Matriarchy Isn’t About Flipping the Power – It’s About Building Something Better (Together)

Matriarchy often gets misunderstood. People hear the word and think it means women dominating men. But the truth is: this isn’t about flipping the script—it’s about rewriting it entirely.

This article is for anyone curious about a more care-centred, collaborative way of living. We’re not here to wage war on men. We’re here to talk about what’s possible when maternal values - like empathy, nurture, community, and sustainability - become the foundation of how we relate, lead, and live.

Because in a world burning out from hyper-individualism, hierarchy, and extraction… something has to shift. And we believe that shift is matriarchy.

So What Is Matriarchy (And What It’s Not)

Let’s clear something up right away:

Matriarchy is not about women replacing men at the top of the pyramid.

Instead, it’s about dismantling the pyramid altogether.

In matriarchal systems, leadership is rooted in maternal principles—like caregiving, emotional intelligence, mutual aid, and long-term thinking. They’re grounded in kinship, collaboration, and shared responsibility, not dominance and control.

Anthropologists like Heide Göttner-Abendroth and Peggy Reeves Sanday have studied real-life matriarchal societies, like the Minangkabau in Indonesia and the Mosuo in China. These communities are structured around matrilineal inheritance, communal living, gift-based economies, and consensus decision-making—not because women rule over men, but because values like care and cohesion guide the culture.

And the results? Better health. Greater equity. More resilience. (source, source).

Why This Matters (Right Now)

We’re living through a time of deep disconnection. Burnout, climate collapse, polarisation, and loneliness are all symptoms of a system that’s stopped working.

Matriarchy offers a different possibility—one where care becomes a central organising principle, not an afterthought.

This isn’t just theory. It’s an invitation to rebuild the world in a way that actually feels human.

What Matriarchy Looks Like in Real Life

Rwanda

Rwanda isn’t just a wake-up call—it’s proof that deliberate gender equity in leadership works. After 2003 introduced a constitutional quota of 30% women in decision-making roles, women today hold about 61–64% of seats in the lower house of Parliament and over 50% in the Senate and Cabinet (TIME)

Under this leadership, Rwanda has seen sweeping policy changes—land-access reform for women, tighter protections against gender-based violence, and expanded maternal healthcare and labor law equity (TIME). It's also consistently ranked among the top countries for women's parliamentary representation globally. (World Economic Forum)

Finland

Finland continues to lead in gender-balanced governance: as of 2024, around 47% of members of Finland’s parliament are women, putting the nation among the highest in the EU (European Institute for Gender Equality.) The country has had several female prime ministers and cabinets in recent years—with women holding over 60% of ministerial roles around 2010–2011 (Forbes)

Under predominantly female leadership, Finland maintains world-class education, robust parental leave policies, subsidized childcare, and high scores in social welfare and human development indexes. (TIME)

Estonia & Greece

While Estonia hasn’t reached the same parity figures yet, Estonia became the only country in the world (as of 2021) with both a female president and female prime minister—highlighting a shift toward inclusive leadership structures. (Wikipedia.)

Similarly, Greece inaugurated its first female president in March 2020, marking a symbolic step toward broader gender equity in its institutions (Wikipedia.)

The Minangkabau (Indonesia)

The world’s largest known matrilineal society. Land and property are passed down through women, and families live in multigenerational homes led by maternal figures. Yet decisions are made collaboratively, and men still hold respected roles in the community. (source)

The Mosuo (China)

Known as the “Kingdom of Women,” Mosuo households are led by grandmothers, and kinship is passed through the mother. There’s no formal marriage—relationships are based on mutual consent and independence. Research shows Mosuo women experience better physical health and social wellbeing than women in nearby patriarchal communities. (source)

Together, these examples show something powerful: when nations intentionally elevate women's voices—through quotas, inclusive policy, or seats at decision-making tables—the impact shows up in governance quality, social equity, and collective wellbeing. It’s a modern, macro-scale reflection of how maternal values and matriarchal principles actually work in society.

So Where Do Men Fit In?

This is a big one—and it needs saying loud and clear: Matriarchy doesn’t exclude men. It includes them more deeply.

In these systems, men are vital parts of the social fabric. They’re unburdened from needing to “prove” dominance, compete constantly, or suppress emotion.

Men in matriarchal cultures often serve as advisors, uncles, caregivers, educators, spiritual leaders, and protectors of the community. They lead in different ways—but always alongside, not above.

Instead of isolating men, matriarchy reconnects them to meaning, relationships, and emotional expression. And let’s be honest—that’s something many men are deeply longing for, too.

Small & Big Actions Toward a Matriarchal Shift

You don’t need to live in a remote Himalayan valley to bring matriarchal values into your life. Here are some tangible ways we can all start moving in this direction:

Small Shifts (That Matter)

• Prioritise care—for your body, your home, your relationships

• Value emotions as data, not weakness

• Create space for collective decisions—at work, in your family, in your group chats

• Celebrate interdependence, not just independence

• Notice where competition overrides connection, and pause to choose differently

Larger Moves (If You’re Ready)

• Build or join a co-living or co-parenting structure that centres shared care

• Start a community skill swap or gift circle

• Mentor younger people—across gender—and model balanced leadership

• Create or support workplaces that centre wellbeing, not hustle

• Challenge policies and systems that undervalue emotional labour or reproductive work

This Is About All of Us

At its heart, matriarchy isn’t about control—it’s about care. It’s about reclaiming the power of nurture, wisdom, and deep listening in a world that desperately needs healing.

And it’s not a “women’s issue.” It’s a human one.

We believe a matriarchal future is softer, stronger, more sustainable, and more sane. And we believe it starts with how we show up today—in our homes, our friendships, our work, and our values.

Want more? Here's a deep dive into a few topics:

Why 'Matriarchy' Carries a Bad Rap—And How That Happened (expand for more info)

The Roots: Bachofen’s Theory of “Mother‑Right”

Back in the mid‑19th century, Swiss scholar Johann Jakob Bachofen coined the idea of “mother‑right”—a primitive stage where human societies were supposedly led by women, worshipped a mother goddess, and traced lineage through the maternal line. That vision set the stage for how “matriarchy” entered academic discourse—as a mirror image or inverse of patriarchy.

 (Encyclopedia.com+Wikipedia)

Crucially, Bachofen and others framed matriarchy as an evolutionary phase that patriarchy displaced—turning it into a historical relic, not a living framework.

The Early Twentieth Century: From Theory to Taboo

In the early 1900s, discussion of matriarchy found itself tangled in evolutionary and colonial theories. Scholars often dismissed it as an impossible utopia—and anthropologists began treating the concept as nothing more than myth-making. By the 1920s, terms like gynecocracy  (female rule) and matriarchy were being politely shelved or avoided altogether—not because anthropologists studied matriarchy and rejected it, but rather because they feared the ideological baggage.  (web.sas.upenn.edu)

Marxist and colonialist circles also argued that talking about matriarchy threatened the narrative of inevitable male dominance.

Mid-Century Backlash: When Matriarchy Became a Dirty Word

By the mid-20th century, mainstream anthropology and feminism largely rejected matriarchal theory:

• Prominent critics like Cynthia Eller, in The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory (2000), called Bachofen’s legacy a romantic “myth”—and argued that continuing to cling to it harmed feminist credibility (Wikipedia)

• German and European historians—especially after WWII—viewed matriarchal theorising with skepticism, partly because early 20th-century völkisch and Nazi writers had used matriarchy to idealise archaic Germanic cultures, conflating female lineage with racial mythologies. Scholars like Uwe Wesel debunked these theories in academic circles as nationalist pseudo-history. (Wikipedia)

All of this cemented a widespread cultural view: matriarchy = fantasy, toxic gender-flip, or dangerous ideology.

Why the Term Still Hurts

• Because its very structure implies rule by women, most people still hear “matriarchy” as patriarchy reversed—a concept that historically carried fear for both women and men.

• The term became tainted by association with feminist spirituality, New Age goddess mythology, and cultural movements that many academics dismissed as unscientific.

• Heide Göttner‑Abendroth and others who have built modern matriarchal studies argue the term was misunderstood from the start, defined by patriarchal mindsets that equated ‘rule’ with domination, rather than social regeneration and care-driven leadership (Feminism and Religion)

Today’s Academic Take: Reclaiming the M‑Word (Carefully)

Modern anthropological and feminist scholars make a few key clarifications:

1. Matriarchy ≠ Female rule over men. Laura Sanday and Göttner‑Abendroth describe it as mother-centered, egalitarian, and values-driven systems—not inverted patriarchy. (Feminism)

2. The term remains controversial. Many mainstream anthropologists prefer “matristic” or “matrifocal” to avoid misinterpretation—and indeed, the academic consensus generally maintains that no pure matriarchal society has historically existed. (Gender Studies.)

3. The negative baggage is largely political and historical. It emerged from 19th century evolutionary staging, nationalist misuses in early 20th century, and ideological backlash in feminist discourse—and still echoes in how people react emotionally when hearing “matriarchy” today.

   
   

In Plain English

• The word “matriarchy” was never just a neutral category—it was invented during a time that viewed societies through linear, male‑dominant frameworks.

• It became academically tainted, politicised, and dismissed—making it sound unrealistic, threatening, or utopian.

• What’s more accurate - and what we reclaim - is the idea of societies organised around care, regeneration, maternal stewardship, and equality, not power over others.

The Missing Mother and the Wicked Stepmother: What Fairy Tales Teach Us (expand for more info)

When you think back to childhood stories like Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, or Hansel and Gretel, what’s striking isn’t just the magic—it’s the absence of real, caring mothers. They often don’t appear at all, and if they do, they’re replaced by a wicked stepmother or overshadowed by a male rescuer figure.

Why is that?

Academic research shows it’s no accident - these tales were shaped by cultural need. One study analysing major fairy tales found a consistent pattern: biological mothers are either absent or dead, while stepmothers or other female figures are cast as villains (source). That absence creates a blank slate for the heroine—a gap that must be filled by marriage, male guidance, or supernatural rescue.

In Grimms' stories, the “stepmother” is nearly always positioned as evil, in stark contrast to the idealised, often non-existent, mother. Scholars describe this as a clear dichotomy: nurturing mother vs. menacing stepmother (source).

What deeper themes are at work here?

• Loss of maternal support → forced loneliness and dependency. Without a nurturing mother, young female protagonists become emotionally vulnerable—and their personal growth is tied to male assistance or romantic resolution.

• Stepmothers are often insecure, not inherently evil. One academic paper proposes that these figures drive conflict not through supernatural malice, but through fear, insecurity, or scarcity mentality .

• Heroism emerges through rescue by men or wise older males. In many tales, Snow White and Cinderella wait for princes or wise patriarchs to liberate them—reinforcing a message: agency comes from masculine intervention.

  
  

Research across cultures shows this portrayal carries costs:

A 2022 large-scale analysis of 600+ fairy tales found women appear far less often than men, and when they do, they’re overwhelmingly associated with care, emotion, and domestic roles—whereas men are linked with authority, profession, and justice. These narratives deeply imprint the idea that women belong in emotional or supportive roles—not in positions of leadership or transformation. (Source)

In plain, everyday terms:

• Fairy tales often erase or demonise mother figures to funnel girls toward dependency on marriage, male rescue, or patriarchal structures.

• They perpetuate a symbolic message: female protagonists must find their “place” and protection through external validation—rather than inner power or community-led care.

• That cultural message still echoes today, shaping what we expect of women, mothers, and girls in stories and society.

As part of our broader philosophy on matriarchy, we reclaim these narratives:

• We see matriarchal values not as male-flip, but as nurturing leadership rooted in care, emotional intelligence, and relational decision-making.

• We believe that reclaiming motherhood—real mothering, collective care, and maternal authority—is not a threat to men, but a healing pathway for all genders.

• These tales remind us: the absence of maternal agency leaves space for imbalance. Restoring it changes not just stories, but societies.

Quick FAQ: Understanding Modern Matriarchy

1. Does matriarchy mean men are left out?

Not at all. It means men are invited to participate in a more relational, emotionally-connected, and cooperative way of being.

2. Is this about going back in time?

Nope. We’re not interested in myths or nostalgia—we’re interested in real-world models (like the Mosuo or Minangkabau) and building something new, inspired by what works.

3. Isn’t patriarchy just “human nature”?

Actually, it’s not. Many ancient and modern societies have functioned without patriarchal dominance—and with better wellbeing as a result.

4. Can I support matriarchal values even if I work in a corporate or hierarchical environment?

Absolutely. Care, collaboration, consensus, and emotional intelligence are powerful forces wherever they’re practiced.

5. What’s one thing I can do this week to embody matriarchal values?

Ask someone what kind of support they need—and really listen. Then offer help without needing to “fix” or be praised. That’s matriarchal care in action.

Want to be part of this shift?

We explore themes like this inside our workshops, coaching programmes, and community work. Whether you’re rethinking your own leadership or dreaming up new systems—we’re here to help you build it.

✅ [Join one of our online courses]

✅ [Follow us on LinkedIn for ongoing conversations]

✅ [Apply for our next bootcamp cohort]

Let’s build something different—together.

Want more? Here's a deep dive into a few topics:

Why 'Matriarchy' Carries a Bad Rap—And How That Happened (expand for more info)

The Roots: Bachofen’s Theory of “Mother‑Right”

Back in the mid‑19th century, Swiss scholar Johann Jakob Bachofen coined the idea of “mother‑right”—a primitive stage where human societies were supposedly led by women, worshipped a mother goddess, and traced lineage through the maternal line. That vision set the stage for how “matriarchy” entered academic discourse—as a mirror image or inverse of patriarchy.

 (Encyclopedia.com+Wikipedia)

Crucially, Bachofen and others framed matriarchy as an evolutionary phase that patriarchy displaced—turning it into a historical relic, not a living framework.

The Early Twentieth Century: From Theory to Taboo

In the early 1900s, discussion of matriarchy found itself tangled in evolutionary and colonial theories. Scholars often dismissed it as an impossible utopia—and anthropologists began treating the concept as nothing more than myth-making. By the 1920s, terms like gynecocracy  (female rule) and matriarchy were being politely shelved or avoided altogether—not because anthropologists studied matriarchy and rejected it, but rather because they feared the ideological baggage.  (web.sas.upenn.edu)

Marxist and colonialist circles also argued that talking about matriarchy threatened the narrative of inevitable male dominance.

Mid-Century Backlash: When Matriarchy Became a Dirty Word

By the mid-20th century, mainstream anthropology and feminism largely rejected matriarchal theory:

• Prominent critics like Cynthia Eller, in The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory (2000), called Bachofen’s legacy a romantic “myth”—and argued that continuing to cling to it harmed feminist credibility (Wikipedia)

• German and European historians—especially after WWII—viewed matriarchal theorising with skepticism, partly because early 20th-century völkisch and Nazi writers had used matriarchy to idealise archaic Germanic cultures, conflating female lineage with racial mythologies. Scholars like Uwe Wesel debunked these theories in academic circles as nationalist pseudo-history. (Wikipedia)

All of this cemented a widespread cultural view: matriarchy = fantasy, toxic gender-flip, or dangerous ideology.

Why the Term Still Hurts

• Because its very structure implies rule by women, most people still hear “matriarchy” as patriarchy reversed—a concept that historically carried fear for both women and men.

• The term became tainted by association with feminist spirituality, New Age goddess mythology, and cultural movements that many academics dismissed as unscientific.

• Heide Göttner‑Abendroth and others who have built modern matriarchal studies argue the term was misunderstood from the start, defined by patriarchal mindsets that equated ‘rule’ with domination, rather than social regeneration and care-driven leadership (Feminism and Religion)

Today’s Academic Take: Reclaiming the M‑Word (Carefully)

Modern anthropological and feminist scholars make a few key clarifications:

1. Matriarchy ≠ Female rule over men. Laura Sanday and Göttner‑Abendroth describe it as mother-centered, egalitarian, and values-driven systems—not inverted patriarchy. (Feminism)

2. The term remains controversial. Many mainstream anthropologists prefer “matristic” or “matrifocal” to avoid misinterpretation—and indeed, the academic consensus generally maintains that no pure matriarchal society has historically existed. (Gender Studies.)

3. The negative baggage is largely political and historical. It emerged from 19th century evolutionary staging, nationalist misuses in early 20th century, and ideological backlash in feminist discourse—and still echoes in how people react emotionally when hearing “matriarchy” today.

   
   

In Plain English

• The word “matriarchy” was never just a neutral category—it was invented during a time that viewed societies through linear, male‑dominant frameworks.

• It became academically tainted, politicised, and dismissed—making it sound unrealistic, threatening, or utopian.

• What’s more accurate - and what we reclaim - is the idea of societies organised around care, regeneration, maternal stewardship, and equality, not power over others.

The Missing Mother and the Wicked Stepmother: What Fairy Tales Teach Us (expand for more info)

When you think back to childhood stories like Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, or Hansel and Gretel, what’s striking isn’t just the magic—it’s the absence of real, caring mothers. They often don’t appear at all, and if they do, they’re replaced by a wicked stepmother or overshadowed by a male rescuer figure.

Why is that?

Academic research shows it’s no accident - these tales were shaped by cultural need. One study analysing major fairy tales found a consistent pattern: biological mothers are either absent or dead, while stepmothers or other female figures are cast as villains (source). That absence creates a blank slate for the heroine—a gap that must be filled by marriage, male guidance, or supernatural rescue.

In Grimms' stories, the “stepmother” is nearly always positioned as evil, in stark contrast to the idealised, often non-existent, mother. Scholars describe this as a clear dichotomy: nurturing mother vs. menacing stepmother (source).

What deeper themes are at work here?

• Loss of maternal support → forced loneliness and dependency. Without a nurturing mother, young female protagonists become emotionally vulnerable—and their personal growth is tied to male assistance or romantic resolution.

• Stepmothers are often insecure, not inherently evil. One academic paper proposes that these figures drive conflict not through supernatural malice, but through fear, insecurity, or scarcity mentality .

• Heroism emerges through rescue by men or wise older males. In many tales, Snow White and Cinderella wait for princes or wise patriarchs to liberate them—reinforcing a message: agency comes from masculine intervention.

  
  

Research across cultures shows this portrayal carries costs:

A 2022 large-scale analysis of 600+ fairy tales found women appear far less often than men, and when they do, they’re overwhelmingly associated with care, emotion, and domestic roles—whereas men are linked with authority, profession, and justice. These narratives deeply imprint the idea that women belong in emotional or supportive roles—not in positions of leadership or transformation. (Source)

In plain, everyday terms:

• Fairy tales often erase or demonise mother figures to funnel girls toward dependency on marriage, male rescue, or patriarchal structures.

• They perpetuate a symbolic message: female protagonists must find their “place” and protection through external validation—rather than inner power or community-led care.

• That cultural message still echoes today, shaping what we expect of women, mothers, and girls in stories and society.

As part of our broader philosophy on matriarchy, we reclaim these narratives:

• We see matriarchal values not as male-flip, but as nurturing leadership rooted in care, emotional intelligence, and relational decision-making.

• We believe that reclaiming motherhood—real mothering, collective care, and maternal authority—is not a threat to men, but a healing pathway for all genders.

• These tales remind us: the absence of maternal agency leaves space for imbalance. Restoring it changes not just stories, but societies.

#Matriarchy #MatriarchalValues #GenderEquity #MatrilinealSociety #CareBasedLeadership #SystemicChange #SocialInnovation #CollaborativeLeadership #EmotionalIntelligence #AlternativeSystems #PostPatriarchy #WellbeingEconomy #RewireTheSystem #IndigenousWisdom #CommunityCare #SustainableLeadership #RadicalCare #FeministEconomics #RestorativeCultures #Minangkabau #MosuoCulture #HolisticLeadership #PowerWithNotPowerOver #FutureIsFeminine #ReclaimCare #MaternalWisdom #HumanCentredSystems #CompassionCulture #RelationalLeadership #SocialHealing