By Ajax the Great (Pete Jackson)
(Originally posted on the "Vive La Difference!" blog)
(Updated and expanded from its original 2017 and 2024/2025 versions)
NOTE: I generally don't put youth rights content on this blog, as I typically reserve it for my True Spirit of America Party and Twenty-One Debunked blogs. But given how this article is about intersectionality, I believe it fits quite well here. The opinions presented here are my own, and not necessarily those of anyone else in the Matriarchy movement.
One of the most vexing questions of all about the ultimate origin of patriarchy is, how did men take over in the first place, if Women are the superior gender and were already in power to begin with in the last Matriarchal age? And this question is NOT merely academic, as the answer will at least partially inform us on how to prevent men from taking over again in the future. History may not always repeat itself exactly, of course, but it sure as hell does rhyme nonetheless.
Some theorists would say that was because Women were too lenient with men and allowed them too much freedom ("give them an inch, and they take a mile") while others say the opposite, that Women were too harsh and strict and did not allow men enough freedom, so they rebelled ("forbidden fruit" or "reactance theory"). (Note also the parallels with today's discourse about teenagers and young adults, as this foreshadows the rest of this article.) Still others, such as Riane Eisler and many others in the Goddess Movement, inspired by Marija Gimbutas, put forth the "Kurgan theory", namely that a few patriarchal cultures formed in central Asia and the Arabian peninsula, and violently conquered their peaceful Matriarchal neighbors and eventually the world. These cultures, called Kurgans, were semi-literate or illiterate nomadic sheepherders who really had no culture of their own to speak of, but they did have superior weapons technology, and aggression was indeed rewarded in their culture. But that still does not fully explain how those cultures came to be patriarchal in the first place, except for the fact that aggression is wittingly or unwittingly rewarded in nomadic pastoral societies, and men are generally more aggressive and competitive than Women.(Rasa Von Werder and William Bond each have their own theories as well. Rasa believes that Women had sexually selected for more "macho" men by preferentially mating with them, which thus resulted in men becoming too "macho" in a toxic and dangerous way after many generations of such cumulative selection, while Women became less and less "macha" at the same time. And William believes that Women had essentially allowed men to take over by trusting them too much with power. I am summarizing and glossing over the details of both here, but that is basically the gist of it. Both theories I think have at least some merit to them, and both can explain at least part of what happened, to one degree or another.)
I generally favor the Kurgan theory myself, but then when Googling the title of Robert Jensen's fairly recent book "The End of Patriarchy" back in 2017, I inadvertently discovered a similarly-titled book by Claudio Naranjo, titled, "The End of Patriarchy: And the Dawning of a Tri-une Society", which led me to a new theory on the matter. And while I don't agree with everything that Naranjo says, he does make some good points nonetheless. He posits that young people were the ones in charge in the Paleolithic age, then Women were in charge in the Neolithic age, and then men took over in the Bronze Age and remained in power since. And as the title implies, he looks forward to the end of patriarchy and the beginning of a new, "tri-une" society that combines the best of all three past ages, with Women, men, and children all being equally valued members of human society. While I agree with him for the most part, I do think that he sells the idea of Matriarchy way too short, and often mischaracterizes what it really is. And I also still think that the best way that his "tri-une society" or something like it can be created is with Women in charge, that is, Matriarchy. Only Women can be truly trusted to be the "Guardians of Liberty" IMHO.
But one thing is certain: Adultism (i.e. the systemic oppression and subjugation of children and young people) can theoretically exist without patriarchy, but patriarchy cannot exist without adultism. To wit, men would never have been able to disempower Women as much as they did if young people had not been thoroughly disempowered first by adults of both primary genders (even if done more so by men). Kind of like how the rich would never have been able to torpedo the middle class as they did from President Reagan onward if the middle class hadn't first helped the rich by throwing the poor under the bus. That was my latest insight after coming across the work of Naranjo. After all, it took thousands of years to remove Women from power and subjugate them, and it looks like adultism was one of men's "secret weapons" to accomplish this nefarious and perfidious act.
Thus, patriarchy should really be called "adulto-patriarchy", and any self-proclaimed feminist or other civil or human rights movement that is not largely on board with at least the moderate wing of the youth-rights movement as well is indeed a major intersectionality fail. Much like how "brocialists" and "manarchists" are towards Women, and how "White Feminists" (TM) are towards people of color. Or how far too many "normies" in practically every movement are towards people with disabilities or chronic illnesses (ableism), and so on. The entire evil edifice of kyriarchy must come down at once, as piecemeal approaches are ultimately doomed to fail. Even if patriarchy is in fact the biggest crux of the entire pyramid scheme and protection racket.
So let's smash the adulto-patriarchy, yesterday! And the rest of the kyriarchy too. And may we all one day enjoy liberty and justice for all.
I generally favor the Kurgan theory myself, but then when Googling the title of Robert Jensen's fairly recent book "The End of Patriarchy" back in 2017, I inadvertently discovered a similarly-titled book by Claudio Naranjo, titled, "The End of Patriarchy: And the Dawning of a Tri-une Society", which led me to a new theory on the matter. And while I don't agree with everything that Naranjo says, he does make some good points nonetheless. He posits that young people were the ones in charge in the Paleolithic age, then Women were in charge in the Neolithic age, and then men took over in the Bronze Age and remained in power since. And as the title implies, he looks forward to the end of patriarchy and the beginning of a new, "tri-une" society that combines the best of all three past ages, with Women, men, and children all being equally valued members of human society. While I agree with him for the most part, I do think that he sells the idea of Matriarchy way too short, and often mischaracterizes what it really is. And I also still think that the best way that his "tri-une society" or something like it can be created is with Women in charge, that is, Matriarchy. Only Women can be truly trusted to be the "Guardians of Liberty" IMHO.
In a nutshell, Naranjo (inspired by fellow Chilean, Totila Albert) delineates three main epochs of human history:
1) Filiarchy: This was during the Paleolithic Age more than 12,000 years ago, when people were largely nomadic, and foraging, gathering, and hunting were the norm. In this early system, neither gender really dominated (though I think it was most likely gynocentric), but children and young people had essentially all of the power, and allegedly tyrannized their elders to one degree or another. Obviously, this system had its downsides, to put it mildly, so it later evolved into...
2) Matriarchy: This was during the Neolithic Age (and perhaps even a bit before that too) from 10,000-12,000 years ago with the advent of horticulture and then agriculture, to about 5000-7000 or so years ago, and even into some of the Bronze Age. Women were in charge then. Here he makes it seem that individuals were completely subordinate to the collective, which is presented as one of its downsides, along with some possible human sacrifice too. This part is where I think Naranjo kinda sells Matriarchy too short, and the accuracy of such claims is questionable at best. But otherwise he describes it fairly well overall, and certainly far, far more peaceful, relatively equal, and eco-friendly than what came next, which was, you guessed it.....
3) Patriarchy: During the Bronze Age and Iron Age, men had taken over and ruled ever since, spreading their cancerous system around the world. It's origins began in a few areas during perhaps even the Neolithic, but didn't really take off until well into the Bronze Age. Here we see lots of war, violence, genocide, ecocide, rape, torture, imperialism, racism, inequality, greed, and stuff like that. And as they say, the rest is history. And now in what I like to call the "Leaden Age", that system's days are increasingly numbered as we speak. Slowly but surely, Women are rising and men are falling, and the proverbial Rubicon has already been crossed by now, Goddess willing.
But one thing is certain: Adultism (i.e. the systemic oppression and subjugation of children and young people) can theoretically exist without patriarchy, but patriarchy cannot exist without adultism. To wit, men would never have been able to disempower Women as much as they did if young people had not been thoroughly disempowered first by adults of both primary genders (even if done more so by men). Kind of like how the rich would never have been able to torpedo the middle class as they did from President Reagan onward if the middle class hadn't first helped the rich by throwing the poor under the bus. That was my latest insight after coming across the work of Naranjo. After all, it took thousands of years to remove Women from power and subjugate them, and it looks like adultism was one of men's "secret weapons" to accomplish this nefarious and perfidious act.
And of course, adultism continues to perpetuate patriarchy and vice versa to this day. Both are mutually reinforcing, hence the term "adulto-patriarchy" used by the youth rights movement to emphasize the essential intersection between the two systems of oppression. Adultism is of course a form of ageism, with the other side of the very same coin being the prejudice and discrimination against senior citizens, often simultaneously by the very same forces. And at base, adultism is likely rooted subconsciously in an overblown fear of a return to filiarchy, much like patriarchy and misogyny are ultimately rooted in an irrational fear of a return to Matriarchy. The "cork theory" per William Bond comes to mind: when you hold a cork underwater, it will stay there, but loosen one's grip enough, and it rises to the top.
As a lifelong (albeit moderate) youth-rights activist myself, I am NOT arguing that children and early adolescents should be blanketly treated as equals to adults in every way, as that would be quite a strawman argument indeed. So don't go putting words in my mouth now! But the idea that they should have no civil or human rights at all, and/or should be treated as slaves, serfs, pets, or vermin, is just as odious as if that logic was applied to any other demographic group. The fact that it has become normalized for people below an arbitrary age limit of (pick your poison, as any age limit is arbitrary) to have fewer rights than prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, and more restrictions than convicted felons, could not have happened without consequences that backfired on adults as well!
With Women in charge, I personally believe that the best way for them to govern both men and children/youth overall is similar to the way that Dutch parents are towards their children. They have a saying over there, "when you permit, you control." And another good saying, though not specifically Dutch, is "be a mentor, not a tormentor". This is largely in line with Riane Eisler's "partnership model" of social interaction. Others in the Matriarchy movement may or may not agree with me, and that's fine, but that is what I believe nonetheless.
(For what it's worth, I recently discovered that Everything Voluntary Jack, a "voluntaryist" Substacker, had written a great article about what he calls "Parentarchy", which basically ends up being the same thing as what the youth-rights movement calls "adulto-patriarchy", that is, the intersection between adultism and patriarchy. While Jack and I have disagreed about a number of things, including humanity's Matriarchal past, we have still found some common ground at times.)
Thus, patriarchy should really be called "adulto-patriarchy", and any self-proclaimed feminist or other civil or human rights movement that is not largely on board with at least the moderate wing of the youth-rights movement as well is indeed a major intersectionality fail. Much like how "brocialists" and "manarchists" are towards Women, and how "White Feminists" (TM) are towards people of color. Or how far too many "normies" in practically every movement are towards people with disabilities or chronic illnesses (ableism), and so on. The entire evil edifice of kyriarchy must come down at once, as piecemeal approaches are ultimately doomed to fail. Even if patriarchy is in fact the biggest crux of the entire pyramid scheme and protection racket.
In other words, the gender war will simply continue until men surrender to Women. And the "Great Cosmic Custody Battle" between patriarchy and Matriarchy will simply continue in some form or another until children and young people are also liberated as well, Goddess willing.
So let's smash the adulto-patriarchy, yesterday! And the rest of the kyriarchy too. And may we all one day enjoy liberty and justice for all.
(Mic drop)
RASA'S EXCELLENT RESPONSE FROM 2025:
I'm going to put your two new articles into the compilation entitled 'Can Female Power Save the Planet III". OK yes I have my theory that you described accurately but I also believe in the Kurgan theory - there is NO CONFLICT THERE. I interviewed a woman long ago, an expert on the subject, can't recall her name, a long article where she describes how the tribes I think she said the Steppes - that would be somewhere by Russia or Siberia & these tribes are who started attacking the Matriarchies. Yes, the men got more & more aggressive & violent as women bred with such types - for a while they were helpful. To hafe kids who are bigger, stronger, braver is terrific if they OBEY Mother - go out & work & protect the family, willing to take risks such as defending from mammoths, wolves & bears, etc. But if he turns into a Frankenstein & escapes her authority - which they did - forming their own tribes where men BONDED & produced first knives, then swords, the we have a problem. They were also horsemen, cattle & sheep & goats was their resource moreso than agriculture. So riding on horses they could stride into peaceful villages & with force aided by knives & swords, take over. Yes it's a long story & you told it well. Thanks for this Ajax, you write fantastic articles, very educational, well written & thought out, we just have to read & learn. Thanks! Rasa
PETE'S RESPONSE FROM THEN:
Well said, Rasa! Thank you very much, and you're very welcome 🙂
Best wishes,
Pete
(Most likely smiling down from Heaven right now)
