Is male headship in the family unit the natural order of things for humans?

Question

Ignoring government. Not asking if you agree with it or not.

Within in both primitive/isolated and advanced, interconnected societies, fathers tend to be the family head. In the majority of cases.

Why is this? Is it simply the natural order of things?

KATE:

Assume a mother AND a father in the household.

UpYaNose:

"Natural", as in biological influence, not just social.

All manner of human societies assign the father to be the leader of the family. That is simply a fact. The fact that societies with no influence on each other create similar order suggests that the pattern is driven by nature (human biology), NOT sociolgy.

KA1227:

Definition of "headship in the family": LEADER.

However, leaders are to a greater or lesser extent influenced by others.

Even where the father is the leader, to a greater or lesser extent, the mother has influence on his leadership.

This clearly established pattern in so many societies suggests a biological influence.

Feminism is a social movement that is working to counteract what seesm to be dictated by human biology.

David S:

This is not a western phenomenon. Nor is it a 18-21st century phenomenon.

I've casually studied family and social structures historically and in many parts of the world. Very few have the mother as the leader and father as the subordinate.

That suggests that the male being the leader of the family unit is biologically driven, not socially.

Ann Marie:

I am referring to modern (last 5,000 years) humans.

JONMC49:

I asked the question about observable nature, science, biology. The IS not the ought, as you say.

I know it may be disturbing for feminists to acknowledge this as a fact.

Do you dispute it? If so, please tell me what evidence you have to support your contention.

Uzo:

In which societies are the females the leaders? In the family, the clan, the tribe, or the nation?

Throughout known human history, in remote isolated and primitive tribes and in the advanced west, males tend to be the family leaders.

This is a consistent pattern earthwide.

Too consisten to be coincidental.

There is obviously a biological basis for this.

Otherwise, there would be as many women leaders as men, actually more since there are 51% women and 49% men on the earth.

Do you dispute this? Please provide the 50% that would suggest otherwise.

JONMCN:

I do understand. The biological fact (nature) is that only human females give birth.

Arguments could be made that it would be beneficial for males to also give birth, but that does not change the biological facts.

My question is one of biology.

KA1227:

What else could explain this very consistent trend thoughout history in many different cultures and societies?

It can't be social since these societies are disconnected.

This is a simple process of elimination. Please explain what other cause there could possibly be?

KA1227:

How many primitive, Isolated, disconnected societies assign the male as the family and tribal leader? How many assign the female in that role?

This unrelenting patter of male leadership is obviously not coincidental, though you are free to believe it to be so if you'd like.

Without social influence, there cannot be a social cause of this phenomenon.

Bachelor of Science, Electrical and Mechanical Engineering

Answer 1

Yes. Qualifications do not seem to matter.

Answer 2

Yes, I agree with KA1227, it depends on how you define "headship in the family". Is it who has more authority over finances or who has more authority over the children and state of the house? Are you thinking in terms of primary caregiver (who makes more money)?

The divide between the private and public domain is a long-standing tradition. Mainly, women are the head of the private domain (the household, the children), men are the head of the public (society, government) and this is still somewhat true despite the large number of women in the workforce.

Really, it all comes down to money. Whoever is the primary breadwinner in the household sets the rules. Even if it is the child (in the case of child TV/movie stars), you will see the power shift in their favor. In general, men are more highly paid than women and are more likely to be the ones in the workforce, especially if there are children in the picture. Why? Because women have the children. In every society, no matter where it is, this is the one common link and the main reason it is like that. If men gave birth instead of women, things would be extremely different and you would probably see gender inequality in the other direction. Pregnancy interferes with your work because you have to take maternity leave and in the increasing trend of two-parent, two-job household, if there is a problem with the baby or the kid is sick, the woman will have an easier time getting out of work than her husband because woman are still expected to be the primary caregiver to their children and fathers come second. Paternity leave is still a new phenomenon and many companies just refuse to allow it if there is a live-in mother in the household.

Male headship isn't the "natural order" but it is the norm based on how society and biology works.

Answer 3

I don't see it that way. I suppose it depends on how you define "head of family."

Sometimes the person who appears to be in charge is not the person who holds the most power or influence.

EDIT: You are trying to use observation of social behavior to support your theory that social organization in humans has a biological basis.
That’s like trying to bake a loaf of bread with apples. You’ve got the wrong ingredients to lead to the outcome you are seeking.
If you want to prove that men are biologically destined to be leaders, you need to gather some biological data, like blood or tissue samples, DNA, etc. When they identify a leadership gene, and prove that it is present only in Y chromosomes, then you will have some evidence to support your claim.

EDIT#2: Until you provide biological data, you cannot come to a biological conclusion. Your data is sociological. Therefore your conclusion must be sociological.
It may be a "natural order" in terms of sociology or anthropology, but you have no evidence of a biological basis for the behavior you have observed. See above.
Process of elimination is not a valid scientific method. It is deductive reasoning, which will get you an A in philosophy, but it won't fly in science because is not evidence-based proof.

"What else could explain this very consistent trend thoughout history in many different cultures and societies?"
This is a great topic for someone's master's thesis.

Answer 4

I am inclined to say yes, but I (and presumably, most people here) grew up in a society managed mostly with a male head of household. That's going to bias my thought...

It would make sense that males would head communities from a natural perspective if we were like gorillas, but I really don't know how humans compare.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/behavior/behave_2.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3927823&dopt=Abstract
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030807075457.htm

Those sources describe primate behavior. It is really a difficult call (to me, at least), but the least that I can gather is that we are sexually dimorphic social organisms. I think that the natural beginning of homo sapiens would start with decently sized groups of cooperative individuals.

With that LONG introduction, I am going to have to guess that a male leadership would probably be the natural norm because males would be stronger and more aggressive. The "alpha male" concept applies to some forms of human behavior (and is pretty successful), so, based on my limited knowledge of the whole situation, I would have to say I agree with you when it comes to the larger scale- when things start breaking up into smaller groups, I think the sex of the leader has less of an input.

This is really difficult for me to answer.

Answer 5

Let's not make the mistake of assuming that being natural makes it right. that said, i have to say yes. patriarchy is the dominant system because men are naturally aggressive and physically able to make women submit. of course socialization goes a long way in making this a 'natural' phenomenon too.

but i don't think it's a god-given right for men to rule the family unit. a family can run very well with a woman at the head of the table. as long as there is leadership, male or female, its all good.

Answer 6

OK mate, there are a lot of family structures out there other then the traditional western one (Eskimo system if you care) it is only found in 11% of societies world wide and as most of this are hunter gathers the male head of the household is pretty much a myth there as well given the great deal of sexual equality observed therein. the Hawaiian system uses the same terms for father and uncle anther for mother and aunt one for bother or male cousin and one for sister / female cousin so there is no such thing as a single family head. other systems are matrimonial some are patrilineal so no there is no natural order to family structure.

Answer 7

By your own suggestion, that males being biologically " head of house holds ", you have committed the " naturalistic fallacy. We do not derive " ought " from "is ". Because something is putatively natural, does not mean that something is morally good and desirable for human society.

I see you got that fallacy past these social science and humanities scholars. No big surprise, that. I keep telling these people that they need a science education to be truly educated. That goes for you, too!

PS I see trailsnail caught you out, too!

PSS By your additional details, it is obvious you do not know what I am talking about.

Answer 8

You almost got some facts correct . . .
It is true in the less economically developed countries where women work less , men are the head .

However , statistically , here in the developed economies where many women work , many men are no longer even in the house . Much like elephants and other mammals who evict males by puberty ,
Now, more than 50 % of homes are single females / mothers . Although some males are civilized , too many seem to have their lizard brain in control and women have opted to omit them from the picture .
Many females are more financially prosperous and the houses are much calmer without the testosterone .

OK , correction , David S is probably correct , the non-western cultures are probably Not actually male head either .

Still , men do play a valuable role in society and should not be discarded . We do need them too . . .

Answer 9

no that has been wishful thinking on the part of the males and continues to be. Men are the head of what really? I mean naturally? The only thing they are the head of is , well, their own body. Everything else is either slavery or wishful thinking

Answer 10

no such thing as natural, humans create this order.

and it is deep-rooted in society, it seems impossible to change it but the weight of this "order" has been reduced.

edit: biologically men can defeat women physically it's no argument, but how do you explain communities where women are the bread winners and men stay at home and take care of the babies? I have forgotten the name of that rural community unfortunately. It is not a developed community but a rather backwards one, but it goes to show that if you want a "natural" setting untainted by modern technology, there are flaws in your argument that men as heads are natural.

Answer 11

For the most part you are right. But of late it has been swinging more to center. Men through the ages always used fear to rule the house. Women are not willing to sit around and be the punching bag there mothers and grand mothers were. But women be careful running a world is not like keeping the kids in line and you may have to ruin your integrity to get anything done.