4 ms·

...like how a monarch with a queen as supreme formal authority is still not a matriarchy because the overall informal power is held by men. In that situation m

...like how a monarch with a queen as supreme formal authority is still not a matriarchy because the overall informal power is held by men. In that situation most of the formal power was held by men. The members of parliament, the generals, the treasurer, the postmaster, the judges -- all were men. If a dispute between two families is about marriage, do the male chieftains hold authority to decide on the matter? My guess would be that they do not as that would cross the boundary of power. It is possible chiefs hold power in that area because marriage is a matter of official, formal record. Having power doesn't mean they don't have to take into account the informal power around them. This is the difference relative to modern societies -- the balance of power between formal and informal power. It sounds more like this society have male gender role that give them official domain over war and trade with other tribes, and a female gender role that give them domain over all other areas. This would be very similar to many other tribal societies, with the rare exception that allow individuals to choose which one of the two roles a person want. Many people object to this classification since it would mean that most historical societies are neither matriarchy or patriarchy but rather structured around gender roles where power is held supreme with in each gender group. When a society is labeled patriarchal it is not, in practice, a statement about all the power in that society. It's hard for anthropologists and historians to gather that information. It's a statement about formal, political power -- about offices which people can be procedurally added to and removed from, in an open and accountable way. There are some societies were women had substantial institutions like this. In modernized liberal democracies -- for maybe the first time in history? -- women participate in men's institutions to a substantial degree, and that is pretty much their only gateway into public life. Matriarchy is the idea -- perhaps comical on the face of it, because anything so symmetrical in its construction should be suspicious, but it was not so back when people were asking this question -- that women would be the presidents and generals and judges and men would basically chill at home and smoke the fish and do the knitting and not (overtly) control public policy. No one has ever found a society like this.

belorn 8y ago
> In that situation most of the formal power was held by men. The members of parliament, the generals, the treasurer, the postmaster, the judges -- all were men. The time when the queens power were supreme the parliament did not hold power over the monarch, nor did the generals, treasurer, postmasters or judges. Supreme power is supreme. The UK parliament was created on the idea to limit the power of the monarch, same with the treasurer which reported only to the parliament, but those rules took ages to be put in place. > Having power doesn't mean they don't have to take into account the informal power around them. There is a very strong issue of definition here. A supreme judge have to take into account the facts of a case but they still hold exclusive power to make a judgement. That is the question here: do the chiefs hold the exclusive power to decide the case or are they not allowed to do so when it cross over to the domain that women decide on. > When a society is labeled patriarchal it is not, in practice, a statement about all the power in that society. That is why the term patriarchal and matriarchy is about which group holds primary power. Not all, but most power. > that women would be the presidents and generals and judges and men would basically chill at home and smoke the fish and do the knitting and not (overtly) control public policy. No one has ever found a society like this. This is just a different way of defining formal power to be more meaningful than informal. We could role reversal a society where women held power in all trading, war and negotiation with foreign tribes and men held power over all other domains. Both men and women would do cooking, fishing and knitting, but men would control domestic policy while women controlled diplomatic policy. Is that a matriarchy? In my view no. The primary power in society is not about who control the generals and who is allowed to go and fight wars with neighboring tribes. There is more to tribal society than war.
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  Patriarchy and matriarchy are more limited concepts. They are statements about formal positions, and so-called political power. This means that patriarchy can co-exist with women having considerable or even majority power, when all bases of power are considered. Sometimes people use the terms in an informal way -- like when talking about the "matriarch" of a Greek family. It's worth asking if those same people would say Greece was matriarchal -- the answer is usually no.

belorn 8y ago

> In that situation most of the formal power was held by men. The members of parliament, the generals, the treasurer, the postmaster, the judges -- all were men. The time when the queens power were supreme the parliament did not hold power over the monarch, nor did the generals, treasurer, postmasters or judges. Supreme power is supreme. The UK parliament was created on the idea to limit the power of the monarch, same with the treasurer which reported only to the parliament, but those rules took ages to be put in place. > Having power doesn't mean they don't have to take into account the informal power around them. There is a very strong issue of definition here. A supreme judge have to take into account the facts of a case but they still hold exclusive power to make a judgement. That is the question here: do the chiefs hold the exclusive power to decide the case or are they not allowed to do so when it cross over to the domain that women decide on. > When a society is labeled patriarchal it is not, in practice, a statement about all the power in that society. That is why the term patriarchal and matriarchy is about which group holds primary power. Not all, but most power. > that women would be the presidents and generals and judges and men would basically chill at home and smoke the fish and do the knitting and not (overtly) control public policy. No one has ever found a society like this. This is just a different way of defining formal power to be more meaningful than informal. We could role reversal a society where women held power in all trading, war and negotiation with foreign tribes and men held power over all other domains. Both men and women would do cooking, fishing and knitting, but men would control domestic policy while women controlled diplomatic policy. Is that a matriarchy? In my view no. The primary power in society is not about who control the generals and who is allowed to go and fight wars with neighboring tribes. There is more to tribal society than war.

solidsnack9000 8y ago
Patriarchy and matriarchy are more limited concepts. They are statements about formal positions, and so-called political power. This means that patriarchy can co-exist with women having considerable or even majority power, when all bases of power are considered. Sometimes people use the terms in an informal way -- like when talking about the "matriarch" of a Greek family. It's worth asking if those same people would say Greece was matriarchal -- the answer is usually no.