# Matriarchal fantasy world idea



## Jabrosky (Mar 16, 2012)

When I was younger, I used to believe that women were the statistically  smarter or at least more rational sex while men were more emotional and  irrational. Part of the reason why is that I thought that women having  stronger minds would compensate for their physically weaker bodies.  Another reason is that I am a guy with Asperger's Syndrome, making me  cognitively very masculine, and I tend to be impulsive and easily  angered (when I was a kid I would throw lots of tantrums). To be sure, I  didn't believe that women were morally superior to men, but I did think  that aggressive and competitive women tended to be more subtle and  calculating while similarly aggressive men were more volatile and  upfront.

I know now that my belief in women's greater mental  strength and rationality isn't necessarily true for our world, but I  would still like to apply it for fantasy worldbuilding. In the majority  of my world's cultures, women are more likely to have intellectually  demanding roles such as magicians, scholars, and politicians whereas men  tend to be the warriors and manual laborers. This would have the effect  of the world's cultures being matriarchal since women are the sex  trusted with political leadership.

I don't know what I should ask in this OP, I simply wanted to share a brain fart.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 16, 2012)

The one question I'd ask initially is how the status quo is maintained. If the force of arms (the warriors; military etc) are the province of men, what prevents such men, whether trusted or not, from taking and maintaining political power by force?


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 16, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> The one question I'd ask initially is how the status quo is maintained. If the force of arms (the warriors; military etc) are the province of men, what prevents such men, whether trusted or not, from taking and maintaining political power by force?



I would think social conventions could be strong enough to prevent that. Besides, women could always use magic against wannabe male usurpers.

Alternatively, it could depend on exactly what is valued in a particular culture. Perhaps warlike tribal cultures would give greater esteem to male strength whereas more advanced, socially complex civilizations would favor female leaders to manage everything.


----------



## grahamguitarman (Mar 16, 2012)

The pre Christian Britons were originally a matriarchal friendly culture, which is why Boudicca was so easily accepted as a war leader.  to them it was perfectly normal for a woman to lead men into battle.

Edit: I should point out however that a matriarchal society did not mean that women ruled over men, simply that women had equal rights and powers to men.  unlike a patriarchal society where men had absolute power over everything and women were considered inconsequential.


----------



## Queshire (Mar 16, 2012)

I'm gonna have to disagree with you Graham, to me at least a martriarchal culture would be as women focused as a partriarchal culutre is man based, while I don't know the term of the top of my head, I'm pretty sure there's a different term for a balance of power.

Anyways, going back to the original post, you can do a society like that but I suggest being very, very careful. Equality of the sexes is a BIG issue, and even if in your society women have the "better" positions, there are going to be people pissed off about it.

I suggest spending a lot of time just considering the full implications of your proposed society. Just what type of society would result from that sort of cultural divide?


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 17, 2012)

eew this could get ugly in a hurry, and I'm a pretty open-minded female.  I read a story similar to this idea, but in that world, the "people" were like bug-type things, and the females were larger than the males..... That sort of thing makes it an easier concept to accept for people.  I do love your creativity, and I hope you do work this out, but Queshire is right, it's probably going to upset people if you can't explain WHY.  Actually I sort of disagree with one point, though.  I think in tribal, clannish society, you might be MORE likely to see this sort of thing.  Superstitious people might be more inclined to lean on an older woman (because women live longer than men) for magical, spiritual, or social advice.  It's almost a question of cultural anthropology at that point, and perhaps reading a little about matriarchal societies would help you understand what exactly made it such and how it works.  

That being said, if it were me (and I do write a sort of idealized world where certain men and women have rights and others do not) I might think of it more like a wolf pack. There are two people at the top, a man and woman, and the woman has her job and the male his.  All the other male and female wolves or people under the top ones are just expected to do their jobs and stay in line.

I wrote about  a clannish society in one of my stories, and the main woman character is a seer and gifted with special powers.  These special women can stop men from fighting in the streets with a command, and all bow to their will..... but not just because they're female, but because they're special.  I hope that sort of helps you narrow down the Why of this issue.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 17, 2012)

Actually one of the big problems just occurred to me.  A note about women.  Being one, there are certain things I must admit.   My husband and indeed most men are bigger and stronger than I am.  Also, looking at other types of animals, some parallels can be drawn to early humans.  Elephants are matriarchal, herds being comprised of cows and calves, while small groups of bachelors or single bulls are common.  See the females don't need the males.  They don't need them for protection or to find food or to do anything other than reproduce.

Humans have more needs than most animals, especially where babies are concerned.  I have borne four children between the ages of 25 and 31.  That means my oldest is almost 6 and my youngest is 6 months old.  I have essentially been carrying someone in my arms for the last six years.  How can women compete with men when we carry our larvae around for more than a year, nursing them, cleaning them, and practically slaves to their needs?

When women get together, they can support each other, a village can raise everyone's children, but a village needs men and women, to balance the workload.....  That being said, however, men don't have to see women as weak or useless.  Women are well-suited for certain tasks: healing, magic, future-telling, spiritual guidance, story-telling, teaching, you could pick just about anything except power-lifting, and it could be a skill that woman (as well as men) possess which makes them special.  Certain Germanic people had a "magic" they practiced, but only women were allowed to practice, because it was thought unmanly to dabble in magic.  You could always use some theory like that to even the playing field.


----------



## grahamguitarman (Mar 17, 2012)

Queshire said:


> I'm gonna have to disagree with you Graham, to me at least a martriarchal culture would be as women focused as a partriarchal culutre is man based, while I don't know the term of the top of my head, I'm pretty sure there's a different term for a balance of power.
> 
> Anyways, going back to the original post, you can do a society like that but I suggest being very, very careful. Equality of the sexes is a BIG issue, and even if in your society women have the "better" positions, there are going to be people pissed off about it.
> 
> I suggest spending a lot of time just considering the full implications of your proposed society. Just what type of society would result from that sort of cultural divide?



What I meant was that in real world terms, Matriarchal societies didn't actually put all the power into the hands of women, only shared it.  Women were allowed to rule, but at the same time men weren't stripped of the power to rule.  They were referred to as matriarchal cultures because women had the ability to rule over men, even if that didn't always happen.  In a fantasy culture of course you could have a complete role reversal, but in the real world that has never happened, and most likely never will.


----------



## grahamguitarman (Mar 17, 2012)

Forgot to mention that when I was younger I also thought that women were better suited to leadership than men.  But then Margaret Thatcher was elected prime minister, and I realised that women could be just as bad as men if not worse.  By the time she was ousted from power, the British public hated her for her arrogance and indifference to the ordinary man in the street.  Had her own party not turned against her she would have been thrown out at the next elections anyway.

As much as I respect women and believe they should be treated as equals in everything, I no longer believe a woman can do a better job of running the country than a man could.


----------



## kadenaz (Mar 17, 2012)

This idea thrills me, go for it


----------



## BeigePalladin (Mar 17, 2012)

> As much as I respect women and believe they should be treated as equals in everything, I no longer believe a woman can do a better job of running the country than a man could.



This. Sayig "a woman is better suited to lead than a man" is identical to saying the reverse - with the same implicatios. You said you understand that in the first post, but for your work I issue a word of warning; don't outright state that women _are_ better, but just that it's the culture of your word, or else it creates the same effect as showing a purely patricarchal society to be right.

Also, explain quite clearly why in your setting this divide exists, because defining someone by their gender without explicit reasoning is a very touchy subject, just like defining them by skin colour/relegion etc.

Lastly, maybe consider having the majority of the leadership be female, but maintain a male precence. It still gets the idea across without the explicit sexism of banning one side. we here know that your concept isn't sexist, but then not every reader will have read this thread, so it's always better to play it safe.

good luck, don;t get lunched by a mob for the concept


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 17, 2012)

I think the world as a whole is more important than the society when considering how to form a strong, natural matriarchy. There is a reason patriarchies are the norm on Earth, and at first, it wasn't societal. There wasn't a society to create those rules. As others have said, it's about strength. In most places on Earth, people needed to defend themselves against other humans, other animals (such as lions or bears), and they needed to hunt animals - often large animals, like buffalo, if they wanted to feed an entire clan. Physically, women are simply not suited for this. Without changing that aspect of human anatomy, there are two broad options. Make magic innate (something cave people would have had) and stronger in women (if they were equally powerful, magically, then either a completely equal society or a patriarchy would form, the latter since men would still be physically more powerful) or change the world so that women's strengths are more valuable. 

To the latter, you could have a world without natural predators, with large divides between human/oid civilizations, or creating a different sort of hostility. For instance, a world without lions but full of plagues could value women because they'd need to make lots of babies to survive the disease. One woman is more valuable than a hundred men, in that regard. Women are meant to be able to see colour better, so bring colour into the world. Make the difference between mauve and magenta a matter of life and death, and suddenly women are more powerful. I think your ideas for a developed society run with a matriarchy are sound. The respected citizens keeping a hold on magic and knowledge is reflective of many of Earth's societies. But it's important to consider the roots of such a society and really give us a reason for women to have ever rose to power in the first place.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Mar 17, 2012)

BeigePalladin said:


> good luck, don;t get lunched by a mob for the concept



Mmmm, lunch mob.

There's no reason that a fictional society has to have the same sexual dimorphism that humans do -- the females could be bigger and stronger than men, as is the case with many Earth animals. Bigger and stronger but with a more even temper could be interesting, and explain why women tend to run things; it will take some work to explore the implications and figure out which jobs/professions/roles each gender would end up taking.

Tangentially: For an interesting (patriarchal) 19th-century approach to gender relations, try reading Edwin Abbott's *Flatland*, which is about a civilization that literally exists only in two dimensions, and a person's intelligence is determined by how many sides they have.


----------



## Queshire (Mar 17, 2012)

@graham; Ok, I can respect that as your opinion, even though I disagree. I'm curious just what term besides matriarchal would you use to refer to a society with women playing the role men play in a patriarchal society. Also, by your logic, then modern day society would be matriarchal, right?

Personally I agree with whoever suggested a wolf type style of society, with men and women's roles being seperate but just as important as each other.


----------



## grahamguitarman (Mar 17, 2012)

Unfortunately both times I posted, I had kids running around and climbing over me while I was trying to post and didn't explain my meaning very well (the joys of parenthood lol).  Luckily the kids are in bed now so I can concentrate on giving a more reasoned answer with less typing mistakes/omissions.  My apologies for not being more clear in my meaning.

Matriarchal society is of course the correct term for a culture ruled by women, and should indeed be the opposite of a patriarchal society.

The point I was unsuccessfully trying to make, was that the cultures often historically thought of as matriarchal, were not in fact true matriarchies.  What modern feminist writers and certain Nineteenth century scholars would like to think these cultures were, and what really happened are quite different.  

This is why I referred to them as matriarch friendly in my first post, ie they were open to the idea of women in power, even if it didn't always happen.  

But like I said, just because these 'supposed matriarchal societies' were not what people often think they were, does not mean a fantasy world can't have a true matriarchy.

Given that here in the UK we have a Queen, then technically we could be classed as a matriarchy, though her powers are more symbolic and ceremonial.


----------



## Queshire (Mar 17, 2012)

m'kay, that makes more sense.


----------



## Saigonnus (Mar 18, 2012)

Any fantasy world;like the real one is full of different cultures with their own set of values or societal structure. I wouldn't think that every single culture in a world would be matriarchal. Perhaps the most dominant culture is a matriarchy, but inevitably, there would be other cultures patriarchal or resembling a republic where men and women work closely together in ruling the country/territory. I enjoy worlds that are more well-rounded and thought out and have an element of realism.


----------

