of inheritance were thereby overthrown, and the male line of descent and the paternal law of inheritance were substituted for them. As to how and when this revolution took place among civilized peoples, we have no knowledge. It falls entirely within prehistoric times. But that it did take place is more than sufficiently proved by the abundant traces of mother-right which have been collected, particularly by Bachofen. How easily it is accomplished can be seen in a whole series of American Indian tribes, where it has only recently taken place and is still taking place under the influence, partly of increasing wealth and a changed mode of life (transference from forest to prairie), and partly of the moral pressure of civilization and missionaries.


That does not mean we ought to seek a return, or that it is our "natural" state.Whether or not a "natural state" is desirable is a completely separate matter of identifying one. It's "natural" to die fairly young, doesn't mean we should start shooting people over 35.

[Quail]

Feminists don't advocate matriarchy. They advocate liberation for people of all genders.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Advocating matriarchy is unfeminist because to do so, you must presuppose that any biological differences between people of different genders should have social significance.


According to Origins of the Family, matriarchy or "Mother-Right" is the natural state of affairs, overturned only fairly recently in human history.

What on earth does it mean to have a "natural" state of affairs? Simply because matriarchy "predates" patriarchy, doesn't make it any more or less "natural". The emerging dominance of men was as much a natural response to changing state of affairs as whatever matriarchal system came before it.

Also, Engels was working with archaeological and anthropological research from the 19th century primarily regarding society in North American tribes ... anthropology and archaeology have come a long way since.



It coincides perfectly with all the new age post modern shit brought forth following the collapse of the Left.

I agree with everything you said except this - I don't think postmodernism and new age thinking are really affiliated. If anything I think postmodernists would be highly critical of the idea that there is some previous, "natural" state of affairs which we are supposed to go back to.

[Deep Sea]

What on earth does it mean to have a "natural" state of affairs?I would say, living more like an animal would.


Simply because matriarchy "predates" patriarchy, doesn't make it any more or less "natural".One state of affairs is further removed from our animal-nature than the other.


The emerging dominance of men was as much a natural response to changing state of affairs as whatever matriarchal system came before it.Maybe "natural" in the sense of inevitable, I'd agree.


Also, Engels was working with archaeological and anthropological research from the 19th century primarily regarding society in North American tribes ... anthropology and archaeology have come a long way since.Modern anthropology has actually come full-circle, being largely a reaction against Engels and Morgan to begin with. See Engels was Right: Early Human Kinship was Matrilineal (https://libcom.org/history/engels-was-right-early-human-kinship-was-matrilineal).

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I would say, living more like an animal would.


As far as I can check, we're still animals, our society has just become more complex and our technology more sophisticated. Complexity and sophistication shouldn't be seen as analogous to removal from nature, as that is a problematic, unsupportable ideological presupposition.



One state of affairs is further removed from our animal-nature than the other.


How do we determine something being further removed from our animal nature?



Maybe "natural" in the sense of inevitable, I'd agree.


What makes it unnatural?



Modern anthropology has actually come full-circle, being largely a reaction against Engels and Morgan to begin with. See Engels was Right: Early Human Kinship was Matrilineal (https://libcom.org/history/engels-was-right-early-human-kinship-was-matrilineal).

I don't dispute that there's some truth to the ideas of Engels and Morgan, but they were nonetheless extrapolating based on studies largely related to a few specific tribes.

The article is interesting, but I would still say that it has become a matter of scholarly debate to be resolved. I think the methods of research today are better than they were 130 years ago, and while Engels and Morgan might be vindicated, it seems more work has yet to be done.

[Rafiq]

We broke from any kind of "animal state" through the first revolution, the abolishment of the alpha male cycle. Animal state implies an infinite and adaptive relationship to your environment.