“Women’s Historical Status: Tracing the Roots of Gender Inequality”

When we look at the world today, it’s easy to assume that gender inequality has always existed in its current form. But history tells a different story. Women’s subordinate status wasn’t written into our DNA or decreed by nature. Instead, it emerged through specific historical and economic shifts that transformed social organization. Understanding these roots helps us see that if patriarchy had a beginning, it can also have an ending.

How private property changed everything 🔗

In 1884, philosopher Friedrich Engels published a groundbreaking work that would forever change how we understand women’s position in society. Drawing on anthropological research, particularly from American scholar Lewis H. Morgan’s studies of Indigenous communities, Engels argued that women’s subordination wasn’t always the norm. Early human societies, he found, were organized through matrilineal clans where descent was traced through mothers, and women held considerable social power.

What changed? The answer lies in the emergence of private property. As humans shifted from hunting and gathering to agriculture and animal domestication, material wealth began to accumulate. Cattle, land, and tools became valuable assets that could be owned and inherited. This introduction of material wealth, which men increasingly controlled, pushed matrilineal systems to change to patrilineal ones. Men wanted to ensure their property passed to their biological children, which required certainty about paternity.

Engels called this transformation “the world historical defeat of the female sex.” In matrilineal communities like the Iroquois, women had lived in communal longhouses with their sisters and daughters, taking in husbands from other clans. Women controlled household stores, could send uncooperative husbands away, and even had the power to remove chiefs from their positions. But as private property became central to society, women became isolated in individual family units, separated from their own kin and dependent on their husbands.

The rise of monogamy and control of women’s sexuality 🔗

The shift to private property didn’t just change economic relations. It fundamentally altered family structures and sexual norms. Monogamous marriage emerged not primarily as a romantic ideal, but as an economic institution designed to ensure legitimate heirs who could inherit their father’s wealth.

Think about it this way: if a man accumulated considerable property during his lifetime, he needed to be certain that the children who would inherit it were actually his biological offspring. This concern led to increasingly strict control over women’s sexuality. Women’s sexuality became strongly policed as men sought to ensure they weren’t investing their wealth in another man’s offspring. Practices like keeping women secluded from men, binding women’s feet in China, or placing them in religious institutions all stem from this anxiety about paternity and inheritance.

Meanwhile, men of means often maintained sexual freedom through concubines, mistresses, or prostitution, while women were expected to remain faithful. This created what Engels identified as monogamy “for the woman only, but not for the man.” The double standard that persists today has deep historical roots in these property-based marriage systems.

Understanding patriarchy through six interconnected structures 🔗

While Engels explained the historical origins of women’s subordination, contemporary feminist scholar Sylvia Walby provides a framework for understanding how patriarchy operates in modern societies. In her influential 1989 work, Walby identified six structures of patriarchy that work together to maintain gender inequality.

Paid work 🔗

Women face systematic disadvantages in employment. They’re concentrated in lower-paying jobs, experience a persistent wage gap compared to men, and often find it difficult to advance to senior positions due to what’s called the “glass ceiling.” Many women work part-time not by choice, but because of limited opportunities and the expectation that they’ll manage childcare responsibilities.

Household production 🔗

Men benefit from women’s unpaid labor in homes. Despite decades of progress, women still perform the majority of housework, cooking, cleaning, and childcare. This unpaid work subsidizes men’s ability to pursue careers and leisure time, while limiting women’s economic independence and career advancement.

Culture 🔗

Societies maintain different expectations for men and women through cultural norms, media representations, and stereotypes. Women are often judged primarily on their sexual attractiveness to men, while men are valued for their achievements and power. Pornography and media that objectify women reinforce the idea that women exist for male consumption, perpetuating harmful attitudes.

Sexuality 🔗

The sexual double standard persists. Women who are sexually active may be condemned as promiscuous, while sexually inexperienced women face different forms of judgment. Meanwhile, men with multiple sexual partners are often admired. Heterosexuality itself can function as a patriarchal structure when women face pressure to enter relationships that prioritize male sexual satisfaction and emotional needs over their own.

Violence 🔗

The threat and reality of male violence against women serves as a mechanism of control. Domestic abuse, sexual assault, and harassment restrict women’s freedom of movement, behavior, and choices. Even women who haven’t personally experienced violence often modify their behavior out of fear, avoiding certain places or situations.

The state 🔗

Government institutions and policies can either challenge or reinforce patriarchal relations. Historically, states denied women basic rights like voting, property ownership, and legal personhood. While laws have improved in many countries, enforcement of equality legislation often remains weak, and women continue to be underrepresented in political leadership positions.

From matrilineal to patriarchal societies 🔗

The archaeological and anthropological record reveals that many societies organized through matrilineal systems where descent, property, and kinship were traced through mothers. These weren’t necessarily “matriarchies” where women dominated men, but rather societies with more balanced gender relations or where women held significant social power.

Communities like the Mosuo in China, the Khasi in northeastern India, and the Minangkabau in Indonesia maintain matrilineal traditions to this day. In these societies, women often control household resources, children remain with their mother’s family, and cooperation among female relatives forms the social foundation. The existence of these alternative social structures proves that patriarchy isn’t inevitable or universal.

So what caused the shift? The transition from matrilineal to patrilineal systems often occurred when populations developed transmissible wealth and property. When people accumulated movable resources that could significantly improve offspring’s prospects, inheritance patterns shifted to favor male lineage and control. This wasn’t a biological imperative but an economic calculation that reflected the power dynamics available to men in societies developing class structures.

Why this history matters today 🔗

Understanding the historical roots of gender inequality does more than satisfy intellectual curiosity. It reveals that the subordination of women isn’t natural, eternal, or unchangeable. Just as specific economic and social conditions created patriarchal structures, different conditions can dismantle them.

Engels believed that bringing women into public employment and socializing domestic work could restore equality. While his specific predictions about socialist revolution haven’t materialized as he imagined, his insight about economic independence remains relevant. When women have access to resources, education, and economic opportunities independent of male relatives, gender relations shift.

Walby’s framework shows us that patriarchy isn’t monolithic. It operates through multiple structures that can change at different rates. Over recent decades, some structures have weakened significantly in many societies. Women have gained legal rights, educational access, and political representation. Yet other structures, like violence against women and the unequal domestic division of labor, prove more resistant to change.

Recognizing patriarchy as a historical system rather than a natural order opens space for imagining and creating alternatives. The matrilineal societies that persist around the world demonstrate that humans can organize social life in ways that don’t subordinate women. Our ancestors found ways to live with greater gender balance, and armed with this knowledge, we can work toward a future that honors that legacy while building something new.

What do you think? If gender inequality has specific historical origins tied to property and economic systems, what changes in our current economic structures might help dismantle patriarchal relations? How might understanding the six structures of patriarchy help identify the most effective strategies for achieving gender equality?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_the_Family,_Private_Property_and_the_State
2. https://theconversation.com/how-did-the-patriarchy-start-and-will-evolution-get-rid-of-it-189648
3. https://revisesociology.com/2017/01/10/patriarchy-structure-walby-sylvia/
4. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/angela-saini-patriarchy-matriarchy-gender-equality