Don't get me started on the Drow...

[4thofeleven]

You know what I never want to see in a fantasy novel again? You know, besides chosen ones, ancient empires that have never made it out of the dark ages, and half a dozen sentient species living within walking distance of each other?

Matriarchies.

 

Matriarchial societies, unlike the near-infinite variety of patriarchal or egalitarian societies, come in only two distinct flavours. The first is the Peaceful Matriarchy. They probably don’t have much in the way of technology, and it’s a near certainty that if they worship anything, it will be called ‘Gaia’. Because women are, as we all know, inherently peaceful and cooperative, the peaceful matriarchy will never have armies, weapons, internal conflicts, or a desire to invade nearby lands and take their stuff – such concepts being inherently restricted to men, as Boudica or Elizabeth I demonstrate. They’re probably vegetarians too. Peaceful matriarchies are generally doomed as soon as they encounter an evil male-dominated society and their menfolk start getting ideas like “Meat is a better source of protein than vegetables” or “Being second-class citizens kinda sucks”. It’s generally kind of unclear as to what the men of a peaceful matriarchy are meant to have been doing before they inevitably try to seize power, just as its unclear which gender is being portrayed in a more patronising way in this sort of setting…

The other type of matriarchal society is the Oppressive Matriarchy. That’s the one that’s basically the same as any other fantasy society, except women are in the positions of authority and men are ruthlessly oppressed. They are, of course, pure evil. The ostensible point of the oppressive matriarchy is to make some sort of comment on gender roles, because obviously the best way to communicate the controversial message that “Gender inequalities sure do suck” is to create an entire society ruled over by sadistically evil women with a gender relations system that makes Saudi Arabia look like an egalitarian paradise! Now, the oppressive matriarchy might be thematically interesting if it was acting as the flip side of an oppressively patriarchal society – except the average fantasy society tends to be far more socially liberal than most real-world medieval societies, while the Oppressive Matriarchy tends to be far more socially conservative than any but the most extreme real world historical patriarchies.

The fundamental problem with matriarchies, though, is that they’re just plain not that interesting. Back when the ancient Greeks were writing about the Amazons, maybe the idea of a women-dominated society was an exotic enough contrast to the patriarchal culture of classical Athens to be interesting. But now we’re living in societies that at least claim gender-equality as a virtue, that have women in positions of authority, and we have seen that they don’t act any differently to men when in power… well, can we stop acting as though “Women… WITH POLITICAL POWER!!!” is an interesting enough concept to base an entire society around? As a minor bit of background flavour, sure – but making it a major focus of your story tends to only result in the same old clichés…

 

Comments

[sodzilla.livejournal.com]

At risk of having my feminist achievement ribbons confiscated, I think you've got a point here.

I will say, though, that I've seen one portrayal of a matriarchal society that I did like - namely, Melanie Rawn's Exiles series. Whatever else one can say about Rawn's writing, it was pretty interesting to see the beginnings of the struggle for gender equality* from the flip side, as it were.

* = as in, guys wanting freedom to vote and to marry whom they liked, not guys wanting to take power for themselves and treat the women just as badly as they'd always been treated, which I think is what you were driving at, yes?

[4thofeleven.livejournal.com]

"Whatever else one can say..." ? Do I take it you're not exactly recomending the books, then? ;)

I suspect the main problem with a lot of fictional matriarchies is that the author is trying to show the flip-side of sexism, while at the same time working through his domination fantasies, and the two concepts end up interacting oddly…

[sodzilla.livejournal.com]

Mmmm, let's say I'd recommend them cautiously. Rawn's writing, at least in Exiles, has a rambly quality with lots of homey detail and lots of minor characters who may or may not ever prove relevant to the larger plot. I think it's charming (and am very sad that the final book of Exiles doesn't seem to be forthcoming EVER) but some of the people I know who've read the books were driven up the wall.

Off YOUR statement, have you read Wheel of Time?

[4thofeleven.livejournal.com]

I make it a rule never to start reading a series before the author finishes it - I don't like people reading over my shoulder when I'm trying to write something, so why should I subject other people to the same thing? :)

I have weakened from time to time - I started reading 'A Song of Ice and Fire' based on very strong recomendations from my friends, and waiting for when/if the next book is a real pain - made worse by the fact that I refuse to buy books in hardback, since they take up too much room on my shelves - so even when the next book comes out, I have to wait another year or so before it comes out in the format that I prefer...

Sorry, but I disagree

[morgaineswann.livejournal.com]

As an advocate of a return to matriarchy as a system of government, I have to disagree with you. I think they're not only fascinating, it's the natural form of human society. There's a growing body of work that theorizes, correctly, I believe, that humans lived in peaceful matriarchies for hundreds of thousands of years before the advent of patriarchy. The latter type of matriarchy you described is not matriarchy - it's just patriarchy in s skirt. That male femdom fantasy has nothing to do with the real thing.

The qualities you mentioned of the stories of matriarchy- peace, cooperation, vegetarianism, agrarian lifestyle - are actual qualities of matriarchies that have existed and continue to exist today.

If you want to see a story done really well, Check out an episode of the New Outer Limits series called 'Lithia' - they show it on SciFi every so often. They did a nice job with it.

Peace~

Morgaine

Re: Sorry, but I disagree

[4thofeleven.livejournal.com]

Well, I am talking specifically about fictional matriarchies, not real-world societies; and I’m being a little hyperbolic for effect – I don’t actually mean “Never ever write about matriarchies again!” so much as “Please make sure your fictional matriarchal society has a culture beyond ‘It’s a matriarchy’, and stop just using the same clichés over and over!”.

As for matriarchies in real life – well, I have to say I find most of the arguments for ancient matriarchal societies rather weak… A number of societies do have myths of a legendary past when women ruled, but to assume that these myths reflect an actual event is, I think, to take them far too literally – a mythology can exist to justify patriarchal control of a society without there needing to have ever been a past era when women literally ruled. And it does not say anything particularly good about matriarchies that, if they did exist, they were almost universally supplanted by patriarchal societies, with none surviving long enough to offer any proof of their existence; indeed, the theory of wide-spread pre-historic matriarchy can and has served as a modern ‘scientific’ version of the ancient myths that served to ‘prove’ that women are incapable of ruling as well as men do…

Just curious, how did you come across my journal? I always like to know how people are running across my writing…

Sorry, but I disagree

[morgaineswann.livejournal.com]

I came across your journal through a news search for "matriarchy." I know you're just trying to make a point. I just thought you should know that there's a reason matriarchies are often portrayed in similar ways - they're based on reality. That's usually the mark of a good writer, isn't it?

So you find the arguments weak? Just out of curiosity, which authors have you studied? Elizabeth Gould Davis? Marija Gimbutas? Merlin Stone? Marilyn French? Charlene Spretnak? Heide Gottner-Abendroth? Anything at all that hasn't been through the patriarchal filter? How about Saharasia by James DeMeo? At least that one is by a guy.

There are matriarchal societies that remain intact in spite of nearly 10 milennia of deliberate destruction by patriarchal forces. I don't find the willingness to steal, rape, enslave and commit genocide proof of fitness to lead, and that's the only reason patriarchy succeeded as far as it did. Fortunately, that system is in rapid decline.

You probably aren't, but in case you or your readers are interested in finding out about surviving matriarchies, there's the site for the 2nd World Congress for Matriarchal Studies held at Texas State University in 2005.
http://www.second-congress-matriarchal-studies.com/lecturers.html

Even America has ancient matriarchies that survive in spite of European oppression. The best example of this is the Haudenosaunee, or Iroquois, Confederacy that was probably the basis for our form of government. The United States is not the first democracy on this continent, let alone in the world. It probably won't be the last, either.

Have a nice evening - Morgaine

Re: Sorry, but I disagree

[4thofeleven.livejournal.com]

Um... I'll admit, I'm not exactly well read in the area. There was a section in my classics course on the Minoans, where I felt those arguing for Minoan matriarchy made a rather unfounded leap from "the Minoan religion revolved around a central goddess" to "Therefore Minoan government was female-run", ignoring the fact that powerful goddesses do not necessarily equal greater authority for women; classical Athens, after all, had Athena as their patron, while Sparta had a surprisingly strong hero-cult of Helen of Troy... I'll look into some of those authors once University resumes next week.

Anyway, my main issue with matriarchy is that it's tied to the same concepts of gender essentiality that have been used to justify patriarchal rule for millenia. While I do appreciate the irony of one arguing for once that women's innate peaceful nature makes them specially qualified to rule rather than disqualifying them from ruling, but it's still encouraging the same old stereotypes, and I don't think there's much truth to them. Women in positions of power in patriarchal cultures - your Elizabeths, your Catherines, your Isabellas - have not ruled in a fashion that's noticably different to the way male rulers have exercised power. Historical matriarchies may behave in a more peaceful and humane fashion than historical patriarchies, but I'd consider that more the result of their culture in general; the gender of the ruling class being largely irrelevant. Arguing for a return to a gender-based caste system - even one less brutal than that which dominated most of the world until very recently - does not strike me as a step towards social progress...

Plus, you know, I like high-tech gadgets, so have a natural aversion to anything described as 'agrarian'... ;)

The Iroquois are matriarchal? Huh - I've actually done a little reading on them here and there, and never heard that mentioned... interesting.

Sorry, but I disagree

[morgaineswann.livejournal.com]

There's a great book called Sisters in Spirit: Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Influences on Early American Feminists by Sally Roesch Wagner that covers it really well. Also, if you've heard of Russell Means, the Lakota activist, he talks occasionally about the Sioux matriarchy and what an advantage he considers it.

I had a feeling from your response that you had the standard college experience with the concept of matriarchy - they mention it briefly just to discredit it as nonsense without giving a balanced perspective of it. That's the patriarchal filter at work. By doing that you've been predisposed to laugh at it and never look at the evidence with any kind of objectivity. The power structure doesn't want you looking into this - they make a lot of money by keeping us in a state of perpetual war.

Your concept of it is still skewed. There is no caste system -- that's a patriarchal concept. This is a completely different world view. There are no assigned gender roles, there is no hierarchy, dominance and violence are unknown. This is the natural form of existence for humans. Western culture teaches us that we are naturally violent because the power structure profits from war at the expense of the people. It's not true. Now that people are looking at the evidence with new objectivity, they're finding that humans were successful as a species because of our ability to cooperate and to make individual sacrifice for the good of the group. War is unnatural and a relatively new element in human behavior.

Check out the James DeMeo book:"SAHARASIA: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence, In the Deserts of the Old World"

and Steve Taylor's book: "The Fall: The Evidence for a Golden Age, 6,000 years of Insanity and the Dawning of a New Era"

They use the word Matrism instead of Matriarchy, but other than that their information is good. I've corresponded with Taylor about the topic of matriarchy, but like most men in Western culture, he's been conditioned to fear the word. It's not easy to break out of that conditioning. The most enlightened and Progressive men will balk at it because they've grown up with bad information deliberately creating a fear of the feminine.

You mentioned women who have been in power who were just as bad as men - of course they were. You aren't trusted with power in Western culture unless you are belligerent and aggressive. Gender is secondary. Those women were as damaged by patriarchy as any man. It hurts everyone except the vampiric elite class that makes money from the war economy

Nice talking to you - check out those books sometime.

[sunnyskywalker]

And this is one of the things that drives me craziest about The Courtship of Princess Leia. In the first few chapters, Leia hints that she's suffered from some gender discrimination and that the NR is at least a mild patriarchy. But that never gets addressed again, and everything is "fine" after she marries the guy who mind-controlled and kidnapped her.

Then we have the not one, not two, but three evil matriarchies: the Verpines, the Dathomirians, and the Hapans. The Verpine have a crazy queen who's turned the rest of them crazy via the hive vagina mind. The Dathomirian women have both political and mystical power, so they keep men as slaves. The Hapans think men are inferior and evil and keep them down. One or two could be coincidence, but three is a pattern. You've got to wonder if Wolverton just picked up shiny cliches or whether he actually meant to say something about women and power.

The worst part to me, though, is the histories of Hapes and Dathomir. Hapes was founded by male pirates who started a society through mass kidnap and rape... and the women then rose up and oppressed the men instead. The Dathomirian witches were founded by Allya, who was (iirc) kicked out of the Jedi... so she taught other women her power and they enslaved men because... I don't know, because they could? As revenge against the Council? Anyway, both seem to say, "Yeah, the oppressing women is bad, but look what happens if they resist! It's terrible! They go power-mad and evil if they get power! Better just bite your tongue and love your kidnapper, girls, because he's really a nice guy who means no harm. We'll give you women some power if we like you, eventually."

Blech. It's about time someone tried something new with fictional matriarchies, because I'm sick of these cliches.

[4thofeleven.livejournal.com]

The thing that annoys me about a lot of this kind of matriarchy - the Hapes kind - is the way that the "OMG! MATRIARCHY!" aspect of the society is treated as more relevant than, you know, the fact that it's a feudal aristocracy. I mean, is the average Hapes peasant really affected that much by the gender of their overlords? Why can't we ever get a matriarchal republic with universal female suffrage and strong alliances with their neighbours?

You know what would have been fun? If the whole Hapes pirate story turned out to be a complete fabrication, a founding myth encouraged by the Hapes leadership to justify their position and social role. If you squint, it kinda looks like the Greek Amazon myths - "On the edge of civilization, there was this weird society of uncivilized nomadic savages run by the gender you would not expect to be running things. Fortunately, our legendary ancestral heroes were able to destroy them and allow civilization to thrive! And that's why we're running the show and why you should make sure that the lesser gender never gains any power - because a society run by them would result in the end of civilized values!"

Of course, you could argue that the average fictional matriarchy also conveys that message... :)

[sunnyskywalker]

I'm still trying to figure out whether one of the gifts in the first chapter was a song or the singer. You'd think that Wolverton should mention if this is a society where you can just give someone a person as a present! And yeah, their political system has problems that have nothing to do with gender - like royals assassinating each other left and right to secure inherited power...

I would totally go for the pirate story being a fabrication. And it's backfired on the rulers because all the young men are going, "Yeah, and let's go back to that! Awesome!"

There should be fictional matriarchies that are several decades post-masculinist revolution where men are theoretically allowed to have all the same rights and opportunities as women, and we see some of them who've made it. But after a while, the reader would notice that hey, almost no men are the bosses, adn tehre are a few subtle comments here and there... say, is this a matriarchal society? Huh!