Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.

Categories

0 votes
"Just wondering if anarchist thought had a position on why, across all cultures/time/geography, males are always and have always been the privileged sex."

This was my original posting, but I realize 'across all time' is pretty presumptuous.  Though, there seems to be no historic example of a matriarchal society, and I've heard little explanation as to why this is.  Since patriarchy is of major concern to anarchy - i thought maybe there was a line of thought on this.
by
edited
The answer to patriarchy is not matriarchy, rather anarchy.

3 Answers

+1 vote
"no.
because it's not true."
this was my response to the original question. since more detail has been added, and since the "across all time" has been changed, then i will add this...

first of all, you could visit this question:
http://anarchy101.org/261/anarchists-respond-claim-feminists-patriarchy-oppression
(and perhaps provide your own answer)

secondly: i don't know that patriarchy *is* of major concern to anarchy, which may or may not be unfortunate, depending on how you define patriarchy.
patriarchy is one of those code words that can mean a lot or mean a little. of course anarchy is concerned with the question of how and if one group of people is considered to be more valuable than another, on a systematic level, as men are frequently considered to be more valuable than women... on the other hand, patriarchy usually means a lot more than that--like specific behaviors are male-identified and therefore bad, like specific kinds of family structures are patriarchal and therefore bad... rather than paying attention to the individuals in the structures or performing the behaviors (ie paying more attention to policy than to context).
of course, there are many leftist anarchists who adopt the mainstream feminist line totally, in which case their line would be the feminist line about the development of patriarchy (whatever that is these days... i haven't kept up - probably something anthropological).
so i'm not meaning to answer for all anarchists.
by (53.1k points)
edited by
–1 vote
If the definition of patriarchy were one of how social mores are crafted within society, anarchists do have some feeling on it.  It plays a role in the social order and is part of the domination of daily life.  The relationships of institutions to families, to individuals, to socio-economic conditions ends up playing out in a way where societal norms favor the male as a dominant gender.  

To "smash patriarchy" or find ways to overthrow the domination of heteronormative mores ends up being another vague concept in the teleology myth that anarchists believe they are often working towards.  Like all myths, there is little value to a strategy to defeat such things, but an analysis of power from other genders tends to expose society's favoritism of males.  There is no way to separate patriarchy and somehow turn the tide towards the domination of another gender, even from a Marxist-Leninist or Fascist point of view, should they take up a practice of attacking what is perceived as enforcing patriarchy.

An analysis of what anarchy could be would be a negation of present social mores which could lead to some re-balance of power where what is seen as favoritism is no longer a major aspect.  Should patriarchy not end, there would not be an end to domination as social structures would continue to enforce gender bias and social castes where males come out ahead regardless of individual merit.  Thus patriarchy could not be a part of anarchy and/or what could be called anarchy fails to end domination, making it worthy of a critique of power from anarchists.

Just as a primitivist could claim an industrial society is not anarchy or the kind of anarchy that answers their critique of society, so too could an anarchist with a critique of patriarchy claim the same should patriarchy be seen as an existent force.

Why males always come out on top throughout history is either an obvious and simple answer, based on the tendency of males to hold the threat of physical violence on their side or more complex based on a division of labor created despite the physical presence of males.  Women can hold physical power, agility, knowledge, cunning, wit and so on, just as any individual can.  

The division of labor from the dawn of civilization specialized "men" and gave them the social caste where they hold more sway on the use of violence in society, even when they hold traits sometimes considered weak within present society.  The lack of flexibility with this social caste essentialized the roles of men and women, leading to a society less defined by what you do is what you do towards what you do is because you are from a particular gender.

In some ways, a meritocracy leads to patriarchy over time due to what is considered of merit in society and what isn't.  More fixed roles in society came with the advent of property because determining ownership and inheritance needed a framework to not confuse who got what after the family leader died.  While a family would believe they knew best, when a dispute would arise, what has become known as a state would have to judge ownership and enforce ownership in a way that was considered "fair".

By the time property had begun its origin, men had already fell within a division of labor where they often were hunters, warriors, herders, field workers...taking on physically demanding roles while women were already lead down the path of being central to child rearing, food preparation and menial tasks that are today considered less important and perhaps were defined as such then.

It would be wrong to say this was absolute, but because the division of labor had created a social caste favoring men as a force of violence above women, men were also the social caste that created a territory's monopoly of violence, the state.  So property laws were more often settled in a "fair" way which favored male inheritance as a way of determining who got what property, further reinforcing the social caste of males as patriarchs, despite a lack of merit they may or may not hold as a family leader.

This isn't to say de facto power wasn't the real power, but if we look at today's laws of incorporation, which have the "benefit" of being written, someone is still held primarily responsible for the corporation.  Laws of the family still hold children as property, though because of the division of labor, women are more often given children due to their perception as the gender that raises children.

My answer is incomplete and speaks little of the many exceptions to the rule on how civilizations were defined and founded, but I feel, from what I've read, that it explains the division of power and why the social order tends to favor men over women, even when men aren't ideal as what men are perceived to be.
by (3.9k points)
i appreciate the effort put into this answer, but for what it's worth, i find  it (one that takes for granted socially accepted assumptions) pretty problematic and typically circular (male characteristics are male, men are dominant, therefore male characteristics lead to dominance)--at least the parts of this answer that refer to anthropology.

why assume that individual strength is the relevant criteria? why is upper body strength (usually men have more) more relevant than lower body strength (usually women have more)?  how does one determine that men are more violent than women? what is the definition of violence (does only bone breaking and blood letting count)?

as far as i can tell this is continuing a disturbing trend of a) seeing the trajectory of history as inevitable and b) relying on increasing advancement to save us (humans) from our primitive authoritarianism (here exemplified by patriarchy).
To dot: Thank you for the feedback.  First I'll say I don't like this medium as a way to respond to responses due to the size of the comment section, which I hope you understand.  My response will be brief.

Things I wanted to tackle was origins using what I know of the often speculative pre-history that lead to civilization as offered by authors like John Zerzan and Kevin Tucker.  I also wanted to go into Engels' view on the origins of patriarchy.  I'll attempt to hunt sourcing if we find a better medium for this conversation.

My personal reflections on this deal with Meritocracy and what was taken as social mores rather than why, though I did make an attempt to explain the reason for it.  Horticultural and early agricultural societies did eventually lead to a division of labor where the merits I speak of often became the social mores within such societies.  I do not agree that these things are necessarily what should be, but rather what has occurred.  

I am not certain if you read what I wrote with that in mind.  It appears that you ignored my comments on meritocracy and how I don't agree that a society necessarily does nor should create a value system where certain traits are held as strong while others as weak.

In my view, a meritocracy can lead to nothing less than a social caste society and in this case, I speculate it lead to the civilization as we know it.

Why upper body strength?  What weapons does one use with their feet?  Did these weapons defeat the spear, the sling, the rock, the sword?  No.

I don't like how you expressed "disturbing trend" nor historical inevitablity.  Nor do I agree that we were saved from primitive authoritarianism.  Rather I feel we lost to the forces that destroyed our ability to live as hunter gatherers, should I be partisan on the imposition of social mores that lead to civilization.  Please express your comments in a way that understands that I am positing a hypothesis rather than telling people what occurred, because that is all their is here.  If done so, I feel we can work together on creating a stronger answer than I offered here.

I am certain you have more to offer as far as criticism of what I've said and I too disagree with many of my points as far as which side of civilization I am on.  I am against civilization and I would of hoped to of offered an answer that took on how male privilege developed.
ummm. of course there are limitations to this kind of exchange, as there are to any kind of interaction. there are also strengths to it, no?
one of the strengths (or challenges, perhaps) is to *use* the distance that this forum includes, both the time (you have all the time you want/need to respond), and the emotional distance (no one can touch you in any substantive way), and the breadth (all kinds of people can/will/may read this). do you address these factors by writing more and being more exhaustive? or do you write to be more entertaining? or do you write to explore the ideas for yourself (and whoever is close enough to your thinking to be included in "writing for yourself")?
all are valid ways to deal with this forum (there are probably more ways i haven't thought of, also). and while i tend towards one or two, i often appreciate that others answer the question differently than i do.
To Dot: Do you see problems with what I brought up regarding the origins of male privilege?  It isn't A primitive society develops into a horticultural society and thus becomes an agricultural society and so on.  It is about what has occurred, that a primitive society did go along this path.  The division of labor that was created somewhere along this line may of been founded originally on merits of value associated with a society's conditions.  If we are looking at the Fertile Crescent as the geographic origin of civilization, the potential of scarcity may of pressed a horticultural society towards an agricultural one, but also one where the merits that maintained a horticultural society created or were created by a gendered division of labor.  I speculated on how that division of labor may of appeared, with certain qualities held first as individual merits then later as essential characteristics.  Whether those characteristics mirror exactly what I said may or may not be completely true, though there is evidence it is at least somewhat true.

As society developed into an agricultural one, the gendered division of labor gave rise to concepts of property and the state.  Before an agricultural society developed, there may of been concepts of territory and possession, but as people settled into a geographic area on a generational level, the passing of possessions from one generation to the next lead to concepts of inheritance that would at times be in dispute.  Whether the state was developed enough to be considered an existent force probably is questionable.  What is known as the nation state did not form until the 19th century, but a territory's monopoly on violence defines what the state is.  The foundation of this monopoly is tied to enforcing concepts of justice and enforcing the property of patriarchs within the territory.

To further develop my points, I no longer can request we move this discussion, but I must.  I find the field offered for making comments to be intolerably small, making a review of what I have written frustrating, which is also causing me to lose my point and weaken my ability to further develop my points.  I am going to move this discussion to anti-politics.net and you are welcome to make comments there with me.  The comments section offered by this medium favor short responses and not more lengthy ones.
i see the point you're making, which does not refute my original points (as far as i can tell).
but ultimately i don't (think i) agree and i don't care, because i don't think that origins stories are particularly relevant. the wittig quotation "remember, and failing that invent" is awesome, because it makes the link between foundation and imagination. we can no longer truly remember, so now we invent a past. we might as well be inventing our futures, or our presents.
as a different way to come at the way i'm looking at this (apparently differently from you), i don't see what this has to do with anarchist thought. nothing that you've said seems unique to, or even necessarily included in, anarchist thought. it is anthropological, ie, a specific kind of (scientificist, if i may coin a word) mythology.
–3 votes
Well, the patriarchy we know today first developed in Europe through a ruling class strategy to smash the revolutionary movement against Feudalism.  Europe then spread the system of patriarchy everywhere through colonialism.

read:
Caliban and the Witch -Silvia Federici

Patriarchy has not always existed across all cultures and times.  The patriarchs just try to re-write history.  Many nations and peoples lived in egalitarian relations without patriarchy as we understand it now.  The Iroquois Nation is one clear example of an egalitarian matrilineal society.
by (1.7k points)
"the patriarchy we know today first developed in Europe through a ruling class strategy to smash the revolutionary movement against Feudalism. "

And Rome, Egypt, Ancient China, the Muslim Caliphate, etc ad nauseum weren't patriarchal? No, patriarchy hasn't been universal to human society, but you're going to have to dig a bit deeper if the root of patriarchy is to be found.
I'm not saying that other places and times weren't patriarchal, but the patriarchy we know today is some shit that came from Europe.

Patriarchy made significant advances in Europe in the Centuries preceding colonization.  Patriarchy was used as a tool to disrupt the revolutionary movement against feudalism.  The feudal lords encouraged gangs of peasant men to rape peasant women at the same time that the state was burning hundreds of thousands of subversive women (and some men) at the stake.  The state 'appropriated' the wealth of these women and used it to fund colonization.  In some cases, there are letters written by judges to policy makers explaining how many more women they would need to kill to get however much money they needed to fund whatever colonial project.
Colonization in Africa, Asia, the Americas, and everywhere was the foundation of capitalism as it provided the primitive accumulation that was necessary before capitalist accumulation could begin.  Capitalism in turn allowed colonialism to expand across the globe and to change into a new form called imperialism.

As colonist traveled the globe destroying and exploiting, they took their patriarchal values and imposed them on the colonized.  The colonist committed multiple genocides all over the globe against people who we would now consider transgender, intersex, genderqueer, or queer.  They used the building of patriarchy as a tool to divide and conquer local communities.  Some ways they did this were by only conducting business deals with men, and only recognizing the authority of men.  

What I'm saying is that, looking at europe is important, because it is the beast we are dealing with now.  Further developments have been made in patriarchal structures since then, and there have been interesting developments in the movements against patriarchy and empire/domination too.
...