Talk:Matriarchy

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Female-Led Relationship

[edit]

Female-Led Relationship redirects here, but there is no mention of the contemporary phrase. Thoughts on adding something? And, if so, what reliable sources to use? Thanks. --Surv1v4l1st +Talk|Contribs+ 01:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same term, but in lower case, redirects to Dominatrix. Solutions?--Surv1v4l1st +Talk+Contribs+ 22:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Matriarchy in its most valid or classical meaning refers to an entire society or culture where women have leading roles. "Female-led relationship" is a couples practice, not an entire society. Dominatrix is not a great link either, because dominatrixes often exist outside couples relationships. The article Dominatrix does contain a section titled "Professional vs. personal", but this actually contains very little material on the personal non-professional side. If there were a separate article on "femdom" or "female dominance", that would be the best article to redirect to, but "femdom" is itself a redirect to "dominatrix", which is moderately annoying... AnonMoos (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughts. Much appreciated. I too am not seeing a great place to cover the topic either. It did cross my mind, of course, to start an article related to the couples practice, rather than an entire society (Matriarchy) or a given sexual practice (BDSM-related). However, I am not positive there is enough reliable coverage in good sources. There has certainly been plenty of ink spilled about the relationship model, but the majority don't likely meet WP guidelines. Anywho, I have some other projects to attend to before circling back to FLRs. Thanks again for the thoughts. Cheers. --Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 22:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not "citespam" per WP:SPAM

[edit]

Hi everyone. I recently had two of my edits to this article deleted claiming they were "citespam", and yet it did not fit the definition of that per WP:SPAM. The additions were 100% relevant to the topic and simply added citations and information about additional advocates. Ajax151 (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't fudge the meaning of "matriarchy".

[edit]

My comments are in response to the following portion of the current (12/20/22) version of this article (between the asterisks):

* * * * *

"The word matriarchy, for a society politically led by females, especially mothers, who also control property, is often interpreted to mean the genderal opposite of patriarchy, but it is not an opposite.[9][10][11] According to Peoples and Bailey, the view of anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday is that matriarchies are not a mirror form of patriarchies but rather that a matriarchy "emphasizes maternal meanings where 'maternal symbols are linked to social practices influencing the lives of both sexes and where women play a central role in these practices'."

  • * * * *

This is patent B.S. If patriarchy is defined as "rule by men" (and it certainly is) then matriarchy must be defined as."rule by women". Because there is no hard evidence of societies ruled by women, now or in the past, feminist ideologues (female and male) pull the ham-handed switcheroo of mis-defining matriarchy as male-female egalitarian rule. Again, B.S. The intellectual dishonesty of this maneuver is breathtaking. 2600:1011:B010:DAEF:DC3E:99DF:C822:52B4 (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily defending the passage (I don't know much about the trend of thought that it represents), but there's great skepticism among well-informed people about whether any true matriarchal society (in the sense that women exclude men from the public sphere and from positions of acknowledged authority) has ever existed, so if matriarchy is defined strictly, then not much would fall under the term, except for 19th-century anthropological speculations (later revealed to be false if interpreted as factual history) and 1970s radical feminist imagined utopias... AnonMoos (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about current article

[edit]

Hi there! I was wondering if there are user that still engage in page talk as latest response in this topic is old. Terminology or words used in this context, I cite precisely the word "domination" which is at the same time, strange and from a user who is explicitly interested about "fabulous" articles, I must say "domination" in this context made me laugh...

The root of the arisen said "dominating" woman, might use a non-traditional definition here since "domination" is not commonly known as. On the contrary or using similar approach, we can still keep the story but apply a different meaning such as "leading" or "managing finance", "household", or anything in particular could be related. The stance or true meaning of "domination" is far from reaching a correlation here with this publication. Domination, mean to dominate someone without any common or cognitive ability to succeed or to deliberately, and with authority, execute a function that would also restrict someone mentally or physically. However, a more convivial locution should be applied. SirlupinwatsonIII (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Definition of Matriarchy is Outdated, and Not Consistent With Wikipedia's Policies of Neutrality 7/19/2025

[edit]

Not trying to be contentious here, but there are some serious issues with the introduction. These are 5 assumptions of the article's reference materials that are contradictory and confusing, outdated in that they have been disproven, and offensive to women. Looking forward to civil feedback and helpful questions.

  1. "Women are Inferior" is inflammatory and not a neutral point of view: The first reference supporting the definition of matriarchy in  this article is Steven Goldberg’s book "The Inevitability of Patriarchy," 1971, contending men are socially, morally, physically and intellectually superior to women. These generalizations are gleaned from anecdotes and stereotypes at the "workplace" rather than science. Defining women as inferior to men is misogynous according to Wikipedia.
  2. Goldberg's misogynous prepossessions are proven false by Science journalist Angela Saini in her book INFERIOR: How Science Got Women Wrong and the New Research That's Rewriting the Story (2017). Saini provides evidence men are not superior biologically, emotionally, morally, intellectually or spiritually to women, nor are men better at spatial reasoning, motor skills or math. Math, physics and spatial reasoning are a function of early socialization that steers boys and girls differently in choices. For example, if you give either gender trucks to play with, that is what they will like. Science has revealed that this assumption is false, and women are strong, capable and intelligent, regardless of the medieval patriarchal ideal. Steven Goldberg is very low credibility for an article on matriarchy. The inferiority of women as an argument, rationale, or part of a definition of matriarchy does not belong.
  3. Women Cannot Lead due to this inferiority: The corollary to Goldberg’s argument of the inferiority of women, is that women's inferiority renders them incapable of leading. This view is that since women are incapable of making decisions, logic, leadership, or participating autonomously in a social structure, then matriarchies, if they exist, are primitive, not viable, and doomed to fail, the theme of his 1971 book.
  4. Matriarchies Don't Exist: This is a classical circular /straw fallacy that begins by 1) defining matriarchy as the polar opposite of patriarchy, which it never was (that would be gynocracy, the rule of women, which is hypothetical). Then, 2) matriarchy as defined as "the rule of women" doesn't exist. (no one said they did), therefore 3) matriarchies are hypothetical, romantic constructs that don't exist. This is the conclusion of the second reference in this article, the Encyclopedia Britannica, dating back to 1998, proudly stepping into the circular argument with "Matriarchy is described as a hypothetical social system in which the mother or a female elder has absolute authority over the family group, and by extension, one or more women exert a similar level of authority over the community as a whole." The irony is that this assertion, that matriarchies are hypothetical, is itself a hypothetical based on a circular straw argument. Britannica itself alludes to a "consensus" as their authority for this definition, but does not disclose the source of consensus.
  5. Matriarchies may exist but if they do, they are inferior to patriarchy: During the time of exploration in the 18th to 20th centuries, matriarchies were discovered in isolated environments untouched by patriarchies on almost all continents. Explorers noted women participating in government councils, in some cases chose the chief and were able to remove him, in others women were the clan leaders who worked closely with male councils in rituals, trade, tribal issues and priorities. Both J. J. Bachofen in his book Myth, Religion and Mother Right (1861), and Erich Fromm in Love, Sexuality and Matriarchy (1998) who was greatly influenced by Bachofen, acknowledge the presence of such matriarchies. They observe accurately the same definition of matriarchy as Goettner-Abendroth and Sanday, namely women participating autonomously and equally, lobbying for values that put children and the whole group at the center and meeting their needs, but not imperiously lording over the family or clan, as is the habit in patriarchy. This is not theoretical, hypothetical, a mirage, or a unicorn, they are real matriarchies. This research, however, is over150 years old. Both Bachofen and Fromm considered matriarchies "primitive" and less developed because they were heavily influenced by (inferior, irrational) women. The list of books from 1950-present on the inferiority and unsustainability of matriarchies come out of this antiquated, patriarchal worldview.

Matriarchies exist, they are not hypothetical and not patriarchy flipped. This is an article about matriarchies that have been studied on every continent for 200 years, not fantasy sociology or mythological anthropology. Etymologically "matri arche" does not mean mothers rule. Archen's first definition means primary or central, as in archetype. Both Abendroth and Sanday define matriarchy. Credible definitions of matriarchy exist and need to be front and center. There are a number of academics who have spent their lives studying and teaching matriarchy, like Dr. Heide Göttner-Abendroth, Dr. Peggy Reeves Sanday, and others who deserve a place defining the concept, at the top of the article, rather than uninformed male supremacists or encyclopedias from the last century beating the dead horse of women's inferiority. Thanks for reading.

Lilaponi (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"(inferior, irrational) women" I am personally amused by the assumption that men are rational. Where is the evidence for all that rational decision-making in a world that seems to be going from crisis to crisis for quite some time? Dimadick (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, and an argument for matriarchy. We have been missing insight and wisdom of women for ~6,000 years of patriarchy. Lilaponi (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]