Filmer's view of natural patriarchy is based on the idea that God made Eve subordinate to Adam. Thus, Eve is merely a vessel for Adam's children. When Adam's first son is born Adam became king because all father's are monarchs of their families. Adam can now pass the position of monarch down to his son and his son can pass it to his son. By creating a link between biblical text and the idea of the divine right of a king, Filmer was able to provide a good argument for the legitimacy of a monarchy as a form of government.
             Thomas Hobbes, like Filmer, was a man who supported monarchy. However, Hobbes was an atheist. Thus, a theory with the inclusion of God would not seem very enticing to Hobbes. Instead, he believed that in a State of Nature every person was the basically equal because a woman could hurl a rock at a man's head and harm him severely. Hence, Filmer's idea that man is superior to woman is initially subverted. However, when a woman becomes pregnant or has children she can no longer care and protect for herself and her children. Thus, in exchange for protection a woman would allow herself to come under the dominion of a man. Woman is now subordinate to man, because she consented to his dominance. Hobbes called this theory contractual patriarchy. Finally, in a state of nature children come under the dominion of the mother, not the father. When the infant chooses to suckle his mother's nipple for food she is allowing itself to come under it's mother's dominance.
             Locke, much like Filmer, was a God fearing man. It is for this reason that Locke also choose to incorporate the presence of God into his theory on patriarchy. Unlike Filmer, Locke believes that political authority comes from the consent of the people and not a divine right ruler. According to Locke, God did not make Eve subordinate to Adam because he was mad at both of them for eating the forb...