|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: No need for grunt work? *Societal Roles* | |||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
Perhaps, if the word "feminist" was not included in the link.
Gotta stay away from those biased articles. lol porteus@gmail.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Networks get people to watch TV by getting them to be in awe of women's ability to produce offspring?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: What do you think a feminist is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Arkansas Banana Boy Inactive Member |
You are a hopeless romantic.
Just kidding as I agree with that assesment of cultural and physical evolution. ABB
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: The thing is, I pretty much AM a hopeless romantic. I don't let anthropoogy get in the way of enjoying anything romantic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
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 |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024