How is patriarchy different from matriarchy?

The mystery of matriarchy and patriarchy

It is not discussed at the moment, but there is a subliminal fear of men about the return of matriarchy.
This can be seen not least in the fact that many people stop thinking precisely on this question, in fact refusing to reflect on anything other than a patriarchal form of society, even if they have reached their limits in their adaptation and equality .

Therefore, when it comes to violence and gender, it is not only necessary to describe what was or is historically the case, but also why and for what rulership, the "patriarchy", came about in the first place and what it looks like.

The connection between violence and gender is always tied to a form of rule, because rule as such has arisen from men over women and continues to develop.

Violence is historically male violence, and domination is historically male domination, and 90% of the time it still is.
Rule and violence are male inventions, but not by nature, but by culture: They are inventions by men in patriarchy. Nothing of the kind is reported about men in matriarchy, on the contrary, nothing seems to be further from them than an idea of ​​domination, let alone a corresponding practice.

And here, too, this is not due to a different “nature” of the men in matriarchy, but to the matriarchal culture.

The matriarchal culture is downright aiming to make claims to power and rule of individuals or groups systematically impossible, to undermine them and to prevent them socially at all costs.

In matriarchal societies, claims to power are considered antisocial and endangering the community, as superfluous and ridiculous, as stupid and counterproductive for life in community.

It is therefore no coincidence that, although women's rule has not been discovered anywhere in history, the discussion about matriarchal societies is always confusing as long as matriarchy is understood to mean women's rule, just as patriarchy means male or father rule.

Because of the projection of male behavior patterns onto women, the concept of matriarchy is often burdened or rejected as unhistorical. With this, however, the possibility of thinking of a non-lordly (former or future) social organization is completely eliminated, because then there is no longer a term available for it.

Or, as in the discussion of the 19th century, the matriarchy is seen as an evolutionary preliminary stage of a patriarchy that necessarily develops from it as the "higher" level of society (cf. the founder of matriarchy research Bachofen), so that it again is not an alternative to Patriarchy is understood.

And finally, there has recently been the contribution of “gender” research to this. In it, every memory of matriarchal societies, even the fact that we all come from mothers and therefore the question of mothers is the basic question of every society, is not only negated, but every attempt in this direction as "conservative", "backward" or even "Reactionary", yes "fascistoid" defamed - because National Socialism, albeit in its own way, also dealt with the question of mothers.
For this latest variant of the discussion, the question of alleged matriarchal rule or a "matriarchy" simply does not arise (anymore) because the new reproductive technologies promise that in the future life will be born without mothers anyway - allegedly that is supposed to be the case already be the case (von Braun 2000) - in the finite realization of the old patriarchal dream: "There is fatherhood even without a mother".

The mystery of matriarchy and patriarchy begins to be solved when one deals with etymology. The word ark (Patriarchy, matriarchy, hierarchy, anarchy, architecture, archaic ...) initially does not mean rule, but beginning, beginning, origin, uterus.
According to this, matriarchy would simply mean: “in the beginning the mothers”, or the mothers as the beginning, which initially means nothing else than that all new life comes from mothers and that they have organized themselves around this fact.

Matriarchies are societies in which women and mothers come together to secure the existence of new life, to care for this life, to enjoy it and to put it at the center of the community. All descriptions of matriarchal societies correspond to this picture.

Patriarchy would then no longer mean paternal rule, but rather: the fathers at the beginning, or fathers as the beginning of life. This, in turn, would be difficult to understand. What is the beginning of “fathers”? In any case, they are not at the beginning of the life that is coming into being.
That is why there is no term for “father” in matriarchal societies.

Men in matriarchy are brothers, uncles, sons, lovers, "heroes" and husbands.

The moment there is talk of “fathers” at all, they stand at the beginning of rule. That is why patriarchy is usually translated as the rule of the fathers. But that is by no means the end of the matter.

Because what does “fathers” mean here? And what does their “rule” mean?
What, by whom, how and why is ruling?

The "ruling father", the patriarch, sits at the beginning of the rule as well as that of the origin, as the alleged creator of life he is the "lord" from whom everything comes and descends: the tribe "father".
From now on he passes on the name, is his place where the women go, is it the center of the social life of the community.

It is noticeable that in patriarchy everything is reversed what was valid in matriarchy: instead of mother there is now father.
But this also means usurping the mother, her admiration, her "good reputation" and the long historical experience that one has with her.

The mother is appropriated for the purposes of patriarchy and thus negated and perverted in her meaning. Because there is nothing wrong with men assuming their responsibility for life in order to imitate their mothers. But then they would not have needed a patriarchal society, because that is exactly what they did in matriarchy.

The concept of patriarchy in the sense of “in the beginning the fathers” or father as the beginning of life, on the other hand, shows us that something completely different is at stake here. If the fathers set themselves as the origin, then not also, together with the mothers, but against them, instead of them.

The concept of patriarchy is therefore a challenge to women and their “maternal” matriarchal social order, to nature and life, insofar as it arises in mothers and not in fathers.

But it is also a challenge to previous perception, to the senses, to thinking and feeling, which is now confronted with a lie that disguises itself as a powerful program, project and utopian vision of the new society.

Patriarchates must give the cyclicality and independence of the world an evolutionary theory and rigid direction of development, which should culminate in the fact that in a utopian future, in a "higher" social formation, all dependencies on earthly life, nature and women, matter and the senses would be overcome.

The patriarchy does not want to accept the matriarchal society, the normal case up to now, but rather to submit and ultimately destroy it. It wants to become independent of it in every respect and replace it with an allegedly possible better, more civilized, higher and more cultivated form of society that is more appropriate to the alleged evolution of nature.
The origin of life is actually due to the species of men, especially the "fathers", rulers or institutions that supposedly can create new life, the creators who now take the place of the creators, the gods who suddenly take the place of the goddesses step and the power of creation, the power of life, now as power over, and that means against life for yourself.

Only this completely newly understood power, the "political" power, to want to achieve and maintain, means domination.

How directly the first patriarchs understood themselves as creators of life becomes clear, for example, in Pharaoh Akhenaten, who not only distinguished himself as the founder of the first monotheism, the Aton religion, but also as a pregnant man (cf.Wolf 1994 and fig. Left) .

Even today men are experimenting with pregnancy, and the breaking of the female “monopoly”, also an old dream of the Greeks about a motherless society (cf. Treusch-Dieter 1990), should even be redeemable today - using technology.
As much as patriarchal societies differ from their matriarchal predecessors, their legitimation, which they need in the long term, can only ever come from the prestige, respect and strength that were ascribed to women in the old society or experienced through them , draw and try to attribute to yourself. Because there is no independent legitimation.

That is why patriarchates justify themselves by being the “better matriarchates”, the rulers behave as the “better mothers”. But since there is no material basis for this, and it is an easily transparent deception, patriarchy and rule are always superfluous, precarious, refutable and somehow ridiculous in the eyes of the subjugated.

Precisely for this reason patriarchates equip themselves with pomp, secrets, military, threatening gestures, laws and cults of violence, all of which have in common that they are needed to effectively counter an alleged endangerment of "freedom" and constantly evoked "need" and thus the to save the patriarchal social order from any "downfall".

The exploitation of the trust that has been placed in the mothers in particular since time immemorial also takes the form of the use of female figures in patriarchies, e.g. as goddesses or as allegories (e.g. Justitia) in order to appear credible to the "people".

The peak of the distortion in all patriarchies does not only lie in the assertion that only the masculine is creative (cf. the many patriarchal seed theories), while the feminine is merely a kind of container for creation (cf. Treusch-Dieter 1990). Rather, in patriarchal societies, it is asserted, not without “logic”, that violence itself is creative.
From the patriarchal self-creative “I kill, therefore I am”, to the procreation through rape, which supposedly produces the “stronger race”, to the near-death or near-killing in sexual intoxication.

The alleged "eroticism" of the connection between sexuality and violence, the myth of the "war as the father of all things" and the cruel young men initiation of the "second birth" (Völger / von Welck 1990), the "conquest" of a woman up to capitalist economy as “creative destruction” (cf. Josef Schumpeter) and the “genetic engineer”, the - translated - “birthing warrior”, this context of violence can be found everywhere to this day and especially today.
And not only as a theory, but also as a practice (e.g. in gene and reproductive technologies).

Most prominent, however, is still the one Creator God who took the place of or over the creative world mother goddess (Nut, Neit, Inanna, Ma 'at, Thiamat, Lilith) after he murdered her (Oedipus the Sphinx, Marduk the Thiamat), negated or reduced to daughter and mere recipient of his supernatural, supposedly material-independent “spiritual” creative power.
The "goddesses" in Greece, Maria, and all normal women too.