Standing Against Patriarchy: Feminism Isn’t the Only Path ✊🏻🌸

Hello deer, this is Seri 🌸

Anti-Patriarchy Without the Feminist Label: A Personal Reflection ✊🏻

After I started studying social sciences and becoming interested in archaeology, my perspective on patriarchy began to shift.

Learning about how ancient societies were structured, especially through archaeology, showed me that patriarchy wasn’t always a universal system.

In fact, many early societies were more egalitarian or even matrilineal before agricultural practices and the rise of private property reshaped social hierarchies.

Through my studies, I realized that patriarchy is not an inherent part of human nature, but rather a socially constructed system that developed over time.

This understanding made me more critical of how modern societies have become so entrenched in patriarchal structures. It also made me think about how we could potentially return to a more balanced, egalitarian way of living, one that doesn’t require feminism as a reaction to inequality, but a natural extension of our original, more equal beginnings.

✊🏻You don’t need to call yourself a feminist to be against patriarchy. 

Those two things don’t always walk hand in hand. And that’s okay.

There are many reasons someone might hesitate to embrace the label “feminist.”

Some feel the term has been shaped too heavily by Western narratives, others feel excluded from its mainstream image : too soft, too spiritual, too cultural, too weary of its politics.

Some feel feminism speaks a language of resistance, but not always of healing or return.

And some, like me, choose another way more ancient, more intuitive.

Because for many of us, being anti-patriarchy isn’t about theory or activism. 

Long before modern systems rose, many human societies lived differently. The world of hunter-gatherers more egalitarian, less structured by dominance allowed men and women to share responsibilities, knowledge, and space. Gathering, often done by women, fed the group and required expertise, cooperation, and deep connection to the land.

In some cultures, power was shared. Lineage came from mothers. Spirituality was rooted in life-giving cycles, not control.

Patriarchy wasn’t inevitable. It was built—slowly—through layers of agriculture, organized religion, colonization, capitalism. It wasn’t just about men over women. It was about hierarchy over harmony. Ownership over reciprocity.

It shaped not just our homes, but our minds.

To resist it doesn’t require a title. It requires remembrance.

To be anti-patriarchy is to rebalance.

To listen to your human nature.

To raise children with freedom. 

To question domination. To choose balance, again and again.

You don’t need to carry a label to believe in human nature. You don’t need to march to believe in equality. You don’t need to be loud to change the story. 

You just need to remember: we come from a different world.

And we can live as if it never left us.

For me, it’s not about ideology, it’s about humanity. I resist patriarchy because I believe we were made for closeness with nature, for shared life. That is the world I want to protect.

Let’s also be careful not to confuse male dominance with patriarchy.

They are not always the same.

Male dominance can appear in certain roles or customs without necessarily enforcing a whole system of control.

Patriarchy, on the other hand, is deeper, it's a structure that normalizes inequality, limits possibilities, and silences balance. Some traditional societies may have had men in visible leadership roles, but still honored women, elders, or the land with reverence and influence. It’s not about who holds the spear or speaks first, it’s about whether all voices are allowed to matter.

Patriarchy is often mistaken for a natural human condition, but history tells a more intricate story. Across time and cultures, many societies operated not on domination, but on balance where gender roles differed yet remained complementary, not hierarchical.

In these communities, social cohesion relied on mutual respect rather than control. Patriarchy, as we understand it today, is not an eternal truth but a historical development, shaped by specific shifts like agriculture, property systems, and organized religion.

Male-Dominant Societies:

Men tend to lead in certain areas (ritual, politics, warfare), but this doesn’t automatically mean women are oppressed.

Women often hold power in different spheres: home, economy, kinship, healing, agriculture, oral traditions.

Status is often earned both men and women can gain respect through age, knowledge, or skill.

Gender roles are clear but not necessarily hierarchical or based on control.

Complementarity: Male and female roles are seen as interdependent, not one superior to the other.

To question patriarchy is not to reject all structure, but to remember that human nature once leaned more toward cooperation than conquest.

Often found in nomadic or tribal societies where survival requires cooperation.

Patriarchal Societies:

Built on systemic control of women’s bodies, labor, sexuality, and autonomy.

Women's value is often tied to reproduction, chastity, or obedience.

Men have institutional power religion, law, property, and inheritance are designed to keep men in control.

Dissent is punished; gender roles are rigid.

Male dominance is enforced not just culturally, but through laws, religion, and often violence.

Found more commonly in agrarian, state-based, or religiously codified societies.

It’s important to separate male-dominant from patriarchal societies because....

Not all societies where men hold visible roles are oppressive toward women.

For example, the Hadza or Mongolian nomads may be male-led in some areas, but women still have autonomy, respect, and decision-making power.

Using “patriarchy” for all male-led cultures erases this nuance.

Many Indigenous or tribal societies are male-dominant without being sexist or repressive.

Mislabeling them as patriarchal can impose Western feminist frameworks that don’t always apply.

A Real-World Example:

Among the Hadza (Tanzania): men hunt, women gather. But women choose who to marry, move freely, and leave partners if unhappy. They have very high autonomy. Women speak freely, joke openly, and are not expected to be submissive or deferential.

They often forage alone or in small female groups, without needing male permission or protection.

This makes them one of the most autonomous female populations ever studied, even though men often hunt and form the symbolic image of leadership.

Compare that to 19th-century Victorian England, where women were expected to be obedient, modest, and domestic.

They also couldn’t own property after marriage, vote, or leave abusive husbands without social punishment.

Despite the Hadza living without wealth, modern medicine, or written laws, their women often had far more freedom and respect than many upper-class women in "advanced" Victorian society.

Some women—especially in deeply patriarchal or traditional societies—may accept or even defend restrictive roles but I don't.

In many societies, women who challenge the system are labeled "bad wives," "ungrateful," or "immoral."

Some women may support patriarchy because it offers protection or predictability, even if it’s limiting.

Many women might not even view their situation as oppression, but simply “how life is.”

Disagreeing with patriarchy isn't only feminist, it is also remembering that patriarchy isn’t universal or inevitable. Many societies—past and present—have lived with balance, flexibility, or even female leadership.

Why not calling myself feminist?

Not identifying as a feminist doesn’t mean one is against equality or pro - patriarchy.

For some, the term “feminist” feels too tied to certain waves, ideologies, or political expressions that may not resonate personally.

For example, I love the dollette or hyper feminine aesthetic and older feminists point out how "girl" is traditionally used to infantilize women and trivialize their experiences.

So, they interpret re-embracing this term and aesthetic as self-infantilization and leads to their peers taking them less seriously.

Others might prefer different paths, rooted in spiritual beliefs, ancestral traditions, or more holistic views of harmony between genders rather than focusing on one identity label.

Some reject feminism because it has, at times, centered primarily on the struggles of Western or white women, leaving out many other voices.

Choosing not to call oneself a feminist can come from a place of nuance, or desire to explore new language for liberation especially for those, who deeply value balance, softness, and ancestral wisdom over confrontation or binary thinking.

I’m deeply grateful for the women who fought before us, those who marched, spoke up, and opened doors through feminism.

I especially like women like Raichō Hiratsuka.

Thanks to them, many of us can speak freely, dream bigger, and live lives our grandmothers may never have imagined.

But still, I don’t always call myself a feminist.

Not because I don’t believe in women’s rights :

I do, with all my heart.

I believe in healing what patriarchy broke.

I believe in community over domination, in remembering that our human nature was once more balanced, more free.

My path may not always follow defined labels. But it’s rooted in respect, in listening, and in standing for the dignity of all, especially women.

I asked myself : Do egalitarian societies or hunter garetherers societes would need feminism or their women had enough rights?

In most truly egalitarian or hunter-gatherer societies, feminism as a movement likely wouldn’t have emerged because it wouldn’t have been necessary. These societies were generally more balanced, with fluid roles based on cooperation, not domination. Women gathered, raised children, made key decisions, and in many cases had spiritual or social authority. Their contributions were valued, not diminished.

Feminism was born as a response a powerful one to patriarchal systems that denied women autonomy and voice. So if those early societies already respected and included women, the need for feminism wouldn’t arise the same way.

It’s not that they were perfect, but their foundations were built more on mutual survival and respect, not hierarchy and power over others.

Feminism arises where imbalance exists, where rights are denied and voices are silenced.

In societies where harmony and interdependence were central, there wasn’t a “fight” to begin with… just life shared.

It’s a gentle reminder that maybe, rather than always pushing forward, some of the deepest wisdom comes from looking back to when being human meant being together.

I don’t identify with feminism because, for me, the movement feels too fragmented with its many branches and approaches. 

But I don’t feel the need to call myself a feminist to fight for these things.

To me, it’s more about reclaiming our human nature, valuing true equality, and creating a society where everyone, regardless of gender, can thrive without being limited by outdated, patriarchal structures.

I don’t think feminism is the only way to achieve this; it’s simply about what feels right for me as an individual and where I want to see the world go.”

Some feminists might agree with me, my opinions about human's nature being more egalitarian but I don't agree with all of them.

I'm not rejecting feminism, in case that's unclear. I'm longing for a world where it wouldn’t even need to exist. A world where care, interdependence, and shared dignity are simply the norm… like they once were.

It’s not about labels, it’s about returning to balance.

The path forward isn’t about looking back, but about reclaiming what was lost.

It's about dismantling the structures that divided us and embracing the balance that once existed.

A world where power isn’t hoarded, but shared.

Where equality isn’t a battle, but a birthright.

We don’t need feminism because of patriarchy

we need it because we deserve to live as equals, just as we were always meant to.

The path forward isn’t about gaining rights; it's about regaining what was always ours.

It’s about restoring the balance that was disrupted, dismantling the systems that divided us, and embracing a world where power is shared, not hoarded.

Is believing in equality paradoxical if men and women are different ?

In any society, whether patriarchal, egalitarian, or otherwise, people often perform tasks they are best suited for, based on skills, strengths, or interests.

For instance, warfare and protection often require specific skills strategic thinking, physical fitness, coordination, etc. These skills are not inherently tied to gender.

In an egalitarian society, men might still participate in warfare or protection roles, not because of societal norms, but because of individual ability. Likewise, women could choose to participate in these roles too, if they have the physical, mental, or strategic skills for it.

Patriarchy often justifies gendered roles by saying that men naturally protect because they are physically stronger or more aggressive, but this isn't an absolute rule.

History shows that many societies have had women warriors or leaders (like Joan of Arc, Queen Boudica, or the Amazons of myth).

Even in patriarchal societies, women could and did fight, especially in specific contexts (e.g., defending home turf, leading armies).

In a true egalitarian society, men might still be involved in protection roles, but so would women if they were interested and able.

Even in egalitarian societies, men often did more of the hunting or combat-related tasks because of physical advantages (e.g., upper body strength, endurance under certain loads). That didn’t automatically mean men ruled or had authority over women, it just meant that roles were divided by ability, not hierarchy.

Example: In many foraging societies, men hunt, but women gather, which actually provides the bulk of the food supply. Neither role was "above" the other.

Even with men doing more warfare, women still had important, sometimes strategic, roles organizing defense, healing, logistics, or even joining in combat.

In some Indigenous North American societies (like the Iroquois), women could appoint or remove male leaders, even though men might have done the physical fighting.

Egalitarian means equal value and voice, not necessarily doing the exact same tasks.

So yes, men may have gone to war more often in such societies due to physical traits, but that didn’t mean dominance, just complementarity.

Creating an egalitarian community especially one rooted in shared values of equality and cooperation removes Abhramic gender roles.

The goal is to create an environment where everyone, regardless of gender, is free to pursue what they are passionate about, contribute equally, and access the same opportunities.

Examples of Egalitarian Communities in Practice :

Some co-housing or eco-villages have embraced shared responsibility without gendered roles, where all members equally participate in activities such as gardening, cooking, and caring for children. Roles are based on skills and interest, not gender.

In some Indigenous communities, traditional gender roles are more fluid, and there is often an equal division of labor between genders, as well as shared leadership, often with matrilineal or egalitarian structures that don’t prioritize one gender over the other.

In these communities, everyone (regardless of gender) is encouraged to participate in all aspects of life. For example, men and women can both do farming, cooking, caring for children, or even leadership roles. The focus is on individual abilities, skills, and interests, not on whether someone is a man or woman.

In an egalitarian society, roles are collaborative and can evolve based on needs, abilities, and interests.

So, yes, there might still be some tasks related to biological differences (like childbirth, for example), but other than that, work and responsibilities are not gendered.

Egalitarian societies don't erase gender but they remove the rigid, traditional roles tied to it.

The focus shifts from “this is what you do because you are a man or a woman” to “what do you want to contribute to the community based on your skills, interests, and abilities?”

Rather than rigid divisions of labor based on gender, roles in many egalitarian societies are based on ability and interest.

Both men and women contribute to the well-being of the community in equal ways, even if those contributions look different.

Egalitarian societies remove traditional gender-based restrictions, but they don't necessarily eliminate gender differences entirely.

In these societies, men and women often have distinct roles, but these roles are not inherently unequal.

Instead, people are empowered to contribute based on their skills, interests, and needs, without being confined to restrictive gender expectations.

Conclusion :

You can be anti-patriarchy without identifying as a feminist.

Feminism is one framework among many for challenging gender inequality. But rejecting patriarchy can come from cultural or historical knowledge, like me.

Understanding that patriarchy is just one of many cultural systems (not a universal truth) gives you a wider, clearer view of human possibilities. Through history and anthropology, I've seen:

Societies where women and men shared power,

Cultures where women led or had autonomy,

And the shifts that made patriarchy dominant—not natural.

This kind of awareness helps dismantle myths like:

“It’s always been this way.”

“Men are naturally leaders.”

“Women are naturally submissive.”

You can believe in dignity, autonomy, and respect for all genders without adopting any label. And sometimes, especially across different cultures, “feminism” can feel too Western, too political, or just not the right fit and that’s valid.

What matters is the work, the awareness, and the willingness to question unjust systems, not the banner you carry.

I'm not just rejecting patriarchy, I'm remembering and reviving alternative ways of being human.