Matriarchal Societies in History

[silent thunder]

In a conversation with my gal late the other night, I brought up my assumption/suspicion (one that I've had as long as I can recall), that before men realized they were part of the birth process, that women naturally ruled the world.  Due to them being the source of new life. 

 

My wife replied "Where?  When?  When have women ever not been subjected to the power of men, or held the power of society?  I think it's all a myth/assumption on your part." 

 

When men realized they had some input (ha) to the process, there was in my assumption, a shift to the Patriarchy.   Throughout my late teens particularly, I had this recurring thought, that the pendulum has shifted to its extreme of the yang and there will soon be a shift toward the yin.

 

I can find many references to socieities like the Iriquois Nation, where children were marked matrilineally and women held property separate from their husbands/fathers.  I know that in Viking life, women held property and were granted divorce if they approached the All-Thing and voiced their desire to separate.  But these are not Matriarchal Societies by any stretch...

 

I'm curious now if this is always just some assumption of my own devising, or if it recurrs in my mind because it is seeded in ancestral memory of another time with a different way.

[Apech]

It's certainly a widely held theory that for instance neolithic cultures were matriarchal - and another that men did not know the part they played - but I think the latter is based on early anthropological studies of cultures like the Trobriand Islanders and so on- and it may be that such knowledge was merely taboo to be spoken rather than unknown.  After all you would have to be a bit dense not to notice the connection.  The other factor is that in hunter-gatherer societies - for the tribe or group, women were much more valuable and men expendable in terms of survival and continuation.  You could manage a few years with few men - but if women fell below certain numbers you would probably die out.  So in terms of respecting the mystery of life and mysteries generally women would be placed in higher regard.

 

Certainly through the historical period its Patriarchy all the way - and some cultures being very oppressive to women and others not so much so.  To my feeling if we have a viable future then it will be neither one or the other - with individual freedom of expression whether male or female the key - but of course this does not remove the basic biological fact that we are sexually dimorphic.

[C T]

Many women held ruling positions in China. There are at least 16 recorded empress dowagers in her history. 

 

Currently the largest matrilineal society is found in Minangkabau, a highland region of West Sumatra. 

 

 

[doc benway]

Sadly, it seems to be those that are skilled at taking life who rule.

Not those who are capable of creating it.

 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/31274/6-modern-societies-where-women-literally-rule

Edited October 17, 2017 by steve

[thelerner]

I was just reading about a Kick ass queen of the Chinese pirates bought as a slave/wife marrying chief and later son.  Ruled with iron fist until she made a pact with the government to settle down.  Lived to old age, running a brothel. 

 

I recall a famous Celtic queen who gave the Romans much trouble.  Again, not the most motherly.  

 

Perhaps the saying that well behaved woman rarely make history is true.  Yet its also true that as mothers and teachers, wives and confidantes woman have been both behind and a guiding force of great men, particularly the most moral ones. 

[Geof Nanto]

Edit: I've deleted my original comment after the reading Chá Rén's posts below because I don't want to get involved in that type of discussion. 

Edited October 17, 2017 by Yueya

[Chá Rén 茶人]

Yin is inherently more passive and receptive than yang. 

 

Yin nourishes. Yang directs. 

 

I would argue that genetically (and very much against the modern paradigm) women are happier when led than leading. 

 

Not that there have not be effective female rulers in the past. 

The idea that women are "subjected to the rule of men" is a modern paradigm.

Before feminist movements, a woman married to a strong man had financial and physical security. 

 

Try and tell me Melania Trump would rather be cutting business annd political deals into her 70's like her husband. I doubt it very much. 

 

In prehistoric times, scarcity of food sources (and the ability to hunt such sources), as well as physical protection from other tribes as well as animals would have been the two foremost factors in acquiring power.

 

Your leader would be whomever could hunt the most food and protect the tribe the best. Not discounting possible shamanic or medicine woman roles. 

 

Doesn't anyone remember being on the sandlot as a kid before we learned how all the way we were acting were incorrect? 

[Chá Rén 茶人]

I would add our current world is struggling exponentially worse as women forsake their roles as nourishers. 

Nature made women able to take something small and refine it far past what most men would care or are able to do.

 

-Give a woman a hunk of meat and she will cook you a meal.

-Give a woman a house and she will make it a home. 

-Give a woman seed and she will give you a child. 

 

I find it hard to believe the general health in America (e.g. autism birthrates, obesity, etc.) would not be drastically improved with more women being mothers and home-makers. 

 

I am sure someone reading this thinks I am a chauvinist pig, but the system worked very well for thousands of years, and my grandparents were a lot happier than my parents. 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, steve said:

Sadly, it seems to be those that are skilled at taking life who rule.

Not those who are capable of creating it.

 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/31274/6-modern-societies-where-women-literally-rule

 

 

Honestly is that how you see men, Steve?  Most men would instinctively protect and save life.

[Chá Rén 茶人]

 

1 minute ago, Apech said:

 

 

Honestly is that how you see men, Steve?  Most men would instinctively protect and save life.

Paraphrasing Ragnar Lothbrok from "Vikings"...

 

"A man provides and fights for his family."

 

It could be argued you're an adolescent while your "self" only includes your body, and you become a man when your family, or even your society, become of greater importance. 

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, silent thunder said:

In a conversation with my gal late the other night, I brought up my assumption/suspicion (one that I've had as long as I can recall), that before men realized they were part of the birth process, that women naturally ruled the world.  Due to them being the source of new life. 

 

?

When and why did men not realise they were part of the birth process ?   That seems like a strange assumption to me . All one has to do, even as a young virgin ignorant male anywhere is watch the animals .  Here in Oz ,  where some of the traditional beliefs offer an insight into primeval human consciousness  a man is said to be the instigator of birth, he goes to the waterhole (or other similar repository ) and will take a 'germ-child-spirit' , then he will give that to his wife and she will make a baby out of it inside her . They obviously knew that sperm made a woman pregnant as men practised  birth control via  manual manipulation of their basal  penile subincision .

 

 

 

4 hours ago, silent thunder said:

 

My wife replied "Where?  When?  When have women ever not been subjected to the power of men, or held the power of society?  I think it's all a myth/assumption on your part." 

 

Sorry, she is right  .... its a fantasy ;

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, silent thunder said:

 

When men realized they had some input (ha) to the process, there was in my assumption, a shift to the Patriarchy.  

 

Matrilineal descent societies can still hold patriarchal power in many other areas.  Historically there is a marker that supposedly signifies an overall shift from the female to the male mysteries . My memory fails me here, but it was the  official ending / enforced closure of some  rite in Ancient Greece  and another one instilled in its place .

 

 

4 hours ago, silent thunder said:

 

 

 

Throughout my late teens particularly, I had this recurring thought, that the pendulum has shifted to its extreme of the yang and there will soon be a shift toward the yin.

 

Other thoughts are that  the more matriarchal times were Palaeolithic  and before . During Neolithic era the advent of agriculture transitioned to patriarchal -  the 'Dying God era representing the planting of seed, and harvest cycles -  Osiris , etc .

 

According to Crowley  the first was Isis, the next Osiris and arriving now is Horus - the age of the child (of the two before it ) ... the male child  ( and at this stage 'he' appears to have grown large enough to wield power, but no idea of responsibility  ( like the  little kid finding Dad's gun cupboard open ..... or  'us'  playing with 'fire'

 

 

 

Next is the age of Ma'at .... ( the 'girl child '  ? )   balance ...  ' cosmic'  law and order .  THEN , supposedly the male and female energy finally balanced

 

4 hours ago, silent thunder said:

 

I can find many references to socieities like the Iriquois Nation, where children were marked matrilineally and women held property separate from their husbands/fathers.  I know that in Viking life, women held property and were granted divorce if they approached the All-Thing and voiced their desire to separate.  But these are not Matriarchal Societies by any stretch...

 

I'm curious now if this is always just some assumption of my own devising, or if it recurrs in my mind because it is seeded in ancestral memory of another time with a different way.

 

 

No, it just isn't in your mind . Many people have thought about it in that way .

 

But ... ( aside from snu-snu )   .... I doubt we have any proof of it .

 

... Oh !   There is one just south of my place  'Woman's Land '    a bush community set up some years back . I am not sure how or if they still function, its pretty secretive .  Male children of a certain age have to leave .  No mean there .  (I met a delivery driver that delivered lumber to them, had to unload it all at the gate, wasn't allowed in. Women came down with a tractor and trailer and loaded the wood up and took it in . )

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, thelerner said:

I was just reading about a Kick ass queen of the Chinese pirates bought as a slave/wife marrying chief and later son.  Ruled with iron fist until she made a pact with the government to settle down.  Lived to old age, running a brothel. 

 

I recall a famous Celtic queen who gave the Romans much trouble.  Again, not the most motherly.  

 

Perhaps the saying that well behaved woman rarely make history is true.  Yet its also true that as mothers and teachers, wives and confidantes woman have been both behind and a guiding force of great men, particularly the most moral ones. 

 

It did make history .... but that history got burned and censored ... by people like the Islamic Arabs

 

http://apranik.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/persian-female-warriors.html

Edited October 17, 2017 by Nungali

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Chá Rén 茶人 said:

Yin is inherently more passive and receptive than yang. 

 

Yin nourishes. Yang directs. 

 

I would argue that genetically (and very much against the modern paradigm) women are happier when led than leading. 

 

errrmmm   .....    

 

1 hour ago, Chá Rén 茶人 said:

 

Not that there have not be effective female rulers in the past. 

The idea that women are "subjected to the rule of men" is a modern paradigm.

Before feminist movements, a woman married to a strong man had financial and physical security. 

 

Try and tell me Melania Trump would rather be cutting business annd political deals into her 70's like her husband. I doubt it very much. 

 

In prehistoric times, scarcity of food sources (and the ability to hunt such sources), as well as physical protection from other tribes as well as animals would have been the two foremost factors in acquiring power.

 

Naginata  ... the classical women's weapon. Why ?   Because the women were often   left , at home, in the  village and would have to fight against bandits attacking on horseback

 

 

and in modern times we have these 'girls' ,  they  join for life ....

 

 

 

 

 

Who are about to have enacted on them ... one of the biggest , traitorous , cowardly actions against 'assisting armies' since the end of WWII   .  

 

1 hour ago, Chá Rén 茶人 said:

 

Your leader would be whomever could hunt the most food and protect the tribe the best. Not discounting possible shamanic or medicine woman roles. 

 

Doesn't anyone remember being on the sandlot as a kid before we learned how all the way we were acting were incorrect? 

No ... I was taught that in the sandlot by the two older girls that lived next door . 

[Chá Rén 茶人]

The Tao Te Ching speaks of abiding with the mother, source, tao, etc.

 

The mother is described as nourishing and non-acting, yet accomplishing everything through this non-action.

[doc benway]

2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

Honestly is that how you see men, Steve?  Most men would instinctively protect and save life.

 

My comment wasn't directed at men in general. 

I was more focused on paternalistic leadership and the pervasiveness of war.

However...

It doesn't seem that women have the same propensity for violence.

Approximately 96% of homicides worldwide are committed by men.

http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf

 

 

 

[liminal_luke]

Juchitan, in southern Mexico, is said to be a matriarchal society.  The link is an article about it.  The video shows the marketplace.  (Juchitan was recently effected by the big earthquake.)

 

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-03-31/news/mn-49349_1_economic-life

 

 

Edited October 18, 2017 by liminal_luke

[Chá Rén 茶人]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_who_led_a_revolt_or_rebellion

 

This is interesting. 

 

The list is wayyyy more extensive than I thought it was gonna be.

[rene]

1 hour ago, steve said:

 

My comment wasn't directed at men in general. 

I was more focused on paternalistic leadership and the pervasiveness of war.

However...

It doesn't seem that women have the same propensity for violence.

Approximately 96% of homicides worldwide are committed by men.

http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf

 

 

 

(my bold)

 

That may be true, yes. Part of the reason might also be that we're the ones who have to clean up the friggin mess that violence always brings. Violence, for it's own sake, is unnecessary. Doing what needs to be done, and all that that implies, is part of every woman's nature. Watch a mother protect her children.

 

And...there's also this:

 

Famous Viking Warrior Was a Woman, DNA Reveals    Link to article

 

Woman of the North!

[doc benway]

7 minutes ago, rene said:

(my bold)

 

That may be true, yes. Part of the reason might also be that we're the ones who have to clean up the friggin mess that violence always brings. Violence, for it's own sake, is unnecessary. Doing what needs to be done, and all that that implies, is part of every woman's nature. Watch a mother protect her children.

 

And...there's also this:

 

Famous Viking Warrior Was a Woman, DNA Reveals    Link to article

 

Woman of the North!

 

No doubt women have the capacity to be warriors.
I've seen women in my family transform into demons when their children are threatened.

My wife's nickname among our kids is "two-guns."

[C T]

lol.. there was actually a movie made back in '55 titled 'Two Gun Lady'.. 

[Apech]

8 hours ago, steve said:

 

My comment wasn't directed at men in general. 

I was more focused on paternalistic leadership and the pervasiveness of war.

However...

It doesn't seem that women have the same propensity for violence.

Approximately 96% of homicides worldwide are committed by men.

http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf

 

 

 

 

You could equally say 79% of men are the victims of homicide.  I found this interesting from the report you linked to:

 

Quote

The global male homicide rate is almost four times that of females (9.7 versus 2.7 per 100,000) and is highest in the Americas (29.3 per 100,000 males), where it is nearly seven times higher than in Asia, Europe and Oceania (all under 4.5 per 100,000 males). This is due in large part to the higher levels of homicide related to organized crime and gangs in the Americas than in other regions.

 

The writer of the report seems to have forgotten that widespread gun ownership prevents crime as the NRA and Brian tell us regularly !?!!!

 

Men are on average developed through evolution to be bigger and stronger than women - and are more likely to be recruited into gangs, more likely to serve their country in war - and suffer from PTSD etc. - and so on.  This suggests to me that men are more likely to be  manipulated into violence than women.  But even then it is pushing it a bit to suggest that men have a 'propensity' for violence - or even that women haven't.   

 

It is actually very hard to get men to kill.  Studies in warfare (this is from memory because I can't find the articles to link to) show that unless specifically trained out of their natural instincts only 2% of men can actually shoot to kill.  Of these 1% are psychopaths and the other 1% are doing so to protect their comrades (which is the most common reason for granting the highest medals of honour).  When they interviewed American soldiers returning from WWII they found only 25% had fired their weapon at all (during the whole campaign) and I think about 2% had actually shot anyone.

 

 

 

 

[Chang]

2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

It is actually very hard to get men to kill.  Studies in warfare (this is from memory because I can't find the articles to link to) show that unless specifically trained out of their natural instincts only 2% of men can actually shoot to kill.  Of these 1% are psychopaths and the other 1% are doing so to protect their comrades (which is the most common reason for granting the highest medals of honour).  When they interviewed American soldiers returning from WWII they found only 25% had fired their weapon at all (during the whole campaign) and I think about 2% had actually shot anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

These studies regarding the abilities of soldiers to kill during conflict are oft reported but do not really make a great deal of sense.

 

One needs but to look at the death rate in conflict to see that plenty of triggers are being pulled and the dangerous end of the gun is certainly being aimed at some unfortunate. Are we to believe that all of the killing is being perpetrated by the 1% of psychopaths and the 1% of soldiers protecting their comrades (and what about the desire to protect oneself "Kill or be killed")?

 

I for one do not believe these statistics and suggest that they can be put down to feminist, left wing liberal wishful thinking.

 

Men kill. Some enjoy it and some do it from necessity but the end result is the same.

[Fa Xin]

Some historians believe ancient Egypt had a matriarchal society - or at least they were equal status with men. 

 

One such reason is the depictions in the murals of the queen having her arm around her husband, denoting ownership or “this one is mine”. 

 

 

[Apech]

4 minutes ago, Chang said:

 

These studies regarding the abilities of soldiers to kill during conflict are oft reported but do not really make a great deal of sense.

 

One needs but to look at the death rate in conflict to see that plenty of triggers are being pulled and the dangerous end of the gun is certainly being aimed at some unfortunate. Are we to believe that all of the killing is being perpetrated by the 1% of psychopaths and the 1% of soldiers protecting their comrades (and what about the desire to protect oneself "Kill or be killed")?

 

I for one do not believe these statistics and suggest that they can be put down to feminist, left wing liberal wishful thinking.

 

Men kill. Some enjoy it and some do it from necessity but the end result is the same.

 

 

Ok well watch this vid then:

 

 

[Marblehead]

I have to make at least one post in this thread:

 

Long live the Amazons!