Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No need for grunt work? *Societal Roles*
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 79 (204161)
05-01-2005 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by nator
05-01-2005 12:02 PM


Perhaps, if the word "feminist" was not included in the link.
Gotta stay away from those biased articles. lol

porteus@gmail.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 05-01-2005 12:02 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by nator, posted 05-02-2005 10:28 AM joshua221 has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4987 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 32 of 79 (204172)
05-01-2005 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by joshua221
05-01-2005 11:46 AM


okay, first I would repeat that a sexual division of labour doesn't necessarily result in patriarchy. For example lots of pagan religions had a clear distinction between male gods and female gods. There were often female gods who represented the forces of nature - especially fertility and generosity - who were venerated by men and women alike. Women in these relatively egalitarian societies had very different economic and social roles from men, so there was a division of social labour. But women's work, abilities and powers were considered godly, just like the work and powers of men.
This is very different to modern monotheistic religions, where God has often taken a male form, and concepts like fertility, while still associated with femininity, are kind of seen as something a bit dirty. I suspect that this resulted from different views of nature (due to women's ability to conceive, it appears that they have often been equated with the forces of nature). In patriarchal societies, nature is seen as an obstacle that has to be overcome, while in the less patriarchal societies, nature is revered.
So maybe there is an ecological and economic foundation for patriarchy. Agricultural societies (where patriarchy first seems to appear) will tend to see nature as an obstacle that has to be overcome. As a consequence, they may end up seeing women as obstacles or things have to be controlled in order for society to work.
Just a thought...
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by joshua221, posted 05-01-2005 11:46 AM joshua221 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by nator, posted 05-02-2005 10:35 AM mick has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 33 of 79 (204284)
05-02-2005 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by joshua221
05-01-2005 6:48 PM


quote:
Child birth amazed paleolithic man, so much so, that women were worshipped. But I think that is still very much the case, turn on t.v. Thats how tv networks get people to stay on the channel these days.
Networks get people to watch TV by getting them to be in awe of women's ability to produce offspring?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by joshua221, posted 05-01-2005 6:48 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by joshua221, posted 05-08-2005 8:53 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 34 of 79 (204285)
05-02-2005 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by joshua221
05-01-2005 6:49 PM


quote:
Perhaps, if the word "feminist" was not included in the link.
What do you think a feminist is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by joshua221, posted 05-01-2005 6:49 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 35 of 79 (204287)
05-02-2005 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by mick
05-01-2005 7:28 PM


People who control the children also control the future. Specifically, family property rights.
Naturally, if you control women's sexuality, you get to control her baby-making machinery, therefore you control your property rights.
Therefore, women's bodies are your propery, along with your children.
One cannot logically view something that one owns as equal to you, so women are considered less than fully human, or at least less important than men, except for the child bearing machinery.
So, I would say that property ownership has a lot to do with the oppression of women.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mick, posted 05-01-2005 7:28 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by mick, posted 05-02-2005 12:07 PM nator has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4987 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 36 of 79 (204309)
05-02-2005 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by nator
05-02-2005 10:35 AM


Ah... good point.
So patriarchy is common because women have something that is worth dominating (reproductive ability). Over history, men have banded together to take control of women.
Does this mean that matriarchy is rare, simply because men don't have anything useful that women might want to band together in order to control?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by nator, posted 05-02-2005 10:35 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 05-02-2005 5:16 PM mick has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 37 of 79 (204382)
05-02-2005 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by mick
05-02-2005 12:07 PM


quote:
So patriarchy is common because women have something that is worth dominating (reproductive ability). Over history, men have banded together to take control of women.
Does this mean that matriarchy is rare, simply because men don't have anything useful that women might want to band together in order to control?
Well, men do have something useful that women want; sperm.
Women want to have children, too, but can't do that without men.
Since advanced primates have offspring that remain so long with the parents, a female human is driven to keep her offspring's father around, helping to provide protection and food, etc., for at least as long as is needed to get the child to a point where it is fairly independent.
Some researchers think that this is a big reason why human females developed orgasm and also the ability to have intercourse at any time during her cycle instead of just when she is ovulating. A female which is receptive to a male's sexual advances all the time is likely to keep him around compared to a female that only puts out a few days a month.
So, I think that "banding together to control men" actually works at cross purposes to what the women want, which is to have influence over not a group of men but the one man who is the father of her children.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by mick, posted 05-02-2005 12:07 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 05-02-2005 7:46 PM nator has replied

  
Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 79 (204410)
05-02-2005 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by nator
05-02-2005 5:16 PM


Ahh..
You are a hopeless romantic.
Just kidding as I agree with that assesment of cultural and physical evolution.
ABB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 05-02-2005 5:16 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 05-02-2005 10:45 PM Arkansas Banana Boy has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 39 of 79 (204490)
05-02-2005 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Arkansas Banana Boy
05-02-2005 7:46 PM


Re: Ahh..
quote:
You are a hopeless romantic.
Just kidding as I agree with that assesment of cultural and physical evolution.
The thing is, I pretty much AM a hopeless romantic.
I don't let anthropoogy get in the way of enjoying anything romantic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 05-02-2005 7:46 PM Arkansas Banana Boy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by mick, posted 05-03-2005 11:38 AM nator has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 79 (204566)
05-03-2005 5:37 AM


What women have that men don't is clear lines of inheritance - every person knows their mother, but as the saying goes, its a wise man who knows his father. When men exercise control over womens sexuality, they thereby acquire linear heredity on the male side which hitherto had not existed. This is underlined by the tradition of the bride taking the grooms family name.

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 79 (204567)
05-03-2005 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by joshua221
05-01-2005 11:43 AM


quote:
I agree although I don't really like the way you have described this belief. This is what a society once believed was true, and something that connected them spiritually. Analyzing it like that, is sort of a dishonor to another's religion.
But, religion is not worthy of honour, you see, so I am free to dishonour it.
Because I don't look at these myths as accounts of divine adventures, they must have some other purpose - something that serves to unite their society and render thr world explicable. This is a tale about the true and natural order of the world; it establishes a norm. It is, thus, a form of social engineering. As are all mythologies, and later, religions.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 05-03-2005 05:42 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by joshua221, posted 05-01-2005 11:43 AM joshua221 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-03-2005 8:52 AM contracycle has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 42 of 79 (204592)
05-03-2005 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by contracycle
04-27-2005 5:48 AM


i would argue that you have no idea what heavy lifting is if you think that four year olds and a few gallons of water are the heaviest things in the world. another product of today's lazy society.
further. four year olds should not be carried unless injured or asleep. they can walk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by contracycle, posted 04-27-2005 5:48 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by contracycle, posted 05-03-2005 9:46 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 43 of 79 (204593)
05-03-2005 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by coffee_addict
04-28-2005 10:38 AM


yet another example of agriculture ruining everything lol. men get bored and start playing politics. it's like when we played house as little kids.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by coffee_addict, posted 04-28-2005 10:38 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 44 of 79 (204597)
05-03-2005 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by contracycle
05-03-2005 5:41 AM


if you are weak enough to be oppressed by someone else's religion...
mind your manners and respect the beliefs of the dead. if you don't hold them, fine. but people -who are just as important as you- did. when you dishonour another, you dishonour yourself.
iu swear. someday all those crazy feminists are gonna put all the religious people in chains along with the men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by contracycle, posted 05-03-2005 5:41 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by contracycle, posted 05-03-2005 9:54 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 79 (204604)
05-03-2005 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by macaroniandcheese
05-03-2005 8:36 AM


quote:
i would argue that you have no idea what heavy lifting is if you think that four year olds and a few gallons of water are the heaviest things in the world. another product of today's lazy society.
Reduced to objecting for objecting's sake, Brenna? Did I ever claim that four year olds were the heaviest thing in the world? No I didn't.
Secondly, four year olds can walk, but four year olds simply cannot walk 20km/day. And as we have spent much more time as nomads than we have has settled agriculturalists, thats a significant factor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-03-2005 8:36 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-03-2005 9:57 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024