Does a Matriarchy Really Make Everything Better?

With Phallozän, the Austrian writer Gertraud Klemm uses the term to describe the all-pervasive male domination, drawing on the concept of the Anthropocene, the geological epoch defined by human activity, in which we currently live.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to name the problem more precisely, for the current state of the world is not humanity as a whole that bears responsibility, but predominantly one half. We might call it the rule of patriarchy, which took root a few thousand years ago and today holds the world in a clenched grasp.

The Patriarchy as the Root of All Evil

All the problems in this world—from the inequality of women and their oppression to environmental destruction and its result, climate change, to exploitation, wars, slavery, racism, sexism, colonialism, and misogyny—trace back to patriarchal rule. Not to overlook the traditionally regressive gender imaginaries dubbed heteronormativity and heterosexuality, which reject deviations and respond with often hate-filled anti-queer hostility, whether the targets are homo-, bi-, or trans. This is masculinity, “thinking only from one ejaculation to the next.”

Recently, Matthes & Seitz published a polemic in which Gertraud Klemm turns exactly to this Phallozän and writes out her whole fury about patriarchal madness, aptly titled Farewell to the Phallozän (Amazon Affiliate Link). Entering into confrontation with the power so named means “to confront the gravest global problems head-on”:

“Farewell to the Phallozän” is a thought experiment about patriarchal deconstruction, matriarchal inspiration, humanist maturity, about the necessity of reversing colonial momentum and about the question: Can feminism do more than ‘smash patriarchy’? Who will save the world and how?”

Klemm Is Right on a Lot of Things

She is right about so much and yet repeats what we already know and keep relearning whenever our sexual, reproductive, and gender self-determination is denied or obstructed. She is right in stating that patriarchy is far from being a passing phase. She is right to lament the lack of solidaristic action—“instead of solving problems, people exchange cat videos, hate messages, and conspiracy myths.” She is right to criticize feminism that presents itself with “cannibalistic tendencies.”

She is right in many places—her critique of the heteronormative nuclear family, which isolates us and is not at all conducive to human flourishing. She is rightly frustrated that taxes and pensions are calculated on a heteronormative basis, that housing is built, and that religions are taught accordingly. It is unfortunately still true that caregiving remains mathematically invisible in accounting, and equality often sits only on paper. And, of course, she is right when she demands that indignation must lead to politicization.

The Matriarchy as a Model

What, then, does Klemm propose to do to bid farewell to the Phallozän? It seems she is not entirely clear on the blueprint, except that she champions the benefits of a matriarchy that stands for an egalitarian, mother-centered, needs-oriented society. She points to examples that exist on our planet, though they are threatened by capitalist economics. Here, decisions are made by consensus, and an egalitarian stance governs the value system. It sounds appealing, yet the world’s patriarchs do not seem convinced; they presently prefer to reclaim lost power.

Besides, I fail to see how the one half of humanity, declared the enemy, can be brought along on a path toward matriarchy. Where, in this plan, is bell hooks’ feminism for all? Klemm seems to entertain dreams: “Why should an anti-patriarchal, social women’s policy, which speaks to broadly appealing issues and perhaps even masters populism, not disrupt politics with the help of funders?” Then go for it. Yet it sometimes feels like exclusive identity politics, where the author otherwise tends to voice skepticism.

The Baby Left Behind in the Bathwater

Yet, amid all the rightful rage, I also see Klemm, in her arousal, sometimes dumping the baby out with the bathwater. For instance, her resentments toward a male-dominated philosophy. Indeed, for a long time, philosophical inquiry by women was relegated to the back room, but that is no longer the case. Moreover, logic, dialectics, and metaphysics can be applied in a gender-inclusive way.

When she argues that religion must become a private matter again, I wonder if it ever fully was? On the contrary, religions have long been cultural forces and have even blessed patriarchy with divine sanction. If she instead recommends matriarchal spirituality, that may indeed harbor humane elements and a sense of earth-centeredness, but why would the matriarchy need a religion at all to pass ecological muster and stand as a climate-neutral alternative?

And it becomes dizzying when, at the end, she proclaims: “The maternal principle is that, not less than a divine superpower, which keeps life cycling.” Oh dear, I fear farewell to the Phallozän won’t work, because that rule already operates with a divine power—though it is testosterone-driven.