When I encountered feminism in a formal academic setting (Phil degree with the invariable intro by Simone dB) one thought quickly came to mind: feminism seems to confuse matriarchy with gynarchy...
Of course matriarchy doesn't mean "rule by women" but "rule by mothers". To have those mothers you need men... those utopian practicalities fall at the very first hurdle.
In real circumstances in which matriarchal structures exist women's lot is far from utopian. Social status belongs to the grandmothers and high status mothers-in-charge, since it is based around accumulating power through birth and successful raising of children. Young unmarried girls commence their adult lives with a lowly status. and dynamics of competition and clan politics rival something from GRR Martin.
Thanks so much for this Lorenzo. I've only woken up to the farce?... fraud?... fallacy?... that is (Western) feminism in my solid middle aged. I really fell for it hook, line and sinker. Oh well, better late than never to wake up I guess.
I am really tired for one thing, of my fellow women using feminism as excuse for what is plainly selfish behaviour. Ugh, spare me your moral righteousness and be a responsible adult please! That seems to be asking far too much for most people these days. Sigh.
my mind immediately threw up a long list of women writers with children....but then I realised that they all received single mother's pensions from the govt.
A seeming Australian exception, Mary Grant Bruce, established herself as a writer long before marrying.
An extract from the Amazon UK blurb: "[Hayden] shows that far from working for the welfare of their communities, traditional secret societies emerged as predatory organizations operated for the benefit of their own members. Moreover, and contrary to the prevailing ideas that prehistoric rituals were used to integrate communities, Hayden demonstrates how traditional secret societies created divisiveness and inequalities. They were one of the key tools for increasing political control leading to chiefdoms, states, and world religions. "
Given your wide reading and information acquisition, perhaps you know about this book already. In any case, it appears to have some indirect relevance to your post today, and to your general explication of evolutionary to social impacts in general.
I suspect that Hayden's thesis is valid to some extent, or in some contexsts. But I would still expect more benign levels of cooperation to also have developed, with less emphasis on exploitation than for bettering the "general welfare". [Not yet having read his book] I could see where his aspect of secrecy might play out more within larger groups or across coalitions formed between neighboring groups. And more so among pastoral and agricultural societies than "pure" hunter-gatherers.
Hayden’s book is a great, if at times horrifying, read. It is more relevant to the question of the rise of states and chiefdoms than the issues in this post. Especially as they were by no means limited to male-only societies (though that might be worth a reference).
African cases tend to dominate the book, for available evidence reasons. This may skew the perspective, given the implications of the continent of slavery.
The families are matriarchal. That is true of the Mosuo also. If the family structure is all that is left of the society, it can be matriarchal in that sense. But that is only practical in highly pacified areas.
The Soong sisters wore the pants in a lot of areas. Read up on the Soongs, including TV Soong. fascinating stuff. Understanding China is made accessible by understanding the Soong family.
True for every society under the sun: that there is more understanding to have by living in the society. What I am trying to understand are social patterns.
I’m just being argumentative. Hard line imperatives on any sociological phenomenon are fallible. They make me push back, which is childish. It’s only Substack, I don’t actually care.
Wikipedia is usually pretty good on China stuff. Seriously. Of course, many disagree.
I’m just being argumentative. Hard line imperatives on any sociological phenomenon are fallible. They make me push back, which is childish. It’s only Substack, I don’t actually care.
Wikipedia tends to be good where there are deep communities of genuine “buffs” (the military history is often excellent) or where the ideologically motivated are absent.
And your point is....(?) Never mind. You have no point.
The project proceeded efficiently, people worked cooperatively, "orders" were relayed in the manner of a competent manager directing laborers, and the house went up without a hitch.
I will have to ponder this a while.
When I encountered feminism in a formal academic setting (Phil degree with the invariable intro by Simone dB) one thought quickly came to mind: feminism seems to confuse matriarchy with gynarchy...
Of course matriarchy doesn't mean "rule by women" but "rule by mothers". To have those mothers you need men... those utopian practicalities fall at the very first hurdle.
In real circumstances in which matriarchal structures exist women's lot is far from utopian. Social status belongs to the grandmothers and high status mothers-in-charge, since it is based around accumulating power through birth and successful raising of children. Young unmarried girls commence their adult lives with a lowly status. and dynamics of competition and clan politics rival something from GRR Martin.
clear, rational and insighful. A pleasure to read.
Thanks so much for this Lorenzo. I've only woken up to the farce?... fraud?... fallacy?... that is (Western) feminism in my solid middle aged. I really fell for it hook, line and sinker. Oh well, better late than never to wake up I guess.
I am really tired for one thing, of my fellow women using feminism as excuse for what is plainly selfish behaviour. Ugh, spare me your moral righteousness and be a responsible adult please! That seems to be asking far too much for most people these days. Sigh.
my mind immediately threw up a long list of women writers with children....but then I realised that they all received single mother's pensions from the govt.
A seeming Australian exception, Mary Grant Bruce, established herself as a writer long before marrying.
Also, we have these things called schools.
Yes, although they are remarkably ill-equipped for doing their last remaining function, child care.
Possibly writing is tempting for single mothers because the poor mesh between working hours and schooling hours stops being a problem.
Nothing wrong with repetition - it is how memory is built.
In his post today, Dan Williams (On conspiracy theories of ignorance https://www.conspicuouscognition.com/p/on-conspiracy-theories-of-ignorance ) cites the 2018 book by Brian Hayden, The Power of Ritual in Prehistory: Secret Societies and Origins of Social Complexity; https://www.amazon.co.uk/Power-Ritual-Prehistory-Societies-Complexity/dp/1108426395 . Somewhat expensive, so unless I can find a US version on sale, I will probably not buy this one.
An extract from the Amazon UK blurb: "[Hayden] shows that far from working for the welfare of their communities, traditional secret societies emerged as predatory organizations operated for the benefit of their own members. Moreover, and contrary to the prevailing ideas that prehistoric rituals were used to integrate communities, Hayden demonstrates how traditional secret societies created divisiveness and inequalities. They were one of the key tools for increasing political control leading to chiefdoms, states, and world religions. "
Given your wide reading and information acquisition, perhaps you know about this book already. In any case, it appears to have some indirect relevance to your post today, and to your general explication of evolutionary to social impacts in general.
I suspect that Hayden's thesis is valid to some extent, or in some contexsts. But I would still expect more benign levels of cooperation to also have developed, with less emphasis on exploitation than for bettering the "general welfare". [Not yet having read his book] I could see where his aspect of secrecy might play out more within larger groups or across coalitions formed between neighboring groups. And more so among pastoral and agricultural societies than "pure" hunter-gatherers.
Hayden’s book is a great, if at times horrifying, read. It is more relevant to the question of the rise of states and chiefdoms than the issues in this post. Especially as they were by no means limited to male-only societies (though that might be worth a reference).
African cases tend to dominate the book, for available evidence reasons. This may skew the perspective, given the implications of the continent of slavery.
Very interesting post! Does this mean that PENIS ENVY is replaced by CULTURE ENVY?
Not arguing for or against, but Naxi society in Yunnan was/is a matriarchal society. There are a couple others in Yunnan too.
The families are matriarchal. That is true of the Mosuo also. If the family structure is all that is left of the society, it can be matriarchal in that sense. But that is only practical in highly pacified areas.
I don't know nothing about China, but I've been told that Madame Chiang Kai-Shek wore the pants in the family.
The Soong sisters wore the pants in a lot of areas. Read up on the Soongs, including TV Soong. fascinating stuff. Understanding China is made accessible by understanding the Soong family.
If you have lived in it...actually spent time in it...you might better understand what you're trying to sound expert in.
True for every society under the sun: that there is more understanding to have by living in the society. What I am trying to understand are social patterns.
I’m just being argumentative. Hard line imperatives on any sociological phenomenon are fallible. They make me push back, which is childish. It’s only Substack, I don’t actually care.
You do actually raise the issue of “fragment” societies. Something to think on more.
If the Wikipedia article is to be believed, the Naxi are matri_lineal_; descent is through the _female_ line.
Wikipedia is usually pretty good on China stuff. Seriously. Of course, many disagree.
I’m just being argumentative. Hard line imperatives on any sociological phenomenon are fallible. They make me push back, which is childish. It’s only Substack, I don’t actually care.
Wikipedia tends to be good where there are deep communities of genuine “buffs” (the military history is often excellent) or where the ideologically motivated are absent.
Agree.
What makes them matriarchal? Do the women give the orders?
Few societies can ignore the wishes of their women. Rhetoric works, after all, and women average better at it than men.
I recall being on a remote construction site where the men were working their asses off and the woman was standing there giving orders.
I really like your comment. Smart.
Anyone can bark orders. Was she leading effectively; or obstructing work? Seen a lot more of the latter than the former.
And your point is....(?) Never mind. You have no point.
The project proceeded efficiently, people worked cooperatively, "orders" were relayed in the manner of a competent manager directing laborers, and the house went up without a hitch.