The (In)Evitability of Patriarchy

A Response to Von, Discussing The Nature of Patriarchies

Art by Moyu Zhai

The other day, I was scrolling endlessly through Notes to avoid studying for finals. As I was smacking hearts on memes, I came across a post that made me pause. Posted by Von as a restack of another article, it read:

So much of the problem with 'patriarchy'. I would certainly be willing to say that patriarchy is alive, and well, and will remain so because it’s intrinsic to the human condition. But not if you force me to allow feminists to define what patriarchy actually is. Or was, or however you put it.

Citing Genesis 18:19, Joshua 24:15, and Joshua 35, Von reasoned that patriarchy is biblical and is according to God’s divine plan.

However, the line “intrinsic to the condition” stuck out. Initially, I was just going to keep scrolling and not possibly start an argument. But…my opinionated instincts got the better of me. After about five minutes of drafting the least argumentative-sounding comment I could, I asked, “How is the patriarchal system of hierarchy ‘intrinsic to the human condition?’”

In response, Von extended an invitation for a letter exchange, so we could mull this over together. I accepted. And so, we are exploring the main questions:

• Are patriarchies inevitable? That is, are they intrinsic to human nature?

• What are alternatives?

Von laid out his thoughts here¹:

The Inevitability of Patriarchy

This and his other articles on patriarchy and feminism gave me a lot to think about. I will lay out my thoughts below.

For my response, will be using Von’s definition of “patriarchy,” which wholly I agree with. Patriarchy—literally “father-rule”—is a hierarchical system in which the bloodline flows through the male figureheads, (“I am so-and-so, son of so-and-so”) with the true patriarch being the founding father of the clan. This system can extend throughout societies, leading to entire political systems that are patriarchal (e.g., kingdoms). Throughout history, patriarchies have appeared and functioned in various ways, depending on the region, culture, and members of the overall unit. Regardless of cultural differences, however, the definition remains.

Patriarchal societies are the most common throughout human history, and for a reason: these societies succeeded in competition against their rivals, including other patriarchies.² In the days of our prehistoric ancestors, threats were seemingly infinite, making it foolish to roam the earth alone. Our ancestors formed clans—sometimes several dozen strong—to increase the likelihood of survival. Each clan chose their method of hierarchy with survival in mind. Though no records exist, we can imagine prehistoric humans (and other members of the homo genus) came up with a wide range of hierarchies: a single ruling family, an individual ruler, priestly rule, egalitarianism, etc.

Survival in those days was nothing short of difficult, and competent leadership was a priority. Leaders determined the fate of their clansmen, both in daily life and in competition against other clans. Clans who failed to establish competent leaders and/or defend against rivals were eliminated or absorbed by said rivals. As a result, the most intelligent and/or physically capable members were given status within prehistoric clans. Ideally, high-ranking members were both strategic and athletic. Given that most males will outperform in the athletics department, it’s no surprise that men were given status much faster than women. Plus, given that humans are naturally clique-y, those in power are likely to stay in power (unless they make a major misstep) and elevate those most similar to them. Sex is, perhaps, the easiest differentiator to spot in humans, leading to the classic “us versus them” dilemma. Here, men were the “us” and women were the “them.” Though weaker and untrustworthy men were disliked, they were much more favored in the hierarchy than women were, solely because these men were part of the “us”.

This is the main problem with patriarchies: they were quickly corrupted. What first started as a means for survival quickly eroded into a means for power and control. What first benefited the whole now only served to benefit the few. It is easy to maintain power in a patriarchy—all a man has to do is physically dominate a woman through intimidation, beating, raping, etc. As societies became more sophisticated, legal systems evolved to benefit men in power. Of course, women did have some form of rights, but they were limited and often tied to a father or husband. Women were hardly seen as independent, but rather subservient beings owned by the male figureheads of their respective families. Young girls were sold off into marriage and forced to be mothers before they hardly exited their teenage years. If women worked, they were either legally banned from doing so after marriage or—if no codes barred them—were looked down upon for doing so.

History is filled with men who were loving and respectful towards their daughters, wives, and women outside their homes. However, for many women, patriarchies were totalitarian regimes. Many women, being raised in this environment, saw nothing wrong with this, however. They did not understand they were being oppressed by societal standards and legal codes. They did not realize their bodies and minds were being kept subservient by insecure tyrants. And if they did, many did not fight for rights, because they liked having so little being expected of them. (A classic case of humans being lazy.)

Many women who did long for a better life, however, found ways to escape. Religion offered shelter for many women, as in the case of priestesses and nuns. Other women, through cunning and skill, found status in patriarchies, such as in the more modern case of Catherine the Great, who overthrew her husband and ushered in a period of modernization for the Russian Empire. Ambitious women as a whole, though, were much fewer in number. Thankfully, however—in no small part to men who believed in social equality—women slowly achieved an increasing number of rights as centuries progressed, though the term “feminism” was tacked on much later.

Through a historical and anthropological lens, it is easy to see how patriarchies are not intrinsic to human nature but rather are the result of societal competition and the search for survival.

This is where my fellow writer, Von, seems to disagree with me. He and I differ on several aspects, with the main driver being our differing levels of conservativism and spiritual/religious viewpoints. Von is a Christian and describes himself as “an ardent creationist”, meaning he believes wholly in the scripture of the world’s creation found in Genesis. He believes that God ordained man to rule—not man as in “human” but man as in “male”—thus making the concept of patriarchy a divine one. Much of his worldview is guided by scripture, as evident by his posts and the memes found within.

I, on the other hand, am a Deist. In the modern day, we are a rare breed, though we are a product of the Enlightenment. We have no doctrine or code—leading to a wide range of nuanced beliefs amongst our ranks—but the overarching idea is that God created us but doesn’t interact with us every single day. (God and other spirits may do so, but only when they find it prudent.) We know God exists because of how beautifully complex the world and wider universe are. We are skeptical of divine revelation in general, though many of us are open to the idea and may experience revelations ourselves. We’re often confused with Christians and other Abrahamists because we use much of the same language. (Really we’re just the rebellious cousins.) And while we have no official symbol, nature and the cosmos are what we often use to represent the concepts of God and/or Heaven.

These differences in spiritual philosophy have deeply impacted how Von and I each view patriarchies and systems of hierarchy, in general. Von believes patriarchies to be divinely ordained, and I see patriarchies as a product of cultural evolution. I am skeptical about God ordaining something that grows to devalue half the population. (I cannot speak on matriarchies because few have ever been documented, and fewer have been well-documented. Though…does a female ruler in a traditionally patriarchal society, such as an empress, count as a matriarch or a female patriarch?)

Von would disagree that women are devalued in patriarchies. But I honestly find it a bit arrogant to think that every single woman is on board with the idea that her value comes from who she marries and how many children she has.

Patriarchies guarantee that males will be most likely to achieve positions of power and leadership. Whether patriarchies are intrinsic is a matter of leadership capabilities, and which sex is fit to lead. However, leadership is not a masculine trait, but rather a collection of traits. Many of us associate masculine traits with leadership—logic, discipline, rationality, etc. These traits are encouraged more often in boys than girls, specifically in historical context. And while these traits are important, they only scratch the surface of what it means to be a leader.

True leaders successfully blend the divine masculine and feminine traits: they are logical but creative; they are disciplined, but caring towards their men; they are patient but never indecisive; they are ruthless but know the power of peace. True leaders are guardians of their people. They can both nurture and rally those under their authority to greatness. That being said, leadership can be acquired by anyone.

Art by Moyu Zhai

Unfortunately, many in society do not believe in this. Instead of breeding future leaders in both boys and girls, popular culture seems to enjoy the message that women should be petty, irrational, bitter, inauthentic, and egotistical. They are taught to stay in an infantile state, slave to the chaotic nature of femininity, rather than masters of it. If a woman embraces both her masculinity and femininity to be a better leader, some will laud her. However, there are those—both male and female—who sneer that she’s “cold,” “callous,” “rude,” “a shrew,” “aggressive,” “intimidating,” “too much like a man,” etc. This discourages girls from even trying to be leaders, well before they even enter the workforce or have children. Society beats down what could have grown into a decent or even good leader. Only those women who could care less what society thinks of them are those who rise to the top. And while inspiring, the system could be better, in order to benefit both men and women alike.

As humans, we should be able to understand that women are not wombs, just as men are not sperm. Women are not baby factories to sell off in “marriage.” While the physical capabilities of men and women differ, their mental capabilities differ only minutely, and their spiritual capabilities are equal. That is because we are souls, not bodies. We all have agency and should be allowed to exercise our freedom of will.

To say “be fruitful and multiply” is to be deaf to a girl’s dreams. It’s to be deaf to her agency and value, which extends beyond reproduction. Furthermore, it possibly ignores a woman’s divine calling. Though she may have been given a female vessel, who is to say her calling isn’t to be more than a mother? Who are we to say that God hasn’t called her to be a leader? Who are we to look down on the men and women who live their lives well and yet remain childless?

If a woman realizes her purpose is to be the leader of a family, community, or organization, then we must respect her calling. To deny the possibility that women were placed on this earth to be more than mothers is to dehumanize the female sex. Women have the agency to choose whether they wish to be mothers, laborers, academics, etc., not because they are women but because they are individuals. The same goes for men. We as humans should not be boiled down to the reproductive functions of our earthly vessels.

In Von’s “The Inevitability of the Patriarchy,” he wondered if I would argue for the viability of matriarchies. Understand that I do not see either patriarchies or matriarchies as being the “right” system. These were created out of a need for survival, but one can imagine that matriarchies can and would devolve their own form of tyranny towards men if given the chance. In this day and age, it is a meritocracy that we must embrace.

I do not mean that we should erase sex categories or disregard sex entirely. This would create artificial equality. As Von stated, “Artificial equality is not equality. It is merely disguised inequality.” As a desister (i.e., formerly identified as transgender), I recognize and appreciate the biological differences between men and women. However, I also recognize that—at the end of the day—we are all expressions of God, and each of us should be allowed to serve the heavenly and earthly realms according to our self-realized purpose.

Patriarchal systems are a relic of the past. True matriarchs and patriarchs—founding members of bloodlines—shall always exist, yes, but the system of continuous rule based on sex is immoral. We cannot turn back the tide on women’s rights to reinstall pure patriarchies. Many men and women would rather die than have their rights stripped from them.

Furthermore, sex-based rule is unsustainable and illogical. We should not leave ourselves vulnerable to the reign of tyrants simply because they are male. Likewise, we should not elevate women to power solely because they are female. In this manner, we expose ourselves to oppressive regimes run by those only interested in their selves and the lust for control. Our society must only elevate and defer to those most fit to lead. And we will find the most virtuous leaders by embracing meritocracy. By providing the freedom of opportunity, we shall have an emergence of those who are truly fit to rule. If a mother is suited to lead her family, then so be it. And if a man is fit to rule a nation, then so be it.

Meritocracy over sex-based rule is the only way to advance.

1. My pen name is now on audio recording, which makes me feel official.

2. Henrich, J. (2020). The WEIRDest people in the world: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.