We can each back up both of our arguments with statistics and numerous studies, but our conversation always ends when my grandfather brings up the point that every single society in the world is run by a majority of men. That every society is patriarchal, and if it isn't now, it started out that way. He thinks this proves that men are naturally more aggressive, because these sterotypicaal gender roles began with the beginning of civilization.

I am positive that in the past, I have heard of a few societies that are entirely run by a majority of women.

[ 09 May 2003: Message edited by: clersal ]

quote:

---

That every society is patriarchal, and if it isn't now, it started out that way. He thinks this proves that men are naturally more aggressive, because these sterotypicaal gender roles began with the beginning of civilization.

---

Your grandfather is not right.

The Mosuo.

Ancient Egypt.

The Munangkabau.

I guess it really boils down to how you define patriarchy and matriarchy in past societies. If a woman collects 90% of the food, bears and raises the children, cares for live stock and runs a "household", would the society be considered a matriarchy or a patriarchy? (I'm considering early societies, nomadic tribes, early agriculturalists and the like.)

In agricultural based societies Matriarchial structure was more the norm than was patriarchial. Archeological evidence going back over 25,000 years supports this. The ancestors of the Nordic traditions were the first known of the European and Near-to-Middle Eastern community traditions to give up the matriarchial concept in favor of the patriarchy. Perhaps because of their tendencies to be so war like and nasty? Their land was inhospitable for the most time, agriculture was hard, conditions were harsh and a need for men and women to support each other led to male dominance through sheer physical strength. Although it should be noted the women were also warriors in this society.

Also please note they "gave up" matriarchial traditions, banished goddesses to a lower rank and brute strength appears to have been the basis for conversion.

Surely even grandpa is aware that ancient Egypt had female rulers? Many native cultures were matriarchial - as were Asian ones. I find it very hard to believe that anyone, given the access to knowledge these days would still hang onto this tired old song.

In fact it is so banal that this is all I will post on that subject.

quote:

---

Surely even grandpa is aware that ancient Egypt had female rulers?

---

Who is your daddy? how many children, male and female have suffered from this requirement to establish legitimacy in a partiarchial society?

quote:

---

my grandfather brings up the point that every single society in the world is run by a majority of men.

---

And what a great job they do. Men, in this regard, sure have made a point of failing upward.

Just kidding...you are among my favorite right-wingers on this board. You left yourself open for that one.

[ 10 May 2003: Message edited by: Marc ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marc:
Archaic at 85+?? Your ideas are already archaic!

Just kidding...you are among my favorite right-wingers on this board. You left yourself open for that one.

[ 10 May 2003: Message edited by: Marc ]

---

Yeah that was rather careless of me.
But notwithstanding, I would hazard a guess that your ways of thinking will also be considered "archaic" when you are old.

Was Britain under Thatcher really all that matriarchal? Despite the great strides made in past few decades, are we going to deny the existance of male privilage just because we can name a few female leaders as examples? I find a lot of the examples named dubious.

In primitive societies, matriarchy made sense because you always know who the mother was, but not necessarily the father. In the west, the Church didn't invent patriarchy, but they near perfected it, and IMHO entrenched male privilage far beyond what would have occured. I blame the Catholics, but that's just me.

In primitive society, property generally will default to the female line because, as I said above, you know who the mother was, and as well, the men are usually the far ranging hunters, and the women are the local gatherers and child bearers.

The (IMHO)false premise of patriarchy is first used to imply a balance to the natural tendancy matriarchy, but of course once applied, those in power always want more. Control of property, control of childbirth, control of marrage, control of finance, etc. all flow one from the other.

Also, I would love to give up on this argument with him, but nearly everytime I have a conversation with him, he brings it (among other gender disputes) up. It's not so much that I am trying to change his mind. I think he is trying to change my mind – I doubt that will every happen.

One more thing... about the list of female leaders. My grandfather would argue that those were exceptions to the rule. For example, Kim Campbell was the only female P.M. in Canada – a patriarchal society by nature (he would say).

Society has pressed women into roles that could be translated as nuturing and caring but every woman who slaps a meal on the table for her family isnt necessarily doing something she wants to be doing or enjoys doing.

I have yet to hear any woman say she just loves getting up at 3:00 a.m. with a crying child or that changing diapers thrills her to no end.

History warns us how people have tried to justify societal roles of all sorts by claiming them to be in some way human nature. Scientific training - or Stephen Jay Gould's book The Mismeasure of Man - both warn us how seldom those contentions can actually be pinned down to anything factual. Indeed, the arguments shift as rapidly as the social roles.

Now, I recall that the purpose of the discussion was to teach us to distinguish between the different types of human society power traditions, e.g. patriarchal, avuncular, matrilineal, etc. There wasn't a political agenda at play, at least not overtly (and at least not evident to my naive undergraduate eyes).

How does this supposedly authoritative declaration jibe with the opposing evidence cited on this thread? Is it merely a matter of definition? Or was my professor simply wrong?

(Edited to change 13 years to 17 years. God, I'm getting old!)

[ 13 May 2003: Message edited by: iworm ]

quote:

---

there has never been a truly matriarchal human society

---

quote:

---

When I hear statements like that, my reaction is, SO WHAT? Whether or not it's true, can we only look to the past for behavior cues for modern life? There has never been a truly computeristic society either, so should we all forget this silly "flash in a pan" computer activity and become Luddites?

---

It was not my intent to incense, but merely to clarify. More specifically, I'd like to be able to contextualize what I was taught so long ago in anthro class with what has been asserted in this thread, viz. matriarchy.

There have been many societies that are matrilineal, i.e. count descent through the female line. However, this does not always correspond with particularly advantageous social roles for the women of that society.

Whether there have been truly matriarchal societies is a much-debated question. Quite certainly there have been societies where women took very active roles in a variety of areas that are, by current "Western" standards, traditionally male roles. This doesn't mean they ruled those societies, though, just that there were different divisions of gender roles. Sometimes the functions assigned to the female were those of high social standing as well; sometimes not.

Likewise, there have been many societies with female rulers from time to time. However, this did not make them female-dominated societies by any means. (Though it does indicate that there is nothing "innate" about male rulership, given the number of exceptions.) There have been many societies where a worship of female deity was very important, sometimes most important; yet that was true for some of the more male-dominated spots on the earth as well (Athens, anyone?).

There is some vague, and I stress vague, indication that some of the more ancient societies may have been priestess-led, or at least had a very significant social role played by that caste. This comes from excavations in the Ukrane, if I recall right. However, this construct (and others like it) are very much matters of interpretation based on some pretty scanty evidence, and therefore should be taken with a grain of salt.

Anyway... I emailed those sites to my grandpa and this is what he replied with:

"I have checked the websites you indicated for matriarchy. There is, I have known for a long while, a great deal of misinformation on this
subject. Listen to Steven Goldberg, author of Why Men Rule: "I have consulted the original ethnographic materials on every society I have
ever seen alleged by anyone to represent a matriarchy, female dominance, or the association of high-status, nonmaternal roles with women. . . I have found no society that represents any of these."

For most of anthropology's history there were men arguing for pre-historic matriarchy. The reason such theories are no longer taken
seriously is . . . the fact that they became increasingly untenable as ethnographers found more and more "stone age" like societies that failed
to demonstrate matriarchality even when they were matrilocal and matrilineal.

Claims for matriarchal societies, of course, are still made. But never, Goldberg says, by the ethnographers who actually studied them. He adds:
"Every time one looks at the sources claimed for these exceptions, one finds societies so obviously not exceptions that even those who invoked
them acknowledge as much."

Why Men Rule (1994), first came out in 1973 under the title The Inevitability of Patriarchy. Margaret Mead, renowned anthropologist and
feminist, reviewed the book in Redbook Magazine. She said, in part: "Itis true. . . that all the claims so glibly made about societies ruled by
women are nonsense. We have no reason to believe that they ever existed. . . men everywhere have been in charge of running the show. . .
men have been the leaders in public affairs and the final authorities at home, even in societies in which children inherit through their mother.
. . or. . . husbands go to live with their wives instead of wives with their husbands."

Listen to reviewer Daniel Seligman ( National Review): "While I was reading Why Men Rule, the New York Times op-ed page, Feb. 18. 1994,
carried a feature about the Khasi tribe of northeastern India, which is clearly matrilineal. The article was sardonically titled "What do Men
Want?" and incorporated some forlorn quotes by men indicating that they are totally bossed around by women. When I dialed into the Nexis database, I instantly came across a few 1993 news stories indicating that the tribal chieftains are in fact male, and that they have given the Indian government a hard time before agreeing to permit uranium mining in the area."

The Khasi tribe is an alleged matriarchal society featured on one of the websites you recommended.

I did a brief web search for the Mosuo people, another alleged matriarchal society noted in one of your sites. Here is what I read in
one item: "To strengthen relations with the chiefs of the Mosuo people, the local government had adopted the policy of pacification through
marriage, and thus Xiao Shuming [a woman], who was not a Mosuo, was married to La Boachen, the head of the Zuosuo village of the Mosuo."

It seems from this that the chiefs were men.

quote:

---

Some men are best smiled at kindly ...

---

quote:

---

If you start by stating that there were infact societies run by women or societies like the Aboriginals of our country where the men and women had an eqaul say on how their society was run

---

I'd be careful of this one. My sense is that this idea has become inculcated into our modern-day mythology, but evidence doesn't seem to support it. Of course, I am not an anthropologist so take a look at the following:

In many matriarchial societies that DID exist the males were recognized for their own strengths and contributions. In patriatchial societies no such recognition was given to the females.

If a society is headed by a female matriarch who allows men to sit on the counsel does this by definition negate their status as matriarchial? I say it doesnt.

In most patriarchial societies females were not allowed to sit on counsels or have any say.

IMO therein lies the difference and the difficulties some people encounter in definition. A matriarchial society by my definition does not mean a society where ONLY women have a say, where ONLY women are warriors, etc.

If the head honcho is female, so be it, its matriarchial. Margeret Thatcher may have had male advisors, that doesnt negate her own position.

Clearly, everything is a mix between nature and nurture, but it troubles me that what it is to be a man/woman in our society is seen as a natural, immutable basis for our personalities. You see it everywhere, from "men/women are just so ..." to explanations of why matriarchical societies would work better.

Seriously, one can make the argument that there are certain general trends in approaches to issues among persons of a given gender at a given time and in a given culture. Some may even be statistically significant.

quote:

---

it troubles me that what it is to be a man/woman in our society is seen as a natural, immutable basis for our personalities.

---

Many many years ago as a psyche student I argued with my prof and presented a paper supporting the theory that so-called gender roles were a result of cultural child rearing - or brain washing children into "traditional roles".

I then "grew up" and had a male child and a female child. Both had equal access to "boy toys" and "girl toys". My daughter gravitated towards the dolls and cooking toys, my son who had dolls ripped their heads off and used them as guns.

My daughter could entertain herself quietly for hours with her doll, stuffed animals, crayons, and books - my son was active, loud, trying to launch himself into space before he could walk - and into rough and tumble play --

They werent "exposed" to just "traditional roles" as I mowed the lawn, worked on the car, played baseball, football with them, took them to the shooting range, hiking every weekend and worked fulltime - The only "female" role my son gravitated towards was cooking - but never as well as my daughter did.

When he was a tad he also played "dress up" but he somehow was always a king -- or some other power role -

I monitored their TV, making sure they watched programs with strong female roles in them - such as Remington Steele --

They both did their own laundry, did cleaning chores, shared the lawn mowing when they got older, both were shown how to overhaul a lawn mower, clean the pool --

Yet in the end I had a female child who shunned sports, who preferred dolls, when she got older it was makeup and clothes and "girly" things
And I had a male child who somehow managed to turn out something like Conan the Barbarian

I believe some behaviors are gender specific. But there are always exceptions to the rule, I was labelled a "tom boy" growing up but no one ever told me I shouldnt do anything I wanted to do - but looking at other influences, I didnt want to be around my mother anymore than I had to be, so that may have shaped my own development.

Does one role fit everyone? Of course it doesnt. I would rather be driving a combine than making jellies and jams ...

I think our biggest problem has been recognizing those differences, and working with them to use the strengths of men and women to form a stronger society. A thought that comes to mind of course is women in the military. Just because you know a woman who would be traumatized if she broke a nail doesnt mean there arent women out there who are as capable as men in non-traditional roles.

There is a tendency to always form a generalization based on limited knowledge or personal exposure and experience. One would assume that grandma was and is willing to let grandpa be the cock of the walk and that may work for them - but not for everyone.

In my own family I cannot think of one female relative who would have accepted this but then my line is descended from the vikings where women were warriors -

Culturally perhaps it comes down to something as simple as geography. In cultures where men went off to plunder, or off to sea to fish the women had to literally hold down the fort and take on the roles that other cultures saw as "male".

So perhaps the answer lies in one simple question? How constant was the male presence within the society? A constant presence would allow them the time to become more dominant, as would a culture allowing for more leisure time -

first of all I just have to ask: is your grandfather religious? If so, do his beliefs about gender roles have religious origins? Just curious.

Second, I just have to ask... well, let's say, for arguments sake the differences in men and women are innate. So what? Ok, so there are differences between men and women. But also there is a great deal of variation in personalities, abilities, strengths, intellects among men and among women. There is a great deal of overlap between the two genders.