I often have an interesting thought. I am no expert on Africa but it’s based on things as I currently understanding it (which may or may not be accurate). Here’s how the thought goes:
The difference between male and female has always fascinated me. I see examples of it all the time. One of these places is Africa (and I mean black or negro Africa). My understanding is that most of Africa is matriarchal in character, meaning that the female has a controlling power in the society. It seems that, as you go south, though, they begin to have a more patriarchal quality, meaning the male has controlling power.
A good place to see the difference between male and female and how they influence things is Africa. It appears to me, at least at this time, that a lot of Africa’s situation and circumstance, particularly in the north, is greatly influenced by the matriarchal societies. In fact, in many ways, Africa is a demonstration of the matriarchal society and how it behaves. One of the things that becomes quite apparent is how matriarchal societies are put at a disadvantage by the female character. Though the female may ‘control’ a society, their character is not of a sort to create an organized society, nor one that can handle conflict and crisis. In general, matriarchal societies tend to be disorganized and unable to cope with adverse situations. My inquiry into matriarchal societies reveal these facts that demonstrate this fact:
- No matriarchal society ever created a civilization.
- No matriarchal society ever created a complex social structure.
- No matriarchal society ever created a government or political system.
- No matriarchal society ever created a religion or organized belief system.
- No matriarchal society ever created a science or body of knowledge.
- No matriarchal society ever created a complex economic system.
- No matriarchal society ever created a complex art form.
- No matriarchal society ever created a condition where things progress or improve.
- No matriarchal society ever even built anything like a large building or ship.
In effect, then, matriarchal societies tend to remain in a primitive society-like state . . . and that’s where they are today! It seems to show these facts about matriarchal societies:
- They are not a society of creation and who build things.
- They are not a society of organization.
- They are not societies of great social structure.
- They are not societies of progression.
All these qualities are very much lacking in these societies.
These qualities, though, are found in patriarchal society . . . and often to excess! If you look around you, almost everything is a product of the male character and mind. It’s a reflection of how the male tends to have an organized mind and is the creator of an organized civilized society:
- The male creates a social structure with a hierarchy.
- He creates organized laws and political systems.
- He creates bodies of knowledge and sciences.
- He builds buildings, ships, and other things.
- He creates complex art forms.
Nowhere in the world, and in the history of the world, has a matriarchal society created anything even coming close to having things like that. This reveals a great fact about the influence of the male and female character in society.
One of the things it does is it makes it so that the organization of the male makes it so that patriarchical society can handle various forms of crisis and conflict. These include crisis and conflict created by nature, historical circumstance, and attacks from other people and countries. matriarchal societies tends to handle these conflicts poorly as a result of their more unorganized nature.
A good example of the effects of the organization of the male is in how Africa has dealt with foreign invaders. In 1879 the British had what they call the Zulu Wars. These were waged against the Zulu kingdom in southern Africa. The Zulu warrior were armed with a cow hide shield and a small spear. Even with this, they were so fierce and difficult to defeat that the British had to send in more troops to defeat them . . . and the British had rifles! This is because the Zulu were very organized. When they marched they walked in unison, much like the Romans, so that, from a distance, they sounded like a locomotive. When they marched into battle they marched in unison, much like the Romans. One tactic the Zulu used was, I think, called something like the “bulls horn”. In this the flanks went up ahead of the center lines, making it appear, from the air, like a big C which has a resemblance to bulls horns. This way, the flanks would envelope and surround the enemy. This is a result of very organized thinking and a strong social structure. You show me where, in the history of the world, a group of females did anything like that! You show me where a group of females marched in unison, to a situation where they knew they might die, and maintained their position and their duty.
That is organization. That is social structure. That is something you don’t see in matriarchal societies and in the female character. These are the types of things we see in patriarchal societies.
As a result of this organization such as this, patriarchal society could build and create and be able to handle crisis. As a result, patriarchal society developed a great strength and power which was totally lacking in the matriarchal societies.
Matriarchal societies, on the other hand, found it difficult to repulse invaders. There was no organization, and no real social structure, to handle the crisis of an invasion. As a result, you could just literally walk right on in and overpower them. From my understanding, it was somewhat easy. I’ve heard of instances where there were almost no resistance at all. As a result of this, matriarchal societies were easily overcome and conquered.
Because of this, matriarchal societies fell prey to something that became quite commonplace around the Mediterranean Sea: Slavery. Being so easy to overtake and conquer, it was very easy to enslave the matriarchal societies. This means, basically, that one of the reasons why African negroes became enslaved is because of the weakness of matriarchal societies. It made them a prime target for the slave trade . . . it was almost too easy.
Not only were they easy to overcome but there was generally little resistance afterwords, if at all. Often, in patriarchal societies, there will be resistance and rebellion even after defeat. We see this same resistance and rebellion in the more patriarchal societies of southern Africa to this day. This lack of resistance even makes matriarchal societies more appealing to the slave trade as there is little opposition after they’ve been defeated and enslaved. You go in, conquer and enslave, and ship them wherever needed, all with minimal problems . . . you can’t get any easier!
One of the things that amazed me about matriarchal societies is that the males generally didn’t do anything when they were invaded. From my understanding most males just ‘gave up’ without so much as lifting a finger. This, no doubt, is because, in many of these societies, the males were sort of degraded and tromped upon. When I was studying anthropology I remember seeing footage of a African negro man from northwestern Africa say that “it wasn’t fair that only the females can find food”. In that society the male was reduced, in a way, to something like a dog, worthless and incompetent to do anything, such as find his own food. Many of the males walked around with their head hung low, feeling powerless and worthless. Interestingly, this same quality you can see in many African-American males today, revealing their matriarchal society roots.
Many matriarchal societies has attitudes and ways that actually prevent an organized society from developing. These include:
- Many matriarchal societies are very discriminatory. Not only are they discriminatory toward the male but toward each other.
- They tend to not have ideals of fairness. They usually don’t have any ‘philosophies’, necessarily, as we see in patriarchies.
- There is no comradery. Matriarchal societies seldom display a sense of ‘working together as a team’ which is very dominant with patriarchal societies, as was demonstrated by the Zulu warriors above.
- There’s too many ‘Queen of the mountain’ games. Often, the only thing that defines the “matriarch” is that she won at ‘Queen of the mountain’ and pushed all the other would-be-matriarchs off. After that, they often do nothing but defend their position.
- They don’t build a social structure. The “matriarch” does not build a social structure about her, or a following.
- The “matriarch” also seems to be nothing but a display of self-satisfaction, that they are at top. They seldom seem to actually do anything.
These all contribute to a weaker non-organized society. Frankly, I’m amazed many matriarchal societies exist at all. If I were to say what is missing with matriarchal societies I would say that it is a glue that holds things together . . . they seem to lack that.
This absence of a glue is also seen in their inability to rebuild themselves after a crisis. In fact, I tend to feel that the reason why Africa is in a bad state right now is because of matriarchal societies lack of organization and glue. Since Africa has a matriarchal society attitude, there’s no bond or organization to bring it together, no glue. As a result, it remains in a broken down shambled state. If they were organized much of Africa could improve itself. How do I know this? Because it has happened the world over . . . but these are all patriarchal societies. Why? Because patriarchal societies are organized. Many parts of the world have been hit hard by many things (foreign influence, overpopulation, economy, etc.) but, yet, they have rebuilt themselves, often becoming formidable countries. But a matriarch has never, as far as I know, ever rebuilt itself. Hence, Africa is in shambles and it will remain in shambles.
All this shows that the matriarchal societies inability at organization and developing a glue make it fragile and weak, making it unable to deal with crisis and conflict as well as prohibiting its ability to rebuild itself.
This, of course, is not what the “matriarchs” say. I’ve seen many black “matriarchs” and most seem to think they are invincible, even after they’ve been conquered and enslaved. Many African-American females display this same matriarchal invincibility quality with them. It often appears as a haughtiness or arrogance. It’s often associated with specific mannerisms, some of which include:
- There’s often a specific strut that they have, as if they are lords of the earth.
- They will often hold their head up, looking down at their noses at you.
- They speak with a loud low commanding voice.
- As a demonstration of power they will often move their head side to side while their torso remains in the same place (they do this in north Africa and the U.S.). When they do this, they often talk with a loud commanding voice generally making a command or threat of some sort, such as “I’m going to walk all over you”.
- They put their hand on their hip and tilt their hip toward you as if to say “I’m in charge”. This is often accompanied by the head movement described above.
- I’ve also noticed that many African-American females who display the “matriarch” quality are often overweight . . . not very often do you see a skinny one.
Many of these mannerisms are nothing but displays of power. Not only that, many of these mannerisms I’ve seen in African-American and north African females, showing that it is part of the culture. But, what’s interesting is that you never see many mannerisms like this in patriarchies. This preponderance of mannerism in matriarchies, I think, reveals some aspects of matriarchal societies and the female character. First of all, it shows a more “self-focused” aspect in the matriarchal society. The easiest way to describe this that it involves the theme of childbearing, which is a major force in females lives. It’s presence hangs over them and determines much of their behaviour and how they view themselves and the world. Because childbearing involves their body, and themselves, there is a tendency for the female to be more self-absorbed or “self-focused” because their mind is upon themselves as a ‘medium’ of childbearing, so to speak. As a result, the world tends to become ‘focused’ upon themselves. The display of mannerisms shows this tendency of focusing things upon themselves and their bodies and actions (and, subsequently, their mannerisms). Other variations of this “self-focusing” are things like the females concern over clothes, manners, slang, and such, that we see so much in this society. And, as in this society, the ‘mediums’ of “self-focusing” become a representation of who they are. As a result, ‘mediums’ of “self-focusing” becomes the ‘means’ of association and displaying of oneself toward other people, especially other females. In matriarchal societies, though, it becomes a strong force in the means to display your power. As a result, the mannerisms become very instrumental and important, making them very prolific and prevalent in those societies. In many ways, matriarchal societies are rooted in their “self-focusing” and demonstrations of power to other females. This is what gives matriarchal society a quality of a bunch of females butting their heads together saying, “I’m in charge! I’m in charge!” which is often accompanied with threats, almost like a bullying. The problem is that this is not what holds societies together. Sure, they may talk big, make threats, and may even become violent, but that’s not what holds societies together, as the historic record shows. To put it simply, the tendency of ‘self-focusing’ is one of the things that creates the weakness of matriarchal societies.
The male, on the other hand, has not ‘self-focusing’. As a result, it makes it so that the male will create a social structure, with a hierarchy, and the males will “take their position” on that hierarchy and play the part required of them, even though it may not be a good part . . . and even get themselves killed. This social structure, really, is the basis of organized society and civilization and what gives them so much strength.
You must remember that I am not, in any way, degrading the female. I am stating fact . . . historic fact . . . and psychological fact. This is the way it is. Just because the female character can’t create civilization or organized societies does not mean that they are ‘inferior’ or ‘bad’ in any way. It just means that this is not where their strength is located. The strength of the female is in other places.
In learning about the male and female I continually find this situation, of how the male and female have different strengths. Not only that, I’ve found that the male strength is rooted in the male and the female is rooted in the female. This means that there is generally no ‘crossing over’ of strengths . . . a female, for example, cannot only “pretend” to have male strength, she doesn’t have it.
The evidence, that I see, is that creating and maintaining a society is not a female strength. Though they can create a society, it is somewhat weak and frail, often unable to handle crisis and conflict and hampered in its ability to rebuild itself after a crisis. This fact, I think, is demonstrated in the effects of matriarchal societies.
Some thoughts on criticisms of this article
Because of the subject matter of this article (females and black people) I was expecting criticism. To be frank, I wanted to see what would be said. Knowing the American character I sort of knew what it would all be about and what would be said . . . it was almost predictable. As suspected, the criticisms gave almost no insight into this subject at all but referred to American social problems. Almost exclusively, it was females getting ‘upset’ because I said something critical about the female character that they didn’t like. So far, I have not really seen any racial references, as I thought I’d see that too, only an accusation of being ‘racist’.
These are all a result of American social problems and, because of this, get onto a whole other subject unrelated to this. In actuality, there’s nothing malicious in this article, nor anything bad, nor was any intended. It was an intellectual observation based on my knowledge of the female character, Africa, and societies. To me, it was a simple 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 type of thing. I found it comical when people accused me of writing this with ‘bad intentions’. That’s like telling a structural engineer that his calculation of the stress on a beam is full of ‘hate’.
Some of the criticisms were so good and revealing about the American social problems, as well as the female character, that they have been included in some articles which are listed below.
– Several criticisms are mentioned in this article, which talks about how American political/legal ideology distorts things:
– Here is an article about a criticism I received and the subject it brought up:
Here is another interesting criticism:
“Everything you wrote is false, according to these societies you left out:” . . . and then there was a link to a segment from a book which speaks of how people in ancient Crete worshipped a goddess and that there were female priests and such.
All the statement and link says is that there were matriarchal societies in the past, in Crete, as if that fact ‘proved’ I am wrong . . . I know there were matriarchal societies! I’ll even go further . . . they still exist having a great influence in black Africa. That’s what the article is about!
As for Crete I know that there have been questions of whether it was truly a matriarchal society or not. It’s not uncommon for agricultural societies to develop what appears to be a matriarchal society. In reality, they are only worshipping the ‘mother’ aspects of nature, and , as a result, tend to place the female on a ‘pedestal’, so to speak, giving an appearance of being matriarchal. As to whether Crete was truly matriarchal or just an agricultural society worshipping the ‘mother’ in nature not I cannot say for certain. But, if it was matriarchal, it went the way of many matriarchal societies . . . it disappeared quickly, unable to organize themselves well enough against crisis . . . the whole culture being whipped out . . . we still know very little. Just because a matriarchal society existed in the past doesn’t mean that “everything” I said is “false” (for, certainly, there must be other parts that are right). Obviously, this type of rash statement shows that they weren’t too happy I took a critical approach to the female . . . my guess is that it is a non-black female. Why? First of all, no racial references were made, only toward matriarchal societies, meaning they were upset because I referred to the female . . . probably not a black person. Secondly, these types of rash statements are not uncommon when females get ‘upset’ about something . . . they will often jump conclusions and put words in your mouth too.
Here is another interesting criticism:
“hey i am just waiting for these patriarchal societies to end the world….and matriarchal societies are not weak …..its the treacherous, deceitful, coniving, arrogance, self centered nature of white people. The Ethiopians are the original hebrews of the bible infact they can prove direct lineage to solomon….not one european jew can prove any lineage to ancient hebrew yet they STOLE someone else birthright. Now I beleive these patriarchal europeans practive thievary, arrogance, deceit in taking things that they like but not man enough to create on their own,”
. . . sounds like someone got a little bit too nationalistic and racial and took things too seriously, as well as bringing in all these other things that this article has nothing to do with. Remember, this article is a psychological observation of an aspect of the female character, which just happened to be in Africa! There’s nothing nationalistic or racial here.
Copyright by Mike Michelsen