A recent thread about a known matrilineal society in China had

>>3177893
(continued)
>Patriarchy
In many ways, it's the complete opposite with patriarchy. They are much larger,which only makes it better, and may or may not rely on the extended family. Many did and still do, but it's not necessary like matriarchies. Women will have less influence politically but are involved heavily with their children, even in cases of polygamy. Polygyny actually works better[than polyandry] in this way since each women only hast to invests in her own. Patriarchies often take or start off taking the lesser influence of women to the extreme, descending into something quite oppressive. This occurs at least temporarily until it advances to a certain point. Likely because it is the only way to keep the fathers invested in their children,as that is often the focus in such societies.
Thus, it DEPENDS on known paternity and if not present, the result is similar but varies in severity. Mild: no investment to the child and shaming of the mother (if not ostracized). Extreme: no investment because the child is literally killed, often along with the shamed mother and sometimes the actual father!
Chasity is important,mostly in women, though sometimes men too. Again, taken to varying extremes. Mild: girls must be virgins or face shame.
Extreme: girls must be virgins or face death.
There are varying levels of how it is reinforced. Sometimes hardly at all. Other times, it may go as far as having women forget about their own sexuality through the notion that apathy to sex is virtue and they shouldn't enjoy it TOO much, even in marriage; OR they are forced to be disinterested(FGM).
In either case, due to the efficiency and often necessity of gender roles in the harsh environments and pre-tech society, gender distribution of labor will be found.
Any agree or disagree feel free to discuss. Remember, a high level of discourse is expected.

>>3177904
To add, I always ponder why simple refusal of child investment in the case of paternity fraud wasn't enough in patriarchies.The extreme ones had to go full primal mode and kill the offspring like male rats in a female rat's nest. Likely because of the investment that goes into providing the pregnant mother with resources. It's kind of circular reasoning though, since probably the reason why the mothers were reluctant to confess before having the babies despite the high risk of getting caught, is because they would be shamed and killed.

I agree with some of this. Yet, I feel you misunderstand what patriarchy is. Any privileges -sexual, economic, ethical, etc.- that males have in any patriarchal society are arbitrary and culturally specific. Patriarchy doesn't necessarily imply breeding or nurturing rights, and biological approaches (such as pondering wether polygyny or polyandry are the most efficient way of controlling reproductive means) fall short.

I think patriarchy is perhaps the oldest institution there is, and since there are no ethnographical evidence of matriarchy ever happening, patriarchy is our one and only theoretical and practical framework. Moreso, matrilateral systems just determine the conduit of heritage as the mother, without fucking around with the underlying, ever present patriarchal value system.

Sounds discouraging, but in my opinion, trying to come up with the oppossite of patriarchy is just replicating the same old ways of thinking.

>a high level of discourse is expected
get your head out of your ass, bruv

>>3178821
>doesn't necessarily imply breeding or nurturing rights, and biological approaches (such as pondering whether polygyny or polyandry are the most efficient way of controlling reproductive means) fall short.
>I think patriarchy is perhaps the oldest institution and the oldest theoretical practical framework

It's like you think I'm one of the same people I was criticizing earlier which is kind of frustrating. I know there is a difference between matrilineal and matriarchy. I literally defined the only way a matriarchy could exist:
1. inheritance through only the female line and mainly women
2. Women have more control(yes privilege) in wider society( sexual, economical, political) than men did I really have to spell out what I meant?

Of course, there are deeply cultural roots to patriarchy. How could you think for a second I was undermining it? It's almost like you didn't read any of my 3 posts...
Regardless,I agree that our examples of matriarchies are scarce. In truth, no real matriarchies exist as no societies live up to the requirements I specified.
All I was saying that is what a society would need to practice in order to be considered a matriarchy. Then I went into what kind of culture I think would need to be established to foster it.

Unless you believe that a matriarchal society would somehow eschew all level of gender roles. I'm highly doubtful of that and if you think so, that's another point were we disagree. Some form of gendered distribution of labor is pretty inevitable with humans being so sexually dimorphic. Plus, you took that one point of my explanation of why polygyny caught on more than polyandry too literally. I wasn't saying it was "just better." I just meant it was easier to be widely adopted for that reason ( along with obviously more conceptions, which is another biological point).
Perhaps I missed your point but I don't see what you're arguing.

>>3178918
Chill. All I'm saying is that any formulation of an ethopolitical system alternative to patriarchy is doomed from the beggining, because we can only move within the conceptual layout of patriarchy itself. For example, the division of labor through gender that you mention already implies that there are preexisting distinctions besides sex itself. Gender as we know it has nothing to do with sex (as demonstrated by the late outburst of 'freaks' coming up with new genders), but even if we were to overlook that, sexual dimorphism is by no means the defining criterion for sexual division of labor, as it would have been a lot more efficient for humanity as a species to have women as political leaders so men could go out and hunt or make war. I'm simplifying, but what I mean is that matrilaterality and women's privilege are, to me, very narrow as defining criteria for a matriarchy. To even conceive a possible, let alone functional matriarchy, we would have to dispose of concepts such as privilege or gender as we know them, because they are categories unique to patriarchy's historical development.

Kind of an absurdist view, I know, but in this case I think it's not even about reinventing the wheel, but transportation as a concept, if you know what I mean.

Well, I guess that's that. Nice chat, OP

>>3179021
Okay, I see what you're saying.
SO in your view, there would be no privilege in a matriarchy for females or gendered inheritance system? It would be more egalitarian because those notions were only conceive in patriarchies?
I kind of disagree with your dismissal of sexual dimorphism and the creation of gender roles.
I don't see how the example of gender roles you established contradicts what I said. women in that case would have more political and societal influence and those roles that were assumed due to sexual differences.

Yes, there is no definitive way to know whether it would be exactly the same with such a lack of evidence. However, given the few societies that were actually close that got to the point of existing today, I'd say in some level gender roles would have to play a role. You know what I'm saying? If we can't say it inherently has to be defined by those terms, (which I wasn't exactly saying) we say what it has to be in order for it to exist and survive is my point.

If patriarchy is about men having more influence and to some degree privilege, a matriarchy could be defined in a similar way otherwise,it's kind of biased to say it couldn't imo. But yes, I guess with that view it could also be defined as egalitarian.
I said gender roles are a product of sex because with dimorphism, it's pretty apt that a culture around these difference would emerge, even if we include intersexual people(who are rare btw).

But fine say it is possible for a matriarchy to have existed without gender as we know it, would it survive long enough? I would say that would be a possibility but I was more talking along the lines of actual long term survival.
Some degree of gender roles made that possible for all human societies. Hence why they're here today. That's my view based on the evidence we have.
It doesn't have to be completely polarized, but just exist on some level.