Dear Cecil,
In all these years I have never corrected you…I so appreciate your mission!
However, you are partly wrong about the prehistoric cultures and the claims made by Marija Gimbutas and her people…it always was an Egalitarian society as you agree…the concept of a matriarchal culture in which women Dominate men, has not been seriously held (except for a few tribal exceptions.) Marija G. and Riane Eisler talk about this: when women “rule” men and women rule together. Men are NOT subordinate. It is quite likely that pre-agricultural clans were egalitarian. As you agreed. The lady who believes in Matriarchal Dominance is in a delusional cult, but one of the most harmless. It is a straw-woman. The Iron Matron has always existed and has always been an exception. Theoretically it is possible to devise an egalitarian society…humanity has a long future, barring catastophe. Perhaps sometime our descendents will achieve it!
Valerie Stansfield
Los Angeles
Hi, Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board.
I am just going to link the article in question.
Earth Mother: Has there ever been a true matriarchal culture?
The matriarchal society column reminds me of something I’ve read repeatedly about the history of belly dance from certain sources … namely the claim that its prehistoric origin was to help women in childbirth, and that “sexy” belly dancing was something the patriarchy imposed on women at some point.
Given the prehistoric nature of belly dancing’s origins, I don’t suppose we’ll ever be sure how it originated, but it strikes me as just as likely, if not more so, that belly dancing was a technique originally used by women to express their sexuality for an appreciative male audience. The claims that it had to have been a childbirth thing strikes me as very unscientific, unhistorical wishing something were true, and then claiming it as fact.
It would be all right if it were offered as a theory worth investigating, but calling it fact is just wrong.
Much like the whole matriarchy thing.
There is no evidence-short of ideological fantasy–that any pre-historic society was “egalitarian” (i.e. lacking patriarchy in hierarchy, etc.)
Even if the relics found did reflect a primary female god ,which itself is doubtful, it would demonstrate only that religion does not determine dominance.
There are a great many societies that have been studied by anthropologists that are as primitive as the pre-historic societies. None lack patriarchy, etc.
Steven Goldberg
You’ve made this assertion twice in two threads. Could you please explain some of the cases I have mentioned? Specifically, I think they were the North American Shoshone, the Peruvian Machiguenga, and Kalahari !Kung. All three lacked patriarchy.
To a lesser extent, the Central Enga of New Guinea could be included there, too.
A few historians have theorized an egalitarian (or possibly female-dominated) home culture in ancient Japan.
While there’s no direct, hard evidence, Stearns puts forward a believable hypothesis.
I especially enjoy how the article in the link above distinguishes female modes of dominance/influence from male modes.
Matriarchy (Earth Mother Thread)
“Wooden Taco” suggests that three societies have lacked the institutions I discussed: The !Kung, the Machiguenga, and the Shoshone.
The quotations below are from ethnographic materials I have at hand. I trust this will persuade “Wooden Taco” that they are dubious exceptions. If not, I can get others, but they take weeks to get.
The !Kung: I suspect that the belief that the !Kung are an exception derives from one of the tertiary sources referring to Bloomberg’s Social Theory. Many such sources have done this, without reporting Bloomberg’s acknowledgement (page 277) that the !Kung are “comprised of “male-centered groups” in which men “have power and can exercise their will in relation to women” (p. 277).
The Machiguenga: “Rosengren sees a general pattern of male dominance.“ (Page 94)
“Men are associated with strength and courage. Husbands inevitably precede their wives (and their children)…Women are described as fearful. (pages 92-3)
“Men must be strong. A woman cries at a harsh word.”
Moreover, the Machiguenga are polygynous. Even without other evidence, it would be a stretch to see the a society in which a man can have more than one wife as lacking male dominance.
Source: Families of the Forest: The Machiguenga Indians of The Peruvian Andes. (University of California Press, 2002)
The Soshone: None of the sources I have at hand directly discuss the male-female issue. However, Shoshone Bannock; Subsistence and Society(Robert and Yolanda Murpheyt (University of California Anthropological Report, 1947) makes clear that all of the chiefs and nearly all of the other leaders are male.
A few additional points:
[1] There are a few very small societies comprised of roaming families with little need of superfamilial institutions. To the extent that these lack hierarchy, they, of course, lack male-dominated hierarchy. But it every such society there is a male dominance and authority in male-female encounters. I argue that this is owing to the same, or similar, neurondocrinological male-female differences that xplain male dominance of hierarchies.
[2] “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” When we see that all of the thousands of societies anthropologists have examined are male dominated, a claimed exception must be pretty clearly an exception. Clearly, none of the above are.
[3] Secondary sources, like anthropology and sociology introductory texts, often have claimed exceptions. When one consults the original source, it always becomes clear that the claim is bogus. (I have consulted all of the original sources claimed by such books. The dust on these ethnographies makes it clear that the textbook writers never look to the original, but merely copy another texts false claim.)
[4] The important male-female difference is neurological, a difference in the biology of dominance tendency. Physical strength plays a small role. (Technological societies are more male dominated than many primitive societies.)
Anyway, members who are interested in all this might like to take a look at my Why Men Rule (A later edition of (The Inevitability of Patriarchy).
Steven Goldberg
I believe I read that several Native American tribes were Matriarchies. Many of them were easily destroyed when the European invaders spoke to the men who were not in power and had them sign the treaties instead of the women which handled the politics.
In both the Hopi and the Lakota the women own the houses or tepees.
I’m sorry I do not have references for this material.
Though the Hopi order was referred to in the book The Hopi survival kit by Thomas E. Mails.
Matrilineal descent is not at all the same thing as matriarchy.
I don’t know if this technically qualifies as “matriarchal,” but the Pilaga Indians of Argentina have/had the following cultural attributes:
-
Matrilocal culture
-
Women have multiple sexual partners before marriage, all premarital pregnancies terminated by abortion
-
Female plays dominant role in choosing sexual partners (women marry men from other villages who come to live in their village, if divorce occurs he returns to his village)
Just thought this might be worth noting!
SOURCE: McDermott, Lois J. Human Sexuality. Sixth ed. Boston: Pearson, 2006. 6.
I have nothing to add here except that I will henceforth begin accusing my opponents in a debate of constructing straw-women. Nicely done. 
A few of you danced around this idea already, but it seems to me that the question itself – “Has there ever been a culture dominated by women instead of men?” is inherently sexist. It presumes that women, if placed in the position of respect and responsibility, would do what the majority of male powers have done in human history (with a few potential exceptions as noted above) – that is, dominate the other sex. But I suppose the definition of a matriarchy/patriarchy is a society being dominated by one sex or the other – which, as with many outdated anthropolgical and sociological normative definitions, may well be skewed toward men. Perhaps a better question is, “Have there been cultures which men did NOT dominate?”
Even if the Venus figurines represented goddess worship, does it indicate a matriarchal culture? I can say it isn’t so - just look at Hinduism. In India, we have been worshiping female deities for millennia, and there is even a saying in Sanskrit that translates (roughly) as “Where women are worshiped, Gods live happily”. But unfortunately, this hasn’t translated into real respect for women - much less a matriarchal culture.
If all that survived of present-day America was magazine covers, archaeologists of the future would probably think the USA was a matriarchy.
Hmm, perhaps the figurines are in fact prehistoric porn?
That’s a *really *good point!
There was a thread a couple of days ago asking about whether a woman has “founded” any religion, and I discovered that my answer (limited to neopagan religions, which are goddess-heavy, although not exclusively goddess worship) was peppered with “but it’s not hierarchical” and "depends on what you mean by “founded” " and “inspired, but not led by…” sorts of comments. The very fact that the women run sects (that I know of) run differently than the Catholic church made it a very hard question to answer! Did Starhawk “found” the Reclaiming tradition? If you ask them (and I have) you’ll hear, “Well, she’s our most famous member, but she’s not our leader - we don’t have leaders.” Yet it’s undeniably NOT a patriarchal group. Is it a matriarchal one? Well, no, not really that either.
Perhaps matriarchy doesn’t exist because the very concept is a patriarchal one.
“Primitive” may need examination. Jane Jacobs made the case (in “Nations and the Wealth of Cities,” I think, though the book is packed away) that existing “primitive” societies come to us through thousands of years of history, often including a more “advanced” past, so that taking them as pointers to the character of truly ancient societies may not work. Are existing cultures primitive in the sense of “as things originally were,” or are they eroded? (Jane Jacobs uses the example of an Appalachian community she once lived with, where people were absolutely sure they could not build a church out of stone because stone walls could not be built that high without falling over. “But their ancestors built the cathedrals of Europe.”)
I like Jacobs, but if she actually said that she was talking outside her competence.
Nobody doubts that individuals in a society may lose knowledge or skills of the past. But I don’t believe that any anthropologists believe that entire societies exist that were once more advanced. And certainly the beliefs of a tiny sliver of the uneducated in one section of a hugely advanced society don’t make the case in any form.
There are some caveats. “Primitive” tribes of today seldom exist in a form comparable to their societies of thousands of years before. They often have been overrun by modern society, their traditional hunting and gathering grounds truncated, the animals they fed off of decimated or eliminated, and their population severely reduced, etc. This would certainly would impact on their remaining skills. You can’t pass down knowledge if the elders don’t live or their memories are no longer useful.
But there never were any such thing as primitive advanced societies. We may not know every technique of the past, because no need exists for them in daily use today, and temporary losses of knowledge because of war, famine, and dispersals are obvious. But that’s all limited and temporary. Scholars today are even disputing the notion that the “Dark Ages” were really all that dark.
We can’t always guarantee that every tribal culture, especially those traumatized by the present, have retained their cultural forms throughout history. However, the chances are high that our overall understanding of the pasts of the majority is good.
Yes, that sort of thing always puts me in mind of misspent hours in my youth reading James Churchward.