Feminism and the Destruction of Hierarchy

Late in the 19th century, when the question of votes for women was controversial even among those well on the left side of political opinion, Lord Salisbury—the longest serving prime minister of the Victorian era and leader of its staunchest conservatives—had no objection to female suffrage. Committed to the traditional view that holders of elected office should be chosen only by those who bankroll governments, he took the position that since the vote had been extended to men too impecunious to pay much in the way of taxes, it would be reasonable to extend it to women from the taxpaying classes. Given a choice between the two, he probably would have preferred that the latter vote rather than the former.

Feminists of today will be horrified by those views, committed as they are to across-the-board egalitarianism rather than equality of men and women within each social class. But it would be hard to find a better summation of the contrast between the historical reality of patriarchy and feminist caricatures of it. Century after century, Western patriarchy had nothing to do with blanket, across-the-board control of women by men. Patriarchal authority of husbands over wives was one form of hierarchical authority among others, some of which gave women authority over men.

Queens regnant and female regents are the obvious examples. Wives of the nobility were often charged with the day-to-day running of feudal or semi-feudal estates—giving them power comparable to a contemporary lieutenant governor acting in the place of a temporarily incapacitated superior. Medieval abbesses had feudal jurisdiction over lands that could be extensive enough to make them as powerful as leading nobles.

Feminists familiar with these facts are likely to have a pre-cooked if half-baked answer. Most will stress that only a small proportion of women were in such positions and that only a distinct minority of women held power in their own right rather than exercised it on behalf of others. The first consideration is partially offset by the small proportion of men who ranked among the most powerful, the second is undeniable.

But feminists also have a more complex argument, claiming all traditional hierarchies—patriarchy in the family, class distinctions, families passing down wealth and privilege from generation to generation, business owners having power over workers, and so on—reinforce each other. In that view, because the power of medieval and early modern queens regnant was part of a “network of hierarchies”—of which patriarchy was a part—their power was both supported by and a support for patriarchy. On that basis, they insist that no form of traditional hierarchy can be destroyed until all are destroyed together.

Responding that hierarchy is inevitable, that eliminating the aristocrat requires the soviet commissar, can easily become a straw man dependent on extreme examples. Contemporary governments’ bureaucratic hierarchies will be dismissed by feminists as “non-hierarchies” on the grounds that they are “democratically” controlled.

What must be accepted is that feminists are quite correct about how traditional—or, better yet, natural—hierarchies are interrelated. The irony is that the core argument they use to support their unholy grail of legalized abortion actually proves just how natural traditional hierarchies are. With reasoning as impeccable as it is unremarkable, feminists hold that motherhood increases female dependence on men—and that such dependence tends to strengthen patriarchy.

Feminists and anthropologists Heide Göttner-Abendroth, Barbara Love, and Cynthia Eller emphasize—without realizing it—that not even “matriarchal” societies deviate too far from that general rule. Some even reject the word “matriarchy” itself, since they recognize that there has never been—and emphasize that they do not want—societies in which women play the role men play in patriarchal ones.

While details differ from one society to another, matriarchies tend to share certain characteristics which make this clear. Only in domestic matters—including extended family and even tribal villages—will women sometimes have significantly more power than men. Given the link between domestic matters and women’s role as mothers, this is not particularly remarkable. Outside of those matters, the power of men and women tends to be comparable.

Often, but not necessarily, husbands become primarily part of their wives’ families—moving into their homes, villages, or nomadic band the way Old Testament women moved into those of their husbands. Similarly inversing biblical examples, descent is primarily recorded in maternal lines: “Susan begot Mary by her husband Thomas, Mary begot Elizabeth by Frederick, Elizabeth begot” and so on.

Despite that, men in matriarchies will have a dominant role in some areas of life—particularly in tasks like hunting, warfare, and building that require greater strength. No matter how much power women have in matriarchal societies, this assures that it cannot reach the point of inverting patriarchy.

Feminists who tout such societies as models do not realize what they are doing. The relative equality of power in them is based on each sex’s dominance in particular areas of life—areas of life which conform to what feminists often condemn as “socially constructed gender roles.” One of their reasons for advocating matriarchy—that men in matriarchies will inevitably have power comparable to that of women but that women have no guarantee of comparable power with men in patriarchies—unwittingly admits that nature and biology tend to give at least somewhat greater power to men, somewhat less to women.

Abortion is used by feminists to mitigate that natural biological tendency. If—as they are—normal bodily functioning and egalitarianism are in some degree of conflict, feminists assume the problem is with biology rather than their egalitarian prejudices. Unprejudiced assessment and acceptance that biology works correctly will show that our very nature is hierarchical. Perhaps we should…trust the science?