?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
breeden
ursulav

(no subject)

Updated web page. Updated comic. Ranted for half an hour to a captive audience--namely my husband, who brought it up, the poor bastard--about how there's never been any proof of a truly matriarchal human society, no matter what sloppy scholarship feminists put out in the seventies, and how the belief that men and women should be equal is a perfectly legitimate one that does not need hideous travesties of anthropological invention to back it up, *insert obscenities here* Just because our ancestors never did it doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. Toilet paper is a good thing too, and it's goodness oughta be self-evident without theorizing, on the basis of insanely flimsy evidence, that tribes during the Ice Age must've invented Charmin first, but that it was supressed by chauvanistic anti-toilet paper forces.

Societies with matriarchal lines of descent are few and far between, but they do exist. Truly matriarchal societies, however, are incredibly rare to the point of nonexistance, and tend to occur only under insanely specialized conditions, if at all--even the few Native American societies held up as "matriarchal" usually have male chiefs and all-male religious traditions, which doesn't sound like a feminist dreamworld to me. There is absolutely no concrete evidence of a widespread prehistoric matriarchy that can't be explained in several dozen other, much more plausible ways. This is not to say that women are inherently subservient (and I will pummel anyone who says it is!) but one's desire to promote one's belief in sexual equality is absolutely, positively, under no circumstance, excuse for sloppy, romanticized science.

Really, I don't usually rant about such things with quite such frequency--most of my life is a relatively staid world of chunky tapirs and working out Art Deco cyberspace sigils. I think my moral and ethical buttons are just getting pushed repeatedly this week. I blame sunspots.


  • 1
As a group, women have on average some natural advantages and natural disadvantages. But these are three billion "pink dots" and three billion "blue dots" spread over a large range; the fact that the theoretical average of one versus the other is slightly different would be easily lost in the masses.

The real consideration should be made on an individual basis; women have a slight edge in math, but I might be a little better than average in this department. Men have a slight edge in muscular strength, on average, but I have a young female relative that can dead-lift nearly 400 pounds, far more than any male in her weightlifting class.

So, society will be ideal when a persons strengths and contributions can be considered on an individual basis, independent of the "groups" that they could identify with. The path of "group identification" leads to professional victimhood, in my opinion.

===|==============/ Level Head

"I blame sunspots."

Fancy flaming faculae as facilitator fountains of feminist framework foraging.

===|===============/ Level Head

Betcha can't say that five times fast...

I just spotted the new Irrational Fear, and found myself wondering whether chupacabras were genetically related to weasels. ];)

Always enjoyable. Thank you.

===|==============/ Level Head

Societies with matriarchal lines of descent are few and far between, but they do exist. Truly matriarchal societies, however, are incredibly rare to the point of nonexistance, and tend to occur only under insanely specialized conditions, if at all.

Y'know, I'd never really thought about that. History is full of male-dominated patriarchal culture, which to me indicates that seperating a society into classes by gender is an easy, if not particularly kosher way of doing things. This in turn suggests that there ought to be some societies that did their classing the other way around, forming female-dominated matriarchies. If this isn't the case, well, why not? As was pointed out by LH, it's not like there are huge disparities between the capabilities of the two genders.

At first I thought perhaps this was because men evolved to be the hunting side of the hunter-gatherer equation, and so they're better evolved for something important about building societies, but that doesn't make any sense at all, because poking things with sharp sticks isn't what communities are about. Do you know why it is that guys have always been the ones who do the oppressing?

By the way, opening the live journal was an inspired idea. I love the way you write, so regardless of the topic, getting a new paragraph or two out of you every day is just nifty. Seriously, you could probably write about the life cycles of avian intestinal parasites and I'd enjoy it.

-VNT

*laugh* Careful what you wish for. "Today I studied a variety of small tapeworm found in the bellies of albatrosses..." Well, maybe not. Glad people are enjoyin' it, though.

  • 1