3 ms·

> In a society without a history of male dominance over women, having a legislative body with more women than men would be commonplace or at least unremarkable.

> In a society without a history of male dominance over women, having a legislative body with more women than men would be commonplace or at least unremarkable. In virtually all societies through all of history, this has not been the case. So the fact that such a thing has now occurred is an indicator of reduced male dominance, something we should all be happy about. You can only come to a conclusion like that through an ignorance of history, or willful ignorance of societies where females exercised power. Although, I would separate matriarchies from matrilineal societies, and also, societies in which women exerted a great deal of power through soft means. For example, a list of pure matriarchies Ancient Amazons Iroquois Confederacy The Mosuo people The Hopi people Some Celtic tribes A list of kingdoms with female rulers of note: England, during some of its most important years [1] A list of Queens Regnant which includes ancient Egypt, Rome, and many, many others [2] Additionally, this would also include periods of Queen Regency too [3] Just to name a few A list of Matrilineal societies: Jews Sparta Scotland Much of Africa If we remember many monarchies, autocracies, and other forms of government had powerful women (Queen Consorts) that provided input into decisions being made. Modern day lobbyists have nothing on a queen that is sleeping with the king. However, when you think about actual legislative bodies, in a democratic sense, that greatly reduces the numbers you can use throughout history. When we think about wide spread democracy, it is actually a fairly recent invention, and normally came with some very specific rules around property ownership, power/wealth, etc. [1] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Elizabeth-I https://www.britannica.com/biography/Elizabeth-I [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_queens_regnant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_queens_regnant [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_queens_regnant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_queens_regnant

standardUser 5y ago
If you are arguing that woman have had more power or roughly equal power in most societies, you are absolutely wrong. You listed exceptions, as in exceptions to the rule, the rule being male dominance in human societies. And all of those exceptions come with a truckload or two of caveats.
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  > If you are arguing that woman have had more power or roughly equal power in most societies, you are absolutely wrong. I would argue different power. In warlike times (much of more antique history, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam) many of the powerful men were at home with the gear, while ordinary men were conscripted and dying/maimed on battlefields. There has always been a pecking order of the powerful above the ordinary plebes, and powerful women have always been a part of the Optimati. > You listed exceptions, as in exceptions to the rule, the rule being male dominance in human societies. And all of those exceptions come with a truckload or two of caveats. I think there are more than a few exceptions, and you are dismissing them out of hand. Just think about it - England, during its Golden Age, the most powerful kingdom in the West, was under a female monarch, during which time the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Spanish Armadas occured I would presume that is one prominent reason why English has become the Lingua Franca. When people think of Egyptian Pharaohs, many would immediately think of Cleopatra, or Ramses II. Russian history would be lost without an Empress Catherine. Who was the Queen that authorized/sponsored Christopher Columbus on his Journey West, Isabella perhaps? And, there is a much bigger list of important monarchs [1] of which only a few are noted. > " In virtually all societies through all of history, this has not been the case." Your words. [1] https://www.thoughtco.com/powerful-women-rulers-everyone-should-know-3530278 https://www.thoughtco.com/powerful-women-rulers-everyone-sho...
cblconfederate 5y ago
are those historically validated or hypotheses? also matrilinearty doesnt have much to do with power, but with women as mothers like e.g. in sparta.
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  Those are historically validated [1], [2], [3] Matrilineality has a great amount of power assocation/inheritance, since it if the men die off, and inheritance goes to a wife, there is little disincentive for war from a female perspective, and, potential more incentive. Imagine a warlike society with a divorce court where you know you will get 100%. If women control the assets, and inheritance flows through them, that is a great deal of power. Furthermore, the ability to raise the future ruler is also the ability to influence that future rule, and comes with it frequently regency. The idea of a powerless female nobility I do not find to be compatible with history. After everything is said, we speak English. [1] https://www.worldhistory.org/lycia/ https://www.worldhistory.org/lycia/ [2] http://www.carlanayland.org/essays/picts_matrilineal_succession.htm http://www.carlanayland.org/essays/picts_matrilineal_success... [3] https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/601092/jewish/Why-Is-Jewishness-Matrilineal.htm https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/601092/jewish...
cassepipe 5y ago
While it's true that in some societies some women were in position power, it does not mean that woman as a class eschewed domination. IIRC in the Iroquois confederation, women were organized as one of society's pole, the economic domestic one, and had power in times of war because war needs the collaboration of the whole society. It is also hard to say if that they had always had that power or gained it during war times. In any case, they were/are statistically rare. Also although many societies are matrilineal it does not means that the society is not male dominated. It is a sad conclusion of anthropology that the, often times ruthless, domination of women by men has been for a long time a constant of human history.
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  > While it's true that in some societies some women were in position power, it does not mean that woman as a class eschewed domination. IIRC in the Iroquois confederation, women were organized as one of society's pole, the economic domestic one, and had power in times of war because war needs the collaboration of the whole society. It is also hard to say if that they had always had that power or gained it during war times. In any case, they were/are statistically rare. That is not correct. > When the 5 nations needed to make a critical decision, such as going to war, they would decide via the Grand Council. Representatives of each clan called Sachems conducted the council meetings themselves. > The Sachems were voted to their political positions by their designated Clan Mothers, the matrilineal hereditary leaders of their nations, and were perceived by the Haudenosaunee as sacred leaders. Women were seen as almost divine beings, albeit for practical reasons that aided their society’s survival..... > Although the chiefs held most of the political power and day to day governance, the Clan Mother possessed the power to dismiss the chief if she and other Mothers felt he was doing a poor job. > Chiefs handled civic matters, others took care of military operations, and Sachems acted as a Congress to vote on decisions for the Confederacy at the councils. Making the chiefs and sachems more akin to elected officials and not the monarchal leaders we often associate with today in indigenous culture. [1] This shows that the role of the clan mothers was more similar to a permanent parliament that could form local executives (chiefs), dismiss them at will, and controlled the decision-making for the confederation by selecting representative decisionmakers for the grand council. This has some similarities to the Italian style parliament, with permanent members dominating the government. [1] https://historyhustle.com/iroquois/ https://historyhustle.com/iroquois/

standardUser 5y ago

If you are arguing that woman have had more power or roughly equal power in most societies, you are absolutely wrong. You listed exceptions, as in exceptions to the rule, the rule being male dominance in human societies. And all of those exceptions come with a truckload or two of caveats.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago
> If you are arguing that woman have had more power or roughly equal power in most societies, you are absolutely wrong. I would argue different power. In warlike times (much of more antique history, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam) many of the powerful men were at home with the gear, while ordinary men were conscripted and dying/maimed on battlefields. There has always been a pecking order of the powerful above the ordinary plebes, and powerful women have always been a part of the Optimati. > You listed exceptions, as in exceptions to the rule, the rule being male dominance in human societies. And all of those exceptions come with a truckload or two of caveats. I think there are more than a few exceptions, and you are dismissing them out of hand. Just think about it - England, during its Golden Age, the most powerful kingdom in the West, was under a female monarch, during which time the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Spanish Armadas occured I would presume that is one prominent reason why English has become the Lingua Franca. When people think of Egyptian Pharaohs, many would immediately think of Cleopatra, or Ramses II. Russian history would be lost without an Empress Catherine. Who was the Queen that authorized/sponsored Christopher Columbus on his Journey West, Isabella perhaps? And, there is a much bigger list of important monarchs [1] of which only a few are noted. > " In virtually all societies through all of history, this has not been the case." Your words. [1] https://www.thoughtco.com/powerful-women-rulers-everyone-should-know-3530278 https://www.thoughtco.com/powerful-women-rulers-everyone-sho...

cblconfederate 5y ago

are those historically validated or hypotheses? also matrilinearty doesnt have much to do with power, but with women as mothers like e.g. in sparta.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago
Those are historically validated [1], [2], [3] Matrilineality has a great amount of power assocation/inheritance, since it if the men die off, and inheritance goes to a wife, there is little disincentive for war from a female perspective, and, potential more incentive. Imagine a warlike society with a divorce court where you know you will get 100%. If women control the assets, and inheritance flows through them, that is a great deal of power. Furthermore, the ability to raise the future ruler is also the ability to influence that future rule, and comes with it frequently regency. The idea of a powerless female nobility I do not find to be compatible with history. After everything is said, we speak English. [1] https://www.worldhistory.org/lycia/ https://www.worldhistory.org/lycia/ [2] http://www.carlanayland.org/essays/picts_matrilineal_succession.htm http://www.carlanayland.org/essays/picts_matrilineal_success... [3] https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/601092/jewish/Why-Is-Jewishness-Matrilineal.htm https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/601092/jewish...

cassepipe 5y ago

While it's true that in some societies some women were in position power, it does not mean that woman as a class eschewed domination. IIRC in the Iroquois confederation, women were organized as one of society's pole, the economic domestic one, and had power in times of war because war needs the collaboration of the whole society. It is also hard to say if that they had always had that power or gained it during war times. In any case, they were/are statistically rare. Also although many societies are matrilineal it does not means that the society is not male dominated. It is a sad conclusion of anthropology that the, often times ruthless, domination of women by men has been for a long time a constant of human history.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago
> While it's true that in some societies some women were in position power, it does not mean that woman as a class eschewed domination. IIRC in the Iroquois confederation, women were organized as one of society's pole, the economic domestic one, and had power in times of war because war needs the collaboration of the whole society. It is also hard to say if that they had always had that power or gained it during war times. In any case, they were/are statistically rare. That is not correct. > When the 5 nations needed to make a critical decision, such as going to war, they would decide via the Grand Council. Representatives of each clan called Sachems conducted the council meetings themselves. > The Sachems were voted to their political positions by their designated Clan Mothers, the matrilineal hereditary leaders of their nations, and were perceived by the Haudenosaunee as sacred leaders. Women were seen as almost divine beings, albeit for practical reasons that aided their society’s survival..... > Although the chiefs held most of the political power and day to day governance, the Clan Mother possessed the power to dismiss the chief if she and other Mothers felt he was doing a poor job. > Chiefs handled civic matters, others took care of military operations, and Sachems acted as a Congress to vote on decisions for the Confederacy at the councils. Making the chiefs and sachems more akin to elected officials and not the monarchal leaders we often associate with today in indigenous culture. [1] This shows that the role of the clan mothers was more similar to a permanent parliament that could form local executives (chiefs), dismiss them at will, and controlled the decision-making for the confederation by selecting representative decisionmakers for the grand council. This has some similarities to the Italian style parliament, with permanent members dominating the government. [1] https://historyhustle.com/iroquois/ https://historyhustle.com/iroquois/