1. Nature & Purpose
Humans throughout history and across the globe have devised a wide variety of political and legal systems. Political systems allow humans to make important decisions which affect groups of people, whether a small community or a large nation. Legal systems allow humans to maintain social order so that life is not chaotic or unpredictable. When political and legal systems are formally written down and applied to a large population like a state or country, this is government. However, it is important to remember that ancient humans long before the creation of presidents and laws still had ways of making decisions and maintaining order. Likewise, even today, these informal political and legal systems still exist within modern democracies and monarchies. Just think of the power of gossip and rumors to ostracize people who don’t conform, an example of an informal legal mechanism. Or the power that celebrities or social media influencers have in shaping public opinion and behavior, an example of informal political power.
Women are half the human population. Yet when we look at governments around the world today, women are absent or in small numbers. At all levels – from city council to the White House – and in all types of governments – from democracies to monarchies to dictatorships – women make up a small proportion of the people to hold positions of power. This is one form of patriarchy. What exactly does patriarchy mean, and is it inevitable?
How to cite this source?
Remedial Herstory Project Editors. "1. Nature & Purpose." The Remedial Herstory Project. November 1, 2025. www.remedialherstory.com.
What is Patriarchy?
First, what is the patriarchy? The patriarchy is not men; it’s a social system. Allan G. Johnson, a sociologist and author of The Gender Knot: Unraveling our Patriarchal Legacy argues that patriarchy is a kind of system or structure. Patriarchy is social hierarchy under a single leader, usually the father or eldest male, and descent is traced through the male line. As such, feminism advocates for an alternative system that is flatter without such strict emphasis on hierarchy, rank, and dominance. Matriarchy is not a system one where women dominate men, but where hierarchies perpetuated by the patriarchal system are dismantled and men and women are more equal and freer.
As women were barred from institutions of higher education in early and mid-modern history, most early scholarship on the early origins of human societies was produced by men. This included early fields of history, anthropology, and psychology, and men in all fields made arguments to explain the natural, or biological reasons men seemed to dominate women in society. They claimed that societies used to be matriarchal and used evidence from literature and legends like the mythical Amazons, formidable female warriors residing on the fringes of the known world, the legendary adversaries of powerful Greek heroes. Similar tales of warrior women appear in Ancient Chinese texts. Ancient accounts feature renowned heroes. These stories, depicting male heroes triumphing over all-female societies, have been cited as evidence supporting the idea that male dominance is a natural progression in societal evolution, but the idea that the past was matriarchal is flawed at best.
The myth ignores historical and archaeological evidence and makes unfair assumptions about women based in male bias. The idea of a matriarchal prehistory is presented as a "proven fact" and the "most scientifically plausible account," but these claims are untrue when primary evidence, or a complete lack of evidence are considered. The stereotypes in the matriarchal myth work to make all women seem the same, exaggerate differences between women and men, and limit women to a symbolic, timeless, and archetypal identity.
Patriarchy (n.), a system of social hierarchy under a single leader, usually the father or eldest male, and descent is traced through the male line.
Matriarchy (n.), definitions vary, but women scholars often define as the inverse of patriarchy, where hierarchies are dismantled in favor of more egalitarian systems.
The Goddess Ishtar
Join the Club
Join our email list and help us make herstory!
The History of the Patriarchy
Defining patriarchy is much easier than determining when and why it first began. A lot can be learned from our evolution on this. 4-8 million years ago, the evolutionary path splits, developing into the Homo and Pan geneses. Our closest primate relatives, the Chimpanzee, has several offshoots. Most proponents of patriarchy point to the Pan Troglodytes to argue that patriarchy is inherent in humanity. The Pan Troglodytes are aggressive, live in male dominated clans, infanticide is common, there are border patrols to defend territory, and use coercion to get female mates. Annoyingly, these same people ignore that another offshoot of the Chimpanzee is the Bonobo Pygmy Chimp called the Pan Paniscus, which is the opposite in terms of gender dynamics. Both species are about the same size, the males are larger than the females to the same proportion, and yet this does not produce male-supremacy. The Pan Paniscus are not aggressive, females are dominant in society, and males do not coerce females. This evolutionary view shows us that culture, not biology dictates our societal power structures.
A common explanation, such as that offered in a 2022 article by evolutionary anthropologist Ruth Mace, is that when Homo sapiens first emerged around 300,000 years ago, they lived in small nomadic groups of hunters and gatherers, with some gender division of labor but relatively little inequality and power differences between men and women. Then, when humans first began farming about 10,000 years ago, they settled down and started to live in much larger settlements where inequality in terms of wealth and gender relations first emerged. Men came to control access to land, domestic animals like cattle, or crops like wheat, and through this eventually game to hold political power, first in terms of controlling inheritance, marriages, and children, and later in formal authority roles. In this view, patriarchy is not inevitable, but rather a byproduct of living in complex societies (McBroom 2021).
In The Death of Nature (1980), Caroline Merchant questioned the traditional view of human progress often presented in history classrooms. Instead of assuming that periods of progress benefited everyone, Merchant asked, “progress for whom?” She argued that these developments, while promoting economic and scientific growth, also reinforced systems of social repression. Merchant examined how natural resources and human activity interacted over time, showing that nature and culture were inseparably linked. Merchant began by tracing a long-standing intellectual tradition, originating in ancient Greece, that identified nature with feminine characteristics. This tradition cast both women and the natural world in a dual light: as nurturing, life-giving forces and as dangerous, chaotic entities capable of destruction. The earth was imagined as a “nurturing mother,” sustaining humanity, just as women maintained households and social stability. Yet, both were also portrayed as unpredictable. In extreme cases, women were depicted as witches, symbols of nature’s untamed power. For those seeking to impose order, both women and nature became subjects to be subdued and mastered.
Austrian-born historian Gerda Lerner published The Creation of Patriarchy (1986), a groundbreaking study that reexamined the roots of Western civilization through archaeological, sociological, and historical evidence. She argued that as societies developed, women’s status declined—a process reflected in early tribal economies, religious traditions, and legal systems that gradually established male dominance. By rereading traditional histories with attention to women’s presence, Lerner concluded that patriarchy was not a natural or inevitable condition but a deliberate social construct, created and reinforced through institutions such as law, religion, and family. Her method of “asking new questions of old evidence” transformed the study of history by highlighting women’s central yet often overlooked roles in the development of civilization.
Lerner further contended that patriarchy’s influence extended beyond gender to shape other forms of oppression, including slavery. She argued that the subjugation of women predated and enabled the institution of slavery, revealing how deeply systems of dominance were intertwined in human history. By focusing on the neglected figure of the female slave, she demonstrated how exclusion and inequality were foundational to civilization itself. Lerner’s interdisciplinary approach became a model for women’s historians, encouraging them to bridge disciplines and challenge inherited narratives. Her work continues to resonate as a reminder that systems of oppression—whether ancient or modern—are historical constructs that can, through critical inquiry and collective effort, be dismantled.
Other people see the common explanation for the origins of patriarchy as a little too simplistic. Archaeologist David Wengrow and anthropologist David Graeber published The Dawn of Everything in 2021, which presents lots of new research showing that even after humans started farming 10,000 years ago, there was a time lag of about 4000 years before there is clear evidence of wealth inequality and patriarchal political formations (Wengrow 2022). Humans throughout history and in different areas of the world have been remarkably inventive in creating different political and legal systems, some of which women were much more likely to hold positions of power and share in decision making and rule enforcement. In this view, patriarchy is not inevitable, even after humans start living in complex societies.
So, if patriarchy is not inevitable, why is it still so common in governments seen in the news and our history textbooks? People sometimes assume there are biological differences between men and women, such as our brain structures or our hormone levels, that make men naturally more inclined to lead. Or perhaps men hold political power because of some evolutionary heritage, where women were tied down by childbirth and raising children and men were free to week power and influence. Agustín Fuentes in a 2022 book reviews all the evidence and shows that biological differences between men and women are small and not necessarily associated with qualities that have much to do with politics. As he says in a 2022 article:
“The belief that men are by nature aggressive and belligerent but protectors—like the Roman god of war, Mars—and women are emotive, beautiful, vain, and fertile—like the goddess of love, Venus—is common. Such a belief is often rooted in stories about human evolution and offered as an explanation of why men and women have different jobs, different capacities, and different participation in politics and industry. This is a dangerous myth.”
Other cultures also illuminate the limits to the argument that patriarchy is natural. There are many cultures around the world that are Matrilineal, where descent and inheritance traced through women. Others are Matrilocal, where the groom moves in with wife’s family after marriage, or Matrifocal, where women head households. These cultures existed all throughout history and in parts of the world today, in stark contrast to the patriarchy as natural argument.
In the end, scholars from a wide range of disciplines have shown that cultural and social factors, instead of biological ones, are the best explanation for why patriarchy is so common in our contemporary political systems. In cultures where patriarchy has developed, humans come to see men as “natural” leaders and politicians, and it is very hard for people to escape that worldview, perpetuating this style of government.
Chimpanzee
Power Chasms from Access not Physiology
The purpose of governments has been debated throughout history. Most agree that their role should be to make and enforce laws, protect citizens, and provide for the common good. The earliest philosophers had great ideas about government, but cruel ideas about women. It’s funny to see the mental gymnastics these men did to explain their philosophies about humanity and then deny women that humanity. From Plato to Confucious, their views influenced eastern and western thinking for millennia. Religious leaders held similar beliefs but justified them with religious ideology that condemned women for sins they never committed. Interestingly, many religious prophets and founders promoted social and religious power structures that advanced women’s humanity. Sadly, most religions morph over time in favor of religious fundamentalism that mirrors the patriarchy found in the broader culture. In fact, where religions went mainstream, leaders had new weapons to use to justify women’s oppression. The same mental gymnastics appeared. Religious leaders differentiated spiritual equality from social equality. In heaven they were equal, but on earth women were subject to a master under a political structure called coverture.
Coverture was a system of social hierarchy and oppression where women, children, chattel (property including enslaved people), and animals owned by the patriarch were represented by him. The patriarch was tasked with maintaining order and discipline within his home and providing for the good of the people in his care. If he was found to not provide for people in his care he could be forced to, but in practice, given that women and children had little means, education, funds, and access to represent themselves, this was hard to do. Coverture failed women and children more times than they could count. In the instances where women inherited money, land, or title, the system again did mental gymnastics to justify this: she could exercise authority in the stead of a male heir. In some systems women could own land and titles outright, and in those places, remarkable women rose as examples that challenged the legitimacy of coverture and patriarchal norms. Still, those women often walked a delicate gender line.
Throughout history, women served as queens and empresses, but this is not evidence of a lack of patriarchy, it is often further evidence of patriarchy. Upon review of their reigns, it becomes pretty clear that in most cases, women leaders did very little for women in their kingdoms and empires. Elite women, by circumstance of their birth, have very little incentive to reject the hierarchy: it serves them. Born or married into power, elite women often support patriarchies with as much ferocity as men. Ignoring the likely biases of the source material, Anula of Sri Lanka, the first known female monarch in Asia, ruled with infamous intensity, killing off rivals to maintain her supremacy. Lü Zhi, the first and most notable female Empress Consort of the Han Dynasty, was described as a vicious woman. She and Emperor Gaozu were a formidable pair: he had a good eye for talent and recruited experts to guide him, she a ruthless defender of his rule. After the empire was secured and enemies of the Han defeated, she had two of the generals who had elevated her husband to his position assassinated to prevent them from being political competition. Because of the system of concubines in China, Lü Zhi had to contend with challengers to her son’s power when the emperor died. She executed rivals of her son - including sons within her husband's former harem - in order to consolidate her power. She saved particular cruelty for the mothers of these sons. Lü Zhi ordered her soldiers to imprison Lady Qi in a pigsty, pull out her tongue, blind her, and then chop off all her limbs.
Women were not only political actors, but political philosophers; in fact, some were widely read in their time and lost to history. One good example of this is Ban Zhao of Han China who lived between 45 and 115 CE. She, like many early philosophers, was an elite woman who had education and access and therefore contributed to Confucian thinking about women Ban Zhao’s legacy when it comes to women is a bit complicated. She is best known for a book of advice called Admonitions for Women or Lessons for Women. In it, Ban Zhao makes a very persuasive case that all girls must be educated just as all boys were, although her rationale set Chinese women back for millennia. She even scolded male scholars, saying, “Now look at the gentlemen of the present age. They only knew that wives must be controlled, and that the husband’s rule and precedence be established [...] but if one only teaches men and does not teach women, is that not ignoring the essential relation between them?” She makes clear that women’s education is about promoting harmony between the ying and the yang within the household. Sadly, Han China’s pitiful views on women forced her to have to argue for human decency and education first.
Women leaders who rise to power across social classes do have track records in paying it forward. Theodora reigned as empress of the Byzantine Empire through a golden age alongside her husband, Emperor Justinian I, from 527 CE until her death in 548 CE. She came to the court as an actress, stripper, and possibly a prostitute who won a beauty contest, capturing the heart of Justinian. After their marriage, they ruled the empire together. Her humble origins gave her perspectives on power that made her different from other emperors. Theodora’s influence was palpable everywhere. She contributed to the downfall of prominent men, including a pope. She was known for her social reforms and her charitable work at orphanages, hospitals, and a home for former prostitutes seeking to reenter respectable society.
Not all women from humble origins choose to pay it forward as power is addictive: a perpetual problem in hierarchies which later philosophers like Hobbes would reflect on. Fredegund came to power as the servant turned mistress to the king. The king’s wife, Galswintha discovered he was having an affair with Fredegund. Galswintha was found dead in her bed in 568, and within a month, Fredegund married the king, and then killed the king. Galswintha had been a Visigoth princess from Spain, and her sister Brunhild was married to the king’s older brother ruling as regent in a neighboring kingdom. Brunhild was raised to rule, whereas Fredegund, her sister’s murderer, came to power through violence.
These two rival queens held onto power as regents for nearly a century, providing the stability that their sons could not. Their reigns encompassed modern-day France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, western and southern Germany, and parts of Switzerland. In the medieval period, only Charlemagne briefly controlled more territory than these two women. Neither woman was a champion of other women or democracy. Brunhild was a master of politics, having been trained and prepared her whole life to be a queen in a political world defined by male power. She established alliances to secure her power, negotiated prominent marriages for her daughter and granddaughters, oversaw a trial as the first queen of the medieval era, and was a lead negotiator in the first treaty of Western Europe. Despite the prevailing disapproval of female leaders, her contemporaries had to acknowledge her exceptional abilities. In contrast, Fredegund continuously sought to expand her kingdom, displaying exceptional strategic prowess. She used the spoils of war to reward loyal bishops and buy the church's favor. Both women worked within a system not designed for their success and did it well, but this afforded them little opportunity or incentive to upend the system that served their power.
If a system of government develops around patriarchy, the nature of that government will be to reinforce itself, and the purpose of that government will be to serve the patriarchal hierarchy. Given that young, poor, and enslaved men were considered chattel to be controlled by the patriarch, it’s important to understand that patriarchies limit the overwhelming majority of men. Ironically, the historical movements in the late medieval and early modern periods that challenged the church and the absolutism of kings and queens laid the groundwork for male democracy, and later universal democracy (yet to be achieved). The Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment questioned the very hierarchal foundation that patriarchies were built on.
The Reformation that swept Europe beginning in 1517 cracked at the weaknesses of patriarchal norms that held women’s intellectualism and thus freedom and finances hostage. Martin Luther, the leader of the Reformation, was no champion of women’s rights, but he questioned the authority of the all-male Catholic clergy that charged money for salvation and insisted that only church leaders could affirm salvation from God. He argued instead that God granted everyone salvation and all heads of households could interpret the Bible. He echoed all the misogyny that church leaders had said before him. He wrote, women “are chiefly created to bear children and be the pleasure, joy, and solace of their husbands.” Noting women’s broad hips, he said, “they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children.” Luther’s philosophy was based on the revolutionary idea that the salvation of every human soul relied on their ability to personally read the Bible. He, thus, believed in the education of boys and girls to achieve that end. Luther wrote, “Were there neither soul, heaven, nor hell, it would still be necessary to have schools here below. The world has need of educated men and women, to the end that they may govern the country properly, and that the women may properly bring up their children, care for their domestics, and direct the affairs of their households.” Luther certainly locked women in the domestic sphere, but he was adamant that their education was necessary to fulfill God’s will, and for establishing a new social order for trade, commerce, and urbanization. The trajectory of this change would plateau at times, but at least for the West, women’s access to literacy was here to stay as essential to raising Christian children. Most importantly, Lutheranism and the other protestant philosophies put cracks in the power of the Church and shifted foundational beliefs toward a male centered democracy.
With the Church’s power questioned more and more independent universities opened throughout Europe, spaces where men could study. As universities were separate from the church, early scientific thinking emerged that changed the trajectory of the world. In the 1980’s Carolyn Merchant argued that the Scientific Revolution fundamentally altered humanity’s relationship with both nature and women, transforming them from living, interconnected systems into mechanical, controllable entities. Earlier, nature was understood as an organic whole, but emerging scientific thought reframed it as a machine that could be disassembled, studied, and reorganized to serve human, particularly male and capitalist, interests. Thinkers like Newton and Leibniz epitomized this shift, institutionalizing mechanistic science and laying the foundation for modern technological control over the natural world and women.
Merchant linked the intellectual developments of the 17th century to economic changes in England. As capitalist expansion sought to maximize profit through land reclamation and resource extraction, nature itself was redefined as a productive resource to be managed. This same logic of control extended to women: who throughout history were considered linked and limited by beliefs about their nature. While men were seen as stable, women were unstable and wild. Coverture argued that men provided women with stability. As the Industrial Revolution expanded, lowerclass women faced surveillance and regulation through emerging “scientific” methods, while middle and upperclass women were excluded from production and relegated to passive domestic roles, dependent on male authority. Thus, the subjugation of women paralleled the exploitation of nature, both reshaped to fit capitalist and patriarchal systems.
Brunhild
Strangling of Galswintha
Home as the Foundation of the State
In essence, in the social hierarchies of 17th century Europe and early America, the government mirrored the family structure. The belief was that the family was the foundation of the state. Yet this vision had serious limitations in dealing with the complexities of women’s status, especially as it applied to women who were not just wives or daughters but independent, property-owning individuals. This presented a contradiction that was difficult to reconcile within the dominant political and familial ideologies of the time. For example, high-status women held more sway than low-status men, since their social standing was primarily determined by their husbands' rank rather than their own gender. Thus, women were controlled by men, and poor men were controlled by everyone. This patriarchal structure only really functioned when women occupied the roles of wife or daughter.
17th century queens were all over western Europe, highlighting the ways elite women were able to navigate around male centered norms. Queen Mary I, then Jane Gray, then Elizabeth I ruled England in secession followed shortly by Mary II, the last of the Stuarts. To the north, Mary Queen of Scots, and across the channel Queen Regent Catherine de Medici and later her grandniece, Marie de Medici of France ruled outright. Women ruled in Sweeden, Austria, Spain, and far beyond from Nur Jahan in India, to Nzinga in Angola.
Even if the woman wasn’t an elite or a monarch, the state mirrored family social structure had other cracks. Patriarchy became more complex when the wife in question was also mother because motherhood had long been revered in western, Christian societies. According to the Fifth Commandment, "Honor Thy Father and Mother," women acting as mothers had a nearly equal standing to men, able to command respect and obedience from their children, even from adult sons.
Widows presented an even greater contradiction to the social framework, as they were more likely to own property. In common law, only unmarried women could control their possessions, with never-married women typically possessing little property, while widows could inherit significant estates. This created a paradox in the legal and social understanding of women’s roles.
Political theorists of the Stuart era, such as Sir Robert Filmer, drew on the customary patriarchal model of family life to justify absolute monarchy, arguing that a king’s power was as natural and unquestionable as that of a father over his family. Even those who rejected Filmer’s sweeping defense of royal absolutism still believed the state mirrored the family and that political authority originated in the husband-father’s dominance over his wife, children, and dependents.
These ideas crossed the Atlantic with English settlers, particularly the Puritans. John Winthrop’s 1645 speech on civil liberty makes this influence unmistakable. In it, he compares a wife’s voluntary submission to her husband to a subject’s rightful obedience to magistrates, suggesting that true liberty is found not in independence but in accepting divinely sanctioned authority. Winthrop’s analogy presents marital hierarchy as a model for political order.
Patriarcha
Home is Separate from the State
Filmer’s ideas defended absolute monarchy, Winthrop used them to establish theocracy in Massachusetts, presenting a challenge for budding Enlightenment thinkers. Across towns and counties, property owning men were increasingly participating in local governance structures that operated through collective male decision-making. Collective governance was an only half formed idea until John Locke reshaped them into a coherent political theory. He wrote Two Treatise of Government to directly respond to Filmer’s assertions. Filmer argued that all political authority came from God, who granted it to Adam as the first king. He believed that absolute power of kings descended through generations within a “paternal power” over their subjects, like a father over his household.
Locke argued that Filmer's arguments were not supported by biblical or historical evidence. Locke drew instead on ancient ideas and English custom to argue that society and government were created through agreements among men. Locke pointed out that even if Adam had such power, the line of succession was lost to history, making it impossible to prove any modern monarch had a legitimate claim through that lineage. Locke's work was intended to counter the idea that people were born into natural subjection. He offered a powerful alternative to the prevailing view that authority originated in patriarchal households. His theory was also politically strategic: as a supporter of the Parliamentary cause and the Glorious Revolution, Locke sought to legitimize the overthrow of absolutist Stuart rule and to defend the establishment of a new, non-monarchical government.
What Locke ultimately did was break from earlier political models that treated the family and the state as variations of the same hierarchy. This break served the goal of cracking absolutism and the idea that these institutions were ordained by God. However, as already discussed, for mothers, widows and landowners there were already cracks in the strict hierarchy. In order to justify his political ideas, Locke filled in the cracks that had been liberating women. In the ensuing debates he created a sharp conceptual split: the public realm—politics, government, law—was imagined as an all-male space grounded in equality, while the private realm—home and family—was left as a place where hierarchy and male authority remained fully intact. Governments were by men and for men, while homes were upheld by the patriarchy. If women were mothers, or widows, or landowners, they would have no power in the public world of men without male representatives.
His opponents immediately saw the contradiction: if government was founded on individual consent, how could Locke claim that husbands automatically “represented” their wives and children? Wouldn’t genuine consent require that all free adults—not just men—have a say in forming political society? This is where Locke reinforced the very patriarchy he seemed to challenge. To solve the problem, he doubled down on the idea that women were naturally unequal. This is the same Locke celebrated for rejecting “natural” limitations on men and championing environmental influences over inherited traits—yet he made no move to question women’s subordination. He insisted that marriage was built on a voluntary partnership between husband and wife but then added that their “different understandings” made equality impossible. In classic patriarchal fashion, he argued that shared concerns required a single final decision-maker, and of course, he placed that authority squarely in the hands of the husband. So even as Locke helped dismantle absolutist monarchy, he shored up absolutist rule in the family, ensuring that the household remained a bastion of male dominance.
It's important to note a great deal of nuance in Locke’s ideas about gender. His devaluing of women is not separate from his devaluation of certain types of men. He clearly favors a version of heterosexual masculinity that was independent, rational, and fiscally responsible, while rejecting men without property and dependent on others. Locke relentlessly attacked Filmer's version of patriarchy, what would today be called “toxic masculinity” where the man was a conquering warrior tyrannically obsessed with power over others. Locke clearly valued a version of masculinity that was tender.
Although Locke essentially denied women a place in the public world of men and relegated them to a patriarch in their homes, Locke deeply believed in the social contract. In so far as the patriarch fails to meet the needs of those he’s responsible for, wives had the right to break the contract. He repeatedly refers to the liberty of wives to divorce husbands who fail in their duty to provide for the good of the family. Locke’s ideal father was contentious and levelheaded. How he imagined women without equal education, financial independence, or an ability to represent themselves in court to a jury and judge of all men, was not evident.
Lockes ideas were a step forward for democracy and a step backward for many women. His failure to include women in the public world as full humans and adults was sadly representative of the men of his era.
Colonial American Family
Enlightened Women
The Enlightenment of the 18th century saw an explosion of political thought that built on early ideas by Locke and others challenging the centuries long absolutist systems, arguing that merit rather than bloodlines should drive political leadership. Women listened to their ideas with a keen ear. Are women citizens if they have no say in their system of government or the laws they are bound to follow? How can a society of men who say they are born equal not share that with women citizens?
Particularly for women of means, early education ignited a desire for more, and many women found their place in intellectualism and political philosophy. In France, laws barred the gathering of intellectuals and political criticism, and women of the aristocracy became increasingly involved in welcoming thinkers in “salons.” Modeled after the coffeehouses of the Ottoman Empire where coffee attracted patrons who then engaged in conversations about religion, family, art, and life, Madame Rambouillet’s salon, known as “la Chambre Bleue,” opened in 1618 as an escape from the shallow and rigid court life. There, great minds sang, recited poetry, and exchanged ideas. Her model was quickly copied by other hostesses around Paris. The salons established a haven for French intellectuals to discuss ideas freely and women had a front seat for the first time.
Intellectuals from around Europe came to participate in these kinds of discussions, and even the French king’s official mistress was a participant. Jeanne Antionnette Poisson, better known as Madame Pompadour, used her position and wealth to host thinkers like Voltaire and Diderot in the mid-18th century. She also lobbied for the publication of France's first encyclopedia as a means to disseminate knowledge to anyone who could read. Pompadour’s memory has perhaps been mistreated in history as she is most remembered for using sex to influence the king, but in the sheltered court at Versailles, everyone was involved in such political intrigue. The king relied on her as an advisor, sometimes de facto prime minister, and she used that favor to become a patron of the arts and intellectuals.
Not all intellectuals enjoyed the salons or women’s roles within them. Jean-Jacques Rousseau felt that women’s presence in the salons degraded serious conversation among men. He also resented women micromanaging the conversation. He said,
“they talk about everything so everyone will have something to say; they do not explore questions deeply, for fear of becoming tedious, they propose them as if in passing, deal with them rapidly, precision leads to elegance; each states his opinion and supports it in few words; no one vehemently attacks someone else’s, no one tenaciously defends his own; they discuss for enlightenment, stop before the dispute begins; everyone is instructed, everyone is entertained, all go away contented.”
Rousseau’s resistance to women reflected a broader rejection of political women among Enlightened men. Greek theorists like Aristotle had argued that the household and the polity were fundamentally opposite institutions. The polis consisted exclusively of men and was grounded in notions of male equality. The household, by contrast, included women and was structured by hierarchical relationships involving age, gender, and wealth. Because of this clear separation, women’s standing within the family could be understood as distinct from their position in the political community. In the private sphere, high-status women might exercise influence within the household; in the public sphere, however, all women were categorically excluded from political participation simply because they were women.
Women were not only patrons within salons, but they also thought and wrote extensively on Enlightenment ideas. Their works and theories were widely read by their male peers and became staples of Enlightenment thinking, undoubtedly influencing it. Most women, however, remained desperately uneducated creating a gender chasm in access to power in premodern and early modern societies. Elite women, like elite men, had always been educated, but those educations looked different. Some women however got very equal educations as they were groomed for leadership as queens and empresses to succeed their fathers, brothers, husbands, or sons. Still, as the world shifted from monarchies toward democratic systems and the need for an educated electorate increased, women’s lack of an equal education justified their limited citizenship.
Enlightenment ideas flowed in intellectual spaces and savvy monarchs were wise to adopt some of those ideas. In Austria-Hungary and Russia, millions of people lived under female empresses: Maria Theresa and Catherine the Great respectively. Both of these monarchs were considered “enlightened” for the ways they integrated the ideas of the Enlightenment into their political agendas.
Madame de Pompadour
Early Women Political Philosophers Sought Access and Education
Female philosophers centered the need to provide women with the basic access to education and human dignity. Christine de Pizan, who is sometimes considered the first feminist, born in Venice in 1364, grew up in the French court where her father was the king’s astrologer. Although not noble herself, her participation in the French court gave her contacts and support. Once her career was established, Christine de Pizan wrote works designed to elevate women in society. One work, The Book of the City of Ladies, recounted the histories of intellectual women or great leaders and heroes who were women. She wrote this to offset the hateful images of women that were common in the literature of the day. A second book, The Treasure of the City of Ladies, was written as an advice manual for a French princess. Along with advice for princesses and nobles, Christine de Pizan included sections on advice for women of each rank and role in society. She made it clear that all women were essential and that the expectations of a baroness or an artisan’s wife were just as important as those of a leader. She wrote, “No matter which way I looked at it, I could find no evidence from my own experience to bear out such a negative view of the female nature and habits. Even so [...] I could scarcely find a moral work by any author which didn't devote some chapter or paragraph to attacking the female sex." Sadly, feminist advocacy in this time had to start at the ground up to establish that women were human and deserving of human dignity.
A few centuries later, women’s progress was still stifled by access and education. Living during the French Revolution, a time of social and political upheaval, playwright and political activist Olympe de Gouges challenged the male revolutionaries to include women who, despite being politically active in clubs and salons, were excluded from the “revolutionary” government they were working to establish to achieve “democracy.” At first de Gouges lived a conventional life, she was forced into a marriage with an older man whom she despised. After he died, she rejected convention and fell in love with a wealthy man who provided for her the rest of her life although they never married. She saw first-hand the ways that society forced women into financial dependence on men. Financially secure, she was free to pursue her passions. She joined a salon where she met and shared ideas with “the father of economics,” Adam Smith and American politician Thomas Jefferson.
She wrote arguably the first outline for what a government that achieved gender equity would do. The French men had copied the US Declaration of Independence in style and grievances and called it the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. The structure of this document essentially offers a critique of the overall system of government and then lists the grievances against citizens that are causing the separation. De Gouge emulated the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen but changed it to “and Citizeness.” The grievances she included were harms against women by men, who acted as tyrants in their homes. She advocated the emancipation of women and freedom for the enslaved people throughout the French Empire. By copying the language used by men, she pointed out the hypocrisy of not extending the privileges of democracy, including rights and property to women, and yet calling it a democracy.
De Gouges was impressive. With little formal education, she pointedly saw that female inferiority was not necessarily inherent but ordained by rules promulgated by men. It was the systems of government and society that degraded women’s lives. She noticed that everyday power and decision making were in the hands of men and men alone, so her writings were a direct attack on the principles of male supremacy that seemed ever present in government and social systems. In 1791, she wrote,
“Women, wake up [...] recognize your rights! Oh women, women, when will you cease to be blind? What advantages have you gathered in the revolution? A scorn more marked as a stain more conspicuous [...] Whatever the barrier set up against you, it is in your power to overcome them; you only have to want it!”
She dedicated the piece to Marie Antoinette, hoping to bring these hypocrisies to the queen's attention and gain support from the most famous woman in the empire. The dedication would prove to be her undoing, like Antionette, de Gouge was executed during the Reign of Terror that followed the more peaceful early phases of the revolution. On November 3, 1793, she was beheaded unceremoniously. On the platform she cried out, “Children of the mother country, you will avenge my death!” It would take many centuries for women to get what de Gouge had demanded.
On October 30th, the National Convention issued the decree excluding women from all political activity. All of the women’s political clubs were closed, their leaders were arrested, and the revolutionary engagement that women had experienced trickled to a halt. The president of the Paris Revolutionary Council, Pierre Chalmette, wrote, “impudent women who want to turn themselves into men, don’t you have enough already?”
Arguably the most well-known feminist in the western world, Mary Wollstonecraft, was in Paris at the time of the revolution and fled during the Reign of Terror. While she had been raised in England, Wollstonecraft had been inspired by the French revolutionary ideals and had long been corresponding with other Enlightenment thinkers in Europe and made her way to Paris only a month before the monarchs were executed. She was soon a well-known and respected writer that had been inspired by de Gouges and horrified when she was executed. Like de Gouge, she had personally experienced the failures of coverture. Her father had been an abuser, and she spent her childhood protecting her mother and younger sisters. She also fell in love with several men who strung her along only to later abandon her.
Her book, The Vindication of the Rights of Woman, eventually became one of the most well-known pieces of feminist literature in world history. Her writing was in direct response to a drafted plan for a robust public education system produced by male revolutionaries in France. The system only barely included women, who as they saw it, only needed a “domestic education” for service in the paternal home. In response to the plan, Wollstonecraft wrote her now-famous treatise on women’s rights. She was furious and tired of girls being raised solely for domestic service and the whims of men. She believed that women deserved to be involved in every aspect of society but could not if they did not receive an education. She noted that women were intentionally and systematically held back by men and then ridiculed by men for then having limitations. Her treatise was widely read in Enlightenment circles.
The remainder of Wollstonecraft’s life was tumultuous, a fate that hindered the spread of her ideas. In Paris, she had a daughter with an American who later abandoned them to take up with another woman. In despair, she attempted to commit suicide twice. Soon after, she met writer and philosopher William Goodwin who gave her the love and partnership she had long desired. Together they had a daughter in 1797, but just days after, Wollstonecraft died from a ruptured placenta. After her death, Goodwin published her biography, unintentionally exposing some of the more scandalous aspects of her life. Those who had previously supported her ideas now rejected her fully. Wollstonecraft’s work would resurface less than a century later when women’s suffragists around the world organized more intentionally and persistently for equal citizenship.
What these early women philosophers demonstrated in their writing is that women were routinely blamed and hindered in a society that never gave them equal access and education. Without these, women were bound to fall behind men who had access, education, means, and cultural support in systems designed by men and for men. In order for government to function for women, the structure had to change.
Emulate (v.), imitate.
Emancipation (n.), being set free from legal, social, or political restrictions; liberation.
Welfare (n.), the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.
Inherent (adj.), existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
Olympe de Gouges
Execution of Marie Antoinette
.jpg)
Mary Wollstoncraft
Conclusion
Governments have evolved to create order, regulate behavior, and provide for the common good. Yet these systems were never neutral—they were built on patriarchal assumptions that prioritized men’s authority and restricted women’s access to power. Even before the establishment of formal governments, women’s participation in decision-making was often limited by social hierarchies disguised as “natural” differences. As states and legal systems emerged, patriarchal norms became codified through laws and in social systems like coverture, which subsumed women’s identities under their husbands and institutionalized their dependence. Thus, the very nature of western governments reflected the social order they were built to protect—one that excluded half the population from civic equality.
Women thinkers across centuries challenged these assumptions, questioning the legitimacy of political systems that denied them education, property rights, and citizenship. Philosophers such as Ban Zhao, Christine de Pizan, Olympe de Gouges, and Mary Wollstonecraft exposed how women’s subordination stemmed not from biology but from lack of access and opportunity. They argued that if governments claim to serve justice and the common good, then excluding women contradicts their own moral foundations. Their writings reveal a persistent pattern: whenever women gained literacy or political voice, they immediately questioned the fairness of the structures governing them. Their insights turned the discussion of government’s purpose from one of control and hierarchy to one of inclusion, equality, and shared responsibility.
From this lens, the purpose of government must extend beyond maintaining order or protecting property—it must ensure representation, equity, and dignity for all citizens. Carolyn Merchant and Gerda Lerner’s analyses of patriarchy and power illuminate how systems that exploit nature and women ultimately undermine social balance. The feminist perspective reframes governance as a living, interdependent system—one that, like nature, requires care, reciprocity, and cooperation to thrive. Women’s long struggle for political participation reveals that just and sustainable governance depends not on domination but on restoring equilibrium between people, power, and the planet.
Checking for Understanding
-
Using the information provided, how would you define patriarchy?
-
According to the chapter, is patriarchy a natural occurrence?
-
According to the chapter, what factors created western patriarchies?
-
According to the chapter, how did Locke’s theory impact some women?
-
What historical events cracked the control of patriarchy?
Extension Activities
-
Read excerpts of the works of some of the women mentioned in the chapter and reflect orally or in writing on their ideas.
-
Reflect on the ways that patriarchal hierarchies are present in your life.
-
Reflect on spaces where women seem to hold power in your life.
-
Consider spaces that seem cooperative rather than controlled. What is different about these spaces?
-
Discuss ways that patriarchal dominance could be challenged in your daily life.
Bibliography
Claybaugh, Gary K. “A History of Male Attitudes toward Educating Women.” Educational Horizons, Vol. 64, No. 3 (Spring 1986). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ887227.pdf. Fuentes, Agustín. 2022. Race, monogamy, and other lies they told you: Busting myths about human nature. University of California Press. https://www.sapiens.org/biology/busting-myths-about-sex-and-gender. Goldin, Paul R. “Admonitions for Women”, Hawaii Reader in Traditional Chinese Culture (University of Hawai’i Press, 2017) Goldin, Paul R. “Ban Zhao in Her Time and in Ours”, After Confucius: Studies in Early Chinese Philosophy (University of Hawai’i Press, 2005) Graeber, David, & Wengrow, David. 2021. The dawn of everything: A new history of humanity. Penguin UK. Mace, Ruth. 2022. How did the patriarchy start – and will evolution get rid of it? https://theconversation.com/how-did-the-patriarchy-start-and-will-evolution-get-rid-of-it-189648. McBroom, Patricia. 2021. The Dirt on Patriarchy. https://patriciamcbroom.medium.com/the-dirt-on-patriarchy-96033ca80a62. McDonald, Hollie, "Social Politics of Seventeenth Century London Coffee Houses: An Exploration of Class and Gender" (2013). Honors Projects. 208. http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/honorsprojects/208. McDowell, Paul. 2020. Political Anthropology: a cross-cultural comparison. https://pressbooks.pub/perspectives/chapter/political-anthropology-a-cross-cultural-comparison/. Miles, Rosalind. Women’s History of the Modern World: how radicals, rebels, and every woman revolutionized the last 200 years (New York : William Morrow, 2021). National Geographic Editors. “Chinese Religions and Philosophies.” National Geographic. N.D.https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/chinese-religions-and-philosophies Ohnuma, Reiko. “The Debt to the Mother: A Neglected Aspect of the Founding of the Buddhist Nuns’ Order”, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Dec. 2006, Vol. 74, No. 4, pp. 861-901. Phongsai, Arree. “The Eight Chief Rules for Bhikkhunis”, The Tibet Journal, Summer 1984, Vol. 9, No. 10, pp. 35-37. Puhak, Shelley. The Dark Queens: The Bloody Rivalry That Forged the Medieval World. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2022. Strayer, R. and Nelson, E., Ways Of The World. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016. Wengrow, David. 2022. TED Talk: A New Understanding of Human History and the Roots of Inequality. https://youtu.be/8SJi0sHrEI4?si=25VJsk2NgvAohToF. Willis, John E. “Ban Zhao”, Mountains of Fame: Portraits in Chinese History (Princeton University Press, 1994.Fuentes, Agustín. 2022. Busting myths about sex and gender. Mark, Harrison W. "Women's March on Versailles." World History Encyclopedia. Last modified June 28, 2022. https://www.worldhistory.org/Women's_March_on_Versailles/.
