Christina Park
Matriarchy: The Power of Collective Female Leadership 2
Men have been the favored crowd, the popular crowd, for quite a while in
Western culture. This “boys’ club” has been handed the podium, family inheritances,
career advancing favors, center stage in literature, visibility in the media, sexual
entertainment, and social leadership positions as far back as most of our schools’ history
books go. And with that public favor they have managed to hoard decision-making power
And because this society’s favors for men have made “the boys’ club” the place
where the public spotlight is, the place where all the fun is, women have often chosen to
emulate men’s apparent social and material success by adopting the male behavioral
strategies that supposedly have led to it. This includes men’s standards for treatment of
others, as well as men’s attitudes towards women. Many women choose to conform to
these standards themselves and apply them to other women simply to be included and
avoid the nine circles of hell associated with being an outcast: being excluded from
public leadership, left out of board rooms and after parties, ignored as cultural role
and husbands- wait… come to think of it, that’s also the cost for women’s inclusion by
behaviors and strategies of this self-serving group of men and their male leadership style.
This is the group of men who have led Western societies into scandalous and genocidal
religious wars since the Crusades, who have pirated the natural resources and lives of
other cultures since European colonialism and slave trading, who have trashed and
Matriarchy: The Power of Collective Female Leadership 3
mismanaged their own natural resources and painted themselves into a corner with
environmental collapse, who have repeatedly shot themselves in the foot with
overspending and looted the people under their leadership to cushion themselves from the
The problem is that women have lost touch with themselves in the attempt to
emulate male aggression and other destructive coping mechanisms from our society’s
traditionally male leadership. When the most badly behaved group of people is rewarded
the best social treatment in the form of professional alliances, social fawning, and
exemption from family obligations and the rules of fair play, their society is
among us to throw away their good social habits for the sake of social advancement.
male problem. Typical annual statistics are as follows: 83% of spouse murderers are
male 1, 79.9% of all non-fatal family violence is committed by men 2, 75% of dating
partner murderers are male 3, 87% of all stalkers are male 4. Men commit 100% of rape
against women, and 70% of all rapes against men; similarly, 92% of physical assaults
against women and 86% of physical assaults against men are committed by men 5. This is
not violence towards an external or national threat for preservation of oneself and one’s
country. This is violence turned against one’s own culture and support system.
Perhaps this cultural phenomenon of violence among men is a sign of too much
power being handed to those without the social ingenuity to know what to do with it.
Over the last decade, researchers in the social sciences have conducted studies on
high school students in Western cultures to determine gender differences in their learning
Matriarchy: The Power of Collective Female Leadership 4
and educational processes. These studies have found that male thinking styles and
and perspectives from consideration in favor of an individual one. Their problem solving
environmental or human impact. This is reflected in their social style in group settings,
where their approach to group dynamics tends to be hierarchal and competitive to the
degree that others are excluded from group activities 6. This aptitude for reduction,
immediacy and individual competition might make men very valuable for meeting short-
term goals requiring visibly noticeable results and measurable impact, but perhaps not so
much for meeting goals like social cohesion or long-term sustainable production.
abstract solutions in the lab or classroom and practical results for the environment and
perspectives and points of view, assimilating other alternative possibilities to the one
they’re promoting. Likewise, their social behavior in groups is socially inclusive and their
Women’s instinctive leadership style, like their thinking style, reflects their group
instigate social reform movements and start up charity work, and their prevalence in the
social services. Their aptitude puts them at an advantage in fostering social solidarity,
Matriarchy: The Power of Collective Female Leadership 5
sustainable economic growth, and cultural quality of life- all things our society could use
more of.
brain construction and operation between women and men. Researchers in neuroscience
have found that hormones effect brain development, resulting in a higher degree of
intercommunication between the different areas of the brain in women, and a higher
concentration of activity to localized areas of the brain in men. Their studies on gender
differences between female and male brains suggest that female brains process multiple
aspects of information at the same time, and more quickly, and process communication
more thoroughly than male brains do 8. This implies that women are able to perceive the
multiple aspects of a problem, or multiple alternatives for achieving a goal, at the same
time, and then effectively communicate the solutions to others. Meanwhile, male brains
are more singular in focus at any one time and are more perceptive of physical aspects of
a situation like rates of speed and time, or human sexual behavior. This indicates that
men excel in specialized tasks, or in achieving more specific goals 9. Overall, these
findings would suggest women are most likely more effective social leaders, providing
more holistic strategy and perceptive direction, while men are excellent as executers of
such direction.
However, the development of the male thinking style into social aggression is
socialized, based on the external factors of cultural orientation and segregation from
Similarly, the female behavior of catering to the male crowd and sabotaging other
women, and sometimes men, seems to be more a peculiarity of certain cultures than an
inherent norm. This is especially evident when examining the gender dynamics of other
cultures.
traditionally led by female solidarity groups, it becomes apparent that when women
follow collective male leadership their quality of life goes down and their behavior
slowly conforms to unchecked male behavior, which is usually anti-social and violent 11.
When men follow collective female leadership, this is not the case.
demonstrate consistent results in the areas of social stability and quality of life. Societies
where women are the primary decision makers for public policy, political action, and/or
violence towards women, and greater provision of nutrition, healthcare, and education for
their children compared to societies where men dominate decision-making. They are
In other words, under female leadership both female and male behavior improves,
women collectively exercising political and economic authority or power, in some cases
Matriarchy: The Power of Collective Female Leadership 7
attributed to them by right of a culture’s religious beliefs and in other cases gained by
them because of the vital or economic importance of their labor to the society 13. In
addition these cultures are known for their lack of male aggression towards women; in
turn men are eligible for certain political or religious positions delegated to them by
between 1750 B.C. and 1960 (A.D.), 32% of these societies qualified as matriarchies by
this definition. Some feature women in public positions of power, like the Lovedu (South
Africa), or the Abipones (Argentina); others have women in collective economic control
and leadership, delegating public roles to men, like the Ashanti (W. Africa), the Iroquois
(N. America), The Tchambuli (New Guinea), and the !Kung (Africa). Some feature
female collectives that hunt and war independently from the men in their culture, like the
Eastern Cree (N. America) and the Abipones. Others show women integrated with men in
their culture while retaining certain legal privileges over them, like the Minangkabau
(Indonesia) 15.
But all exhibit the features of female-style thinking in their operation, and all are
override the importance of male activities for society because of the concentration of
socio-economic power among women 16. Men then focus on and respond to the interests
of women as social habit, because that’s where the public interest is, that’s where
important things are happening, and that’s where all the fun is. As a result, men come to
Matriarchy: The Power of Collective Female Leadership 8
emulate and learn from the female values of the women. Women constitute the “popular
crowd” in their society because of their success, and because of their solidarity, which
Interestingly enough, the pattern of values found in the female leadership styles of
matriarchies seem to closely resemble the female thinking and problem solving styles
are led by female-style thinking. Female leaders do not hoard decision-making power,
despite their ability to do so, unless absolutely necessary on a temporary basis to prevent
social dissension. Instead, they often prefer to delegate their political duties and share
government leadership with men for the sake of labor efficiency and the men’s sense of
social inclusion. In some matriarchies, these delegated positions are more for show or
symbolism than political function. In other matriarchies male positions are more
functional but limited by female leadership through female selection and female veto.
Either way, this strategy increases social cohesion by benevolently providing visible
social identity for men, while simultaneously extending women’s capacity to rule and
keep watch over both the public sphere and the family sphere, leaving them time for
childcare and economic productivity 18. The majority of matriarchies result in sexual
egalitarianism between women and men 19. They are much less likely to be engaged in
war than patriarchies 20. Most matriarchies seem to rule their society peacefully through
the power of attraction, accumulating prosperity and showing generosity with it towards
their followers and allies. Their priorities seem to be social peace and a high quality of
Matriarchy: The Power of Collective Female Leadership 9
life, economic stability, efficiency in human resources, and future survival of their
The benefits of matriarchy for women are evident: supportive social networks and
mutual aid groups, economic self-sufficiency, economic security for one’s children,
control over the home environment, responsive public policy-makers. And according to
researchers, matriarchy would certainly be in the best interest of children. However, the
benefits of matriarchy for men and society as a whole are easily overlooked, mainly
because these societies are unlikely to make international news. They’re too peaceful and
description of the Lovedu, a royal matriarchy in South Africa that was still in existence,
although on a much smaller scale, as of 2001. For over 400 years the tribe was ruled by a
succession of bachlorette queens which had a reputation among neighboring tribes and
even roaming European invaders as politically savvy, avoiding altercations and battles
productivity by making labor enjoyable and full of benefits, like free food and alcohol on
the job, and avoided unnecessary rules and regulations for public life and work. Their diet
by investing in quality of life for society members and avoiding war they managed to
maintain and accumulate that prosperity. Human resources were applied to the mastery of
Matriarchy: The Power of Collective Female Leadership 10
botany for food and medicine production, maximizing use of their resources for self-
sufficiency. As a result, the Lovedu were a contented and self-supporting, stable society.
Women were independent and well respected in Lovedu society. They ruled
religious life and, many of them occupied important political positions along with men.
Critical diplomatic positions were occupied mostly by women, and both men and women
female role models, men were sexually attracted to the confidence, maturity and
independence of older women and pursued them romantically. Marriages were performed
by mutual consent.
Their foreign relations strategy was to diffuse political tensions with generous
offerings of land and brides for intermarriage. In this way, each queen always managed to
secure protective treaties and form prosperous alliances with their neighbors, increasing
“Lovedu wealth was not based on trade; cattle and land passed from one
household to another as gifts, and security lay in faith in reciprocity and the equivalence
over the long term of services and obligations.” 22. This was how all Lovedu were raised
One has to admire the frame of mind that would lead a group of people to behave
in such a trusting and productive way, and yet wonder where it came from. It seems that
Lovedu culture and society placed a high value on such personal behaviors as
ability to live at peace with others. They disapproved and looked down on the practice of
quarrelsomeness 23. The attributes the Lovedu lived and governed by were the group-
It seems the benefits of being accepted and popular in this society outweighed the
conformity to these values. The social expression of disapproval for anti-social or self-
centered behavior provided the negative consequences that reinforced people’s positive
behavior.
And there you have it. Rule by attraction rather than intimidation, unless you
count the fact that other cultures feared losing the advantages and benefits of being
associated with the Lovedu queen and on good terms with her.
Today, this culture is just a small-scale version of what it used to be, due to the
monopolizing effects of European colonialism and Westernization in the area. Like all
societies, matriarchies come and go. But the wisdom of socially oriented female instincts
remains powerful in potential. When feminine aptitude is applied to social and economic
development on a mass scale through female solidarity, collective goals such as social
preservation, productive foreign relations, universal child health care- they all become
viable. Women live in safety from assault. Men are influenced and guided by female
values while the most useful aspects of their male-thinking style are developed and their
existence.
Matriarchy: The Power of Collective Female Leadership 12
And as usual when it comes to female leadership, men benefit from it.
Oh, and as for how collective female leadership deals with the occasional signs of
male attempts to hoard political power from women? They usually assert their dominance
over men in the form of an agricultural and foraging food supply strike, or collective
confrontation and public male humiliation. Or, as in the case of the Abipones, sometimes
women enforce a mutually agreed-upon tribal ritual where they inflict public whippings
on all the men in the village to keep their male egos in check.
But who says assertiveness and strict discipline aren’t inherently female values too? ;)
Matriarchy: The Power of Collective Female Leadership 13
Footnotes
1
U.S. Department of Justice, (2005)
2
U.S. Department of Justice, (2005)
3
U.S. Department of Justice, (2005)
4
U.S. Department of Justice, (1998)
5
U.S. Department of Justice, (2000)
6
Pierce, (1998), Zohar, (2005)
7
Pierce, (1998), Zohar, (2005)
8
Gurian, (2001), Moir, (1989), Pringle, (2008), Rodgers, (2001)
9
Gurian, (2001) pp. 29-42, Moir, (1989) p.47, Pringle, (2008), Rogers, (2001) pp. 26-27
10
Sanday, (1981) pp.9,165-172
11
Sanday, (1981) p.156-160
12
Sanday, (1981) pp. 131, 165-177, UNICEF, (2007)
13
Sanday, (1981) p. 114
14
Sanday, (1981) pp.114-115, 165
15
Jones, (2001), Mead, (2001), Murdock, (1969), Sanday, (1981), Sanday, (2004)
16
Sanday, (1981) p.116
17
Pierce, (1998), Zohar, (2005)
18
Sanday, (1981) p.115
19
Sanday, (1981) p.177
20
Sanday, (1981) p.174
21
Krige, (1943)
22
Jones, (2001) p.17
23
Jones, (2001) pp. 15-17
Matriarchy: The Power of Collective Female Leadership 14
Bibliography
Gurian, M., Henley, P., & Trueman, T. (2001). Boys and Girls Learn Differently!: A
Guide for Teachers and Parents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jones, A. (2001). Looking for Lovedu: a woman’s journey through Africa. New York:
Vintage Books.
Krige, E. J., & Krige, J.D., (1943). The Realm of a Rain-Queen: a study of the pattern of
Lovedu Society. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mead, M. (2001), Sex & Temperament: in three primitive societies. New York:
HarperCollins.
Moir, A., & Jessel, D. (1989). Brain Sex-The Real Difference Between Men & Women.
New York: Dell Publishing.
Murdock, G.P., & White, D.R. (1969). Standard Cross-Cultural Sample. Ethnology 8:
329–369.
Pringle, A. D. (2008). How Boys and Girls Brains Differ. Master research module posted at
the University of Science, Arts and Technology website, retrieved December 23, 2008,
from http://www.usat.ms/Master/ENG062-How_Boys_and_Girls_Brains_Differ.pdf
Rogers, W. & Rogers, R. (2001) The Psychology of Gender & Sexuality, Buckingham,
England: Open University Press.
Sanday, P.R. (1981). Female Power and Male Dominance: On the origins of sexual
inequality. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sanday, P.R. (2002). Women at the Center: Life in a Modern Matriarchy. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 169592. (1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the
National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: Patricia Tjaden & Nancy
Thoennes.
U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 183781. (2000). Full Report of the Prevalence,
Incidence, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women:
Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at iv.
Washington, DC: Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes.
Matriarchy: The Power of Collective Female Leadership 15
UNICEF. (2007). The State of the World's Children 2007. New York, NY: UNICEF.
Zohar, A. (2005, January). Physics Teachers’ Knowledge and Beliefs Regarding Girls’
Low Participation Rates in Advanced Physics Classes. International Journal of
Science Education 27(1): 61-77. Retrieved February 5, 2007, from The Academic
Search Premier database.