Patriarchy is a global phenomenon that feels simultaneously natural and unnatural while being responsible for a great part of the suffering humans experience throughout their lives. However, the origins of Patriarchy and the reasons why humans adhere to it so strongly may surprise many, from the most passionate conservatives to the forward-thinking progressives.
Derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning “rule of the father,” patriarchy is a social system based on a rift between male and female humans, where individuals have to choose between power and warfare (male-oriented- majority males) and care (female-oriented- majority females), which perpetuates a culture that undervalues the contributions of one gender in favor of the other.
In contemporary societies, both men and women engage in power and warfare as well as caregiving. Patriarchy’s trap is how strictly it solidifies this binary: when individuals swap roles—a female president or a stay-at-home father—the system remains untouched, forcing the woman to adopt a masculine template and the man a feminine one.
As a social structure, patriarchy presents itself as objective and rational, yet it acts as a constant burden for everyone living under it. Contrary to popular belief, it cannot be unlearned through simple classroom lessons or dismantled through basic policy changes. It is somehow ingrained in human “nature” as it is today, but perhaps, by understanding its origins, it might be possible to find ways to at least mitigate it.
According to the fossil record, roughly 40,000 years ago, intense relationships between humans and other species (both animals and plants) were being established, significantly changing the human (and the other species) biology and behavior throughout the years – the domestication.
Domestication is a sustained multi-generational, mutualistic, and symbiotic relationship in which one organism of one species assumes a significant degree of influence over the reproduction and care of another organism of another species in order to secure a more predictable supply of resources through which the partner organism gains an advantage over individuals that remain outside this relationship.
From a human behavioral perspective, domestication enabled awareness of different reproduction strategies, fundamentally changing human morality and social organization.
All estrous mammal species (animals that engage in sexual behavior only during their fertile period through pair bonding) that established domestication relationships with humans have heavily influenced their (our) behavior. Still, one species in particular, as far as it is possible to see from their contemporary configuration, apparently shaped humans beyond their biological boundaries – the canids (dogs).
When in the wild, canids have a very short lifespan (3 to 5 years), high reproductive rates (female canids have five pairs of mammary glands, which means that they are biologically equipped to give birth to up to 10 puppies at every pregnancy), precocial puppies that develop and become fully independent within a year, and an estrous reproductive cycle that repeats until the female dies (canids are not biologically equipped to outlive after the end of their reproductive years, like other estrous mammals).
Socially speaking, canids organize themselves mainly by pair-bonding (a male and a female), roaming together over a large area looking for food and shelter while also raising their offspring. Within a period of one year, the couple will reproduce and give birth to many little canids, which they will care for until they grow (to form their own pairs) and leave the couple (that may or may not change for the next season).
The couple is the core of the canid society that can stand alone or be part of a group depending on environmental conditions. When in groups, male canids cooperate on the execution of coordinated drives to hunt prey (providing for the group), while females remain responsible for the upbringing of their offspring, presenting a clear rift in their social structure – warfare and power (male-oriented) versus care (female-oriented).
This combination of behavior and biology (and the fact that speciation in mammals can take up to 2,000,000 years) drove an intense reproductive mix within different types of canids (dogs, wolves, foxes, and so forth) that resulted in an animal with countless different shapes and appearances.
Somehow humans were (and still are) genuinely amazed by many aspects of canid biology and social features, even though we (humans) are incredibly different from canids.
In primate social organization in general and in apes specifically, there is no apparent rift between care and power structures, with males and females playing essential roles in the group’s survival and social organization (couples are not the core of ape societies). Individuals of different ages, different sexual preferences, and overlapping caring roles (everyone cared for the children, the elderly, the sick, and so forth) coexist in ape societies, with their roles inside their hierarchical setup changing throughout time as they age, and with their structures of power diluted within the group while belonging is guaranteed throughout their lives.
This Ape social organization is more aligned with the human biology of giving birth to one (maximum two) neonates that demand a lot of care, usually having the whole group invested in their upbringing, and with the long lifespan at which humans survive many years after the end of their reproductive years (older humans are an essential source of knowledge, experience, and wisdom that is fundamental for the group’s success and survival – as happens with apes).
Under the influence of canid (and other estrous mammals) behavior, humans went through a long and quiet mutation. Female humans that were (and still are) biologically more overloaded with reproduction responsibilities ended up delegated and burdened with all aspects of care (in its broadest sense) and marginalized from the social sphere within human societies. On the other hand, human males who had (and still have) more physical strength (not physically demanded by the care for others) became responsible (almost exclusively) for the whole power structure within human societies.
This new social setup, inspired by canids (and other estrous mammals), created a rift between care and power structures (female versus male humans) that affected (and still affects) all humans, disconnecting them from each other and nearly destroying their (natural) way of bonding through their groups – hence Patriarchy.
Even though humans cannot practically behave like canids (have an offspring that became completely independent from parental care after one year, roam in the wild without a settlement, hunt and eat scavenged meat, and so forth), everything related to the canid social behavior is still highly appreciated inside extant human societies.
Parents who raise their children alone, children who develop fast and become independent more quickly, social exclusion from different social spheres of individuals who are no longer in their reproductive years, and male cooperation for warfare are all characteristics that are present in social organizations of canids (not primates) and are appreciated today in human societies worldwide.
It is important to highlight that domestication is a lengthy process that has been going on for at least 15,000 years, and it is definitely part of who we are as a species today. However, it is equally important to emphasize that blaming dogs or banishing them from our homes will never “fix” Patriarchy.
Domestication brought humans to their contemporary scenario with technologies and lifestyles that built the modern world. By acknowledging that we spent millennia mimicking the social structure of another species, it might make dealing with Patriarchy a little easier – it opens the possibility to deal with it in a more organic way.
Perhaps it is about time for humans to stop lowering the bar on their existence and not use other animals’ social structure as a framework for their social design.
All in all, dogs are indeed a man’s best friend. Maybe it’s time to let them be just that.
All references for this article can be found here.