(Or, an introduction to "patriarchy"... some beginning thoghts at least...)
In some respects, the society of Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers resembles the ideal polity of Aristotle; on Heinlein's future Earth, citizenship (and participation in political office) is limited to those who have served in the military. Someone has even compared that society to a modern-day Sparta. (Unfortunately, his account has been suspended.)
While Aristotle may not agree with the details (especially with the size of the political community), he does think that the polity that most societies can become is one built on the martial virtues, and courage will be the central virtue rather than prudence. ("Polity" can name any good constitution, but it also names that constitution where the many have a share in rule.)
The movie 300 has already been released; it is based on the graphic novel of the same name by Frank Miller. As to its historical accuracy, I leave that to someone else to judge and discuss. How many men were inspired by the movie to adopt a warrior ethos? Of those, how many understand it?
Though Aristotle sees some positive aspects of Spartan society, he also gives a critique of the Spartan constitution in his Politics. It is unfortunate that his collection of constitutions has mostly been lost. (Though when we think of a Greek democracy, we typically think of Athens, might it not also be said that Sparta was also a "democracy" in so far as all eligible males were able to elect the Ephors?)
(1) Participation in ruling is tied to defense of the political community. The men of the community should have a willingness to sacrifice their own lives in defense of their families and of their community. Because they may be called to do this, can they really trust someone who cannot or will not put his life on the line? Or someone who may be a liability in some other respect? Why should they allow a coward or someone who manifestly cares only for himself to have a share in political decision-making? Why should they accept the decision of someone who is not or had not served in combat, or whose family is "exempt" from such service? (As the Western Confucian points out, we can see the difference between the British Royal family or with Americans like Professor Bacevich and many of the American elites in this regard.) If there is a perception that the burden of military service is not being shared by those who command and those commanded, would not trust be undermined and order dissolved? Even in a society where the division of labor is rather great, in times of great need, all men are called to contribute to the defense of the city in some way; if not in battle then by support and so on.
(I don't know if such a great differentiation is ideal--certainly it is not possible without some measure of wealth, and how wealth is to be generated in a just manner is a question of great importance. I think there is something admirable about a society where all physically able males may be called to serve as warriors to defend the community; this is even required for smaller political communities. How does Aristotle solve the problem of factions for the polity? How is instability of government to be prevented? Is there something to be said for there being greater respect for law and order if everyone is armed, and not just the wealthy, and if all participate to some extent in the government and therefore know what is going on? Empires seem more peaceful because power has been centralized and mostly removed from the ordinary citizen, but what are the costs of empire? And do empires have intrinsic weaknesses which lead to their downfall?)
In warrior tribes, the elderly had presumably had served as warriors in the past and had already earned their right to rule. (How common was the exposure of the weak or handicapped babies in such societies? What happened to members of the tribe who became sick and could not be healed?) Presumably if the illness is not result of one's choices, being unable to make war would not be held against the man.
(We see in such tribes that the elderly are valued especially for the experience that is required for the acquisition and exercise of practical wisdom, and being a source of tradition that is to be passed on to succeeding generations.)
In an episode of The Outer Limits, "Lithia," women rule in a post-apocalyptic world, and all men have been killed off in the war and what followed. I've forgotten know the details, so I don't know how this society reproduced--perhaps through IVF, perhaps through cloning. Men are blamed for violence and wars, and the root of this? Anger, greed, and the desire to dominate; it is decided by the women that it is good that men are extinct. (Naturally, for radical feminist propaganda such as this what is taken to be a representative male is of course a sinful male, and not a virtuous one.)
[Is it too controversial to claim that if women were ruling that it would result in a greater partisanship that would be destructive of society--impartiality that is needed in the male's concern with "abstract" justice. While it women are oriented towards fostering familial and group bonds, what is the flip side of this? What sort of penalties would be exercised? Shunning, ostracization, and informal forms of punishment through gossip and so on, leading to the destruction of reputation and the alienation of individuals. If only women were in charge, would there necessarily be a decrease in war and violence? What does one make in the increase of teenage girl-on-girl violence, and the increasing number of female gangs?]
Is war a good thing? No. But it may be necessary in certain situations, and force may be necessary to enforce justice. It is a fallen world, and not all will choose to conform to the Divine Law. I've already written on why anger is needed, and that it is not an "evil" emotion in itself, but it bears repeating again, since some go so far as to claim that only men become angry. Who is more likely to bear a grudge and nurse a memory of an injury received, a man or a woman?
To maintain the community, there must be a fundamental concern for justice, executing justice and protecting it. The execution and protection of justice requires at times force and coercion, which is dependent upon strength. Even in our age where disparity of strength has been equalized through highly advanced arms, what of the natural reluctance of females to use force on others (while aggression is natural to males)? Is feminity destroyed if this natural reluctance is removed too much? I would not oppose teaching a woman how to defend herself, either with a gun or with her, but I wonder what sort of effects the psychological preparation mentioned in books like On Combat will have on a woman. Samurai wives were expected to be the last line of defense for the home or castle and were taught to use a Japanese halbred that was specifically designed for a woman, but I don't think we would say they were not feminine.
But sin and injustice are consequences of a fallen world, one might argue--in an ideal world where they did not exist, should ruling be limited to men only?
(2) This brings me to the more important point: the citizen who participates in the governing of the political community does so not as an individual, but as the head of a household, since a political community is not made up of individuals, but of households. The defense of the household, and by extension of the political community is function that is consequence of the authority of the husband in the home.
Single males are in training, not necessarily exercising full citizenship; iirc, in the Politics Aristotle thinks they should finish their military service and settle down first. They should be learning how to rule, but they are not ruling yet. But this does not necessarily mean they should be excluded from all political deliberation.
Catholic liberals like John Finnis dismiss the "sexism" of the past writers and thinkers (such as Aquinas) as being founded in erroneous generalizations about men and women, but I wonder if they have looked at papal writings which defend the authority of the husband. Not surprisingly, some appeal to the writings of Pope John Paul II (such as Mulieris Dignitatem) to claim that Tradition has been changed. (His writings can be interpreted in accordance with Tradition, but Catholic liberals do not take the trouble of doing this, since they have already rejected Tradition on this point.)
[Genesis 3:16 (Mulieri dixit:“Multiplicabo aerumnas tuas et conceptus tuos:in dolore paries filios, et ad virum tuum erit appetitus tuus, ipse autem dominabitur tui”.) has been interpreted as saying that headship is a consequence of the Fall, and hence is not "natural" nor would not be the state of affairs if the Fall had not taken place. However, the dominion that is spoken of here should not be understood as referring to the exercise of lawful authority, but tyranny. See Dilsaver on this point. Men should exercise headship not for their own private good, subordinating the good of others in the family to his own good as a tyrant would, but to lead for the benefit of all.]
Those who are in relationships can observe from their experience--who is inclined to lead, and who is inclined to be led? Such a male-female dynamic even exists between men and women who are "just" friends. In fact, it often happens that women consider men who are too solicitious of the needs and desires of others (and are rather indifferent to the various options) before making a decision to be "indecisive."
Some women who attempt to have "control" over the relationship and over the men do so because of very poor experiences with their fathers, and they try to compensate for a bad life at home by being the one in control, expecting to avoid a repeat of their childhood by making sure the male personality is suppressed is as much possible.
Perhaps others are controlling because of their character. And some simply because they are radical feminists. The feminist who is in denial about the dynamics between men and women should examine her relationships with men and see how often she lets the man make the decision, and what she really thinks of men who do not act "manly" in this way, and if she wants (I say want, and not "is attracted to" for a reason) such a man, what her reasons are for this desire.
Fathers are a major influence on their daughters and on their choice of a spouse. A husband replaces the father with respect to many of the functions that the father once fulfilled, and women who are honest with themselves will recognize this, even if the friendship that exists between a husband and wife is necessarily of a different sort than that between father and daughter because of the sexual aspect.
(3) Because the link between headship of the household and citizenship, and the headship residing in the husband, the conclusion as to who would ideally be exercising full citizenship in a polity is obvious.
(As far as I know, Aristotle does not deny women are citizens, he only denies that they should participate in ruling; they would have the benefits of citizenship.
The life of the women was of concern to Aristotle. From the Politics: "For, a husband and wife being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws.")
