Part of a series on
Feminism
Women & femininity Women Femininity
History Social Women's history Feminist history History of feminism Timeline of women's rights (other than voting) Suffrage Women's suffrage Timeline New Zealand United Kingdom United States Waves First Second Third
Variants Amazon Anarchist Atheist Black Chicana Christian Conservative Cultural Cyber Difference Eco Equality Equity Fat French feminism theory French structuralist Gender Global Individualist Islamic Jewish Lesbian Liberal Lipstick Marxist Material New Postcolonial Postmodern Pro-life Proto Radical Religious Separatist Sex-positive Socialist Standpoint Third world Trans Womanism
Concepts Movement Theory Women's rights Effects on society‎ Feminism in culture Political lesbianism Pro-feminism Anti-feminism Women's health Postfeminism Gender equality Equality Revisionist mythology
Theory Gender studies Gender mainstreaming Matriarchy Women's studies Men's studies Economics Political theory Epistemology Theology Sexology Sociology Legal theory Art Literary crit Film theory Political ecology Architecture Anthropology Archaeology Criminology Geography Philosophy Feminist psychology International relations Existentialism Composition studies
By country Women's Rights by Country Feminists by Nationality China Egypt France India Indonesia Iran Ireland Japan Nepal Nicaragua Poland Saudi Arabia Ukraine United Kingdom United States
Lists & indexes Articles Feminists Literature Conservative feminisms
Feminism portal
v t e

A matriarchy is a society in which females, especially mothers, have the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property. It is also sometimes called a gynocracy, a gynecocracy or a gynocentric society. The male equivalent is a patriarchy.

Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal,^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} but possible exceptions include the Iroquois, in whose society mothers exercise central moral and political roles.^[7] However, this reluctance to accept the existence of matriarchies might be based on a specific, culturally biased notion of how to define 'matriarchy': because in a patriarchy 'men rule over women', a matriarchy has frequently been conceptualized as 'women ruling over men', whereas in reality women-centered societies are - apparently without exception - egalitarian.^[8][9]

There are also matrilinear, matrilocal, and avunculocal societies, especially among indigenous peoples of Asia and Africa,^[10] such as those of the Minangkabau, E De (Rhade), Mosuo, Berbers and Tuareg and, in Europe, e.g., Sardinian people.^[11][12]

Strongly matrilocal societies sometimes are referred to as matrifocal, and there is some debate concerning the terminological delineation between matrifocality and matriarchy. Even in patriarchical systems of male-preference primogeniture, there may occasionally be queens regnant.

In 19th century Western scholarship, the hypothesis of matriarchy representing an early stage of human development—now mostly lost in prehistory, with the exception of some so-called primitive societies—enjoyed popularity. The hypothesis survived into the 20th century and was notably advanced in the context of feminism and especially second wave feminism, but this hypothesis of matriarchy as having been an early stage of human development is mostly discredited today, most experts saying that it never existed.^[13]

Barbara Love and Elizabeth Shanklin respond to this criticism in "The Answer is Matriarchy":

When we hear the word 'matriarchy', we are conditioned to a number of responses: that matriarchy refers to the past and that matriarchies have never existed; that matriarchy is a hopeless fantasy of female domination, of mothers dominating children, of women being cruel to men. Conditioning us negatively to matriarchy is, of course, in the interests of patriarchs. We are made to feel that patriarchy is natural; we are less likely to question it, and less likely to direct our energies to ending it."^[14]

Definitions and etymology[link]

The word matriarchy is often interpreted to mean the opposite of patriarchy. from Greek matēr 'mother' and archein 'to rule'. Journalist Margot Adler wrote, "[l]iterally, ... ["matriarchy"] means government by mothers, or more broadly, government and power in the hands of women."^[15] "'Matriarchy' can be thought of ... as a shorthand description for any society in which women's power is equal or superior to men's and in which the culture centers around values and life events described as 'feminine.'"^[16] In the Marxist tradition, it usually refers to a pre-class society "where women and men share equally in production and power."^[17] Some consider the term as not being parallel to patriarchy, because it is not always defined in the same fashion differing only for gender.^[18][19]

Matriarchy is also the public formation in which the woman occupies the ruling position in a family (a primary cell of society). Matriarchy has even been found where a quarter of Black families in the United States were headed by single women;^[20] thus, families composing a substantial minority of a substantial minority could be enough for the latter to constitute a matriarchy within a larger non-matriarchal society (though many scholars would prefer the term "matrifocal" to "matriarchal"). In addition, some authors depart from the premise of a mother-child dyad as the core of a human group where the grandmother was the central ancestress with her children and grandchildren clustered around her in an extended family.^[21]

According to Adler, "[a] number of feminists note that few definitions of the word ["matriarchy"], despite its literal meaning, include any concept of power, and they suggest that centuries of oppression have made it impossible for women to conceive of themselves with such power."^[22]

Etymologically, according to the OED, the word matriarchy is first attested in 1885, building on an earlier matriarch, formed in analogy to patriarch, already in use in the early 17th century. By contrast, gynæcocracy, meaning 'rule of women', has been in use since the 17th century, building on the Greek word γυναικοκρατία found in Aristotle and Plutarch.^[23][24]

The Matriarchal Studies school led by Heide Göttner-Abendroth calls for a more inclusive redefinition of the term: Göttner-Abendroth defines Modern Matriarchal Studies as the "investigation and presentation of non-patriarchal societies", effectively defining matriarchy as "non-patriarchy".^[25] She has also defined matriarchy as characterized by the sharing of power equally between the two genders.^[26] According to Diane LeBow, "[m]atriarchal societies are often described as ... egalitarian ...",^[27] although anthropologist Ruby Rohrlich has written of "the centrality of women in an egalitarian society."^[28] Similarly, Peggy Reeves Sanday (2004) favors redefining and reintroducing the word matriarchy, especially in reference to contemporary matrilineal societies such as the Minangkabau.

In "The Answer is Matriarchy," Barbara Love and Elizabeth Shanklin, write, "Toward a Definition of Matriarchy, By 'matriarchy,' we mean a non-alienated society: a society in which women, those who produce the next generation, define motherhood, determine the conditions of motherhood, and determine the environment in which the next generation is reared."^[29]

Related concepts[link]

Gynecocracy, gynaecocracy, gynocracy, gyneocracy, and gynarchy[link]

Gynecocracy, gynaecocracy, gynocracy, gyneocracy, and gynarchy generally mean 'government by women over women and men'.^{[30][31][32][33]} All of these words are synonyms in their most important definitions. While these words all share that principal meaning, they differ a little in their additional meanings, so that gynecocracy also means 'women's social supremacy',^[34] gynaecocracy also means 'government by one woman', 'female dominance', and, derogatorily, 'petticoat government',^[35] and gynocracy also means 'women as the ruling class'.^[36] Gyneocracy is rarely used in modern times.^[37] None of these definitions are limited to mothers.

Some matriarchies have been described by historian Helen Diner as "a strong gynocracy"^[38] and "women monopolizing government"^[39] and she described matriarchal Amazons as "an extreme, feminist wing"^[40] of humanity and that North African women "ruled the country politically,"^[38] and, according to Margot Adler, Helen Diner "envision[ed] a dominance matriarchy".^[41]

Gynocentrism[link]

Gynocentrism (simplified by using the reduced prefix gyno- for gynæco-) is the 'dominant or exclusive focus on women', is opposed to androcentrism, and "invert[s] ... the privilege of the ... [male/female] binary ... [some feminists] arguing for 'the superiority of values embodied in traditionally female experience'".^[42]

Matrifocality and matricentrism[link]

Due to a lack of a clear and consistent definition of the word matriarchy, several anthropologists have begun to use the term matrifocality. The terms matrifocal and matricentric, 'having a mother as head of the family or household', were first used in the mid 20th century.

Matrifocal societies are those in which women, especially mothers, occupy a central position. The term does not necessarily imply domination by women or mothers.^[43] Anthropologist R. L. Smith (2002) refers to matrifocality as the kinship structure of a social system where the mothers assume structural prominence.^[43] The Nair community in Kerala and the Bunt community in Tulunadu in South India are prime examples of matrifocality. This can be attributed to the fact that if males were largely warriors by profession, a community was bound to lose male members at youth, leading to a situation where the females assumed the role of running the family.

Matristic[link]

Feminist scholars and archeologists such as Marija Gimbutas, Gerda Lerner, and Riane Eisler^[44] describe their notion of a "woman-centered" society surrounding Mother Goddess worship throughout prehistory (Paleolithic and Neolithic Europe) and ancient civilizations, by using the term matristic rather than matriarchal.

Matrilineality[link]

Matrilineality is sometimes confused with historical matriarchy.^[45]

Matrilocality[link]

Societies in which a couple resides close to the bride's family rather than the bridegroom's family are termed "matrilocal" by anthropologists.

History[link]

Bronze Age[link]

Minoan Crete and Sumer were among the cultures existing during the Bronze Age.

According to Rohrlich, "[m]any scholars are convinced that Crete was a matriarchy, ruled by a queen-priestess"^[46] and the "Cretan civilization" was "matriarchal" before "1500 B.C.," when it was overrun and colonized.^[47]

Also according to Rohrlich, "[i]n the early Sumerian city-states 'matriarchy seems to have left something more than a trace.'"^[48]

Native Americans[link]

The Hopi Indian tribe (in what is now the U.S.), according to Alice Schlegel, had as its "gender ideology ... one of female superiority, and it operated within a social actuality of sexual equality."^[49] According to LeBow (based on Schlegel's work), in the Hopi, "[g]ender roles ... are egalitarian .... [and] [n]either sex is inferior."^[50] LeBow concluded that Hopi women "participate fully in ... political decision-making."^[51] According to Schlegel, "[t]he Hopi no longer live as they are described here"^[52] and "[t]he attitude of female superiority is fading".^[52] Schlegel said the Hopi "were and still are matrilinial"^[53] and "[t]he household ... was matrilocal".^[53] Schlegel explains why there was female superiority as that the Hopi believed in "life as the highest good ... [with] the female principle ... activated in women and in Mother Earth ... as its source"^[54] and that the Hopi "were not in a state of continual war with equally matched neighbors"^[55] and "had no standing army"^[55] so that "the Hopi lacked the spur to masculine superiority"^[55] and, within that, as that women were central to institutions of clan and household and predominated "within the economic and social systems (in contrast to male predominance within the political and ceremonial systems)",^[55] the Clan Mother, for example, being empowered to overturn land distribution by men if she felt it was unfair,^[54] since there was no "countervailing ... strongly centralized, male-centered political structure".^[54]

18th century[link]

The Iroquois Confederacy or League, combining five to six American Indian nations or tribes before the U.S. became a nation, operated by The Great Binding Law of Peace, a constitution by which women participated in the League's political decision-making, including deciding whether to proceed to war,^[56] through what may have been a matriarchy^[57] or "'gyneocracy'".^[58] The dates of this constitution's operation are unknown: the League was formed in approximately 1000–1450, but the constitution was oral until written in about 1880.^[59] The League still exists.

Doug George-Kanentiio, in his chapter on the Iroquois family subtitled, "Women are the Center of Iroquois Life" (2000) explains:

In our society, women are the center of all things. Nature, we believe, has given women the ability to create; therefore it is only natural that women be in positions of power to protect this function....We traced our clans through women; a child born into the world assumed the clan membership of its mother. Our young women were expected to be physically strong....The young women received formal instruction in traditional planting....Since the Iroquois were absolutely dependent upon the crops they grew, whoever controlled this vital activity wielded great power within our communities. It was our belief that since women were the givers of life they naturally regulated the feeding of our people....In all countries, real wealth stems from the control of land and its resources. Our Iroquois philosophers knew this as well as we knew natural law. To us it made sense for women to control the land since they were far more sensitive to the rhythms of the Mother Earth. We did not own the land but were custodians of it. Our women decided any and all issues involving territory, including where a community was to be built and how land was to be used....In our political system, we mandated full equality. Our leaders were selected by a caucus of women before the appointments were subject to popular review....Our traditional governments are composed of an equal number of men and women. The men are chiefs and the women clan-mothers....As leaders, the women closely monitor the actions of the men and retain the right to veto any law they deem inappropriate....Our women not only hold the reigns of political and economic power, they also have the right to determine all issues involving the taking of human life. Declarations of war had to be approved by the women, while treaties of peace were subject to their deliberations.^[60]

19th century[link]

The notion of matriarchy was defined by Joseph-Francois Lafitau (1681–1746), who first named it "ginecocratie".

The controversy surrounding prehistoric or "primal" matriarchy began in reaction to the book by Johann Jakob Bachofen Mother Right: An Investigation of the Religious and Juridical Character of Matriarchy in the Ancient World in 1861. Several generations of ethnologists were inspired by his pseudo-evolutionary theory of archaic matriarchy. Following him and Jane Ellen Harrison, several generations of scholars, usually arguing from known myths or oral traditions and examination of Neolithic female cult-figures, suggested that many ancient societies might have been matriarchal, or even that there existed a wide-ranging matriarchal society prior to the ancient cultures of which we are aware.

The concept was further investigated by Lewis H. Morgan, LL. D.^[61] Many researchers studied the phenomenon of matriarchy afterward, but the basis was laid by the classics of sociology. In their works Bachofen and Lewis Morgan used such terms and expressions as mother-right, female rule, gyneocracy, and female authority. All these terms meant the same: the rule by females (mother or wife).

The notion of a "woman-centered" society was developed by J. J. Bachofen, whose three-volume Myth, religion, and mother right (1861) impacted the way classicists such as Jane Harrison, Sir Arthur Evans, Walter Burkert, and James Mellaart^[62] looked at the evidence of matriarchal religion in pre-Hellenic societies.^[63]

A claim of "matriarchy" in the ancient Near East is also found in The Cambridge Ancient History (1975):^[64] "the predominance of a supreme goddess is probably a reflection from the practice of matriarchy which at all times characterized Elamite civilization to a greater or lesser degree".

The following excerpts from Lewis Morgan's "Ancient Society" will explain the use of the terms: "In a work of vast research, Bachofen has collected and discussed the evidence of female authority, mother-right, and of female rule, gynecocracy."

"Common lands and joint tillage would lead to joint-tenant houses and communism in living; so that gyneocracy seems to require for its creation, descent in the female line. Women thus entrenched in large households, supplied from common stores, in which their own gens so largely predominated in numbers, would produce the phenomena of mother right and gyneocracy, which Bachofen has detected and traced with the aid of fragments of history and of tradition."

Although Bachofen and Lewis Morgan confined the "mother right" inside households, it was the basis of female influence upon the whole society. The authors of the classics never thought that gyneocracy could mean 'female government' in politics. They were aware of the fact that the sexual structure of government had no relation to domestic rule and to roles of both sexes.

The 19th-century belief that matriarchal societies existed, a belief now abandoned among most scholars, was due to the transmission of "economic and social power ... through kinship lines"^[65] so that "in a matrilineal society all power would be channeled through women. Women may not have retained all power and authority in such societies ..., but they would have been in a position to control and dispense power."^[65]

Friedrich Engels, among others studying historical groups, formed the notion that some contemporary primitive peoples did not grasp the link between sexual intercourse and pregnancy.^{[citation needed]} Research indicated that sexual intercourse occurred from early ages and pregnancy only occurred much later, seemingly unrelated to the sexual activity. He proposed that these cultures had no clear notion of paternity, according to this hypothesis; women produced children mysteriously, without necessary links to the man or men with whom they had sex. When realization of paternity occurred, according to the hypothesis, men acted to claim a power to monopolize women and claim their offspring as possessions and patriarchy began.

20th century[link]

Ethnographer Bronisław Malinowski, from the London School of Economics, lived among aborigines of the Trobriand Islands (Western Melanesia) and studied their society in 1914–1918. In his book Argonauts Of The Western Pacific,^[66] B. Malinowski pointed at a matrilineal construction of the islanders' societies and at a high female position:

"Their system of kinship is matrilineal, and women hold a very good position, and wield great influence."^[67]

"The Trobrianders are matrilineal, that is, in tracing descent and settling inheritance, they follow the maternal line. A child belongs to the clan and village community of its mother, and wealth, as well as social position, are inherited, not from father to son, but from maternal uncle to nephew."^[68]

"As regards kinship, the main thing to be remembered is that the natives are matrilineal, and that the succession of rank, membership in all the social groups, and the inheritance of possessions descend in the maternal line."^[68]

Property was succeeded inside the mother-line: "The ownership of trees in the village grove and ownership in garden plots is ceded by the father to his son during the lifetime of the former. At his death, it often has to be returned to the man's rightful heirs, that is, his sister's children."^[68]

A man had a life-long obligation to work for women and their relatives in that society: "They entail a life-long obligation of every man to work for his kinswomen and their families. When a boy begins to garden, he does it for his mother. When his sisters grow up and marry, he works for them. If he has neither mother nor sisters, his nearest female blood relation will claim the proceeds of his labour".^[69]

By studying several different tribes of the Western Pacific (employing the method of comparison, popular in ethnography), Malinowski gave confirmations of Lewis Morgan's idea that matriarchy (gyneocracy)^[70] was a common feature of primitive societies at early stages, and that female rule needed matrilineality for its existence. He also confirmed that matrilineality often goes hand in hand with promiscuous free love (a fact that was discovered^{[citation needed]} by Bachofen).

According to B. Malinowski:

"As a rule, amongst natives, a high position of women is associated with sex laxity."^[71]

"The sexual life of these natives [the Southern Massim tribe] is extremely lax. Even when we remember the very free standard of sex morals in the Melanesian tribes of New Guinea, such as the Motu or the Mailu, we still find these natives exceedingly loose in such matters. Certain reserves and appearances which are usually kept up in other tribes, are here completely abandoned. As is probably the case in many communities where sex morals are lax, there is a complete absence of unnatural practices and sex perversions. Marriage is concluded as the natural end of a long and lasting liaison."^[71]

"[The Trobrianders'] sexual life starts long before puberty arrives, and gradually shapes and develops as the organism matures... Chastity is an unknown virtue among these natives. At an incredibly early age they become initiated into sexual life... As they grow up, they live in promiscuous free-love, which gradually develops into more permanent attachments... Marriage is associated with hardly any public or private rite or ceremony. The woman simply joins her husband in his house... In her married life, the woman is supposed to remain faithful to her husband, but this rule is neither very strictly kept nor enforced. In all other ways, she retains a great measure of independence."^[66]

Austrian writer Bertha Diener, also known as Helen Diner, wrote Mothers and Amazons (1930), which was the first work to focus on women's cultural history. Hers is regarded as a classic of feminist matriarchal study.^[72] Her view is that in the past all human societies were matriarchal; then, at some point, most shifted to patriarchal and degenerated.

The controversy was reinforced further by the publication of The White Goddess by Robert Graves (1948) and his later analysis of classical Greek mythology and the vestiges of earlier myths that had been rewritten after a profound change in the religion of Greek civilization that occurred within its very early historical times.

From the 1950s, Marija Gimbutas developed a theory of an Old European culture in neolithic Europe which had matriarchal traits, replaced by the patriarchal system of the Proto-Indo-Europeans with the spread of Indo-European languages beginning in the Bronze Age.

From the 1970s, these ideas were taken up by popular writers of second-wave feminism and expanded with the speculations of Margaret Murray on witchcraft, by the Goddess movement, and in feminist Wicca, as well as in works by Elizabeth Gould Davis, Riane Eisler, and Merlin Stone.

The concept of a matriarchal golden age in the Neolithic Age has been denounced as feminist wishful thinking in The Inevitability of Patriarchy, in Why Men Rule, more recently by Philip G. Davis in Goddess Unmasked (1998), and by Cynthia Eller, professor at Montclair State University, in The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory (2000). According to Eller, Gimbutas had a large part in constructing a myth of historical matriarchy by examining Eastern Europe cultures that she asserts, by and large, never really bore any resemblance in character to the alleged universal matriarchy suggested by Gimbutas and Graves. She asserts that in "actually documented primitive societies" of recent (historical) times, paternity is never ignored and that the sacred status of goddesses does not automatically increase female social status, and believes that this affirms that utopian matriarchy is simply an inversion of antifeminism. The feminist scenarios of Neolithic matriarchy have been called into question and are not emphasized in third-wave feminism.

The original evidence recognized by Gimbutas, however, of Neolithic societies being more egalitarian than the Bronze Age Indo-European and Semitic patriarchies remains valid. Gimbutas herself has not described these societies as "matriarchal", preferring the term "woman-centered" or "matristic". Del Giorgio, in The Oldest Europeans (2006), insists on a matrifocal, matrilocal, matrilineal Paleolithic society.

While the existence of numerous matrilineal or avuncular societies is undisputed, it has been recognized since the 1970s that there are no societies which are matriarchal in the strong sense that some societies are patriarchal. Joan Bamberger in her 1974 The Myth of Matriarchy argued that the historical record contains no reliable evidence of any society in which women dominated. Although in 1977 cultural anthropologist Jules de Leeuwe argued that some societies were "mainly gynecocratic"^[73] (others being "mainly androcratic"),^[73] he did not identify any in his short response.^[73] Anthropologist Donald Brown's list of "human cultural universals" (i.e., features shared by all current human societies) includes men being the "dominant element" in public political affairs (Brown 1991, p. 137), which he asserts is the contemporary opinion of mainstream anthropology.

Kurt Derungs is a non-academic author advocating an "anthropology of landscape" based on allegedly matriarchal traces in toponymy and folklore.

21st century[link]

According to Adovasio, Soffer, and Page, no true matriarchy is known actually to have existed,^[45] although there is evidence of Amazons and an Amazonian society having existed and some matrifocal societies do exist.^{[citation needed]} Spokespersons for various indigenous peoples at the United Nations and elsewhere have highlighted the central role of women in their societies, referring to them as matriarchies, or as matriarchal in character.^[74][75]

Mythology[link]

Greece and Rome[link]

A legendary matriarchy related by classical Greek writers was the Amazon society. Herodotus reported that the Sarmatians were descendants of Amazons and Scythians, and that their females observed their ancient maternal customs, "frequently hunting on horseback with their husbands; in war taking the field; and wearing the very same dress as the men". Moreover, said Herodotus, "[n]o girl shall wed till she has killed a man in battle". Amazons came to play a role in Roman historiography. Julius Caesar spoke of the conquest of large parts of Asia by Semiramis and the Amazons. Although Strabo was sceptical about their historicity, the Amazons were taken as historical throughout late Antiquity.^[76] Several Church Fathers spoke of the Amazons as a real people. Medieval authors continued a tradition of locating the Amazons in the North, Adam of Bremen placing them at the Baltic Sea and Paulus Diaconus in the heart of Germania.^[77]

Historian Ronald Hutton has argued that there is no necessary correlation between the worship of female deities and relative levels of social or legal egalitarianism, noting the late classical Greek and Roman religions, in which goddesses played important roles. The changes from the earlier mythology are not considered in her analysis, however, and the late classical myths were dominated by male deities. Hutton has also pointed out that, in more recent European history, in 17th century Spain, there were many religious institutions staffed exclusively by women.

In Greek mythology, Zeus is said to have swallowed his pregnant lover, the titan goddess Metis, who was carrying their daughter, Athena. The mother and child created havoc inside Zeus. Either Hermes or Hephaestus split Zeus's head, allowing Athena, in full battle armor, to burst forth from his forehead. Athena was thus described as being "born" from Zeus. Zeus was pleased with the outcome a prophecy that his son would surpass him had not been fulfilled. Robert Graves suggested that this myth displaced earlier myths that had to change when a major cultural change brought patriarchy to replace a matriarchy.

Apparently as criticism, about 2,400 years ago, in 390 BCE, Aristophanes wrote a play, Ecclesiazusae, about women gaining legislative power and governing Athens, Greece, on a limited principle of equality. In the play, Praxagora, a character, argues that women should rule because they are superior to men, not equal, and yet she declines to assert publicly her right to rule, although elected and although acting in office.^[78] The play also suggests that women would rule by not allowing politics, in order to prevent disappointment, and that affirmative action would be applied to heterosexual relationships.^[78] In the play, written when Athens was a male-only democracy where women could not vote or rule, women were presented as unassertive and unrealistic, and thus not qualified to govern.^[78] The play was a fable on the theme that women should stay home.^[79]

Celtic myth and society[link]

"[T]here is plenty of evidence of ancient societies where women held greater power than in many societies today. For example, Jean Markale's studies of Celtic societies show that the power of women was reflected not only in myth and legend but in legal codes pertaining to marriage, divorce, property ownership, and the right to rule."^[80]

South America[link]

Bamberger (1974) examines several matriarchal myths from South American cultures and concludes that portraying the women from this matriarchal period as evil often serves to restrain contemporary women.^{[clarification needed]}

In feminist thought[link]

While matriarchy has mostly fallen out of use for the anthropological description of existing societies, it remains current as a concept in feminism.^[81][82]

In first-wave feminist discourse, either Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Margaret Fuller (it is unclear who was first) introduced the concept of matriarchy^[83] and the discourse was joined in by Matilda Joslyn Gage.^[84] Victoria Woodhull, in 1871, called for men to open the U.S. government to women or a new constitution and government would be formed in a year;^[85] and, on a basis of equality, she ran to be elected President in 1872.^[86][87] Charlotte Perkins Gilman, in 1911 and 1914,^[88] argued for "[a] woman-centered, or better mother-centered, world"^[89] and described "'[g]overnment by women'".^[90] She argued that a government led by either sex must be assisted by the other,^[91] both genders being "useful ... and should in our governments be alike used",^[92] because men and women have different qualities.^[93]

Cultural feminism includes "matriarchal worship", according to Prof. James Penner.^[94]

In feminist literature, matriarchy and patriarchy are not conceived as simple mirrors of each other.^[95] While matriarchy sometimes means "the political rule of women",^[96] that meaning is often rejected, on the ground that matriarchy is not a mirroring of patriarchy.^[97] Patriarchy is held to be about power over others while matriarchy is held to be about power from within,^[95] Starhawk having written on that distinction^[95][98] and Margot Adler having argued that matriarchal power is not possessive and not controlling, but is harmonious with nature.^[99]

Feminist utopias are a form of advocacy. According to Tineke Willemsen, "[a] feminist utopia would ... be the description of a place where at least women would like to live."^[100] Willemsen continues, among "type[s] of feminist utopias[,] ... [one] stem[s] from feminists who emphasize the differences between women and men. They tend to formulate their ideal world in terms of a society where women's positions are better than men's. There are various forms of matriarchy, or even a utopia that resembles the Greek myth of the Amazons.... [V]ery few modern utopias have been developed in which women are absolute autocrats."^[101]

A minority of feminists, generally radical or lesbian,^[81][82] have argued that women should govern societies of women and men. In all of these advocacies, the governing women are not limited to mothers:

• In her book Scapegoat: The Jews, Israel, and Women’s Liberation, Andrea Dworkin stated that she wanted women to have their own country, "Womenland,"^[102] which, comparable to Israel, would serve as a "place of potential refuge".^[102][103] In the Palestine Solidarity Review, Veronica A. Ouma reviewed the book and argued her view that while Dworkin "pays lip service to the egalitarian nature of ... [stateless] societies [without hierarchies], she envisions a state whereby women either impose gender equality or a state where females rule supreme above males."^[104]
• Starhawk, in The Fifth Sacred Thing (1993), fiction, wrote of "a utopia where women are leading societies but are doing so with the consent of men."^[105]
• Phyllis Chesler wrote in Women and Madness (2005 and 1972) that feminist women must "dominate public and social institutions".^[106] She also wrote that women fare better when controlling the means of production^[107] and that equality with men should not be supported,^[108] even if female domination is no more "'just'"^[108] than male domination.^[108] On the other hand, in 1985, she was "probably more of a feminist-anarchist ... more mistrustful of the organisation of power into large bureaucratic states [than she was in 1972]".^[109] Between Chesler's 1972 and 2005 editions, Dale Spender wrote that Chesler "takes [as] a ... stand [that] .... [e]quality is a spurious goal, and of no use to women: the only way women can protect themselves is if they dominate particular institutions and can use them to serve women's interests. Reproduction is a case in point."^[110] Spender wrote Chesler "remarks ... women will be superior".^[111]
• Monique Wittig authored, as fiction (not as fact), Les Guérillères,^[112] with her description of an asserted "female State".^[113] The work was described by Rohrlich as a "fictional counterpart" to "so-called Amazon societies".^[114] Scholarly interpretations of the fictional work include that women win a war against men,^[115][116] "reconcil[e]"^[117] with "those men of good will who come to join them",^[117] exercise feminist autonomy^[118] through polyandry,^[119] decide how to govern,^[118] and rule the men.^[120] The women confronting men^[121] are, according to Tucker Farley, diverse and thus stronger and more united^[122] and, continued Farley, permit a "few ... men, who are willing to accept a feminist society of primitive communism, ... to live."^[123] Another interpretation is that the author created an "'open structure' of freedom".^[124]
• Mary Daly wrote of hag-ocracy, "the place we ["[w]omen traveling into feminist time/space"] govern",^[125] and of reversing phallocratic rule^[126] in the 1990s (i.e., when published).^[127] She considered equal rights as tokenism that works against sisterhood, even as she supported abortion being legal and other reforms.^[128] She considered her book female and anti-male.^[129]

Some such advocacies are informed by work on past matriarchy:

• According to Prof. Linda M. G. Zerilli, "an ancient matriarchy ... [was "in early second-wave feminism"] the lost object of women's freedom."^[130] Prof. Cynthia Eller found widespread acceptance of matriarchal myth during feminism's second wave.^[131] Eller said that, other than a few separatist radical lesbian feminists, spiritual feminists would include "a place for men ... in which they can be happy and productive, if not necessarily powerful and in control"^[132] and might have social power as well.^[133]
• Jill Johnston envisioned a "return to the former glory and wise equanimity of the matriarchies"^[134] in the future^[134] and "imagined lesbians as constituting an imaginary radical state, and invoked 'the return to the harmony of statehood and biology....'"^[135] Her work inspired efforts at implementation by the Lesbian Organization of Toronto (LOOT) in 1976–1980^[136] and in Los Angeles.^[137]
• One organization that was named The Feminists was interested in matriarchy^[138] and was one of the largest of the radical feminist women's liberation groups of the 1960s.^[139] Two members wanted "'the restoration of female rule'",^[140] but the organization's founder, Ti-Grace Atkinson, would have objected had she remained in the organization, because, according to a historian, "[she] had always doubted that women would wield power differently from men."^[141]
• Robin Morgan wrote of women fighting for and creating a "gynocratic world".^[142]
• Margot Adler reported, "[i]f feminists have diverse views on the matriarchies of the past, they also are of several minds on the goals for the future. A woman in the coven of Ursa Maior told me, '[r]ight now I am pushing for women's power in any way I can, but I don't know whether my ultimate aim is a society where all human beings are equal, regardless of the bodies they were born into, or whether I would rather see a society where women had institutional authority.'"^[143]

Egalitarian models are also promoted.

• Around 24 centuries ago,^[144] Plato, according to Elaine Hoffman Baruch, "[argued] for the total political and sexual equality of women, advocating that they be members of his highest class, ... those who rule and fight".^[145]
• On egalitarian matriarchy,^[146] Heide Göttner-Abendroth's International Academy for Modern Matriarchal Studies and Matriarchal Spirituality (HAGIA) organized conferences in Luxembourg in 2003^[147] and Texas in 2005,^[148][149] with papers published.^[150] Göttner-Abendroth argued that "[m]atriarchies are all egalitarian at least in terms of gender—they have no gender hierarchy .... [, that, f]or many matriarchal societies, the social order is completely egalitarian at both local and regional levels",^[151] that, "for our own path toward new egalitarian societies, we can gain ... insight from ... ["tested"] matriarchal patterns",^[152] and that "matriarchies are not abstract utopias, constructed according to philosophical concepts that could never be implemented."^[153]

"[A] deep distrust of men's ability to adhere to"^[154] future matriarchal requirements may invoke a need "to retain at least some degree of female hegemony to insure against a return to patriarchal control",^[154] "feminists ... [having] the understanding that female dominance is better for society—and better for men—than the present world order",^[155] as is equalitarianism. On the other hand, if men can be trusted to accept equality, probably most feminists seeking future matriarchy would accept an equalitarian model.^[155]

"Demographic[ally]",^[156] "feminist matriarchalists run the gamut"^[156] but primarily are "in white, well-educated, middle-class circles";^[156] many of the adherents are "religiously inclined"^[156] while others are "quite secular".^[156]

Biology as a ground for holding either males or females superior over the other has been criticized as invalid, such as by Andrea Dworkin^[157] and by Robin Morgan, in The Demon Lover. A claim that women have unique characteristics that prevent women's assimilation with men has been apparently rejected by Ti-Grace Atkinson.^[158] On the other hand, not all advocates based their arguments on biology or essentialism.

A criticism of choosing who governs according to gender or sex is that the best qualified people should be chosen, regardless of gender or sex.^[159] On the other hand, merit was considered insufficient for office, because a legal right granted by a sovereign (e.g., a king), was more important than merit.^[160]

Diversity within a proposed community can make it especially challenging to complete forming the community.^[161] However, some advocacy includes diversity.^[162][163]

Prof. Christine Stansell, a feminist, wrote that, for feminists to achieve state power, women must democratically cooperate with men. "[W]omen must take their place with a new generation of brothers in a struggle for the world's fortunes. Herland, whether of virtuous matrons or daring sisters, is not an option.... [T]he well-being and liberty of women cannot be separated from democracy's survival."^[164] (Herland was feminist utopian fiction by Charlotte Perkins Gilman,^[165] featuring a community entirely of women except for three men who seek it out,^[166] strong women in a matriarchal utopia^[167] expected to last for generations,^[168] although Charlotte Perkins Gilman was herself^[169] a feminist advocate of society being gender-integrated and of women's freedom.)

Other criticisms of superiority are that it is reverse sexism or discriminatory against men, it is opposed by most people including most feminists, women do not want such a position,^[159] governing takes women away from family responsibilities, women are too likely to be unable to serve politically because of menstruation and pregnancy,^[170] public affairs are too sordid for women^[171] and would cost women their respect,^[172] superiority is not traditional,^[159][173] it is impractical because of a shortage of women with the ability to govern at that level of difficulty,^[159][172] including the desire and ability to wage war,^[159] women legislating would not serve men's interests^[172][174] or would serve only petty interests,^[172] it is contradicted by current science on genderal differences,^[159] and it is unnatural.^{[175][176][177][178]}

Pursuing a future matriarchy would tend to risk sacrificing feminists' position in present social arrangements, and many feminists are not willing to take that chance.^[154] "Political feminists tend to regard discussions of what utopia would look like as a good way of setting themselves up for disappointment"^[179] and argue that immediate political issues must get the highest priorty.^[179]

"'[M]atriarchists'" as typified by comic character Wonder Woman were criticized by Kathie Sarachild, Carol Hanisch, and some others.^[180]

In religious thought[link]

Some theology and theocracy limit or forbid women from being in civil government or public leadership or forbid them from voting.^[181] Within none of the following religions is the respective view necessarily universally held:

• In Islam, some Muslim scholars hold that female political leadership is prohibited.^[182] The prohibition has been attributed to a hadith of Muhammad,^[183] the founder and last prophet of Islam. The hadith says, "A people which has a woman as leader will never prosper."^[184] The hadith's transmission, context, and meaning have been questioned.^[185] The prohibition has also been attributed as an extension of a ban on women leading prayers "in mixed gatherings" (which has been challenged)^[186] and to a restriction on women traveling (an attribution also challenged).^[187] Possibly, the hadith applies only against being head of state and not other high office.^[188] One source would allow a woman to "occupy every position except that of khalīfa (the leader of all Muslims)."^[189] One exception to the head-of-state prohibition was accepted without a general acceptance of women in political leadership.^[190] Political activism at lower levels may be more acceptable to Islamist women than top leadership positions.^[191][192] The Muslim Brotherhood has stated that women may not be president or head of state but may hold other public offices but, "[a]s for judiciary office, .... [t]he majority of jurispudents ... have forbidden it completely."^[193] In a study of 82 Islamists in Europe, 80% said women could not be state leaders but 75% said women could hold other high positions.^[194] In 1994, the Muslim Brotherhood said that "'social circumstances and traditions'" may justify gradualism in the exercise of women's right to hold office (below head of state).^[195] Whether the Muslim Brothers still support that statement is unclear.^[196] As reported in 1953, "Islamic organizations held a conference in the office of the Muslim Brothers .... [and] claim[ed] ... that it had been proven that political rights for women were contrary to religion".^[197] Some nations have specific bans. In Iran at times, women have been forbidden to fill some political offices because of law or because of judgments made under the Islamic religion.^[198] As to Saudi Arabia, "Saudi women ... are ... not allowed to enter parliament as anything more than advisors; they cannot vote, much less serve as representatives".^[199]
• In Judaism, among orthodox leaders, a position, beginning before Israel became a modern state, has been that for women to hold public office in Israel would threaten the state's existence, according to educator Tova Hartman,^[200] who reports the view has "wide consensus".^[201] When Israel ratified the international women's equality agreement known as CEDAW, it reserved nonenforcement for any religious communities that forbid women from sitting on religious courts.^[202] "[T]he tribunals that adjudicate marital issues are by religious law and by custom entirely male."^[203] "'Men's superiority' is a fundamental tenet in Judaism".^[204] Likud party-led "governments have been less than hospitable to women's high-level participation."^[205]
• In Buddhism, some hold that "[t]he Buddha allegedly hesitated to admit women to the Saṅgha ...."^[206] "[I]n certain Buddhist countries—Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, and Thailand—women are categorically denied admission to the Saṅgha, Buddhism's most fundamental institution."^[207] "Throughout history, the support of the Saṅgha has been actively sought as a means of legitimation by those wishing to gain and maintain positions of political power in Buddhist countries."^[208]
• Hindu nationalist political leaders only include women as "exception[s]"^[209] and even their legitimacy is debated without a conclusion from "India's most extensive all-male Hindu nationalist organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh" (article).^[210] That an exception is allowed is offered only by the organization's "women's wing".^[211]

Thealogy[link]

Feminist thealogy conceptualized humanity as beginning with "female-ruled or equalitarian societies",^[212] until displaced by patriarchies,^[213] and that in the millennial future "'gynocentric,' life-loving values"^[213] will return to prominence.^[213] This produces "a virtually infinite number of years of female equality or superiority coming both at the beginning and end of historical time."^[214]

Among criticisms is that a future matriarchy, as a reflection of spirituality, is conceived as timeless and ahistorical,^[215] and thus may be unrealistic or even meaningless as a goal to secular feminists. Many of what are labeled as matriarchies may be more accurately labeled as matrifocal, matristic, or gynocentric instead, thus lowering the number of true or narrowly-defined matriarches that existed in the past^[216] as models for the future. Parts of a thealogical history of matriarchy may be unsupported by secular modern historical scholarship.

See also[link]

References[link]