I think this sort of thing is super important to contemplate, how so much of what we have, we assume there is some grand logic to it, "it's our human nature", "it's what God determined", when it's probably mostly just historical accidents compounding on themselves from being part of this large chaotic system
The biggest reason why hueman societies tend to order themselves the way they do is that they're a reflection of our biology as a species and the instinctual behaviors passed down to us through our genes. Sexual dimorphism in huemans predisposes men to enjoy and excel in certain roles and women in others, and while there are outliers and exceptions the trend is strong enough that societies ordered and led by men are overwhelmingly the norm historically.
Not true Ashley the more we study DNA more. It seems like our behaviors are inite. for example, statistic shows that children often display personality traces their parents spite have never met them. There are plenty of other examples.
There is logic to it. A matriarchy cannot defend itself against a patriarchy except, theoretically, by forcing the men in the society to defend it. However, in reality, the “matriarchs” can’t force the men to do anything, while the men of that society could just overthrow throw the matriarchs whenever they wish.
@@joelharris2228 I disagree! A patriarchy to be fully established, almost all people are configured in androcentrism towards dominantly male advantage over female. A matriarchy to be fully established, almost all people are configured in gynocentrism towards dominantly female advantage over male. It is the deep instilled belief learned and experienced from childhood. If almost all women some how cease from androcentrism, the patriarchy would not last long. If almost all men some how cease from gynocentrism, the matriarchy would not last long.
in this chaos all the systems had equal chances to take over, but the one that we got is patriarchy. The fact that you see it as merely a coincidence, rather than a natural order is so foolish
Matriarchy is natural if there is little need for men. The Bonobos live in an ecology where everything is within easy reach, and there are no natural threats. In Western modernity we've replaced men with indebtedness.
But society cannot exist without men because men build everything around you in society. All buildings and cars and planes and cell phones. All technologies are invented by men too. Your home and office are built by men too. Of course men are indispensable.
Before Louis Leakey recruited Jane Goodall, all anthropoligists were male, and completely obsessed with male hierarchies in herd, pack animals. It was always about how the males "conrolled" everything. Then Jane came along, showing that societal structures were more fluid, and the "animals" were more intelligent. Chimps use tools!!! No male anthropoligist ever noticed that before... and they also went to "war" with other troops. It's always more complicated than we think.
Gender bias is real. Men have been taught from a young age g age that their gender is superior and that they should dominate, especially white men. No wonder the interpretations were biased, they only saw what they wanted to see
Real power historically was determined by military power, a perfect equitable society could be overthrown easily by a vicious patriarchy - of men who conquered. Societies would have to organize their own men for physical defense, women were too biologically valuable to risk being killed in combat, men were typically not.
@@chosen8843Koryos🦁🦁💪💪. Vratyas in vedas, ulfhednar in Norse, krypteia in Greek, naked warriors of Celts(attested historically) harii in Germanic and wastyrgi in iranic mythology. Along with these there are archaeological evidence of wolf sacrifices and horse sacrifices indicating that this did happen.
I was going to say much the same thing so have latched onto your thread. In evolution the chief threats to man would have been the environment and animals. As the density of humans increased the greater threat was other humans. This lead to the need for defence as a primary driver so that men became more important. Fighters would tend to put the best fighter in charge. So this was the regime which existed mainly to the present day. What could disrupt this? Well you have firearms which could have allowed women to compete on a more equal footing and more particularly you have nuclear weapons which rationally should make major wars uneconomic. You might argue that the EU with its low military expenditure and emphasis on welfare and a greater allowance for matriarchy was a product of a world with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately this EU type creation could be destroyed by the actual eventual use of nuclear weapons and hence a reversion to the earlier dynamics. Sooner or later an irrational person will control and use nuclear weapons, maybe Putin. Only a matter of time.
But gender equality is impossible because women are hypergamous and require their mates to be taller and stronger and richer. That's not equal. Hence equality creates inequality.
I’d never heard of partnership culture, but it’s really beautiful to think about. I’d like to think that our current questioning of gender can lead us closer to this again.
It is nonsense... they absolutely do not know any of this. They are simply putting their own values onto the past, in other words, this is worthless virtue-signalling junk.
Only because anchant cultures are filtered threw that mindset. Pre Christian Celtic cultures Vikings Native Americans Are all ones you might want to learn about
Of course you never heard of it. This is a brand new woke propaganda concoction of absolute foolishness. Common sense says men and women both have roles we must fulfill for society to function.
I hope that on your podcast you will discuss the scholarship of Riane Eisler, Marija Gimbutas, Germaine Greer, and others. It's not true that all societies have always been led by men. There have been matriarchal or egalitarian societies in history.
This was a very insightful video. I appreciate your research into evidence of partnership cultures but also framing the question of patriarchy as ultimately a choice, not predetermined. Btw - I saw you used a lot of art to illustrate this video and it's quite beautiful. In the age of AI, I think it's important to cite the sources of your art, human or AI. For future videos, please be sure to share the artists info too, thanks!
@@jessicaoncanvas I wouldn’t exactly call that evidence. Even if you could demonstrate that primitive man worship goddesses, and was matrilineal that proves nothing. The Athenians worship goddess Athena yet they were misogynist at the highest order. The kush were matrilineal yet we still mailed dominated. While the Kush did have some queens, those queens held power only as regents for their son. This video is at best unsubstantiated conjecture not evidence.
Wowow i’ve just come across your channel!! Thankyou so much for your work! Such great clearly explained videos! I’ll be sharing them with everyone i know 💗💗
You've laid your curiosity out so clearly here. The clapping bonobo might be my soul primate sister 👏👏👏 Excellent work, Amy! Here's to hoping for a partnership future!
Love your content, and this is an amazing video to start the conversation of Patriarchy. Your podcast is quite centered in religion views, and i really don't think you can dismantle Patriarchy without dismantling religion institutions. Believing in some force or entity CANNOT be linked to an institution in current existence. That is the beginning of society problem with the shackles of patriarchy on humans. Texts treating women as less will always be present in the unconscious as long as they are read. Misogynistic texts must be abandoned and disavowed. Religious institutions as we know it, continue to abuse the young (in more ways than i ca say here) and limits the life of most humans even it not religious. As an atheist women, i feel in my life the grasp of Religious Institutions, it's impossible to not feel their influence. Communities like yours must start the work of freeing people from the the abuse of religion.
"Is Patriarchy Natural?" All things are natural unless you propose aliens from Alpha Centauri imposed something of the sort. Patriarchy appears normal, which means evolutionary adapted to temperate climates. Matriarchy such as at Samoa is an evolutionary adaptation where you might not know your father but you always know your mother.
Roman women didn't even get to have their own names; they just had the Fem version of the family name, followed by a number indicating their birth order. Seems pretty patriarchal and dominating to me.
@@KittyScythe Romans are overrated and also one of the most barbaric, oppressive, backwards and insane societies to walk on Earth. Despite what we are taught in the west, the cities were filled with plagues and their armies were the strongest when filled with non-romans. Most of the wars were won by playing dirty.
If patriarchy were simply natural to humans, no one would have to argue for it, or at least arguments against it would seem fringe and absurd. The evidence that patriarchy is not our nature is that, even looking at modern society, an alien anthropologist would not find a straightforward patriarchy. Not an exactly egalitarian society, but not exactly a patriarchy either. A society in which men and women share most jobs, with some but not complete division of labour, where women have property rights, sexual and reproductive rights, and can be political leaders, is quite different from ancient societies where women were close to property. The most patriarchal societies today are desperately poor, and those that remain more patriarchal have opened up to women's rights significantly. It is not all progress and perfection, but if we consider modern society, advocates for the naturalness of patriarchy are forced into claiming there is something quite unnatural about modernity. True though that may be, it only implies that human nature, at least as it is typified by past societies, is not something that must remain unchanged throughout all history.
The societies which go away from patrichy because they become more developed then other patrichal societies they don't become more developed because of women right they become developed first then women rights came. Femnism can only exist in comfortable environment
It really just comes down to males generally being the protector in almost every group. That responsibility lends itself to leading and making decisions
Could it be that a matriachy doesnt function as a heirachy but as interdependant equality ...look at the Bobono ...there is one wise one but she doesnt get extra doo das ...everyone knows her and she can be approached at any time . I enjoyed Gadon , "once and future goddess " a book of art .
That's just cherry -picking....Hyenas are much more clear-cut matriarchy where lead is always female..... however they r way more ruthless to each other than likes of lions. As for humans, one heavily overlooked reason why matriarchies fall quickly is because they eventually 'shun' huge number of young men who don't have resources....those young men either band together and create a patriarchy...or just ghost when an external threat like war comes. True egalitarianism and matriarchy are different.
And it isn't true... just like the nonsense about wolves which has been turned completely on its head. There are NO Alpha males or females. There is just mummy and daddy wolf with two to three years of pups forming the FAMILY pack. In fact, just about EVERYTHING they believed about wolf packs was wrong!
Yes, i think saying matriarchy is the opposite of patriarchy is a mistake, most societies structured by women are horizontal, people are allocated by capacity and usefulness. Calling them partnership societies may not be as offensive, most men do not even understand a world without hierarchy, they rely on it feom a young age, and do not know how to operate without it.
The research regarding the nonviolence within Bonobo societies is outdated. I cannot post a link in this comment section, but the title of the 2024 study I'm referring to is: "Differences in expression of male aggression between wild bonobos and chimpanzees".
" I cannot post a link in this comment section". So right. A few years ago I used to put in direct links which helped arguments a lot. Then youtube took these links and comments down so we have to put up titles like you have done. UA-cam likes comments but not referenceable facts!
She said a lot of different things, and they aren't all outdated. What is outdated is the idea that male-male violence is entirely rare. What is not outdated, though, is that: 1) bonobos are pretty dang matriarchal, 2) bonobos show much less male-on-female aggression than chimps do (and more female-on-male!), and 3) male-on-male bonobo violence, even if individual incidents are more common, is far less extreme than in chimps. Bonobo male-male violence is focused on individuals sorting out some internal pecking order. Chimp male-male violence involves coalitions fighting other coalitions (or lone outsiders) or ganging up on an unpopular insider. This is very often extremely brutal and even deadly, while bonobo males have never been recorded killing each other.
@@HuckleberryHim Yes, bonobo social structures are less violent than those of chimpanzees. However, Amy described violence within bonobo society as "extremely rare." which is contradicted by the article I cited. The article also indicates that both more aggressive male bonobos and chimpanzees have greater mating opportunities. It seems odd that female bonobos would prefer more aggressive males to mate with if they were overly concerned about violence. Could it be that female bonobos view it as more valuable for a male bonobo to stay and fight the attacking tiger rather than flee in terror? It's important to recognize that data can be selectively sourced or interpreted to support different viewpoints, which appears to be what Amy is doing.
An easier explanation for this is that where you have competition often through warfare there is a continuous need to get new and better technology. Competition drives evolution, where there is no competition you get stagnation and even regression biologically.
@@alanrobertson9790 In an egalitarian society (matriarchy) there is no benefit to overproduce, leaving the society in a constant state of underproduction and no incentive to innovate. In a meritocracy (Patriarchy) you reap what you sew and it provides incentive to overproduce and sell your excess. There is also an incentive to innovate.
@@Aryaba patriarchy is absolutely natural. feminism is only a tool for the destruction of marriage, family and society, wich is what we are seeing today in western countries...
That bit about the ancient hunter is so fascinating! So much of our research is clearly influenced in ways by the biases we have inherited and it is so important to be curious and question our assumptions.
So true!! I was so touched by hearing the hunter was a woman because I had never thought of myself as a woman capable of something like that. So silly, but just an example of how deeply ingrained these ideas are.
Lion prides are actually ruled by the females, all of whom are related (mothers, daughters, sisters, etc.) - the ONLY purpose the lion has in the 3-5 years he has with the pride before another male replaces him is to sire cubs and protect the pride from other males. He doesn't hunt - the lionesses do all of that - but he gets to eat his fill first, and will do so even if the rest of the pride goes hungry. When he is replaced, the new male will often kill of the young cubs unless the lionesses keep him from doing so. Wild equines - the bands are almost always related females with a herd stallion who might be with the band for a few years, maybe a decade. But the lead mare is the one who directs where the herd goes for water and food and when they will migrate from one place to another within their territory. The mares also let the stallion know what they will tolerate and what they won't. What some people think of as patriarchy among animals really isn't.
@@ashwinvk4124 Most male lions do not hunt while being in a pride. Face it, the females are faster and a hell of a lot better at stalking and hunting strategy. It's like human males - when on their own they are self sufficient but once they've got a mate they lose all ability and desire to do for themselves. And once they get booted out, they tend to be in sorry shape.
@@allisonshaw9341 there are hundreds of videos of male Lions hunting , these Lions are nomads and some of them are also part of a pride. Male Lions can often be solitare hunters as opposed to females who are more likely to be group hunters, even in a pride a male Lion's strength is used to bring down a buffalo. With that said it's quite possible that a male Lion in a pride might be less likely to hunt as they might spend a lot of time guarding and marking their territory.
@@ashwinvk4124 And even more videos of the lionesses doing the actual takedown and killing of prey, as well as the lion eating his fill before allowing the females and cubs their share., his bag of tobacco, rolling papers, and matches all right there for his evening smoke. Lion prides are matriarchal societies - the ONLY purpose the male has is reproduction and protecting his offspring from other males. Prides have gone without males for months when the females choose to do so in order to protect the lives of their cubs. Believe me, human males are just as dangerous to other men's children, which is no excuse for a species that is supposedly the most intelligent on the planet.
I love that you added, "disease is natural." Natural does not necessarily mean good in food sources or societal structures. However, since humans seem to use "natural" as a justification for many things, it's good to question the assumption. I love Riane Eisler. Thanks for making this available!
Except that she is trying to make a point about the value of natural states of mind in the respective genders of our species through analogy with the naturalness of diseases, which have nothing to do with any state of mind. Bad analogy.
It's still a dumb analogy becausehuman's don't use diseases to function. Diseases infecting our bodies is natural FOR THEM so it's good for them, and patriarchy is natural FOR US which is why all societies formed that way. Try telling bacteria it should try living in death valley.
Continuing on your thoughts... Patriarchy worked for Humanity for at least 40,000 years. We should be extremely arrogant to think that we can try to replace this arrangement and Humanity will survive even 2 - 3 generations of it.
Great point at the end. A lot of people use the appeal to nature fallacy to argue against things they don’t understand, like gmos. But gmos are what gives us higher yields, more drought resistant plants, and more nutritious food.
Actually, most every food, our meat, fruits and vegetables, are and have been genetically manipulated by humans throughout human history. The livestock we raise to eat look nothing like their ancestorial stock and the same for our fruits and vegetables. We've been artificially breeding and hybridizing since the earliest days of agriculture thousands of years ago. The only difference now is we can do it in a laboratory rather than trial and error in the fields and paddocks.
@@HeirOfNothingInParticular It’s called artificial selection which is akin to natural selection which artificial selection causes purposeful manipulation of the genes for a desired outcome. One picks a male and female with different genes that a breeder calculates will result in offspring with a mixture of gene traits desired. It can take many generations and combinations before reaching one’s goal. Today, with massive data on genetics, it’s easier and quicker to mix and match and even alter genes to affect a desired outcome.
Fan girling that you got to speak with Gerda Lerner!! Loved this concise, informative, well researched video. And I love that you answer this question with a question. It invites thoughtful conversation instead of argument, and wow do we ever need this type of approach if we are to communicate and connect and change.
Nice video. I read DNA in its title, but I think I missed that part while watching. Neanderthal Y-chromosome DNA in Siberian finds seems to have been much less diverse than maternal mitochondrial DNA at the same finds, suggesting that the men stayed put over longer periods / generation, whereas the women moved around, possibly being married off to more remote groups. This suggests at least a patrilocal family organisation, if not necessarily an actual patriarchal hierarchy (Lauritz Skov, Berkeley I think). Can you perhaps comment on this? Looking forward to more. Thomas in Finland
there are no such papers, at least i coudnt find them. matriarchy is probably not a natural state at any time in history, but i think we can agree that woman in ancient times could have had a voice of equal power to men, but I suspect that the most crucial decisions (attack/escape/surrender) were made by one individual, most likely male. Also I remember reading somewhere few years ago, that early homo sapiens gorps where based more on partnership staying together and cooperating willingly for grup' s well being rather than having some kind leadership forcing decisions on others, so i guess we could call them egalitarian of some sort. unfortunately at the beginning material contains incorrect information about bonobo's aggression. recent observations have shown that bonobos exhibit aggressive behavior slightly more often than common chimpanzees. However the form and insensitivity of their aggressive behaviors are much less brutal than in the case of other chimpanzees. This was the reason that previous data suggested that bonobo are chimp pacifists. i'll be so kind and even provide confirming source: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240412113444.htm also regular chimps group are more often lead by the male who is most effective at forming alliances with other members of the herd, and is not nesesery strongest individual in the group. scr: www.amazon.com/Chimpanzee-Politics-Power-Sex-Among/dp/0801886562
In half of all species across the animal kingdom, females are either larger and eat the males during sex or they are equal. Only in species where the male protects and provides for the female does nature allow males to grow to be larger than females and are left alive. Lionesses get rid of males they don’t like, and women who don’t buy into misogynistic brainwashing have formed successful bands to take down men using superior numbers. Women are also more social and this better able to form and expand cohesive bands more easily with less violent in-fighting.
We may not confuse matrilineal society with matriarcal The ancient Elamites culture was matrilineal but they were a warlike mostly male dominated culture! In European neolitic cultures there is more traces of violent death than among the first Indo-Europeans who Yamnaya and Corded cultures who replace them replace them.
Very awesome video. Love the idea of this "partnership" culture. I find both matriarchy and patriarchy lame and stupid. I can 100% get behind the concept of partnership cultures.
Women will always be disadvantaged because she sacrifices her life and body to have offsprings. We need to have a conversation about this mythical partnership and equality we hear and understand it in detail what it is.
This was super interesting. Thank you for doing this. You didn't mention current tribes that are matriarchal though. I'd like to know how and why those tribes exist.
Cyclically speaking, patriarchy is a natural tail-end extension of a matriarchy. One can not exist without the other as they follow one another throughout the course of all eternity. Spiritually speaking (gender aside), matriarchy can begin with a fundamental understanding of the cyclical nature of reality (God). Represented by the snake in many creation myths, the living cycle has a trinity of a beginning (head), a middle and end (tail). As above so below, the sexes were created in the image of God's cyclical nature where Mother is the head and opening to all beginnings and Father holds the tail to all endings (through which the sowing of seeds allow for the next great matriarchal rebirth).The joining of the two (symbolized by the Ouroborus or the marriage ring) is the sacred union needed in assuring the creation and continuation of new life cycles. To speak of the present day God as "Our Father" is simply an admission to our collective positioning within the bigger cycle. As all mothers have direct experience with the creator quality of birthing, so is the direct experience of rebirthing the divinity within (baptism) belong to that which is spiritually matriarchal. (John 3, verse 3-8). Sekhmet statues (ancient Egyptian) carry most of their weight in symbolic memory of what was a mother culture dedicated to the direct experience of baptism. As the leg shaped hairlocks extend from maternal breasts to the womb of rebirth, the lioness's head proportions are such that they highlight the bust of a second animal figure. The Lioness's ears as eyes and eyes as nose (nostrils) brings to life the figure of a reptile. 'Neath the halo headress of the solar egg, the lioness's egg fertilization process being internal (Set) and the reptile's egg fertilization process being external (Setting), such being key components to the safety of entering the trans-egoic or "born again" state. The life threatening fear associated with the predatory nature of a lion and/or crocodile encounter are reflective of the intense ego death experiences associated with the transpersonal awakening process. In spiritually matriarchal times, illumination could be seen as wearing the false beard (ancient Egyptian funerary "ego" death mask) as the high state of cyclical self knowing; high awareness of both our upper matriarchal half and our lower (later) patriarchal half (compared with a mini lower body replica, an "as above so below" tail end beard extension); in full recognition of her civilizational Underworld; her inevitable cyclical destiny. The male pharaoh wears his beard tapered in reverse, indicating a pointing upwards towards the patriarchal head, divine representative of God's tail end cycle. Mary's anointing and wiping of Jesus's feet with her hair can then be seen as "Head to tail" (toe) imagery as she descends her matriarchal head to his patriarchal feet, thus reenacting the high understanding of the divine cyclical process. (John 12, verse 3) To carry the Ankh (now the female symbol ♀️) was perhaps to symbolically carry that upper and lower understanding. As the upper matriarchal womb symbolised the fertile birthing of civilization, below, the now Christian cross is carried to place emphasis on the lower (later) "End Times" Father principle of the great cycle. Lord Ganesha, the elephant headed Hindu diety, displays a cyclical head to trunk symbolism and points to the Mother head of his matriarchal elephant society. Ganesha (like the elephant) wears God's cyclical nature on his face. A whole temple was dedicated to Hathor (ancient Egyptian diety), who is the matriarchal "Uterus" personified. ua-cam.com/video/J0m0zJSEFK0/v-deo.html "See all women as mothers, serve them as your mother. when you see the entire world as the mother, the ego falls away. See everything as Mother and you will know God." - Neem Karoli Baba "My son, keep thy father's commandment and forsake not the law of thy mother" - Proverbs 6 : 20
@@lisaprice8538 thoughtful research? What are you talking about at the most? All she can present is that some people worshiped goddesses and at least one woman was a hunter or could’ve been. That doesn’t prove much of anything.
They did, probably because she was good at it. You want to eat or be enforcing power and starve to death? Now men are more interested in holding on power, than saving humans from extinction... Well done Men!!!
Yes, but it also could be natural for a past but it doesn't mean it's natural for our future. I would make the argument that patriarchy doesn't make sense in the modern world. Maybe it made sense in the past but it doesn't make sense now. It seems like every fundamentalist group that tries to enforce patriarchy in some level all have to result into minimizing technology or having to exert control over it. That's something I genuinely notice, like what do you think of what happened in some parts of the world, fundamentalist groups how culturally it's so much further behind but this culture that I'm referring to is technological culture.
Links to sources would be helpful. Mostly we have stories about stories. DNA will be important but independent verification of research will be a long time coming, AI enabled or not. Finding DNA building reward systems for aggression, violence, or restraint and separating the nature from the nurture impacts will be close to impossible. Does it really matter what the past is? What can we do today to make today good and tomorrow better? As for change over time…isn’t anyone considering that the knowledge of self-control of fertility by women has created our current time and moment but can we assume other healthy ways were not known in the past to give regular women control over when and how many children she would bear? Repressing that knowledge would trap women into endless childbearing cycles with all the social, biological and economical consequences that creates.
A society needs to have strong men to protect their women otherwise another society of strong men will come and take them by force. Strength and dominance go hand in hand, hence why men often end up dominant in society. A strong independent woman can only exist because decent men respect her as an equal. Men with no respect for these social norms, usually outsiders, can shatter this state of equality by force if they are allowed to.
@@toddmcdaniels1567 that could be true but men also comm1t suic1d3 at a higher r4te. But really, it probably shouldn't be a whose the most fragile contest in the first place, right? Men and women can be stronger together, but it doesn't have to be because one of them is weak alone
Ahhh yes, women hunters and warriors and I suspect ages ago much more democratic in ways many would barely comprehend now yet still would appreciate if able to participate 😊
First know I believe in equality among the two sexes. But a few points I would make. First we must not forget that chimps or any ape is not a direct ancestor of us. Chimps will act in brutal ways sometime, male AND female. I saw a female chimp who would steal infants from other chimps, and ate them. They are chimps and often act in ways totally different from us. I went to very "liberal" seminary. In a under ground passage there were drawings of men with their private parts looking like swords. Although this was a seminary W.I.C.A. was very common. It comes from unjustified fear by some women. This fear leads to hate, and hate to anger. I read a post once by a woman who claimed in spirit she traveled to a planet where most males have their parts cut of, (a few left for reproduction). She claimed it was paradise. There are men (like me) who are tired of this irrational hate towards men. Lastly I remember ed a conversation I had. I told this woman, "we all know a older man who still has a sex drive is what? A dirty old man. But an older woman is what? A cougar!! Women have to stop hating men!!
Thank you for doing this channel and with your clear conciseness 😊 just got to 3min mark and had to pause to write,many early humans as hunter/gatherers were also nomadic/migratory, some of the early groups/tribes around the planet had matriarchal, IDK how much you looked into that but I do know it's really a daunting task, as my own father did it on n off over the course of 50years and much written in was produced patriarchal society so finding information is its own type of archaeological dig😅
Patriarchy is natural. When studying Bonobo, all you learn about is how Bonobo behave. It has nothing to do with how humans behave. Women, always trying to change the NATURAL order of things. Men being bigger, stronger, and smarter (creative), were design to rule.
Wouldn't the best question be : What is most preferable ? and wouldn't that be dependant on the environment, context and habitat ? I watched another documentary on Bonobos and Chimps that attempts to explain why both evolve different societies, because of their environment and habitats. If patriarchy evolved ''naturally'' wouldn't it be because its the most preferable for the human environment and context ? If western society is no longer patriarcal, is that beneficial to our survival or not ? That seems to me the most important question.
1:54 Recent Bonobo Study "The results, Mouginot says, “really came as a surprise.” Overall, male bonobos turned out to be about three times as likely as chimps to engage in aggressive behavior. Although none of the encounters were lethal-and the team didn’t track the severity of injuries-bonobos weren’t afraid to push, hit, and bite their foes. Their aggression didn’t appear to be a turn-off for female bonobos, who actually preferred to mate with aggressive males.
Male-male violence in bonobos is just a completely different thing than in chimps; in chimps the pecking order is mostly worked out and it takes big shifts to change it. Higher-ranking males might discipline or bully low-ranking ones sometimes, and occasionally a group will overthrow the alpha or the entire group will gang up on a member. Of course they're very territorial and often fight other tribes. But outside of these circumstances, there's nothing to fight about. Bonobo violence is very individual-focused and doesn't have big consequences. It might be frequent, sure; that's because the hierarchy is less established and less important. But it is far, far less intense than it is in chimps. It rarely results in death (none have been recorded), while chimpanzees regularly and brutally kill each other.
@@HuckleberryHim Several years back, saw a show on PBS about an island full of rhesus monkeys. Rhesus band into a large female groups, headed by a male. When a younger, more aggressive male beat up the older (more tolerant) male, he became a bully. Attacking mothers, children, low ranked males. One morning the anthropologists came back to the island to discover the new leader beaten to a pulp, and older male reinstalled as alpha. They realized the females had ganged up in the night, taught him a lesson, and brought back the more gentle older male. Moral of the story. Don't piss femals off. They can take "steps."
@@bryanmcclure2220 If you count an incomparably higher fatality rate and higher rate of severe bodily injury as "less violence", then sure. Lol. Willfully obtuse.
@@HuckleberryHim given that according to you chimpanzees only fight for good reasons, competition of resources and protecting of the tribe. Isn’t it more likely that these injuries are result of scarcity of resources not they social structure
"If patriarchy is natural, why is it imposed on us?" Apart from the numerous books I have gathered on pre-colonial matriarchies around the world, I remember an article rn that talks about patriarchy being the byproduct of climate trauma in the Middle East around 5.000 years ago and it makes sense. Also, I wish I had a food forest like in a lot of matriarchal societies.
Halfway through now and after commenting twice have to again Thank You n yr touching on what I commented about in 2 more minutes in 🤘🏾🤙🏾 Rock On girl!!!!💖💖💖🌅🌌😘
Egalitarinism isn't actually truly possible. Because a patriarchy is inevitable. Men are the ones that gives rights, protects your rights and takes away rights from people who violate the law. A female judge don't enforce laws. They give a sentence. They don't force you in handcuffs, places you in a cell with force, and keeps you there with force. If a man was arrested for taking you hostage what keeps him in the court room and not just walk out? And what keeps him in a prison cell and preventing him from escaping? It's all men who take away rights from other men for violating your rights which was given to you by men and protected by men. Thats why Egalitarianism is an illusion because it always needs men to enforce it for it to exist which makes it a patriarchy. For Womens rights to exist they need to appreal to men to protect those rights which were given to them by men. So women need to appeal to a patriarchy enforcement arm in order to have rights which means womens rights doesn't actually exist without a patriarchy to enforce it.
That might be, but in order for that to happen women must understand that this idea of current feminism is nothing more than a push for women to behave more like men do naturally. Which in turn violates and weakens women's natural behaviors and strengths, and puts women in competition with men. You'll never reach this actual "egalitarian" society with how we're currently doing things.
If we have true egalitarianism.......it will. And honestly we had chance around 2-3 decades back. Problem is fmnism is endless male bashing and attacking in name of equality.
@@NoOne-kx7zs Egalitarianism is not possible no matter what because in order to enforce it they have to use men to do that. So they will need a patriarchy enforcement arm in order to enforce it. Which is why it's impossible.
Could be but I've heard archeologists say it began with the advent of agriculture. That would put it back around 9,000 to 10,000 years ago. Tribes that remained more hunter-gatherers were far less patriarchal. We do note that many ancient tribal societies had warrior queens.
@@WayneBraack there is no actual evidence that matriarchal societies is actually exist so no. The best we can show is that goddess worship Was that one time more common. However, society that worships a female deity, does not immediately translate to a matriarchal. Take the city of Athens as their name implies, they primarily worshiped Athena, the goddess of wisdom and war. And even by the standards of their day, the Athenians were misogynist of the highest order.
She's presenting good points. And as a psychologist myself, there are branches of studies that can present opposing views. And that's also a good thing. But when you have those, the most inteligent thing to do is, and my advice to you also: don't be dogmatic.
Alot of women in these comments want a “matriarchy” instead of a “patriarchy”. Sounds like you women just want power so what makes you better than men? What about FREEDOM & EQUALITY
What aboutism! Oh sweetie did you see the video? Or are you just threatened by women speaking? There's no matriarchy in history because women understand collaborating is a much better way of accomplishing thing.
Why are men so afraid of women in authority or seeing them as equal human beings with equal worth in society? When the privileged are made to share, they see it as persecution. That's very pathetic.
@@cmwork8870 There is no matriarchy in history, because patriarchy is fluid and a spectrum dissect all societies individually. You'll learn the Igbo of Nigeria were men dominated all political power, ideals and views of traditional masculinity were fluid were they accepted female-husbands, male-daughters these weren't acts of defiance they were accepted by the culture, the Igbo pre-colonial were also somewhat non-millitaristic. Patriarchy existed everywhere, but varied and was diverse and a spectrum.
Why shouldn’t we want power? Power is fine, if it’s used wisely and for the benefit of all, not just a few who believe ‘might makes right’. When equality feels like oppression.
I love the response to patriarchy being the way it's always been (so it's natural), doesn't mean it's a good thing we shouldn't try to eradicate - just like disease.
12:20: I favour an alternative, but similar theory. The idea that I heard was that societies were originally matriarchal, because domestic policy is dominated by women, but over time technology and progress shifted power from the domestic sphere into the male dominated spheres of trade, industry, war, etc.. So rather than a concious choice, or unconscious according to this video's argument, it's just the course of human history. Evidence in favour of this theory I think is the fact that as power within those male spheres is becoming so concentrated average men have no power over them, the structure of a patriarchal society is weakening. For example: being a tough guy isn't what it used to be since some pencil necked geek with an AK-47 can kill you and your ten buddies in a heartbeat. Conversely industrial jobs are gone, and the 'market' has become the 'supply chain'.
What you are saying is patriarchy is no longer safe for men. Men created those power structures, gave guns like candies, and now more force is necessary? Is that sustainable? Being safe is the basis for a human to thrive and create and be their best self... the USA is a brutal fear mongering system of apparent freedom, nobody is safe... you have no medical safety, no regulation to enforce safety for food and drink for ypu and your Children... you have it all backwards and don't see how bad it is... the amount of energy you (all) spend being afraid, imagine it being spent in your beautiful precious live....
Behaviour is an adaptation to environment, as our environment changes our behaviour changes. Matriarchal societies would have been adaptations to environment and patriarchies are an adaptation to environment too
I didn’t see any DNA evidence. I think this stuff about partnership societies is a bunch of hooey. We see women being more pictorially observable when they have more leverage in the realm of sexual selection. This happened commonly in sedentary agricultural societies. Far from this indicating egalitarianism, there were a small number of apex men who were on top. The rich versus poor disparity was accentuated by agricultural societies and minimized by hunter-gatherer societies. Poor women, though, were likely elevated in life prosperity by apex males who could support a multitude of women. Minoan society btw was Canaanite and like other Canaanite societies probably did egregious things like child sacrifice and the child sacrifice was probably gendered toward firstborn males, indicating a hierarchical relationship in gender (because of the inherent value placed on the sacrifice). There are also accounts of some of those Canaanite goddesses requiring compelled prostitution. In the undeniably hierarchical and patriarchal Indo-European cultures, we see sun worship associated with male gods, yet it is also occasionally associated with female gods, showing that even the gender of the deity worshipped is very limited as a diagnostic for patriarchy/matriarchy.
So you believe that men were heroes for having harems of poor women as prostitutes beholden to them? You do realize these women weren’t given the choice? They were sold, taken, r8ped and discarded for a younger woman when they became pregnant or contracted a disease: Where the hell does this kind of thinking come from?
@@toddmcdaniels1567 indeed, people forget that the Athenians as their name suggest primarily worship the goddess Athena, and yet they were a misogynist of the highest order even by standards of their day. Just because you worship a goddess doesn’t mean that you’re a matriarchy or even egalitarian.
According to the Stanford professor Robert Sapolsky, one consistent behavior associated with the hormone testosterone in mammals is the impulse to dominate. Thats why men always seem to be in charge, regardless if thats what best. Thats why oppresive dictatorships are inherently masculine, and wars are started and fought by men predominantly. But that doesn't imply that those who seek dominance always get their way, or that this this model is whats best suited for the environment we are currently in.
In my opinion, I was limited to a BA in Psychology, and the rest was Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. So, I have a belief. Social beings like primates, including us, have evolved in different cycles with vastly different biomes. Whatever is today, while related to the past, is different than, say, 100 years ago when labor was intense both in the male population and the female population. However, technology has reduced this intensity, leaving opportunities for females and males to share the burden of surviving today's challenges.
The issue when discussing patriarchy is that in modern times we tend to abstract it - making it something in and of itself rather than an emergent property of the qualities of men to women. The emergent property we know as patriarchy is a biological and anthropological phenomenon that persists to this day. From the days of the hunter gatherers to the modern day, men largely influence everything because it is and has always been about competence. Your videos are coming from the perspective of a woman who wants to justify the position of women and maybe even overcome it through a reinterpretation of history so as to justify the current trajectory which liberal society has taken in order to prop up the woman
Greeks remember Minoans by the strong, no-nonsense and even brutal figure of *King* Minos ruling over the region with his strong naval forces. Minos is not a Queen. Women are not known as capable sailors or bronze-clad marines, who would enforce the power of King. It looks like women statuettes are ancient pornography after all.
Both patriarchy and matriarchy are natural, there should be no difference at beginning, nature has no conscious, everything started randomly. It is the later stage, the natual selection phase, that made the difference. The fittest, not necessarily the strongest or the biggest, win the race. In the past, because their lower biological value, men were alway put in the harm's way, so the virtue of patriarchy is forever self preservation. In comparison, since women were primarily the caregivers for their children, the virtue of matriarchy were sympathy and empaty, even in today's world affairs. Hence when patriarchy and matriarchy interact politically, matriarchy are always at a disadvantage. That is the reason why we do not see any major matriarchy societies in the past. It is about the long term survivabilty of self preservation vs sympathy and empathy during geo political interaction, which has nothing to do with if patriarchy is natural or unnatural.
You literally said it yourself. Patriarchy is self serving to the male at the expense of everyone else while matriarchal societies consider everyone especially the children.
I think that we are so programmed to se the hierarchy structure- with one on the top ( patriarchal structure) and the word matriarchal is a sign for that. Gimbutas talk about materlinear structures- meaning that women did it in another way. The Native American people had structures like a group of women deside a selection of males who should participate to leadership- and a group of males picked from this group. And that was called patriarchy by European anthropologists
I think it’s straightforward enough to state that PHYSICAL STRENGTH is what mainly decided dominance in the past, whereas as in the last few centuries knowledge, technology, ability, wisdom etc have overridden that factor to make us less patriarchal. 👫 That too simplistic for y’all?
We have an intellect ,( left brain ) and a soul (right brain ) each brain has characteristics that are both positive and negative .....dominators run a fear based culture ....and look how thats working for everyone . ...( putin ,jinping etc ) A right brain culture is love based equal ,for the good of all AND a healthy environment . ...After the 2000s people are being birn with both brains equal neither dominating ....i call it empowerment ...i had to live around only women on the land before another way became evident ..and i wasnt thinking with a bias ...i like a book called " a once and future goddess " by Gadon ....we had layers to society but nit heirachy ,nir self importance ...bobono survive because food is plentiful ,when food is scarce thats when domination comes to the fore ..eg ice age and meat eaters .o bloods .
I love what you wrote, but never a brain part dominated another, that's not how brains work... that is a lot of pseudoscience... you will always use all your brain (if you are healthy), in no particular dominant way... Brain regions do NOT correlate with personality.
You don't really present enough information to distinguish partnership cultures from domination ones. Using the elements presented, you could argue that we are currently living in partnership culture, but one that has deeper specializations which different exes prefer. Also most archeological evidence does not tell us about the typical inhabitant as most individuals do not have enough resources to leave such evidence behind.
Most discovered information was processed by men. Now women are coming into science and doing the work they didn't. There are ancient scripts from those societies not decoded cause men didn't think it was worth it...
You put together an excellent video, which I enjoyed. Now, Im going to offer my 2 cents Lol It's no longer considered wise to view archeology and anthropology using a strictly linear lens. There are too many exceptions to the traditional linear view (and the categories it produced), which is largely used to support a particular worldview based on preconceived notions of ethnocentrism, racism, and sexism. This isn't to say a linear timeline of human progression doesn't offer a sort of "guide," but as David Graeber and David Wengrow point out in "The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity," it's quite fallible and unreliable, and results in a narrow understanding.
I'm Chickasaw and we were a matriarchal society. All the south eastern woodland tribes were. The clan mothers chose the male minkos, but the minkos only had the authority that came with their wisdom, ability to lead. There were peace Minkos and war minkos. It was much more egalitarian as they way forward would be disgust and agreed upon by many. Our women fought as well, with false stories of the singing hatchet women sending the French fleeing. But, there were / differences in worship, it the women that are the shell shakers, men lead the singing. Only men played Stick Ball, the Little Brother of War. But your clan came from the women and dictated who you were and who you could marry. In my opinion, a much more beautiful and richer way of organizing a society.
I wouldn't call it "natural", but it clearly emerges organically. There are certain environmental conditions which promote its emergence. Human patriarchy was downstream from agriculture and animal husbandry. In as much as humans are in a position to have to compete for scarce or limited resources, said competition will eventually play out as brute force. That type of ecological dynamic favors and empowers males. In the developed Western World we've built this wonderful civilized society where power is exercised in the form of: pen, paper, and politics - advantage women.
I submit to you that matriarchies are the norm. From honey bees to humans, the males do the hard work, and die young. The queens stay at home have babies and live a long time. Who's ruling?
Patriarchies are the norm. Greece, Rome, Literally any Muslim kingdom was patriarchal. Even the most "Equal" of Greek states being Sparta had woman's primary role as giving birth to babies while the men fought. They had a predominantly masculine culture and a king while the woman took charge of the household while the men were away. Men still had the final say.
@@morpheusjones4384and, all of those empires fell, just like the U.S. is falling right now. Isn’t that the definition of insanity, to keep doing the same thing over and over, that doesn’t work?
It is no accident that many of the most patriarchal societies are also the most carnivorous. Does the path back to partnership between the sexes merge with a path back to a more balanced diet?
They didn't have young punks with nothing better to do that entitle themselves to others' lives, personal business, and even property and bodies, as consumables.
Patriarchy = brute force as the ultimate solution to any issues. It appears in films as the "hero" who dominates the evil dominator, the conflict ending with one of several options: a fistfight, a chase scene ending in a shootout with the group having the most firepower winning, or just killing the antagonist. Movies about interactions and emotions, and/or spirituality, are called "chick flicks", and scorned by dominators. Perhaps we can make more movies that show a partnership society and its solutions to the problems we face as humans globally; films like La Belle Verte, although I personally would prefer that they be a bit less of a vegan manifesto.
Domination is promoted currently as the idea that a "bad guy with a gun" should be addressed by a "good guy with a gun". Recent history (for example in Uvalde, Texas) shows that does not solve things and can make them worse.
@@ladybug3380 your statement is literally contradictory. If violent men make every society patriarchal, then by definition, patriarchal is more natural.
Curious and sad that every culture ended up being patriarchal despite being so different from one another. Just because something is natural doesn't mean that it is the optimal way for things to be.
@@IronJhon788 it seems to me that if patriarchy was so successful in so many areas in my definition, it must be optimal or at least more optimal than the other two options
@@AngelaDavis-fe8bu fundamentally not true this is at best loosely based on the Iroquois tribe. Which did have a place for women and men in government however, I wouldn’t call them matriarchy and I wouldn’t consider them the normal for Indian tribes.
I think this sort of thing is super important to contemplate, how so much of what we have, we assume there is some grand logic to it, "it's our human nature", "it's what God determined", when it's probably mostly just historical accidents compounding on themselves from being part of this large chaotic system
The biggest reason why hueman societies tend to order themselves the way they do is that they're a reflection of our biology as a species and the instinctual behaviors passed down to us through our genes. Sexual dimorphism in huemans predisposes men to enjoy and excel in certain roles and women in others, and while there are outliers and exceptions the trend is strong enough that societies ordered and led by men are overwhelmingly the norm historically.
Not true Ashley the more we study DNA more. It seems like our behaviors are inite. for example, statistic shows that children often display personality traces their parents spite have never met them. There are plenty of other examples.
There is logic to it. A matriarchy cannot defend itself against a patriarchy except, theoretically, by forcing the men in the society to defend it. However, in reality, the “matriarchs” can’t force the men to do anything, while the men of that society could just overthrow throw the matriarchs whenever they wish.
@@joelharris2228
I disagree!
A patriarchy to be fully established, almost all people are configured in androcentrism towards dominantly male advantage over female.
A matriarchy to be fully established, almost all people are configured in gynocentrism towards dominantly female advantage over male.
It is the deep instilled belief learned and experienced from childhood.
If almost all women some how cease from androcentrism, the patriarchy would not last long.
If almost all men some how cease from gynocentrism, the matriarchy would not last long.
in this chaos all the systems had equal chances to take over, but the one that we got is patriarchy. The fact that you see it as merely a coincidence, rather than a natural order is so foolish
Matriarchy is natural if there is little need for men. The Bonobos live in an ecology where everything is within easy reach, and there are no natural threats. In Western modernity we've replaced men with indebtedness.
But society cannot exist without men because men build everything around you in society. All buildings and cars and planes and cell phones. All technologies are invented by men too. Your home and office are built by men too. Of course men are indispensable.
Before Louis Leakey recruited Jane Goodall, all anthropoligists were male, and completely obsessed with male hierarchies in herd, pack animals. It was always about how the males "conrolled" everything. Then Jane came along, showing that societal structures were more fluid, and the "animals" were more intelligent. Chimps use tools!!! No male anthropoligist ever noticed that before... and they also went to "war" with other troops. It's always more complicated than we think.
Gender bias is real. Men have been taught from a young age g age that their gender is superior and that they should dominate, especially white men. No wonder the interpretations were biased, they only saw what they wanted to see
No it's not more complicated patriarchy is the norm for a reason.
@@Joshua-eo5hr You didn't gives an argument... So, i will not give one either: no it's should not be the norm for your male centric reason.
.
Real power historically was determined by military power, a perfect equitable society could be overthrown easily by a vicious patriarchy - of men who conquered. Societies would have to organize their own men for physical defense, women were too biologically valuable to risk being killed in combat, men were typically not.
Someone who thinks?
@@chosen8843Koryos🦁🦁💪💪. Vratyas in vedas, ulfhednar in Norse, krypteia in Greek, naked warriors of Celts(attested historically) harii in Germanic and wastyrgi in iranic mythology. Along with these there are archaeological evidence of wolf sacrifices and horse sacrifices indicating that this did happen.
a miracle in this chat
I was going to say much the same thing so have latched onto your thread. In evolution the chief threats to man would have been the environment and animals. As the density of humans increased the greater threat was other humans. This lead to the need for defence as a primary driver so that men became more important. Fighters would tend to put the best fighter in charge. So this was the regime which existed mainly to the present day. What could disrupt this? Well you have firearms which could have allowed women to compete on a more equal footing and more particularly you have nuclear weapons which rationally should make major wars uneconomic. You might argue that the EU with its low military expenditure and emphasis on welfare and a greater allowance for matriarchy was a product of a world with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately this EU type creation could be destroyed by the actual eventual use of nuclear weapons and hence a reversion to the earlier dynamics. Sooner or later an irrational person will control and use nuclear weapons, maybe Putin. Only a matter of time.
@@alanrobertson9790 Why are you people of the west so obsessed with Putin and war?
In my opinion, we don't need patriarchy or matriarchy. We as people need egalitarianism.
@@ibdora05 if you use Peggy Reeves Sanday's definition of matriarchy, then matriarchy is egalitarianism.
@@BL-sd2qwit's not
@@Joshua-eo5hr I'm curious. What do you think Peggy's definition is?
😂😂 no
But gender equality is impossible because women are hypergamous and require their mates to be taller and stronger and richer. That's not equal. Hence equality creates inequality.
I’d never heard of partnership culture, but it’s really beautiful to think about. I’d like to think that our current questioning of gender can lead us closer to this again.
Men dont want partners other than in business
We want WIVES
And gender is linguistics
Biology = s3x
It is nonsense... they absolutely do not know any of this. They are simply putting their own values onto the past, in other words, this is worthless virtue-signalling junk.
Nope. Women are incapable of BEING equal.
Only because anchant cultures are filtered threw that mindset.
Pre Christian Celtic cultures
Vikings
Native Americans
Are all ones you might want to learn about
Of course you never heard of it. This is a brand new woke propaganda concoction of absolute foolishness. Common sense says men and women both have roles we must fulfill for society to function.
Also Riane Eilser is so stunning and eloquent!
I hope that on your podcast you will discuss the scholarship of Riane Eisler, Marija Gimbutas, Germaine Greer, and others. It's not true that all societies have always been led by men. There have been matriarchal or egalitarian societies in history.
She does, since episode 1.
This was a very insightful video. I appreciate your research into evidence of partnership cultures but also framing the question of patriarchy as ultimately a choice, not predetermined. Btw - I saw you used a lot of art to illustrate this video and it's quite beautiful. In the age of AI, I think it's important to cite the sources of your art, human or AI. For future videos, please be sure to share the artists info too, thanks!
@@jessicaoncanvas I wouldn’t exactly call that evidence. Even if you could demonstrate that primitive man worship goddesses, and was matrilineal that proves nothing. The Athenians worship goddess Athena yet they were misogynist at the highest order.
The kush were matrilineal yet we still mailed dominated. While the Kush did have some queens, those queens held power only as regents for their son.
This video is at best unsubstantiated conjecture not evidence.
So well done! Really insightful content presented so clearly and with intellectual integrity. Love it!
Wowow i’ve just come across your channel!! Thankyou so much for your work! Such great clearly explained videos! I’ll be sharing them with everyone i know 💗💗
You've laid your curiosity out so clearly here. The clapping bonobo might be my soul primate sister 👏👏👏 Excellent work, Amy! Here's to hoping for a partnership future!
Sister? You might want to take a closer look: 1:41 😉
Love your content, and this is an amazing video to start the conversation of Patriarchy. Your podcast is quite centered in religion views, and i really don't think you can dismantle Patriarchy without dismantling religion institutions. Believing in some force or entity CANNOT be linked to an institution in current existence. That is the beginning of society problem with the shackles of patriarchy on humans. Texts treating women as less will always be present in the unconscious as long as they are read. Misogynistic texts must be abandoned and disavowed. Religious institutions as we know it, continue to abuse the young (in more ways than i ca say here) and limits the life of most humans even it not religious. As an atheist women, i feel in my life the grasp of Religious Institutions, it's impossible to not feel their influence. Communities like yours must start the work of freeing people from the the abuse of religion.
Oh good point! I totally agree.
"Is Patriarchy Natural?"
All things are natural unless you propose aliens from Alpha Centauri imposed something of the sort.
Patriarchy appears normal, which means evolutionary adapted to temperate climates. Matriarchy such as at Samoa is an evolutionary adaptation where you might not know your father but you always know your mother.
Roman women didn't even get to have their own names; they just had the Fem version of the family name, followed by a number indicating their birth order. Seems pretty patriarchal and dominating to me.
That's because Romes culture, economy, and environment was shitty
Other societies were much, much more complex and diverse
@@KittyScythe Romans are overrated and also one of the most barbaric, oppressive, backwards and insane societies to walk on Earth.
Despite what we are taught in the west, the cities were filled with plagues and their armies were the strongest when filled with non-romans. Most of the wars were won by playing dirty.
Sounds like a paradise to me
@@Joshua-eo5hrYou probably love the Taliban then. You should move to Iran or Afghanistan.
@@swiftsetrider4543 yeah but the Taliban doesn't allow men to be gay so I can't lol 🤣
this is my new favourite channel! keep up the amazing work
thank you Amy - I listen to all your things - podcasts, youtube, everything - I have learned so much.
This is so intriguing! Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
Even if it was natural so what. Just because it’s natural doesn’t always means good.
If patriarchy were simply natural to humans, no one would have to argue for it, or at least arguments against it would seem fringe and absurd. The evidence that patriarchy is not our nature is that, even looking at modern society, an alien anthropologist would not find a straightforward patriarchy. Not an exactly egalitarian society, but not exactly a patriarchy either. A society in which men and women share most jobs, with some but not complete division of labour, where women have property rights, sexual and reproductive rights, and can be political leaders, is quite different from ancient societies where women were close to property. The most patriarchal societies today are desperately poor, and those that remain more patriarchal have opened up to women's rights significantly. It is not all progress and perfection, but if we consider modern society, advocates for the naturalness of patriarchy are forced into claiming there is something quite unnatural about modernity. True though that may be, it only implies that human nature, at least as it is typified by past societies, is not something that must remain unchanged throughout all history.
The societies which go away from patrichy because they become more developed then other patrichal societies they don't become more developed because of women right they become developed first then women rights came. Femnism can only exist in comfortable environment
Nobody complains, just some blue head feminists in the west.
It really just comes down to males generally being the protector in almost every group. That responsibility lends itself to leading and making decisions
The Saudis might disagree.
Yeah we just have collapsing birthrates and are replaced by patriarchal cultures. Totally natural and sustainable.
Could it be that a matriachy doesnt function as a heirachy but as interdependant equality ...look at the Bobono ...there is one wise one but she doesnt get extra doo das ...everyone knows her and she can be approached at any time . I enjoyed Gadon , "once and future goddess " a book of art .
That's just cherry -picking....Hyenas are much more clear-cut matriarchy where lead is always female..... however they r way more ruthless to each other than likes of lions.
As for humans, one heavily overlooked reason why matriarchies fall quickly is because they eventually 'shun' huge number of young men who don't have resources....those young men either band together and create a patriarchy...or just ghost when an external threat like war comes.
True egalitarianism and matriarchy are different.
And it isn't true... just like the nonsense about wolves which has been turned completely on its head. There are NO Alpha males or females. There is just mummy and daddy wolf with two to three years of pups forming the FAMILY pack. In fact, just about EVERYTHING they believed about wolf packs was wrong!
Yes, i think saying matriarchy is the opposite of patriarchy is a mistake, most societies structured by women are horizontal, people are allocated by capacity and usefulness. Calling them partnership societies may not be as offensive, most men do not even understand a world without hierarchy, they rely on it feom a young age, and do not know how to operate without it.
@@NoOne-kx7zswhat are those matriarchies you are talking about?
@@ananamu2248 yes
In Celtic lore, it's said "the fall from the garden of Eden" was an occurence marking when society went from a Matriarchy to a Patriarchy.
The celts believed in the Adam and Eve garden of Eden story???
They're still matriarchal, underneath .
It's obvious as they admire strong women ❤
I like that, and it makes perfect sense!
I love that! I wonder if there are similitudes between celtics and basques. Basques' pantheon primarily had the goddess Mari as the supreme one.
@@El-Comment-8-or It's a fairly common myth structure.
So great to see your shining face and bright energy on camera! So thrilled you are doing this! Go team Bonobo!
The research regarding the nonviolence within Bonobo societies is outdated. I cannot post a link in this comment section, but the title of the 2024 study I'm referring to is: "Differences in expression of male aggression between wild bonobos and chimpanzees".
bonobos can be very violent this video is nonsensical propaganda
" I cannot post a link in this comment section". So right. A few years ago I used to put in direct links which helped arguments a lot. Then youtube took these links and comments down so we have to put up titles like you have done. UA-cam likes comments but not referenceable facts!
Message
She said a lot of different things, and they aren't all outdated. What is outdated is the idea that male-male violence is entirely rare.
What is not outdated, though, is that: 1) bonobos are pretty dang matriarchal, 2) bonobos show much less male-on-female aggression than chimps do (and more female-on-male!), and 3) male-on-male bonobo violence, even if individual incidents are more common, is far less extreme than in chimps.
Bonobo male-male violence is focused on individuals sorting out some internal pecking order. Chimp male-male violence involves coalitions fighting other coalitions (or lone outsiders) or ganging up on an unpopular insider. This is very often extremely brutal and even deadly, while bonobo males have never been recorded killing each other.
@@HuckleberryHim Yes, bonobo social structures are less violent than those of chimpanzees. However, Amy described violence within bonobo society as "extremely rare." which is contradicted by the article I cited. The article also indicates that both more aggressive male bonobos and chimpanzees have greater mating opportunities. It seems odd that female bonobos would prefer more aggressive males to mate with if they were overly concerned about violence. Could it be that female bonobos view it as more valuable for a male bonobo to stay and fight the attacking tiger rather than flee in terror? It's important to recognize that data can be selectively sourced or interpreted to support different viewpoints, which appears to be what Amy is doing.
Matriarchies are for declining/stagnating cultures.
Patriarchies are for rising/expanding cultures.
coincidentally America is stagnating & declining
@@JohnathanMenezes-yb2ux Precisely and we are now more matriarchal than ever.
An easier explanation for this is that where you have competition often through warfare there is a continuous need to get new and better technology. Competition drives evolution, where there is no competition you get stagnation and even regression biologically.
@@alanrobertson9790 In an egalitarian society (matriarchy) there is no benefit to overproduce, leaving the society in a constant state of underproduction and no incentive to innovate.
In a meritocracy (Patriarchy) you reap what you sew and it provides incentive to overproduce and sell your excess. There is also an incentive to innovate.
@@Aryaba patriarchy is absolutely natural. feminism is only a tool for the destruction of marriage, family and society, wich is what we are seeing today in western countries...
That bit about the ancient hunter is so fascinating! So much of our research is clearly influenced in ways by the biases we have inherited and it is so important to be curious and question our assumptions.
So true!! I was so touched by hearing the hunter was a woman because I had never thought of myself as a woman capable of something like that. So silly, but just an example of how deeply ingrained these ideas are.
Many women go hunting today, so why not?
@@marti8053 that’s true! I just always pictured ancient women differently and not being on equal footing with men
maybe because its fuking nonsense
because they weren’t…
Lion prides are actually ruled by the females, all of whom are related (mothers, daughters, sisters, etc.) - the ONLY purpose the lion has in the 3-5 years he has with the pride before another male replaces him is to sire cubs and protect the pride from other males. He doesn't hunt - the lionesses do all of that - but he gets to eat his fill first, and will do so even if the rest of the pride goes hungry. When he is replaced, the new male will often kill of the young cubs unless the lionesses keep him from doing so.
Wild equines - the bands are almost always related females with a herd stallion who might be with the band for a few years, maybe a decade. But the lead mare is the one who directs where the herd goes for water and food and when they will migrate from one place to another within their territory. The mares also let the stallion know what they will tolerate and what they won't.
What some people think of as patriarchy among animals really isn't.
❤
its a myth that a male Lion might not hunt in a pride at all
@@ashwinvk4124 Most male lions do not hunt while being in a pride. Face it, the females are faster and a hell of a lot better at stalking and hunting strategy.
It's like human males - when on their own they are self sufficient but once they've got a mate they lose all ability and desire to do for themselves. And once they get booted out, they tend to be in sorry shape.
@@allisonshaw9341 there are hundreds of videos of male Lions hunting , these Lions are nomads and some of them are also part of a pride.
Male Lions can often be solitare hunters as opposed to females who are more likely to be group hunters, even in a pride a male Lion's strength is used to bring down a buffalo.
With that said it's quite possible that a male Lion in a pride might be less likely to hunt as they might spend a lot of time guarding and marking their territory.
@@ashwinvk4124 And even more videos of the lionesses doing the actual takedown and killing of prey, as well as the lion eating his fill before allowing the females and cubs their share., his bag of tobacco, rolling papers, and matches all right there for his evening smoke.
Lion prides are matriarchal societies - the ONLY purpose the male has is reproduction and protecting his offspring from other males. Prides have gone without males for months when the females choose to do so in order to protect the lives of their cubs.
Believe me, human males are just as dangerous to other men's children, which is no excuse for a species that is supposedly the most intelligent on the planet.
I love that you added, "disease is natural." Natural does not necessarily mean good in food sources or societal structures. However, since humans seem to use "natural" as a justification for many things, it's good to question the assumption. I love Riane Eisler. Thanks for making this available!
Except that she is trying to make a point about the value of natural states of mind in the respective genders of our species through analogy with the naturalness of diseases, which have nothing to do with any state of mind. Bad analogy.
It's still a dumb analogy becausehuman's don't use diseases to function. Diseases infecting our bodies is natural FOR THEM so it's good for them, and patriarchy is natural FOR US which is why all societies formed that way. Try telling bacteria it should try living in death valley.
A Jewish Feminist… 😂
Gas Lighting comes naturally to feminists.
Continuing on your thoughts... Patriarchy worked for Humanity for at least 40,000 years. We should be extremely arrogant to think that we can try to replace this arrangement and Humanity will survive even 2 - 3 generations of it.
Patriarchy is dominant because it is dominant.
Great point at the end. A lot of people use the appeal to nature fallacy to argue against things they don’t understand, like gmos. But gmos are what gives us higher yields, more drought resistant plants, and more nutritious food.
Yes! And the rate humans are growing, there's no way humans can have food without GMO.❤
Actually, most every food, our meat, fruits and vegetables, are and have been genetically manipulated by humans throughout human history. The livestock we raise to eat look nothing like their ancestorial stock and the same for our fruits and vegetables. We've been artificially breeding and hybridizing since the earliest days of agriculture thousands of years ago. The only difference now is we can do it in a laboratory rather than trial and error in the fields and paddocks.
@@cmwork8870 Well we can't grow more food forever? Should we keep on creating new ways of exploiting our environment each time food gets scarce?
@@rhondah1587 Selective breeding is not genetic modification.
@@HeirOfNothingInParticular It’s called artificial selection which is akin to natural selection which artificial selection causes purposeful manipulation of the genes for a desired outcome. One picks a male and female with different genes that a breeder calculates will result in offspring with a mixture of gene traits desired. It can take many generations and combinations before reaching one’s goal. Today, with massive data on genetics, it’s easier and quicker to mix and match and even alter genes to affect a desired outcome.
Fan girling that you got to speak with Gerda Lerner!! Loved this concise, informative, well researched video. And I love that you answer this question with a question. It invites thoughtful conversation instead of argument, and wow do we ever need this type of approach if we are to communicate and connect and change.
Fascinating! This is a great series.
Nice video. I read DNA in its title, but I think I missed that part while watching. Neanderthal Y-chromosome DNA in Siberian finds seems to have been much less diverse than maternal mitochondrial DNA at the same finds, suggesting that the men stayed put over longer periods / generation, whereas the women moved around, possibly being married off to more remote groups. This suggests at least a patrilocal family organisation, if not necessarily an actual patriarchal hierarchy (Lauritz Skov, Berkeley I think). Can you perhaps comment on this?
Looking forward to more.
Thomas in Finland
Might makes right is a very common and natural form of social organization. That doesn’t make it the only, or the best one.
Being clever can outwit physical strength and usually does in the end.
I would love to see an examination of sexism with a separation of pathological narcissism in particular.
For me Toxic Masculinity and NPD have to much overlap, but remember men are doing the research...
@@I-md6mq Maybe you'd like to check The Power Threat Meaning Framework for that one
Can you share the research paper pointing at bonobos having matriarchal societies ? Thanks.
there are no such papers, at least i coudnt find them.
matriarchy is probably not a natural state at any time in history, but i think we can agree that woman in ancient times could have had a voice of equal power to men, but I suspect that the most crucial decisions (attack/escape/surrender) were made by one individual, most likely male.
Also I remember reading somewhere few years ago, that early homo sapiens gorps where based more on partnership staying together and cooperating willingly for grup' s well being rather than having some kind leadership forcing decisions on others, so i guess we could call them egalitarian of some sort.
unfortunately at the beginning material contains incorrect information about bonobo's aggression.
recent observations have shown that bonobos exhibit aggressive behavior slightly more often than common chimpanzees. However the form and insensitivity of their aggressive behaviors are much less brutal than in the case of other chimpanzees. This was the reason that previous data suggested that bonobo are chimp pacifists.
i'll be so kind and even provide confirming source:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240412113444.htm
also regular chimps group are more often lead by the male who is most effective at forming alliances with other members of the herd, and is not nesesery strongest individual in the group.
scr: www.amazon.com/Chimpanzee-Politics-Power-Sex-Among/dp/0801886562
Do you know Mr. Google?
Excellent. Keep it up!
Men gave women rights. Men can take them away at any time.
Men never gave women rights they just returned women the rights they snatched from them...
In half of all species across the animal kingdom, females are either larger and eat the males during sex or they are equal. Only in species where the male protects and provides for the female does nature allow males to grow to be larger than females and are left alive.
Lionesses get rid of males they don’t like, and women who don’t buy into misogynistic brainwashing have formed successful bands to take down men using superior numbers. Women are also more social and this better able to form and expand cohesive bands more easily with less violent in-fighting.
We may not confuse matrilineal society with matriarcal The ancient Elamites culture was matrilineal but they were a warlike mostly male dominated culture! In European neolitic cultures there is more traces of violent death than among the first Indo-Europeans who Yamnaya and Corded cultures who replace them replace them.
Good note
Very awesome video. Love the idea of this "partnership" culture. I find both matriarchy and patriarchy lame and stupid. I can 100% get behind the concept of partnership cultures.
Women will always be disadvantaged because she sacrifices her life and body to have offsprings. We need to have a conversation about this mythical partnership and equality we hear and understand it in detail what it is.
This was super interesting. Thank you for doing this. You didn't mention current tribes that are matriarchal though. I'd like to know how and why those tribes exist.
They haven't been colonized maybe.
Such a helpful video tysm!! This really should be taught in schools across the world
Cyclically speaking, patriarchy is a natural tail-end extension of a matriarchy. One can not exist without the other as they follow one another throughout the course of all eternity.
Spiritually speaking (gender aside), matriarchy can begin with a fundamental understanding of the cyclical nature of reality (God).
Represented by the snake in many creation myths, the living cycle has a trinity of a beginning (head), a middle and end (tail). As above so below, the sexes were created in the image of God's cyclical nature where Mother is the head and opening to all beginnings and Father holds the tail to all endings (through which the sowing of seeds allow for the next great matriarchal rebirth).The joining of the two (symbolized by the Ouroborus or the marriage ring) is the sacred union needed in assuring the creation and continuation of new life cycles. To speak of the present day God as "Our Father" is simply an admission to our collective positioning within the bigger cycle.
As all mothers have direct experience with the creator quality of birthing, so is the direct experience of rebirthing the divinity within (baptism) belong to that which is spiritually matriarchal. (John 3, verse 3-8).
Sekhmet statues (ancient Egyptian) carry most of their weight in symbolic memory of what was a mother culture dedicated to the direct experience of baptism. As the leg shaped hairlocks extend from maternal breasts to the womb of rebirth, the lioness's head proportions are such that they highlight the bust of a second animal figure. The Lioness's ears as eyes and eyes as nose (nostrils) brings to life the figure of a reptile. 'Neath the halo headress of the solar egg, the lioness's egg fertilization process being internal (Set) and the reptile's egg fertilization process being external (Setting), such being key components to the safety of entering the trans-egoic or "born again" state. The life threatening fear associated with the predatory nature of a lion and/or crocodile encounter are reflective of the intense ego death experiences associated with the transpersonal awakening process.
In spiritually matriarchal times, illumination could be seen as wearing the false beard (ancient Egyptian funerary "ego" death mask) as the high state of cyclical self knowing; high awareness of both our upper matriarchal half and our lower (later) patriarchal half (compared with a mini lower body replica, an "as above so below" tail end beard extension); in full recognition of her civilizational Underworld; her inevitable cyclical destiny. The male pharaoh wears his beard tapered in reverse, indicating a pointing upwards towards the patriarchal head, divine representative of God's tail end cycle.
Mary's anointing and wiping of Jesus's feet with her hair can then be seen as "Head to tail" (toe) imagery as she descends her matriarchal head to his patriarchal feet, thus reenacting the high understanding of the divine cyclical process. (John 12, verse 3)
To carry the Ankh (now the female symbol ♀️) was perhaps to symbolically carry that upper and lower understanding. As the upper matriarchal womb symbolised the fertile birthing of civilization, below, the now Christian cross is carried to place emphasis on the lower (later) "End Times" Father principle of the great cycle.
Lord Ganesha, the elephant headed Hindu diety, displays a cyclical head to trunk symbolism and points to the Mother head of his matriarchal elephant society. Ganesha (like the elephant) wears God's cyclical nature on his face.
A whole temple was dedicated to Hathor (ancient Egyptian diety), who is the matriarchal "Uterus" personified. ua-cam.com/video/J0m0zJSEFK0/v-deo.html
"See all women as mothers, serve them as your mother. when you see the entire world as the mother, the ego falls away. See everything as Mother and you will know God." - Neem Karoli Baba
"My son, keep thy father's commandment and forsake not the law of thy mother" - Proverbs 6 : 20
Beautifully written. The issue I’m seeing is that the male ego is very powerful and doesn’t allow room for humbleness.
So fascinating! Thank you so much for your thoughtful research!! I am excited to share these episodes with my children.
At the end of the day patriarchy is still natural don't forget that
@@lisaprice8538 thoughtful research? What are you talking about at the most? All she can present is that some people worshiped goddesses and at least one woman was a hunter or could’ve been. That doesn’t prove much of anything.
There's so much evidence that women were hunters as well, at this point, it's undisputed.
If a group had a dearth of men AND a female was still in her prime but just not having children (medical?), why not put her to use as a hunter?
because she slows down the group…genius
They did, probably because she was good at it. You want to eat or be enforcing power and starve to death? Now men are more interested in holding on power, than saving humans from extinction... Well done Men!!!
@@cmwork8870 She still would not have a man's strength or stamina. Way to bring your feminist nonsense into the discussion. You troll girl!
Yes, but it also could be natural for a past but it doesn't mean it's natural for our future.
I would make the argument that patriarchy doesn't make sense in the modern world. Maybe it made sense in the past but it doesn't make sense now.
It seems like every fundamentalist group that tries to enforce patriarchy in some level all have to result into minimizing technology or having to exert control over it.
That's something I genuinely notice, like what do you think of what happened in some parts of the world, fundamentalist groups how culturally it's so much further behind but this culture that I'm referring to is technological culture.
Links to sources would be helpful. Mostly we have stories about stories. DNA will be important but independent verification of research will be a long time coming, AI enabled or not. Finding DNA building reward systems for aggression, violence, or restraint and separating the nature from the nurture impacts will be close to impossible. Does it really matter what the past is? What can we do today to make today good and tomorrow better? As for change over time…isn’t anyone considering that the knowledge of self-control of fertility by women has created our current time and moment but can we assume other healthy ways were not known in the past to give regular women control over when and how many children she would bear? Repressing that knowledge would trap women into endless childbearing cycles with all the social, biological and economical consequences that creates.
A society needs to have strong men to protect their women otherwise another society of strong men will come and take them by force. Strength and dominance go hand in hand, hence why men often end up dominant in society.
A strong independent woman can only exist because decent men respect her as an equal. Men with no respect for these social norms, usually outsiders, can shatter this state of equality by force if they are allowed to.
In a world that has guns now, this is no longer true
In a world that has gu.ns)(avoiding k3y word c3nsorsh!p), this is no longer true
The advent of new technology such as guns has made this dynamic somewhat obsolete
@goldfishfishgold. No, among other things, women are more susceptible to PTSD than men.
@@toddmcdaniels1567 that could be true but men also comm1t suic1d3 at a higher r4te. But really, it probably shouldn't be a whose the most fragile contest in the first place, right? Men and women can be stronger together, but it doesn't have to be because one of them is weak alone
This is very informative.
Ahhh yes, women hunters and warriors and I suspect ages ago much more democratic in ways many would barely comprehend now yet still would appreciate if able to participate 😊
First know I believe in equality among the two sexes. But a few points I would make. First we must not forget that chimps or any ape is not a direct ancestor of us. Chimps will act in brutal ways sometime, male AND female. I saw a female chimp who would steal infants from other chimps, and ate them. They are chimps and often act in ways totally different from us. I went to very "liberal" seminary. In a under ground passage there were drawings of men with their private parts looking like swords. Although this was a seminary W.I.C.A. was very common. It comes from unjustified fear by some women. This fear leads to hate, and hate to anger. I read a post once by a woman who claimed in spirit she traveled to a planet where most males have their parts cut of, (a few left for reproduction). She claimed it was paradise. There are men (like me) who are tired of this irrational hate towards men. Lastly I remember ed a conversation I had. I told this woman, "we all know a older man who still has a sex drive is what? A dirty old man. But an older woman is what? A cougar!! Women have to stop hating men!!
Thank you for doing this channel and with your clear conciseness 😊 just got to 3min mark and had to pause to write,many early humans as hunter/gatherers were also nomadic/migratory, some of the early groups/tribes around the planet had matriarchal, IDK how much you looked into that but I do know it's really a daunting task, as my own father did it on n off over the course of 50years and much written in was produced patriarchal society so finding information is its own type of archaeological dig😅
Patriarchy is natural. When studying Bonobo, all you learn about is how Bonobo behave. It has nothing to do with how humans behave. Women, always trying to change the NATURAL order of things. Men being bigger, stronger, and smarter (creative), were design to rule.
Men aren’t smarter or “more creative”. Where did you get that from?
Just a note on pronunciation of Çatal Huyuk, the Ç is an "sh" sound, rather than a hard "k" sound.
I thought it was a "ch" sound.
Wouldn't the best question be : What is most preferable ? and wouldn't that be dependant on the environment, context and habitat ? I watched another documentary on Bonobos and Chimps that attempts to explain why both evolve different societies, because of their environment and habitats. If patriarchy evolved ''naturally'' wouldn't it be because its the most preferable for the human environment and context ? If western society is no longer patriarcal, is that beneficial to our survival or not ? That seems to me the most important question.
1:54 Recent Bonobo Study "The results, Mouginot says, “really came as a surprise.” Overall, male bonobos turned out to be about three times as likely as chimps to engage in aggressive behavior. Although none of the encounters were lethal-and the team didn’t track the severity of injuries-bonobos weren’t afraid to push, hit, and bite their foes. Their aggression didn’t appear to be a turn-off for female bonobos, who actually preferred to mate with aggressive males.
Male-male violence in bonobos is just a completely different thing than in chimps; in chimps the pecking order is mostly worked out and it takes big shifts to change it. Higher-ranking males might discipline or bully low-ranking ones sometimes, and occasionally a group will overthrow the alpha or the entire group will gang up on a member. Of course they're very territorial and often fight other tribes. But outside of these circumstances, there's nothing to fight about.
Bonobo violence is very individual-focused and doesn't have big consequences. It might be frequent, sure; that's because the hierarchy is less established and less important. But it is far, far less intense than it is in chimps. It rarely results in death (none have been recorded), while chimpanzees regularly and brutally kill each other.
@@HuckleberryHim Several years back, saw a show on PBS about an island full of rhesus monkeys. Rhesus band into a large female groups, headed by a male. When a younger, more aggressive male beat up the older (more tolerant) male, he became a bully. Attacking mothers, children, low ranked males. One morning the anthropologists came back to the island to discover the new leader beaten to a pulp, and older male reinstalled as alpha. They realized the females had ganged up in the night, taught him a lesson, and brought back the more gentle older male.
Moral of the story. Don't piss femals off. They can take "steps."
@@HuckleberryHim so in summary rigid male hierarchy less violence
@@bryanmcclure2220 If you count an incomparably higher fatality rate and higher rate of severe bodily injury as "less violence", then sure. Lol. Willfully obtuse.
@@HuckleberryHim given that according to you chimpanzees only fight for good reasons, competition of resources and protecting of the tribe. Isn’t it more likely that these injuries are result of scarcity of resources not they social structure
"If patriarchy is natural, why is it imposed on us?"
Apart from the numerous books I have gathered on pre-colonial matriarchies around the world, I remember an article rn that talks about patriarchy being the byproduct of climate trauma in the Middle East around 5.000 years ago and it makes sense.
Also, I wish I had a food forest like in a lot of matriarchal societies.
Can you name me the name of the article? Thanks!
@@TheELectricStylez "How did patriarchy actually begin?" by Angela Saini
Halfway through now and after commenting twice have to again Thank You n yr touching on what I commented about in 2 more minutes in 🤘🏾🤙🏾 Rock On girl!!!!💖💖💖🌅🌌😘
Egalitarianism will supply balance to the Earth!
Egalitarinism isn't actually truly possible. Because a patriarchy is inevitable.
Men are the ones that gives rights, protects your rights and takes away rights from people who violate the law.
A female judge don't enforce laws. They give a sentence. They don't force you in handcuffs, places you in a cell with force, and keeps you there with force.
If a man was arrested for taking you hostage what keeps him in the court room and not just walk out?
And what keeps him in a prison cell and preventing him from escaping?
It's all men who take away rights from other men for violating your rights which was given to you by men and protected by men. Thats why Egalitarianism is an illusion because it always needs men to enforce it for it to exist which makes it a patriarchy.
For Womens rights to exist they need to appreal to men to protect those rights which were given to them by men.
So women need to appeal to a patriarchy enforcement arm in order to have rights which means womens rights doesn't actually exist without a patriarchy to enforce it.
That might be, but in order for that to happen women must understand that this idea of current feminism is nothing more than a push for women to behave more like men do naturally. Which in turn violates and weakens women's natural behaviors and strengths, and puts women in competition with men.
You'll never reach this actual "egalitarian" society with how we're currently doing things.
If we have true egalitarianism.......it will.
And honestly we had chance around 2-3 decades back.
Problem is fmnism is endless male bashing and attacking in name of equality.
@@NoOne-kx7zs Egalitarianism is not possible no matter what because in order to enforce it they have to use men to do that.
So they will need a patriarchy enforcement arm in order to enforce it. Which is why it's impossible.
Will prevent humanity going extinct...
Is it possible the advent of religion, modern religion, is partially responsible for the shift from partnership societies?
Could be but I've heard archeologists say it began with the advent of agriculture. That would put it back around 9,000 to 10,000 years ago. Tribes that remained more hunter-gatherers were far less patriarchal. We do note that many ancient tribal societies had warrior queens.
Especially monotheism, there’s only one way leads to power struggles and dominance by it’s nature.
@@WayneBraack there is no actual evidence that matriarchal societies is actually exist so no.
The best we can show is that goddess worship Was that one time more common. However, society that worships a female deity, does not immediately translate to a matriarchal. Take the city of Athens as their name implies, they primarily worshiped Athena, the goddess of wisdom and war. And even by the standards of their day, the Athenians were misogynist of the highest order.
I bet you hate evolutionary psychology...
She's presenting good points. And as a psychologist myself, there are branches of studies that can present opposing views. And that's also a good thing. But when you have those, the most inteligent thing to do is, and my advice to you also: don't be dogmatic.
Does patriarchy involve "birthright *??
Chimpanzees vs Bonobos is so interesting.
It is also completely wrong...
Even if the patriarchy was a natural tendency to humans, it still wouldn't justify its implementation.
That would be the naturalistic fallacy.
The Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler
Alot of women in these comments want a “matriarchy” instead of a “patriarchy”. Sounds like you women just want power so what makes you better than men? What about FREEDOM & EQUALITY
What aboutism! Oh sweetie did you see the video? Or are you just threatened by women speaking? There's no matriarchy in history because women understand collaborating is a much better way of accomplishing thing.
Why are men so afraid of women in authority or seeing them as equal human beings with equal worth in society? When the privileged are made to share, they see it as persecution. That's very pathetic.
@@cmwork8870 There is no matriarchy in history, because patriarchy is fluid and a spectrum dissect all societies individually. You'll learn the Igbo of Nigeria were men dominated all political power, ideals and views of traditional masculinity were fluid were they accepted female-husbands, male-daughters these weren't acts of defiance they were accepted by the culture, the Igbo pre-colonial were also somewhat non-millitaristic.
Patriarchy existed everywhere, but varied and was diverse and a spectrum.
Why shouldn’t we want power? Power is fine, if it’s used wisely and for the benefit of all, not just a few who believe ‘might makes right’. When equality feels like oppression.
I love the response to patriarchy being the way it's always been (so it's natural), doesn't mean it's a good thing we shouldn't try to eradicate - just like disease.
I truly hope you get what you wish for.
Lol failure cascade. Women cannot run an industrial society.
I have a way for you to eradicate it
Simply date down and PREFER IT!
Ur husband is waiting for his sandwich
@@abbyeh1 and how would you possibly accomplish that?
12:20: I favour an alternative, but similar theory. The idea that I heard was that societies were originally matriarchal, because domestic policy is dominated by women, but over time technology and progress shifted power from the domestic sphere into the male dominated spheres of trade, industry, war, etc.. So rather than a concious choice, or unconscious according to this video's argument, it's just the course of human history.
Evidence in favour of this theory I think is the fact that as power within those male spheres is becoming so concentrated average men have no power over them, the structure of a patriarchal society is weakening. For example: being a tough guy isn't what it used to be since some pencil necked geek with an AK-47 can kill you and your ten buddies in a heartbeat. Conversely industrial jobs are gone, and the 'market' has become the 'supply chain'.
What you are saying is patriarchy is no longer safe for men. Men created those power structures, gave guns like candies, and now more force is necessary? Is that sustainable? Being safe is the basis for a human to thrive and create and be their best self... the USA is a brutal fear mongering system of apparent freedom, nobody is safe... you have no medical safety, no regulation to enforce safety for food and drink for ypu and your Children... you have it all backwards and don't see how bad it is... the amount of energy you (all) spend being afraid, imagine it being spent in your beautiful precious live....
You talk about bonobos without once mentioning how they settle disputes which is a very important part. So the question would then be
Behaviour is an adaptation to environment, as our environment changes our behaviour changes. Matriarchal societies would have been adaptations to environment and patriarchies are an adaptation to environment too
This for me comes down to two things the scale of system. An the art of storytelling.
I didn’t see any DNA evidence. I think this stuff about partnership societies is a bunch of hooey. We see women being more pictorially observable when they have more leverage in the realm of sexual selection. This happened commonly in sedentary agricultural societies. Far from this indicating egalitarianism, there were a small number of apex men who were on top. The rich versus poor disparity was accentuated by agricultural societies and minimized by hunter-gatherer societies. Poor women, though, were likely elevated in life prosperity by apex males who could support a multitude of women. Minoan society btw was Canaanite and like other Canaanite societies probably did egregious things like child sacrifice and the child sacrifice was probably gendered toward firstborn males, indicating a hierarchical relationship in gender (because of the inherent value placed on the sacrifice). There are also accounts of some of those Canaanite goddesses requiring compelled prostitution. In the undeniably hierarchical and patriarchal Indo-European cultures, we see sun worship associated with male gods, yet it is also occasionally associated with female gods, showing that even the gender of the deity worshipped is very limited as a diagnostic for patriarchy/matriarchy.
So you believe that men were heroes for having harems of poor women as prostitutes beholden to them? You do realize these women weren’t given the choice? They were sold, taken, r8ped and discarded for a younger woman when they became pregnant or contracted a disease: Where the hell does this kind of thinking come from?
@@toddmcdaniels1567 indeed, people forget that the Athenians as their name suggest primarily worship the goddess Athena, and yet they were a misogynist of the highest order even by standards of their day. Just because you worship a goddess doesn’t mean that you’re a matriarchy or even egalitarian.
Great and interesting
According to the Stanford professor Robert Sapolsky, one consistent behavior associated with the hormone testosterone in mammals is the impulse to dominate. Thats why men always seem to be in charge, regardless if thats what best. Thats why oppresive dictatorships are inherently masculine, and wars are started and fought by men predominantly. But that doesn't imply that those who seek dominance always get their way, or that this this model is whats best suited for the environment we are currently in.
@@brandonjackson5142 can you name me a society where they didn’t get there way?
Bonobos still live in the trees. Just saying.
They’re one with nature. We should all be living one with nature. Do you not see how miserable we all are?
So do chimps, but bonobos are more social and capable of cooperation.
In my opinion, I was limited to a BA in Psychology, and the rest was Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. So, I have a belief. Social beings like primates, including us, have evolved in different cycles with vastly different biomes. Whatever is today, while related to the past, is different than, say, 100 years ago when labor was intense both in the male population and the female population. However, technology has reduced this intensity, leaving opportunities for females and males to share the burden of surviving today's challenges.
The issue when discussing patriarchy is that in modern times we tend to abstract it - making it something in and of itself rather than an emergent property of the qualities of men to women. The emergent property we know as patriarchy is a biological and anthropological phenomenon that persists to this day. From the days of the hunter gatherers to the modern day, men largely influence everything because it is and has always been about competence. Your videos are coming from the perspective of a woman who wants to justify the position of women and maybe even overcome it through a reinterpretation of history so as to justify the current trajectory which liberal society has taken in order to prop up the woman
Greeks remember Minoans by the strong, no-nonsense and even brutal figure of *King* Minos ruling over the region with his strong naval forces.
Minos is not a Queen. Women are not known as capable sailors or bronze-clad marines, who would enforce the power of King.
It looks like women statuettes are ancient pornography after all.
Both patriarchy and matriarchy are natural, there should be no difference at beginning, nature has no conscious, everything started randomly. It is the later stage, the natual selection phase, that made the difference. The fittest, not necessarily the strongest or the biggest, win the race. In the past, because their lower biological value, men were alway put in the harm's way, so the virtue of patriarchy is forever self preservation. In comparison, since women were primarily the caregivers for their children, the virtue of matriarchy were sympathy and empaty, even in today's world affairs. Hence when patriarchy and matriarchy interact politically, matriarchy are always at a disadvantage. That is the reason why we do not see any major matriarchy societies in the past. It is about the long term survivabilty of self preservation vs sympathy and empathy during geo political interaction, which has nothing to do with if patriarchy is natural or unnatural.
Do you believe that men, the males of our species are inherently violent?
You literally said it yourself. Patriarchy is self serving to the male at the expense of everyone else while matriarchal societies consider everyone especially the children.
I think that we are so programmed to se the hierarchy structure- with one on the top ( patriarchal structure) and the word matriarchal is a sign for that. Gimbutas talk about materlinear structures- meaning that women did it in another way. The Native American people had structures like a group of women deside a selection of males who should participate to leadership- and a group of males picked from this group. And that was called patriarchy by European anthropologists
I think it’s straightforward enough to state that PHYSICAL STRENGTH is what mainly decided dominance in the past, whereas as in the last few centuries knowledge, technology, ability, wisdom etc have overridden that factor to make us less patriarchal. 👫
That too simplistic for y’all?
We have an intellect ,( left brain ) and a soul (right brain ) each brain has characteristics that are both positive and negative .....dominators run a fear based culture ....and look how thats working for everyone . ...( putin ,jinping etc ) A right brain culture is love based equal ,for the good of all AND a healthy environment . ...After the 2000s people are being birn with both brains equal neither dominating ....i call it empowerment ...i had to live around only women on the land before another way became evident ..and i wasnt thinking with a bias ...i like a book called " a once and future goddess " by Gadon ....we had layers to society but nit heirachy ,nir self importance ...bobono survive because food is plentiful ,when food is scarce thats when domination comes to the fore ..eg ice age and meat eaters .o bloods .
I love what you wrote, but never a brain part dominated another, that's not how brains work... that is a lot of pseudoscience... you will always use all your brain (if you are healthy), in no particular dominant way... Brain regions do NOT correlate with personality.
None of that is even close to being true. Look up the left vs right brain myth please.
You don't really present enough information to distinguish partnership cultures from domination ones. Using the elements presented, you could argue that we are currently living in partnership culture, but one that has deeper specializations which different exes prefer. Also most archeological evidence does not tell us about the typical inhabitant as most individuals do not have enough resources to leave such evidence behind.
Most discovered information was processed by men. Now women are coming into science and doing the work they didn't. There are ancient scripts from those societies not decoded cause men didn't think it was worth it...
You put together an excellent video, which I enjoyed. Now, Im going to offer my 2 cents Lol
It's no longer considered wise to view archeology and anthropology using a strictly linear lens. There are too many exceptions to the traditional linear view (and the categories it produced), which is largely used to support a particular worldview based on preconceived notions of ethnocentrism, racism, and sexism. This isn't to say a linear timeline of human progression doesn't offer a sort of "guide," but as David Graeber and David Wengrow point out in "The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity," it's quite fallible and unreliable, and results in a narrow understanding.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We hope you continue to watch and interact with the content here.
I'm Chickasaw and we were a matriarchal society. All the south eastern woodland tribes were. The clan mothers chose the male minkos, but the minkos only had the authority that came with their wisdom, ability to lead. There were peace Minkos and war minkos. It was much more egalitarian as they way forward would be disgust and agreed upon by many. Our women fought as well, with false stories of the singing hatchet women sending the French fleeing. But, there were / differences in worship, it the women that are the shell shakers, men lead the singing. Only men played Stick Ball, the Little Brother of War. But your clan came from the women and dictated who you were and who you could marry. In my opinion, a much more beautiful and richer way of organizing a society.
I wouldn't call it "natural", but it clearly emerges organically. There are certain environmental conditions which promote its emergence. Human patriarchy was downstream from agriculture and animal husbandry. In as much as humans are in a position to have to compete for scarce or limited resources, said competition will eventually play out as brute force. That type of ecological dynamic favors and empowers males. In the developed Western World we've built this wonderful civilized society where power is exercised in the form of: pen, paper, and politics - advantage women.
Then that IS NATURAL!!!!!
Advantage Women?
Perhaps the story of literacy as descended from the prophets was a counterbalancing force to temper male dominance which is still a work in progress.
no need to use AI images for the video.
I submit to you that matriarchies are the norm. From honey bees to humans, the males do the hard work, and die young. The queens stay at home have babies and live a long time. Who's ruling?
Patriarchies are the norm. Greece, Rome, Literally any Muslim kingdom was patriarchal. Even the most "Equal" of Greek states being Sparta had woman's primary role as giving birth to babies while the men fought. They had a predominantly masculine culture and a king while the woman took charge of the household while the men were away. Men still had the final say.
Males when we destroy
@@morpheusjones4384and, all of those empires fell, just like the U.S. is falling right now. Isn’t that the definition of insanity, to keep doing the same thing over and over, that doesn’t work?
It is no accident that many of the most patriarchal societies are also the most carnivorous. Does the path back to partnership between the sexes merge with a path back to a more balanced diet?
With pills, less hatred among countries and the influence of religion going down everyday we are again moving towards egalitarian societies right now.
What is your best opinion advice? Should Matriarchy lead humanity? Or should there be some form of partnership?
They didn't have young punks with nothing better to do that entitle themselves to others' lives, personal business, and even property and bodies, as consumables.
Love the point at the end; even if it is natural that doesn’t make it “best.” Nature is full of horrors! 😅
Patriarchy = brute force as the ultimate solution to any issues. It appears in films as the "hero" who dominates the evil dominator, the conflict ending with one of several options: a fistfight, a chase scene ending in a shootout with the group having the most firepower winning, or just killing the antagonist. Movies about interactions and emotions, and/or spirituality, are called "chick flicks", and scorned by dominators. Perhaps we can make more movies that show a partnership society and its solutions to the problems we face as humans globally; films like La Belle Verte, although I personally would prefer that they be a bit less of a vegan manifesto.
Domination is promoted currently as the idea that a "bad guy with a gun" should be addressed by a "good guy with a gun". Recent history (for example in Uvalde, Texas) shows that does not solve things and can make them worse.
I would imagine that each society has its own system of patriarchy or matriarchy. Matriarchy seems to be more natural to me.
Except for all the incest
How so?
What do you mean more natural? There is literally no historical examples of a matriarch. How could it seem more natural?
It is more natural but violent men make it patriarchal by force. It’s all about male survival.
@@ladybug3380 your statement is literally contradictory. If violent men make every society patriarchal, then by definition, patriarchal is more natural.
Curious and sad that every culture ended up being patriarchal despite being so different from one another. Just because something is natural doesn't mean that it is the optimal way for things to be.
@@IronJhon788 define optimal
@@bryanmcclure2220 Where there are far more benefits than disadavantages,
@@IronJhon788 it seems to me that if patriarchy was so successful in so many areas in my definition, it must be optimal or at least more optimal than the other two options
@@bryanmcclure2220 Yeah, tell that to the microplastics in my water, lol
@@IronJhon788 Lol 😭 ❤️
Nice video. I wonder how the fact that most North American tribes were matriarchal before Europeans made them change by only dealing with men applies?
I sincerely doubt that. I would caution you not to generalize the Iroquois beyond the Iroquois.
@@AngelaDavis-fe8bu fundamentally not true this is at best loosely based on the Iroquois tribe. Which did have a place for women and men in government however, I wouldn’t call them matriarchy and I wouldn’t consider them the normal for Indian tribes.
After WOKE falls apart maybe “Partnership Society” will be the new politically correct and will be just as coercive as ever, maybe more so.