Premise for a theocratic matriarchy I want feedback on

Sounds good to me. Write it

I think the only thing I might take issue with is abort at will. Where in, this would seem to not be a mystical function, but a physical one. Women can certainly abort at will in any sense, as they can do many physical things to end a pregnancy. A more mystical use might be to conceive or not conceive at will. But once conceived, the life created would have to be destroyed. I would question if God, who decided here to create Eve first, would want that. Rather than a willful act to undo what has already been created.

I might also question, if magic can be used to create life, are the men needed at all for causing pregnancy? I am not sure if you meant that sentence in that way. But if magic is all that is needed, then men might not even be seen as something that could be desired.

The question you ask at the end, about how would it affect childrearing, well, you are already rewriting all the rules for society. If women are in charge they might choose to switch a lot of the gender roles entirely, and so just about everything, including child rearing, would quite likely be different.

However, none of the above raises enough red flags for me to not just go with it. You get create it all. I think it sounds like a fun experiment. I am interested already in what you might come up with.

 

Oh, this is interesting!

So, the children all resemble the mother and her family members physically, but resemble the father and his family members spiritually and temperamentally? Neat!

 

If you plan to alter the genetic progression inherent in biological reproduction, then you should be cautious to consider how that would effect biological dimorphism within the society. You mention males being big and strong, but remember that males only became 'big and strong' to compete with other males for reproductive rights. Consider within your society what would be the desirable traits of each gender and how those would be selected and nurtured. If magic gives control over so many aspects of reproduction, think of what traits men would be selected for in terms of 'passing on their spirit'. This could result in a relatively few jealously guarded (and controlled) 'studs' within a predominately female society, with the females themselves restructuring into differing castes of birthers, warriors, sorcerers, etc.. Just things to consider.

 

This is interesting and well thought out.

The only thing that confuses me is the ability to abort at will...if women have so much power they can determine the sex of their child in the womb, can they not choose when and when not to conceive? Control their hormones/ovulation?...

 

Men have no such thing. Men need to be socialized into becoming white knight providers for women. Especially magically empowered women who need no protecting. In a matriarchy, women are dominant and can leave relationships easily, and take the kids, and make the father pay for them still. Men have no guarantees of loyalty no matter how much work they put in. Women would have no social stigma against sleeping around and cucking a man. Having a higher status man impregnate and the lower status provider raise it. Single motherhood is norm in a matriarchy .Men would have no due process allowed against rape charges/violence against women (listen and believe/yes means yes) etc. More men would stay single than stay with a domineering, combative, nag of an empowered woman who could kick you out on the street anytime, take the kids, while having you fight wars for her and toil yourself toward a short lifespan. Simps are made, not born. Oh and you'll have a massive boy shortage, as women will choose the more valuable sex. A reverse China.

 

If they can determine the sex of the baby, then I'd imagine the society would be 90+% female. And all the males are simply kept for their necessity in the reproduction process. And you don't need many males to have a good reproduction rate, since their direct involvement in the biological process is very short compared to a woman's. In fact, they'd have a better reproduction rate, and have a huge population growth, unless the men are kept only for a certain caste of women.

Women are more valuable in our world. As mentioned above, you don't need many males to keep population growth up. E.g. if you have 100 men and 20 women, you can get maximum 20 babies every 9 months (excepting twins and the like). While if you have 100 women and 20 men, you can get 100 babies every 9 months.

So because of this, women are inherently more valuable from a biological point of view. That's why men and not women went out to fight and hunt -- it wasn't worth risking a woman's life.

 

A variety of men competing for women keeps the genepool at a high quality. But if women with their own group preferance* decide the sex, and if women have higher status in a matriarchy, you will have hardly any males born at all. Then these few men are sent to war and die, your society ends. Game over.

*"Women are wonderful" effect - Wikipedia women's in-group biases were 4.5 times stronger[5] than those of men

 

But why would men even go to war in this scenario? They're a rare reproductive resource and weaker since they have no access to magic. It makes no sense that they would risk their men like that.

 

The biggest potential trap would be to begin with the idea of homogeneity and construct your society from that basis.

In general, I think your ideas will work. But I think it'd be a mistake to visualize that society as if any single point within it is like every other single point: This household is like every other household; this neighborhood is like every other neighborhood; this family living on the edges of society is like the families who occupy the upper echelons; this individual is like every other individual; this man is like every other man and this woman is like every other woman; this woman's view of men is like every woman's view of men, and this man's view of women is like every man's view of women.

In a realistic society, there will be great variation.

If you begin with a limited extreme and universalize it, and make that the absolute and universal nature of your people, institutions, etc., at every point in society, you could possibly end up with something like La Volpe's description of a society that is 90+% female and men are around for their role in reproduction only. Or you could end up with Annoyingkid's prediction of a society that would drive itself to extinction long before your book begins.

But I think these are unrealistic views, or at least rather limited.

First, I assume that your society is still around because it developed in ways that permitted and even encouraged its continuation. So I'm curious to explore those factors that ameliorated the effects that extreme homogeneity and stringent absolutism would otherwise have wrought on your society.

Second, I think that you've already given some clues about those ameliorating factors. I'll look at those:

You haven't said that all women can access that magic, nor that every woman's access is equally strong. So I'm curious about this, and I'd suggest that you include variation in these things, for reasons I'll explain in a bit.

Magic is not the sort where you can launch a fireball at a suddenly violent aggressor—including male aggressors—or whip up chains to restrain an attacker. There is at least one burden to magic use, then: complexity, involving time constraints and resource restraints. This limits its use as a vehicle for domination (including of men), although by "limit" I don't think we should disregard those effects altogether.

As La Volpe has said, evolutionary paths have already followed a route for humans in which women are valued for their childbearing while men rush off to hunt and fight; so, this isn't particularly new. Also, in our society, the women's childbearing has been utilized for segregation of roles, already, i.e. institutionalized. But you've added some factors that are ahistorical and that lend weight to this segregation. In our own history, male domination of society could work (whether you like it or not) because most major warfare could be resolved by force of arms, whether interstate or intrastate warfare. In your society, this is not the case. So I can see this history of your world reinforcing the notion of segregation of roles in the way you propose. Religious and social norms could place greater emphasis on the idea of protection of women—even men would recognize that their own survival depended on these women.

But, the magic these women use is slow, resource-intensive. For comprehensive defense, they would need the "physical strength and prowess" of men.

So...so far so good. I can buy this.

But I would suggest drilling down into various different layers of your society to find the true variation within that society.

Perhaps what works in the humans vs demons/monsters dynamic would work in intrastate conflict, i.e. powerful women in conflict with other powerful women within the society. Each may well have powerful magic, but it's slow; keeping a personal army or bodyguard of men around would be a good idea. Merchant women may well need a sturdy set of transporters for their goods, to prevent thefts. Women who lead thieving guilds or assassin guilds—i.e., crime bosses—may well need dependable men for protection and for doing various dirty deeds in the night where danger levels are greatest. Perhaps other dangerous jobs in the society would be the province of men. (I.e., women are so valued naturally, they might not be placed in direct danger.)

Also, if you have variation in access to magic and magical proficiency among the women, perhaps those who have none or only limited ability would be more prone to have men in their employ and lots of sons. Men can work, earn a living, provide protection.

Basically, men are valued for more than their role in reproduction.

I'd look at the way women are not universally valued to the same degree, don't have identical status—among themselves, also. I'd look at the effects of economic inequality. I can see the way some women in powerful positions wouldn't want lots of daughters in a society because daughters are competition. The boss of a crime syndicate might not want her subordinates producing powerful magic-using daughters by the bushel-full. If a society has great need for men, perhaps the ruling families would have more freedom to produce daughters but would restrain the production of daughters among the lower classes—need the men for the army, labor, etc., and don't want lots of powerful competition being produced in the lower classes.

So...there are plenty of ways to go about creating a vibrant, self-sustaining matriarchal society in which only women can access magic while also having great reproductive control.

 

Women tend to want the best outcomes for their children, so will choose the sex with the much higher quality of life. There would need to be powerful personal motives to choose the lower status sex knowing their baby will have a much harsher, poorer life. Asking people to forego personal gain for the long term good of society doesn't work. We'd all be vegan and take the bus/cycle and donate blood much more if we were that selfless.