In the last few weeks, I've had several discussions with people about matriarchy and patriarchy in social structures, matrilineal and patrilineal ways of viewing the world. And, what I've found out is rather amazing.
A lot of people think that matriarchy is the exact opposite in structure as patriarchy. Patriarchy is what most people see these days in dominant, mainstream societies -- being governed by men, having judiciaries dominated by men, children taking the man's last name, the old idea in the modern practice of coverture in Christian, straight marriage, the veneration of old white guys throughout history and the nearly-complete disregard to women's contribution to that history, etc, etc, etc.
Matriarchy, following this logic, would be the complete subjugation of men to women and follow the strict hierarchical structure inherent in patriarchy. I can see why matriarchy is such a scary idea to those deeply invested in patriarchy . . . and, I'm here to offer some reassurance by offering what matriarchy looked like in pre-contact Americas.
Matriarchy was a term used to label any society that did not follow the European idea of hierarchical patriarchy. It was applied to every society that did not conform to what Europeans thought of as being "civilized," (which was anything but civilized, imho), measuring these cultures by European standards. This meant that in any society where women were viewed as equal to men, the Europeans automatically viewed that culture as "other" and subjugated it in the most forceful and brutal ways possible; these societies posed a threat to the hierarchical patriarchy upon which the European invaders had based their own world view.
Many First Nations peoples had highly egalitarian societies. They relied upon consensus and cooperation for basic survival. They worked together to solve societal problems and they also firmly believed in social safety nets . . . it also helped that everything was shared within a community. There are some firsthand accounts that show that Europeans were first exposed to the ideas of communism later defined and promoted by Karl Marx by First Nations' ambassadors to the Old World in the 1600-1700s. There are firsthand accounts of these ambassadors being horrified that the Europeans kept the mentally ill in cells beneath the streets. There are firsthand accounts of salons discussing the idea of socialism after they entertained First Nations' ambassadors. These cultural exchanges brought new ideas to the Old World and may have sped up the social reforms that happened across Europe.
Many First Nations peoples followed the old adage that you may not always know your father, but you always knew your mother. This came from the fact that many traditional First Nations peoples acknowledged that human sexuality was not a threat to society. Women were just as free to pursue their sexuality as men. Gender and gender identity, sex and sexual orientation were not stigmatized by most of these peoples, either. If a person who happened to be a woman was a better hunter and warrior than gatherer (which required a high degree of plant identification) and weaver, she was allowed to use her skills as hunter and warrior for the betterment of her community. If a person who happened to be a man was better at plant identification and preferred to weave baskets or make clothes, he was allowed to contribute those skills to the community.
Sexuality with in many First Nations' cultures was fluid, so the ideas of "gay" or "lesbian" or "straight" were irrelevant. Sex between consenting adults was the business of those adults. The Catholic Church did a lot of really brutal repression to make the "savages" renounce their old ways of viewing sex as simply human and instead view it as the Church viewed it, a shameful, carnal act. Entire cultures were wiped out when they resisted the Church's attempt. The Church would take those "sexual deviants" into the center of the community and brutalize and kill them in the most horrific manners. The rest of the community would then be given the option of submitting to the Church or being annihilated as the "sexual deviants" were. The Protestants in the North were little better. Lasting scars and a continued, complete repudiation of these traditions persist today in how some First Nations' peoples now write tribal laws.
The matriarchy of many First Nations peoples was heavily reliant upon equal rights for every member of a society, sharing of power amongst all members of a given society. Basic survival necessitated that every member contribute to the community. Sharing of wealth was also highly encouraged as it kept harmony between members of a community and because it was viewed as extremely detrimental, and extremely inhumane, to withhold basic human rights (food, water, shelter, healthcare, education) from anyone. (For a bit more on how some First Nations' peoples' cultures, I wrote about it here)
So, now you see why the Europeans had to completely decimate the First Nations' peoples and their cultures? The idea of women holding any sort of power scared the bejeebers out of the European men. The idea of not having a hierarchy built on the accumulation of wealth threatened the central idea (which was feudalistic in nature and based upon nation-states ruled over by absolute monarchs, until that began changing in the 1600s and accelerated by the end of the 1700s -- leaving about 100 years of Europeans thinking that they needed governments structured like absolute monarchies -- a king, some high nobles, some low nobles, and loads of peasants and serfs -- all of which were reliant upon the Church for legitimacy; and the Church had it's own form of rigid hierarchical patriarchy) of the Europeans' entire sense of how society must be structured. To have the "savages" actually be more humane and civilized than the Europeans was an abomination, an affront to any self-respecting European. To have "matriarchal" First Nations' types acting and behaving in such a "Christ-like" fashion threatened the foundations upon which the Church's rigidly hierarchical patriarchy was built.
It strikes me as highly ironic that most European countries are now highly socialized and less rigidly hierarchically patriarchal than the US. Even the idea of extending equal rights to all humans took root much more quickly with the Europeans than their American descendents. (Disclaimer: European countries are now beginning to have to deal with non-European immigrants, which means addressing old cultural ideas of what a "European" looks like -- something that citizens in the US have been struggling with since the inception of our country).
