I am curious about the incidence in matriarch societies or more liberal in which the honour of a man has nothing todo with the behaviour of his female folk
This is an extremely complicated issue. This is one of those things that starts off on simplicity, but then, like math, branches off into ambiguity and complication. Due to the many branches of gender, cultural, economic, biological, historical and other social factors that branch from this, I'm only going to give a basic summary based on my own opinions here. This is a long post, but yet not long enough.
Firstly, we need to define what patriarchy and matriarchy mean. Patriarchy refers to any social system whether it be family, political and economical factors where males have the dominant role. Matriarchy has the same definition as the latter, with the only difference being females having the true power and influence. In my opinion patriarchy is real in this sense. However, the dynamics behind the cause of this is where it gets complicated, so much so that many theories, even including divisions within a single theory itself, have been proposed.
I'm only going to touch on the most common ones here. When we see 'patriarchy' being used we're seeing it coming from two main groups: feminists and traditionalists. The feminist version of patriarchy stems from the dynamics behind this, which are known as hegemonic masculinity. What this means is a system where both males and females at a young age have their behaviors influenced by external factors. This then branches off into other economical, social and political factors that leads to males having a dominant role in society. The source of this is an objective goal of what all males should strive to be. This pattern repeats itself, hence perpetuating the cycle known as hegemonic masculinity.
However, this objective goal for masculinty means many males themselves get hurt by this based on two fronts: males who strive for these goals will always be put in the stigmatized beta status due to one's masculinity being relative to other males. And the other way this hurts males is that not all of them, whether they're heterosexual or homosexual, fit into the typical hegemonic masculine roles. Some call this behavior of males related to not fitting in with the status quo non-hegemonic masculinity, while traditionists subscribing to functionalist theory call this effeminate behavior.
Most traditionalists, including white knights, paleoconservatives and fascists, subscribe to functionalist theory. This group does not deny the reality of patriarchy at its core, but rejects the idea of hegemonic masculinity despite functionalism being the result of the dynamics behind what they're criticizing. What functionalism means is that everything is justifiably the way it should be because it's what helps society (or tribes) function at their best. This means when males and females stick to their roles it's for the best interests of everybody. In other words, they believe what's termed as hegemonic masculinity is a positive thing, and they also tend to think biological rather than social and psychological factors play a far greater role in people's behaviors.
Personally I have criticisms of functionalism for several reasons. My biggest criticism of it is it goes much deeper than gender roles, having a great deal of cultural baggage behind it. Many functionalist critics call this cultural hegemony. Cultural hegemony is problematic because it usually has a very rigid set of standards concerning how a society (or tribe) should function such as political ideology, various social issues and not taking into account humans are much more than biologically-programmed robots with each having unique individual assets and interests.
Functionalists also either fail to recognize, or are intentionally ignorant to the fact that we live a modern era where females for the most part have already been liberated from their roles in westernized societies while males have not been. Even so-called nonfeminist traditional women have benefited from the very thing they criticize. Another criticism I have of functionalism is that I don't see how it's benefited the world when we look at the perpetual conflicts, wars and misery it has caused on so many various fronts. This is the problem with functionalism: it was effective for perpetuating the human species, but in doing so it has to rely on many negative aspects to do so. It has also nearly caused humanity to come to an end due to its inability to adapt and be reliant on the most negative aspects of humanity in order to survive. It also does not take into account that other methods of living can be effective for acheiving survival, with an extra bonus: individual happiness and freedom.
I agree with some parts of functionalism, but relying on it as a whole has not been a good thing in my opinion. Much too frequently functionalism has been used to justify keeping a plethora of cultural norms in place that extend to gender roles, politics, economics, 'deviant' behaviors, etc. Perhaps in order to answer questions like this more effectively we should look at human history throughout the industrial, agrarian and hunter/gatherer era. It seems to me we are actually returning to our historical roots during the hunter/gatherer era as more women gain their independence. Patriarchy was a construct from the agrarian era from the past (maybe) 10,000 years where women's roles became more limited.
This is an extremely complicated issue. This is one of those things that starts off on simplicity, but then, like math, branches off into ambiguity and complication. Due to the many branches of gender, cultural, economic, biological, historical and other social factors that branch from this, I'm only going to give a basic summary based on my own opinions here. This is a long post, but yet not long enough.
Firstly, we need to define what patriarchy and matriarchy mean. Patriarchy refers to any social system whether it be family, political and economical factors where males have the dominant role. Matriarchy has the same definition as the latter, with the only difference being females having the true power and influence. In my opinion patriarchy is real in this sense. However, the dynamics behind the cause of this is where it gets complicated, so much so that many theories, even including divisions within a single theory itself, have been proposed.
I'm only going to touch on the most common ones here. When we see 'patriarchy' being used we're seeing it coming from two main groups: feminists and traditionalists. The feminist version of patriarchy stems from the dynamics behind this, which are known as hegemonic masculinity. What this means is a system where both males and females at a young age have their behaviors influenced by external factors. This then branches off into other economical, social and political factors that leads to males having a dominant role in society. The source of this is an objective goal of what all males should strive to be. This pattern repeats itself, hence perpetuating the cycle known as hegemonic masculinity.
However, this objective goal for masculinty means many males themselves get hurt by this based on two fronts: males who strive for these goals will always be put in the stigmatized beta status due to one's masculinity being relative to other males. And the other way this hurts males is that not all of them, whether they're heterosexual or homosexual, fit into the typical hegemonic masculine roles. Some call this behavior of males related to not fitting in with the status quo non-hegemonic masculinity, while traditionists subscribing to functionalist theory call this effeminate behavior.
Most traditionalists, including white knights, paleoconservatives and fascists, subscribe to functionalist theory. This group does not deny the reality of patriarchy at its core, but rejects the idea of hegemonic masculinity despite functionalism being the result of the dynamics behind what they're criticizing. What functionalism means is that everything is justifiably the way it should be because it's what helps society (or tribes) function at their best. This means when males and females stick to their roles it's for the best interests of everybody. In other words, they believe what's termed as hegemonic masculinity is a positive thing, and they also tend to think biological rather than social and psychological factors play a far greater role in people's behaviors.
Personally I have criticisms of functionalism for several reasons. My biggest criticism of it is it goes much deeper than gender roles, having a great deal of cultural baggage behind it. Many functionalist critics call this cultural hegemony. Cultural hegemony is problematic because it usually has a very rigid set of standards concerning how a society (or tribe) should function such as political ideology, various social issues and not taking into account humans are much more than biologically-programmed robots with each having unique individual assets and interests.
Functionalists also either fail to recognize, or are intentionally ignorant to the fact that we live a modern era where females for the most part have already been liberated from their roles in westernized societies while males have not been. Even so-called nonfeminist traditional women have benefited from the very thing they criticize. Another criticism I have of functionalism is that I don't see how it's benefited the world when we look at the perpetual conflicts, wars and misery it has caused on so many various fronts. This is the problem with functionalism: it was effective for perpetuating the human species, but in doing so it has to rely on many negative aspects to do so. It has also nearly caused humanity to come to an end due to its inability to adapt and be reliant on the most negative aspects of humanity in order to survive. It also does not take into account that other methods of living can be effective for acheiving survival, with an extra bonus: individual happiness and freedom.
I agree with some parts of functionalism, but relying on it as a whole has not been a good thing in my opinion. Much too frequently functionalism has been used to justify keeping a plethora of cultural norms in place that extend to gender roles, politics, economics, 'deviant' behaviors, etc. Perhaps in order to answer questions like this more effectively we should look at human history throughout the industrial, agrarian and hunter/gatherer era. It seems to me we are actually returning to our historical roots during the hunter/gatherer era as more women gain their independence. Patriarchy was a construct from the agrarian era from the past (maybe) 10,000 years where women's roles became more limited.
Shame on you Khulood Obaid . You have simply copied-and-pasted Jamie Scoverski's answer from Quora without acknowledging the source. That is plagiarism.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-claim-that-we-live-in-a-patriarchal-society-UK
Thank you Khulood Obaid and also Karl Pfeifer,
I happen to think in line with Kuhlood, both male and female are trapped within societies norms. The pandemic lockdown here increased aggression, females are often the physically weaker part and get hit more.