A partnership-oriented system such as the ones that hunter-gatherers have doesn’t mean no leaders. The initiatives in business that are currently gaining popularity that are anti-hierarchical are certainly not free for alls. That would be stupid. “Hierarchies of actualization (which is what partnership systems employ) have leaders who empower those closest to the work product or task at hand to make most of the relevant decisions rather than telling them what to do and then sitting back and evaluating them from above. This allows people to emotionally invest in a way that they cannot when they are treated as merely a cog in the wheel or a functionary to be bossed around by someone with more authority.”
There was no social stratification before the onset of patriarchy. Ergo, patriarchy is about stratification and classes beyond those between men and women. That’s not feminists saying that — it’s anthropologists. And please point out to me some societies that are matriarchies because I am not aware of any. As I’ve already said, matirlineal and matrifocul societies are not matriarchies (which would also be power over societies akin to patriarchies). Matrifocul/matrilineal societies are always egalitarian, even if they have specific roles for men and women. The brief definitions given in dictionaries are typically the least nuanced, most simplistic meanings of those words.
Dude, this is my area of expertise. I’ve written at least 12 articles about in the past year. Unless you can present something more substantive than your say-so to counteract the extensive citations and research that I’ve presented, I think this isn’t going to go anywhere useful or interesting — in which case it’s a conversation I’d rather not have.
This is a link to all of my stories about social hierarchy (patriarchy) and the different ways that it manifests in our society. Read some more of them, or don’t, but stop telling me what I think about this topic unless you have.
