"Patriarchy"

[outis]

I'm no expert, but from reading up on things, it seems as though the Iroquois were fairly egalitarian, not matriarchal. Matrilineal, yes. Matriarchal, no.

I'm no expert either but I'm not aware of any matriarchy that wasn't "fairly egalitarian". It seems to be a feature of matriarchy. I don't know how it could work any other way in practice really.
In fantasy stories, you have matriarchies which rely on imprisonning and killing boys. That could work but I don't know that it ever happened for real. If that's what you want to call matriarchy, fine. I'm no dictionary nazi. But please be upfront about it.

Matriarchy would require that women hold more than their fair share of political and economic power, much like men do in our current society. I haven't seen evidence this is the case.

What would be a "fair share" in an unfair society? I don't know what evidence you could be talking about.
As far as our current society is concerned, rest assured most men have very little political or economic power. And patriarchies are often even worse in that respect.

When it comes to passing lands from mother to daughter, if the gender roles they adopted specified that the women would do the farming and the men would do the hunting, doesn't it just make sense? What would a man want with land in that context?

No, it doesn't make sense. Biology dictates you'll have arbitrary disparities in land ownership. Equal inheritance to all siblings is not perfect either, but better. Matriarchal inheritance beats patriarchal inhertiance though so if that's the only alternative, OK.
If the gender roles are indeed defined that way, it's not about what a man would do with land but about what his daughters would do with it. Same as with patriarchy.

Aboriginal Canadians did not view property the same way Europeans do. It did not and does not equate to economic power, as it couldn't be bought, sold or traded. It could only be used.

How is that not economic power?
Sure, it's not anywhere as bad as capitalism. But people are still going to be econoimcally disadvantaged for no good reason.

 

[Alceste]

I'm no expert either but I'm not aware of any matriarchy that wasn't "fairly egalitarian". It seems to be a feature of matriarchy. I don't know how it could work any other way in practice really.

If it's egalitarian, by definition it isn't matriarchy. Matriarchy would literally mean rule by women.

In fantasy stories, you have matriarchies which rely on imprisonning and killing boys. That could work but I don't know that it ever happened for real. If that's what you want to call matriarchy, fine. I'm no dictionary nazi. But please be upfront about it.

No, I don't think it's ever happened, although patriarchy never involved "imprisoning and killing women" on a mass scale either. It involved trading them like livestock and denying them any access to economic liberty or political power.

What would be a "fair share" in an unfair society? I don't know what evidence you could be talking about.

Equal is fair.

As far as our current society is concerned, rest assured most men have very little political or economic power. And patriarchies are often even worse in that respect.

On the other hand, most of the people who happen to have power are men.

No, it doesn't make sense. Biology dictates you'll have arbitrary disparities in land ownership. Equal inheritance to all siblings is not perfect either, but better. Matriarchal inheritance beats patriarchal inhertiance though so if that's the only alternative, OK.
If the gender roles are indeed defined that way, it's not about what a man would do with land but about what his daughters would do with it. Same as with patriarchy.
How is that not economic power?
Sure, it's not anywhere as bad as capitalism. But people are still going to be econoimcally disadvantaged for no good reason.

No, you're again perceiving the concept of land title through the filter of Western views of property. Aboriginal Canadians did not "own" land at all. They had the right to use it. If the women used it for farming and the men did not, it was not economically "oppressive" to pass the right to use land for farming from mother to daughter. It was not a commodity. If men were hunting, the territory they used for that purpose would have been considered "theirs" as well.

If men were economically disadvantaged by not being permitted to farm, then women were equally economically disadvantaged by not being permitted to hunt.

 

[outis]

If it's egalitarian, by definition it isn't matriarchy. Matriarchy would literally mean rule by women.

OK, let's use your definition.
I was under the impression that Iroquois women inherited not only land but also the right to either rule or select rulers.
Whether you want to define "rule" as including the right to select rulers is up to you. If you don't, I guess the Iroquois might not have had a matriarchy but then you wouldn't have a democracy either.
Does it matter to the lives of "black" folks in the USA that the ruling President has a partly African heritage for instance? Or does it matter how power is distributed within their society?

No, I don't think it's ever happened, although patriarchy never involved "imprisoning and killing women" on a mass scale either. It involved trading them like livestock and denying them any access to economic liberty or political power.

Right. And I don't think it could work if you turned things around. Has it ever? I don't get why matriarchs would want to push torwards such an abomination either. The risk/reward would be really bad from their perspective.

Equal is fair.

Well, yeah. But the Iroquois clearly weren't equal. So this doesn't help me understand what you would consider fair or unfair.

On the other hand, most of the people who happen to have power are men.

Evidence? I guess this depends on how you define power but there's one way to define it which yields quantitative data on the distribution of meaningful power...
Women have a higher life expectancy. Men often marry younger women. And as far as I know, most wealthy countries have laws by which wives inherit a large share of the husband's wealth when he dies. Since wealth distribution is extremely top heavy, this effect could easily counterbalance the higher incomes of men.
What ensured men had the most power back in the day is that women inherited less wealth and power than men (in some cases, nothing at all). This isn't like racial discrimination: change the practice and its effect basically disappears within a human lifetime.

If the women used it for farming and the men did not, it was not economically "oppressive" to pass the right to use land for farming from mother to daughter.

Women who had a poor grandmother on their mother's side would no doubt perceive the fairness of this practice differently.
The main victims of matriarchy (or matrilinearity) are women, just like the main victims of patriarchy are men.

 

[dust1n]

I put it some posts ago, I think it was the iriquois.

Yehp it was them.

The thing is at male dissability is not a symptom of patriarchy. It is its own form of gender discrimination .

Thats all I am saying.

I can't find the post. What is it about any of the various Iroquois nations (Iroquois, btw, isn't a tribe of Indians. It's a confederation of several Indian tribes and various times.) that suggests to you that these cultures practiced in male depensability?

 

[Alceste]

I can't find the post. What is it about any of the various Iroquois nations (Iroquois, btw, isn't a tribe of Indians. It's a confederation of several Indian tribes and various times.) that suggests to you that these cultures practiced in male depensability?

The men were still the warriors. Women were not expected / permitted to fight. On the other hand, your courage and skill as a warrior defined your value as a man, and it was a very honored and honorable practice from their perspective. They weren't "sent" to fight by the political leaders who stayed home, as in Europe. Also, both men and women shared political power.

It's a sad affair that equal value and political influence in the context of highly defined gender roles is perceived as "matriarchy". Reminds me of music's recollection of the first women supreme court justice making people holler "they're taking over!"

 

[dust1n]

The men were still the warriors. Women were not expected / permitted to fight. On the other hand, your courage and skill as a warrior defined your value as a man, and it was a very honored and honorable practice from their perspective. They weren't "sent" to fight by the political leaders who stayed home, as in Europe. Also, both men and women shared political power.

It's a sad affair that equal value and political influence in the context of highly defined gender roles is perceived as "matriarchy". Reminds me of music's recollection of the first women supreme court justice making people holler "they're taking over!"

The fact that men were warriors and women were not expected or permitted to fight does not indicate to me that males were disposable.

dis·pos·a·ble

/disˈpōzəbəl/
Adjective
(of an article) Intended to be used once and then thrown away.

Noun
An article designed to be thrown away after use.

Synonyms
available

 

[Mathematician]

That's a particularly cute fantasy.


So basically if we assume that these roles were not formed under patriarchy, the concept of patriarchy becomes useless. Bravo!

Denial of historical fact and human biology just to promote an ideology is equally cute.

The alternative explanation for gender roles is what - men beat their wives and dragged them into caves? Or what other cartoonish anecdote?

If you're actually dismissive of the well-reasoned and even documented assertion that gender roles emerged because women carry babies (the most important resource) whereas men could handle dangerous and physically exhausting tasks, there's no hope in even continuing this discussion. Plenty of other species have their own system of gender 'attributes' that originate from pregnancy, and historical records indicate that gender discrepancies increased with the advancing agricultural revolution due to the nature of sustenance requiring more labor and protection. I feel like I'm debating evolution vs flat-earth creationism. When a relative is pregnant, do you not take extra care when you're around her, or do you throw a football at her direction and say to hell with it?

I realize patriarchy is not as simple as 'men vs women' but the very word denotes strength by men and the feminist movement has tried to pawn off a similarity between racism and gender roles. Racism was a brutal system enforced on one group of people by others without consent. Gender roles emerged voluntarily and then slowly were enforced en mass until, with technological advancements, the very same roles have become outdated - but their preservation is increasingly harmful towards both men and women. I claim that in recent years it's more harmful towards men because there's no large-scale public awakening about male issues.

 

[Me Myself]

The fact that men were warriors and women were not expected or permitted to fight does not indicate to me that males were disposable.

dis·pos·a·ble

/disˈpōzəbəl/
Adjective
(of an article) Intended to be used once and then thrown away.

Noun
An article designed to be thrown away after use.

Synonyms
available

Male disposability is the name given to the attitude. The thing is that them as male are more disposable than the female, thus, they will be the ones risking their lifes at any time that someone must be choseto risk their life.

 

[Me Myself]

It's a sad affair that equal value and political influence in the context of highly defined gender roles is perceived as "matriarchy". Reminds me of music's recollection of the first women supreme court justice making people holler "they're taking over!"

Wo percieves them as matriarchal? I said I made a mistake there. I confused them with other tribe.

You probably missed this point clearing that up

True, it was other. The iriquos were a non patriarchal society that still had male disposability.

I posted about the other one but would have to check it again.

In any case the thing is that its not a patriarchy tng, its just a thing that commonly happens, this male disposability thing. Is its own discrimination.

 

[Me Myself]

That's a particularly cute fantasy.


So basically if we assume that these roles were not formed under patriarchy, the concept of patriarchy becomes useless. Bravo!

Did he say that? Maybe he did, I ask before the quote tou reply to there doesnt say that.

It simply says that the patriarchy likely formed with both consenting genders.

It is very unlikely that men would decided everyone with a penis is just awesome and lets do what we want with society evethough their mothers and daughters begged against it.

Do notice though, neither him nor me are arguing there is anything good from the patriarchy ( or at least not for today, about yesterday, I niether know nor care) , we are simply acknowledging that it was likely formed by consent of the general population. Which is generally conformed by women btw, and surely more in an enviroment where they were specially protected. (With good reason)

 

[Alceste]

Wo percieves them as matriarchal? I said I made a mistake there. I confused them with other tribe.

You probably missed this point clearing that up

No I caught that, I was referring to outis. He seems to have mixed up the concept of matrilineal descent in an egalitarian tribe with distinct gender roles with the concept of matriarchal rule.

Anyway, aboriginal hunter / gatherer / subsistence farming societies are a poor comparison. For the most part, they ALL tend to be somewhat egalitarian, but with distinct gender roles. The warrior concept is also very different from the soldier concept. Aboriginal warriors didn't fight out of duty, obligation, having been pressured or drafted, etc. like Europeans. They fought to gain status and respect, and sometimes property and slaves. Battles between tribes also weren't particularly bloody compared to European conflicts. IOW, they were gaining status and property for themselves when they fought. Not for their kings.

 

[Me Myself]

No I caught that, I was referring to outis. He seems to have mixed up the concept of matrilineal descent in an egalitarian tribe with distinct gender roles with the concept of matriarchal rule.

A sorry then about that confusion

Anyway, aboriginal hunter / gatherer / subsistence farming societies are a poor comparison. For the most part, they ALL tend to be somewhat egalitarian, but with distinct gender roles. The warrior concept is also very different from the soldier concept. Aboriginal warriors didn't fight out of duty, obligation, having been pressured or drafted, etc. like Europeans. They fought to gain status and respect, and sometimes property and slaves. Battles between tribes also weren't particularly bloody compared to European conflicts. IOW, they were gaining status and property for themselves when they fought. Not for their kings.

They were the ones expected to risk their lifes defending the village if someone attacked, and they would be the ones losing honor and face if they didnt.

Would I be wrong on that assumption?

Aout gender roles, that in itself is problemqtic for egualitarianism, nless we are talking about optional gender roles. I other words, if the man could decide to be a "woman" or the other way around.

 

[Alceste]

A sorry then about that confusion



They were the ones expected to risk their lifes defending the village if someone attacked, and they would be the ones losing honor and face if they didnt.

Would I be wrong on that assumption?

Aout gender roles, that in itself is problemqtic for egualitarianism, nless we are talking about optional gender roles. I other words, if the man could decide to be a "woman" or the other way around.

That was the case in certain societies, not others. North America was a very culturally complex continent, with many very distinctive communities living on it.

Equal in the sense of egalitarian aboriginal cultures means men and women were equally valued and equally powerful, not that they were exactly the same, or completely free to choose their gender role.

 

[dust1n]

Male disposability is the name given to the attitude. The thing is that them as male are more disposable than the female, thus, they will be the ones risking their lifes at any time that someone must be choseto risk their life.

None of that indicates males or soldiers were disposable or that males were treated as such.

Strange how male disposability is allowed to freely roam meaning in your lexicon; like shooting an arrow and then painting a target around it afterward. But what a giant offense it has been that 'patriarchy' as described by feminism is vastly different than what you find immediately in a dictionary.

I guess disposability doesn't mean "for one time use," it means "men were in the army." How convenient.

 

[Me Myself]

That was the case in certain societies, not others. North America was a very culturally complex continent, with many very distinctive communities living on it.

Equal in the sense of egalitarian aboriginal cultures means men and women were equally valued and equally powerful, not that they were exactly the same, or completely free to choose their gender role.

Hw could one measure if they were valued equally? They werent allowed the same things nor had the same responsibilities.

None of that indicates males or soldiers were disposable or that males were treated as such.

How doesnt it? . If the village is attacked and the burden of protection lands on the shoulder of one gender which will be the one risking its life first while the other gender hides then there is clearly a gender being more disposable than the other.

 

[Alceste]

Hw could one measure if they were valued equally? They werent allowed the same things nor had the same responsibilities.




How doesnt it? . If the village is attacked and the burden of protection lands on the shoulder of one gender which will be the one risking its life first while the other gender hides then there is clearly a gender being more disposable than the other.

Political influence, decision making power, economic power. If those are shared, you have a fairly egalitarian society even if you have firm gender roles. Perhaps not a free society, but an equal one.

Women risk their lives in childbirth. Does that mean we're "disposable"?

 

[Me Myself]

Political influence, decision making power, economic power. If those are shared, you have a fairly egalitarian society even if you have firm gender roles. Perhaps not a free society, but an equal one.

Women risk their lives in childbirth. Does that mean we're "disposable"?

I understand the decision makers of who was to be a leader were always women. So the women had more political power for being women.

Risking life in childbirth is not a lot of a choice. Men and women get horny and have sex. What follows cant really be called a choice.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I understand the decision makers of who was to be a leader were always women. So the women had more political power for being women.

Risking life in childbirth is not a lot of a choice. Men and women get horny and have sex. What follows cant really be called a choice.

Yes it can. It's called safe and legal access to contraceptives and/or abortion.

And to be clear, life and health is not just put at risk during labor and childbirth, but throughout the entire pregnancy, too. It's why women going through a pregnancy do much better when they see their OB-GYN every month at least. By the time women are in the third trimester, they do best when their vital signs are checked every other week. By the final few weeks, they do best when checked every week.

Pregnant women don't see the doctor that often just for fun, I can assure you.

 

[Me Myself]

Yes it can. It's called safe and legal access to contraceptives and/or abortion.

And to be clear, life and health is not just put at risk during labor and childbirth, but throughout the entire pregnancy, too. It's why women going through a pregnancy do much better when they see their OB-GYN every month at least. By the time women are in the third trimester, they do best when their vital signs are checked every other week. By the final few weeks, they do best when checked every week.

Pregnant women don't see the doctor that often just for fun, I can assure you.

I am talking about the origin of male disposability. There were no safe abortions then.

By now I understand most countries dont force either men or women to military? (I think? hope? I admit my ignorance ) but the argument is that it happened and it was related to patriarchy, and it happened for far more time than how much it made survivalistic sense.

Customs tend to do that. THe five monkeys experiment kind of way.

 

[Alceste]

I understand the decision makers of who was to be a leader were always women. So the women had more political power for being women.

Risking life in childbirth is not a lot of a choice. Men and women get horny and have sex. What follows cant really be called a choice.

It doesn't follow that having a veto over which males can have power makes the resulting society matriarchal. Women elected Obama, but that doesn't make the US a matriarchy.

In general, most aboriginal Canadian cultures operated by consensus, particularly of elders. We don't know how this operated for the iroquois, but we can be fairly certain that men and women were discussing these choices with one another at length and trying to reach decisions that would be in the best interest of the whole tribe.

Also, women don't have to have sex and risk pregnancy and men don't have to fight. Aboriginal people had nothing resembling a draft. So both genders risked their physical safety by adopting their normative gender roles.