Editing Matriarchy (section)

=== Exclusionary ===
Some theologies and theocracies limit or forbid women from being in civil government or public leadership or forbid them from voting,<ref>"Holy Scripture inculcates for women a sphere higher than and apart from that of public life; because as women they find a full measure of duties, cares and responsibilities and are unwilling to bear additional burdens unsuited to their physical organization.", a "signed&nbsp;... petition against female suffrage" (January, 1871), in {{harvp|Gabriel|1998|p=83}}, citing ''The Press—Philadelphia'', January 14, 1871, p.&nbsp;8.</ref> effectively criticizing and forbidding matriarchy. Within none of the following religions is the respective view necessarily universally held:
* In [[Islam]], some Muslim scholars hold a view that female political leadership should be restricted, according to {{Interlanguage link|Anne Sofie Roald|lt=Anne Sofie Roald|no|Anne Sofie Roald}}.<ref>{{harvp|Roald|2001|p=185}}</ref> The restriction has been attributed to a [[hadith]] of [[Muhammad]],<ref name="harvp|Roald|2001|pp=186–187">{{harvp|Roald|2001|pp=186–187}}</ref>{{efn|"Koranic verse 4: 34&nbsp;... has been used to denounce female leadership"<ref>{{harvp|Roald|2001|pp=189–190}}</ref> ("4: 34" spaced so in original), but the verse may apply to family life rather than to politics.<ref name="harvp|Roald|2001|p=190">{{harvp|Roald|2001|p=190}}</ref> {{harvp|Roald|2001|pp=189–190}} cites, respectively, Badawi, Jamal, ''Gender Equity in Islam: Basic Principles'' (Indianapolis: American Trust Publications, 1995), p.&nbsp;38 & perhaps ''passim'', and Roald, Anne Sofie, & Pernilla Ouis, ''Lyssna på männen: att leva i en patriarkalisk muslimsk kontext'', in ''Kvinnovetenskaplig Tidskrift'', pp.&nbsp;91–108 (1997).}} the founder and last prophet of Islam. The hadith says, according to Roald, "a people which has a woman as leader will never prosper."<ref name="harvp|Roald|2001|pp=186–187"/>{{efn|Another translation is, "a people which has a woman as a leader will not succeed."<ref>{{harvp|Roald|2001|p=188}}</ref> The 2001 author's paraphrase of the hadith, "the people who have a female leader will not succeed", is at {{harvp|Roald|2001|p=185}}.}} The hadith's transmission, context, and meaning have been questioned, wrote Roald.<ref>{{harvp|Roald|2001|pp=186–189}}</ref> According to Roald, the prohibition has also been attributed as an extension of a ban on women leading prayers "in mixed gatherings". Possibly, Roald noted, the hadith applies only against being head of state and not other high office.<ref name="WomenInIslam-p196">{{harvp|Roald|2001|p=196}}</ref> One source, wrote Roald, would allow a woman to "occupy every position except that of ''khalīfa'' (the leader of all Sunni Muslims)."<ref>{{harvp|Roald|2001|pp=196–197}}</ref> One exception to the head-of-state prohibition was accepted without a general acceptance of women in political leadership, Roald reported.<ref>{{harvp|Roald|2001|pp=185–186}}</ref> Political activism at lower levels may be more acceptable to Islamist women than top leadership positions, said Roald.<ref>{{harvp|Roald|2001|loc=p.&nbsp;186 & ch.&nbsp;8, ''passim''}}</ref> The [[Muslim Brotherhood]] has stated that women may not be president or head of state but may hold other public offices but, "as for judiciary office,&nbsp;.... [t]he majority of jurispudents&nbsp;... have forbidden it completely."<ref>[http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=5810&ref=search.php Ikhwan web, ''Muslim Brotherhood on Muslim women in Islamic Society'' (October 29, 2005) (trans.)], as accessed March 5, 2011, [§] ''The Woman's Right to Vote, Be Elected and Occupy Public and Governmental Posts.'', [sub§] ''Thirdly, Women's Holding of Public Office''.</ref> In a study of 82 Islamists in Europe, according to Roald, 80% said women could not be state leaders but 75% said women could hold other high positions.<ref>{{harvp|Roald|2001|p=198}} (for study details, see {{harvp|Roald|2001|loc=ch.&nbsp;3}}, ''e.g.'', quantity of 82 per p.&nbsp;64).</ref> In 1994, the Muslim Brotherhood said that "social circumstances and traditions" may justify gradualism in the exercise of women's right to hold office (below head of state).<ref>{{harvp|Roald|2001|p=197}}, quoting The Muslim Brotherhood, ''The Role of Women in Islamic Society According to the Muslim Brotherhood'' (London: International Islamic Forum, 1994), 14.</ref> Whether the Muslim Brothers still support that statement is unclear.<ref>The document stating it was not available at its [http://www.ikhwanweb.com/search.php? official English-language website advanced search page], as accessed March 5, 2011 (search for "Role of Women in Islamic Society" without quotation marks yielding no results), but a document with similar relevant effect is [http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=5810&ref=search.php Ikhwan web, ''Muslim Brotherhood on Muslim women in Islamic Society'' (October 29, 2005) (trans.)], as accessed March 5, 2011 ("social circumstances and traditions" as justifying gradualism, per [§] ''A General Remark'').</ref> As reported in 1953, Roald reported later, "Islamic organizations held a conference in the office of the Muslim Brothers&nbsp;.... [and] claim[ed]&nbsp;... that it had been proven that political rights for women were contrary to religion".<ref>{{harvp|Roald|2001|p=34}}, citing Shafiq, Duriyya, ''al-Kitab al-abiyad lil-huquq al-mar'a al-misriyya'' (''The White Paper on the Rights of the Egyptian Woman'') (Cairo: n.p., 1953) (bibliographic information partly per {{harvp|Roald|2001|loc=p.&nbsp;25 n.&nbsp;27}})</ref> Some nations have specific bans. In [[Iran#Government and politics|Iran]] at times, according to Elaheh Rostami Povey, women have been forbidden to fill some political office roles because of law or because of judgments made under the Islamic religion.<ref>Rostami Povey, Elaheh, ''Feminist Contestations of Institutional Domains in Iran'', in ''Feminist Review'', no. 69, pp.&nbsp;49 & 53 (Winter, 2001).</ref><ref>[http://www.arabinsight.org/aiarticles/181.pdf Al-Mohamed, Asmaa, ''Saudi Women's Rights: Stuck at a Red Light'' (Arab Insight (World Security Institute), January 8, 2008)] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080704015630/http://www.arabinsight.org/aiarticles/181.pdf |date=July 4, 2008 }}, p.&nbsp;46, as accessed December 28, 2010.</ref> According to [[Steven Pinker]], in a 2001–2007 [[Gallup (company)|Gallup poll]] of 35 nations having 90% of the world's Muslims, "substantial majorities of both sexes in all the major Muslim countries say that women should be allowed to vote without influence from men&nbsp;... and to serve in the highest levels of government."<ref>Pinker, Steven, ''The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined'' (N.Y.: Viking, hardback 2011 ({{ISBN|978-0-670-02295-3}})), pp.&nbsp;366–367 and see pp.&nbsp;414–415.</ref>
* In [[Rabbinical Judaism]], among [[Orthodox Judaism|orthodox]] leaders, a position, beginning before Israel became a modern state, has been that for women to hold public office in Israel would threaten the state's existence, according to educator [[Tova Hartman]],<ref>{{harvp|Hartman|2007|p=105}}, attributing the argument to [[Abraham Isaac Kook|Rav Kook]], or Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook; "a significant spiritual leader of the ["early twentieth century"]", {{harvp|Hartman|2007|p=101}}, citing, at {{harvp|Hartman|2007|pp=101–102}}, Kook, Rav, ''Open Letter to the Honorable Committee of the "Mizrahi" Association'' (1919) ("In the Torah, in the Prophets and in the Writings, in the Halacha and in the Aggadah, we hear&nbsp;... that the duty of fixed public service falls upon men.").</ref> who reports the view has "wide consensus".<ref>{{harvp|Hartman|2007|p=106}}</ref> When Israel ratified the international women's equality agreement known as [[Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women|CEDAW]], according to Marsha Freeman, it reserved nonenforcement for any religious communities that forbid women from sitting on religious courts.<ref>{{harvp|Freeman|2003|pp=59 & 65}}</ref> According to Freeman, "the tribunals that adjudicate marital issues are by religious law and by custom entirely male."<ref>{{harvp|Freeman|2003|p=65}} (the tribunals are discussed in the context of "the marital law regime in each religion", including Judaism)</ref> {{"'}}Men's superiority' is a fundamental tenet in Judaism", according to Irit Umanit.<ref>{{harvp|Umanit|2003|p=133}}</ref> According to Freeman, [[Likud|Likud party]]-led "governments have been less than hospitable to women's high-level participation."<ref>{{harvp|Freeman|2003|p=60}}</ref>
* In [[Buddhism]], according to Karma Lekshe Tsomo, some hold that "the Buddha allegedly hesitated to admit women to the Saṅgha&nbsp;...."<ref>{{harvp|Tsomo|1999|pp=6–7}}</ref> because their inclusion would hasten the demise of the monastic community and the very teachings of Buddhism itself. "In certain Buddhist countries—Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, and Thailand—women are categorically denied admission to the Saṅgha, Buddhism's most fundamental institution", according to Tsomo.<ref name="MahaprajapatiLegacy-p5">{{harvp|Tsomo|1999|p=5}}</ref> Tsomo wrote, "throughout history, the support of the Saṅgha has been actively sought as a means of legitimation by those wishing to gain and maintain positions of political power in Buddhist countries."<ref name="MahaprajapatiLegacy-p5" />
* Among [[Hindu]]s in India, the [[Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh]], "India's most extensive all-male Hindu nationalist organization,"<ref name="Bacchetta_157">{{harvp|Bacchetta|2002|p=157}}</ref>{{Efn|Although India is majority Hindu, it is officially secular, per {{harvp|Bacchetta|2002|p=157}}.}} has debated whether women can ever be Hindu nationalist political leaders<ref name="HinduNatnlistW-p168">{{harvp|Bacchetta|2002|p=168}}</ref> but without coming to a conclusion, according to Paola Bacchetta.<ref name="HinduNatnlistW-p168" /> The [[Rashtriya Sevika Samiti]], a counterpart organization composed of women,<ref name="HinduNatnlistW-p168" /> believes that women can be Hindu nationalist political leaders<ref name="HinduNatnlistW-p168" /> and has trained two in [[Parliament of India|Parliament]],<ref>{{harvp|Bacchetta|2002|p=168}} (the 2 being [[Uma Bharti|Uma Bharati]] and [[Sadhvi Rithambara]], both associated with the [[Bharatiya Janata Party]] (BJP)), all according to Bacchetta.</ref> but considers women only as exceptions,<ref>{{harvp|Bacchetta|2002|loc=p.&nbsp;168 & n.&nbsp;76}}, citing Kelkar, Kakshmibai, ''Stri-Ek Urja Kendra: Strivishayak Vicharon Ka Sankalan'' (Nagpur: Sevika Prakashan, n.d.), ch.&nbsp;2.</ref> the norm for such leadership being men.<ref name="HinduNatnlistW-p168" />
[[File:John Knox statue, Haddington.jpg|thumb|John Knox]]
* In [[Protestantism|Protestant Christianity]], considered only historically, in 1558, [[John Knox]] ([[Mary, Queen of Scots|Maria Stuart]]'s subject) wrote ''[[The first blast of the trumpet against the monstruous regiment of women|The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women]]''.<ref>{{harvp|de Abreu|2003|p=167}}</ref> According to Scalingi, the work is "perhaps the best known analysis of gynecocracy"<ref name="ScepterDistaff-Historian-p60" /> and Knox was "the most notorious"<ref name="ScepterDistaff-Historian-p60" /> writer on the subject.<ref name="ScepterDistaff-Historian-p60" /> According to an 1878 edition, Knox's objection to any women reigning and having "empire"{{efn|"I am assured that God hath reueled to some in this our age, that it is more then a monstre in nature, that a woman shall reigne and haue empire aboue man."<ref name="1stBlast-Gutenberg-ebk">{{harvp|Knox|1878}} (italicization and boldface, if any, removed).</ref>}} over men was theological<ref name="Knox_1878">{{harvp|Knox|1878}}</ref> and it was against nature for women to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city.{{efn|"To promote a woman to beare rule, superioritie, dominion or empire aboue any realme, nation, or citie, is repugnant to nature, contumelie to God, a thing most contrarious to his reueled will and approued ordinance, and finallie it is the subuersion of good order, of all equitie and iustice[.]"<ref name="Knox_1878"/>}} Susan M. Felch said that Knox's argument was partly grounded on a statement of the [[Paul the Apostle|apostle Paul]] against women teaching or usurping authority over men.<ref>{{harvp|Felch|1995|p=806}}</ref> According to Maria Zina Gonçalves de Abreu, Knox argued that a woman being a national ruler was unnatural<ref name="Abreu_169">{{harvp|de Abreu|2003|p=169}}</ref> and that women were unfit and ineligible for the post.<ref name="Abreu_169"/> Kathryn M. Brammall said Knox "considered the rule of female monarchs to be anathema to good government"<ref>{{harvp|Brammall|1996|p=19}}</ref> and that Knox "also attacked those who obeyed or supported female leaders",<ref name="MonstrousMetamorphosis-16CJ-p20">{{harvp|Brammall|1996|p=20}}</ref> including men.<ref name="MonstrousMetamorphosis-16CJ-p20" /> Robert M. Healey said that Knox objected to women's rule even if men accepted it.<ref>{{harvp|Healey|1994|p=376}}</ref> On whether Knox personally endorsed what he wrote, according to Felch, [[Jasper Ridley (historian)|Jasper Ridley]], in 1968, argued that even Knox may not have personally believed his stated position but may have merely pandered to popular sentiment,<ref>Ridley, Jasper, ''John Knox'' (N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1968), p.&nbsp;267, as cited in {{harvp|Felch|1995|p=805}}</ref> itself a point disputed by [[W. Stanford Reid]].<ref>Reid, W. Stanford, ''Trumpeter of God: A Biography of John Knox'' (N.Y.: Scribner, 1974), p.&nbsp;145, as cited in {{harvp|Felch|1995|p=805}}</ref> On the popularity of Knox's views, Patricia-Ann Lee said Knox's "fierce attack on the legitimacy of female rule&nbsp;... [was one in which] he said&nbsp;... little that was unacceptable&nbsp;... to most of his contemporaries",<ref>{{harvp|Lee|1990|p=242}}</ref> although Judith M. Richards disagreed on whether the acceptance was quite so widespread.<ref name="PromoteWBeareRule-16CJ-p116-n45n46">{{harvp|Richards|1997|p=116}}</ref> According to David Laing's ''Preface'' to Knox's work, Knox's views were agreed with by some people at the time, the ''Preface'' saying, "[Knox's] views were in harmony with those of his colleagues&nbsp;... [Goodman, Whittingham, and Gilby]".<ref>Laing, David, ''Preface'' (from extract), in {{harvp|Knox|1878}}</ref> Writing in agreement with Knox was [[Christopher Goodman]], who, according to Lee, "considered the woman ruler to be a monster in nature, and used&nbsp;... scriptural argument to prove that females were barred&nbsp;... from any political power",<ref>{{harvp|Lee|1990|pp=250, 249}}, citing Goodman, Christopher, ''How Superior Powers Ought to be Obeyd'' (N.Y.: reprint, 1931, originally 1558) (chap. on gynecocracy).</ref> even if, according to Richards, the woman was "virtuous".<ref>{{harvp|Richards|1997|p=117}}</ref> Some views included conditionality; while [[John Calvin]] said, according to Healey, "that government by a woman was a deviation from the original and proper order of nature, and therefore among the punishments humanity incurred for original sin".<ref>{{harvp|Healey|1994|pp=372, 373}}</ref>{{Efn|[[Original sin]], in Christianity, a state of sin, or violation of God's will, due to Adam's rebellion in the Garden of Eden}} Nonetheless, Calvin would not always question a woman's right to inherit rule of a realm or principality.<ref>{{harvp|Healey|1994|pp=372–373}}</ref> [[Heinrich Bullinger]], according to Healey, "held that rule by a woman was contrary to God's law but cautioned against [always] using that reason to oppose such rule".<ref>{{harvp|Healey|1994|p=373}}</ref> According to Richards, Bullinger said women were normally not to rule.<ref>{{harvp|Richards|1997|p=115}}</ref> Around 1560, Calvin, in disagreeing with Knox, argued that the existence of the few women who were exceptions showed that theological ground existed for their exceptionalism.<ref>"There were occasionally women so endowed, that the singular good qualities which shone forth in them made it evident that they were raised up by Divine authority". Calvin, letter to William Cecil (on or after January 29, 1559 (probably 1560)), in {{harvp|Knox|1878}} (citing, at ''Preface'', n.&nbsp;1, for letter, ''Zurich Letters'' (2d ser.), p.&nbsp;35) (Calvin reviser, ''Commentaries on Isaiah'' (sometime in 1551–1559) (approximate title)).</ref> Knox's view was much debated in Europe at the time,<ref>{{harvp|de Abreu|2003|pp=168, 170–171}}, ''e.g.'', citing Aylmer (AElmer<!-- "A" & "E" separate letters -->), John, ''An Harborowe for Faithfull and Trewe Subiects agaynst the late blowne Blast, concerninge the Gouernment of Wemen wherin be confuted all such reasons as a straunger of late made in that behalfe, with a briefe exhortation to obedience'' (1559).</ref> the issue considered complicated by laws such as on inheritance<ref name="PromoteWBeareRule-16CJ-p116-n45n46" /> and since several women were already in office, including as Queens, according to de Abreu.<ref>{{harvp|de Abreu|2003|p=170}}</ref> Knox's view is not said to be widely held in modern Protestantism among leadership or laity.