Theories on the origins of patriarchy

[YoungDemCA]

Anthropological evidence suggests that most prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies were relatively egalitarian, and that patriarchal social structures did not develop until many years after the end of the Pleistocene era, following social and technological innovations such as agriculture and domestication.[12][13][14] According to Robert M. Strozier, historical research has not yet found a specific "initiating event".[15] Some scholars point to about six thousand years ago (4000 BCE), when the concept of fatherhood took root, as the beginning of the spread of patriarchy.[16][17]

However James DeMeo argues that a specific initiating event does exist: the geographical record shows that climate change around 4000 BCE led to famines in the Sahara, Arabian peninsula and what are now the Central Asian deserts which then resulted in the adoption of warlike, patriarchal structures in order to secure food sources:

"Famine, starvation and mass-migrations related to land-abandonment severely traumatised the originally peaceful and sex-positive inhabitants of those lands, inducing a distinct turning away from original matrism towards patristic forms of behaviour."[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy#History

The major theory of the origin of patriarchy men dominating society points to social consequences of human reproduction. In early human history, life was short therefore to balance the high death rate and maintain the population, women had to give birth to many children.

Consequently, around the world women assumed tasks that were associated with the home and child care, while men took over the hunting of large animals and other tasks that required both greater speed and longer absences from the base camp.

As a result, men became dominant. It was the men who left camp to hunt animals, who made contact with other tribes, who traded with these groups, and who quarreled and waged war with them. It was they who accumulated possessions in trade and gained prestige by returning to the camp triumphantly, leading captured prisoners or bringing large animals they had killed to feed the tribe.

In contrast, little prestige was given to the routine, taken-for- granted activities of women who were not perceived as risking their lives for the group. Eventually, men took over society. Their sources of power were their weapons, items of trade, and knowledge gained from contact with other groups. Women became second- class citizens, subject to men’s decisions.

http://www.sociologyguide.com/gender/patriarchy.php

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Interesting--

along with archeological data from the pre-Indo-European Indus Valley valley cultures (Mohenjo-Daro; Harappa) & maybe Minonan society in the Mediterranean, which some writers like Eisler speculate to have been non-patriarchal in character.

[Warpy]

2. I've thought the "begats" were the documentation of such a shift

away from tracing ancestry through the female line and documenting it through the male line.

I've seen it as the story of a revolution.

[Laelth]

6. Very interesting. Bookmarking. n/t

-Laelth

[ismnotwasm]

7. There is a book called "Dirt"

That traces the erosion of topsoil in societies. I don't have the author, but it's a fascinating account of how societies evolved around the quality of soil-- which as we all know, gets it's leeches out nutrients when overused or used incorrectly. This is not a feminist book, it's simply a historical account of dirt. It's fascinating stuff.

I have a problem with the "hunter" trope, first it was very dangerous, and not always successful, the gatherers held the family group together. Second, I want to know why everyone is so sure women were NOT hunters.

It fascinates me that the assumption the we immediately "waged war" against competitors, instead of going for cooperation, of course we may have, patriarchy may not have started until the rise of the city state.

Anyway, did you see this? I'm not sure I buy it but I'll have to read the study

Drop in testosterone levels accelerated human prosperity, a new study suggests.
It might be a man's world, but femininity laid the foundation for modern civilization, a new study has found.
Modern humans evolved around 200,000 years ago. However, humans started using tools and making art some 50,000 yearsago. The latest study by Duke University researchers explains this gap in human civilization history.
The team said that lower testosterone in humans led to people being nice to each other, which in turn led to the development of civilized societies.
"The modern human behaviors of technological innovation, making art and rapid cultural exchange probably came at the same time that we developed a more cooperative temperament," said lead author Robert Cieri, a biology graduate student at the University of Utah who began this work as a senior at the Duke University.
The shift in temperament can be gauged from the changes in facial structure. Reduction in male hormones led to softer facial features - rounder heads, less prominent brows.
For the study, researchers analyzed 1,400 ancient and modern skulls. The team found a link between reduction in testosterone levels and growth of civilization. The researchers aren't sure whether humans had less testosterone circulating in the body or had fewer receptors for the hormone.

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/8362/20140802/lower-testosterone-levels-helped-develop-civilization.htm