No need for grunt work? *Societal Roles*

quote:

---

mind your manners and respect the beliefs of the dead.

---

the dead are dead and care about nothing. Only some living people affect concern for them, as you do here.

quote:

---

if you don't hold them, fine. but people -who are just as important as you- did. when you dishonour another, you dishonour yourself.

---

Thats empty sophistry. Tell me Brenna, do you also honour Nazism in the name of dead Nazi's? I suspect that you don't. I could point here to the incredible levels of bloodthirst in mesoamerican religion to make a moral point, but will not: there is still no basis for the absurd statement that if I dishonour the dead I dishonour myself.That is at absolute best gross romanticism, and is certainly completely groundless.

quote:

---

iu swear. someday all those crazy feminists are gonna put all the religious people in chains along with the men

---

Yes, clap the crazy feminists in irons, and the abolitionists too, we all know this democracy thing is only the subordination of the righteous to the unthinking mob.

most people i know can't walk 20 km per day. i imagine that if four year olds have to walk 20 km per day then they will. just like adults.

how's this. i don't argue that nazis are the single worst thing to ever walk the planet unlike everyone else. i do not curse every nazi who ever walked as a demon and whatnot.and everyone knows that i ascribe to quite a romanticized everything. call me an ideologue. and what is so groundless about considering that other people make up their minds about things for a reason and not simply because they aren't as intelligent as you? oh come off it. i'm just saying that all these crazy broads are screaming about how awful hierarchy is when all they intend is to reverse it and put themselves on top. it's hypocrisy and it makes me nauseated.

quote:

---

and everyone knows that i ascribe to quite a romanticized everything. call me an ideologue. and what is so groundless about considering that other people make up their minds about things for a reason and not simply because they aren't as intelligent as you?

---

And yet, I actually provided a reason, didn't I? Control of heritibility and material goods. Discussing the change to mythology only indicates how it was implemented.But all your baseless ranting about the evils of feminism never grants anyone such respect, does it? They're just "crazy broads" according to you.

quote:

---

oh come off it. i'm just saying that all these crazy broads are screaming about how awful hierarchy is when all they intend is to reverse it and put themselves on top. it's hypocrisy and it makes me nauseated.

---

And its a ridiculous, hysterical, nonsensensicle, misogynist stereotype. Rather like those who argued that the abolition of slavery would trigger a race war and the extinction of whites, if they ever raised the civilising jackboot from the necks of the barbarians.Have you read the links that Schraf provided? About observed matricarchal - or more properly, matrifocal - societies as they actually exist rather than this absurd conspiracy theory? Frex:

quote:

---

Among the Tuareg, women enjoy freedom of choice in sexual involvement and actively pursue romantic preferences. They may have male visitors when their husbands are absent. Women also retain custody of their children after divorce. Children are the financial responsibility of their fathers but they are considered by nature and by custom as belonging to their mothers. The tents and their furnishings are the personal property of the women. When a woman wants a divorce, she takes her bed (the only bed in the tent) to her mother's place. If she is real serious, she takes the tent as well and the husband has no place where to sleep, he must find shelter with his mother.

---

These hysterical horror storties you giove us of feminists wanting exactly the same degree of control over property and sexuality are simply without historical precedent. Matrifocal societies are nowhere near as controlling as pagtricarchal socities, and no feminist I've ever heard of has advocated such controls.So where do you get your paranoia from, Brenna? I have asked you for citations demonstrating that feminists have indeed made such claims on previous occassions and you have never presented any. Your are grossly misrepresenting feminism, and doing so in order to discredit it. Show your sources or retract this victim-culture nonsense.This message has been edited by contracycle, 05-03-2005 10:51 AM

okay. This is interesting because the mechanisms you think gave rise to patriarchy are exactly the same mechanisms that are thought to give rise to polygyny in mammals and birds.I'm not too hot on birds, but in mammals a combination of polygyny and mild promiscuity is by far the most common mating system. Polyandry is far rarer. But it's interesting that polyandry is far more common in primates than it is in other taxonomic groups, and I think is thought to be due to a combination of demograhic features of primate society and the need of primate babies for paternal care. I am thinking, for example, of Callitrichid primates.Perhaps we could account for matriarchy in human beings in a similar way to the way we account for polyandry in other primate species. God I sound like one of those awful sociobiology freaks now...Thanks for the insightsMick

yes i did read it and i've read quite a bit on matriarchal, matrilineal and matrilocal societies. i love your assumptions. guess what. not everyone who reads the same things as you jumps to the same conclusions you do.i don't care how "not opressive" matriarchal societies are, it's still leadership by one sex. it's still a hierarchy, and it's still hypocritical and wrong.i don't have to prove that feminists want to institute a matriarchal society, you said it yourself.and frankly, i think abandoning a man and leaving him without a home is pretty opressive. and that's beside the fact that i don't think sexual freedom for anyone (as you describe it) is a good thing. but then i'm probably the only non fundie who thinks that.matrilocal only means that the family lives where the mother's family lives... even the hebrews started out matrilocal. matrilocal doesn't have anything to do with this.tons of american indian tribes are matrilocal. congratulations.moreover, i'd argue that your discussion of the evils of patriarchal societies are exaggerated. while i really don't feel like bothering to find it, i'm sure there are examples of patriarchal societies which are even less opressive than your dear little pet nations of matriarchs.oh yes. and these crazy broads? i don't afford them any respect because they're all alive. except, i'm sure, there were some killed at kent state or some other protest and maybe some who did too much drugs during the late sixties and early seventies. you know. just like everyone else.i'm tired of your self-righteous condemnation of everyone who doesn't agree with you. i hate everyone. you only hate people who call you on your hypocrisy.

Agreed! The "archy" is the important bit. Neither patriarchy nor matriarchy! Nor hierarchy, for that matter. Just freedom from tyranny, for everybody, right? At least as much as is practicably possible.Unfortunately your point gets a bit lost because you go on to proclaim: i think your point was sensible, but your point got lost because you got carried away. I don't think contracycle has said that he hates anybody, has he? He doesn't seem to hate human beings. He just hates some human beliefs.Mick

quote:

---

i don't have to prove that feminists want to institute a matriarchal society, you said it yourself.

---

I don't know about you, but not a single one of the political feminists I personally know or have read have ever advocated for a matriarchal society.I am a feminist and I certainly do not.I do hope you are talking about the populist movement, not the academics.

if nothing else, i'm talking about contracycle. he seems to advocate them.

yeah i'm sure. he just really pisses me off.

quote:

---

guess what. not everyone who reads the same things as you jumps to the same conclusions you do.

---

Indeed. Some people only read for the purpose of reinforcing their prejudices.

quote:

---

i don't care how "not opressive" matriarchal societies are, it's still leadership by one sex. it's still a hierarchy, and it's still hypocritical and wrong. and frankly, i think abandoning a man and leaving him without a home is pretty opressive. and that's beside the fact that i don't think sexual freedom for anyone (as you describe it) is a good thing. but then i'm probably the only non fundie who thinks that.

---

Really, OPPRESSIVE? Do you even know what the term "oppressive" means? Becuase you seem to be conflating it with mere nastyness. Is he prevented from building his own tent? Does he got ostracised as a moral failure as female divorcees often are?All you're doing is simplistically asserting "its not perfect so its just as bad." But it is not JUST AS BAD. Men are not obliged to conceal their sexuality for fear of provoking women. Men are not held captive in the home as personal servants of their wives. Men are not likely to be kidnapped by the women of the next village. Men are NOT chattels.For all that you can indeed see the inequality of the plaintive cry that the father contributes to the raising of the children but the mother gets all the credit. But nobody has proposed imposing such a system. Certainly, nobody has proposed imposing a system as violent as patriarchy.

quote:

---

moreover, i'd argue that your discussion of the evils of patriarchal societies are exaggerated. while i really don't feel like bothering to find it, i'm sure there are examples of patriarchal societies which are even less opressive than your dear little pet nations of matriarchs.

---

Yes, well that's unsurprising, as not bothering to find out is the hallmark of your argumentation. I've never come across a patriarchal society that is less coercive than these matrifocal focal societies. But this is of course no impediment to your self-serving assumptions.

quote:

---

oh yes. and these crazy broads? i don't afford them any respect because they're all alive. except, i'm sure, there were some killed at kent state or some other protest and maybe some who did too much drugs during the late sixties and early seventies. you know. just like everyone else.

---

And who are they? As you admit, you cannot be bothered to investigate evidence you even expect to find, let alone disconfirming evidence. I Do these people actually exist, or do you just assume they exist? WHO are you criticising? I have challengedyou to name names and show that your crticisisms are even remotely on target and you are consistently unable to do so. Its a complete nonsense; you simply don;t know what you are talking about, but nevertheless feel entitled to behave like a spoiled child when contradicted.

quote:

---

i'm tired of your self-righteous condemnation of everyone who doesn't agree with you. i hate everyone. you only hate people who call you on your hypocrisy.

---

Hang on Brenna, I was having a perfectly reasonable conversation here until you decided yto object. Calling on you to support your objection is not hypocrisy. On the other hand, it most certainly IS hypocrticial to keep denouncing feminism despite clearly being unable to support your own claims about it.I most certainly do not condemn anyone who disagrees with me - after all, people who merely disagree with me may stand to be persuaded. But people who make sweeping and false generalisations they then run away from supporting are indeed worthy of my condemnation.Make reasonable arguments and you will gain my respect. Continue with this ignorant objectionism and you will continue to enjoy my contempt. At no point have you contributed anything of value to this thread, only sailed up and fired a broadside about people, probably fictional, you affect to dislike.

look. all i said was that claiming that women are the ones that have always done the heavy lifting was a stupid remark. and then you went off on me. leave me alone i don't care to prove to you the fact that i find your ideas to be wrong because i'm simply not interested in discussing it anymore ever. i've investigated it before and i didn't think it was a correct interpretation of the truth. i don't have to prove to you my thought process or how much i read or anything. i'm not debating the ideology, i'm debating the fact that you make claims and then double back on them.

quote:

---

And its a ridiculous, hysterical, nonsensensicle, misogynist stereotype.

---

You do realize that by calling Brennakimi "hysterical" you are using a sexist, female-bashing term, don't you?

quote:

---

all i said was that claiming that women are the ones that have always done the heavy lifting was a stupid remark

---

What I said was, the sexual division is not BASED on heavy lifting, and that women do a hell of a lot of lifting that is real serious work. It is of course true that if you need a stone lifted, a group of young men is your best bet, but if that is all they do in the day, while women spend the whole day pounding grain, carrying water, hefting kids and so forth, then they indeed are doing the majority of the muscle based labour.But of course such thoughts do not enter your head. No, you must leap the most ridiculous possible assumption and then attack that straw man. Don't talk about me "going off" off on you when your only intervention in this thread was to attack a nonsense of your own construction.

quote:

---

and then you went off on me. leave me alone i don't care to prove to you the fact that i find your ideas to be wrong because i'm simply not interested in discussing it anymore ever.

---

Yes, I'm quite aware you don;t want to discuss it again ever - thats becuase you are never able to support your claims, and get annoyed when your comfortable prejudices are challenged. And rather than take responsibility for this solvable problem, and solve it by actually learning about the topic, you prefer to disapear in a puff of pique. I'm not much impressed.

quote:

---

i don't have to prove to you my thought process or how much i read or anything.

---

Well you most certainly DO if you are going to go around makling abusive and insulting remarks about feminists and feminism. It is absolutely incumbent on you to demonstrate that those remarks have some basis in fact - otherwise they are nothing more than slander. Deliberate misrepresentation. Character assasination. Why should you be allowed to make such abusive claims and then simply deny the responsibility to show they have any basis at all?IMO, you do NOT appear to be at all well educated about Feminism. You have attacked feminists on these grounds on multiple occassions and in not a single instance have you ever been able to to demonstrate that any feminist has ever advanced any such claims. I say you suck your "research" out of your thumb. But thats impossible to DISCUSS because as soon as you are contradicted you throw a temper tantrum; it seems to me you do everything in your power to avoid having to actually support the nonsense you spout.

kinda like youhave a nice dayThis message has been edited by brennakimi, 05-06-2005 06:55 AM