Refuting the “End of the Spear” Patriarchy Argument

Introduction

The claim in question argues that because “at the end of the spear” it’s men who enforce rights – implying that men allow women to have rights – therefore societies will always be patriarchal. In other words, it assumes that physical force and male dominance are the ultimate basis of rights, making patriarchy inevitable. This argument collapses “might makes right” into a determinist view of gender relations. In this report, we will refute this claim from multiple angles. We draw on feminist philosophy (e.g. Simone de Beauvoir, Judith Butler, bell hooks), Enlightenment political philosophy (John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and their feminist contemporaries), modern political and ethical theory (John Rawls, Jürgen Habermas, Martha Nussbaum), as well as logical critique and historical evidence (matrilineal societies and women’s roles in revolutions and governance). These perspectives show that the “end of the spear” argument fails philosophically, ethically, and historically.

Figure 1-2 — Domestic violence presented as a commercial joke

This 1952 Chase & Sanborn coffee advertisement depicts a husband preparing to spank his wife for failing to buy “fresher coffee.” Pinker’s point is not that an advertisement measures how often husbands assaulted wives; it is that the advertiser expected marital punishment to be recognizable, humorous, and safe enough to sell a household product. That makes the image evidence of a once-publicly marketable gender-and-force script whose legitimacy has since sharply contracted.

Source boundary: cultural artifact and Pinker’s interpretation, not prevalence data or a complete account of 1950s marriage. Chapter 1, Figure 1-2, PDF p. 58 (file not included in this release)

Logical and Ethical Flaws in the “Might Makes Right” Assumption

At its core, the argument assumes that power = right. This is a classic fallacy: conflating the ability to impose one’s will with the moral or political legitimacy of that dominance. Philosophers have long rejected the notion that “might makes right.” Even in ancient philosophy, Plato’s Republic has Socrates refute Thrasymachus’s claim that justice is merely the advantage of the stronger. Modern ethical thought likewise holds that rights are inalienable and universal, not mere privileges bestowed by the powerful. The idea that women’s rights exist only by the permission of men is fundamentally at odds with the concept of natural or human rights championed since the Enlightenment. For example, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) – and its feminist counterpart by Olympe de Gouges – assert that rights belong to people by virtue of their humanity, not due to another group’s generosityazquotes.com. As de Gouges declared: “Woman is born free and lives equal to man in her rights. Social distinctions can be based only on common utility.”azquotes.com. If rights are inherent, then they are not something men “allow” women to have – they are something women (and men) possess by default.

Ethically, the argument also implies a crude “law of the jungle” morality that few political philosophers accept. It suggests that because men traditionally held weapons or political force, it is natural and acceptable that they dominate women. This reasoning is circular and self-justifying. Feminist theorist bell hooks identifies this mindset precisely: “Patriarchy, like any system of domination (for example, racism), relies on socializing everyone to believe that in all human relations there is an inferior and a superior party… and that it is therefore natural for the powerful to rule over the powerless.”azquotes.com. The “men at the end of the spear” trope is a textbook example of this patriarchal ideology – it presumes one group ought to rule simply because it can. Modern moral philosophy rejects such reasoning: might does not make right. Rights derive from justice, equality, and mutual recognition, not from who can brandish a spear.

Logically, the argument is self-defeating. If one truly believes only violent enforcement matters, then no rights are secure for anyone – only temporary privileges held at gunpoint. This would undercut not only women’s rights but all rights, leading to a nihilistic conclusion that no moral progress or principled limits on power are possible. History disproves that: the abolition of slavery, the spread of democracy, and the recognition of universal human rights show that brute force can be restrained by ethical principles and social contracts. Thus, the argument’s premise is flawed: stable societies are not simply whoever has superior force; they are built on laws, norms, and consensus that often restrain force. In modern democracies especially, the rule of law means no individual (male or female) is supposed to be above the rights of others. Women’s rights today are codified in constitutions and international law – not merely indulgences from men, but binding principles. The claim that societies will always be patriarchal because men have the spears ignores the very real shifts in power sharing and legal norms that have occurred.

In summary, as a logical and ethical proposition the “men allow women rights” argument is untenable. It mistakes power for justification, confuses historical accidents with destiny, and overlooks the moral core of rights. We now turn to how various schools of philosophy bolster this refutation.

Feminist Philosophical Perspectives: Constructed Power, Not Destiny

Feminist philosophers have extensively critiqued the idea that patriarchy is inevitable or natural. Simone de Beauvoir, in The Second Sex (1949), examined how women have been historically relegated to the status of the “Other” – defined and dominated by men – but she did not accept this as a fixed reality. On the contrary, Beauvoir asked: “How is it that this world has always belonged to the men and that things have begun to change only recently?”marxists.org. This question itself undermines the inevitability of patriarchy: if male domination were a timeless natural law, we would not see it “begin to change”. Beauvoir points out that for millennia men wrote the laws and philosophies that justified their own dominance. As she observes (quoting a 17th-century feminist, Poulain de la Barre): “Being men, those who have made and compiled the laws have favoured their own sex, and jurists have elevated these laws into principles.”marxists.org. In other words, men turned a historical power advantage into a norm, then into a supposed eternal principle – a process Beauvoir calls out as self-serving and suspectmarxists.org marxists.org. Crucially, Beauvoir emphasizes that this status quo can be and is being overturned. She approvingly cites Montaigne: “Women are not in the wrong when they decline to accept the rules laid down for them, since the men make these rules without consulting them.”marxists.org. Far from women’s rights being a gift from men, Beauvoir frames them as something women claim by rejecting unjust, unilateral “rules” of men. By highlighting how women’s “inferior” position was artificially created and maintained (e.g. via lack of education, economic opportunities), Beauvoir flips the narrative: women’s subordination is a result of circumstance – not essence – and it can change once those circumstances changemarxists.org. The feminist movement itself, in Beauvoir’s era and beyond, is evidence of women seizing their rights, not just passively receiving them.

Later feminist theorists like Judith Butler deepen the challenge to patriarchal inevitability by attacking the notion of fixed gender roles. Butler’s theory of gender performativity argues that what we consider “men” and “women” – and their associated traits of dominance or submissiveness – are not biologically predestined facts, but repeated social performances. “Gender is not something one is, it is something one does – a set of acts, a ‘performance’,”_as Butler famously puts itazquotes.com. This means the idea that only men will ever be the enforcers (wielding spears, literal or metaphorical) relies on viewing “man” and “woman” as essentially defined categories with inherent power differences. Butler shows that this is an illusion: _gender identities are contingent, culturally constructed, and open to changeen.wikipedia.org. If society starts “performing” gender differently – say, by raising boys and girls with egalitarian values and showing that women can be warriors and leaders while men can be nurturers and allies – the old patriarchal script can be rewritten. In fact, Butler notes that appeals to a single, universal patriarchy often ignore how gender oppression varies by culture and eraen.wikipedia.org. There is no eternal, unchanging Patriarch (with a capital P) – there are only specific systems of power, all of which can be contested. Butler’s perspective refutes the inevitability of patriarchy by illustrating that what counts as “men’s role” or “women’s role” is variable and thus possible to reform or “trouble.” If gender hierarchy is an act, it can be acted out differently.

bell hooks, a prominent Black feminist thinker, tackles the argument from another angle – focusing on how patriarchy is a system that both women and men are socialized into, rather than a simple result of men’s superior physical force. In her essay “Understanding Patriarchy,” hooks writes: “Patriarchy has no gender.”azquotes.com. By this she means that women can internalize and uphold patriarchal values just as men can challenge them – patriarchy is not an innate male trait, but a belief system and social structure. This directly undercuts the notion that men by nature will always dominate. If patriarchy has no gender, then there is nothing inevitable about male rule – it continues only if people (of any gender) continue to accept and enact its values. Hooks also highlights that patriarchy is maintained through indoctrination and often through psychological violence against men themselves. “The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is … [that] they kill off the emotional parts of themselves,” hooks writesazquotes.com. Boys and men are pressured to harden themselves and to equate dominance with masculinity, which is a social conditioning – not a biological destiny. Many men, as hooks notes, are deeply hurt by this process even if they benefit from male privilege in other waysazquotes.com azquotes.com. This insight is powerful: it means men have an interest in dismantling patriarchy too, since it constrains and harms them (by forcing them into a violent, stoic mold). Indeed, history shows numerous men who have allied with women to expand women’s rights – a scenario the “men allowing rights” argument cannot easily account for except as anomalies. Hooks’s critique reveals the argument’s false premise: it treats men as a monolithic bloc naturally inclined to dominate, rather than individuals who can choose their beliefs. If men can be feminists or can reject the role of patriarchal enforcer (and many do), then it is not true that “societies will always be patriarchal.”

In sum, feminist philosophy exposes the argument’s shaky assumptions. Patriarchy is not a fixed law of nature; it’s a historically constructed system that is already being dismantled. Women are not simply granted rights from above – they have fought for and won rights through collective action and shifting cultural norms. And men are not fated to forever clutch the spear of power – they too can and do participate in more egalitarian arrangements. The “end of the spear” argument fails to recognize these fundamental dynamics of gender as social (and changeable) rather than biological (and permanent).

Enlightenment Ideals: Natural Equality vs. Patriarchal Authority

Enlightenment political philosophy provides a framework of universal rights and equality that directly contradicts the notion that one group’s dominance (e.g. men’s) is the basis of society. Thinkers like John Locke and Immanuel Kant were not feminists by today’s standards, but the principles they articulated became the very tools early feminists used to refute patriarchal arguments.

John Locke, for example, famously challenged the prevailing patriarchal theory of government in his time. In Locke’s day, Sir Robert Filmer had argued that kings ruled by a God-given right analogous to a father’s authority over a family – a doctrine of patriarchal absolutism. Locke’s First Treatise of Government (1689) is a point-by-point refutation of this idea. He notes that Filmer conveniently made Adam (the Biblical first man and father) the prototype for all rulers, thereby excluding women from authority. Locke attacks this on multiple fronts, notably asserting that even on Filmer’s own terms, mothers have equal authority in the family. Citing the commandment to “honor thy father and thy mother,” Locke writes that no one can deny “the woman hath an equal share, if not the greater, as nourishing the child a long time in her own body… and from her it receives the materials of its constitution.”yorku.ca. If parental power comes from procreation and care, Locke argues, it is a joint power – not exclusively the father’syorku.ca. This was a radical departure from patriarchy as a divine mandate. Furthermore, Locke explicitly rejects the idea that Eve’s subordination after Eden (the Biblical “he shall rule over thee”) grants any man political dominion over womenyorku.ca. At most, Locke says, it establishes a conventional “conjugal”_hierarchy in the household, but “not a political power of life and death” – and certainly not a blueprint for kings or for male sovereignty over all womenyorku.ca. In Locke’s view, legitimate government comes from the _consent of the governed, not the forceful rule of husbands or fathers. All people are born with natural rights to life, liberty, and property, which they don’t forfeit by sex. While Locke did not explicitly call for women’s political equality, his philosophy planted seeds that Mary Wollstonecraft and others would later cultivate into full-blown feminist arguments. Wollstonecraft, writing a century later, effectively said: if all men are born free (as Locke and Revolutionary thinkers claimed), why are women born subjugated? She and Olympe de Gouges applied Enlightenment ideals to women, exposing the contradiction in excluding women from “natural” rights. De Gouges’s 1791 declaration, quoted earlier, directly mirrors Locke’s tone in asserting women’s equal freedomsazquotes.com.

Immanuel Kant’s contributions, though abstract, also undermine the rationale for permanent patriarchy. Kant’s moral philosophy insists on the equal dignity of all rational beings. His famous categorical imperative commands that we treat humanity “never merely as a means, but always also as an end in itself.” If we take this seriously, treating women as subordinate, or as having rights only by another’s leave, is unethical. A husband or male ruler who treats women as means to his ends (denying her autonomy unless he “allows” it) fails Kant’s test of universality and respect. Kant also emphasized the importance of autonomy – the capacity of individuals to reason and make moral decisions. Women, as later feminists were quick to point out, have the same capacity for reason as men; thus by Kantian logic they should enjoy the same freedom to exercise their moral agency. It’s true that Kant himself held some stereotypical views about women’s roles in marriage and society (products of his 18th-century context), but the implications of his ethics are egalitarian. In fact, Kant’s contemporary Wilhelm von Humboldt and later Kantian thinkers argued that denying education or liberty to women was a violation of their status as ends-in-themselves.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau provides a more complex case: he was a champion of popular sovereignty and equality among men, yet in his novel Emile he infamously asserted that a woman’s education should be directed toward pleasing men (through the character Sophie). Nonetheless, even Rousseau’s political theory carried seeds of feminist subversion. Rousseau held that political authority is only legitimate when derived from the “general will”of free and equal citizens, rather than from force. If one consistently applies this principle, it calls into question why half the population (women) should be excluded from the status of citizen. Indeed, early feminists like Olympe de Gouges and Mary Wollstonecraft were keenly aware of Rousseau’s contradictions. Wollstonecraft in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) praised Rousseau’s talk of liberty but castigated him for denying women the same: she argued that women’s seeming “weakness” was not a natural fate but the result of denied education and opportunity – a distortion much like tyrants use to keep subjects servile. Her reasoning was straightforward Enlightenment logic: if reason and virtue (not physical might) legitimize rule, then women, being rational creatures, have equal claim to those rights and virtues.

In summary, Enlightenment philosophy shattered the old notion that social hierarchy (including patriarchy) was ordained by God or nature. It replaced it with the idea that all individuals are by nature free and equal. Consent and rights were to trump brute force. The patriarchal argument that “men will always dominate because they have the weapons” is a relic of the very absolutist thinking Enlightenment thinkers fought against. It is akin to saying “kings will always rule because they have the armies” – a notion decisively disproven by the spread of republican and democratic governments. Just as Enlightenment ideals helped discredit the “divine right” of kings, they also laid the groundwork to discredit the “natural right” of men to rule women. Over time, this led to tangible changes: for instance, the 19th-century women’s rights movement explicitly drew on Enlightenment rhetoric of equal rights. The Seneca Falls Convention’s Declaration of Sentiments (1848) paraphrased the Declaration of Independence to include women. Such developments illustrate that once equality is accepted as a foundational value, patriarchy’s rationale crumbles. Society can be reimagined as a partnership of equals rather than a hierarchy of coercion.

Modern Political Theory: Justice, Discourse, and Capabilities

Moving into the 20th and 21st centuries, modern political and ethical theories have only reinforced the case against patriarchal arrangements. Far from seeing patriarchy as inevitable, modern theorists tend to view it as a form of injustice to be overcome.

John Rawls’s theory of justice is a prime example. Rawls asked: what principles of justice would free and rational people choose for their society if they did not know in advance who they’d be – rich or poor, aristocrat or commoner, man or woman? This thought experiment behind a “veil of ignorance” leads to Rawls’ famous principles, including “each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties”en.wikipedia.org. In a Rawlsian framework, gender would be an arbitrary characteristic that one might or might not end up with, so one would not design a society where that characteristic determines whether you have rights or not. If you had a 50% chance of being born female, you would hardly consent to a system where females are subordinate or reliant on males’ permission for rights. You would rationally choose a system of gender equality, to safeguard your liberties regardless of outcome. Thus, Justice as Fairness directly repudiates “societies will always be patriarchal.” In a fair society – the kind Rawls argues we have strong reasons to pursue – institutions must assure that whether one is male or female has no bearing on one’s basic rights and opportunities. Any deviation from that (such as legal or civic patriarchy) would violate the first principle of equal basic liberties and the second principle of fair equality of opportunityen.wikipedia.org. Modern Rawlsian scholars (like Susan Moller Okin) have pointed out that to fully realize Rawls’ vision, the principles must extend to the gender dynamics in family and society, challenging traditional gender roles that impede true equality. The direction of Rawlsian justice is clearly toward diminishing patriarchy, not entrenching it.

Jürgen Habermas’s work on communicative ethics and deliberative democracy also provides a powerful counterpoint to the idea that rights depend on male enforcement. Habermas envisions the legitimacy of laws arising from free public deliberation among equal participants – the “public sphere” of discourse. He emphasizes that for a society’s power to be just, it must be anchored in mutual understanding and reason, not in hidden coercion. Importantly, Habermas (and those inspired by him) highlight that the ideal public sphere is inclusive of all citizens regardless of status, class, or genderlareviewofbooks.org. Historically, liberal societies failed to live up to this – women and minorities were excluded from the halls of power. But the normative ideal – which Habermas traces from Kant and expands – condemns such exclusion. In fact, feminist scholars have engaged with Habermas’s theory to show how 19th-century bourgeois public life was restricted to men, and how that very restriction was a tool of patriarchylareviewofbooks.org. Habermas’s concept helped reveal that supposedly “universal” reason often secretly centered on male perspectives, marginalizing womenlareviewofbooks.org. However, by making inclusion and open dialogue the yardstick of legitimacy, his theory arms us with a critique of patriarchy: A patriarchy where only men’s voices count violates the conditions of ideal discourse and democratic legitimacy. A stable, just society in Habermasian terms would require that women’s voices and interests weigh equally in dialogue – which means men cannot just dictate women’s rights. Rights must be agreed upon in a truly inclusive process. The extension of suffrage and the entrance of women into public debate over the last two centuries can be seen as progress toward this democratic ideal. In short, modern deliberative theory finds the idea of a permanent male monopoly on power not only unjust but irrational, since it suppresses contributions from half the population and bases law on domination rather than consensus.

Martha Nussbaum’s work on human capabilities offers yet another refutation of patriarchal essentialism. Nussbaum approaches justice by asking what individuals need in order to live a life of dignity and to fulfill their human potential. She identifies a list of fundamental “capabilities” (like the ability to live a healthy life, to get an education, to engage in economic and political activities, to have control over one’s body and environment, etc.). When Nussbaum applies this to women, she observes that in many traditional societies women are systematically denied these basic capabilities – often by patriarchal norms and laws. “In much of the world today women are less well nourished than men, less healthy, and more vulnerable to physical violence and sexual abuse,” Nussbaum writes, stressing that we must see gender inequality as a profound problem of justicegenderbudgeting.files.wordpress.com. The very facts she cites – higher male access to food, healthcare, bodily security – are usually not because of male biology, but because of patriarchal social arrangements. For example, if women are more likely to be illiterate (due to lack of education) or more likely to suffer domestic violence, it’s because of societal choices, not fate. Nussbaum’s approach insists that governments and societies have an obligation to change these arrangements so that women have the same essential freedoms and capabilities as men. In her list of central capabilities, many are precisely the things patriarchy often “allows” or disallows at its whim: bodily integrity (freedom from violence, reproductive choice), education, political participation, property ownership, etc. A just society, by Nussbaum’s standards, is one that secures these for everyone. This means dismantling patriarchal barriers. There’s no room in Nussbaum’s vision for the idea that women’s flourishing is contingent on male permission. Rather, justice requires women’s empowerment regardless of what the men in their society want. In fact, Nussbaum often points out that traditions or religious practices that keep women down must be critically examined and, if they violate women’s basic entitlements, reformed. Her stance exemplifies the modern consensus in ethical theory: gender hierarchy is an arbitrary and unjust inequality, not an inevitable feature of human life.

To bolster this point, consider that virtually all international human rights instruments today call for gender equality. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) asserts that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Subsequent treaties like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW, 1979) were created precisely to combat the idea that it’s acceptable for women’s rights to be curtailed by “local customs” (often patriarchal in nature). The global community, informed by modern moral thought, increasingly treats patriarchy not as the default setting of society but as a problem – analogous to racism or colonialism – to be overcome.

In sum, contemporary political philosophy and ethics reinforce that patriarchy is neither desirable nor unchangeable. Justice-oriented theories call for structures that treat women as equal persons, not dependent subjects. Where the “men with spears” argument sees an eternal power imbalance, modern theory sees an injustice that can and should be corrected by laws, rights, and conscious social evolution.

Historical Counterexamples: Matrilineal Societies and Women’s Agency in History

The claim that “societies will always be patriarchal” also runs aground on the reef of historical facts. A survey of human societies and history shows that patriarchy is widespread but not universal or inevitable. There have been societies with relatively egalitarian or even matrilineal structures, and there are many instances where women have not only been “allowed” rights by men, but have taken them – sometimes by force – or held power themselves. These examples serve as a reality check against any fatalistic notion of unchanging male dominance.

Matrilineal and Matriarchal Societies: Anthropologists have long studied cultures that do not fit the patriarchal mold. For example, the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy in North America is a frequently cited case. For centuries before and after European contact, the Iroquois had a socio-political system in which women played central and powerful roles. Property and clan lineage passed through the female line (matrilineal descent), and elder women (Clan Mothers) had significant authority – including the power to nominate and even depose the male chiefs who represented the clans in councilaila.ngo. Women were the stewards of the land and could veto decisions like going to war or selling landaila.ngo. In the home, the Iroquois wife was, as one 19th-century observer noted, “absolute,” with full rights to her property and childrenaila.ngo. Matilda Joslyn Gage, a suffragist who wrote about the Iroquois, marveled that “the division of power between the sexes in this [Iroquois] republic was nearly equal.”aila.ngo and that “never was justice more perfect, never civilization higher,” than in this system that recognized the power and importance of womenaila.ngo. Early American feminists in fact took inspiration from their Indigenous neighbors: suffragists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Gage, on visiting Iroquois communities, “saw another society, one in which women and men were equals,” with women choosing representatives and having voice in councilaila.ngo. This directly influenced their conviction that patriarchy was neither natural nor justaila.ngo. Another example is the Minangkabau people of West Sumatra (Indonesia), often cited as the world’s largest matrilineal society. Among the Minangkabau (who are Muslim by religion), inheritance of family property and descent is through the female line, and women traditionally remain central in the household while husbands take a secondary role in their wife’s family homebritannica.com britannica.com. A Minangkabau woman typically inherits the ancestral home and land, and the family line is carried through daughters – a structure that stands in stark contrast to patriarchal norms elsewherebritannica.com. While political leadership in the villages has involved men, the social and economic power of women in Minangkabau culture is so pronounced that anthropologists speak of it as a matriarchal ethos. These cases demonstrate that human societies can organize themselves differently: it is not biologically ordained that men must hold all the power. If patriarchy were inevitable, we would not find long-lasting societies where women enjoyed equal or greater authority in key domains.
Women’s Roles in Revolution and Governance: History provides many instances of women not only participating in, but driving, major political and social changes – often through direct action. These serve as counterpoints to the idea that only men are “at the end of the spear” enforcing rights. A vivid example is the Women’s March on Versailles in 1789 during the French Revolution. Thousands of Parisian women, fed up with bread shortages, armed themselves with pikes, muskets, and cannons, and marched 12 miles to the Palace of Versaillesen.wikipedia.org. Upon arriving, this largely female crowd besieged the palace in a dramatic confrontation and successfully pressured King Louis XVI to accede to their demands – including forcing the King (and the National Assembly) to relocate to Paris where the people could keep a closer eye on themen.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org. This event was “one of the earliest and most significant events of the French Revolution,” effectively ending the king’s independent authority and accelerating the collapse of the old orderen.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org. It was women – not men – who “at spear point” compelled a political transformation on that day. This is a potent symbolic refutation: when push came to shove (literally), women enforced political change. Similarly, throughout history women have served as warriors and leaders in various contexts: from the legendary Queen Boudicca who led Britons in battle against Rome, to the Dahomey Amazons (an all-female military regiment in the Kingdom of Dahomey, West Africa), to 20th-century examples like female soldiers in resistance movements and national armies. During the Russian Revolution of 1917, it was a women-led protest for “Bread and Peace” in Petrograd that ignited the February Revolution; women workers confronting soldiers with flowers and pleas helped turn the tide. In many anti-colonial struggles – Algeria, Vietnam, China – women took up arms alongside men. Such cases prove that women are fully capable of being the ones who hold power at the sharp end, and men are not always the sole enforcers of societal order.
Women in Governance: Beyond force, women have also proven their ability to govern and enforce laws from positions of authority traditionally reserved for men. History records numerous queens and female heads of state who exercised sovereignty. While one might argue these were exceptions within broader patriarchal cultures, they still demonstrate that the capacity to rule and enforce is not uniquely male. Queen Elizabeth I, for example, led England through war and peace, navigating male-dominated courts and commanding the military when needed. In the 20th and 21st centuries, dozens of nations have had women presidents or prime ministers (from Indira Gandhi to Angela Merkel). If patriarchy were an unalterable rule, these breakthroughs would never have occurred – yet they have, often permanently changing the political landscape. Moreover, in many modern democracies, women serve at all levels of enforcement: as police officers, judges, generals, and heads of law enforcement agencies. When a female judge orders a man to jail, or a female officer enforces the law, it upends the simplistic notion that “at the end of the spear it’s men.” In contemporary society, the “spears” (figuratively, the coercive instruments of the state) are increasingly held by women and men together, under laws that are supposed to apply equally.
Social and Legal Revolutions for Women’s Rights: Importantly, the great advances in women’s rights over the last two centuries were not benevolent gifts from men in power – they were won through struggle. The suffrage movements in the West are a prime example: women (and some male allies) organized, petitioned, protested and sometimes went on hunger strikes or endured imprisonment to claim the right to vote. They forced the issue onto the political agenda and did not take “no” for an answer. In some cases, men in power fiercely resisted (as in Britain and the U.S.), but eventually had to relent in the face of persistent activism, changing public opinion, and the logic of democratic justice. Likewise, rights such as women’s access to higher education, the right to work and own property, and legal protections against domestic violence and discrimination were secured via political movements and legal battles – not simply handed down from on high. This history matters: it shows women as agents of change, not just passive recipients. It also shows many men changing their minds or being convinced to share power, which again demonstrates the contingency of patriarchy. If patriarchy were an eternal law, we would not see it eroding in the face of moral arguments and social pressure – yet that erosion is exactly what the historical trend of the last century or more indicates.

Finally, consider that even in highly patriarchal societies, there have often been informal counter-balances to male power. Anthropologists note that in many cultures, while men might hold formal titles, women exert influence behind the scenes (as advisors, as custodians of family alliances, etc.). This isn’t to romanticize those situations, but to underline that patriarchy is never as all-powerful as it claims – it is always negotiated and can be challenged from within.

All these examples – from the Iroquois matrons to the French market women, from queens to suffragettes – serve as historical counterexamples to the claim of inevitable patriarchy. They illustrate that the distribution of power between genders can shift and has shifted. Societies have been organized in more egalitarian ways, and women themselves have proven entirely capable of enforcing rights and driving social order when given the chance (or when they take the chance).

Conclusion

The argument that “men with spears will always allow women’s rights, therefore society will always be patriarchal” fails on every count: philosophically, ethically, and empirically. It is built on a narrow and cynical premise that collapses the complex reality of rights and justice into a mere contest of force. Philosophically, it ignores the rich tradition – from the Enlightenment to modern feminist theory – affirming that rights belong to individuals by virtue of their humanity, not by the permission of a dominating groupazquotes.com azquotes.com. Ethically, it tries to justify an unjust status quo (patriarchy) by appealing to might, a move long discredited by theories of justice and equality. As Simone de Beauvoir and others argued, patriarchy’s justifications are circular and self-serving, not objective truthmarxists.org marxists.org. Modern theorists like Rawls and Nussbaum show that a fair and good society is incompatible with permanent gender hierarchyen.wikipedia.org genderbudgeting.files.wordpress.com. The argument also falls apart under logical scrutiny: it presumes men will remain a unified bloc withholding power from women, but as soon as some men choose otherwise (acting on conscience or enlightened self-interest), the supposed iron law is broken – and indeed many men have chosen otherwise, from male allies in feminist movements to fathers who want a better world for their daughters.

Historically, the claim is contradicted by evidence of societies and moments where women have not been mere subordinates. The Haudenosaunee example alone shows a societal model where women had formal political power and authority equal or superior to men’s in key areasaila.ngo aila.ngo. Women’s decisive roles in events like the French Revolution, and the global success of women’s rights movements, show that the arc of history has often bent away from patriarchy – or at least that patriarchy is a contingent arrangement that can be upended when people (women and men) demand justice.

In truth, patriarchy is not an unalterable fate but a social system – one that was built over time and that can be (and is being) dismantled over time. Humanity has seen revolutions in moral thought before: just as the once-common institution of slavery is now almost universally condemned, the idea that one sex should permanently rule the other is increasingly seen as indefensible. The argument under review stands on the wrong side of both history and reason. Societies are capable of change – and indeed are changing – toward greater gender equality. Rights, as conceptions of justice, do not rely on who’s holding the spear; they rely on principles of human dignity and fairness that apply to all, and which both women and men can mutually recognize. Patriarchy is not destiny. It is, to borrow a phrase from historian Gerda Lerner, a system that had a beginning and therefore will have an end, forged not by spears but by the collective pursuit of equality and justice.

Sources:

Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (1949) – Introduction, on the historical construction of woman as “Other”marxists.org marxists.org marxists.org.
Judith Butler, Gender Trouble (1990) – on gender performativity and the contingency of gender rolesen.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org.
bell hooks, The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love (2004) – critique of patriarchy’s demands on menazquotes.com azquotes.com; Teaching Critical Thinking (2010) – “patriarchy has no gender”azquotes.com.
John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (1689) – First Treatise, refutation of Filmer’s patriarchal theory (mothers’ equal share in parental power)yorku.ca; denial of divine sanction for male political ruleyorku.ca.
Olympe de Gouges, Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen (1791) – Article 1: women are born free and equal to men in rightsazquotes.com.
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971) – “justice as fairness” and equal basic liberties for allen.wikipedia.org.
Jürgen Habermas, Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962) and later works – the ideal of inclusive public discourse (as described in LA Review of Books)lareviewofbooks.org lareviewofbooks.org.
Martha Nussbaum, Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach (2000) – pointing out injustices to women and the need to secure fundamental capabilities for allgenderbudgeting.files.wordpress.com.
Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) society – as documented by Matilda J. Gage and others: women’s political and social power in the Iroquois Confederacyaila.ngo aila.ngo.
Women’s March on Versailles (1789) – historical accounts of the event’s impact on the French Revolutionen.wikipedia.org.
Minangkabau matrilineal culture – Britannica entry on Minangkabau peoplebritannica.com britannica.com.
Additional historical analyses and feminist texts as cited above.