The word “Patriarchy” seems to be everywhere. In newspapers, online magazines, talk shows or social media, as soon as the issue of gender relations or rights is raised, so is the specter of “the patriarchy.” Battles rage over what it means, whether it exists now and whether it ever did exist. My area of research focuses on the ways in which English women negotiated patriarchy using religion in the late medieval and early modern period, so I am fairly confident it did. A historical understanding of patriarchy rejects both the claim that it was a straightforward form of male domination and the claim that it is a feminist fabrication and never really existed. Arguments that patriarchy exists in the UK, US or much of the western world today are largely dependent on reinventions of the concept that I argue would be better dispensed with. Instead, they should be replaced with more rigorous investigations of whether gender discrimination exists and a more positive attitude towards individuality.

Patriarchy literally means “rule of the father” and on the most basic level, refers to literal fathers having the right to direct the family which includes sons. When sons marry, they become the head of their own family and when daughters do, they come under the rule of their husbands. In patriarchal societies, women are excluded from positions of ruling power and denied autonomy in their own lives. This was imposed by law and social expectation for most of recorded history. In Christian cultures, the idea of the patriarch became closely related to the idea of God, the Father. Although the likelihood is that God was depicted as a father because the concept of the father as one who both loves and disciplines and is to be respected and obeyed was already widely accepted, Christianity perpetuated this as a moral imperative.

When considering patriarchy in historical terms, it is often pointed out that a naive view of society in which all men had power over all women fails to take account of class and that women of the ruling class had rights and advantages that men of lower ones did not. This is undoubtedly true. Hierarchical class structures required men to defer to women of a higher one in many ways throughout the medieval period and only changed gradually in the modern one. However, it is a mistake to try to “even things up” in this way and argue that because nearly everyone was oppressed for most of history, gender inequality was insignificant. There existed throughout medieval and early modern English history a deeply gendered structure of society in which ruling class men had authority over ruling class women and working class men over working class women. Women were required to obey their husbands and nearly always required to marry either by family or by financial necessity. Wives had no right to own property until 1870, no right to decide their own movements, no right to their children or to work without their husband’s consent. Professions and roles of public authority were simply closed to them.

On a deeper ideological level, there was an understanding of the masculine as that which rules and the feminine as that which is ruled. This was so deeply entrenched that murder of a husband was considered treason in England. The Petty Treason Act of 1351 recognized three cases of aggravated murder in which a superior is betrayed by a subordinate: servants killing masters, clerics killing prelates and wives killing husbandsThis was not abolished until 1828.

When Elizabeth I came into power in 1558, she needed to use a considerable amount of rhetorical skill to overcome the very real skepticism of her advisers and subjects about a female leadership. For this, she depended upon a medieval understanding of the king’s “body politic” and “body natural” in which the king was both a divinely appointed ruler and a mortal man to enable her advisers and subjects to feel they could separate her female form from her royal authority. We see this in her speech at Tilbury in 1588,

“I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too”

Of course, she never married.

queen elizabeth i
Queen Elizabeth I

A better criticism of the concept of patriarchy as a simplistic gendered power-structure is that this ignores the fact that there are different spheres of power and different ways to exert it and that whilst women may not have had much legal power, they possessed it in other forms. Much of my work has focused on the ways in which women obtained autonomy and authority for themselves using the systems of law, social expectation, community justice and religion. Recent social history attempting to uncover women’s history has revealed a far more active role for women than was previously assumed. A naive reading of history could assume that because records relating to women so often take the form of sermons and treatises telling women to stay at home and be quiet, this is how women lived. In the popular mid-fourteenth century text, “How the Goode Wife Taught Hyr Doughter” young women are instructed to be “meke and myld,” particularly to husbands referred to as “your lord” and to stay at home.

Go not as it wer a gase [goose]

Fro house to house, to seke the mase [entertainment]

Ne go thou not to no merket

To sell thi thryft, bewer [beware] of itte.

Ne go thou nought to the taverne,

Thy godnes for to selle therinne;

Wherever thou comme at ale other wyne [beer or wine]

Take not to myche, and leve be tyme;

Ne go thou not to no wrastylynge [wrestling]

Ne git to no coke schetynge [cock shooting]


However, it should be clear that there would be no need to keep telling women to avoid talking a lot, talking loudly, talking angrily, arguing with husbands, visiting friends, markets, taverns, getting drunk and attending wrestling and blood sports if they weren’t doing all those things fairly consistently.

Christian cultures also gave women the opportunity for a limited autonomy and authority via religion despite religious doctrine frequently being the justification for denying them both. In a patriarchal Christian society, the ultimate patriarch was God and it was understood within medieval Catholicism that God talked to men and women. This enabled holy women and those who would be saints to become figures of spiritual authority and it also provided lay women with some power to “go over the heads” of their husbands and fathers and cite communication from God himself. Within early modern Protestantism, it was understood that women could and should interpret the bible for themselves. Drawing on Christian Humanism in 1611, Aemilia Lanyer was enabled to write an intensely logical rhetorical refutation of the idea that women should be subordinated due to the sin of Eve by pointing out that it was men who killed the son of God and saying, very much tongue in cheek, that she was prepared to let bygones be bygones if they were.

emily layner.jpg
Wife and husband

Historians have uncovered records of women using a strong knowledge of law to their advantage and consistently organising and managing Church events around which communities were based. The latter in particular put them very much in charge of the social lives of communities. Women could also call upon and enact forms of community justice to support them, and before the advent of policing, this was often the strongest form of law.

There is a remarkable account from the late 14th century of a Leicestershire priest named William de Swynderby (William the Hermit); who preached so frequently about the failings and pride of women (de mulieribus defectibus et superbia) that the townswomen plotted to stone him out of town. Hearing of this, he hastily turned his attention to merchants. He seems not to have felt that he could depend on the men of the town to stop the women and, in fact, his contemporary, Henry Knighton, describes this incident as an example of his flaw of “not knowing when to stop” (finem facere nesciebat).

Further complicating simplistic ideas of patriarchy is the fact that women were generally accepted to have the right to police the moral behaviour of other women. On the 24th September 1531, the Venetian Ambassador, Lodovico Falier, wrote:

“It is said that more than seven weeks ago a mob of from seven to eight thousand women of London went out of the town to seize Boleyn’s daughter, the sweetheart of the king of England, who was supping at a villa on a river, the king not being with her; and having received notice of this, she escaped by crossing the river in a boat. The women had intended to kill her; and amongst the mob were many men, disguised as women. Nor has any great demonstration been made about this, because it was a thing done by women.”

Falier’s observation that nothing was done “because it was a thing done by women” can only be understood by recognizing the gendered spheres of power and authority. If men were to try to kill the later queen, this would be regarded as a punishable political act, an act of treason against the king, a protest against the rise of Protestantism or an opposition to the rising power of the Boleyn/Howard faction. If women tried to attack Anne, this was more likely to be regarded as part of the unwritten right of women to punish other women; in this case, one who was attempting to steal another woman’s husband, and therefore none of men’s business. If Falier was correct and men disguised as women were part of the mob, this would have been done to conceal a political element and “legitimize” the assassination attempt as an established form of female community justice.

If we read only laws and sermons on the rights of women and the behaviour required of them by the Church, we get a simple picture of an oppressed and subordinated class but accounts by individuals of how society worked in practice show things to have been more nuanced. Communities had a tendency to work justice and fairness out among themselves around the rules of church and state, as did individual couples.

The most detailed account of a late medieval couple from the woman’s perspective is found in the Book of Margery Kempe written in the 1430s but lost until the 1930s. This autobiography of a woman’s religious life has been of most interest to historians as social history. We see evidence of patriarchy when Margery is asked for evidence she had her husband’s permission to travel, when she is told she must not preach because she is a woman and when her protection from being thrown in jail for doing both is the names of her powerful father and high-status husband. However, the book also revealed that she owned a considerable amount of money and started two businesses, one against her husband’s wishes. More significant is that neither she nor her male scribe felt it necessary to explain how this was possible suggesting that her readers did not need an explanation. Further research has suggested that whilst all businesses needed to be registered in men’s names, some were, in practice, owned by women. There were also private arrangements in which women’s husbands accepted them as the owners of the money they had inherited or earned even though, legally, they had no right to it. Margery describes her husband, John, as “always a good and easy man to her” and gives us glimpses of her marriage,

“It happened one Friday, Midsummer Eve, in very hot weather — as this creature [Margery] was coming from York carrying a bottle of beer in her hand, and her husband a cake tucked inside his clothes against his chest — that her husband asked his wife this question:

‘Margery, if there came a man with a sword who would strike off my head unless I made love with you as I used to do before, tell me on your conscience — for you say you will not lie — whether you would allow my head to be cut off, or else allow me to make love with you again, as I did at one time?’

‘Alas, sir,’ she said, ‘why are you raising this matter, when we have been chaste for these past eight weeks?’

‘Because I want to know the truth of your heart.’

And then she said with great sorrow,

‘Truly, I would rather see you being killed, than that we should turn back to our uncleanness.’

And he replied, ‘You are no good wife.’”

Margery is showing her readers her commitment to her holy vow of celibacy but modern readers have typically found this account humorous. On a psychological level, John’s thought experiment looks very much like a test of his wife’s feelings and his need to know he is important to her following the end of their sexual closeness due to her newfound religiosity. Margery’s book is full of her power struggles with patriarchal Church authorities, but with her husband, we see more of a personal, emotional negotiation between her intense, zealous personality and his easy-going, gentler one and much mutual affection. When looking at power relations, it’s necessary to consider not only the official rules but also the community’s sense of fairness and the couple’s bond and need to make their relationship work.

The reality of English history shows that people who claim patriarchy to have utterly removed any power or agency from women are wrong. Women have always been an influential part of society, deeply involved in forming and regulating cultural norms. They’ve also been loved by men who wanted them to be happy. However, people who claim that this and the class structure which gave some women more power than some men show that patriarchy did not exist are also wrong. Women were still explicitly and systematically subordinated to men by a system of laws and church and community enforced rules. When married women did run their own businesses, decide their own movements and own their own money, this was because their husbands allowed them to and even then there were still many doors resolutely closed to them.

We cannot judge a system by the way the most just and compassionate people treat those they have power over but by how it allows the most unjust and cruel to treat them. A woman being visibly and severely abused would be likely to draw condemnation from the community and the Church might intervene and insist he stop it or even give permission to the woman to leave him, but there was still a considerable amount of abuse which was quite legal and respectable. A man could refuse to allow his wife to leave the house, set her unrealistic amounts of work and beat her within accepted limits (a few strokes with a thin stick and not on the head) daily for any infraction with little consequence. He would be regarded as a “strict” husband but still respected in the community and approved by the Church.

This was the experience of the Puritan Anne Wentworth in the late 17th century but by this time there was a printing press she could use to publish her grievances. With his “barbarous actions,” Wentworth claimed her husband had “over-done such things as not only in the Spirit of them will one day be judged a murdering of, but had long since really proved so if God had not wonderfully supported and preserved me.” [He so over-did husbandly discipline that not only would he be judged guilty by God of a murderous spirit but could have literally killed her.] Her community did not protect her because “all esteem my husband as he is an honest, moral man full of blind zeal and hath the gift of his tongue. A man very fit for business and employment in this World, for he will not cheat or cozen any man” (p12.)

It was simply true that men ruled women and so patriarchy — the rule of the fathers — existed in a literal form, as it does today in some parts of the world. Women did not have the right to autonomy or authority, to own property or control their own movements and activities without their husband’s consent. They could not vote or access most positions of power or professions. Although women with loving husbands and no ambition to access positions only open to men could be happy in a patriarchy, it was an unjust system which restricted women and left them vulnerable to abusive men.

Women partaking in the market

The dismantling of patriarchy in Britain began in the 19th century, at the end of which married women began to be able to own property and money and started to access professions including medicine and accountancy and to be able to live independently. This phenomenon was known as “the revolting daughters.” Throughout the 20th century, rights and freedoms increased until women had attained the vote, access to all professions and qualifications, the right to equal pay for equal work and the right to decline sex within marriage.

By all historical understandings of patriarchy and by looking at patriarchal societies that exist now, it seems clear that the UK and the US and much of the Western world are not patriarchal. Women are no longer obliged to obey their husbands and have full legal equality with men and access to all of the public positions that men do. Yet, within feminism in particular and to some extent in wider society, the word “patriarchy” is used to describe a problem in society that still needs to be overcome. How is this justified?

Most often people point to statistics showing that men are very much over-represented in politics and business and say that this is evidence of a society ruled by men. However, there is no law that only men can access these positions and some are held by women. Our current Prime Minister is, after all, a woman. There is little evidence that the imbalance is due to discrimination against women rather than different choices made by men and women. Since women have had access to all professions, they have quickly come to dominate education, healthcare, publishing and psychology. Does this make these heavily social fields, which guide how society thinks and feels, matriarchal?

It is perfectly possible that some sexist discrimination against women is going on in male-dominated professions but we cannot discover this or the extent of it if we only look at those areas and do so with an a priori assumption that discrimination is the cause whilst ignoring the ample evidence that men and women have different interests and priorities on average. We need data which incorporates the whole field of employment and factors in men and women’s choices and does not assume that male-dominated fields are superior and the only ones which have power in society.

Another common argument for patriarchy is the fact that rapists and boorish men still exist. This is said to be evidence of a rape culture and is presented along with the fact that violent criminals, and particularly sex-offenders, are much more often men as evidence of a society which devalues women and in which men feel entitled to abuse women. The problem with this claim is that we have a society in which violence by men against women is taken very seriously and punished more harshly than violence by men against men and much more than violence by women against anyone. Violence against women is also despised culturally and men are by far the greatest victims of violence. We have shelters for women and very few for men. We have a special register for sex-offenders and they have to be segregated from other violent offenders in prison because hatred of them is so profound. It is very difficult to argue that a culture which regards sexual abuse of women as so abhorrent is a rape culture or that one which is so much more concerned about female victims of violence than male victims is a patriarchy in which women are devalued and abuse of them is acceptable.

A more modest claim of patriarchy is that it is seen in the fact that sexist and domineering men still exist and can even attain positions of power. There are men who feel that patriarchy should still exist or act as though they think so by belittling women, doubting their capabilities, talking over them or condescending to them. Many of these accusations are justified. I have been told both rudely and politely that I am not the intellectual equal of men and cannot cope with public positions of responsibility and should stay at home and have babies. This is a recognized ultra-conservative view. It is not reflected in wider society which recognizes my intellectual capabilities by awarding me academic qualifications and job opportunities. The mirror image of it is to be found in people who belittle men and generalize them according to the least ethical, intelligent and productive male members of society. However, it is demonstrably false to claim that society approves more of sexist men than sexist women. We saw Tim Hunt reduced to tears, contemplating suicide and feeling compelled to resign following a joke about sexist attitudes and recently an Uber director resigned following outrage that he had said a meeting with more women in it was a meeting with more talking. Meanwhile prominent female figures including politicians have been able to use the term “mansplaining” without comparable censure.

The most reasonable and well-supported claims that contemporary society continues to be affected by its patriarchal history relate to gender role expectations. Men can be expected to be the main provider even if this means they see less of their children whilst women can be expected to be more responsible for children and domestic chores even if this limits their ability to focus on their career. Men can experience much pressure to be emotionally and physically strong and dominant whilst women can feel pressure to be socially skilled, empathetic and conciliatory. Even though there are good evolutionary reasons for gendered differences in these preferences and traits on average, there is much variation and overlap and social pressure to comply with them cannot be justified. Criticism of such pressure is warranted but it is unclear that perpetuating claims of patriarchy and thinking in terms of gendered class oppression will be more helpful than advocating individuality, challenging assumptions and supporting gender non-conformity.

Patriarchy has existed for most of recorded history and its complete dissolution in law is recent. My 75-year-old mother remembers not being able to get a mortgage without a male guarantor and being told “there’s no accounting for women” when she asked to be able to take her employer’s accountancy exam. This is illegal now. If there is hidden discrimination against women, it will be found by rigorous investigation rather than assumptions based on “blank slatism” and ideological readings of statistics.

There is still a hangover of patriarchal attitudes in the form of socially conservative ideas of gender roles but now, for the first time, men and women are able to defy them and we get the chance to see what a society in which everybody gets to access everything will look like. It probably won’t result in men and women making exactly the same life and work choices in exactly the same numbers, but women are already everywhere. It is this ability to exercise autonomy and individuality to access every opportunity that we need to seize and the confidence to defy any social pressures we experience that we need to encourage. Approaches to gender equality which perpetuate ideas of women’s weakness and need for special protections in the public sphere can only undermine this goal. We have smashed patriarchy in the systematic sense and we can smash any residual cultural hangover with individual assertion of our own choices and respect for other people’s.

If you enjoy our articles, be a part of our growth and help us produce more writing for you:


  1. The essay isn’t research (only one citation) but an opinion piece restricted on what the author likes to read, study and it’s an interesting read.

    Patriarchal societies still exist today and proof is found primarily in laws or what a family may use as guidance in maintaining a structured belief system. Like the author, we know and are accustomed to the culture in which we are born, raised how patriarchal laws and cultural mindsets either continues or, by societal progression, eventually becomes obsolete, abolished.

    For instance, in the U.S. there are still patriarchal kinds of laws in a few states (particularly in Texas) allowing divorced men possession of property despite the exwife’s part or sole ownership of property prior to marriage. My grandparents willed everything to their son in a patriarchal kind of reasoning because they figured their daughters would marry and move away to start a new life.

    I liked the article’s mentioning the ramifications of patriarchal responsibilities not often taken into consideration; however, most classic book stories often describe the heavy reliance placed on women to remain obedient and submissive in order to survive.

    It seems Areo and it’s commenters are anti-feminist in viewpoint but it is the feminist movement which helped make changes beneficial to both men and women. Like any kind of social group initially formed in good intentions to cause positive change, eventually factions of looney people take it over and muck things up, tarnish the name.

    1. You might want to read more deeply into the history of Feminism. It was not a “social group” formed in good intentions. It is the primary weapon of Communism and it kills women in order to kill men. It’s founders (rich, cold, lazy Socialist men) codified a legal and social movement to dissolve Western civilisations by weaponising women against working men; the latter being the demographic which must be overcome to overthrow any culture. Every cult claims that it has good intentions.They’re always just pathways to hell. At the dawn of the movement (the mid 1800s), Western women were the most overprivileged humans ever to have existed. They still are.

      If you can demonstrate that Texas genuinely has “patriarchal” legislation regarding property rights, I’d like to see that. There is a very good reason why property rights were once genuinely set that way; women did not want, nor would tolerate, the fiscal and legal obligations that come with property or land ownership in a faux-credit-based mortgage system. Even once amendments were made, men are still largely held responsible for women’s mistakes and irresponsible behaviours. If you think there’s ever been a civilisation that did not favour women over men, class by class, you have zero understanding of the species.

      1. Daddybones45, I may not know much but this I do know: your lame answers are delusional, a hilariously bizarre commentary which made me laugh.

        From your remarks, you present as a person who either generates or believes in conspiracy theories—or both. Wouldn’t doubt you believe in lizard people.

        Look up Texas community property laws yourself Daddybones. The thing about laws is they’re always searchable, easy to obtain—unless you’re from a country which doesn’t make its laws accessible so you assume it’s the same everywhere else; or, you simply are too inept to know how to research things you’d rather make up your own reality about. Most likely you are the latter.

        1. You got me. I’m sat here wearing a tight tinfoil hat, sincerely believing that JFK is having drinks with Elvis and Hitler on the other side of the moon. Lizard people are serving at the bar.

          Texas would appear to be one of the states where property is divided following divorce, initially on a 50:50 basis prior to dispute brought to a court, unless you can point me to evidence to the contrary. In kind, I recommend books such as “Their Angry Creed”, “Suffragette Bombers”, “The Woman Racket” and “The Privileged Sex” for fascinating insights into the history of Feminism, all heavily annotated; most interestingly with quotes from leading Feminist polemicists themselves, typically demonstrating my earlier points.

          For what it’s worth, the phrase “lizard people” was originally a mocking euphemistic allusion to the regal classes all having Rhesus negative blood, which is hardly a secret. Like most metaphors, it has taken on another life. I’m sure there may be people who actually think that the ruling classes are actually bipedal squamata in human disguise. They tend to be no more or less gullible that those who believe the stated intentions of collectivist ideologues. In that respect, the Feminist definition of Feminism differs little from the Nazi defintion of Nazism and such.

  2. Good article and good comments, but I was disappointed that the reasons for patriarchy in the first place weren’t addressed. Where property ownership in society was allowed by individuals/families and could be passed on prior to the 1900s it was men that had a lower mortality rate, specifically because of maternal mortality. For perspective, penicillin wasn’t discovered until the 1930s and did go into widespread use until the 1940s. In the 1920s in Hell’s Kitchen New York 1500 newborns died every week in hospitals because sanitation wasn’t a thing yet. Mother’s often didn’t fare well either. It wasn’t until doctors started washing their hands between helping women give birth that this started to decline. Wealthy women, who were able to go to hospitals, actually had a higher maternal mortality rate than poor women who were less prone to infection through treatment.

    Given that a mother had a significant risk of death, transfer of property ownership naturally went to males and there was a preference for male children not because women were devalued, but because nature favored the survivability of males.

    Something else worth noting along the lines of the cooperation that has existed between men and women in families and societies for the benefit of the gene lines and inheritance, is that women play a crucial role in the socialization of males/development of their social skills. Men are more prone to be less social and prompted to get along more with others thanks to women, and likewise women have also been the source/reason for some of the adversity between men and others, be it out of protection or because of conflict drummed up by women (for better or worse).

    As the article noted while men were the producers women were responsible for the distribution and management of what was produced starting with the family. Women also ran family businesses while men performed wage work, produced food and other goods dating back to at least the story of Psalms in the Christian Bible about the virtuous woman.

    One other note is the biological differences between men, most specifically their brain chemistry which existed for thousands of years before hominids (if you believe in evolution) and evolved to ensure the survivability of the species/gene line. Beyond that the biological basis for stronger males assured in species where a female couldn’t survive on her own after becoming a mother without the assistance of others, specifically male hunter gatherers/protectors that were necessary while the female recovered from childbirth. Hominids were one such species.

  3. Karen’s already pointed out the other side to the “patriarchy” coin, but I’d like to add that, at least as far back as biblical times, patriarchs not only ruled the family/tribe/clan, but were legally responsible for the wrongful actions of its members. The price of total control was total responsibility. So if a member of one group stole the goat of another group, that person could come to the patriarch of the first group for recompense.

  4. Helen, thanks very much for this insightful and balanced commentary on the topic. I helped me understand the issue much better. It also satisfied me greatly to see that it is apparently possible to talk about topics like this in a respectful way without getting drawn into entrenched gender warfare. It is a bit long, though. 😉

  5. subviationfulmination: “Men have evolved socially in leaps and bounds (save for the area of dealing with women), whilst women have been largely stagnant since our cave days.”
    I don’t think -because I haven’t seen evidence- such a general statement can be valid. Social evolution can be observed in societies or rather in sub-cultures and these communities, all of them, are made of men and women. Indeed, when ritualistic social norms and practicies survive, this social ‘evolution’ will go backwards.

  6. Thanks, this was useful. People tend to gravitate to easy, one-sided conclusions that could fit on an info-poster, and then hammer them home. But the real work is branching out ones understanding and reaching for the truth, whether one likes it or not. So, this essay sorta’ hurt my head, in a good way, because it added complexity to my understanding of the topic, mostly in terms of the historical realities I was unaware of.

    I’m sure the idea that women aren’t under the iron fist of patriarchy in the present, along with white supremacy, rape culture, white privilege, and all the rest will upset many who have woke to find an easy enemy/scapegoat in the anonomous, average, melanin-challenged individual.

    Further amusement is that the men’s rights advocates are finding fault. I had to stop to laugh out loud. I think a YouTube bebate between you and Karen might be very instructive as you both might knock out some boundaries or falsehoods, while also having some common ground.

    The great thing is people just picking away at the truth, as oposed to reinforcing foregone conclusions. For this, I am grateful.

  7. Still a unidimensional equivocating piece of garbage if you ask me. This is not the way to save the humanities.

    Some of the examples she gave may have seemed to indicate patriarchy, and the author trots out the tired old examples of how positions of power, i.e. businesses, politics, etc. are the only things that matter. I swear women are obsessed with these things. They see the power inherent in some of these institutions whilst ignoring them in others. Women have always been the true rulers of the home. They are and always have been more likely to coordinate and act as a bloc, specifically to attack the other gender. Whilst women could not own property, they could not own debt either, So this is irrelevant.

    The institution of marriage is a classist institution. That they were ever arranged, is for the establishment of social order. Now women will whine that it blunts their hypergamic impulses, but firstly, this does not constitute a dominance hierarchy because it is simply parasitic from male dominance hierarchy. Moreover, women have no desire for the details and machinations of policing other women (they want to outsource this to male dominance hierarchy as well), though I am pleased that there was some recognition of this necessity in some of these pre-modern European cultures. Finally, there is not evidence that a female-only dominance hierarchy can be engineered around the concept of hypergamy, or that such a system can lead to a stable and peaceful society. In fact, quite the contrary.

    In short, author needs to recognize that women have historically been children, and that the ways modern society has addressed this has been entirely wrongheaded. Giving women handicaps and whatever they want has simply enabled more childish behavior, which is why femtards keep chirping about a patriarchy.

    The way you show yourselves to be adults and matriculated in a social sense is to mature. To police yourselves effectively. NOTHING HAS EVER STOPPED WOMEN FROM DOING THIS (and so it is very telling that it really has never happened). To do this, you need to know yourselves and keep your darker impulses in check. It doesn’t even have to look anything like a male dominance hierarchy, though it should be able to work with it. Look, for a male child going through adolescence acting unruly, you would not think it right he falls prey to some Oedipal complex and kill his father to take his place. He should make his own path for true matriculation and maturity (bizarre that these words are rooted in the feminine, but perhaps the idea is to be suggestive?) Yet it is open season for women to do this? Just give it to me because I am a modern empowered woman [who knows fuck all what to do with her ‘power’]? I have said this before. Men have evolved socially in leaps and bounds (save for the area of dealing with women), whilst women have been largely stagnant since our cave days.

    These are not chauvinistic statements but red pill ones of truth (which the author was obviously worried about trying to preclude). Women have a lot of work to do, and it must be amongst themselves. Leave men out of it, leave your face-scratching, hairpulling, proxy-violence, outsourcing, hypergamic, endless diversity-loving shit out of it. Show you can be mature and stable as an ADULT gender. Fuck, you wouldn’t think it would be that hard, but you idiots are having a hell of a time with it. Perhaps because you have never really done the work. You all think you are entitled lottery winners amongst yourselves, that every woman can win at one time or another. In any dominance hierarchy, there are winners and losers, you fucks need to sort these out.

  8. I really enjoyed this essay as I have your other writings on the site. It’s a breath of fresh air. I’ve been troubled with claims of The Patriarchy as if I belonged to some secret woman-hating club with a secret handshake.

  9. “Karen, the strongest evidence that Anne Wentworth was telling the truth is that her church charged her with having published her account of her abuse even though her husband admitted the truth of it and promised to stop. You can find bibliographic details of her writing in the references here:”

    That’s a long list of references. I’ll take your word for it that there is an official public record that he admitted to it and to the extent of it. I will say, from what I read of your essay, she sounds absolutely bonkers.

    “It is true that men had legal responsibilities to provide that women did not and an essay looking at patriarchy from men’s perspective could look at this usefully (and many have.) That isn’t what this essay is, though. This is a look at patriarchy as it is argued by feminists to have affected women and still affect women. By all means, write your own from your own point of interest. I expect you already have.”

    Well, this is just the thing: under coverture, women’s restrictions are mirrored by men’s obligations, and their legal disabilities are compensated (however poor one might judge such compensation nowadays) in the law by entitlements and protections.

    That is, a married woman gave up the right to own property, but received the obligation of her husband to financial support and the right to act as his legal agent when purchasing necessaries on credit *in return for that.*

    When you say married women didn’t have the right to own property and leave it at that, you are not just leaving out the man’s perspective, you are also leaving out part of a *woman’s* perspective. You’re not just telling half the story, you’re telling half of HER story.

    This failure to address the benefits of coverture to women was what led to situations like that of Mark Wilks. Both advocates, and those within the system who enacted the changes, seemed to come to view the deal as one that unfairly burdened only women (and not men), and one that ONLY unfairly burdened (and did not benefit) women. That for women it was all bad and no good, and for men all good and no bad, if you will.

    Or else perhaps (and even more cynically, to my mind), they clearly saw and understood the burdens on men and the benefits women enjoyed, but were simply content to leave them as they were when they began fiddling with the system.

    After reading a paper on women and coverture, which included descriptions of and excerpts from legal actions taken by wives against husbands in the 1600s (“he has mismanaged *my* portion”, “he has sold *my* livestock without my permission”), there is an argument to be made as to how the handicaps of coverture impacted the average woman (at least in terms of property ownership), yet at the same time, they seemed to be VERY aware of their rights and entitlements, exercising them daily and also in some cases weaponizing them (such as racking up huge debts on his credit as a form of marital coercion).

    That is, the restrictions and legal disabilities on women would not be felt by most women, and certainly not on a daily basis, but more often in extraordinary circumstances (such as separation or abuse) or on occasion (when selling a property). The benefits and entitlements were experienced by them in their day to day lives.

    I think this might be best evidenced by the women (I forget her name) who started the push to change property rights in marriage after being robbed, and being shocked at the fact that the stolen money was described in official reports as belonging to her husband. She’d had no idea the money was not her own.

    Yet I bet if you had asked her to list the things the law entitled her to from her husband, she’d have been perfectly able to name most of them off the top of her head.

    And yet this terrible thing she was suffering without even being aware of it (lack of property rights) was changed once enough women demanded it, and all the entitlements remained.

    If this is what a patriarchy does when enough women demand it, then I would say this is another refutation of the feminist understanding of patriarchy, no? If, when women in a patriarchy claim they are being treated unfairly, the patriarchy removes the unfairness toward women while leaving the mirror-image unfairnesses toward men intact, it becomes a bit difficult to argue that patriarchy is a system that privileges men at the expense of women’s oppression.

  10. ‘Patriarchy’ in today’s time has become just another scapegoat for leftist activists to rage against. It is a straw man intended to be burnt. Just like ‘capitalism’, ‘racism’ and ‘imperialism’, ‘patriarchy’ has become just another buzz word to conjure up righteous wrath. See the recent G20 summit in Hamburg to observe how this leftist hatred against our modern society manifests itself.

  11. restless94110 – “This incredibly over long essay…” Keep on those meds.
    Buford Newt – No, men have never had as hard a time as women, their situation has always been far worse.

    For what it is, a good article. A necessary step in the recognition of Feminism (gender Marxism) as a fraudulent and destructive cult.

  12. @Dave DuBay,
    What is a restriction if not an obligation to do one’s duty or face consequences? Except among the very top of the upper classes, men’s “freedom” has always been every bit as restricted as women’s, but in different ways. Splitting hairs is an ideologues’ game – pretend there’s a big difference between the outcomes of restrictions and the outcomes of obligations, and generate a sympathetic response to one but not the other.

  13. An game attempt to tease out the nature of the fabled “patriarchy,” but one that neither reaches far enough back in time nor deep enough into human nature to provide any harsh truth or real insight. Remarkably, it during is the early medieval period in which you claim expertise that socially-enforced gynocentrism was first enacted, by Law and by sword, yet you don’t allude to Poitevin rule or Eleanour d’Aquitaine’s staggering influence over Europe even once. Had you delved back further still and read up on the Brahmins of 2000 years ago, perhaps, you might have learned that far from being held down and subjugated, women killed their husbands so often for money and property that Suti had to be introduced to curb it: as a final, desperate measure. The idea that men have ever ruled women is quite preposterous, in truth. It isn’t even prevalent in Islamic cultures today. You’re simply not researching deeply enough, nor far enough beyond mainstream, populist narratives.

    It has always been well understood, or was at least up until recent decades, that “the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world” and that women are naturally the privileged sex. It is simply impossible for females to be otherwise socially, because it’s impossible biologically. Females are the gatekeepers to life and males are protective and servile to their needs and whims; we are even neurologically inhibited from assaulting females where the reverse is genetically unabated. Pitifully, the last 50 years has seen millennia of the human story revised to fit a destructive narrative that is, frankly, the very opposite of truth along the sex axis. Were it true that men oppressed women by nature, Feminism could never have existed. As it is, both the word and philosophy were fabricated by early Utopian Socialist men in the mid-1800s as a means of controlling capital.

    Patriarchy viewed as a “the rule of the father” may well have had some relative validity in many nations’ histories, but as an accepted right it is, or was, fairly mere, usually necessary, done at the behest of a ruling class of women and inexorably bound to a man’s far greater responsibilities; legal, fiscal and social. To quote an ancient maxim of the spoils of marriage, for example: “What’s hers in hers and what’s his is hers.” Getting just this one fact backward rather spoils the article, as do the inaccuracies in voting rights and such. Women actually had the same voting rights as men in Britain (local elections) prior to Social Reforms Acts, but you simply cannot learn this in schools, universities or from the media. Women were indeed denied certain legal privileges (the word “legal” refers only to commerce, by the way) in the past because (a) women will almost never accept responsibilities that come with allowance in balancing out a “right”, (b) rarely if ever needed them because provision is always made for women, and (c) history had already demonsrtated countless times that it was unwise to allow female privilege to get out of control. See Suti, above.

    The entire history of the human species has in fact been one of cycles of success and failure in maintaining female privilege at manageable levels. Certain cultures have achieved a lasting and reasonable balance, while others have collapsed into oblivion and ruin (Rome, Sparta etc.) The modern West has already lost this battle thanks to the cancer of Socialism, with Feminism its battle-front. You’d do well to start your research all over, because you’re not over the first hurdle anyway. Anyone still using the phrase “gender equality” is on a hiding to nowhere.

  14. Karen, the strongest evidence that Anne Wentworth was telling the truth is that her church charged her with having published her account of her abuse even though her husband admitted the truth of it and promised to stop. You can find bibliographic details of her writing in the references here: https://www.academia.edu/30748671/Publishing_the_Private_The_Fashioning_of_a_Prophetic_Self_in_the_Writings_of_Anne_Wentworth

    It is true that men had legal responsibilities to provide that women did not and an essay looking at patriarchy from men’s perspective could look at this usefully (and many have.) That isn’t what this essay is, though. This is a look at patriarchy as it is argued by feminists to have affected women and still affect women. By all means, write your own from your own point of interest. I expect you already have.

  15. @Helen Pluckrose While I would not describe this piece as a feminist screed, and indeed found it quite refreshing, it was very much written from the perspective of how women either suffered under patriarchy, or how they sometimes were able to escape that suffering. (I did like that you mentioned that power is not solely to be found in the places feminists tend to look, I’ll grant you that.)

    But you certainly did neglect to mention the benefits women received under coverture when itemizing the restrictions. Yes, married women gave up the right to own property in their own names, but they gained the obligation of their husbands to support them and their children, and it was he who stood between his wife and debtor’s prison. You neglect to mention the law of agency, which entitled married women to purchase necessaries for themselves and the household on their husbands’ credit–a debt for which she could not legally be held accountable, even in cases of abuse of this power.

    Indeed, you mention married women gaining the right to hold property, but you leave it at that. You neglect to mention that married women did not gain an equal right and access to the marital property (of which hers was previously a part), but became femme sole in terms of this *right*, while while the entitlements of their status as femme covert remained in place–that is, the situation became “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is ours”.

    Married women now owned their property and income as if they were single, and as such their husbands had no right or claim to it, nor even the right to demand documentation of it, but were still required by law to provide financially for all necessaries for their wives and children, including the taxes owing on their wives’ income and property. This led to a highly publicized case in 1910 of a schoolteacher named Mark Wilks being imprisoned for failing to pay the taxes of his wealthy physician wife Elizabeth, despite his pleading that he could not afford it (being only a teacher), and regardless, she had refused to provide him with documentation of it–as was her right as a married woman who owned her own property and income as a private individual, entitling her to legal privacy in regard to it.

    You spoke of your grandmother being unable to secure a mortgage, but not of the underlying reason why lenders required a male cosigner when contracting with a married or marriageable woman–ultimately, it was not the woman but her husband (or a man she subsequently married) who would be accountable for the debt if she defaulted. I would suggest lenders might have had an interest in having a peek at the income, collateral properties and credit reputation of the man who would be paying back the loan if the woman for whatever reason failed to do so.

    As for the case of men’s right to discipline their wives, I would suggest you examine Blackstone’s Commentaries and see if there is any limitation on (or any mention of) physically abusive wives. It specifically mentions that married women in England and Wales have a right in law to the security of the peace against their husbands, and that violence and restraint against wives are prohibited (I will grant you, these would be defined differently back then). I will grant you, it’s been a while since I read it, but I don’t recall seeing any mention of a means via the common law for a man to seek relief from a wife who battered him, or see her punished. If he used more than a think stick on her, the law would protect her. If she used a skillet on him… what did the law say it would do for him?

    As for your example of Anne Wentworth.

    “With his “barbarous actions,” Wentworth claimed her husband had “over-done such things as not only in the Spirit of them will one day be judged a murdering of, but had long since really proved so if God had not wonderfully supported and preserved me.””

    “Her community did not protect her because “all esteem my husband as he is an honest, moral man full of blind zeal and hath the gift of his tongue. A man very fit for business and employment in this World, for he will not cheat or cozen any man””

    So the community believed him and not her. Please understand, it is entirely possible that she was telling the truth, but it’s also possible she was fabricating or exaggerating. A reading of such a self-published document must take into account that it is not a finding of fact before any court of law, nor are all individuals “reliable narrators”. I have seen too many false accusations lately appear first in the press before the female “victim” even seeks remedy in the system to blindly believe such accounts. Maybe she was telling the truth. Maybe she wasn’t. But she herself says in the quotes you chose that her community failed to act not because they believed her and didn’t care, but because they believed her husband to be an honest, credible and moral man.

    Was she a truthful woman driven by extremity to publish her suffering for all to see? Or was she fabricating or exaggerating her claims and making them public because her husband annoyed her one day (there are women who do this)? Or, heaven forfend, because she was the abusive spouse and false accusations were just another weapon of abuse (and yes, this happens too)?

    You yourself say: “We cannot judge a system by the way the most just and compassionate people treat those they have power over but by how it allows the most unjust and cruel to treat them.” Unjust and cruel women exist, no? And they have sometimes been known to exploit the system’s abhorrence of violence against women to treat men in cruel and unjust ways, no?

    You do not give us any indication as to what became of her, but you seem to believe her self-told story at face value. And even assuming everything she said was true, her community failing to protect her would have been, in software language, a bug and not a feature.

    If you have any documentation other than this woman’s self-published accusations against her husband and her community, please let me know.

  16. This is a very illuminating article, but one single note was jarring.

    “…it was an unjust system which restricted women and left them vulnerable to abusive men.”

    While it would certainly be unpleasant for women with independent minds, and even dangerous for abused women (those who weren’t protected by their communities) I wouldn’t call it “unjust.” Patriarchy puts great social legal and moral burdens on men as well as women. Perhaps it would be unjust if women were so restricted while bearing the obligations to protect and provide for husbands, and were responsible for their husbands’ debts and crimes. Or if they were subject to conscription.

    Due to many advances in technology, the need for patriarchy in the modern world is certainly debatable, but I wouldn’t call it an unjust system. It was a necessary system of exchange and compromise, based on the aptitudes of the majority of both sexes. When a society’s survival is not a sure thing, conformity is crucial. It has little to do with “justice” between the sexes, and everything to do with competition for resources.

  17. Patriarchy™ theory was in invented in 1972 by Harvard University’s first professor of gender studies, Carol Gillian. She based her theory on flawed biased evidence and withheld the substance of her research to protect it from examination.

    The idea of The Patriarchy™ is that all men are complicit in a system which was constructed for the exclusive benefit of men at the oppression of womyn has so many exceptions it ought to have been abandoned decades ago. However feminists cling to it like a blind baby mice cling to their dead mother.

    Men are 80% of completed suicides, men are 95% of occupational deaths, men are less than 40% of college enrollment, men are 70% of the homeless population, men receive 63% longer prison sentences than do womyn for the same crime, men’s health care is funded at less than half of womyn’s, divorced fathers are awarded custody only 20% of the time.

    What do feminists sat when confronted with these exceptions? They screech, “But he Patriarchy™ hurts men, too.” Nonsense.

    Feminism is cancer.

  18. Nuanced and informative.

    I’m curious about comments claiming restrictions on men:
    Is it more accurate to say that patriarchal societies create obligations instead? (Conscription to a war he does not support, being responsible for his wife’s debts and criminal actions, being used for physical labor against his will.)

  19. restless94110, you admit that you didn’t read much of the article, yet you feel justified in commenting on it based on your biased assumptions. Apparently, too many words makes your brain hurt, and you have to immediately lash out.

    “Boo hoo, men had it hard too!” Therefore, this article (that you find too long to read as is) should instead be twice as long, so as to feature “restrictions on men … prominently and equally”. Are you really saying that men living under patriarchy have had it just as bad as women, and therefore deserve equal time? Really?

  20. Historical “restrictions” on men were always in the context of class and economics (and lest we forget race); there were no arbitrary barriers in place because of their gender. Imagine what our world could become if we allowed all people to participate and compete equally while understanding the historical impacts of rules and systems that created a lot of compound interest for those who benefited from the patriarchy.

  21. The key aspect of patriarchy that’s always left out these days is that, while the male head of the family/clan/tribe/etc. owned his wife’s property and income and had the power to make law and enforce same, he also was responsible at law for the actions of his wife, children and the other members of his family/clan/tribe/etc. So if a member stole someone’s goat, the wronged party’s recourse was, ultimately, to the patriarch who had to make good the wrong. Echoes of this remained in parts of the United States up until the 1920s when husbands were still punished for some of the criminal acts of their wives. The civil aspects of the law of coverture were also aspects of that same legal construct of patriarchy. Our current law holding employers legally liable for the acts of their employees that are done within the course and scope of their job duties also echoes patriarchal legal norms.

  22. This is the second interesting and balanced article I’ve read on Aero recently.

    Restless: I disagree with you strongly on your assessment of this article. While I agree that Helen did not touch on everything that she might have (and how could she, in, what, 1500 words?) she still provided a much more nuanced look at gender roles than we usually get, and your labelling this a ‘feminist propaganda screed’ is deeply unfair and inaccurate.

  23. Restless, why don’t you write one from that perspective? Also, it seems unlikely that if you had read more than the beginning, you’d think it was a feminist propaganda screed which focuses on how restricted women were.

  24. This incredibly over long essay….I had to stop reading after a while, because I could see that the author, for all of her studying, had left out one of the most important parts of old patriarchal societies: the severe restrictions on the men in those societies.

    Yes, women were severely restricted to their “roles.” but yes, a 1,000 times yes, so were men.

    This has been pointed out in the past 20 years by many scholars. Feminist historians like this one, do not address this issue, thus they do not give an accurate picture of life in a patriarchy.

    This point should have been brought up and elaborated near the beginning of her essay. If she did get into that in a big way, not just as a passing aside, later in the article, please let me know, and I will try and slog through the endless references and stories about women and how restricted they were.

    But without the restrictions on men featuring prominently and equally in her piece, then her piece is neither historical nor scientific, but is instead a feminist propaganda screed.


Leave a Reply