"Gynecocracy" and "Matriarch" redirect here. For the novel, see Gynecocracy (novel). For other uses, see Matriarch (disambiguation).

Matriarchy is a social system in which females hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property at the specific exclusion of men, at least to a large degree. While those definitions apply in general English, definitions specific to the disciplines of anthropology and feminism differ in some respects.

Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal, but some authors believe exceptions may exist or may have. Matriarchies may also be confused with matrilineal, matrilocal, and matrifocal societies. A few people consider any non-patriarchal system to be matriarchal, thus including genderally equalitarian systems, but most academics exclude them from matriarchies strictly defined.

In 19th century Western scholarship, the hypothesis of matriarchy representing an early, mainly prehistoric, stage of human development gained popularity. Possibilities of so-called primitive societies were cited and the hypothesis survived into the 20th century, including in the context of second-wave feminism. This hypothesis was criticized by some authors such as Cynthia Eller in The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory and remains as a largely unsolved question to this day. Some older myths describe matriarchies. Several modern feminists have advocated for matriarchy now or in the future and it has appeared in feminist literature. In several theologies, matriarchy has been portrayed as negative.

Definitions, connotations, and etymology

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), matriarchy is a "form of social organization in which the mother or oldest female is the head of the family, and descent and relationship are reckoned through the female line; government or rule by a woman or women."[1] A popular definition, according to James Peoples and Garrick Bailey, is "female dominance".[2] Within the academic discipline of cultural anthropology, according to the OED, matriarchy is a "culture or community in which such a system prevails"[1] or a "family, society, organization, etc., dominated by a woman or women."[1] In general anthropology, according to William A. Haviland, matriarchy is "rule by women".[3] A matriarchy is a society in which females, especially mothers, have the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, but does not include a society that occasionally is led by a female for nonmatriarchal reasons or an occupation in which females generally predominate without reference to matriarchy, such as prostitution or women's auxiliaries of organizations run by men. According to Lawrence A. Kuzner in 1997, A. R. Radcliffe-Brown argued in 1924 that the definitions of matriarchy and patriarchy had "logical and empirical failings .... [and] were too vague to be scientifically useful".[4]

Most academics exclude egalitarian nonpatriarchal systems from matriarchies more strictly defined. According to Heide Göttner-Abendroth, a 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,[5] while she believed that matriarchies are egalitarian.[5][6]

Margot Adler

The word matriarchy, for a society politically led by females, especially mothers, who also control property, is often interpreted to mean the genderal opposite of patriarchy, but it is not an opposite (linguistically, it is not a parallel term).[7][8][9] According to Peoples and Bailey, the view of anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday is that matriarchies are not a mirror form of patriarchies but rather that a matriarchy "emphasizes maternal meanings where 'maternal symbols are linked to social practices influencing the lives of both sexes and where women play a central role in these practices'".[10] Journalist Margot Adler wrote, "literally, ... ["matriarchy"] means government by mothers, or more broadly, government and power in the hands of women."[11] Barbara Love and Elizabeth Shanklin wrote, "by 'matriarchy,' we mean a non-alienated society: a society in which women, those who produce the next generation, define motherhood, determine the conditions of motherhood, and determine the environment in which the next generation is reared."[12] According to Cynthia Eller, "'matriarchy' can be thought of ... as a shorthand description for any society in which women's power is equal or superior to men's and in which the culture centers around values and life events described as 'feminine.'"[13] Eller wrote that the idea of matriarchy mainly rests on two pillars, romanticism and modern social criticism.[14] The notion of matriarchy was meant to describe something like a utopia placed in the past in order to legitimate contemporary social criticism. With respect to a prehistoric matriarchal Golden Age, according to Barbara Epstein, "matriarchy ... means a social system organized around matriliny and goddess worship in which women have positions of power."[15] According to Adler, in the Marxist tradition, it usually refers to a pre-class society "where women and men share equally in production and power."[16]

According to Adler, "a number of feminists note that few definitions of the word [matriarchy], despite its literal meaning, include any concept of power, and they suggest that centuries of oppression have made it impossible for women to conceive of themselves with such power."[16]

Matriarchy has often been presented as negative, in contrast to patriarchy as natural and inevitable for society, thus that matriarchy is hopeless. Love and Shanklin wrote:

When we hear the word "matriarchy", we are conditioned to a number of responses: that matriarchy refers to the past and that matriarchies have never existed; that matriarchy is a hopeless fantasy of female domination, of mothers dominating children, of women being cruel to men. Conditioning us negatively to matriarchy is, of course, in the interests of patriarchs. We are made to feel that patriarchy is natural; we are less likely to question it, and less likely to direct our energies to ending it.[17]

The Matriarchal Studies school led by Göttner-Abendroth calls for an even more inclusive redefinition of the term: Göttner-Abendroth defines Modern Matriarchal Studies as the "investigation and presentation of non-patriarchal societies", effectively defining matriarchy as non-patriarchy.[18] She has also defined matriarchy as characterized by the sharing of power equally between the two genders.[19] According to Diane LeBow, "matriarchal societies are often described as ... egalitarian ...",[20] although anthropologist Ruby Rohrlich has written of "the centrality of women in an egalitarian society."[21][lower-alpha 1]

Matriarchy is also the public formation in which the woman occupies the ruling position in a family.[1] For this usage, some scholars now prefer the term matrifocal to matriarchal. Some, including Daniel Moynihan, claimed that there is a matriarchy among Black families in the United States,[22][lower-alpha 2] because a quarter of them were headed by single women;[23] thus, families composing a substantial minority of a substantial minority could be enough for the latter to constitute a matriarchy within a larger non-matriarchal society.

Etymologically, it is from Latin māter (genitive mātris), "mother" and Greek ἄρχειν arkhein, "to rule".[24] The notion of matriarchy was defined by Joseph-François Lafitau (1681–1746), who first named it ginécocratie.[25] According to the OED, the earliest known attestation of the word matriarchy is in 1885.[1] By contrast, gynæcocracy, meaning 'rule of women', has been in use since the 17th century, building on the Greek word γυναικοκρατία found in Aristotle and Plutarch.[26][27]

Terms with similar etymology are also used in various social sciences and humanities to describe matriarchal or matriological aspects of social, cultural and political processes. Adjective matriological is derived from the noun matriology that comes from Latin word māter (mother) and Greek word λογος (logos, teaching about). The term matriology was used in theology and history of religion as a designation for the study of particular motherly aspects of various female deities. The term was subsequently borrowed by other social sciences and humanities and its meaning was widened in order to describe and define particular female-dominated and female-centered aspects of cultural and social life. The male alternative for matriology is patriology.

Related concepts

In their works, Johann Jakob Bachofen and Lewis Morgan used such terms and expressions as mother-right, female rule, gyneocracy, and female authority. All these terms meant the same: the rule by females (mother or wife). Although Bachofen and Lewis Morgan confined the "mother right" inside households, it was the basis of female influence upon the whole society. The authors of the classics did not think that gyneocracy meant 'female government' in politics. They were aware of the fact that the sexual structure of government had no relation to domestic rule and to roles of both sexes.

Words beginning with gyn-

A matriarchy is also sometimes called a gynarchy, a gynocracy, a gynecocracy, or a gynocentric society, although these terms do not definitionally emphasize motherhood. Cultural anthropologist Jules de Leeuwe argued that some societies were "mainly gynecocratic"[28] (others being "mainly androcratic").[28][lower-alpha 3]

Gynecocracy, gynaecocracy, gynocracy, gyneocracy, and gynarchy generally mean 'government by women over women and men'.[29][30][31][32] All of these words are synonyms in their most important definitions. While these words all share that principal meaning, they differ a little in their additional meanings, so that gynecocracy also means 'women's social supremacy',[33] gynaecocracy also means 'government by one woman', 'female dominance', and, derogatorily, 'petticoat government',[34] and gynocracy also means 'women as the ruling class'.[35] Gyneocracy is rarely used in modern times.[36] None of these definitions are limited to mothers.

Some question whether a queen ruling without a king is sufficient to constitute female government, given the amount of participation of other men in most such governments. One view is that it is sufficient. "By the end of [Queen] Elizabeth's reign, gynecocracy was a fait accompli", according to historian Paula Louise Scalingi.[37][lower-alpha 4] Gynecocracy is defined by Scalingi as "government by women",[38] similar to dictionary definitions[30][31][32] (one dictionary adding 'women's social supremacy' to the governing role).[33] Scalingi reported arguments for and against the validity of gynocracy[39] and said, "the humanists treated the question of female rule as part of the larger controversy over sexual equality."[40] Possibly, queenship, because of the power wielded by men in leadership and assisting a queen, leads to queen bee syndrome, contributing to the difficulty of other women in becoming heads of the government.

Some matriarchies have been described by historian Helen Diner as "a strong gynocracy"[41] and "women monopolizing government"[42] and she described matriarchal Amazons as "an extreme, feminist wing"[43][lower-alpha 5] of humanity and that North African women "ruled the country politically,"[41] and, according to Adler, Diner "envision[ed] a dominance matriarchy".[44]

Gynocentrism is the 'dominant or exclusive focus on women', is opposed to androcentrism, and "invert[s] ... the privilege of the ... [male/female] binary ...[,] [some feminists] arguing for 'the superiority of values embodied in traditionally female experience'".[45]

Intergenerational relationships

Some people who sought evidence for the existence of a matriarchy often mixed matriarchy with anthropological terms and concepts describing specific arrangements in the field of family relationships and the organization of family life, such as matrilineality and matrilocality. These terms refer to intergenerational relationships (as matriarchy may), but do not distinguish between males and females insofar as they apply to specific arrangements for sons as well as daughters from the perspective of their relatives on their mother's side. Accordingly, these concepts do not represent matriarchy as 'power of women over men'.[46]

Words beginning with matri-

Anthropologists have begun to use the term matrifocality. There is some debate concerning the terminological delineation between matrifocality and matriarchy. Matrifocal societies are those in which women, especially mothers, occupy a central position. Anthropologist R. T. Smith refers to matrifocality as the kinship structure of a social system whereby the mothers assume structural prominence.[47] The term does not necessarily imply domination by women or mothers.[47] In addition, some authors depart from the premise of a mother-child dyad as the core of a human group where the grandmother was the central ancestor with her children and grandchildren clustered around her in an extended family.[48]

The term matricentric means 'having a mother as head of the family or household'.

Venus von Willendorf

Matristic: Feminist scholars and archeologists such as Marija Gimbutas, Gerda Lerner, and Riane Eisler[49] label their notion of a "woman-centered" society surrounding Mother Goddess worship during prehistory (in Paleolithic and Neolithic Europe) and in ancient civilizations by using the term matristic rather than matriarchal.

Matrilineality, in which descent is traced through the female line, is sometimes conflated with historical matriarchy.[50] Sanday favors redefining and reintroducing the word matriarchy, especially in reference to contemporary matrilineal societies such as the Minangkabau.[51] The 19th-century belief that matriarchal societies existed was due to the transmission of "economic and social power ... through kinship lines"[52] so that "in a matrilineal society all power would be channeled through women. Women may not have retained all power and authority in such societies ..., but they would have been in a position to control and dispense power."[52]

A matrilocal society is one in which a couple resides close to the bride's family rather than the bridegroom's family; the term is by anthropologists.

History and distribution

Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal.[53][54][55] According to J. M. Adovasio, Olga Soffer, and Jake Page, no true matriarchy is known actually to have existed.[50] Anthropologist Joan Bamberger argued that the historical record contains no primary sources on any society in which women dominated.[56] Anthropologist Donald Brown's list of human cultural universals (viz., features shared by nearly all current human societies) includes men being the "dominant element" in public political affairs,[57] which he asserts is the contemporary opinion of mainstream anthropology. There are some disagreements and possible exceptions. A belief that women's rule preceded men's rule was, according to Haviland, "held by many nineteenth-century intellectuals".[3] The hypothesis survived into the 20th century and was notably advanced in the context of feminism and especially second-wave feminism, but the hypothesis is mostly discredited today, most experts saying that it was never true.[58]

Matriarchs, according to Peoples and Bailey, do exist; there are "individual matriarchs of families and kin groups."[2]

By region and culture

African Nations

Kandake - royal lineage of Ethiopia was passed through the woman only.

Ancient Near East

The Cambridge Ancient History (1975)[59] stated that "the predominance of a supreme goddess is probably a reflection from the practice of matriarchy which at all times characterized Elamite civilization to a greater or lesser degree".[lower-alpha 6]


Tacitus noted in his Germania that in "the nations of the Sitones a woman is the ruling sex."[60][lower-alpha 7]

Legends of Amazon women originated not from South America, but rather Scythia (present day Russia.) Historians note that the Sarmatians (present day Ukraine) are also descendants of the Amazonian women tribe. Note that eastern European women have the tallest average heights.[61]



Possible matriarchies in Burma are, according to Jorgen Bisch, the Padaungs[62] and, according to Andrew Marshall, the Kayaw.[63]

Mosuo woman

The Mosuo culture, which is in China near Tibet, is frequently described as matriarchal.[64] The Mosuo themselves often use this description and they believe it increases interest in their culture and thus attracts tourism. The term matrilineal is sometimes used, and, while more accurate, still doesn't reflect the full complexity of their social organization. In fact, it is not easy to categorize Mosuo culture within traditional Western definitions. They have aspects of a matriarchal culture: Women are often the head of the house, inheritance is through the female line, and women make business decisions. However, unlike in a true matriarchy, political power tends to be in the hands of males.[65]


In India, of communities recognized in the national Constitution as Scheduled Tribes, "some ... [are] matriarchal and matrilineal"[66] "and thus have been known to be more egalitarian".[67] According to interviewer Anuj Kumar, Manipur, India, "has a matriarchal society",[68] but this may not be a scholarly assessment.

Manipur, in north-east India, is not at all a matriarchy. Though mothers there are in forefront of most of the social activism, the society has always been a patriarchal. Their women power is visible because of historical reason. Manipur was ruled by strong dynasties. The need for expansions of borders, crushing any outsider threats etc. engaged the men. And so women had to take charge of home-front.

In the Dakshina Kannada district of Karnataka, many societies are matrilineal.

In Kerala, the Nair communities are matrilineal. Descent and relationship are determined through the female line.


According to William S. Turley, "the role of women in traditional Vietnamese culture was determined [partly] by ... indigenous customs bearing traces of matriarchy",[69] affecting "different social classes"[69] to "varying degrees".[69] According to Peter C. Phan, that "the first three persons leading insurrections against China were women ... suggest[s] ... that ancient Vietnam was a matriarchal society"[70] and "the ancient Vietnamese family system was most likely matriarchal, with women ruling over the clan or tribe"[71] until the Vietnamese "adopt[ed] ... the patriarchal system introduced by the Chinese",[71] although "this patriarchal system ... was not able to dislodge the Vietnamese women from their relatively high position in the family and society, especially among the peasants and the lower classes",[71] with modern "culture and legal codes ... [promoting more] rights and privileges" for women than in Chinese culture.[72] According to Chiricosta, the legend of Âu Cơ is said to be evidence of "the presence of an original 'matriarchy' in North Vietnam and [it] led to the double kinship system, which developed there .... [and which] combined matrilineal and patrilineal patterns of family structure and assigned equal importance to both lines."[73][lower-alpha 8][lower-alpha 9] Chiricosta said that other scholars relied on "this 'matriarchal' aspect of the myth to differentiate Vietnamese society from the pervasive spread of Chinese Confucian patriarchy"[74][lower-alpha 10] and that "resistance to China's colonization of Vietnam ... [combined with] the view that Vietnam was originally a matriarchy ... [led to viewing] women's struggles for liberation from (Chinese) patriarchy as a metaphor for the entire nation's struggle for Vietnamese independence."[75] According to Keith Weller Taylor, "the matriarchal flavor of the time is ... attested by the fact that Trung Trac's mother's tomb and spirit temple have survived, although nothing remains of her father",[76] and the "society of the Trung sisters" was "strongly matrilineal".[77] According to Donald M. Seekins, an indication of "the strength of matriarchal values"[78] was that a woman, Trưng Trắc, with her younger sister Trưng Nhị, raised an army of "over 80,000 soldiers .... [in which] many of her officers were women",[78] with which they defeated the Chinese.[78] According to Seekins, "in [the year] 40, Trung Trac was proclaimed queen, and a capital was built for her"[78] and modern Vietnam considers the Trung sisters to be heroines.[78] According to Karen G. Turner, in the 3rd century A.D., Lady Triệu "seem[ed] ... to personify the matriarchal culture that mitigated Confucianized patriarchal norms .... [although] she is also painted as something of a freak ... with her ... savage, violent streak."[79]

Native Americans

Girl in the Hopi Reservation

The Hopi (in what is now the Hopi Reservation in northeastern Arizona), according to Alice Schlegel, had as its "gender ideology ... one of female superiority, and it operated within a social actuality of sexual equality."[80] According to LeBow (based on Schlegel's work), in the Hopi, "gender roles ... are egalitarian .... [and] [n]either sex is inferior."[81][lower-alpha 11] LeBow concluded that Hopi women "participate fully in ... political decision-making."[82][lower-alpha 12] According to Schlegel, "the Hopi no longer live as they are described here"[83] and "the attitude of female superiority is fading".[83] Schlegel said the Hopi "were and still are matrilinial"[84] and "the household ... was matrilocal".[84] Schlegel explains why there was female superiority as that the Hopi believed in "life as the highest good ... [with] the female principle ... activated in women and in Mother Earth ... as its source"[85] and that the Hopi "were not in a state of continual war with equally matched neighbors"[86] and "had no standing army"[86] so that "the Hopi lacked the spur to masculine superiority"[86] and, within that, as that women were central to institutions of clan and household and predominated "within the economic and social systems (in contrast to male predominance within the political and ceremonial systems)",[86] the Clan Mother, for example, being empowered to overturn land distribution by men if she felt it was unfair,[85] since there was no "countervailing ... strongly centralized, male-centered political structure".[85]

The Iroquois Confederacy or League, combining 5–6 Native American Haudenosaunee nations or tribes before the U.S. became a nation, operated by The Great Binding Law of Peace, a constitution by which women participated in the League's political decision-making, including deciding whether to proceed to war,[87] through what may have been a matriarchy[88] or gyneocracy.[89] According to Doug George-Kanentiio, in this society, mothers exercise central moral and political roles.[90] The dates of this constitution's operation are unknown; the League was formed in approximately 1000–1450, but the constitution was oral until written in about 1880.[91] The League still exists.

George-Kanentiio explains:

In our society, women are the center of all things. Nature, we believe, has given women the ability to create; therefore it is only natural that women be in positions of power to protect this function....We traced our clans through women; a child born into the world assumed the clan membership of its mother. Our young women were expected to be physically strong....The young women received formal instruction in traditional planting....Since the Iroquois were absolutely dependent upon the crops they grew, whoever controlled this vital activity wielded great power within our communities. It was our belief that since women were the givers of life they naturally regulated the feeding of our people....In all countries, real wealth stems from the control of land and its resources. Our Iroquois philosophers knew this as well as we knew natural law. To us it made sense for women to control the land since they were far more sensitive to the rhythms of the Mother Earth. We did not own the land but were custodians of it. Our women decided any and all issues involving territory, including where a community was to be built and how land was to be used....In our political system, we mandated full equality. Our leaders were selected by a caucus of women before the appointments were subject to popular review....Our traditional governments are composed of an equal number of men and women. The men are chiefs and the women clan-mothers....As leaders, the women closely monitor the actions of the men and retain the right to veto any law they deem inappropriate....Our women not only hold the reigns of political and economic power, they also have the right to determine all issues involving the taking of human life. Declarations of war had to be approved by the women, while treaties of peace were subject to their deliberations.[90]

By chronology

Earliest prehistory and undated

The controversy surrounding prehistoric or "primal" matriarchy began in reaction to the book by Bachofen, Mother Right: An Investigation of the Religious and Juridical Character of Matriarchy in the Ancient World, in 1861. Several generations of ethnologists were inspired by his pseudo-evolutionary theory of archaic matriarchy. Following him and Jane Ellen Harrison, several generations of scholars, usually arguing from known myths or oral traditions and examination of Neolithic female cult-figures, suggested that many ancient societies might have been matriarchal, or even that there existed a wide-ranging matriarchal society prior to the ancient cultures of which we are aware. According to Uwe Wesel, Bachofen's myth interpretations have proved to be untenable.[92] The concept was further investigated by Lewis Morgan.[93] Many researchers studied the phenomenon of matriarchy afterward, but the basis was laid by the classics of sociology. The notion of a "woman-centered" society was developed by Bachofen, whose three-volume Myth, Religion, and Mother Right (1861) impacted the way classicists such as Harrison, Arthur Evans, Walter Burkert, and James Mellaart[94] looked at the evidence of matriarchal religion in pre-Hellenic societies.[95] According to historian Susan Mann, as of 2000, "few scholars these days find ... [a "notion of a stage of primal matriarchy"] persuasive."[96]

The following excerpts from Lewis Morgan's Ancient Society will explain the use of the terms: "In a work of vast research, Bachofen has collected and discussed the evidence of female authority, mother-right, and of female rule, gynecocracy." "Common lands and joint tillage would lead to joint-tenant houses and communism in living; so that gyneocracy seems to require for its creation, descent in the female line. Women thus entrenched in large households, supplied from common stores, in which their own gens so largely predominated in numbers, would produce the phenomena of mother right and gyneocracy, which Bachofen has detected and traced with the aid of fragments of history and of tradition."

Kurt Derungs is a non-academic author advocating an "anthropology of landscape" based on allegedly matriarchal traces in toponymy and folklore.

Paleolithic and Neolithic Ages

Friedrich Engels, in 1884, claimed that, in the earliest stages of human social development, there was group marriage and that therefore paternity was disputable, whereas maternity was not, so that a family could be traced only through the female line, and claimed that this was connected with the dominance of women over men or a Mutterrecht, which notion Engels took from Bachofen, who claimed, based on his interpretations of myths, that myths reflected a memory of a time when women dominated over men.[97][98] Engels speculated that the domestication of animals increased wealth claimed by men. Engels said that men wanted control over women for use as laborers and because they wanted to pass on their wealth to their children, requiring monogamy. Engels did not explain how this could happen in a matriarchal society, but said that women's status declined until they became mere objects in the exchange trade between men and patriarchy was established, causing the global defeat of the female sex[99] and the rise of individualism,[100] competition, and dedication to achievement. According to Eller, Engels may have been influenced with respect to women's status by August Bebel,[101] according to whom this matriarchy resulted in communism while patriarchy did not.[102]

Austrian writer Bertha Diener, also known as Helen Diner, wrote Mothers and Amazons (1930), which was the first work to focus on women's cultural history. Hers is regarded as a classic of feminist matriarchal study.[103] Her view is that in the past all human societies were matriarchal; then, at some point, most shifted to patriarchal and degenerated. The controversy was reinforced further by the publication of The White Goddess by Robert Graves (1948) and his later analysis of classical Greek mythology and the vestiges of earlier myths that had been rewritten after a profound change in the religion of Greek civilization that occurred within its very early historical times. From the 1950s, Marija Gimbutas developed a theory of an Old European culture in Neolithic Europe which had matriarchal traits, replaced by the patriarchal system of the Proto-Indo-Europeans with the spread of Indo-European languages beginning in the Bronze Age. According to Epstein, anthropologists in the 20th century said that "the goddess worship or matrilocality that evidently existed in many paleolithic societies was not necessarily associated with matriarchy in the sense of women's power over men. Many societies can be found that exhibit those qualities along with female subordination."[104] From the 1970s, these ideas were taken up by popular writers of second-wave feminism and expanded with the speculations of Margaret Murray on witchcraft, by the Goddess movement, and in feminist Wicca, as well as in works by Eisler, Elizabeth Gould Davis, and Merlin Stone.

"A Golden Age of matriarchy" was, according to Epstein, prominently presented by Charlene Spretnak and "encouraged" by Stone and Eisler,[105] but, at least for the Neolithic Age, has been denounced as feminist wishful thinking in The Inevitability of Patriarchy, Why Men Rule, Goddess Unmasked,[106] and The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory and is not emphasized in third-wave feminism. According to Eller, Gimbutas had a large part in constructing a myth of historical matriarchy by examining Eastern European cultures that she asserts, by and large, never really bore any resemblance in character to the alleged universal matriarchy suggested by Gimbutas and Graves. She asserts that in "actually documented primitive societies" of recent (historical) times, paternity is never ignored and that the sacred status of goddesses does not automatically increase female social status, and believes that this affirms that utopian matriarchy is simply an inversion of antifeminism.

The original evidence recognized by Gimbutas, however, of Neolithic societies being more egalitarian than the Bronze Age Indo-European and Semitic patriarchies remains valid. Gimbutas herself has not described these societies as matriarchal, preferring the term woman-centered or matristic. J.F. del Giorgio insists on a matrifocal, matrilocal, matrilineal Paleolithic society.[107]

Bronze Age

According to Rohrlich, "many scholars are convinced that Crete was a matriarchy, ruled by a queen-priestess"[108] and the "Cretan civilization" was "matriarchal" before "1500 B.C.," when it was overrun and colonized.[109]

Also according to Rohrlich, "in the early Sumerian city-states 'matriarchy seems to have left something more than a trace.'"[110]

One common misconception among historians of the Bronze Age such as Stone and Eisler is the notion that the Semites were matriarchal while the Indo-Europeans practiced a patriarchal system. An example of this view is found in Stone's When God Was a Woman, wherein she attempts to make out a case that the worship of Yahweh was an Indo-European invention superimposed on an ancient matriarchal Semitic nation. Evidence from the Amorites and pre-Islamic Arabs, however, indicates that the primitive Semitic family was in fact patriarchal and patrilineal. Meanwhile, the Indo-Europeans were known to have practiced multiple succession systems, and there is much better evidence of matrilineal customs among the Indo-European Celts and Germans than among any ancient Semitic peoples.

Women were running Sparta while the men were often away fighting. Gorgo, Queen of Sparta, responded to a question from a woman in Attica along the lines of, "why Spartan women were the only women in the world who could rule men?" Gorgo replied, "because we are the only women who are mothers of men".

Iron Age to Middle Ages

Arising in the period ranging from the Iron Age to the Middle Ages, several early northwestern European mythologies from the Irish (e.g., Macha and Scáthach), the Brittonic (e.g., Rhiannon), and the Germanic (e.g., Grendel's mother and Nerthus) contain ambiguous episodes of primal female power which have been interpreted as folk evidence of a real potential for matriarchal attitudes in pre-Christian European Iron Age societies. Often transcribed from a retrospective, patriarchal, Romanised, and Catholic perspective, they hint at an earlier, culturally disturbing, era when female power could have predominated. The first-century–attested historic British figure of Boudicca indicates that Brittonnic society permitted explicit female autocracy or a form of gender equality in a form which contrasted strongly with the patriarchal structure of Mediterranean civilisation.

20th–21st centuries

In 1995, in Kenya, according to Emily Wax, Umoja, a village only for women from one tribe with about 36 residents, was established under a matriarch.[111] Men of the same tribe established a village nearby from which to observe the women's village,[111] the men's leader objecting to the matriarch's questioning the culture[112] and men suing to close the women's village.[112] The village was still operational in 2005 when Wax reported on it.[111]

Spokespersons for various indigenous peoples at the United Nations and elsewhere have highlighted the central role of women in their societies, referring to them as matriarchies, or as matriarchal in character.[113][114]



A legendary matriarchy related by several writers was Amazon society. According to Phyllis Chesler, "in Amazon societies, women were ... mothers and their society's only political and religious leaders",[115] as well as the only warriors and hunters;[116] "queens were elected"[117] and apparently "any woman could aspire to and achieve full human expression."[118] Herodotus reported that the Sarmatians were descendants of Amazons and Scythians, and that their females observed their ancient maternal customs, "frequently hunting on horseback with their husbands; in war taking the field; and wearing the very same dress as the men". Moreover, said Herodotus, "no girl shall wed till she has killed a man in battle". Amazons came to play a role in Roman historiography. Julius Caesar spoke of the conquest of large parts of Asia by Semiramis and the Amazons. Although Strabo was sceptical about their historicity, the Amazons were taken as historical throughout late Antiquity.[119] Several Church Fathers spoke of the Amazons as a real people. Medieval authors continued a tradition of locating the Amazons in the North, Adam of Bremen placing them at the Baltic Sea and Paulus Diaconus in the heart of Germania.[120]


Robert Graves suggested that a myth displaced earlier myths that had to change when a major cultural change brought patriarchy to replace a matriarchy. According to this myth, in Greek mythology, Zeus is said to have swallowed his pregnant lover, the titan goddess Metis, who was carrying their daughter, Athena. The mother and child created havoc inside Zeus. Either Hermes or Hephaestus split Zeus's head, allowing Athena, in full battle armor, to burst forth from his forehead. Athena was thus described as being "born" from Zeus. The outcome pleased Zeus as it didn't fulfill the prophecy of Themis which (according to Aeschylus) predicted that Zeus will one day bear a son that would overthrow him.

Celtic myth and society

According to Adler, "there is plenty of evidence of ancient societies where women held greater power than in many societies today. For example, Jean Markale's studies of Celtic societies show that the power of women was reflected not only in myth and legend but in legal codes pertaining to marriage, divorce, property ownership, and the right to rule."[121]

South America

Bamberger (1974) examines several matriarchal myths from South American cultures and concludes that portraying the women from this matriarchal period as evil often serves to restrain contemporary women.

In feminist thought

For groups and communities without men, see separatist feminism.

While matriarchy has mostly fallen out of use for the anthropological description of existing societies, it remains current as a concept in feminism.[122][123]

Elizabeth Stanton

In first-wave feminist discourse, either Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Margaret Fuller (it is unclear who was first) introduced the concept of matriarchy[124] and the discourse was joined in by Matilda Joslyn Gage.[125] Victoria Woodhull, in 1871, called for men to open the U.S. government to women or a new constitution and government would be formed in a year;[126] and, on a basis of equality, she ran to be elected President in 1872.[127][128] Charlotte Perkins Gilman, in 1911 and 1914,[129] argued for "a woman-centered, or better mother-centered, world"[130] and described "'government by women'".[131] She argued that a government led by either sex must be assisted by the other,[132] both genders being "useful ... and should in our governments be alike used",[133] because men and women have different qualities.[134]

Cultural feminism includes "matriarchal worship", according to Prof. James Penner.[135]

In feminist literature, matriarchy and patriarchy are not conceived as simple mirrors of each other.[136] While matriarchy sometimes means "the political rule of women",[137] that meaning is often rejected, on the ground that matriarchy is not a mirroring of patriarchy.[138] Patriarchy is held to be about power over others while matriarchy is held to be about power from within,[136] Starhawk having written on that distinction[136][139] and Adler having argued that matriarchal power is not possessive and not controlling, but is harmonious with nature.[lower-alpha 13]

For radical feminists, the importance of matriarchy is that "veneration for the female principle ... somewhat lightens an oppressive system."[141]

Feminist utopias are a form of advocacy. According to Tineke Willemsen, "a feminist utopia would ... be the description of a place where at least women would like to live."[142] Willemsen continues, among "type[s] of feminist utopias[,] ... [one] stem[s] from feminists who emphasize the differences between women and men. They tend to formulate their ideal world in terms of a society where women's positions are better than men's. There are various forms of matriarchy, or even a utopia that resembles the Greek myth of the Amazons.... [V]ery few modern utopias have been developed in which women are absolute autocrats."[143]

A minority of feminists, generally radical,[122][123] have argued that women should govern societies of women and men. In all of these advocacies, the governing women are not limited to mothers:

Some such advocacies are informed by work on past matriarchy:

Robin Morgan

Some fiction caricatured the current gender hierarchy by describing a matriarchal alternative without advocating for it. According to Karin Schönpflug, "Gerd Brantenberg's Egalia's Daughters is a caricature of powered gender relations which have been completely reversed, with the female sex on the top and the male sex a degraded, oppressed group";[192] "gender inequality is expressed through power inversion"[193] and "all gender roles are reversed and women rule over a class of intimidated, effeminate men".[194] "Egalia is not a typical example of gender inequality in the sense that a vision of a desirable matriarchy is created; Egalia is more a caricature of male hegemony by twisting gender hierarchy but not really offering a 'better world.'"[194][195]

On egalitarian matriarchy,[196] Heide Göttner-Abendroth's International Academy for Modern Matriarchal Studies and Matriarchal Spirituality (HAGIA) organized conferences in Luxembourg in 2003[197] and Texas in 2005,[198][199] with papers published.[200] Göttner-Abendroth argued that "matriarchies are all egalitarian at least in terms of gender—they have no gender hierarchy .... [, that, f]or many matriarchal societies, the social order is completely egalitarian at both local and regional levels",[201] that, "for our own path toward new egalitarian societies, we can gain ... insight from ... ["tested"] matriarchal patterns",[202] and that "matriarchies are not abstract utopias, constructed according to philosophical concepts that could never be implemented."[203]

According to Eller, "a deep distrust of men's ability to adhere to"[204] future matriarchal requirements may invoke a need "to retain at least some degree of female hegemony to insure against a return to patriarchal control",[204] "feminists ... [having] the understanding that female dominance is better for society—and better for men—than the present world order",[205] as is equalitarianism. On the other hand, Eller continued, if men can be trusted to accept equality, probably most feminists seeking future matriarchy would accept an equalitarian model.[205]

"Demographic[ally]",[206] "feminist matriarchalists run the gamut"[206] but primarily are "in white, well-educated, middle-class circles";[206] many of the adherents are "religiously inclined"[206] while others are "quite secular".[206]

Biology as a ground for holding either males or females superior over the other has been criticized as invalid, such as by Andrea Dworkin[207] and by Robin Morgan.[208] A claim that women have unique characteristics that prevent women's assimilation with men has been apparently rejected by Ti-Grace Atkinson.[209] On the other hand, not all advocates based their arguments on biology or essentialism.

A criticism by Mansfield of choosing who governs according to gender or sex is that the best qualified people should be chosen, regardless of gender or sex.[210] On the other hand, Mansfield considered merit insufficient for office, because a legal right granted by a sovereign (e.g., a king), was more important than merit.[211]

Diversity within a proposed community can, according to Becki L. Ross, make it especially challenging to complete forming the community.[212] However, some advocacy includes diversity, in the views of Dworkin[144] and Farley.[213]

Prof. Christine Stansell, a feminist, wrote that, for feminists to achieve state power, women must democratically cooperate with men. "Women must take their place with a new generation of brothers in a struggle for the world's fortunes. Herland, whether of virtuous matrons or daring sisters, is not an option.... [T]he well-being and liberty of women cannot be separated from democracy's survival."[214] (Herland was feminist utopian fiction by Charlotte Perkins Gilman in 1911, featuring a community entirely of women except for three men who seek it out,[215] strong women in a matriarchal utopia[216] expected to last for generations,[217] although Charlotte Perkins Gilman was herself a feminist advocate of society being gender-integrated and of women's freedom.)[218]

Other criticisms of superiority are that it is reverse sexism or discriminatory against men, it is opposed by most people including most feminists, women do not want such a position,[lower-alpha 18] governing takes women away from family responsibilities, women are too likely to be unable to serve politically because of menstruation and pregnancy,[224] public affairs are too sordid for women[225] and would cost women their respect[226] and femininity (apparently including fertility),[227] superiority is not traditional,[228][lower-alpha 19] women lack the political capacity and authority men have,[lower-alpha 20] it is impractical because of a shortage of women with the ability to govern at that level of difficulty[226] as well as the desire and ability to wage war,[lower-alpha 21][lower-alpha 22][lower-alpha 23] women are less aggressive, or less often so, than are men[235] and politics is aggressive,[236] women legislating would not serve men's interests[226][237][238] or would serve only petty interests,[226] it is contradicted by current science on genderal differences,[239] it is unnatural,[240][241][lower-alpha 24][243] and, in the views of a playwright and a novelist, "women cannot govern on their own."[244] On the other hand, another view is that "women have 'empire' over men"[245] because of nature and "men ... are actually obeying" women.[245]

Pursuing a future matriarchy would tend to risk sacrificing feminists' position in present social arrangements, and many feminists are not willing to take that chance, according to Eller.[204] "Political feminists tend to regard discussions of what utopia would look like as a good way of setting themselves up for disappointment", according to Eller,[246] and argue that immediate political issues must get the highest priority.[246]

"Matriarchists", as typified by comic character Wonder Woman were criticized by Kathie Sarachild, Carol Hanisch, and some others.[247]

In religious thought


Some theologies and theocracies limit or forbid women from being in civil government or public leadership or forbid them from voting,[248] effectively criticizing and forbidding matriarchy. Within none of the following religions is the respective view necessarily universally held:

John Knox


Main articles: thealogy and Goddess movement

Feminist thealogy, according to Eller, conceptualized humanity as beginning with "female-ruled or equalitarian societies",[301] until displaced by patriarchies,[302] and that in the millennial future "'gynocentric,' life-loving values"[302] will return to prominence.[302] This, according to Eller, produces "a virtually infinite number of years of female equality or superiority coming both at the beginning and end of historical time."[303]

Among criticisms is that a future matriarchy, according to Eller, as a reflection of spirituality, is conceived as ahistorical,[205] and thus may be unrealistic, unreachable, or even meaningless as a goal to secular feminists.

In popular culture

Ancient theatre




Video Games

See also

Further reading


  1. Feminist anthropology, an approach to anthropology that tries to reduces male bias in the field
  2. Black matriarchy, the cultural phenomenon of many Black families being headed by mothers with fathers absent
  3. Androcracy, form of government ruled by males, especially fathers
  4. Queen Elizabeth I, queen regnant of England and Ireland in 1533–1603
  5. Amazon feminism, feminism that emphasizes female physical prowess toward the goal of gender equality
  6. Elamite civilization, an ancient civilization in part of what is now Iran
  7. Sitones, a Germanic or Finnic people who lived in Northern Europe in the 1st century AD
  8. North Vietnam, sovereign state until merged with South Vietnam in 1976
  9. Patrilineal, belonging to the father's lineage, generally for inheritance
  10. Confucianism, ethics and philosophy derived from Confucius
  11. Gender role, set of norms for a gender in social relationships
  12. Clan Mothers, elder matriarchs of certain Native American clans, who were typically in charge of appointing tribal chiefs
  13. Adler wrote a matriarchy is "a realm where female things are valued and where power is exerted in non-possessive, non-controlling, and organic ways that are harmonious with nature."[140]
  14. Anarcha-feminism, a philosophy combining anarchism and feminism
  15. For another definition of hag by Mary Daly, see Daly, Mary, with Jane Caputi, Websters' First New Intergalactic Wickedary of the English Language (London, Great Britain: Women's Press, 1988 (ISBN 0-7043-4114-X)), p. 137.
  16. Extrasensory perception (ESP), perception sensed by the mind but not originating through recognized physical senses
  17. Chauvinism, partisanship that is extreme and unreasoning and in favor of a group
  18. "Women do not run for office as readily as men do, nor do most women, it seems, call on them to run. It seems that they do not have the same desire to 'run' things as men, to use the word in another political sense that like the first includes standing out in front.... Women are partisan, like men; hence they are political, like men. But not to the same degree. They will readily sail into partisan conflict, but they are not so ready to take the lead and make themselves targets of partisan hostility (though they do write provocative books)."[219] [A] "study .... traces the gender gap ... to 'participatory factors,' such as education and income, that give men greater advantages in civic skills, enabling them to participate politically"[220] "[I]n politics and in other public situations, he ["the manly man"] willingly takes responsibility when others hang back.... His wife and children ... are weaker",[221] "manliness ... is aggression that develops an assertion, a cause it espouses"...[222] "a woman .... may have less ambition or a different ambition, but being a political animal like a man, she too likes to rule, if in her way".[223] See also Schaub (2006).
  19. "Athenians were extreme, but almost no Greeks or Romans thought women should participate in government. There was no approved public forum for any kind of women's self-expression, not even in the arts and religion [perhaps except "priestesses"]."[229][230]
  20. "[according to] Aristotle ....[,] [a]s women do not have the authority, the political capacity, of men, they are, as it were, elbowed out of politics and ushered into the household.... Meanwhile the male rules because of his greater authority".[231]
  21. "ability to fight .... is an important claim to rule ..., and it is the culmination of the aggressive manly stereotype we are considering", "who can reasonably deny that women are not as accomplished as men in battle either in spirit or in physique? .... Conservatives say that this proves that women are not the same as men", & "manliness is best shown in war, the defense of one's country at its most difficult and dangerous"[232] "there might come a point when ... stronger persons would have to be fought [by women] rather than merely told off.... The very great majority of women would take a pass on the opportunity to be GI Jane. In the NATO countries where women are allowed in combat units they form only 1 percent of the complement.... Whatever their belief about equality, women might reasonably decide they are needed more elsewhere than in combat"[233]
  22. GI Jane is 'a female member of a military'.[234]
  23. NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which provides collective military defense for member nations
  24. "Mrs. Woodhull offers herself in apparent good faith as a candidate, and perhaps she has a remote impression, or rather hope, that she may be elected, but it seems that she is rather in advance of her time. The public mind is not yet educated to the pitch of universal woman's rights" ... "At present man, in his affection for and kindness toward the weaker sex, is disposed to accord her any reasonable number of privileges. Beyond that stage he pauses, because there seems to him to be something which is unnatural in permitting her to share the turmoil, the excitement, the risks of competition for the glory of governing."[242]
  25. "Koranic verse 4: 34 ... has been used to denounce female leadership"[251] ("4: 34" spaced so in original), but the verse may apply to family life rather than to politics.[252] Roald (2001), pp. 189–190 cites, respectively, Badawi, Jamal, Gender Equity in Islam: Basic Principles (Indianapolis: American Trust Publications, 1995), p. 38 & perhaps passim, and Roald, Anne Sofie, & Pernilla Ouis, Lyssna på männen: att leva i en patriarkalisk muslimsk kontext, in Kvinnovetenskaplig Tidskrift, pp. 91–108 (1997).
  26. Another translation is, "a people which has a woman as a leader will not succeed."[253] The 2001 author's paraphrase of the hadith, "the people who have a female leader will not succeed", is at Roald (2001), p. 185.
  27. Although India is majority Hindu, it is officially secular, per Bacchetta (2002), p. 157.
  28. "I am assured that God hath reueled to some in this our age, that it is more then a monstre in nature, that a woman shall reigne and haue empire aboue man."[280]
  29. "To promote a woman to beare rule, superioritie, dominion or empire aboue any realme, nation, or citie, is repugnant to nature, contumelie to God, a thing most contrarious to his reueled will and approued ordinance, and finallie it is the subuersion of good order, of all equitie and iustice[.]"[281]
  30. Original sin, in Christianity, a state of sin, or violation of God's will, due to Adam's rebellion in the Garden of Eden


  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Oxford English Dictionary (online), entry matriarchy, as accessed November 3, 2013 (subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries).
  2. 1 2 Peoples & Bailey (2012), p. 259
  3. 1 2 Haviland, William A., Anthropology (Ft. Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 8th ed. 1997 (ISBN 0-15-503578-9)), p. 579.
  4. Kuznar, Lawrence A., Reclaiming a Scientific Anthropology (Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press (div. of Sage Publications), pbk. 1997 (ISBN 0-7619-9114-X)).
  5. 1 2 Goettner-Abendroth, Heide, Matriarchal Society: Definition and Theory, as accessed January 10, 2013.
  6. Lepowsky, M. A., Fruit of the Motherland: Gender in an Egalitarian Society (U.S.: Columbia University Press, 1993).
  7. Compare, in Oxford English Dictionary (online), entry patriarchy to entry matriarchy, both as accessed November 3, 2013. (Subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries.)
  8. Eller (1995), pp. 161–162 & 184 & n. 84 (p. 184 n. 84 probably citing Spretnak, Charlene, ed., Politics of Women's Spirituality: Essays on the Rise of Spiritual Power Within the Feminist Movement (Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, 1982), p. xiii (Spretnak, Charlene, Introduction)).
  9. Goettner-Abendroth (2009a), pp. 1–2
  10. Peoples & Bailey (2012), pp. 258-259
  11. Adler (2006), p. 193 (italics so in original)
  12. Love & Shanklin (1983), p. 275
  13. Eller (2000), pp. 12–13
  14. Eller (2011)
  15. Epstein (1991), p. 173 and see p. 172
  16. 1 2 Adler (2006), p. 194
  17. Love & Shanklin (1983)
  18. Introduction, in Second World Congress on Matriarchal Studies.
  19. DeMott, Tom, The Investigator (review of Bennholdt-Thomsen, Veronika, Cornelia Giebeler, Brigitte Holzer, & Marina Meneses, Juchitán, City of Women (Mexico: Consejo Editorial, 1994)), as accessed Feb. 6, 2011.
  20. LeBow (1984)
  21. Rohrlich (1977), p. 37
  22. Office of Policy Planning and Review (Daniel Patrick Moynihan, principal author), The Negro Family: The Case For National Action (U.S. Department of Labor, 1965), esp. Chapter IV. The Tangle of Pathology, authorship per History at the Department of Labor: In-Depth Research, all as accessed November 2, 2013.
  23. Donovan (2000), p. 171, citing Moynihan, Daniel, The Negro Family: The Case for National Action (1965) ("In this analysis Moynihan asserted that since a fourth of black families were headed by single women, black society was a matriarchy .... [and t]his situation undermined the confidence and 'manhood' of black men, and therefore prevented their competing successfully in the white work world.") and citing hooks, bell, either Ain't I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism (Boston: South End, 1981) or Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center (Boston: South End, 1984) (probably former), pp. 181–187 ("freedom came to be seen by some black militants as a liberation from the oppression caused by black women"), hooks, bell, pp. 180–181 ("many black men 'absorbed' the Moynihan ideology, and this misogyny itself became absorbed into the black freedom movement" and included this, "Moynihan's view", as a case of "American neo-Freudian revisionism where women who evidenced the slightest degree of independence were perceived as 'castrating' threats to the male identity"), and see hooks, bell, p. 79.
  24. "matriarchy". Online Etymology Dictionary.
  25. Edvard Westermarck (1921), The History of Human Marriage, Vol. 3, London: Macmillan, p. 108.
  26. Liddell, Henry George, & Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek–English Lexicon, for γυναικοκρατία.
  27. Liddell, Henry George, & Robert Scott, A Greek–English Lexicon, for γυ^ναικο-κρα^τέομαι.
  28. 1 2 Leeuwe, Jules de, untitled comment (November 18, 1977) (emphases so in original), as a response to and with Leacock, Eleanor, Women's Status in Egalitarian Society: Implications for Social Evolution, in Current Anthropology, vol. 33, no. 1, supp. Inquiry and Debate in the Human Sciences: Contributions from Current Anthropology, 1960–1990 (February, 1992 (ISSN 0011-3204 & E-ISSN 1537-5382)), p. 241.
  29. OED (1993), entries gynaecocracy, gynocracy, gynarchy & gyneocracy
  30. 1 2 Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (G. & C. Merriam (Merriam-Webster), 1966), entries gynecocracy, gynocracy, & gynarchy.
  31. 1 2 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 3d ed. 1992 (ISBN 0-395-44895-6)), entries gynecocracy, gynocracy, & gynarchy.
  32. 1 2 Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (N.Y.: Random House, 2d ed. 2001 (ISBN 0-375-42566-7)), entries gynecocracy & gynarchy.
  33. 1 2 Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (G. & C. Merriam (Merriam-Webster), 1966), entry gynecocracy.
  34. OED (1993), gynaecocracy
  35. OED (1993), gynocracy
  36. OED (1993), gyneocracy
  37. Scalingi (1978), p. 72
  38. Scalingi (1978), p. 59
  39. Scalingi (1978), p. 60 & passim
  40. 1 2 3 4 Scalingi (1978), p. 60
  41. 1 2 Diner (1965), p. 173
  42. Diner (1965), p. 136
  43. Diner (1965), p. 123 and see p. 122
  44. Adler (2006), p. 195
  45. Latter quotation: Davis, Debra Diane (2000). Breaking up [at] totality: A rhetoric of laughter. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press. p. 137 and see pp. 136–137 & 143. ISBN 0809322285. (brackets in title so in original) & quoting: Young, Iris Marion (1985). "Humanism, gynocentrism, and feminist politics". Women's Studies International Forum. Elsevier. 8 (3): 173. doi:10.1016/0277-5395(85)90040-8.
  46. Ferraro, Gary, Wenda Trevathan, & Janet Levy, Anthropology: An Applied Perspective (Minneapolis: West Publishing Co., 1992), p. 360.
  47. 1 2 Smith, R.T., Matrifocality, in Smelser & Baltes, eds., International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (2002), vol. 14, p. 9416 ff.
  48. Ruether, Rosemary Radford, Goddesses and the Divine Feminine: A Western Religious History, p. 18.
  49. Eisler, Riane, The Chalice and the Blade, as cited at the author's website, as accessed Jan. 26, 2011.
  50. 1 2 Adovasio, J. M., Olga Soffer, & Jake Page, The Invisible Sex: Uncovering the True Roles of Women in Prehistory (Smithsonian Books & Collins (HarperCollinsPublishers), 1st Smithsonian Books ed. 2007 (ISBN 978-0-06-117091-1)), pp. 251–255, esp. p. 255.
  51. Sanday, Peggy Reeves, Woman at the Center: Life in a Modern Matriarchy (Cornell University Press, 2004 (ISBN 0-8014-8906-7)).
  52. 1 2 Eller (1995), p. 152 and see pp. 158–161
  53. Goldberg, Steven, The Inevitability of Patriarchy (William Morrow & Co., 1973).
  54. Eller (2000)
  55. Encyclopaedia Britannica describes this view as "consensus", listing matriarchy as a hypothetical social system: Encyclopædia Britannica (2007), entry Matriarchy.
  56. Bamberger, Joan, The Myth of Matriarchy: Why Men Rule in Primitive Society, in M. Rosaldo & L. Lamphere, Women, Culture, and Society (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1974), p. 263.
  57. Brown, Donald E., Human Universals (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), p. 137.
  58. "The view of matriarchy as constituting a stage of cultural development now is generally discredited. Furthermore, the consensus among modern anthropologists and sociologists is that a strictly matriarchal society never existed." Encyclopædia Britannica (2007), entry Matriarchy.
  59. The Cambridge Ancient History (reprinted 2000, © 1975), vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 400.
  60. Tacitus, Cornelius, Germania (A.D. 98), as accessed June 8, 2013, paragraph 45.
    Paragraph 45:6: Suionibus Sithonum gentes continuantur, cetera similes uno differunt, quod femina dominatur: in tantum non modo a libertate, sed etiam a servitute degenerant. Hic Suebiae finis.
  61. Average height for women by country,
  62. Bisch, Jorgen, Why Buddha Smiles, p. 71 (Ahu Ho Gong, Padaung chief: "no man can be chief over women. I am chief of the men. But women, well! Women only do what they themselves wish" & "it is the same with women all over the world", pp. 52–53, & "no man can rule over women. They just do what they themselves want").
  63. Marshall, Andrew, The Trouser People: A Story of Burma in the Shadow of the Empire (ISBN 1-58243-120-5), p. 213 ("Kayaw societies are strictly matriarchal.").
  64. MacKinnon, Mark, In China, a Matriarchy Under Threat, in The Globe and Mail (Toronto, Ontario, Canada), August 15, 2011, 11:55p.
  65. Lugu Lake Mosuo Cultural Development Association, The Mosuo: Matriarchal/Matrilineal Culture (2006), retrieved July 10, 2011.
  66. Mukherjee, Sucharita Sinha, Women's Empowerment and Gender Bias in the Birth and Survival of Girls in Urban India, in Feminist Economics, vol. 19, no. 1 (January, 2013) (doi:10.1080/13545701.2012.752312), p. 9, citing Srinivas, Mysore Narasimhachar, The Cohesive Role of Sanskritization and Other Essays (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1989), & Agarwal, Bina, A Field of One's Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
  67. Mukherjee, Sucharita Sinha, Women's Empowerment and Gender Bias in the Birth and Survival of Girls in Urban India, in Feminist Economics, vol. 19, no. 1 (January, 2013) (doi:10.1080/13545701.2012.752312), p. 9.
  68. Kumar, Anuj, Let's Anger Her! (sic), in The Hindu, July 25, 2012, as accessed September 29, 2012 (whether statement was by Kumar or Kom is unknown).
  69. 1 2 3 Turley, William S., Women in the Communist Revolution in Vietnam, in Asian Survey, vol. 12, no. 9, September, 1972, p. 793 n. 1 (DOI 10.2307/2642829)  (subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries).
  70. Phan (2005), p. 12 and see pp. 13 & 32 (the "three persons" apparently being the sisters Trung Trac and Trung Nhi in A.D. 40, per p. 12, & Trieu Au in A.D. 248, per p. 13).
  71. 1 2 3 Phan (2005), p. 32
  72. Phan (2005), p. 33
  73. Chiricosta, Alessandra, Following the Trail of the Fairy-Bird: The Search For a Uniquely Vietnamese Women's Movement, in Roces & Edwards (2010), pp. 125, 126 (single quotation marks so in original).
  74. Roces & Edwards (2010), p. 125 (single quotation marks so in original).
  75. Roces & Edwards (2010), p. 125 (parentheses so in original).
  76. Taylor (1983), p. 39 (n. 176 omitted).
  77. Both quotations: Taylor (1983), p. 338
  78. 1 2 3 4 5 Seekins, Donald M., Trung Sisters, Rebellion of (39–43), in Sandler, Stanley, ed., Ground Warfare: An International Encyclopedia (Santa Barbara California: ABC-Clio, hardcover 2002 (ISBN 1-57607-344-0)), vol. 3, p. 898.
  79. Turner, Karen G., "Vietnam" as a Women's War, in Young, Marilyn B., & Robert Buzzanco, eds., A Companion to the Vietnam War (Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, hardback 2002 (ISBN 0-631-21013-X)), pp. 95–96 but see p. 107.
  80. Schlegel (1984), p. 44 and see pp. 44–52
  81. LeBow (1984), p. 8
  82. LeBow (1984), p. 18
  83. 1 2 Schlegel (1984), p. 44 n. 1
  84. 1 2 Schlegel (1984), p. 45
  85. 1 2 3 Schlegel (1984), p. 50
  86. 1 2 3 4 Schlegel (1984), p. 49
  87. Jacobs (1991), pp. 498–509
  88. Jacobs (1991), pp. 506–507
  89. Jacobs (1991), pp. 505 & 506, quoting Carr, L., The Social and Political Position of Women Among the Huron-Iroquois Tribes, Report of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology, p. 223 (1884).
  90. 1 2 George-Kanentiio, Doug, Iroquois Culture & Commentary (New Mexico: Clear Light Publishers, 2000), pp. 53–55.
  91. Jacobs (1991), p. 498 & n. 6
  92. Wesel, Uwe, Der Mythos vom Matriarchat. Über Bachofens Mutterrecht und die Stellung von Frauen in frühen Gesellschaften (Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 1980).
  93. Morgan, L., Ancient Society Or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization.
  94. Ruether, Rosemary Radford, Goddesses and the Divine Feminine: A Western Religious History, p. 15.
  95. Bachofen, Johann Jakob, Myth, Religion, and Mother Right.
  96. Mann, Susan, Presidential Address: Myths of Asian Womanhood, in The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 59, no. 4 (November, 2000), p. 839 and see p. 842 but see p. 839 & n. 12  (subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries).
  97. Engels (1984)
  98. Bachofen, Johann Jakob, Das Mutterrecht. Eine Untersuchung über die Gynaikokratie der alten Welt nach ihrer religiösen und rechtlichen Natur. Eine Auswahl herausgegeben von Hans-Jürgen Heinrichs (Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 1975 [1861]).
  99. Engels (1984), p. 70
  100. Engels (1984), p. 204
  101. Eller (2011), p. 115
  102. Bebel, August, Die Frau und der Sozialismus. Als Beitrag zur Emanzipation unserer Gesellschaft, bearbeitet und kommentiert von Monika Seifert (Stuttgart: Dietz, 1974 (1st published 1879)), p. 63.
  103. Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art: The Dinner Party: Heritage Floor: Helen Diner (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Brooklyn Museum, last updated March 27, 2007), as accessed March, 2008, & November 15, 2013.
  104. Epstein (1991), p. 173
  105. Epstein (1991), pp. 172–173
  106. Davis, Philip G., Goddess Unmasked (N.Y.: Spence Publishing, 1998 (ISBN 0-9653208-9-8)); Sheaffer, R., Skeptical Inquirer (1999) (review).
  107. del Giorgio, J.F., The Oldest Europeans (A.J.Place, 2006 (ISBN 978-980-6898-00-4)).
  108. Rohrlich (1977), p. 36 and see p. 37 ("Minoan matriarchate" (subquoting, at p. 37 n. 7, Thomson, George, The Prehistoric Aegean (N.Y.: Citadel Press, 1965), p. 450)), Baruch, Elaine Hoffman, Introduction, in Pt. Four (Visions of Utopia), in Rohrlich & Baruch (1984), p. 207 ("matriarchal societies, particularly Minoan Crete"), and Rohrlich (1984), p. 6 ("the Minoan matriarchy" & "Minoan Crete").
  109. Three quotations: Rohrlich (1977), p. 37
  110. Rohrlich (1977), p. 39, quoting Thomson, George, The Prehistoric Aegean (N.Y.: Citadel Press, 1965), p. 160.
  111. 1 2 3 Wax, Emily, A Place Where Women Rule, in The Washington Post, July 9, 2005, p. 1 (online), as accessed October 13, 2013.
  112. 1 2 Wax, Emily, A Place Where Women Rule, in The Washington Post, July 9, 2005, p. 2 (online), as accessed October 13, 2013.
  113. Tamang, Stella, Indigenous Affairs, vols. 1–2, no. 4, p. 46.
  114. Six Nations Women's Traditional Council Fire Report to CEDAW, p. 2.
  115. Chesler (2005), pp. 335–336 (italics omitted).
  116. Chesler (2005), pp. 335–336
  117. Chesler (2005), p. 336
  118. Chesler (2005), p. 336 (italics omitted)
  119. Strabo, 5.504.
  120. Ukert, F. A., Die Amazonen (Abhandlungen der philosophisch-philologischen Classe der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1849), 63.
  121. Adler (2006), p. 196 (italics so in original; p. 196 n. 20 citing Markale, Jean, Women of the Celts (London: Gordon Cremonesi, 1975)).
  122. 1 2 Weisberg, D. Kelly, ed., Applications of Feminist Legal Theory to Women's Lives: Sex, Violence, Work, and Reproduction (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996 (ISBN 1-56639-423-6)), p. 9 ("women must organize against patriarchy as a class") but see p. 11 ("some radical feminists ... opt ... for anarchistic, violent methods").
  123. 1 2 Dale, Jennifer, & Peggy Foster, Feminists and State Welfare (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986 (ISBN 0-7102-0278-4)), p. 52 ("radical feminist theory .... could, indeed, be said to point in the direction of 'matriarchy'") and see pp. 52–53 (political separatism).
  124. Donovan (2000), p. 55 & n. 15, citing Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, Address (Washington Woman's Rights Convention, 1869), in History of Woman Suffrage, vol. 2, pp. 351–353.
  125. Donovan (2000), p. 57, citing Gage, Matilda Joslyn, Woman, Church and State: A Historical Account of the Status of Women through the Christian Ages; with Reminiscences of the Matriarchate (Watertown, Mass.: Persephone Press, 1980 (1893)), p. 21.
  126. A Lecture on Constitutional Equality, also known as The Great Secession Speech, speech to Woman's Suffrage Convention, New York, May 11, 1871, excerpt quoted in Gabriel (1998), pp. 86–87.
  127. Gabriel (1998), passim, esp. pp. 54–57
  128. Underhill, Lois Beachy, The Woman Who Ran for President: The Many Lives of Victoria Woodhull (Bridgehampton, N.Y.: Bridge Works, 1st ed. 1995 (ISBN 1-882593-10-3), passim, esp. ch. 8.
  129. The dates are those of two original editions of the same work, both cited herein.
  130. Donovan (2000), p. 61, citing Gilman (2001), passim
  131. Donovan (2000), p. 62, citing Gilman (2001), p. 190
  132. Gilman (2001), p. 177 and see p. 153.
  133. Gilman (2001), p. 153
  134. Gilman (2001), pp. 153, 177
  135. Penner, James, Pinks, Pansies, and Punks: The Rhetoric of Masculinity in American Literary Culture (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2011 (ISBN 978-0-253-22251-0)), p. 235.
  136. 1 2 3 Eller (1991), p. 287
  137. Eller (2000), p. 12
  138. Eller (2000), p. 12 (quoting also Mary Daly ("matriarchy 'was not patriarchy spelled with an "m."'", probably – per Eller (2000), p. 12 n. 3 – in Daly, Mary, Beyond God the Father, p. 94)).
  139. Starhawk, Dreaming the Dark: Magic, Sex, and Politics (Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 15th Anniversary ed. 1997 (original 1982) (ISBN 0-8070-1037-5)), ch. 1 (original 1982 ed. cited in Eller (1991), p. 287).
  140. Adler (1979), p. 187, as quoted in Eller (1991), p. 287.
  141. Castro (1990), p. 42
  142. Willemsen (1997), p. 5
  143. Willemsen (1997), p. 6. See also Poldervaart (1997), p. 182 ("Tineke Willemsen distinghuishes [sic] in her article three large classes of utopias: ... 2) feminists who emphasize the difference [between "women and men ... in rights and possibilities"]; in these utopias women have a better position than men or feminine qualities are more valued than masculine ones").
  144. 1 2 3 Quotation: Take No Prisoners, in The Guardian, May 13, 2000, as accessed Sep. 6, 2010.
  145. Other than quotation: Dworkin, Andrea, Scapegoat: The Jews, Israel, and Women's Liberation (N.Y.: Free Press, 2000 (ISBN 0-684-83612-2)), p. 246 and see pp. 248 & 336.
  146. Ouma, Veronica A., Dworkin's Scapegoating, in Palestine Solidarity Review (PSR), Fall 2005, as accessed Oct. 21, 2010 (PSR was challenged on its reliability, in Frantzman, Seth J., Do Arabs and Jews Realize How Much They Look Alike?, in The Jerusalem Post, Jun. 10, 2009, 11:43 p.m. (op-ed opinion), as accessed May 15, 2011.)
  147. Schönpflug (2008), p. 22
  148. Chesler (2005), p. 347 (italics so in original) and see pp. 296, 335–336, 337–338, 340, 341, 345, 346, 347, & 348–349 and see also pp. 294–295
  149. Chesler (2005), p. 337 and see p. 340
  150. 1 2 3 Chesler (2005), p. 338
  151. Chesler, Phyllis, in Spender (1985), p. 214 (reply from Phyllis Chesler to Dale Spender).
  152. Spender (1985), p. 151 (emphasis in original).
  153. Spender (1985), p. 151
  154. Wittig (1985), passim and see pp. 114–115, 127, 131, & 134–135
  155. Wittig (1985), pp. 114–115
  156. Both quotations: Rohrlich (1984), p. xvii.
  157. Moi, Toril, Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory (London: Routledge, 2d ed., 2002 (ISBN 0-415-28012-5)), p. 78.
  158. Auerbach, Nina, Communities of Women: An Idea in Fiction (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978 (ISBN 0-674-15168-2)), p. 186.
  159. 1 2 3 4 Porter (1992), p. 267
  160. Wittig (1985), p. 112
  161. Zerilli (2005), p. 80, quoting Porter (1992), p. 261
  162. Farley (1984), pp. 237–238
  163. Farley (1984), p. 238 and see Baruch, Elaine Hoffman, Introduction, in Pt. Four (Visions of Utopia), in Rohrlich & Baruch (1984), p. 205.
  164. Farley (1984), p. 238
  165. Zerilli (2005), p. 80, purportedly quoting within the quotation Porter (1992), p. 261.
  166. Daly (1990), p. 15
  167. Daly (1990), p. xxvi
  168. Daly (1990), p. xxxiii
  169. Daly (1990), p. 375 & fnn. and see p. 384
  170. Daly (1990), p. 29
  171. Zerilli (2005), p. 101
  172. Eller (2000), p. 3
  173. Rountree (2001), p. 6
  174. Rountree (2001), pp. 5–9 & passim
  175. Mansfield (2006), p. 72
  176. Eller (1995), pp. 183–184
  177. Eller (1995), p. 184
  178. 1 2 Johnston, Jill, Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution (N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1973 (SBN (not ISBN) 671-21433-0)), p. 248 and see pp. 248–249.
  179. Franklin, Kris, & Sara E. Chinn, Lesbians, Legal Theory and Other Superheroes, in Review of Law & Social Change, vol. XXV, 1999, pp. 310–311, as accessed (at a prior URL) October 21, 2010 (citing in n. 45 Lesbian Nation, p. 15).
  180. Ross (1995), passim, esp. pp. 8 & 15–16 & also pp. 19, 71, 111, 204, 205, 212, 219 & 231
  181. Ross (1995), p. 204, citing McCoy, Sherry, & Maureen Hicks, A Psychological Retrospective on Power in the Contemporary Lesbian-Feminist Community, in Frontiers, vol. 4, no. 3 (1979), p. 67.
  182. Davis (1971), p. 18
  183. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Davis (1971), p. 339
  184. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Castro (1990), p. 35 and see pp. 26, 27, 32–36, & 42.
  185. Castro (1990), p. 36
  186. Echols (1989), pp. 183–184
  187. Tong, Rosemarie Putnam, Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 2d ed. 1998 (ISBN 0-8133-3295-8)), p. 23.
  188. Echols (1989), p. 184, quoting Barbara Mehrhof and Pam Kearon. Full names per Echols (1989), pp. 407, 409 & memberships per Echols (1989), pp. 388, 383 & 382. See also p. 253 ("moved toward ... matriarchalism").
  189. Echols (1989), pp. 183–184; foundership per Echols (1989), p. 388
  190. Morgan, Robin, Going Too Far: The Personal Chronicle of a Feminist (N.Y.: Random House, 1st ed. 1977 (ISBN 0-394-48227-1)), p. 187 (italics so in original).
  191. Adler (2006), p. 198 ("Maior" so in original)
  192. Schönpflug (2008), p. 108, citing Gerd Brantenberg, Egalia's Daughters (Norwegian original published in 1977).
  193. Schönpflug (2008), p. 19
  194. 1 2 Schönpflug (2008), p. 20
  195. Egalia's Daughters as fiction: WorldCat entry, as accessed August 29, 2012.
  196. Matriarchal Studies (International Academy HAGIA), as accessed January 30, 2011.
  197. 1st World Congress on Matriarchal Studies, also known as Societies in Balance, both as accessed January 29, 2011.
  198. Societies of Peace: 2nd World Congress on Matriarchal Studies (home page), as accessed January 29, 2011.
  199. For a review of the conferences, esp. that of 2005, by a participant, see Mukhim, Patricia, Khasi Matriliny Has Many Parallels, October 15, 2005, as accessed February 6, 2011 (also published in The Statesman (India), October 15, 2005).
  200. Goettner-Abendroth (2009a), passim
  201. Goettner-Abendroth (2009b), p. 23
  202. Goettner-Abendroth (2009b), p. 25 and see p. 24 and, in Goettner-Abendroth (2009a), Introduction & pts. I & VIII
  203. Goettner-Abendroth (2009b), p. 25 (emphasis so in original).
  204. 1 2 3 Eller (1991), p. 290
  205. 1 2 3 Eller (1991), p. 291
  206. 1 2 3 4 5 Eller (2000), p. 10 (whether author's data global unspecified)
  207. Dworkin, Andrea, Biological Superiority: The World's Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea (1977), from Dworkin, Andrea, Letters From a War Zone: Writings 1976–1989, Pt. III, Take Back the Day, as accessed December 25, 2010 (first published in Heresies No. 6 on Women and Violence, vol. 2, no. 2 (Summer 1978)).
  208. Morgan, Robin, The Demon Lover: On the Sexuality of Terrorism (N.Y.: Norton, 1989 (ISBN 0-393-30677-1) (rev. ed. 2000 (ISBN 0-7434-5293-3))), p. 27 (pagination per edition at
  209. Badinter, Elisabeth, trans. Julia Borossa, Dead End Feminism (Polity, 2006 (ISBN 0-7456-3381-1 & ISBN 978-0-7456-3381-7)), p. 32, in Google Books, as accessed December 4, 2010 (no source cited for Ti-Grace Atkinson's statement); Amazon Continues Odyssey, in off our backs, December, 1979 (interview) (mentioning "female nationalism" (relevant herein insofar as the female nationalism is matriarchal) & women as nation); Atkinson, Ti-Grace, Amazon Odyssey (N.Y.: Links, 1974 (SBN (not ISBN) 0-8256-3023-1)) (may preclude female nationalism (relevant herein insofar as female nationalism is matriarchal)); also there exists (not read by this Wikipedia editor) Atkinson, Ti-Grace, Le Nationalisme Feminin, in Nouvelle Questions Feministes 6–7, Spring 1984, pp. 35–54 (French) (Eng. trans., Female Nationalism (unpublished), was held by author) (relevant herein insofar as female nationalism is matriarchal) (cited by Ringelheim, Joan, Women and the Holocaust: A Reconsideration of Research, in Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 10, no. 4 (Summer, 1985) (Communities of Women), pp. 741–761 ([§] Viewpoint) (also in Rittner, Carol, & John K. Roth, eds., Different Voices: Women and the Holocaust (N.Y.: Paragon House, 1993), pp. 373–418) & by Weiss, Penny A., & Marilyn Friedman, Feminism & Community (Temple University Press, 1995 (ISBN 1-56639-277-2 & ISBN 978-1-56639-277-8)), p. 330.
  210. Mansfield (2006), pp. 241–242, citing Plato, Republic.
  211. Mansfield (2006), pp. 173–174 & nn. 14, 16–17, & 19, citing Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 10, 14–15, & 21, Tuck, Richard, Natural Rights Theories (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), ch. 6, & Tarcov, Nathan, Locke's Education for Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), p. 38.
  212. Ross (1995), p. 208
  213. Farley (1984), p. 238 (respecting Wittig, Monique, Les Guérillères).
  214. Stansell, Christine, The Feminist Promise: 1792 to the Present (N.Y.: Modern Library (Random House), 1st ed. 2010 (ISBN 978-0-679-64314-2)), p. 394.
  215. Bartkowski, Frances, Feminist Utopias (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989 (ISBN 0-8032-1205-4)), ch. 1.
  216. Donovan (2000), p. 48
  217. Schönpflug (2008), p. 21 and see p. 20–21.
  218. Gilman, Charlotte Perkins, What is "Feminism"?, in The Sunday Herald, vol. CXL, no. 65, September 3, 1916 (Extra ed.), [§] Magazine, p. [7] [of §], of The Boston Herald (Boston, Mass.) (on genderal integration: "essential duty of the female is ... in choosing a father for her children" & "women will always love men", both per col. 2, & "closer union, deeper attachment between men and women", per col. 3; on freedom: "[women's] full economic independence.... [and] freedom now allowed our girls", per col. 1, "freedom" (several references), per col. 2, & "feminism .... [will] set free four-fifths of its labor" & "comparative freedom of action possible to women today [1916]", both per col. 3) (microfilm (Bell & Howell)).
  219. Mansfield (2006), pp. 80–81
  220. Mansfield (2006), pp. 79–80
  221. Mansfield (2006), p. 17
  222. Mansfield (2006), p. 49 and see also pp. 170–171 & 204–206
  223. Mansfield (2006), p. 161
  224. Roald (2001), p. 195
  225. Donovan (2000), p. 30, citing Grimké, Sarah M., Letters on Equality of the Sexes and the Condition of Woman (N.Y.: Burt Franklin, 1970 (1838)), p. 81 (objecting to women "participating in government", "reflecting perhaps the Victorian notion that public affairs were too sordid for women").
  226. 1 2 3 4 Herzog (1998), pp. 424–425
  227. Richards (1997), p. 120, but see pp. 120–121.
  228. Mansfield (2006), p. 72 ("the evidence [is] ... of males ruling over all societies at almost all times" & "males ... have dominated all politics we know of") & 58 ("every previous society, including our democracy up to now, has been some kind of patriarchy, permeated by stubborn, self-insistent manliness" (italics omitted)) and see p. 66 (patriarchy as "based on manliness, not merely those governments staffed by males", applicability depending on the antecedent for "here").
  229. Ruden (2010), p. 80 (emphasis in original)
  230. Athenians discussed in the context of play by Aristophanes, Ruden (2010), pp. 78–80
  231. Mansfield (2006), p. 210
  232. Mansfield (2006), p. 75
  233. Mansfield (2006), p. 76
  234. Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang (N.Y.: Random House, 1st ed. 1994 (ISBN 0-394-54427-7)), vol. 1, p. 892, col. 2 (earliest example dated 1944).
  235. Mansfield (2006), pp. 63–64
  236. Mansfield (2006), p. 62
  237. Roald (2001), p. 269
  238. Not absolutely but relatively so: Mansfield (2006), p. 80 n. 51 ("successful ambition in women [i.e., "women holding office"] makes them more womanish in the sense of representing women's views").
  239. Mansfield (2006), p. 50 ("our science rather clumsily confirms the stereotype about manliness, the stereotype that stands stubbornly in the way of the gender-neutral society") and see pp. 43–49.
  240. Mansfield (2006), pp. 205–206
  241. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth, The Praxis of Coequal Discipleship, in Horsley, Richard A., ed., Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press Intntl., 1997 (ISBN 1-56338-217-2)), pp. 238–239 (probably from Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth, In Memory of Her (Crossroad Publishing, 1983) & edited), quoting Aristotle (Politics I.1254b) ("the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject").
  242. Editorial, New York Herald, May 27, 1870, p. 6, as quoted in Gabriel (1998), pp. 56–57
  243. Herzog (1998), p. 440
  244. Mansfield (2006), p. 131, citing Oscar Wilde (playwright, per p. 126), and Henry James (novelist, per p. 127).
  245. 1 2 Mansfield (2006), p. 195, citing Jean-Jacques Rousseau, per pp. 194–195.
  246. 1 2 Eller (1995), p. 207
  247. Siegel, Deborah, Sisterhood, Interrupted: From Radical Women to Grrls Gone Wild (N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007 (ISBN 978-1-4039-8204-9)), p. 65.
  248. "Holy Scripture inculcates for women a sphere higher than and apart from that of public life; because as women they find a full measure of duties, cares and responsibilities and are unwilling to bear additional burdens unsuited to their physical organization.", a "signed ... petition against female suffrage" (January, 1871), in Gabriel (1998), p. 83, citing The Press—Philadelphia, January 14, 1871, p. 8.
  249. Roald (2001), p. 185
  250. 1 2 Roald (2001), pp. 186–187
  251. Roald (2001), pp. 189–190
  252. 1 2 Roald (2001), p. 190
  253. Roald (2001), p. 188
  254. Roald (2001), pp. 186–189
  255. 1 2 Roald (2001), p. 196
  256. Roald (2001), pp. 196–197
  257. Roald (2001), pp. 185–186
  258. Roald (2001), p. 186 & ch. 8, passim
  259. Ikhwan web, Muslim Brotherhood on Muslim women in Islamic Society (October 29, 2005) (trans.), as accessed March 5, 2011, [§] The Woman's Right to Vote, Be Elected and Occupy Public and Governmental Posts., [sub§] Thirdly, Women's Holding of Public Office.
  260. Roald (2001), p. 198 (for study details, see Roald (2001), ch. 3, e.g., quantity of 82 per p. 64).
  261. Roald (2001), p. 197, quoting The Muslim Brotherhood, The Role of Women in Islamic Society According to the Muslim Brotherhood (London: International Islamic Forum, 1994), 14.
  262. The document stating it was not available at its official English-language website advanced search page, as accessed March 5, 2011 (search for "Role of Women in Islamic Society" without quotation marks yielding no results), but a document with similar relevant effect is Ikhwan web, Muslim Brotherhood on Muslim women in Islamic Society (October 29, 2005) (trans.), as accessed March 5, 2011 ("social circumstances and traditions" as justifying gradualism, per [§] A General Remark).
  263. Roald (2001), p. 34, citing Shafiq, Duriyya, al-Kitab al-abiyad lil-huquq al-mar'a al-misriyya (The White Paper on the Rights of the Egyptian Woman) (Cairo: n.p., 1953) (bibliographic information partly per Roald (2001), p. 25 n. 27)
  264. Rostami Povey, Elaheh, Feminist Contestations of Institutional Domains in Iran, in Feminist Review, no. 69, pp. 49 & 53 (Winter, 2001).
  265. Al-Mohamed, Asmaa, Saudi Women's Rights: Stuck at a Red Light (Arab Insight (World Security Institute), January 8, 2008), p. 46, as accessed December 28, 2010.
  266. Pinker, Steven, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (N.Y.: Viking, hardback 2011 (ISBN 978-0-670-02295-3)), pp. 366–367 and see pp. 414–415.
  267. Hartman (2007), p. 105, attributing the argument to Rav Kook, or Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook; "a significant spiritual leader of the ["early twentieth century"]", Hartman (2007), p. 101, citing, at Hartman (2007), pp. 101–102, Kook, Rav, Open Letter to the Honorable Committee of the "Mizrahi" Association (1919) ("In the Torah, in the Prophets and in the Writings, in the Halacha and in the Aggadah, we hear ... that the duty of fixed public service falls upon men.").
  268. Hartman (2007), p. 106
  269. Freeman (2003), pp. 59 & 65
  270. Freeman (2003), p. 65 (the tribunals are discussed in the context of "the marital law regime in each religion", including Judaism)
  271. Umanit (2003), p. 133
  272. Freeman (2003), p. 60
  273. Tsomo (1999), pp. 6–7
  274. 1 2 Tsomo (1999), p. 5
  275. Bacchetta (2002), p. 157
  276. 1 2 3 4 5 Bacchetta (2002), p. 168
  277. Bacchetta (2002), p. 168 (the 2 being Uma Bharati and Sadhvi Rithambara, both associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)), all according to Bacchetta.
  278. Bacchetta (2002), p. 168 & n. 76, citing Kelkar, Kakshmibai, Stri-Ek Urja Kendra: Strivishayak Vicharon Ka Sankalan (Nagpur: Sevika Prakashan, n.d.), ch. 2.
  279. de Abreu (2003), p. 167
  280. Knox (1878)(italicization and boldface, if any, removed).
  281. 1 2 Knox (1878)
  282. Felch (1995), p. 806
  283. 1 2 de Abreu (2003), p. 169
  284. Brammall (1996), p. 19
  285. 1 2 Brammall (1996), p. 20
  286. Healey (1994), p. 376
  287. Ridley, Jasper, John Knox (N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 267, as cited in Felch (1995), p. 805
  288. Reid, W. Stanford, Trumpeter of God: A Biography of John Knox (N.Y.: Scribner, 1974), p. 145, as cited in Felch (1995), p. 805
  289. Lee (1990), p. 242
  290. 1 2 Richards (1997), p. 116
  291. Laing, David, Preface (from extract), in Knox (1878)
  292. Lee (1990), pp. 250, 249, citing Goodman, Christopher, How Superior Powers Ought to be Obeyd (N.Y.: reprint, 1931, originally 1558) (chap. on gynecocracy).
  293. Richards (1997), p. 117
  294. Healey (1994), pp. 372, 373
  295. Healey (1994), pp. 372–373
  296. Healey (1994), p. 373
  297. Richards (1997), p. 115
  298. "There were occasionally women so endowed, that the singular good qualities which shone forth in them made it evident that they were raised up by Divine authority". Calvin, letter to William Cecil (on or after January 29, 1559 (probably 1560)), in Knox (1878) (citing, at Preface, n. 1, for letter, Zurich Letters (2d ser.), p. 35) (Calvin reviser, Commentaries on Isaiah (sometime in 1551–1559) (approximate title)).
  299. de Abreu (2003), pp. 168, 170–171, e.g., citing Aylmer (AElmer), John, An Harborowe for Faithfull and Trewe Subiects agaynst the late blowne Blast, concerninge the Gouernment of Wemen wherin be confuted all such reasons as a straunger of late made in that behalfe, with a briefe exhortation to obedience (1559).
  300. de Abreu (2003), p. 170
  301. Eller (1991), p. 281 and see pp. 282 & 287
  302. 1 2 3 Eller (1991), p. 281
  303. Eller (1991), p. 282
  304. 1 2 3 Mansfield (2006), pp. 73–74 & n. 37, citing Strauss, Leo, Socrates and Aristophanes (N.Y.: Basic Books, 1966), ch. 9, and Saxonhouse, Arlene W., Fear of Diversity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), ch. 1.
  305. Ruden (2010), p. 79
  306. Suksang, Duangrudi, Overtaking Patriarchy: Corbett's and Dixie's Visions of Women, in Utopian Studies, vol. 4, no. 2 (1993), pp. 74–93 (available via JStor).
  307. Hasan, Seemin, Feminism and Feminist Utopia in Rokeya Sakhawat Hossain's Sultana's Dream, in Kidwai, A.R., ed., Behind the Veil: Representation of Muslim Woman in Indian Writings in English 1950–2000 (APH Publishing Corp., 2007). Sultana's Dream (
  308. Weinbaum, Batya, Sex-Role Reversal in the Thirties: Leslie F. Stone's 'The Conquest of Gola,' in Science Fiction Studies, vol. 24, no. 3 (November, 1997), pp. 471–482 (available via JStor) ( alternative availability).
  309. Valdes-Miyares, Ruben, Morgan's Queendom: The Other Arthurian Myth, in Alvarez Faedo, Maria Jose, ed., Avalon Revisited: Reworkings of the Arthurian Myth (Peter Lang International Academic Publishers, 2007).
  310. Bright Hub Education (book summary).
  311. Fitting, Peter, Reconsiderations of the Separatist Paradigm in Recent Feminist Science Fiction, in Science Fiction Studies, vol. 19, no. 1 (March, 1992), pp. 32–48 (available via JStor).
  312. Publishers Weekly (book review (reviewed September 27, 2004)).
  313. Traynor, Page, A Brother's Price, in RT Book Reviews (review).
  314. Newitz, Annalee (May 6, 2008). "Environmental Fascists Fight Gun-Loving Lesbians for Alien Technology". io9. Retrieved January 19, 2016.
  315. Stanley, O'Brien, Nicki L. Michalski, & Ruth J. H. Stanley, Are There Tea Parties on Mars? Business and Politics in Science Fiction Films, in Journal of Literature and Art Studies, vol. 2, no. 3 (March, 2012), pp. 382–396.
  316. Bond, Jeff, Reviews: Gene Roddenberry's 'Genesis II' & 'Planet Earth' (
  317. Sharp, Sharon, Star Maidens: Gender and Science Fiction in the 1970s, in Science Fiction Film and Television, vol. 1, no. 2 (2008), pp. 275–287.
  318. Muir, John Kenneth, The (Cult-TV) War on Men: Seven Female-Dominated Societies that Have it in for Males (May 3, 2012), in John Kenneth Muir's Reflections on Cult Movies and Classic TV (blog).
  319. Coussement, Laura Nadine, The Other in Star Trek: A Comparison of The Original Series and The Next Generation (VDM Verlag Dr. Muller, 2011).


  • de Abreu, Maria (2003). "John Knox: Gynaecocracy, 'The Monstrous Empire of Women'". Reformation & Renaissance Review: Journal of the Society for Reformation Studies. 5 (2): 166–187. doi:10.1558/rarr. 
  • Adler, Margot (2006) [1979]. Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America. New York, NY: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-303819-2. 
  • Bacchetta, Paola (2002). "Hindu nationalist women: on the use of the feminine symbolic to (temporarily) displace male authority". In Laurie L. Patton. Jewels of Authority: Women and Textual Tradition in Hindu India. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-513478-8. 
  • Brammall, Kathryn M. (1996). "Monstrous metamorphosis: nature, morality, and the rhetoric of monstrosity in Tudor England". The Sixteenth Century Journal. 27 (1): 3–21. JSTOR 2544266. 
  • Castro, Ginette (1990). American Feminism: a Contemporary History. Translated by Elizabeth Loverde-Bagwell. New York, NY: New York University Press. ISBN 0-8147-1448-X.  – translated from Radioscopie du féminisme américain (Paris, France: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, 1984)
  • Chesler, Phyllis (2005). Women and Madness. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-6897-7. 
  • Daly, Mary (1990) [1978]. Gyn/Ecology: the Metaethics of Radical Feminism. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-1413-3. 
  • Davis, Elizabeth Gould (1971). The First Sex. New York, NY: G. P. Putnam's Sons. LCCN 79-150582. 
  • Diner, Helen (1965). Mothers and Amazons: The First Feminine History of Culture. Edited and translated by John Philip Lundin. New York, NY: Julian Press. 
  • Donovan, Josephine (2000). Feminist Theory: The Intellectual Traditions (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Continuum. ISBN 0-8264-1248-3. 
  • Echols, Alice (1989). Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America 1967–1975. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0-8166-1787-2. 
  • Eller, Cynthia (1991). "Relativizing the patriarchy: the sacred history of the feminist spirituality movement". History of Religions. 30 (3). 
  • Eller, Cynthia (1995). Living in the Lap of the Goddess: The Feminist Spirituality Movement in America. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-6507-2. 
  • Eller, Cynthia (2000). The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-6792-X. 
  • Eller, Cynthia (2011). Gentlemen and Amazons: The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory, 1861–1900. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 
  • Engels, Friedrich (1984). Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigenthums und des Staates. Im Anschluss an Lewis H. Morgans Forschungen (in German). Berlin: Dietz. 
  • Epstein, Barbara (1991). Political Protest and Cultural Revolution: Nonviolent Direct Action in the 1970s and 1980s. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-07010-0. 
  • Farley, Tucker (1984). "Realities and fictions: lesbian visions of Utopia". In Ruby Rohrlich & Elaine Hoffman Baruch. Women in Search of Utopia: Mavericks and Mythmakers. New York, NY: Schocken Books. ISBN 0-8052-0762-7. 
  • Felch, Susan M. (1995). The rhetoric of Biblical authority: John Knox and the question of women. The Sixteenth Century Journal. 26. pp. 805–822. JSTOR 2543787. 
  • Freeman, Marsha (2003). "Women, law, religion, and politics in Israel: a human rights perspective". In Kalpana Misra & Melanie S. Rich. Jewish Feminism in Israel. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. ISBN 1-58465-325-6. 
  • Gabriel, Mary (1998). Notorious Victoria: The Life of Victoria Woodhull, Uncensored. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books. ISBN 1-56512-132-5. 
  • Gilman, Charlotte Perkins (2001) [1914]. The Man-Made World; or, Our Androcentric Culture. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books. ISBN 1-57392-959-X. 
  • Goettner-Abendroth, Heide, ed. (2009a). Societies of Peace: Matriarchies Past, Present and Future: Selected Papers: First World Congress on Matriarchal Studies, 2003 / Second World Congress on Matriarchal Studies, 2005. Toronto: Inanna Publications. ISBN 978-0-9782233-5-9. 
  • Goettner-Abendroth, Heide (2009b). "The deep structure of matriarchal society: findings and political relevance of modern matriarchal studies". In Heide Goettner-Abendroth. Societies of Peace: Matriarchies Past, Present and Future: Selected Papers: First World Congress on Matriarchal Studies, 2003 / Second World Congress on Matriarchal Studies, 2005. Translated by Karen Smith. Toronto: Inanna Publications. ISBN 978-0-9782233-5-9. 
  • Hartman, Tova (2007). Feminism Encounters Traditional Judaism: Resistance and Accommodation. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press. ISBN 978-1-58465-659-3. 
  • Healey, Robert M. (1994). "Waiting for Deborah: John Knox and Four Ruling Queens". The Sixteenth Century Journal: The Journal of Early Modern Studies. 25 (2): 371–386. JSTOR 2542887. 
  • Herzog, Don (1998). Poisoning the Minds of the Lower Orders. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-04831-2. 
  • Jacobs, Renée E. (1991). "Iroquois Great Law of Peace and the United States Constitution: How the Founding Fathers Ignored the Clan Mothers". American Indian Law Review. 16 (2): 497–531. JSTOR 20068706. 
  • Knox, John (1878) [1558]. Edward Arber, ed. The First Blast of the Trumpet against the monstruous regiment of Women. English Scholar's Library. 2. 
  • LeBow, Diane (1984). "Rethinking matriliny among the Hopi". In Ruby Rohrlich & Elaine Hoffman Baruch. Women in Search of Utopia: Mavericks and Mythmakers. New York, NY: Schocken Books. pp. 8–20. ISBN 0-8052-0762-7. 
  • Lee, Patricia-Ann (1990). "A bodye politique to governe: Aylmer, Knox and the debate on queenship". The Historian. 52 (2): 242–261. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6563.1990.tb00780.x. 
  • Love, Barbara; Shanklin, Elizabeth (1983). "The answer is matriarchy". In Joyce Trebilcot. Mothering: Essays in Feminist Theory. New Jersey: Rowman & Allenheld. 
  • Mansfield, Harvey Claflin (2006). Manliness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-10664-0. 
  • The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1993. ISBN 0-19-861271-0. 
  • Peoples, James; Bailey, Garrick (2012). Humanity: An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology (9th ed.). Australia: Wadsworth. ISBN 978-1-111-30152-1. 
  • Phan, Peter C. (2005). Vietnamese-American Catholics. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. ISBN 0-8091-4352-6. 
  • Poldervaart, Saskia (1997). "Utopianism and feminism: some conclusions". In Alkeline van Lenning, Marrie Bekker & Ine Vanwesenbeeck. Feminist Utopias: In a Postmodern Era. Tilburg University Press. pp. 177–194. ISBN 90-361-9747-3. 
  • Porter, Laurence M. (1992). "Feminist fantasy and open structure in Monique Wittig's Les Guérillères". In Donald E. Morse, Marshall B. Tymn & Csilla Bertha. The Celebration of the Fantastic: Selected Papers from the Tenth Anniversary International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. pp. 261–270. ISBN 0-313-27814-8. 
  • Roald, Anne Sofie (2001). Women in Islam: The Western Experience. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-24896-5. 
  • Richards, Judith M. (1997). ""To promote a woman to beare rule": talking of queens in mid-Tudor England". The Sixteenth Century Journal. 28 (1): 101–121. JSTOR 2543225. 
  • Roces, Mina; Edwards, Louise P., eds. (2010). Women's Movements in Asia: Feminisms and Transnational Activism. Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN 9780415487030. 
  • Rohrlich, Ruby (1977). "Women in transition: Crete and Sumer". In Renate Bridenthal & Claudia Koontz. Becoming Visible: Women in European History. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. pp. 36–59. ISBN 9780395244777. 
  • Rohrlich, Ruby (1984). "Introduction". In Ruby Rohrlich & Elaine Hoffman Baruch. Women in Search of Utopia: Mavericks and Mythmakers. New York, NY: Schocken Books. ISBN 0-8052-0762-7. 
  • Ross, Becki L. (1995). The House That Jill Built: A Lesbian Nation in Formation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-7479-0. 
  • Rountree, Kathryn (2001). The past is a foreigners' country: goddess feminists, archaeologists, and the appropriation of prehistory. Journal of Contemporary Religion. 16. pp. 5–27. doi:10.1080/13537900123321. 
  • Ruden, Sarah (2010). Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in his Own Time. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. ISBN 978-0-375-42501-1. 
  • Scalingi, Paula Louise (1978). "The Scepter or the Distaff: The Question of Female Sovereignty, 1516–1607". The Historian. 41 (1). 
  • Schaub, Diana (2006). "Man's field: a review of Manliness, by Harvey C. Mansfield". Claremont Review of Books. VI (2). 
  • Schlegel, Alice (1984). "Hopi gender ideology of female superiority". Quarterly Journal of Ideology: "A Critique of the Conventional Wisdom". VIII (4). 
  • Schönpflug, Karin (2008). Feminism, Economics and Utopia: Time Travelling Through Paradigms. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-41784-6. 
  • Spender, Dale (1985). For the Record: The Making and Meaning of Feminist Knowledge. London: The Women's Press. ISBN 0-7043-2862-3. 
  • Taylor, Keith Weller (1983). The Birth of Vietnam. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-04428-2. 
  • Tsomo, Karma Lekshe (1999). "Mahāprajāpatī's legacy: the Buddhist women's movement: an introduction". In Karma Lekshe Tsomo. Buddhist Women Across Cultures: Realizations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. ISBN 0-7914-4138-5. 
  • Umanit, Irit (2003). "Violence against women". In Kalpana Misra & Melanie S. Rich. Jewish Feminism in Israel. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. ISBN 1-58465-325-6. 
  • Willemsen, Tineke M. (1997). "Feminism and utopias: an introduction". In Alkeline van Lenning, Marrie Bekker & Ine Vanwesenbeeck. Feminist Utopias: In a Postmodern Era. Tilburg University Press. pp. 1–10. ISBN 90-361-9747-3. 
  • Wittig, Monique (1985) [1969]. Les Guérillères. Translated by David Le Vay. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-6301-0. 
  • Zerilli, Linda M. G. (2005). Feminism and the Abyss of Freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-98133-9. 

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/4/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.