Patrimalarkey 1: Women on Top

It is now almost universally accepted in western countries that all societies prior to the modern age were patriarchies. It is also often believed, by both men and women, that modern western countries are still patriarchies.

While this may seem like a reasonable presumption on the surface, after all, men did run all societies in the past didn't they? Not so much.

This is the first in a series of articles that will deal with different aspects of claims of patriarchy and detail different societies in different eras. They will detail how regarding these societies as patriarchies is, at best, a gross over-simplification. In reality societies have generally constrained both men and women, forcing them in to certain roles to serve the society itself. The notion that human society itself is subject to natural selection is now one that scientists are seriously considering.[1]

Many people, when discussing history, often speak broadly of Western European society in the 18th and 19th century and generalise the characteristics of this era to all of history, all around the world. This is of course an extrordinary generalisation. It is often claimed that women generally did not work outside of the home and were confined to the home. This is largely untrue. Throughout history large proportions of the female population worked outside of the home. In 16th and 17th century western Europe it was quite common for women to work in trades such as smithery. Husbands and wives trained in the same trade would often work together in a small business. The wife would have the opportunity to provide professional assistance to her husband around caring for children.

The 16th century was also a time of powerful women rulers in Western Europe. Queen Elizabeth ruled for what amounts to the second half of the 16th century. She was no figurehead either. She was the absolute ruler of England and Ireland (Britain would not arise as a state until generations later). Legally she was a 'Queen Regnant', meaning that she ruled in her own right and was not a 'Queen Consort' who is generally the wife of a King.

While it is true that English practiced Male-preference primogeniture (preferencing inherience by the first born son over other sons and all daughters) this did not stop many women inheriting and retaining thrones in their own right around this time.

Elizabeth I is well known through the English speaking world and is generally remembered as an effective leader who reformed the English state and built up a strong navy in the face of external military threats. Others show that while the early years of her reign were generally properous this was not so later on. What all of these sources agree on was that Elizabeth was the queen in her own right. The decisions made were made by her. It should be clear from this that she _was_ the leader of the English and Irish states. She was no figure head.

What is generally not as well known is that there were several contemperory female monarchs in the British Isles. Immediately proceeding Elizabeth I as Queen of England and Ireland was Queen Mary I, her half sister. Queen Mary I is also known as 'Bloody Mary' as she had a habit of ordering the death of her subjects (usually by burning at the stake) when they didn't agree with her religious views. Many historians believe that the name of a well known cocktail is a reference to Mary I. A more definite reference occurs in a game (particularly popular with teenage girls apparently) in which they try to summon the ghost of Mary I through a mirror. Mary I didn't reign for long (thankfully, given her penchant for violence) but was every bit as much in charge of England as Elizabeth would be after her. Each effectively changed the national religion (Christian sect) while reigning.

It is worth noting that Mary I's main competition for control of England and Ireland was another woman - Lady Jane Grey. In the end Mary made sure that Jane's head ended up in a basket rather than wearing a crown.

To the north of England was Scotland, which was ruled by a Queen Regnant from 1542 to 1567. She is generally known as Mary Queen of Scots in English, probably to distinguish her from Mary I who was her contemporary. Her rule of Scotland overlaps that of both Mary I and Elizabeth I. The entirety of the British Isles was ruled over exclusively by female monarchs from 1553 to 1567. This period would likely have gone on much longer except that Elizabeth imprisoned and eventually executed Mary Queen of Scots after she fled south seeking Elizabeth's protection. Elizabeth apparently viewed Mary Queen of Scots as a potential rival since they were cousins.

So during this period we had Lady Jane Grey, Mary I, Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots vying for power across the British Isles. It should be clear that this was no patriarchy. These women were no ones puppets - those that were successful ruled over England, Scotland and Ireland as ruthlessly and authoritatively as any male ruler. They also demonstrated that they were quite prepared to order the torture and execution of their enemies or those they perceived as enemies. These historical events and others that occured in many other parts of the world throughout history demonstrate that these women were not helpless pawns of the patriarchy. They were power monarchs and in a very real sense, they were the law in their respective countries. Even Lady Jane Grey demonstrated that she wished to remain power for herself by refusing to name her husband as King, making him a Duke instead.

• • • Find all references to England and change to England and Ireland were it related to the crown ***

Patriarchy means literally rule by fathers but it is generally intended to mean rule by men. Such a society, one in which rule was mandated by men, would not permit female rulers. Women would simply not find their way in to positions of power. Even a cursory view of history reveals that female rules, while fairly uncommon, feature across a wide variety of societies and eras. The upshot here is that there was no patriarchy - it was a myth. The reality is that societies shape social expectations of men and women to fit their own needs. In many cases, as have been noted many times by MHRA advocates, men were considered disposable by the society. In particular those men who were not members of the ruling class were considered disposable.

It is often claimed recently that women could not own property in western Europe in the 18th & 19th centuries. This is simply not true. When a women married their property normally transferred to their husband but single women can and did retain control of their own assests. While some may argue that women were virtually forced in to marriages by their family, the reality is that many women remained single. In addition, then as now, widows normally inherited from their husbands.

• • • Confirm details of last paragraph ***

It is even sometimes claimed that women were the property of their husbands. It is ridiculous to claim this was true in western Europe at this time.

A patriarchy would not accept any female rulers by definition. The existence of even a single female ruler in a society negates the claim that that society was a patriarchy. The claim that most of human history was one continuous patriarchy is disingenuous at best.

References:

[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080216175953.htm