I was reading Peter Massey's biography of Peter the Great and it seems that Russia -particularly in the aristocracy- was extremely patriarchal and that wives and daughters were distinctly beneath the men of the family. Yet even before Peter's social reforms his half-sister Sophia reigned as regent with significant power, how was this accepted by such a patriarchal nation?
nothing rightful ever vanishes as long as it can be utilized to legitimate newer claims for priviledges and power. the Ptolemaïc Pharaons, the papal Pontifices Maximi, continuous Roman Imperial succession as established in carolingian and saxonic chronicles around 800-900CE, French aristocracy sanctioned by Merovingian(!) Law until the regicides of 1793...
As for the Rus', with the rise of tsarism after the decline of the Golden Urda in the 15th century, ultimately with the establishment of the Muscovite autocracy through "reign of terror" against conservative aristocrats under Ioan IV, the claim to legitimize comes nothing short of Russia being the Third Rome after the fall of the Empire in 1453, which left medieval Eastern Christianity without a capital. one of the founding legends of the Rus' in the wake of the Christianization of Kiev, was a historic bond, the matrimony between great prince Vladimir and Byzantinian princess Anna in 988, tying the Ryurik dynasty to the now vacant Holy Throne at the Golden Horn - through matrilinear progression. what a twist. needless to say, this claim has never been recognized by any other Christian European ruler.
now, philosophers of more modern times have thought of new ways to legitimate power, and you may or may not argue whether grassroot movements like the Enlightenment or Early capitalism together with an altered socioeconomic landscape and the Industrial Revolution, have a role to play in the change of state of the aristocracy all over europe in the 1600s-1700s.
in that regard, patriarchy was less extreme in Russia than in, say, the remainder of Europe. we would have likely had seen strong female Ryurikov regents arise if the country had not, like immediately after the fact, entered a time of turmoil with foreign opposition suppressing and controlling the fate of the nation for five decades, regional patriarchal warlords rising and returning the power to the Duma of the Boyars. an interregnum that ended only one generation prior to the birth of Ioan V, Sophia I, Peter I.
It was really more about the inheritance system they had in place than anything. In most European countries, they had male-preference primogeniture. This means that a son ranks before a daughter, but a daughter ranks before an uncle (her father's brother). In countries where women were allowed to inherit, they usually held no power, and either an outright regency was declared where a male relative (usually uncle) would reign, or they would be heavily "advised" by a council of male relatives. Some women took more power, some took less, but all were advised by male relatives.
This isn't to say that these Queens were well-liked. All Queen regents had to deal with dissenters - both within the council and from the public. A lot of mistrust with Queens occured, assuming they couldn't do the jobs. Many Queens were also mistreated in terms of international affairs, not receiving the same fear and respect a King might earn from other Kings.