The term “patriarchy” is a misnomer for a misanthropic societal system whose goals are the increase of procreation (ie, birth rates), as well as economic and military strength (with fascism being its most extreme manifestation). Within this system, women are assigned excessively submissive-caring roles (eg, mothers), while men are assigned excessively dominant-aggressive roles (eg, soldiers). Both genders suffer and benefit from this in different ways, even if men have the impression that they control the system, while being unaware or not allowed to speak about their disadvantages (eg, parental rights, dangerous jobs, convictions for crimes). Therefore, the term “patriarchy” (rule by fathers/men) is misleading.
“There seems to be little convincing proof for the existence of matriarchal utopias that were overthrown in one fatal swoop. Nor is there much evidence that women’s oppression started in the home. Instead, we can see it in the historical record around the same time that the earliest states and empires began to grow, as they tried to expand their population and maintain armies to defend themselves. The elites that ran these societies needed young women to have as many children as possible, and for the young men they raise to be willing warriors. It’s at this point that it’s possible to spot gendered rules appearing, curbing the behaviour and freedom of everyday individuals. Virtues such as loyalty and honour became recruited into service of these basic goals. Traditions and religions, in turn, developed around the same social codes.”
Source: Saini, A. (2023). The Patriarchs – How men came to rule. London: 4th Estate (page 7)
Mutual blame may serve as an entry point for discussion, but such simplifications do not address the fundamental systemic issues:
First, gender-specific behaviours are partially controlled (influenced) by norms and rules by society to optimize its survival in competition and conflict with other societies. In conflicts between societies with varying degrees of patriarchical structures, those that are more patriarchal are likely to prevail. To illustrate, consider two extreme examples in a thought experiment:
A) A patriarchal society that pushes women (mothers) into roles focused on child-rearing (childbirth) and men (fathers) into roles focused on labor and combat.
B) An anti-patriarchal society that pushes men (fathers) into child-rearing roles and women (mothers) into labor and combat roles.
I suspect that, in competition between these two societal forms, A (“Patriarchy”) would dominate B (“Anti-Patriarchy”) in the long term. Since women are the limiting factor for population growth, it is in a society’s interest to protect their lives more than those of men. Furthermore, to change a system from anti-patriarchal to patriarchal it is not necessary for the patriarchal system to occopy the anti-patriarchal system, but just constant competition and conflict will wield enough pressure on the anti-patriarchal system to evolve to patriarchal system to match the birthrate, economic and military power of the patriarchal system. Of note, I am not arguing that this is right or good (naturalistic fallacy), but rather following theoretical considerations and anthropological observations.
Second, gender-specific behaviors are co-dependent, ie the behavior of one gender is partially controlled (influenced) by the behaviour of the other gender and cannot be changed in isolation. For example, I suspect that men’s pursuit of power and wealth could be significantly countered if young, attractive women consistently preferred modest, poor men without upward mobility ambitions as partners (cf, hypergamy). Similarly, changes in male beauty standards, such as a preference for curvier or more muscular women, could influence women’s health, for instance, by reducing the prevalence of eating disorders.
Angela Saini (2007) provides historical examples of behaviour of women in ancient Sparta:
“A common them is women criticising their menfolk for not fighting bravely enough. That women expected their husbands and sons to go out and fight even at the risk of death, shows just invested they were in the military aims of the state. “The most graphic one is the mother who hitched up her dress and said, “Do you plan to creep back in here where you emerged from?” when her son had shown cowardice in battle. There were stories of girls mocking boys for their weakness, and of daughters and wives telling their fathers and husbands what to do.
Walter Penrose, a historian of gender and sexuality in the ancient world at San Diego State University, tells me that – if these accounts aren’t apocryphal but do genuinely reflect words spoken by people at the time – Spartan women appear to have thought of themselves as courageous.”
(Saini, 2007, p. 150) [3]
Here, the comments by women could be described as “shaming men into submission” to so called patriarchy, including their husband and sons by humiliating them. Interestingly, Spartian women who shame other men to fight and potentially die in wars, ie risking the lives of others (!), are themselves described as “courageous” by the author Angela Saini, while alternatively it could also be described as indirect-relational aggression and manipulative.
Third, multiple dimensions of subordination and dominance may overlap, leading to situations where a person may be dominant in one context (e.g., men in career advancement) and oppressed in another (e.g., men in child custody disputes or criminal sentencing) (cf, kyriarchy [1]). In addition, behaviours of dominance and submission may be shown in different ways.
According to Reed (2023), for example, there is evidence that women are as aggressive as men, however, use different aggressive behaviours and strategies as men. While men prefer direct-physical aggressive behaviour, women prefer indirect-relational aggressive behaviour. These different methods of showing aggression, may have actually developed as a consequence of women living under direct-physical aggressive rule by men and their vulnerability because of less physical power and during historically multiple, consecutive pregnancies making it highly risky to attack others, esp. men, directly. These two different aggressive methods are contrasted in the following example:
Direct, verbal and physical aggression (“male”):
- verbal: “I hate you!”
- physical: *pushing the targeted person*, *hitting the targeted person*
Indirect, verbal and physical aggression (“female”):
- verbal: “I have heard that people hate you!“
- physical: *facial expression showing pity and condescendence*, *physical distance*, *reduced eye contact*, *turning affection to others*
While the “male” strategy is immediately effective, the aggressor exposes himself to counter attacks, but is also limited because the aggression is only related to his own person. Alternatively, the “female” strategy is not immediately effective, but hides the aggression behind compassion and seemingly trying to help the affected person, thereby, not making the “female” attacker a target. However, the aggression is amplified by the statement that the aversion is not limited to a single, known person, but a wider, unknown group of people against which the targeted person cannot easily defend itself, and basically isolates the person from his social group. Also these indirect-relational attacks can be traumatizing and may have real physical health consequences, if the targeted person becomes isolated, loses access to the group’s resources and support, becomes depressive, or even suicidal. At a minimum, the targeted person may seek advice of the “female” attacker, which gives the attacker additional influence on the behaviour of the targeted person, to modify their behaviour according to the attacker’s interest.
However, direct-physical attacks are more evident and, therefore, easier to sanction than indirect-relational attacks, which, thereby, puts men at a disadvantage in society regarding punishment for aggressive behaviour, which may also explain why in 2023 globally 94% of prisoners are male [6, p. 13].
This example shows that women can be dominant-aggressive in some ways, while submissive-caring in other ways, which may also vary depending on the domain of society.
Notes:
- I believe the principle of “women and children first” in disasters is less about morality and more about evolutionary survival, as it favors the procreation of society. If the goal were justice—such as protecting the weak—one might also prioritize “the weak and sick.” However, this is not customary in (Western) societies. Additionally, adult men likely have a higher survival rate in physical disasters due to their generally greater physical strength.
- Text was AI-translated (chat.mistral.ai) from the German original [2] and reviewed and revised by the original author Wilmar Igl.
Sources:
[2] https://biosphere.wilmarigl.de/?p=5401
[3] Saini, A. (2023). The Patriarchs – How men came to rule. London: 4th Estate
[4] Wharton, A. S. (2012). The sociology of gender: An introduction to theory and research (2. ed). Wiley-Blackwell.
[5] Reed, P. (2023). Are Women Just as Aggressive as Men? New research casts doubt on old theories about the trait. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/digital-world-real-world/202302/research-casts-doubt-on-male-centred-theories-of-aggression
[6] https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/prison/Prison_brief_2025.pdf
English 
German