I have heard multiple claims that there has never been a true matriarchal human culture (that we know of). To what extent is this true? Has there truly never been a society where women were favored over men?

[u/OverTheUnderstory]

I have been looking at some of the older posts here about matriarchal societies, and they all seem to agree one one thing: the fact that there has never been any major human societies where men were actively placed on a lower pedestal, and women on a higher one. There have been societies where women may be favored for specific roles, but they still tend to be male dominated. And societies where women have more power are often simply egalitarian in nature, and misinterpreted by outside viewers.

Is this actually true? I simply have a hard time believing that there is literally no known major societies like this.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.

Please consider Clicking Here for RemindMeBot as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup.

We thank you for your interest in this question, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to the Weekly Roundup and RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension. In the meantime our Bluesky, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/ctz_00]

I was going to go into this more, but saw that there were other examples being posted. I'll just send what I had so far:

There is a difference between a society in which women are the ones in control and make decisions (matriarchal); where heritage and kinship is on the mother’s bloodline (matrilineal); and where men are devalued or considered inferior - this is ideology, meaning beliefs that are then applied to the world and embodied. We also see the concept of "the" patriarchy - to qualify, we would need to find a society in which misandry was perpetuated to the extent misogyny is to us. Other beliefs such that men are weaker are not unheard of, but this is again separate from matriarchies as a system.

For example, even in a society that is matrilineal and women are the main contributors/providers to the family and women have the bulk of economic power and relevant roles, this does not necessarily give them power within the home or between sexes/gender roles, as seen within Claudia Milne’s documentary ”Asante Market Women.”

An another example of its complication, some may see Daoism as prioritizing women because it “forsake[s] fathers for the love of mothers.” Followers of Shang Yang (legalism) “saw love for mothers as love for self” and “therefore, in Legalist views, love to mother leads to a strong monarchical state” (”Theory of Matriarchical Society and its Problematic Application in China.”)

We also see beliefs that women are stronger, tougher, and more rational than men, as seen within 1940s Nsaw society. Phyllis Kaberry, who was the anthropologist in this case, devoted her life to studying women and how they exist within various societies around the world. A list of her various works can be found here. Whether that translates into beliefs that women are superior is another, more complicated question and as discussed, may not be relevant at all, depending on one's definition of matriarchy and whether it comes with the ideological assumptions.

A more comprehensive overview can be found in Perspectives: an Open Introduction to Cultural Anthropology “Gender and Sexuality" from Mukhopadhyay, and specifically under the section “Patriarchy … But What about Matriarchy?” It also includes an excerpt from the piece “Does Black Matriarchy Exist in Brazil? Histories of Slavery and African Cultural Survivals in Afro-Brazilian Religion” by Abby Gondek that is also relevant.

This chapter is wonderful and should help give you direction, should you want to look into this further. The entire gender/sex section is a relevant read to the broader topic of gender ideology, though not specific to the topic of matriarchies, with sections such as “Variability Among Binary Cultures,” “Gender Relations: Separate and Unequal,” “Emergence of Public (Male) vs. Domestic (Female) Spheres,” etc.

Edit: I should add, societies with three or more genders may be further complicated re: gender and sex dynamics. I will also warn for those reading the entire chapter (which I seriously recommend) that the “Sanctions, Sexuality, Honor, and Shame” and “Anthropology of the Body” sections discusses heavy violence against women.

And since I didn’t explicitly say it, there are and have been plenty of matriarchal societies, as well as matrilineal ones, but these societal features do not equate to having embodied ideology in the form of systematic oppression against men, which is most likely what they’re referring to when people speak of “”real”” matriarchies. Hence the controversy.

[u/Soft-Rains → u/ctz_00]

Just a point of clarity about this part

And since I didn’t explicitly say it, there are and have been plenty of matriarchal societies

One of your links seems to disagree. The last link you provide:

On the other hand, we have yet to find any “matriarchies,” that is, female-dominated societies where the range of women’s power, authority, and privilege parallels men’s in patriarchal societies.

Obviously this is a difference of definition, the article does reference an anthropologist making the claim of a society being matriarchal but given the link is provided as a "more comprehensive overview" does it not follow that the answer should not be explicitly calling "plenty" of societies matriarchal?

[u/ctz_00 → u/Soft-Rains]

It’s in the quote you sent: Mukhopadhyay says in that particular paragraph that matriarchal societies do not exist to the extent that patriarchal societies exist, aka with the societal discrimination against the non-dominant gender. However, this does not make things that do not fulfill that condition not matriarchies, as that’s not a prerequisite for the literal (primary) definition.

I am distinguishing between “matriarchies” and “the matriarchy” as a societal mechanism for the point of clarity. (This distinction is also in how she puts “matriarchy” in quotes.) We have plenty of the former, but no evidence of the latter. This does not contradict Mukhopadhyay.

While we word it differently, both Mukhopadhyay and I agree on complex definitions of matriarchies. Unfortunately the English language doesn’t have a great distinction, which is why I use “the” and she specifies the definition she’s using in various sections based on what is relevant to the conversation. (As in the quote, where she expresses that for that section, she is using a separate definition than is typically seen, which is why she specifically defines it.)

It is because of variations in definition that anthropologists disagree on what is considered a matriarchy. I showed an example with the Asante women of women being in economic power, and how that does not necessarily equate to them being a matriarchal society. I also noted that in that case it is not matrilineal either.

That was the purpose of my comment independent of what I linked. However, for the purposes of answering OP’s question, the chapter is more comprehensive even though it doesn’t go further into more complicated scenarios (because it’s not meant to, as that’s not the focus on the chapter).

For example, she doesn’t note traditional positions of power held by Native American women (as an example) because that’s not relevant to her working definition, as they do not include the discrimination that would make theme exist to the extent that we see in patriarchies. I would consider that a matriarchy, but not the Matriarchy. Kidwell discusses this type of society and argues that it is not egalitarian: The Power of Native American Women in Traditional Societies. Gondek (featured in Mukhopadhyay‘s chapter) also addresses ideas of the Black matriarchy and how that is of discussion among anthropologists.

(It’s even more complicated when we try to interpret past societies, as we are typically operating with a modern ethnocentric framework and fragments of the past. To make broad assumptions would be arrogant at best.)

TLDR, linguistics is complicated, which is why there isn’t a clear answer. She’s specifying the definition she’s using for the particular chapter, as I am in mine. This is why we can’t answer definitively whether there are matriarchal societies. It is certain, however, that there are matrilineal societies, which sometimes get mistakenly equated.

Hope this helps.

[u/explain_that_shit → u/ctz_00]

In matrilineal societies do women still tend to hold the preponderance of their social power, such as it is, in domestic contexts rather than broadly public contexts? As in, do they still tend to cede the broad public space to men?

[u/Far_Advertising1005 → u/Soft-Rains]

parallels men’s privilege in patriarchal societies

Is there a reason that a matriarchy isn’t one in their eyes unless it parallels the opposite? Seems like a weird requirement

[u/kahntemptuous]

Here is an answer by u/ViolettaHunter addressing a similar question.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/uft6jo/are_there_any_examples_of_matriarchal_societies/

This post has multiple answers, some more relevant than others to your question, by u/Shamanlord651 u/CommieWithACocktail u/Spencer_A_McDaniel & u/Kelpie-Cat

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ah8kfk/why_does_the_idea_of_a_prehistoric_goddess/?share_id=nkPjXrysi0EBBcLdVjaxc

[u/Maximum_Poet_8661 → u/kahntemptuous]

It's an older post but are there any citations or examples of what they're talking about in the first link? They mention

Some societies are a mix of patriarchal and matrinilineal concepts, where for example men hold all the positions of power and only men inherit, but a man’s inheritance does not go to his son, but his sister’s son. So through the female line, but with a male as recipient.

But there's no mention of what cultures they're referring to or citations for that. Same with:

In some matrilineal societies we know of, the concept of fatherhood as such does or did not exist. Children belong to their mother's family and men (even if they have a partner and biological children) are considered part oftheir mother's - and after her death - their sister's family.

Again, no mention of any specific cultures or citations. Specifically the claim that "the concept of fatherhood doesn't exist" feels like at very least it needs a mention of what culture they're talking about, but honestly needs a full citation because that's a pretty big claim. Not saying it doesn't exist, i'm sure it does, but not even mentioning what continent the culture they're referring to is on does make the comment somewhat lacking I think. I'm not an expert on that by any means but are there any good resources to find out more about what specific cultures were structured in that way? They mention at the end that the only sources they know aren't in english but they don't say what those sources are.

[u/JERRY_XLII → u/Maximum_Poet_8661]

The Khasi tribe of Meghalaya, India is a notable example of the former.