What is Patriarchy: A myth about Patriarchy

 Angela Saini argues that throughout history, there have been widespread incorrect beliefs regarding the reasons behind the existence of societies where men hold more power than women.

In 1930, the announcement of the closure of the baboon enclosure at London Zoo created quite a stir. The enclosure, known as "Monkey Hill," had a notorious reputation for violent incidents and frequent deaths. One incident, in particular, caught the attention of the media and the public. 

A young baboon named George had taken a female baboon who belonged to the dominant male, known as the "king." After a tense standoff, George ended up killing the female.

The events at Monkey Hill contributed to the prevailing belief at the time that male domination and aggression were natural traits in both animals and humans. It seemed as though visitors to the zoo were observing a glimpse into our evolutionary past, where violent males would victimize weaker females.

However, it's important to note that Monkey Hill was not a typical or natural environment for baboons. The distorted social dynamics in the enclosure were a result of an imbalance, with too many male baboons and too few females.

 It was only later, when biologists discovered that bonobo apes, one of our closest primate relatives, have matriarchal social structures despite larger male size, that they began to question the idea of inherent patriarchy in humans. This suggests that the explanation for patriarchy in our species cannot be solely attributed to nature alone.

In my book, "The Patriarchs," I have embarked on a journey around the world to explore the origins of human patriarchy. Through my travels, I have discovered that there are numerous myths and misconceptions surrounding the rise of male dominance, but delving into the true history also provides insights into how we can strive for gender equality.

Contrary to popular belief, human social structures have limited parallels in the animal kingdom. The term "patriarchy," which refers to the rule of fathers, suggests that male power originates within the family, with men as the heads of households, passing down power from fathers to sons. However, such patterns are exceedingly rare among primates. 

Anthropologist Melissa Emery Thompson from the University of New Mexico has observed that in primate societies, intergenerational family relationships are consistently organized through mothers rather than fathers.

Furthermore, patriarchy is not a universal phenomenon among humans either. Anthropologists have identified at least 160 existing matrilineal societies across the Americas, Africa, and Asia. In these societies, individuals trace their lineage through their mothers, and inheritance is passed from mother to daughter. Some of these communities even worship goddesses, and people remain in their maternal homes throughout their lives.

 For example, in southwestern China, among the Mosuo people, men often contribute to raising their sisters' children rather than their own.

Matrilineal societies often exhibit a sharing of power and influence between women and men. In Asante communities in Ghana, which follow a matrilineal system, leadership is divided between the queen mother and a male chief, with the former playing a crucial role in the selection of the latter.

 This is exemplified by the remarkable events of 1900 when Asante ruler Nana Yaa Asantewaa led her army in rebellion against British colonial rule.

Exploring the diversity of human social structures and their historical contexts helps us understand that patriarchy is not a fixed or inherent aspect of human nature. It is a social construct that has varied across cultures and time periods. By learning from these alternative systems, we can challenge and work towards achieving gender equality in our own societies.

As we delve further into prehistory, we encounter a diverse range of social organizations. One fascinating example can be found at the ancient site of Çatalhöyük in modern-day Turkey, which is approximately 9,000 years old and has been regarded as one of the earliest cities in the world due to its size and complexity. 

What makes this site particularly intriguing is that the archaeological evidence suggests a society where gender played a minimal role in shaping people's lives.

Archaeologist Ian Hodder from Stanford University, who led the Çatalhöyük Research Project until 2018, explains that at most excavation sites, differences in diet and activities between men and women are often observed due to their distinct roles.

 However, at Çatalhöyük, these distinctions are absent. Analysis of human remains indicates that both men and women had similar diets, spent comparable amounts of time indoors and outdoors, and engaged in similar types of work. Even the height difference between the sexes was minimal.

Importantly, women were not marginalized or invisible in this society. Excavations at Çatalhöyük and other contemporary sites have unearthed numerous female figurines, many of which are now displayed in local archaeological museums. 

One particularly renowned figurine is the Seated Woman of Çatalhöyük, currently housed at the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara. This figurine portrays a woman sitting upright, her body displaying the marks of age and adorned with folds of fat. Intriguingly, beneath her resting arms, two large cats, possibly leopards, are depicted, seemingly under her control.

These discoveries challenge the notion that patriarchy or gender-based hierarchies have always been universal or inherent aspects of human societies throughout history. 

Çatalhöyük provides a glimpse into a society where gender distinctions had limited impact on people's lives, and where women held visible and respected positions. Such insights remind us that alternative social systems have existed in the past, offering inspiration for envisioning more egalitarian societies in the present and future.

As we are aware, the relatively gender-neutral lifestyle at Çatalhöyük did not persist indefinitely. Over the course of thousands of years, social hierarchies gradually emerged in the wider region encompassing present-day Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

Many centuries later, in cities like ancient Athens, entire cultures revolved around misogynistic beliefs that portrayed women as weak, untrustworthy, and most suited to domestic confinement.

The fundamental question is: why did this shift occur?

Anthropologists and philosophers have pondered whether agriculture could have been the turning point in the power dynamics between men and women. Agriculture demands significant physical strength, and it was during the advent of farming that humans began to acquire and accumulate property, such as livestock.

According to this theory, as some individuals amassed more property than others, social elites emerged. Men, wanting to ensure their wealth would be inherited by their legitimate offspring, began to impose restrictions on women's sexual autonomy.

However, this theory overlooks the fact that women have always been involved in agricultural labor. Ancient Greek and Roman literature, for instance, depict women harvesting crops and recount stories of young women working as shepherds. 

Even today, United Nations data reveals that women constitute nearly half of the global agricultural workforce and nearly half of the small-scale livestock managers in low-income countries. Women from working-class backgrounds and those enslaved throughout history have always engaged in strenuous manual labor.

Furthermore, when examining the history of patriarchy, it becomes evident that plant and animal domestication existed for a considerable time before explicit evidence of gender-based oppression appears in historical records. According to Hodder, the notion that farming leads to property ownership, subsequently resulting in the control of women as property, is unequivocally incorrect. The timelines simply do not align.

The earliest clear indications of gender-based differential treatment emerge much later, within the first states of ancient Mesopotamia, the historical region encompassing the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in present-day Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. Approximately 5,000 years ago, administrative tablets from the Sumerian city of Uruk in southern Mesopotamia reveal the meticulous compilation of detailed population and resource lists by those in power.

"Person power is the ultimate source of power in general," explains James Scott, a political scientist and anthropologist at Yale University, whose research focuses on early agrarian states. The elites in these early societies relied on the availability of individuals to generate surplus resources for them and to defend the state, even if it meant sacrificing their lives during times of war.

The maintenance of population levels exerted inevitable pressures on families. Over time, young women became increasingly expected to concentrate on bearing more children, particularly sons who would grow up to participate in warfare.

For the state, the crucial factor was that individuals fulfill their roles as per their assigned categories: male or female. Individual talents, needs, or desires held little significance.

A young man who resisted military service might face ridicule as a failure, while a young woman who expressed disinterest in motherhood or lacked maternal qualities could be condemned as unnatural.

As documented by historian Gerda Lerner, written records from that era depict women gradually disappearing from the public sphere of work and leadership, being relegated to the domestic realm to focus on motherhood and household chores.

This, coupled with the practice of patrilocal marriage, where daughters were expected to leave their childhood homes to live with their husbands' families, marginalized women and rendered them vulnerable to exploitation and abuse within their own households. Over time, marriage transformed into a rigid legal institution that treated women as possessions of their husbands, alongside children and slaves.

Instead of originating within the family structure, history indicates that patriarchy actually began with those in power within the earliest states. The demands and ideologies of the ruling elite permeated society, causing disruptions in the most fundamental human relationships, even within families. 

This sowed seeds of mistrust between individuals who would have otherwise sought love and support from one another. People were no longer living solely for themselves and their immediate loved ones; they were now living in service to the patriarchal state's interests.

The preference for sons remains prevalent in traditionally patriarchal countries today, such as India and China, leading to imbalanced sex ratios due to high rates of female foeticide. The 2011 Indian Census revealed 111 boys for every 100 girls, although there are indications of improvement as social norms gradually shift in favor of daughters.

Exploitation of women persists within patriarchal marriages. Forced marriage, as an extreme manifestation of this, was officially recognized as a form of modern-day slavery by the International Labour Organization for the first time in 2017. Recent estimates from 2021 suggest that 22 million people globally are living in forced marriages.

The long-lasting psychological impact of the patriarchal system is that it normalized and naturalized its gendered hierarchy, similar to how class and racial oppression have historically been justified by those in power.

These social norms have evolved into today's gender stereotypes, such as the belief that women are universally nurturing and caring, while men are inherently prone to violence and suited for warfare. By enforcing narrow gender roles, patriarchy disadvantaged not only women but also many men. Its sole intention was to serve the interests of society's elites.

Like the distorted Monkey Hill at London Zoo in the 1920s, patriarchy is a flawed system that has fostered distrust and abuse. Movements advocating for gender equality worldwide are manifestations of the social tension that humans have endured within patriarchal societies for centuries.

As political theorist Anne Philips aptly wrote, "Anyone, given half a chance, will prefer equality and justice to inequality and injustice."

Although the struggle against patriarchy may sometimes appear daunting, there is nothing inherent in our nature that prevents us from living differently. A society created by humans can also be reconstructed by humans.

Presented By:

        Ismail