Reply
Sun 5 Feb, 2006 10:17 am
I was recently reading a book review and the reviewer(a male) stated that we need to restore the matriarchal roots of society. I must be ignorant to something that he is not. What matriarchal roots does he speak of??
I suppose that would depend on which society he's referring to, or if he's referring to more than one. There were- and still are- some matriarchal societies, but those are all generally in foraging or horticultural societies. Many of the plains indians, for example, were matriarchal; the chiefs may all have been male, but the women had the ability to elect and impeach the chief, and property and familial ties were all passed through the mother's line.
What book is this and who wrote it? Maybe it would help if I knew what context that statement was in.
I think some ancient pagan societies were matriarchical too.
Agree about context...
I forget what book it was. As far as the Indians though, weren't they matrilineal as opposed to matriarchal??
possibly, could you explain the difference.
The wiki article I linked to goes into that. Seems like the definitions of all of these terms (especially what constitutes a matriarchical society) are somewhat in dispute, themselves.
Matrilineal just means that descendants are traced through their mother's bloodline. Another aspect of it is after marriage, the husband joins the wife's clan and not the other way around.
Matriarchal would mean that the women basically call all the shots and make the major decisions. I don't know if any of the tribes were like this.
Still sounds like the Navajo, John - then and now.
roger wrote:Still sounds like the Navajo, John - then and now.
poor bastards....lettin their women boss em around. Don't they have any self-respect??
John Creasy wrote:roger wrote:Still sounds like the Navajo, John - then and now.
poor bastards....lettin their women boss em around. Don't they have any self-respect??
I quite imagaine that just killed this thread.
dyslexia wrote:John Creasy wrote:how's that??
This is 2006 not 1806.
Ok, so that means it's ok for women to boss men around, but not vice versa???
But how does that kill the thread anyway?
I may be the worlds only misogynist liberal.
I don't think there are any true examples of a Matriarchy-- i.e. where the women had the power the way that men have power in most every society.
The Navajo were not a Matriarchy-- the political power was held by men. The women had power over the household and family decisions, but social and community decisions were made by men (with checks).
I think that Patriarchies developed in human societies for a reason. We evolved from primates and gender roles were a big and necessary part of early cultures.
I do think in modern culture, seeking equality between men and women is a good thing-- and I think there are many aspects of our evolved human nature can and should be changed.
But differences between men and woman are part of our nature and have been parts of our societies since we started forming societies. It is a historical fact that part of this has almost exclusively included male dominated political power (with some degrees of equality from time to time).
I don't think the modern desire to reinterpret history to make it more in line with our current values is a good thing. I prefer to wrestle with the more messy parts of our nature and history with intellectual honesty.
BTW, that doesn't make you a misogynist. You just realize there are REAL and significant differences between the sexes and you understand the natural order of things. Nowadays you can't say boo without being called a chauvinist. I'm still waiting for the day when they try to make men carry pregnancies.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace