[0:03]Since the dawn of recorded time, the vast majority of human societies have been led by men. And that raises the question, is patriarchy just the natural way of things? I'm Amy Mcalabest, and today we're going on a journey through time to answer that question. Let's start with our DNA. The two closest relatives of humans genetically speaking are chimpanzees and bonobos. But although these two animal groups are genetically almost identical, their behaviors and social structures couldn't be more different. Chimpanzees are highly patriarchal. Among chimps, it's the males and more specifically one alpha male who acts as the leader, determines where the group's move, how they hunt and gather, who gets to mate with whom, and how they interact with one another on a daily basis. Chimpanzees are also notoriously violent and it's not uncommon for them to attack and kill other chimps. Bonobos, on the other hand, are primarily matriarchal. At the top of every bonobo's community is one old and experienced matriarch, who presides over a small coalition of high-ranking females with maybe one or two males mixed in. In general, relationships are positive. They share food and territory and there isn't much fighting even between different communities. If a male becomes aggressive with a female, a group of female bonobos band together to physically punish him, making sure he doesn't get out of line again. Even though female bonobos are typically smaller than males, they figured out how to work together. And they use their combined power to create a mostly peaceful society where violence is extremely rare. Many scientists point to the bonobos as evidence that patriarchy isn't simply the natural, inevitable social structure for primates. And that perhaps homo sapiens could have chosen another way. So, what systems did our earliest human ancestors create? 7 million years ago, a primate called Saleanthus Chendensis developed a trait that would change the course of history forever. It began walking upright. Over time, this upright posture led to a narrowing of the female pelvis and birth canal. As a result, in order for their heads to fit through the birth canal, babies started to be born at an early gestational stage. These newborns were completely dependent on their mothers for a much longer period than other primates, requiring several years of constant care as opposed to only a few months for other primates. Now, skip forward to the descendants of those upright walkers. Homo sapiens, or wise humans as we've called ourselves. Over 300,000 years ago, homo sapiens began to harness the power of fire, shape tools, and paint stories on the walls of caves. These early humans were hunter gatherers where everyone had to pitch in to ensure survival. There was most likely a rough division of labor with males performing much of the hunting and females, at least during their fertile years, giving birth and taking care of those adorable helpless babies that we just talked about. Women also contributed to human survival through their knowledge of plants for food and medicine and the creation of clay and woven vessels that contained that food and medicine. At the same time, these roles may not have been as divided as we might think. For example, in 2020, the remains of a 9,000-year-old big game hunter was found in the Andes. This hunter was buried with specialized tools for hunting big game, and while there was nothing particularly unusual about the body, researchers noticed that the leg bones seemed a little slim for an adult hunter. When scientists analyzed the tooth enamel for DNA markers, they discovered that the hunter, whom they had assumed was male, was actually female. Because of this discovery, they went on to test the bodies of 26 other hunters and they found that 10 of them were female. It's also important to point out that even if hunter-gatherer groups did divide labor by sex, that doesn't necessarily indicate that one gender was telling the other one what to do. Anthropologists agree that despite their different biological functions, early human societies seem to have been egalitarian. So let's pause here and define egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is a belief in the equality of all people, especially in political, social, and economic life. So, what happened when these wanderers began to settle down and form cities? Did they ever form matriarchies? Some scholars believe that they did. The world's oldest official city is a settlement in modern Turkey called Kotl. It was inhabited between about 7,500 and 5,700 BCE during the Neolithic era. For context, that's 5,000 years before the pyramids were built in Egypt. And at least 4,000 years before Stonehenge was built in what is now the UK. Prior to excavations in Kotl, Bronze Age societies were thought to have been the oldest advanced civilizations. One Bronze Age civilization was called the Manowan civilization on the island of Crete, which flourished from about 3,000 to 1,100 BCE. And although the people of Kotl and the Manowan were far away from each other and flourished in completely different time periods, they had a lot of important things in common. One of which was art and artifacts depicting women. Like a lot of them. When archaeologists first began excavations of Kotl, one of the most important objects they found was a statue that they named The seated woman of Kotl. And I actually have a replica of her right here.
[5:54]Here she is. Look at her with these large animals under her control on either side. She looks strong and powerful and grounded in her body. I feel like you can't look at this seated woman and not feel her commanding presence. Figures and paintings of females like this and this and this were also found in overwhelming numbers all over Neolithic and Bronze Age archaeological sites all across the Middle East and Europe. But because very few of these civilizations left behind written records that we can understand, we don't know exactly who these female figures were, nor what they meant in their respective societies. At first, some male archeologists thought of these images as prehistoric pornography. What did you say? But scholars, such as Maria Gimbutas, thought of them as goddesses. In fact, Gimbutas dedicated her life to studying and comparing these female-focused societies. In the 1960s and 70s, Gimbutas's theories gave rise to a spiritual goddess movement with many women proclaiming the supremacy of the ancient goddess and reclaiming women-centered spirituality. Some even started referring to these prehistoric cultures as matriarchies. Remember that if patriarchy means that boys and men have a birthright to preside over women, then a matriarchy would mean that girls and women have a birthright to preside over boys and men. The way bonobos do. So what do you think? Does archaeological evidence indicate matriarchy? I would say there's just not enough evidence. As compelling as these goddess images are, and as much as some women have longed for a matriarchal past, most scholars who have written about these societies, including Gimbutas, have argued that the worship of goddesses doesn't necessarily indicate high status for women in their everyday lives. Let alone matriarchy. One point that makes a lot of sense to me is from historian Gerda Lerner in her book The Creation of Patriarchy. She points out that if archaeologists of the future were to excavate sites from the Middle Ages in Europe, they would find thousands of statues of the Virgin Mary and other female saints. And that might lead them to think that medieval Europe had been a matriarchy. As we all know, that was far from true. So if these early human societies weren't matriarchies, what were they? Social scientist, Dr. Riane Eisler calls them partnership cultures. And what's a partnership culture? I call Dr. Eisler to have her explain it to us. Hi Dr. Eisler. Thank you so much for joining us today. It's a pleasure. I'm wondering if you could tell us a little bit about partnership cultures. Just some of the features that were found in the Neolithic period. For millennia, we humans oriented more to the partnership side. We don't see the ranking of the male form over the female form and very rigid gender stereotypes. As the archaeologist Ian, who excavated, as he wrote, there are no signs that being born male or female made any difference in status or in wealth. There are no signs of destruction through warfare, but what does this indicate a belief system in which interconnection is more important than ranking. Thank you so much. That was beautiful. Now, back to the ancient city of Kotl. Before it was excavated, it had been the assumption that prehistoric cultures were all male dominated. But Kotl challenged that assumption. For example, the bones of these ancient people showed evidence that everyone's diets were similar. Their graves and their burial practices showed that men and women were buried with the same amount of wealth. The size and set up of their houses, their sleeping places, their places of gathering all indicate that there were no gender-based hierarchies in Kotl. Similarly, the Minoans also challenged the idea of male dominance throughout history. Evidence in art, architecture and burial sites on Minoan Crete demonstrate an equitable sharing of wealth, access to advanced technology, such as drainage and sanitary systems for all people in the community, as well as daily activities and rituals that promoted harmonious and peaceful living. All features of a partnership society. So if there were many ancient civilizations that were egalitarian partnership cultures, we have to ask what happened to them? In her book The Living Goddesses, Maria Gimbutas posits that eventually these partnership cultures were conquered and slowly eroded by what she calls dominator cultures. So let's check back in with Dr. Eisler so she can explain some features of dominator societies. It's really a domination system starting in families. You have these rank dominance. This is where we're socialized to think only of two possibilities. You either dominate, or you're dominated, and it's backed up by fear and by force. The conquests that eroded partnership societies happened in many different places over the course of centuries. And there's lots of disagreement between scholars about when and how patriarchy began. So, there are multiple theories, and archaeologists are still trying to put the puzzle pieces together to figure out what actually happened. But however it developed, historian Gerda Lerner notes that these new practices probably developed slowly and organically, and that neither men nor women knew the consequences that would come of these initial choices. Women may have agreed to a sexual division of labor, not being able to predict the ways in which it would eventually disadvantage them. And most men were probably not plotting the subjugation of women on purpose. But she also notes that whether it was on purpose or not, patriarchy did indeed entrench itself. And the lasting psychological damage of the patriarchal state is that it made patriarchy seem normal, even natural, in the same way that class and racial oppression have historically been framed as natural by those in power. So that brings us back to our original question. Is patriarchy just the natural way of things? Well, to summarize, here's what we know. Human's closest primate relatives are both patriarchal and matriarchal. And some scientists point to this as evidence that homo sapiens could have gone either way. Next, the earliest human societies do not seem to have been patriarchal. They weren't matriarchal either, but they were egalitarian partnership cultures. Many scholars also point to that as evidence that humans aren't naturally patriarchal. At the same time, dominator cultures seem to have overthrown partnership cultures all over the world, establishing a long history of patriarchy. Is patriarchy just the natural way of things? I would ask, what if it is? Guess what else is natural? Disease. And social hierarchies that persecute humans that look different or behave differently or think differently, exist in every society all over the world. So you could argue that that's natural too. Listen, we're now waiting into timeless and super controversial territory about human nature. And while I'm personally very interested in the scientific data and the ongoing philosophical analysis, to me the more important question is, whether it's natural or not, what are we going to do about it?
[14:00]Thanks for joining me. Be sure to like this video and subscribe to the channel and leave a comment about what you learned from this episode in the comments below.
