Rise of Patriarchy - Sustenance

I wonder if there is a term for the people who instead of blaming the social situation for their victim status, in fact claim that that situation doesn't exist in the society that's why they are victims.

The other day, I heard a person complaining, if patriarchy had existed in the society then men also had the option of staying at home and becoming homemakers!

This person also had the opinion that machoism doesn't exist in the society and if it exists only a small percentage of families actually show it (basically, his definition of machoism is overt physical aggression).

This person also had the opinion that marriage is a curse for men as they can't get sex anywhere else but a boon for women.

Even though I initially wanted to tackle this case in the post from an angle how people misunderstood patriarchy, I couldn't overlook the fact that many of them have internalized the prejudices.

The first one on the list, ie., men becoming homemaker, is probably the only thing where his expectation was correct. But what he said was basically the definition of patriarchy. Everything is gendered and woman is considered lower and a man, wanted to take up a role defined as feminine in patriarchal terms, is viewed as effeminate. Basically, here an individual is a victim of patriarchy but this guy has turned the meaning on its head.

In the second case, ie., machoism, the lack of physical aggression among many middle class Indian families is taken as a common phenomenon. But India is still a brutal place for women in general and men who go beyond socially accepted norms.  In fact, when it comes to women I suppose even developed countries aren't far ahead of us. There are too many microaggressions from privileged castes and classes. His male and privileged self might have escaped any such hostility but that's just a privilege blindness.

The sexual repression is an unpleasant experience for many Indian men. But I believe that could be the situation with women too. However, privileged men by heredity in olden times had no problem with this as the patriarchal rules always accepted their sexual indiscretions in different terminologies. Also, in olden times as people married in their childhood(or immediately after puberty), they never had to face the long period of sexual abstinence that the present generations of Indians have to face. So basically sexual repression is a new phenomenon in the last 50-100 years as we moved away from child marriages but didn't completely adopt the concept of sex without marriage in our society. But I suppose this is a transition period. But the way he considers it as a male only phenomenon shows a complete lack of appreciation for female sexuality and also a dream of playboy sexuality without any responsibility but only entitlement(this has given rise to many feudal liberals).

Basically, I could summarize that his sense of victimhood is built upon;

- Misunderstanding of patriarchy

- Male and caste privilege blindness

- Prejudice with female sexuality 

You can rebel against the existing social norms if you are clear about the reasons behind it. But what happens in this case? I believe people who themselves are victims become inhuman about others' plight (this guy is a libertarian) is because of this reason. Instead of bringing down the phenomenon that made them victim, they are rooting for it. And these are above average people. Nobody can explain them anything.

Rise of Patriarchal Society - notes

I was reading this blog post at Pharyngula, then the following research by Mark van Vugt caught my eye.

They also suggest that this imbalance might have evolutionary roots and point to an idea called the male-warrior hypothesis, which states that men have evolved to form strong bonds with other males in their group because in the past this enabled them to defend territory from hostile attackers.

“Men are more ready to cooperate with genetic-stranger males to form these fighting coalitions,” says Mark van Vugt, an evolutionary psychologist at the Free University of Amsterdam who first suggested the theory in 2007.

 I had proposed  in a blog post in 2006 that men bonded at community level and women didn't in our hunter-gatherer past, which was one of the reasons for the rise of patriarchy.

Men -> community; woman -> family

Well, that's what I think. The men formed community and a woman formed a family. During our hunter-gatherer past men bonded but women missed(Are all women individualistic?).

But I'm not making any is-ought fallacy here. I'm not saying women are incapable of bonding but only that it didn't happen in our past and that's one of the reasons for the rise of patriarchy.

The Dubious Term Called Westernization - VII

I have argued before that any knowledge if it has to be learnt or a person has to use his/her brain then that knowledge is individualistic. It can't get any identity. However, this simple logic seems to elude Hindutvites. Unfortunately, India produces too many of them and they are set to mess up Indian education system(though unsure what we have is worthy of preserving) since now they are in power.

I was thinking about this phenomenon among many non-Christians world over. Can we come up with a solution which when not diluting the modern scientific knowledge also ensures that it doesn't instill a sense of alienation or inferiority complex among rationally challenged non-Christians?

The greatest danger of dumbing down of the education is in the field of social sciences. However, it's the achievements of some Europeans in physical sciences that has created alienation or inferiority complex among right wingers. One can find the evidence of that in Muslim preacher Dr, Zakir Naik's claim that, "the West is true when it comes to science and technology but we are true when it comes to religion".

The people behind development of knowledge and the regions where they got support and help to promote it aren't very important when it comes to imparting that knowledge to completely different set of people and regions where such people in the past and knowledge were either actively suppressed or never encouraged.So, we can create fictitious names and regions. Albert Einstein can be some Ramesh from Gujarat or some Saranya from Tamil Nadu depending upon the regions. Of course, caste and religious sensibilities have to be accounted for.

 I believe respecting a scientist or a philosopher is just an extension of patriarchal or feudal thinking or its internalization. We can take inspiration from Gandhi's words, "One shouldn't hate sinners but the sins". It's a brilliant non-hierarchical and in turn non-patriarchal thinking. Extending that we can say, "One should never respect/love/worship saints/scientists/thinkers but respect/emulate their deeds".

So with this we can address identity question of most of the physical and social science fields. However, there still is a problem with the study of history. I would think history should be only available as a research field. Anyway, majority don't learn anything in history classes and is very evident in the way  it's being easily twisted. So, remove history from school curriculum.

These studies should be taught in a way that they should show how the scientific Indian (or vernacular) school of thought has triumphed over other Indian schools of thought.

Eventually, students would know the truth. However, normal people who aren't bothered about 'westernization' may not care at all. But it would be tough for people with right wing disposition to suddenly reject everything that they thought was part of their identity throughout. 

Rise of Patriarchal Society - IX

In one of my posts on Dravidian words I wondered about a Telugu festival called badukamma. I made an assertion that the festival looks too patriarchal and could be a northern import. Well, my knowledge is limited in this regard, I suppose. Closer home, there is a similar festival called Tiruvadira in Kerala. The festival was caste specific hence my ignorance.

It appears the festival was traditionally celebrated by Brahmin, Kshatriya and Nair castes. According to the Wikipedia article;

It is largely a festival for women; unmarried women observe a partial fast on this day to get good husbands and married women take a fast from the preceding day (Makayiram nakshatra) and on the day of Thiruvathira for the well being of their husband and family.

It appears there is a similar festival in Tamil Nadu too. Tamils celebrating one of the highly patriarchal festivals isn't surprising considering the region was the first to develop a caste society owing to its earliest kingdoms. As a matter of fact, it has still remained the most casteist among Dravidian states.

But I believe this festival in Kerala shows that it is not a native festival. If you consider the term 'husband' didn't hold any meaning to Nair women before mid 19th  century (or much later), the idea behind this festival appears to be absurd.

Rise of Patriarchal Society - VIII

In Part -V of this series, I discussed how the conservative view of male preeminence was borne out of  misunderstanding of the sexual reproduction. In this view, women have no part in creation of life apart from acting as incubators. The life is complete in male 'seed'.

This was the prevalent view in many patriarchal societies, which also led to lower respect for females. I would argue the logical result was that the intercourse itself was an act between two unequals thus a low activity. The most respectful man in  some of the said societies was the one who had taken the vow of celibacy.

What about the opposite end of the spectrum? How do libertines consider females and the sexual activity based on their interpretation of creation?
                                               
I couldn't get much information on the net whether the dynamics of fertilization was known during Marquis de Sade's time or in the 18th century.However, his libertine novel 'Philosophy in the Bedroom' has a character, Madame de Saint-Ange, explaining foetus as a fusion of male and female seeds. But she continues that the foetus owes its existence completely to sperm. The female seed doesn't create but only furthers the creation. Another character Dolmance expands on this and says we owe absolutely nothing to our mothers as we are completely formed of our sire's blood.                                                                                                       
This libertine philosophy shows at the end of the day it has to twist sexual reproduction in such a way that women don't have any respect in the act. Is this really required for a libertine? We need to observe the respect mothers get in conservative societies.
                                   
Many conservative societies are known to respect mothers in a way that mask their womanhood. One cannot ascribe any sexuality to her as that would immediately make her lower. But the founding fathers of these philosophies lived hundreds of years before the advancements of bio sciences. It's interesting to see, libertines of a more enlightened era had to take refuge of the same philosophy to support their sexual libertinism. They had used the same 'male is the true creator' argument to denigrate women in a way that mask their motherhood.
                                                   
This example shows, sexual abstinence and sexual libertinism, even though sound opposite, were, in fact, born out of the same ignorance. Both are attributes of pure patriarchal thought. However, the comparison is not strictly true as the influence of these two interpretations are not the same. While conservatism has been ritualized and legalized (and slowly being corrected in the modern era), libertinism has remained individualistic.

Reference:
1. Philosophy in the Bedroom, by Marquis de Sade

Rise of patriarchal society - VII_a

I have discussed how matrifocal tradition viewed semen as nurture and equated it with the rain. This idea was in contrast to patrifocal idea of the womb as nurture and its identification with the earth. As an example for matrifocal ideas getting mixed with patriarchal gods, I had talked about northern Indian tradition of women stripping to please the rain god, Indra.

Now, it appears this tradition could be found in Dravidian lands too. I wonder whether the idea was again a syncretization of the older matrifocal world view with the later partrifocal ideas independently in  South or it came to South because of the northern migrations.

The article doesn't say who the aroused rain god is. Most likely Indra and not Varuna.

Newspaper article h/t: Nirmuka Facebook page.

Rise of patriarchal society - notes

From India's unwanted girls

How girls are valued varies widely across India. Over the years, most states in the south and north-east have been kind to their girls, and sex ratios are above the national average.

In the matrilineal societies of Kerala and Karnataka in the south and Meghalaya in the north-east, women have enjoyed high status and commanded respect. But the latest census figures show the good news even in these areas could be turning bad. A minor decline in the number of girls has begun in the three states which, campaigners worry, might be indicative of a trend.

The matrilineal society of Karnataka!? (and why the blogger word checker doesn't identify "matrilineal" when even the BBC uses it?).  Strictly speaking, only Tulu region was traditionally matrilineal (and most likely only one dominant caste remained matrilineal in 20th-21st century). But it would be nice if the whole society turns into at least ambilineal (well, by that I mean, sons patrilineal and daughters matrilineal).

Update on 24-05-11:
But if the other story is any indication, in the worst case scenario (excess girls in normal societies and excess boys in anti-female societies) matrilineal societies would help the patriarchal societies to sustain themselves. 

Battle of the Sexes - viii

Maybe this genetic study can be taken as a prototype to understand cultural traits too. How man created things like male god/s have negative effect on females or how patriachal ideals get perverted expression among females.

This battle, observed across many species and known as intralocus sexual conflict, happens when the genes for a trait which is good for the breeding success of one sex are bad for the other -- sparking an 'evolutionary tug-o-war' between the sexes.

 It has previously been thought these issues were only resolved when the trait in question evolves to become sex-specific in its development -- meaning the trait only develops in the gender it benefits and stops affecting the other.

However, a new study by the universities of Exeter (UK), Okayama and Kyushu (both Japan) published Nov. 4 in Current Biology shows this doesn't always bring an end to conflict -- as even when the trait becomes sex-specific, knock-on effects can still disadvantage the other sex.

Kensuke Okada, also from Okayama University, said: "The view that sex-limited trait development resolves this kind of genetic battle of the sexes is based on the assumption that traits are genetically independent of each other, which is frequently not true.
"What we're seeing here is that genetic architecture can provide a general barrier to this kind of conflict resolution."

Via Science Daily

Rise of Patriarchal Society - VII

Matrilineal traditions:
My previous post on the same topic, I discussed how matrilineal traditions consider semen as mere nurture but not the essence of life. This is in contrast to patrilineal traditions which consider semen as the essence of life and woman or womb as mere nurture.

One of the examples given was matrilineal Musuo community of China. This community assigned semen the role of rain. I believe matrilineal traditions were strong in northern Indian and Nepali regions close to Sino-Tibetan influence.

During the times of drought it is/was a tradition in Nepala and Uttara Pradesha for women to plough naked in fields to please rain god Indra. We fairly guess how wily wise men of the past synthesized matrilineal traditions with their patriarchal gods. This also gives good clue why Indra upstaged original rain god Varuna.

Seeing thro' patrilineal eyes, matrilineal traditions may look rather strange. This may lead to patrilineal rationalization of those traditions. It doesn't go well with Varuna's character to be enticed by women. But Indra is known for his loose morals.

Rise of Patriarchal Society - VI

Matrilineal traditions:
If patriarchal traditions have their foundations in male centric ignorance about sexual reproduction, how about females of the past. I don't think unrelated males and females sit together and come to a common conclusion in the matters of knowledge. Any association should be strictly within the sex. The ideas that grow into ritualization are either matrilineal or patrilineal. If matrilineal ritualizations became powerful, males adopted it and vice versa.

In present times, especially in Indian traditions, we don't see clearly delineated male specific ideas or female specific ideas. But before dwelling into that the question needed to be asked, is it possible to have male specific or female specific ideas? I think it's possible. What we see here, the foundations(of ideas) are always misunderstanding about physio-chemical phenomena. The obvious physical differences manifest in differences in the world views based on them. Therefore, diversity in ways, paths, points of views are just a limitation of knowledge or pure misunderstanding.

At the next level, domination of either patrilineal philosophies or matrilineal philosophies result in one sex taking up prejudices of other sex, which can be unnatural for the borrower sex.

But ideas are not always linear. By this I mean, the foundations aren't just restricted to familiar domain. People develop ideas based on unfamiliar domains. Men can hold certain views about women and vice versa. This is ignorance multiplied and hence non-linear. And mainly responsible for many degrading practices where linear ideas and non-linear ideas mix.

Vagina and Menstrual Blood:
I would think the following linear ideas in the early societies.
- Men glorify their penis and its secretion semen
- Women glorify their vagina and its secretion menstrual blood

This of course makes sense. These glories are associated with bodily waste and hence dirty. But there is no reason to believe that women would be ashamed of their vagina and menstrual blood as men haven't. The association with creative power is the obvious reason for positive view. However, it appears in many societies (Not universally) men had developed non-linear idea about menstrual blood. And the result had been degrading menstrual blood practices where these negative ideas had been ritualized. However, it is unknown (to me) whether women had developed negative views about male glories and ritualized it in their matrilineal traditions.

Snake Worship:
This is a curious tradition. Generally, women are n the forefront of snake worship. Snake has generally (as far as I know) been held to be a representation of penis. Does that mean women had developed a positive attitude towards unfamiliar domain? Maju@Leherensuge in fact informed that some anthropologists consider snake a complete manifestation of genitals. The head as vagina and the body, penis. I would think early females most likely considered the only head part.

If you consider the ritual then it becomes very clear. Generally, snake is worshipped by pouring milk into the anthill. Milk of course here is the representation of semen. Matrilineal Musuo community in China considered semen as rain. If men thought women are mere nurturing condition, so did women. Semen is milk, a mere nurture for their glorious vagina.

Rise of Patriarchal Society - V(ii)

Case Studies:
As I have already argued in my previous post, the (mis)understanding of sexual reproduction developed and limited metaphysical thought in the old cultures. One of the knowledges that pervaded in the past was that semen is seed. That means it's complete by itself to create a life.

The extreme exposition of this theme probably could be found in Sankara(IAAHE)'s 'Knowledge of Self'. If you observe all his nouns and pronouns - king, seer, wise-man, yogin, he - are exclusively males. Indeed, only males need the knowledge of self.

Though he didn't talk about creation in 'Atmabodha' ( I haven't read his other works), we can peruse his source book, Upanishads, to understand his knowledge. There it's clearly given Brahman ('it' that turns into 'he') created other selves.

This is where his understanding of condition and illusion developed. Brahman transformation from 'it' to 'he' clearly showed a condition or an incubator or an earth was added thus the great self (or the great selflessness) became male self.

Ultimately, the knowledge here is that just like the great self the men selves are complete by themselves with their seeds.

Rise of Patriarchal Society - V

In one of my previous posts I have argued that 'patriliny' is a conscious structure and matriliny is a non-conscious identity. Here I'm trying to understand the development of male creator gods in patriarchal society and female creator gods(?) in older societies and matrilineal societies.

I don't think patriarchal male gods have anything to do with the superiority of physical strength of males compared to females. Matrilineal males don't show any overly feminine attitudes or any attitudes that could be construed as feminine. Similarly, not all patriarchal religions were considered stereotypically masculine. I have come across views that Hinduism is a feminine religion. With this background I would think the development of male creator gods concept is a non-sexist philosophy. This has something to do with the way various societies understood sexual reproduction.

Fundamental idea behind male creator:
I have blogged about virgin birth of the Buddha. From the article I quoted:

Suddhodhana, means "pure-rice". But rice is also seed and symbolically means "semen". In many Indian languages the word for "seed" can also denote "rice", "egg"; or semen.

What we can see here, the understanding was that man's semen is complete by itself to create a life. There was no idea of female ovum and male sperm fertilization. So what is female's role in this? She's just a pot or earth where the seed turns into plant. It's been obviously observed that man can create seed without female's help. Therefore, female is important as a helper in subsequent growth but her role in fundamental creation is non-existent.

Fundamental idea behind female creator:
The concept of female creator hasn't been argued clearly. In this case, it is tough to argue for female only creation considering that conception clearly needed a male. However, I would guess the idea probably go back to remote times when people weren't clear about the role of intercourse in reproduction. I would guess the importance could be understood only in monogamous relationship. However, even then they needed to develop a role for semen. In my opinion, it was generally conceived as mere lubricant.

Case studies:
Jesus's virgin birth clearly shows people didn't understand female's contribution. Had they understood it they wouldn't have allowed his birth to be contaminated by human part. I think more than the impurity of sexual act it's the seed of man that would trouble people.

Buddha's parents of course have been made illusions. In fact, he had an unborn birth. Or maybe that's the way the truth has been secretly revealed by the wily wise men of the past.

Coming to linga-yoni, it appears they understood the importance of intercourse. But had no idea about the gametes. I would think semen has been taken to be lubricant (linga-yoni idols are generally bathed in milk, honey etc...). However, the things are complicated in India. Here two schools of thought where one considered semen was 'seed' and the other thought semen was 'lubricant' assimilated and created a convoluted philosophy.

Rise of Patriarchal Society - iv

In my previous post on the same topic I mentioned that exclusive female rights over clan temples in my caste is a thing of past. Now, only males control the affairs. This phenomenon I interpreted as a natural outcome of family outgrowing and becoming a community itself. In my opinion, in a community structure, religious sphere would be controlled by males because of lack of female bonding at that level. But it appears my example may not be the most suitable one. Nevertheless, the whole context may be of some interest.

As I mentioned before, the taravadu/illam (the concept is similar to mUlasthAna concept of Tuluva-s, check Ravi Mundkur's posts) shrines were exclusive right of females belonging to certain illam/bari (clan). No male members were allowed inside the shrine(along with females of other illam-s).

The present situation is exactly the opposite. This change happened in the last century. It was brought about by an event called Ashtamangala Prashna.

Ashtamangala Prashna:
This is a type of Astrology mostly practiced in Malayalam and Tulu regions. The tradition resembles oracle astrology. The questions(prazna) related to various problems would be answered by Astrologers with the help of eight (aSTa) auspicious (maMgaLa) articles viz.,lamp, mirror, gold, milk, curd, fruit, books and white cloth.

In one such Ashtamangala Prashna it was found that gods were not happy with female centered shrines. Therefore, there should be a complete change in the shrine management. Not only males must officiate the rituals inside the shrine females must not even enter it. Of course, the chief astrologer, a Namboothiri, who had this divination had firmly established his divine aura by another prediction.

The Namboothiri felt that there was some dOSa (wrong) with the lamp. People around checked the lamp and couldn't find anything. In the end, it was observed there was a single strand of hair sticking to the lamp. Even today people talk about that lamp event.

The Taboo Replacement:
It is unclear whether the lamp gimmick was constructed to overcome any opposition. That Namboothiri could predict something was wrong because of a hair,however, people there couldn't find anything wrong in the fact that their centuries old tradition has been turned upside down.

First of all, the change in the tradition required replacement of a taboo. The taboo of men entering the shrine. This taboo is exactly opposite to patrilineal Namboothiri taboo. But why didn't for so many centuries Namboothiri-s try to enforce their taboo?

Probably, until 20th century Brahmins were not really bothered about "little tradition(non Sanskritic/Vedic)" of other castes. Also, there is a caste of astrologers (non-brahmin), Kaniyan, also matrilineal, that probably involved in these cases in the past. Anyway, it is interesting to see that a matrilineal taboo has been replaced by a patrilineal taboo(of barring females from shrines).

It appears the change from matriliny to patriarchy not only killed matrilineal taboos, in its place it established patrilineal taboos. It looks like a logical development. In my opinion, the change from matriliny to partiarchy need not be a gradual process spanning over several centuries. A quick transition by establishing patrilineal taboos in place of matrilineal ones could be achieved in a single generation.

Rise of patriarchal society -iii

The formation of family and community in the development human civilization is really confusing for me. I think communities were formed before families. I think the variables in a family are more complex than in a community in the initial stages of civilization. Therefore, simple community structure might have formed before family structure.

Men-> community; woman -> family
Well, that's what I think. The men formed community and a woman formed a family. During our hunter-gatherer past men bonded but women missed(Are all women individualistic?). However, the families grew with women at the helm as one night stands might have been vogue in those days.

The religion export
I wonder if it were a community or a family to start mass worship. Probably, both in their own way. With mostly men officiating(could be women too if the hunters included them) the community and women the family worships. However, as families expand and become mini communities of their own the connecting bonding is always male.

Otherday, my grandmother commented that the women have been relegated to become mere cooks in the resurrected Tharavadu temples of my community. In the old days, the female head of the family had the exclusive rights to offer prayers. However, the present Tharavadu temple structure might have escaped from her notice.

The Tharavadu(s) were the joint family houses. Each Tharavadu was identified with the lineages known as illam in Malayalam or bali in Tulu. Nowadays, the joint family system is dead and there are no Tharavadu(s). However, there is an attempt to resurrect these Tharavadu temples. There are many families belonging to single illam, however, instead of each family having a particular Tharavadu temple all these families are identifying a place as the origin of their 'illam' and establishing temple for the family goddess, spirits. And all the people forefront in this endeavour are invariably men. In fact, there are community temples(for castes in general) with primarily goddesses but all the priests and oracles are males. And this was the case when females had the exclusive rights in their Tharavadu(s). So any connection between goddess, matriliny and patriarchy is just random events of community and family. At least, religion has nothing to do in the development of patriarchy though it might have supported male supremacy in the later period.

Rise of patriarchal society -ii

This poster assumes patriarchy arrived on the Indian horizon along with Aryans. I am not so sure. At Quetzalcoatl discussion forum : Tribes/nomads least bothered about purity of women. But sedentary population overly. Indus valley was sedentary. It must be patriarchal.

South Indian matriliny:
One thoery : The tribes that took up agriculture late remained matrilineal. Agriculture arrived in Kerala around 7th century much later than any other parts of India. Another example, a Tamil community called Pallar that left their tribal life to mainstream agrarian life remained matrilineal for much part of the history.

You find matrilineal communities among Tuluvas, Malayalees. But very few Kannada and Tamil communities. And not yet a recorded Telugu community. Some believe Andhra is the urheimat of Dravidian speakers. It could also be the first South Indian region to become agrarian society(because of Austro-Asiatic Haplogroup R2 rice farmers from the East) which spread to Tamil Nadu and Karnataka regions and last reaching Tulu Nadu and Kerala. The geographical locations of these regions of course support this view.

Why were Aryans not culprits?
First, they were nomadic. Second, the present genetic studies show their numbers might be very small. Were they from Eastern Europe then where are Haplogroup I and N lineages? Were they from Western Europe then where are Haplogroup R1b lineages? Were they from Western Asia then where is Haplogroup E3b lineage? Haplogroup R1b is present. But only among non-Brahmin castes. Third, I do not believe Hinduism is just a blend of Vedic and native beliefs. In my opinion, it also has a very strong Semitic character.

PS: Anyway, I am not really sure what that blogger wanted to say. The way she mixes the things is very interesting. While Aditi was definitely a Vedic figure; the unclean menstrual blood concept in South Indian society was(the untouchables were called H(P)oleya where h(p)ole in old Kannada meant menstrual blood) used as an indication of native origin of purity-pollution concepts, the basis of caste concepts.

Rise of Patriarchical Society

My only assumption for this argument is that human society was matriarchal in the begninning. I've already discussed about three migrations that left their mark on Indian population and how closely related were Dravidians and Indo-Aryans. For the sake of clarity and based on the earlier discussions, I'll be using the terminologies R1A Dravidians(Indo-Aryans), H-Dravidians, L-Dravidians, J-Dravidians and R-Dravidians.

Somewhere in North-West of Indian Subcontinent:
Few male cousins made a plan that would change the course of human history(exact period is unknown). Till then any human migration(or invasion) was undertaken by both men and women. As a result society remained matriarchical with mothers controlling the social and religious order. However, this migration of few closely related cousins(now we know as R1A-Dravidians) would change all that. First time in the history, a Homo-Sapien community left Indian subcontinent(the third homeland of Dravidians after Africa and Middle-East) without any females and moved to South-East Europe.

Now they are the masters of the society:
In the Kurgan lands these R1A-Dravidians took up the girls of Pre-Indo-European population. In the confusion of cultural conflicts, these R1A-Dravidian males ended up performing the religious duties. Now they were the one dictating terms for the social conducts. The taste of power in the community also motivated them to invent new gods in their mould.

The new patriarchical world order:
When the society was matriarchal the only driving reason behind any migration or invasion was lack of food. However, the male order changed all that. Now there were more migrations and invasions that is driven out of want for more land and more women. The greed was born. The new male order multiplied quickly. The societies under its attack either also became patriarchical or became extinct.

Elsewhere in the blogosphere:
NuSapiens feels transition from matriarchy to patriarchy was brought about by climate change. But I will stick to my position that it was due to few only male R1A-Dravidian migration to Europe from the sub-continent.