Breaking down the question
The question is deliberately framed as a provocation: it invites the lazy inference that if descent and inheritance pass through women, then men must hold no authority. The command word "discuss" asks you to weigh that proposition, and the expected answer is a qualified negative — matriliny is not matriarchy, and male authority persists, merely relocated.
The crucial analytical move is to separate two things the question runs together: the line of descent and the locus of authority. Matriliny governs how membership, name and property are transmitted; it does not automatically settle who commands. Making this distinction early demonstrates conceptual maturity.
How to approach it
Begin by defining matriliny and distinguishing it firmly from matriarchy, so the examiner sees you will not equate female descent with female rule. Then show where male authority actually sits in matrilineal systems — typically with the mother's brother rather than the husband and father — and introduce the classic "matrilineal puzzle".
Use ethnographic and Indian illustrations to ground the argument, and note where women do exercise real influence so the answer stays balanced. Broader structures of male dominance are examined in our notes on patriarchy and the sexual division of labour. Close with a measured verdict.
Model answer
Matriliny is a system of unilineal descent in which group membership, name and often property are traced and transmitted through the female line. It is essential at the outset to distinguish matriliny from matriarchy. Matriarchy would mean rule by women; matriliny concerns only the line through which descent and inheritance flow. The proposition that male authority is therefore absent confuses the line of descent with the locus of authority, and the two do not coincide.
In most matrilineal societies, effective authority over the descent group rests not with the husband and father but with the mother's brother. Because a man belongs to his mother's lineage, it is his sister's children, not his own, who are his lineage heirs; he exercises guardianship, discipline and control of property on their behalf. This transfer of authority to the maternal uncle is known as the avunculate. Male authority is thus not absent but displaced — moved sideways from the husband to the brother.
This structural tension was named by Audrey Richards as the "matrilineal puzzle". A matrilineal man is pulled in two directions: as a husband and father he has obligations to his wife and children, yet as a brother and uncle his primary loyalty and authority lie with his sister's line. The system must constantly manage the resulting strain between conjugal and lineage bonds. Kathleen Gough's studies of the Nayar of Kerala and David Schneider's comparative work on matrilineal kinship both emphasised that such systems allocate authority to men even as they trace descent through women.
The Indian material illustrates the point. Among the Nayar, the traditional taravad household was headed by the karanavan, the senior male, who managed property and exercised authority over the matrilineal joint family. Among the Khasi and Garo of the north-east, property may pass to the youngest daughter, yet clan councils and public decision-making have conventionally been dominated by men, especially maternal uncles. Descent through women coexists with authority largely in male hands.
None of this means women are powerless. Matriliny gives women greater security in property, stronger natal ties and a more valued social position than many patrilineal systems allow, and their influence within the household can be considerable. But influence is not the same as formal authority, and the two should not be conflated.
In sum, male authority is not absent in matrilineal society; it is relocated from the husband to the mother's brother. Matriliny reorganises the channels of descent and inheritance without dissolving male control over the descent group. The society is matrilineal, not matriarchal, and the persistence of male authority within it is precisely what the matrilineal puzzle describes.
Examiner's perspective
Examiners look first for the matriliny-matriarchy distinction; answers that assume female descent implies female rule fall at the first hurdle. The mark is secured by separating descent from authority and locating male authority in the avunculate, ideally named and explained through the matrilineal puzzle.
Strong scripts support the argument with precise ethnography — Nayar, Khasi, Garo — and stay balanced by acknowledging the real gains matriliny brings women without overstating them into matriarchy. A crisp, qualified verdict that male authority is displaced rather than absent signals the analytical control the question rewards.