Non-patriarchal societies (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Edwynn -> Non-patriarchal societies (4/30/2011 1:02:28 AM)




I started this as a response to a post in another thread, but it became long enough and , I felt, interesting enough to warrant a thread on its own.


quote:

ORIGINAL: flcouple2009

Men have acted like assholes towards women ever since the first caveman dragged one home by her hair.  That includes men of all races, religions, etc.




Not universally, though I'm sure you didn't mean that.

Some societies in prehistory were either matriarchal or not strictly dominated by either gender. It seems somewhat intuitive to me that strict patriarchy was less needed and less likely in societies not living in circumstance of ongoing war. I had one of linguist/archeologist Marija Gimbutas' last two books (forget which one) some time ago and she had found several old European societies that were based thuswise.

So, to the old reliable info quickie, here's wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy

which gives gives an overview of the the type of society structure and several examples and a review of evidence for such societies in the past, along with the few known modern examples.


The Mosuo in China, for a modern example:

http://www.thingsasian.com/stories-photos/3481


"The head of the family is the mother or grandmother. All other members in the family are either her siblings, her own children, niece or nephews. She is the only one that controls family's financial situation."

They don't have marriage, the children are the mother's responsibility, the men's adult responsibility is to his sister's children. Other interesting details too.

Another account of these people:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,627363,00.html


Now for something really interesting, a matrilineal people who are Muslims, the Minangkabau:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minangkabau_people

"The Minangs are the world's largest matrilineal society, in which properties such as land and houses are inherited through female lineage."

Lots of questions came to mind here.

I found these two articles:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-05/uop-imm050902.php

http://books.google.com/books?id=PFzdA2Hini4C&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=minangkabau+women&source=bl&ots=KpuGf4JuzT&sig=h5I3oPmIw9pv1ZF-1nBMniD2T0s&hl=fr&ei=Fbe7Tee6CMW9tgehypDKBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCw#v=onepage&q=minangkabau%20women&f=false


The tradition of the Adat, the folklore and original spiritual understanding, live alongside Islam, it seems. The women have more of an equal footing in decision making than is the case in most Muslim societies.


In any case one thing I got out of all this is that the term 'matriarchal' cannot be considered as merely the gender mirror of 'patriarchal.'  Oftentimes many of the traditional gender roles in home and in work are in place, but the foundation of the society is is maternal and the decision making for significant issues are made either mostly or at least prominently by the women.

Also, I think that it's sometimes assumed as 'matriarchal' when in fact the situation is that there is just no need to have a sense of 'rule' in such forceful or strict terms, in which case it would just occur naturally that decision making is more organically derived and therefore not always strictly gender related or defined. Even when gender differentiated, more of a role for women overall in significant aspects of the society.








imperatrixx -> RE: Non-patriarchal societies (4/30/2011 3:20:41 AM)

Matrilineal societies make more sense than patrilineal ones. You always know who an heir's mother is. Not so much with the father.



gungadin09 -> RE: Non-patriarchal societies (4/30/2011 3:38:18 AM)

i'm sorry, but i'm not sure what the point is. Historically, there have been non-patriarchal societies. What are we being asked to discuss?

pam



juliaoceania -> RE: Non-patriarchal societies (4/30/2011 7:37:11 AM)

Matrilineal does not mean it isn't patriarchal. It just means that you trace your line of descent through your mother's line. For example, I would not say that the Jewish people live in a matriarchy, although they do trace their line of descent through their mother.

Sherry Ortner (UCLA cultural anthropologists) made a declarative statement in the 1970s that females were universally devalued and subjugated, and this was a cultural universal. She has backed off that stance somewhat, but she was the feminist anthropologist that broke ground on this topic.

Here is a link to her article she wrote in 1972....interesting reading, and even though it is outdated, it is still mandatory reading for anthropology students when the subject of gender is discussed because it is a pivotal work.

http://www.students.sbc.edu/watson08/HNW/3177638.pdf



Edwynn -> RE: Non-patriarchal societies (4/30/2011 11:14:13 PM)




The distinction between patriarchal and matrilineal was well pointed out and explained in the wiki entry, and then examples of the juxtaposition of the both were, in my estimation, well articulated in the two articles about the Muslim/matrilineal Minangkabau people of West Sumatra, sorry if that was missed.

The history of the study of societies operating noticeably differently than the relatively modern paradigm or conventional understanding is actually pretty well laid out in the wiki article, with a good list of authors on the subject. Marija Gimbutas provided my own introduction to the notion that women were at some time, in important eras of development of civilization, not perpetually victims nor  universally devalued and subjugated. Rather, that their role in both everyday affairs and the 'greater' role of being determiners of the direction of society in both understanding of important societal questions and in the conduction of  preparing the young with the proper understanding of the world as known at the time in further consideration of the direction of their society was the established paradigm of the day.


Both 'power' and 'victimization' are mandatory reading in virtually every aspect of academic endeavor into history, sociology, archeology, etc. I am well aware of that. That is an intentional limitation of focus. Some have ventured beyond that, and I find efforts in that direction to be closer to my interests than the forced feeding currently in practice, and, in fact, in practice for far too many years already.










juliaoceania -> RE: Non-patriarchal societies (5/1/2011 7:01:12 AM)

I am a trained anthropologist. I am not speaking from some wikipedia article. In fact you failed to post about bilineal descent, which is when offspring trace their line of descent through both parents and have property rights to both parents' wealth. Also, this system of kinship applies equal importance to both sides of the family. We, in the United States, have a bilineal kinship system. There are also unilineal descent patterns.

Like I said, I think you confuse the words matrilineal (which means tracing your descent through the mother's line) with matriarchy. You confuse patriarchy with patrilineal. My point is that not all matrilineal societies are matriarchies. Anthropologists even look at where a couple lives in defining kinship, so they move in with the husband's or the wive's family? This is called patrilocal or matrilocality.

Here is an outline with some of these things defined. It is important to use the right term when discussing these things.

http://www.tadmcilwraith.com/Week%205%20Student%20Handouts.pdf


My point in bringing up Sherry Ortner, and the subjugation of women, is that it is not as easy as looking at how we trace our descent to understand the dynamics of gender inequality. I thought Sherry Ortner was way off her mark, and I think that you are too when you seek to understand gender equality in such ways. It is much more complex than you state.



Edwynn -> RE: Non-patriarchal societies (5/1/2011 7:20:11 AM)




I understand well enough the differences, if not explicated or delineated well enough to the satisfaction of those with a particular cause, sorry if that was not understood. But they were in fact distinguished well enough for the capable reader, truth be known.

The whole point was that 'gender equality' in the modern understanding is not even now the final word on the matter, and would in fact be foreign to those in the societies alluded to in the OP, aside from the wiki article and as given example to following that. Gender complementarity seems to be a more natural or organic way to some of these people than bland homogeneous 'equality' in every regard. There were specific peoples given as examples, however much their mode of living be in contradiction to academically imposed limitations thereto.

My suggestion would be that you bring these issues up with them.




PS


Did you read the Mosuo or Minangkabau links at all? There's more where that came from, actually, but I felt I was pushing the audience here already.






juliaoceania -> RE: Non-patriarchal societies (5/1/2011 7:50:21 AM)

quote:

I understand well enough the differences, if not explicated or delineated well enough to the satisfaction of those with a particular cause, sorry if that was not understood. But they were in fact distinguished well enough for the capable reader, truth be known.


So instead of attempting to explain to me what you are trying to get at, you would rather insinuate I have some agenda, and you would rather snark on me for not being a "capable reader". Being nasty isn't a very good way to debate your points. If I responded to people the way you have responded to me when they question my ideas, I would miss the opportunity to learn something new.

quote:

The whole point was that 'gender equality' in the modern understanding is not even now the final word on the matter, and would in fact be foreign to those in the societies alluded to in the OP, aside from the wiki article. There were specific peoples given as examples, however much in contradiction to academically imposed limitations in contrivance thereto.


Gender equality is a complex subject. Here is the thing that anthropologists have found out about gender inequality:

1. The more resources that a woman provides for the sustenance of her family/people, the more gender equality she has. In other words, gender equality in some ways can be measured by the calories a woman provides.

2. Bilineal descent patterns tend produce societies that have the most gender equality. Hunter/gatherer societies, for example, tend to be bilineal. It is interesting that we are trending toward this descent pattern as women get more rights, and are seen as economically more important to the societies that they come from, but this is not universally true.

3. Most cultures/societies tend to believe they treat women better than other cultures and societies. One one has to look at Bin Laden's manifesto after the 911 bombing to see that just because we think that keeping women in modesty garments is abusive, some people feel it is a way of protecting women. In other words, just because you think something isn't good, doesn't mean everyone in the world will agree with you. That is why anthropologists use cultural relativism to understand other people.

None of the points I mention above are cultural universals. I think that is what I have been trying to get across to you, is that just because you read about a few groups that do things one way or another way does not mean that these examples have a universal application to the rest of us.

quote:

My suggestion would be that you bring these issues up with them.


Dude, there are entire subbranches of anthropology devoted to gender studies, using anthropological methods and theories to explore them. What exactly would I be elucidating for them, since they are experts in this regard and actually wrote the stuff you used in your OP? Seriously?



Edwynn -> RE: Non-patriarchal societies (5/1/2011 8:26:30 AM)




"Like I said, I think you confuse the words matrilineal (which means tracing your descent through the mother's line) with matriarchy. You confuse patriarchy with patrilineal."

I made no such confusion at all, but rather pointed it out, or at least relied on authors more capable to the subject than myself to point it out.

I am guilty of returning either insult or lack of understanding (not sure which) with snark, true enough.

I was not pretending to be an expert, rather just bringing up a subject I have always found interesting, and in light of recent events and all the gasoline pouring going on here (and in the media) about  "Men have acted like assholes towards women ever since the first caveman dragged one home by her hair.  That includes men of all races, religions, etc. " as was explained at the introduction to the OP, I was just trying to bring to light another awareness. It's not always been this way, and current sensibilities as applied to all of history is a common error I was trying to kick slightly, though not in the shins.


"3. Most cultures/societies tend to believe they treat women better than other cultures and societies. One one has to look at Bin Laden's manifesto after the 911 bombing to see that just because we think that keeping women in modesty garments is abusive, some people feel it is a way of protecting women."

That has been around long before Bin Laden ever came along. I read that at least 20 years before I ever heard of the guy.

"In other words, just because you think something isn't good, doesn't mean everyone in the world will agree with you. That is why anthropologists use cultural relativism to understand other people. "

Oh really? I did not realize that providing examples of peoples whose understanding and outlook so completely differ than ours indicated my lack of doing likewise.

"None of the points I mention above are cultural universals. I think that is what I have been trying to get across to you, is that just because you read about a few groups that do things one way or another way does not mean that these examples have a universal application to the rest of us. "


I was actually taking it in a reverse direction than that, but ... 

"What exactly would I be elucidating for them, since they are experts in this regard and actually wrote the stuff you used in your OP? "


Exactly.


As I say, I was just trying to distract people from all the torch throwing going on here (and everywhere). And bringing to attention, however imperfectly, that the modern view and the Western view are taken but from one hill top among many that exist in the world.










juliaoceania -> RE: Non-patriarchal societies (5/1/2011 8:38:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

i'm sorry, but i'm not sure what the point is. Historically, there have been non-patriarchal societies. What are we being asked to discuss?

pam



I wish I knew what his point is, rather than clarify his points, he would rather be defensive, snarky, etc etc etc....


To Edwynn:

You have consistently chosen to be defensive, and instead of clarifying your points (and i am not the only one having trouble understanding them as is evident with gungadin. Since gungadin is rather intelligent, articulate, and communicates extremely well, I am going to assume I am not the only one having trouble understanding your points. The purpose of communication is share ideas, not to obfuscate them.

Perhaps you need to find someone more intelligent than those of us posting to your thread to share your ideas with. It seems as though everything I have attempted to do to have intellectual discourse has failed. I have more important things to do than to toss barbs out in an attempt to make myself feel superior, good luck with that.



Edwynn -> RE: Non-patriarchal societies (5/1/2011 9:57:13 AM)




I did not mean for the subject title to be so controversial or misunderstood. I was initially  going to title it "matriarchy" but I thought as I typed it that it was too limiting. I could not come up with a perfect title, but chose one that I hoped would be broad enough. Heide Göttner-Abendroth is the anthropologist whose explanation and usage of the term 'non-patriarchy' found its way to the title instead.

'Göttner-Abendroth defines Modern Matriarchal Studies as the "investigation and presentation of non-patriarchal societies", and matriarchies as "non-hierarchical, horizontal societies of matrilineal kinship", effectively defining matriarchy as "non-patriarchic matrilineal societies".'

I do realize now that there was a lot of territory covered in the OP, beyond my awareness at the time. I tend to have a multitude of things come together as one idea in my head sometimes.


I put forth the claim that a society in a condition of warfare would be more inclined towards having stricter roles for its members, and that patriarchal authority is one of the outcomes of that. I have no 'proof' for it, it's just what comes together for me after much reading of history and then my lay person readings of various egalitarian societies in times past. Discussion on that item is welcome.

Sorry, but it's part of my nature to not always have things reduced to one 'point' all the time. The complexity of nature and the interrelation of things makes that difficult for me. Another item I put forth is that the concept of 'rule' and/or 'power' has not always been the focus or basis for every society, and that in these instances a more egalitarian society seems to be more common.








Real0ne -> RE: Non-patriarchal societies (5/1/2011 10:36:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Like I said, I think you confuse the words matrilineal (which means tracing your descent through the mother's line) with matriarchy. You confuse patriarchy with patrilineal. My point is that not all matrilineal societies are matriarchies. Anthropologists even look at where a couple lives in defining kinship, so they move in with the husband's or the wive's family? This is called patrilocal or matrilocality.

Here is an outline with some of these things defined. It is important to use the right term when discussing these things.

http://www.tadmcilwraith.com/Week%205%20Student%20Handouts.pdf



thanks for laying out the distinctions, good stuff.



Real0ne -> RE: Non-patriarchal societies (5/1/2011 10:37:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

Men have acted like assholes towards women ever since the first caveman dragged one home by her hair.



do you suppose they also dragged men home with them?



Termyn8or -> RE: Non-patriarchal societies (5/1/2011 11:51:42 PM)

FR

I am learning to appreciate my patience. A while back I outlined the reasons that most societies are patriarchal. People came back with references to the contrary. I seemingly stood corrected, but now, with no prompting from me, I am led to believe that I was right in the first place.

Don't give me this Thatcher shit, she was nothing but an anchorwoman for the news, not even.....

Women do not have to submit to Men because of physical strength or anything like it anymore than Men have to submit to more powerful Men. It would be easy, say in the middle east for Women to just stop having babies. All this prenatal care and shit ? Ha, what bout that coathanger, what about that Pepsi bottle ? (details on request) What about a million other things Women can do to make sure their mutherfucker "husbands" don't reproduce. Men can't watch them every minute. What's more after the birth there can be "accidents".

You know why we gave Women rights here ? Because we are not stupid, no matter how patriarchial we were, we KNEW, if we can't trust them, it will be ALOT worse. We can be killed in our sleep. While we hobnobbed with Bush, Blair and Sharon, our oladies could be taking a battery acid douche.

You can't trust those you oppress. That is fact. You can't let the Women in on all the deals so you can't watch them 24/7. Try to get some other male to do it and you won't know who your kid's Daddy is. Understand, it is Man's wisdom that gave birth to Women's rights.

Now the Moslems and shit, I am really sorry about their luck because they are really in for it. Even if those Women can't stage a form of public rebellion, they can do much worse.

Kapeesh ? You look at anyone, anywhere in the "family" who has gone down in one way or another, EACH AND EVERY ONE, and they all have one thing in common. There was someone who they thought they could trust, because of fear.

They were wrong.

T^T



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.140625