Talk:Matriarchy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

"Matrifocal" problem

Currently Matrifocal redirects to this article, but it really shouldn't. Social scientists use the term "matrifocal" to refer to family structures where the mother-child bond seems to be more stable and enduring than the father-child bond or husband-wife bond, so that the basic family unit seems to be a mother and her children, with various ephemeral men coming and going. Matrifocality does not mean that women occupy the positions of power and authority in a society, so it is far from being synonymous with matriarchy. AnonMoos (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, basically. The solution is to write an article, at least a stub (and include in it a link to this article, perhaps as a different but related phenomenon). I don't have the time right now. Perhaps someone does. Thanks for the idea. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Have had a first stab, would be pleased if it could be extended. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, that's way more than a little stub! Good job... AnonMoos (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That was Nick, of course. If someone has a chance to look, there are some papers that discuss Young & Wilmott's Family & Kinship in East London on (white) working-class British families in terms of matrifocality. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

OK (didn't bother to look at the edit history). "Matricentric" is basically the same thing, redirecting there... AnonMoos (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is continued (if needed) at the matrifocal family talk page. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Corrected my link: 15:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC))

One sided

Its pretty clear this article was written entirely by feminist women . It stands to reason that if the wiki page for Patriarchy is defined as: "...fathers hold authority over women, children, and property." then a similar and opposite meaning should apply here, yet that is not the case. The Matriarchy page is written to sound like a more forward way of thinking but it is simply the polar opposite of Patriarchy. Perhaps it is the Patriarchy page that needs adjustment, but whatever the case these two pages dont reflect opposite points of view as described. 10:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.60.22 (talk)

Matriarchy and Patriarchy are not simply symmetrical, since it's highly dubious whether a full-on thoroughgoing matriarchy has ever existed at any time in human history. This means that thoughts or opinions about Patriarchy are often based on observations of everyday life in patriarchal societies, while thoughts or opinions about Matriarchy can only be based on people's speculations as to what a hypothetical matriarchal society might be like... AnonMoos (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The concept of matriarchy was originally developed by 19th-century anthropologists, who were all men, and who were not really feminist as the term is now commonly defined... AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is consistent with the sources known. The argument that matriarchy is parallel is therefore an argument best directed at the living authors of the contrary view. If they retract their views in published works of similar weight, then we can delete their earlier views if no longer deserving of weight. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's be just here, folks. Now, there's the "neutrality" banner on top of the article and I ask that it should only be removed when we are positive that the article is truly neutral. This will take some time, and this will take some work and patience. It's not necessarily a bad thing that feminist women wrote part/the whole of this article (as this is surely more of a consistent feminist's interest than most anyone else's). All that is asked is that we make this a more balanced, unbiased article. As the OP said, "it's pretty clear that the article was written entirely by feminist women" for it's lack of neutrality/"whole picturesness". We can achieve neutrality and fairness by adding the most prominent differing views and challenging all the unchallenged biased submissions. Now, do add what you think is right to add and always remember that, verily, anything less than the whole truth isn't doing any justice here. And I know that justice is something feminists do their best to get as it's the whole point of feminism, IMO. H15 H16N355 |^{K1N6 M3 (T47K)} 22:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please post a specific critique of nonneutrality. Without one, the POV tag is meaningless. Editing can always be done without the tag. The point of the tag is to draw our attention to particular problems for others to address. Otherwise, the tag should not be present. Nick Levinson (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll check the article. We could get this much better by having someone with first-hand knowledge on the matter (an anthropologist/sociologist who sees the bigger picture clearly). As it's stated on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view page: "This page in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it" [added both bolds and italycs to last sentence] H15 H16N355 |^{K1N6 M3 (T47K)} 23:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

---

I'm sorry, but I'm removing the POV tag, because no specific concrete issues have been alleged here on this talk page to support the tag (only generalized uncited grousing). AnonMoos (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The tag resulting from the Expert-Subject template says, "Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article." Please add accordingly, so experts and all of us know what issue is to be addressed. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

propose deleting Expert-Subject tag

I propose to delete the Expert-Subject template because no "reason or ... talk parameter" has been added despite a request for it and so it does not appear the template is posted for its generally intended purpose. The article was already associated with the WikiProjects for both anthropology and sociology and still is, so they've already been notified about the tagging editor's concern despite its lack of a reason. I'll wait a week for any response before I delete the tag. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

RSS

I do not feel strongly about this, so I will leave it at that. However, I do not understand that how an all male volunteer organisation is relevant to the topic of Matriarchy. (Mind You, It would have been relevant if it was some power wielder, like communist party of North Korea). In the third world countries there are many unisex schools and colleges, i.e. both some specific to boys and some specific to girls. Similarly, in the first world armed forces, women, no matter how good, are not allowed combat positions. This is as true of US, as it is for Britain and Israel. Will these institutions too be included in the article?--nids(♂) 05:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There is Muslim Rashtriya Manch under RSS for members of the muslim community. So, it appears that RSS is actually not relevant here under any circumstances. --nids(♂) 20:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I just saw this topic now. The RSS list item is about a view on whether women can be national leaders. While there are a great many all-male organizations, not many that I know of articulate views on that question, especially regarding whether a woman can be a head of state or head of government and thereby govern men and women. If there are others addressing that issue, please post about them, preferably with sources on the topic, and I or someone else can then look into them. Otherwise, this article is not intended to be about patriarchy, for which one or more other articles exist. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I dont know if RSS ever expressed a view that a female cannot be a head of state or a national leader. Infact India had a women president and a women Prime Minister and RSS had no objections to it. It even hailed the women Prime minister as Durga. But yes, women cannot be a part of RSS as it is a all male organisation. --nids(♂) 01:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can find, in a reliable source, that RSS has had a position that it is opposed to women being head of state or national leaders, than the list entry would be relevant and you can just go ahead and add it.--nids(♂) 01:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll go home and try to clarify the passage. I looked for a Vatican source a while back but didn't find one, and it would have been relevant because the Roman Catholic Church is a major part of Christianity and of the world. Islam was also covered, without regard to its being represented in India. Hinduism is also a major part of the world and its views are relevant, including those of RSS on point. That Indira Gandhi was in office is not particularly important to the fact of the view as a criticism of the concept of matriarchy, which is what is being reported. To list nations in which women were heads of state/government is beyond the scope of the article. That women can hold such office is a subject of criticism, and that latter point is within the article's scope. I'll review the text in question, probably over the next few days. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

1.If RSS has expressed a view that a female shall not be a head of state or a national leader, than this point will be relevant here (in this article) as it would be directly related to criticism of matriarchy. However, in my view, any organisation can decide who its members can be. There is a view that excluding a gender from membership of an organisation is gender discrimination. In that case, one can add RSS. However, it will open pandora's box as there are many such org.'s both in the first world and in the third world. (Some org.'s excluding males and some others excluding females)

2.If vatican expresses such a view, it would be relevant to this article. (However, I am not too sure if it would be representative of the position of all christians because Protestants, in many respects, hold diametrically opposite views than that of catoholics.)

3.I gave example of Indira Gandhi because if RSS had any problem with female leaders, it would have clearly said so when she was occupying the high office. It would not have gone on to praise her. You are absolutely right that if women holding high office is a subject of criticism, it is within this article's scope. If you find a source that says RSS holds such a position, you can add so. However, you cannot say that there are no women in high ranks in the organisation(i.e. RSS) itself and hence its relevant. There cannot be women leaders in RSS as RSS is an exclusively male org. (Its ironical that the countries wherein women have most rights are the countries not to have had a female head of state. But then, that's true.)--nids(♂) 03:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think that the principle of "women holding high office" is within the scope of this article, unless there is a clear element of "women disproportionately likely to hold high office" or "women automatically holding higher office". A system where women cannot hold high office is, to that extent, patriarchal. One where both men and women can hold high office on some kind of measure of merit, or on rotation, quotas etc. is egalitarian between men and women. Only those proposed or actual systems that have a built-in bias towards women have anything to do with matriarchy. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Judith -- offices reserved for women could be interesting for this article (though not necessarily fully matriarchal), but offices open to women (without being reserved for them) would appear to have minimal relevance in most cases. In South Asia, for example, almost all the women prime ministers or presidents over the last 50 years have been daughters, wives, or sisters of past male leaders, and their rise to governing power has generally meant extremely little for improving the lives of most ordinary women in such countries... AnonMoos (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If an organisation expresses a view that it is critical of the position of allowing women to hold a high office, wouldn't that be equivalent to criticism of matriarchy?--nids(♂) 20:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Would more commonly be considered to be a reaffirmation of patriarchy... AnonMoos (talk)

Yes, or to put it the other way ,if I say "women should be allowed to hold office", I am unlikely to be advocating matriarchy, much more likely to be advocating equality. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to get the Jewels of Authority book again from a library, since I didn't find a copy of pages I thought I had kept. Editing will likely await finding that book, hopefully in just a few days.

I'm looking for a way to clarify the passage. The article is about whether women did or should govern women and men, especially nationally. We report criticisms, so I added some. Since many critiques rely on religion, I looked for criticisms from notable religions. I put them into a subsection of the In Feminist Thought section as criticisms. The subsection was subsequently moved and made into its own section, In Religious Thought, essentially about critiques of the concept of women governing both genders composing whole societies. In almost any major religion there is probably almost no concept that is universally agreed upon; e.g., I met a birthright Friend (Quaker) who was not Christian. But there are beliefs widespread within any major faith community. The article makes the distinction between the widespread and the universal. The top of the In Religious Thought section says, "Within none of the following religions [including Hinduism and Islam] is the respective view necessarily universally held". But even if not universally held, such a position held by a notable authority within the given faith community is reportable.

I did search for a Christian objection, not as representative of all Christianity but as significant enough within it to be reportable. For example, I looked for Vatican positions and Pauline teachings, but found no such holding for modern times. I may have simply missed an appropriate Christian source but I would still like to report it if it exists. Perhaps I should look at Orthodox Christian sources, if I didn't. I don't know.

On the Hindu list item: The male RSS debated whether it is legitimate to let women lead India even as exceptions, and that is reliably sourced. The male RSS did not come to a conclusion about whether women leading is legitimate, and that is also reliably sourced and reportable. That an exception was recognized was only because the women's-wing RSS recognized it, and that, too, is sourced and reportable. In other words, men were preferred for leading a nation. That was as of 2002, which is more recent than Indira Gandhi and thus reasonably enough modern for presentation in Wikipedia.

On the other hand, perhaps the male RSS now regards women on a nearly equal basis as potential leaders of India. If so, that is reportable, but I don't have a source for that. While we have a source saying the male RSS debated the point without a conclusion, we don't have one saying they now support equality or anything like equality. Possibly, both views about RSS's position will be reportable at the same time, if the additional sourcing is found.

RSS having a Muslim unit doesn't alter that the reliable source now cited gives RSS for Hindus and can. While many organizations doubtless represent Hindus, RSS is notable and therefore its position, being on point, is important enough to be relevant. And RSS's own membership rules are not the subject of this article (or too many organizations would have to be listed). The reason for mentioning that the male RSS is all-male is to distinguish it from the women's-wing RSS and the distinction is important because they have the same initials but hold different views: the women's-wing RSS that women may be national leaders and the all-male RSS that it had no conclusion. The adjectives clarify which RSS is meant by referring to memberships; but organizational membership rules are not this article's subject.

Patriarchy implicitly criticises matriarchy, but, for purposes of this article, simply citing patriarchal institutions is not good enough proof. Nor is announcing opposition to a particular woman running for office, even if a double standard is suspected. I was surprised that explicit criticisms from major patriarchal sources were not more common in sources I checked.

Those are my thoughts at the moment on clarifying (in fewer words) the Hindu list item. I'll work on it.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

But Nick, you're still slipping between two concepts. "Women governing women and men" is ambiguous, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with matriarchy. In an egalitarian system, women govern women and men, e.g. Anyville has a female mayor while neighbouring Anytown has a male mayor, the CEO of Gadgetco is male, while the CEO of Widgetco is female. I am not at all surprised that explicit criticisms of matriarchy were not present - it's an odd and extremist position that hardly anybody espouses nowadays, or ever has espoused. Apart from a few people in the 1970s and even then it was often for polemical purposes/to shock. Some 19th century anthropologists thought they had found it in some ancient societies, but they were probably mistaken, and there is insufficient evidence to say for certain. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've put the book on hold at a library and hopefully it'll be available soon, for the RSS issue.

Most or all societies that have a woman as the head of government probably don't qualify as matriarchal or the like when those governments are largely male-run and so those societies are not counted for purposes of the article, nor was there an attempt to list them.

The advocacies that were published may have been asserted only for shock value but I doubt it; I think they were seriously intended and I don't know of a source that says otherwise, unless the source is already cited in the article. If it was asserted for shock value along with serious desire, that doesn't deny the seriousness of the advocacy. I think it has been sought many more times than is reported here, but generally the advocacies here are from authors who have achieved notability.

Matriarchy being about mothers, about power inside a female, or about single-mother families within a larger patriarchal society is covered in the article. Egalitarianism is also covered. Whether matriarchal societies actually existed or not is also covered.

I'm happy to add sources and may have another at home that I downloaded for another article but which may do double duty for this article. If more turn up or if citations are known, I'm interested.

Nick Levinson (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Nick -- a classic Christian diatribe against the possibility of women's rule is "The first blast of the trumpet against the monstruous regiment of women", but the guy who wrote it was kind of wishing that he had been slightly more moderate in the public expression of his views within two years of its first publication... AnonMoos (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks interesting at first glance. I'll follow up, although that may take some time. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I've posted a clarified list item on Hinduism, based on the two notable organizations that are both known as RSS. The sourcing is cited. One of the RSS organizations considers women as national leaders merely as exceptions from the norm, which is men. The other RSS organization debated the issue without taking a position. As the beginnning of the In Religious Thought section already states, the views reported are not universally held. However, the views stated in the section and their proponents are important enough for reporting. The view of either RSS favoring the candidacy or election of, say, Indira Gandhi may be reportable, but until that is sourced what is now reported is the strongest case to date and an endorsement of Ms. Gandhi may be reportable alongside the presently-reported position. If even clearer writing is helpful or additional sourcing is known, please offer it. If a rewriting is supported by the sourcing, I'm happy for us to use it. I did not attempt deep research into databases or through Google, so, for all I know, it may not be difficult for editors to find additional sourcing. However, I already tried Academic Search Premier (EbscoHost) and JStor and may have exhausted both regarding the two RSS organizations. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Slight problem with wording

"However, this reluctance to accept the existence of matriarchies might be based on a specific, culturally biased notion of how to define 'matriarchy': because in a patriarchy 'men rule over women', a matriarchy has frequently been conceptualized as 'women ruling over men', whereas in reality women-centered societies are - apparently without exception - egalitarian."

This statement is not incorrect but it's extremely misleading. The way it's worded, a reader could come off thinking that matriarchy means egalitarianism. I assume here they're actually talking about matrilocal societies because matriarchy has a strict definition, it means "women ruling over men". I'm not assuming malice but the way it's worded almost sounds like someone playing sleight of hand with the definition of matriarchy. If patriarchy means men ruling over women than, naturally, matriarchy must mean women ruling over men. --87.198.51.106 (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

LoL, theoretical linguistic evasiveness. the article says that one person has proposed that matriarchy be redefined as gender egalitarianism. why does this kind of linguistic hair spitting matter, when, after all, words are defined by how most people use them, rather than by how one person proposes that we use them?

the proposed change seems to only have the purpose of concealing the embarrassing fact that we know of no matriarchies rather than to clarify matters.

but this only seems to kick the can down the road, because there don't seem to be any gender egalitarian societies either. we are attempting to create one, or rather to transform our society into one, but feminists are usually among the very first to remind us, rather loudly, that we haven't succeeding in doing it yet.

all they can do is to appeal to societies where women seemed to have high status. i've actually read Malinowski's books on the Trobriand Islanders, and I suggest that you do so too. He is a great anthropologist, among other things, but men ruled in the Trobriand Islands. All the chiefs were men, for example, and a wife/mother's brother or other male relative was the head of the family.

and just because a man worked to support his sister is no reason to label the family unit as matriarchal. brother/uncles simple preformed many of the same tasks that husband/fathers do among us.

as for the Iroquois, you offer no evidence whatsoever for the claim that mothers ruled. it would seem strange if the American Colonials didn't mention such a fact, since, after all, they were very familiar with the Iroquois.

there's a tendency to read into seeing women "out of their place" in one's own culture and society as evidence of either a topsy-turvy society and culture or as signs that women ruled, but this is naive. maybe women/mothers did have more power among them than among the colonists, but so what? that would not be evidence that women ruled or that their society was gender equal. our own society is a case in point.

the question Wikipedia should ask itself is, what is its first order commitment, to the truth or seeking equality for women. is it a tool to propagandize toward that noble goal, or does it serve the noble goal of truth? do lies and obfuscations truly advance the cause of gender equality?

the Trobriand Islanders were clearly not matriarchal or gender egalitarian, so they should be dropped entirely or be mentioned merely as for Malinowski's redefinition of matriarchy as a society where maternal uncles acted as heads as the family -- to avoid the confused idea that they Trobriand Islanders were "matriarchal."

as well, you mention the stand of most anthropologists being that matriarchy is unknown, but then spend most so much time talking about these fascinating possible "matriarchal" societies. shouldn't an encyclopedia represent the views of the consensus of scholars in the field rather than, like the silly old TV show "In Search Of," the less likely but somehow more "interesting" possibilities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.224.120 (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(The following was posted before the second post above. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC))

Not necessarily. Linguistically, natural languages, such as English, mean what their speakers mean them to mean, because the languages' purpose is communication and when communication is successful then the language is correct in the view of linguists, so parallelism does not always occur, and it does not always with respect to matriarchy and patriarchy. An example is the claim that when in a U.S. culture a quarter of families are run by single mothers we have a matriarchy when by implication three quarters are not run by single mothers (but presumably run by fathers either alone or as household heads) but the claim does not give way to a claim that it is a patriarchy, but is left as being in dispute at most. That is why we rely on what sources report.

(This post continues after the next post. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC))

i fail to see what "matriarchal" families has to do with the question of matriarchy in the strict sense. a matriarchy is a society where women rule collectively. women have doubtless always governed over some families, either when men were absent or because they were too weak or even too disinterested in ruling their families. Even in male-supremicist Islam, women are sovereign over some spheres of family life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.224.120 (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(This continues the post above the preceding post. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC))

However, I will reconsider the passage to see if I can improve clarity within this framework.

(I moved your topic down because new topics go to the end and thus readers expect them there. If you start a new topic or section, click on "New section" at the top of any talk page.)

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC) (Clarified: 15:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC))

Done. 17:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC) (Must have applied too many tildes: Nick Levinson (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC))

In response to the new posts by the IP editor:

We rely on sources. Were parallelism controlling in definitions, a substantial fraction of families being led by women without husbands being around would not constitute a matriarchy, but parallelism is limited and men like to signify what they consider important, challenging, or threatening, and so since the number of female-headed households in a society was labeled as matriarchal we reported it. It is interesting to think about why the terminology arose without a parallel, but we don't go into that in the article without a source. If you find one, please edit or post accordingly.

As far as I know, the article does reflect the consensus of scholarly thought on the subject. It also reports more than one conclusion. If the amount of material to report becomes overwhelming, we can split the article into two, but we haven't reached that threshold.

Wikipedia does not have as its goal either reporting the truth or promoting gender equality. Rather, it reports what is verifiable from sources. For example, if you visit a society and discover something unique and vital, we would not report it (although we might in Wikinews). But if you make that discovery and then report it in, say, American Anthropologist or the Washington Post, another editor could then report your report in Wikipedia, thereby delegating the truth-determining function to the source from which Wikipedia reports. Editors may have any motivations, as long as the article remains neutral and verifiable, for example.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC) (Corrected syntax (with "as") and clarified a sentence: 16:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC))

Elizabeth of England

Her being queen in the 16th century has very little to do with Matriarchy in the usual or commonly-accepted sense. Queen bee syndrome (one woman in an exceptional position, able to suspend for herself only some of the rules which ordinarily apply to women, without doing anything much to improve the position of women in general) does not seem to be very matriarchal. AnonMoos (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. She's in the article because of sourcing. In the course of my reading I found that three queens reigning in Europe at about the same time (I think England, France, and Scotland) were considered in the same vein, the presence of matriarchy; I just didn't go back to get the citation for the article. But my view had been that I wouldn't count a queen as matriarchal because the likelihood is that she was assisted as ruler mostly by men if not guided by them. However, I respected the sourcing for what it had to say and so put my view aside for the purpose of editing the article. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The queen bee syndrome, as described in that article, is not inherent in queenship. It is likely that for a woman to ascend to monarchical leadership requires approval of enough men not to be able to avoid men's demands that she generally favor men for political power and therefore that she generally oppose women for political power, thus producing the syndrome, but I don't remember a source discussing that perspective. I thought there might be a source in that article citable in this one, but what it talks about is one level removed. Probably, there's a clearer view published somewhere about whether a government is matriarchal when it is headed by a woman but most people under her and who help her govern especially intrafamilially or at the ministerial level are men, and it would be helpful to be able to cite that view, and maybe someone knows of a source stating it. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead's first paragraph

The definition that a matriarchy is a society in which females have "control of property" had been edited so that it said "control over men, children, and property". I reverted. There's a split among sources as to whether matriarchy is closely parallel to patriarchy or is also inclusive of equality, i.e., includes anything nonpatriarchal. Natural language does not always follow simple mathematical logic. Descriptive dictionaries, which are more authoritative than prescriptive ones, describe words as the community of speakers use them, causing definitions in many word pairs to not be parallel. Other sources may also define nonparallelistically, and do. In the article, the definitions are clarified in the body; the lead only summarizes and does not take a side. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC) (Moved down and elevated to level 2: 17:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC))

An egalitarian or equal society is by definition not a matriarchy. Some sources might say different, but the mainstream view is that equality is ... equality. I understand what you are saying about nonparallel definitions, but remember, Wikipeia isn't a dictionary. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that matriarchy should semantically be understood as not including equality but Wikipedia (apart from not being Wiktionary) reflects sources and the sources are split on point, so the article needs to reflect that split. A rationale is probably that society in general is patriarchal so that equality is exceptional, even rare, which may be why some sources combine it with nonequalitarian matriarchy, but, whatever the rationale and I disagree with that one (the word nonpatriarchal would serve just as well for analytical purposes but not for political organizers seeking a wider base), the sources are divided and the overinclusive sense shouldn't be ignored. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

examples of Matriarchies

In the article the most prominent examples of matriarchies are certain tribes, like the Iroquois.

I would argue that Vietnam under the Trung Sisters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trung_sisters could be considered a good example of a matriarchy in world history. In particular, Vietnam was a soverign state for about three years with an all-female government and almost an all-female military. The military was actually relatively powerful and well-organized, sucessfully repealing the Chinese for three years.

The best 'jobs' in that State were probably high ranking positions in the military, and if they belonged to women it is unlikely there were very many male breadwinners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoltankiss2 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I added a link to the Trung sisters article, but I didn't discuss it in the article because it would help if there was a source describing their reign as matriarchal, matrilineal, or some such (there's only an unsourced mention in the Trung sisters Impact section). If you know such a source, it should be added to both articles. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I found this [1], by a scholar although not in a peer-reviewed journal. It seems quite measured and could be suitable. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The article was interesting for both Vietnamese and probably Japanese history, but it probably should not be cited by itself. I plan to poke around, over time, for other literature on either nation. The key to the interest for both is that apparently some of the women were rulers and not just military leaders and warriors. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

IP editor's proposal to merge the Gynarchy article with this one

An editor at an IP has proposed the merger of the Gynarchy article with the Matriarchy article (presumably into this article, not the other way around). Discussion, if any, should be at that article's talk page, not here, for centralization. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC) (Corrected a link: 17:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC))

This discussion has been reopened. Please discuss there, not here. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Religions limiting women's roles

I really don't see that these points are on topic unless there is evidence that the religion specifically rules out matriarchy. Matriarchy is the topic of the article. Compare the Catholic Church with the Unitarians. The Catholics don't allow women priests, the Unitarians allow women in any role. The Unitarians aren't a matriarchy! They are relatively equal, that's all. Of course if you ban women taking part at all you thereby ban them dominating the situation, that's obvious. But if we go down that road, we should cover all of society, culture and economy. If girl foetuses are disproportionate aborted, that goes against matriarchy, but the point is trivial; it goes against equality is the main point. I propose to delete the section. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The section was originally a criticism of feminist advocacy of matriarchy and as such relevant to the article. The religious views largely criticize matriarchy in substance, thus they belong, as sectioned either now or originally. Were the content much larger, it might not physically fit in some browsers' displays, in which case a separate criticism article would be appropriate, but it's notable, so it shouldn't be banned altogether from Wikipedia, and I don't think the article is too long so as to require a separate article for a critique. I have now clarified the section's opening paragraph to show that it is largely criticism.

Unitarianism is not in the article. I'm not surprised by your description of it. If a source describes it as matriarchal (perhaps pursuant to the equalitarian view of matriarchy), we could add it, but I don't have a source for it now.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

this whole things seems pointless. of course there are organizations that are "ruled" by women. a religious example would merely be a case in point, one that might fly in the face of our own ethnocentric expectations, but matriarchy, in the strict sense, means women ruling a society collectively, the way that men rule all societies collectively. (exclusively) women's secret societies are ruled by women, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.224.120 (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Defenition wanted

In primitive peoples, women often high status. Because there is a general lack of women. If a society is very belligerent as living women, usually in a parallel reality, regardless of the men's perception of reality. Example: The men are not headhunters for sport, but to make a good impression on the girls. There is some countries with a royal line of women. This is because the old women can not reproduce. Or rather that the old women proliferate through sons and grandchildren. First, by controlling others. Not least arrange marriages. This means that it is largely the old women who informally controlling man society and cynical suppresses the young women.

However, there are societies where men have a mother-role. The women respond to this by being exaggerated female.Jesper7 (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Source it and you can add it. Without sourcing, that is challengeable content that would likely be deleted. If you can write in better English, please do, but if you can't, we'll fix that, so the more important thing is sourcing, which is up to you to find. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Leading paragraphs are really unsourced, may effect the image of the article a lot, if not sourced quickly. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the content that had been tagged as needing citation/s or identification of people. I think the rest of the lead is generally already sourced either there or in the body of the article. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

edits on October 11, 2013

A series of edits from IP 173.51.29.188 was followed by an edit (mostly a deletion) by editor Dougweller. I've edited since.

We cannot re-add content that violates copyright; an editor wanting to add the underlying information should rewrite it in their own words or explicitly quote with attribution. It was interesting but I'll leave the re-editing to others who may know those topics better than I do. Quoting is either with quotation marks or in a blockquote and we cannot quote too much of a single article without infringing copyright.

Subsectioning the section on feminist thought is generally acceptable but not if it confuses readers by suggesting that all of it after the beginning fits the subsections created. The subsections that were added applied only to portions, so either we'd need comprehensive subsections or we shouldn't subsection. I deleted those headings. However, the culture and chronology subsectioning elsewhere is a good idea; thank you.

The video game item needs sourcing. If the linked-to articles have it, then those source citation/s can be copied to this article (attributing in the Edit Summary which article/s the copying was from). If a single source is sufficient for the entire item, then one citation at the end will be enough; otherwise, place citations where they support content.

I tagged another paragraph as needing citations, corrected syntax, punctuation, and a spelling style, rephrased and deitalicized where not within our encyclopedic style, and added the Who template after a pronoun as it is unclear whether the unnamed woman answered her own question or Gorgo answered it. I'm also not sure that the answer, and therefore the question, adds anything to the article, since the answer "she" gave is unclear, since women who are mothers of men could be found worldwide, not just in Sparta.

I added the general location of the Mosuo, to complement the section heading, but also added the Dead Link template. Perhaps someone else has the information, such as archive.org.

I look forward to a new article on feminist utopias, since the term is newly redlinked. I hope someone writes it; the subject is probably notable. Emily Wax is also redlinked; if she's notable, please consider writing that one, too.

I reformatted some ref elements for consistency.

Minor: I spaced a list item, unnamed ref elements where the name was not used elsewhere, and deleted an unneeded space and "Foreign Service; Saturday, July 9, 2005.</ref>" (the last was after the usernamed editor's editing).

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. This article needs a lot of work but it has been edited so often from different povs it's not surprising it became a mess. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)