Beyond Patriarchy and Matriarchy: The Case for Equality
If Parts I to III of this series have established anything, it is that the story of patriarchy is neither as simple nor as universal as it is often made out to be. Human societies have evolved through remarkably different arrangements of family, inheritance, authority and gender roles. India, in particular, offers compelling examples of communities that followed matrilineal or relatively egalitarian traditions long before the modern vocabulary of feminism entered public discourse.
In the north-eastern part of India, the Khasi people of Meghalaya provide perhaps the most striking example. The Khasi are a matrilineal and matrilocal society: children traditionally take their mother’s clan identity, daughters inherit property and the youngest daughter often assumes responsibility for the family inheritance. Yet this does not mean that men are irrelevant. Fathers and maternal uncles continue to have important roles in family and community life. In other words, matrilineality does not automatically translate into the domination of women over men.
The neighbouring Garo community presents a similarly interesting picture. Women traditionally own property and children take their clan identity from their mothers. The youngest daughter inherits the family property, while men have traditionally played significant roles in governance, domestic affairs and the management of property. Once again, what emerges is not a mirror image of patriarchy but a more complicated distribution of responsibilities and authority.
South India offers still more examples. The Nairs of Kerala historically followed a matrilineal system centred on the Tharavad, in which descent and inheritance passed through the female line. Yet the Karnavan, generally the senior male member, could exercise considerable authority over the family property and its affairs. The Ezhavas too had variations of matrilineal practice, demonstrating that the relationship between female descent and male authority was anything but straightforward.
The Tuluva communities of Karnataka provide another fascinating example. The Bunt and Billava communities historically followed Aliyasantana, a matrilineal system in which inheritance passed through the female line. Yet the maternal uncle could remain the principal decision-maker. Thus, even where descent was traced through women, social authority was not necessarily concentrated exclusively in their hands.
This distinction is crucial. Matrilineal is not necessarily matriarchal. A society may trace descent through women without placing women above men. Indeed, modern anthropology has questioned whether a fully developed matriarchal society, in which women historically exercised the same kind of absolute authority that patriarchy attributes to men, ever existed in the simplistic sense sometimes suggested.
And perhaps that is the larger lesson.
The answer to patriarchy cannot simply be matriarchy. Replacing one hierarchy with another does not produce justice. If the objective is to dismantle gender-based domination, the logical destination has to be equality.
This is where the contemporary feminist debate needs greater nuance. The historical experience of these Indian communities demonstrates that societies can organise family, inheritance and responsibility in ways that do not conform neatly to the familiar patriarchal model. Their existence should encourage us to question the assumption that there is only one legitimate template of social progress.
At the same time, romanticising matrilineal societies would be equally misleading. These communities were not utopias. Men and women continued to have different responsibilities, and authority could still be concentrated in particular individuals. The lesson, therefore, is not that one gender system is inherently superior to another. It is that human societies have always had more possibilities than the binary of patriarchy versus matriarchy suggests.
The Khasi people of Meghalaya
Unfortunately, the contemporary world appears to be struggling to discover that middle ground. Gender debates have become increasingly polarised, with men and women too often portrayed as competing constituencies rather than complementary members of society. Laws, cultural expectations and political campaigns are frequently framed in ways that deepen suspicion between the sexes rather than strengthen mutual respect.
Patriarchy has unquestionably imposed enormous costs. Women have historically faced economic dependence, restricted participation in decision-making, violence and rigid domestic expectations. Men, too, have been imprisoned by stereotypes that demand emotional hardness, unquestioned responsibility and the suppression of vulnerability. The insistence that men must always be strong and women must always be protected ultimately diminishes both.
So, where does that leave us?
It leaves us with a proposition that is far less fashionable than ideological warfare but infinitely more constructive: perhaps we should stop asking which gender ought to rule and start asking how neither gender should dominate the other.
The Garo Tribe
The decline of traditional matrilineal systems also raises another important question. When such systems disappear under the pressure of modernisation, what exactly is being lost? Not necessarily a perfect social order, but centuries of accumulated knowledge about alternative ways of organising families, property and responsibility. That knowledge deserves to be studied rather than dismissed as primitive or romanticised as utopian.
The real civilising mission, therefore, should not be to make every society conform to one supposedly universal model. It should be to create societies in which individual dignity is universal, opportunity is not determined by gender, and authority is earned rather than inherited merely by being born male or female.
Perhaps it is time to smash the question itself.
Not patriarchy or matriarchy.
Not men versus women.
Not feminism versus masculinity.
But domination versus equality.
And if equality is truly the destination, then our task is not to replace the father with the mother at the top of the pyramid. It is to dismantle the pyramid altogether.
That, ultimately, should be the conclusion of this debate—and perhaps the beginning of a more mature one. (Concluded)
