Matriarchal societies

Thank you for the words of encouragement, and we may agree on a bit...but, don't push it too far.

I don't know what you mean by "significant differences" and the phrase "natural order" makes me grimace.

I don't think the things we may happen to agree with here have much to do with current politics.

My understanding of morality often dictates that we defy the "natural order" of things. So, when talking about current events (including whether you should be allowed to be pregnant), the past is not a very good guide to what is morally right in modern society.

Let's just leave it at that-- but thanks.

0 Replies

Fair enough, I didn't mean it in any political sense. I don't really consider myself a conservative anyway. As far as natural order, I just mean that the sexes have certain respective attributes that are immutable.

Significant differences= Women can give birth, breast-feed, etc. Men can not.

0 Replies

Many early societies were at the least matrilineal if not actually matriarchal. In some cases, the part the father played in reproduction was not necessarily understood, but you always knew who the mother was. Otherwise, in societies such as were common in pre-christian Europe, in which women were adult free agents just as were men, one did not inquire to closely into the question of who had fathered a child. It was no one else's business. The concept of "sister's son" meant far more to men, who took a close interest in their nephews, than did that of those boys who might (or might not) have been their own sons. In the case of a sister's son, they knew they shared the same blood line.

0 Replies

A good case in point about the importance of women in pre-christian societies: The last wave of migratory invasion in Ireland was the Milesian invasion. The Milesians were so-called by themselves--they were the sons of Mil. But Mil died before they arrived, and they were lead by Mil's wife, Scota. To the bir Bolg, the "Men of the Belgae" who held the island at the time, they were the Na'Scota, the Sons of Scota. They established a kingdom in the north, in what is now Ulster, called the Dalriada. They then invaded the lowland portion of what is now Scotland. The Romans encountered them, and rendered the tribal name in latin as Ascottii--hence, the Scots and Scotland. Women in ancient celtic society frequently took command of a household, or even a clan or a tribe if their personality were more forceful than the man, or if their moveable property were more more abundant. The entire issue in Cooley's Cattle Raid, the Irish epic which recounts the death or Cu Chulainn arises from the argument between Aiffe and Maeve over whose property were more extensive, which would have been crucial, as Maeve could have made good a claim to rule as Queen in her own right if she could prove her property to be more extensive. The King and Queen were found to have an equal amount of property, save that Maeve's herd of cattle included the great white bull of Leinster--which bull, however, was ashamed to think he would deprive the King of his authority, and took it upon himself to run off and join the King's herd. Maeve decided she must have a bull of equal renown, and so convinced Fergus to organize the raid into Ulster to get the great brown bull of Cooley. The Men of Ulster had been put under a curse that they would suffer a wasting sickness at the hour of their greatest need, and they could not arise from their sick beds to defend themselves--all except for Cu Chulainn (the former Setanta), who had not been in Ulster when the curse was laid. He went to the ford alone to hold off the Men of Ireland until the Men of Ulster were well enough to rise from their beds and defend themselves.

When it could not be said to a certainty whose son a man was, other than that he was his mother's son, the concept of a matrilineal society makes perfect sense, and the fostering of a sister's son becomes a politically significant act.

0 Replies

That's all well and good, but I don't see how that would be considered matriarchal.

My view is this, men have always been physically dominant. 1000 years ago, violence and aggression were way more commonplace then today. People were far less sophisticated and physical force could be used to achieve just about anything. It's only logical that the rule of the jungle would apply. The strongest takes what he wants. This might be over-simplified but this is why I find it hard to fathom that men would be told by women what to do.

0 Replies

Quote:

The Men of Ulster had been put under a curse that they would suffer a wasting sickness at the hour of their greatest need, and they could not arise from their sick beds to defend themselves--all except for Cu Chulainn (the former Setanta)

So that's where your name is from. Who would have thought that you were a dirty mick??!!

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

That's all well and good, but I don't see how that would be considered matriarchal.

I specifically referred to traditions of matrilineal social structures, i nowhere suggested that as evidence of matriarchy. It seems that you need to be hit over the head with the obvious--it is entirely possible, you know, that many societies flourished which were neither matriarchical nor patriarchical.

Quote:

My view is this, men have always been physically dominant. 1000 years ago, violence and aggression were way more commonplace then today. People were far less sophisticated and physical force could be used to achieve just about anything. It's only logical that the rule of the jungle would apply. The strongest takes what he wants. This might be over-simplified but this is why I find it hard to fathom that men would be told by women what to do.

Apart from suggesting that Hobbes' Leviathan expresses those notions much more thoroughly, elegantly and in a more rationally structured manner (not, of course, that drivel about men being "physically dominant")--i'd point out to you that a thousand years ago, Europe was christian--i specifically referred to pre-christian socieites.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Many early societies were at the least matrilineal if not actually matriarchal

Quote:

i nowhere suggested that as evidence of matriarchy.

Quote:

Apart from suggesting that Hobbes' Leviathan expresses those notions much more thoroughly, elegantly and in a more rationally structured manner (not, of course, that drivel about men being "physically dominant")--i'd point out to you that a thousand years ago, Europe was christian--i specifically referred to pre-christian socieites.

As opposed to the malarkey that you'd have me believe??? That women were ever equal in physical strength to men?? Perhaps you'll even try to persuade me that the only reason women are physically weaker today is because men have opressed them for so long. Which brings me to my next point, how is it that men are globally dominant today in virtually all political and military aspects??? Could physical dominance have anything to do with it?? If not, why can't women just use force against men to achieve equality??

So how about we go back 2000 years. 3000 even. It doesn't matter. Where do you get this notion that women ever controlled men?? The only way they could is through some sort of manipulation, sexual or otherwise. At no point in history were women ever physically dominant over men.

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

As opposed to the malarkey that you'd have me believe??? That women were ever equal in physical strength to men??

That's malarkey, all right--i have no interest in what you believe, because i consider you a smart-mouthed and snotty chrisitian with trogloditic notions. However, i made no such suggestion. I am pointing out that it is rather dull-witted to think that mere physical strength determines dominance in an organized society.

Quote:

Perhaps you'll even try to persuade me that the only reason women are physically weaker today is because men have opressed them for so long.

No, that's the kind of inanity which apparently passes for logic at your house.

Quote:

Which brings me to my next point, how is it that men are globally dominant today in virtually all political and military aspects??? Could physical dominance have anything to do with it?? If not, why can't women just use force against men to achieve equality??

Most likely, that results from the preponderance of Abrahamic religious adherence in the societies of the world. Of course, you haven't demonstrated your thesis about male dominance, and it is, once again, part of a naive set of assumptions. You should go discuss this with Spendius, who believes modern society is depraved because men haven't the balls to stand up to women. You and he are two sides of the same coin.

Quote:

So how about we go back 2000 years. 3000 even. It doesn't matter.

I'd have no problem with that, although your performance to date suggests to me that you'd not even be reading from the same book, let alone be on the same page.

Quote:

Where do you get this notion that women ever controlled men??

I have expressed no such "notion," don't make sh!t up.

Quote:

The only way they could is through some sort of manipulation, sexual or otherwise. At no point in history were women ever physically dominant over men.

Your lack of imagination, and your inability to understand that mere physical strength is no assurance of social or political domination not only bores me, it suggests that you are incapable of discussing this topic either intelligently or maturely.

0 Replies

Ah yes, the Abrahamic religions are to blame, but I have the lack of imagination. Power, of course is irrelevant.

I never said that physical strength is the only factor in dominating a society. But, it is the root of all power. Any man or woman can take charge and tell people what to do, but if they don't have the power to back it up, then their subordinates follow them on a purely voluntary basis. Therefore, any instance of men obeying women is strictly voluntary. My "thesis" as you call it is just a plain fact. When all else fails, power has the final say.

0 Replies

Just as is any instance of women obeying men?

Goodness this is an interesting argument! So I think I will offer my input!

Men are naturally more agressive with some exceptions. Some women are mroe agressive just as some men are not agressive at all. It follows along with people having different personalities. Right from the beginning of time, men took charge in most cases. I have no ideas about reasons, they just did. Then, for centuries, women were taught that their place was at home, caring for the husband and children and home. After a certain time period (I could go into specifics but in different countries its different), women gradually became "equal" to men.

In my experience, women can be manipulative, agressive, and dominant just like men. Most just don't choose to be like that. I personally know women who have more physical strenght then most men.

This is all I'm going to write. Because I'm tired. And I have to be up early tomorrow morning to outride a bunch of men at a horse show.

Good night!

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

I'm interested to learn more about this subject.

John Creasy wrote:

Ah yes, the Abrahamic religions are to blame, but I have the lack of imagination. Power, of course is irrelevant.

I never said that physical strength is the only factor in dominating a society. But, it is the root of all power. Any man or woman can take charge and tell people what to do, but if they don't have the power to back it up, then their subordinates follow them on a purely voluntary basis. Therefore, any instance of men obeying women is strictly voluntary. My "thesis" as you call it is just a plain fact. When all else fails, power has the final say.

There are all sorts of power, and I feel it is a large generalization to consider physical strength the root of all power - especially if you are speaking of muscular strength. I can think of so many manifestations of power which are not rooted in pure physical strength, which are equally powerful motivations to force people to do what you want and to control the environment around you.

One great, obvious example is the ability to bear children. Women always helt the key to reproduction. Sure, men found ways around that (raping and torture and chaining women), but that causes other problems, and never worked as a long-term, large scale solution. On the whole, women granted men the opportunity to mate with them. In order for a male-dominated soceity to survive, it needed women to bear children (and usually do other important things as well, which the men were either unable or unwilling to do). So, though it may have appeared that the men were in control, the women actually helt them by the balls (silently of course).

That's just one example.

Anyways, I'm really interested to hear about various soceities and times where matri----- has/is practised.

0 Replies

Natured sacrificed physcial strength in women for the ability to bear us all into this world and that is enough for me to respect them as I would any human being.

Different but equal and just as important.

0 Replies

There has never been a truely matriarchal society, societies were matrilineal at most. Even in such societies there still were usually strict sex role differneces dispite the equality in such societies.

Patriarchy is the result of warfare (not the other way around like some radical feminists like to claim) since it increases the importance of young male warriors.

0 Replies

Matriarchal societies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know