jackson@curium.DEC (SETH JACKSON 297-4751) (02/21/86)
Some questions for all you feminists out there (men and women alike): You claim that: 1) The sexes are both equal 2) Throughout hundreds of years of civilzation, a male-dominated society has evolved 3) This situation continues to exist today, despite the efforts of feminist organizations How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance? If the sexes are in fact equal, what motivation would men have for wanting to put women in a subservient role? Also, by what means have men managed throught history to "keep women in their place"? I don't see much evidence that men are threatening women with guns or physical violence, so why do the majority of women cooperated throughout history and continue to cooperate with this male-dominated society? -- "Many a man's done terrible thing Just to get His baby A shiny Diamond ring" Seth Jackson
booter@lll-crg.ARpA (Elaine Richards) (02/23/86)
In article <1270@decwrl.DEC.COM> jackson@curium.DEC (SETH JACKSON 297-4751) writes: >Some questions for all you feminists out there (men and women alike): > [the canonical questions about equality and dominance] >How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance? If the Anything that has 66% more upper arm strength can whomp the weaker person in the schoolyard. Happened to me until Mom told me about "a good swift kick".:-) >sexes are in fact equal, what motivation would men have for wanting >to put women in a subservient role? Also, by what means have men Some psychologists say men are making up for moms and female schoolteachers bossing them as youths.:-) Anthropologists claim that the mystery of menstruation and pregnancy made men feel a little out of place with the Powers of the Universe and thus they assauged their fear and un-ease via bonding rituals. If you believe bonding rituals don't exist, visit a men's club or stand on Wall Street and look at the uniforms men wear. Women are learning to blend in by following the rules of the club (grey suits and non-feminine haircuts).Read Lionel Tiger on male bonding. When we all lived on farms, sexism was not an issue. Men and women ate and had shelter and some clothes. With the Industrial Revolution, a trend called "The Cult of Domesticity" began to separate the roles of men and women in production. A woman's place was in the home and Dad went to work. What we see with ladies wearing sneakers and grey suits is the Female March Back into productivity. Since technology is different, rules are different and that's why everyone is upset and confused. No big deal. Eventually, companies will lose a lot of their masculine flavor and get into "human mode" (daycare, relaxed communication betwixt M and F, etc.). Do I sound optimistic. I am. >managed throught history to "keep women in their place"? I don't see Wanna see my old paychecks? >much evidence that men are threatening women with guns or physical Except when they get thrashed in the schoolyard for being "smart". Except when they get beaten by fathers and husbands (statistical answers are irrelevant, women do hit men, but this is NOT AS COMMON!!!) >violence, so why do the majority of women cooperated throughout history >and continue to cooperate with this male-dominated society? Survival mechanism. If you are horny enough, you'll put up with anything. E ***** "They look cute in a bathing suit on a billboard in ..... ....Tierra Del Fuego!" -Malvina Reynolds
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (02/23/86)
> > How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance? On the average, men have better left hooks than women do. :-( > If the > sexes are in fact equal, what motivation would men have for wanting > to put women in a subservient role? The simple-minded ethic that "if you have less, then I have more." > Also, by what means have men > managed throughout history to "keep women in their place"? I don't see > much evidence that men are threatening women with guns or physical > violence, so why do the majority of women cooperated throughout history > and continue to cooperate with this male-dominated society? > -- > Seth Jackson You've got to be kidding. Have you ever heard of rape and wife-beating? Have you ever read what Freud said about women? Have you ever seen the way women are portrayed in popular entertainment? There are so many examples that it would be impossible to list them all. Sexism is part of the air that we breathe. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
amc@mhuxd.UUCP (Andy Cohill) (02/25/86)
> > > > How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance? > > Seth Jackson > > You've got to be kidding. Have you ever read what Freud said > about women? Wait a minute. Freud was male, if I recollect correctly. You trust a low-life, no-good, sleaze-ball male to make judgements about women???? Best regards, Andy Cohill ihnp4!mhuxd!amc
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (02/25/86)
-- > Some questions for all you feminists out there (men and women alike): > > [feminists claim that the sexes are equal]... > > How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance? If the > sexes are in fact equal, what motivation would men have for wanting > to put women in a subservient role? Also, by what means have men > managed throught history to "keep women in their place"? I don't see > much evidence that men are threatening women with guns or physical > violence, so why do the majority of women cooperated throughout history > and continue to cooperate with this male-dominated society? > > Seth Jackson What choice do they have? Honestly, Seth, you are grasping at straws. And even if your simplistic analysis were true, how would that justify the situation? After all, humans have lived under tyrannical monarchs for thousands of years. Many do even today. Does that make it right? Why would men want to put women in a subservient role? Heck, men usually want to put other *men* in a subservient role. Your error, Seth, is in the assertion that feminists believe that the men and women are, or even started off, "equal". The obvious biological differences led to obvious differences in social roles. The--well I should say *A*--feminist position is that many of these role differences are no longer necessary, if they indeed ever were. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 25 Feb 86 [7 Ventose An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (02/27/86)
Read this twice, once for the :-) and once for the possibility of truth. In article <1270@decwrl.DEC.COM> jackson@curium.DEC (SETH JACKSON 297-4751) writes: >Some questions for all you feminists out there (men and women alike): >You claim that: >1) The sexes are both equal Wrong, some women are superior to some men! >2) Throughout hundreds of years of civilzation, a male-dominated > society has evolved Society wouldn't have evolved at all if women hadn't used men's vulnerability to sex to make them provide for the children (allowing WOMEN to train children to higher levels, because men lacked the stamina and patience for such work). >3) This situation continues to exist today, despite the efforts of > feminist organizations Women are discovering that their skills in "managing" children, negotiating with merchants..., is a valuable commodity in the business world! Most women aren't prepared for modern motherhood (any universities offer degrees in mothering? :-), but once they have mastered the art, they are ready for some rewarding work :-). Some women are smart, they skip motherhood and go directly to work in a rewarding career :-) >How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance? Just because a man can "run away from home" for a few hours a day doesn't mean he's the boss. >If the sexes are in fact equal, what motivation would men have for wanting >to put women in a subservient role? Women know that by letting the male FEEL superior, they'll fight less, and get more done. >Also, by what means have men managed throught history to >"keep women in their place"? Some women get trapped into feeling inferior by jerks who don't know how to appreciate them, including fathers, husbands and even sons. >I don't see much evidence that men are threatening women with guns or physical >violence, No, just the family paycheck. >so why do the majority of women cooperated throughout history The illusion was easy to maintain (still is, if men appreciate it). >and continue to cooperate with this male-dominated society? Co-operate yes, but now they are expecting a little more consideration, recognition, and pay for their TRUE role as the glue that holds this society together. Without them, men would have warred themselves to extinction by now. My boss is a women, the best man for the job. From: a male feminist :-)
jackson@curium.DEC (SETH JACKSON 297-4751) (02/28/86)
>> Some questions for all you feminists out there (men and women alike): >> >> [feminists claim that the sexes are equal]... >> >> How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance? If the >> sexes are in fact equal, what motivation would men have for wanting >> to put women in a subservient role? Also, by what means have men >> managed throught history to "keep women in their place"? I don't see >> much evidence that men are threatening women with guns or physical >> violence, so why do the majority of women cooperated throughout history >> and continue to cooperate with this male-dominated society? >> >> Seth Jackson >What choice do they have? Honestly, Seth, you are grasping at straws. >And even if your simplistic analysis were true, how would that justify >the situation? Grasping at straws? Analysis?? Justification??? What on Earth are you talking about? I've done nothing more than ask questions. > After all, humans have lived under tyrannical monarchs >for thousands of years. Many do even today. Does that make it right? >Why would men want to put women in a subservient role? Heck, men >usually want to put other *men* in a subservient role. > >Your error, Seth, is in the assertion that feminists believe that There were no assertions made in the above posting. Only questions. >the men and women are, or even started off, "equal". The obvious >biological differences led to obvious differences in social roles. >The--well I should say *A*--feminist position is that many of these >role differences are no longer necessary, if they indeed ever were. I think it's a safe (or at least a reasonable) assumption that biological differences in some way led to the evolution of different social roles. It's also reasonable to assume that the process of evolution works the same way in regard to traditions, customs, and social roles as it does for the evolution of species: over time, society adopts those roles customs that contibute to its ability to function smoothly and to perpetuate itself, and it discards those customs that detract from its ability to do so. Thus, the social roles that survive over time are those that meet some particular needs of society. Therefore, the question is: 1) What needs of society were met by allowing this so-called "male-dominant" role to evolve as the widely accepted standard? 2) What changes, if any, have occurred to make these roles obsolete? -- "Writing 'what for?' across the morning sky..." Seth Jackson
hrs@homxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (03/01/86)
I am really surprised to read Seth Jackson's implication that males hould be dominant because otherwise they would not have evolved as dominant through history! There are some historical reasons why males have become dominantin most cultures. These probably are their greater physical strength and the fact that they do not bear their young. In the current era, in societies where physical strength is not the criterion for survival, but mental ability is more important, equality between men and women is (slowly) coming about. What is a more interesting question, although academic as far as the equality issue is concerned, is why we have such extreme sexual diphormism in humans. It is hard to think of any mammal species where it is as great. Herman Silbiger ihnp4!homxb!hrs
aleksand@umcp-cs.UUCP (Richard Aleksandr) (03/02/86)
In article <439@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?) writes: > Wrong, some women are superior to some men! >>2) Throughout hundreds of years of civilzation, a male-dominated >> society has evolved > Society wouldn't have evolved at all if women hadn't used men's > vulnerability to sex to make them provide for the children > (allowing WOMEN to train children to higher levels, because > men lacked the stamina and patience for such work). etc., etc., etc. > >My boss is a women, the best man for the job. > >From: a male feminist :-) Hey shithead! You're not a male feminist, you're an idiot whatever the hell sex you are. Don't lump yourself together with other men. The men out here don't get down on their hands and knees and ask their wife to strap on the 10" dildo, as I have no doubt that you do. While your woman is getting into the fudge-packing and you're squealing like a pig in your high pitched voice, and yelling 'Shut up, you worthless wimp, or you're going to lick the dildo again!', there are men out here who go through life with no such insecurities as you seem to have- and women also. You'd better stick to perfecting your grunting and sucking technique and quit posting sickening atricles, slime. B. Dog
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (03/03/86)
In article <1270@decwrl.DEC.COM> jackson@curium.DEC (SETH JACKSON 297-4751) writes: >How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance? If the >sexes are in fact equal, what motivation would men have for wanting >to put women in a subservient role? The same motivations that caused them to import blacks to work as slaves. How can you help but profit by forcing someone else to do your bidding? > Also, by what means have men >managed throught history to "keep women in their place"? I don't see >much evidence that men are threatening women with guns or physical >violence, so why do the majority of women cooperated throughout history >and continue to cooperate with this male-dominated society? How about encouraging girls to go into low paying professions like teaching and nursing? Discouraging them from showing their intelligence, and keeping them away from math? Indoctrinating them with the idea that marriage is more important than career? Failing to provide child-care so they can work after having a child? (Am I starting to sound like Cheryl yet?) -- NASA employee: "These are REAL flight simulators!" Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (03/03/86)
In article <1290@homxb.UUCP> hrs@homxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) writes: >There are some historical reasons why males have become >dominantin most cultures. These probably are their greater >physical strength and the fact that they do not bear their >young. A related theory is that, around the time of the advent of written history, warrior cultures became dominant by conquering other cultures by physical force. Although some of these cultures (e.g. the Celtic) had strong female figures, most of them had the male warriors (who were not as bound to the home as women were in most early societies) as leaders. This theory thus puts forward the opinion that men are not "naturally" dominant, but that some cultures in which they did happen to be dominant became successful by crushing other cultures. >What is a more interesting question, although academic as far >as the equality issue is concerned, is why we have such extreme >sexual diphormism in humans. It is hard to think of any mammal >species where it is as great. Could you please explain what "diphormism" is? Is it a typo for "dimorphism", and even if so, could you please expand on what you mean? --Jamie. ...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews "Look at this tangle of thorns"
nancy@sdcc3.UUCP (Nancy ) (03/03/86)
(in response to historical male dominance proving male superiority) Yes, Seth, and blacks should be slaves, Jews should be burned, Christians should be fed to lions, Japanese should be put in internment camps, etc. (have I said enough) Please, Seth, tell me I misunderstood you. -- ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcc3!nancy
kathy@tolerant.UUCP (Kathy Kister) (03/05/86)
> > > > > > How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance? > > > Seth Jackson > > >It doesn't help matters that men believe that only male offspring can carry on the family blood line and that the female don't count. I would have thought that everyone was past this, but I am constantly surprised by the number of idiots (particularly, my fater-in-law) who believe this. Generally, only the male carries the family name and is the only way to insure "immorality".
monroe@andromeda.UUCP (Mary Monroe) (03/05/86)
In article <12@umcp-cs.UUCP>, aleksand@umcp-cs.UUCP (Richard Aleksandr) writes: > Hey shithead! You're not a male feminist, you're an idiot whatever the hell > B. Dog etc,etc,etc..... Is this guy for real, or what ? In the words of Bugs Bunny- "What a maroon"! Mr. Dog, if it wasn't so sad, I'd be laughing. ps-I know that responding just encourages this, but I just couldn't help it.
jsp@unccvax.UUCP (03/05/86)
> -- > > Some questions for all you feminists out there (men and women alike): > > > > [feminists claim that the sexes are equal]... > > > > How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance? If the > > sexes are in fact equal, what motivation would men have for wanting > > to put women in a subservient role? Also, by what means have men > > managed throught history to "keep women in their place"? I don't see > > much evidence that men are threatening women with guns or physical > > violence, so why do the majority of women cooperated throughout history > > and continue to cooperate with this male-dominated society? > > The 'roles' of the sexes have of necessity, been dictated by the means of survival of the era.
omo@mcnc.UUCP (03/05/86)
> >Some questions for all you feminists out there (men and women alike): > >You claim that: > > Throughout hundreds of years of civilzation, a male-dominated > >society has evolved > >How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance? > >Also, by what means have men > >managed throught history to "keep women in their place"? > >I don't see > >much evidence that men are threatening women with guns or physical > >violence, so why do the majority of women cooperated throughout history > >and continue to cooperate with this male-dominated society? >There are some historical reasons why males have become >dominant in most cultures. These probably are their greater >physical strength and the fact that they do not bear their >young. Yes. Perhaps this will give everyone a better understanding of how primitive conditions interact with male/female biology to produce the subservience of women: _________________ Excerpted without permission from Science, Vol 226, No 4676 (Nov 84): The Population Factor in Africa's Development Dilemma, Fred T. Sai ...The status of women is a matter of great concern to Africa. Perhaps the rural African woman is the most underprivileged of all human beings. Various social roles, cultural practices and the biological tasks imposed by fertility have combined to keep the average rural African woman close to a beast of burden... ...Maternal mortality rates are also very high: two to six deaths per 1,000 live births---that is, 100 to 500 times the western European rates. Thus the high population growth rates of Africa result from high fertility and relatively high mortality and are therefore achieved at a very high price in the lives and health of African women. By the time women complete their families, 50% of their cohort is dead.... ...The usual African fertility pattern is for childbearing to start as soon as it is biologically possible and stop at menopause. The total fertility rate per woman is between four and eight births, but mostly between six and eight. This very high fertility means the African woman spends between 18 and 20 years of her adult life in childbearing (that is, the interval between the first live birth and the last one), in comparison with 3 to 5 years for many more advanced countries. ...most women have traditionally handled most of the family food crop production and have therefore played a major role in agriculture... (My favorite line:) ...Her potential for other pursuits is therefore considerably reduced.... -------End of Article------ The suggestion that males are dominant because women fear rape and beating is probably somewhat of a simplification of the situation in primitive cultures, where it was not so much the threat of violence from the immediately `dominating' males (mate, brother, father, etc), but the threat of violence from a physically hostile environment, which included males. The biggest threat probably came from tribal warefare. Another threat would be predators. In an effort to survive, each tribe naturally depended upon their most physically strong (ie, males, not only because of raw physical power, but because they weren't pregnant and nursing babies all of the time) members to defend the community against these threats. This made these folks *very* valuable. Oh, sure, women had babies and grew a lot of food, but that's a long-term asset, and humans are incorrigibly short-term planners. Under these circumstances, I believe *I* would have seen males as more `valuable' than myself. After all, what good is being able to produce babies (most of which are dead before they reach the age of 2, anyway) and grow food, if the neighbors are likely to drop in and slaughter us all tomorrow night? My guess is that *women became subservient* (rather than men becoming dominant) in order to survive, and also developed conniving, manipulative, sexually competitive behaviors in order to attract and keep males that would protect them and their young.
rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman) (03/05/86)
In article <12@umcp-cs.UUCP> aleksand@maryland.UUCP (Richard aleksandr) writes: > >Hey shithead! ... > { bunch of obnoxious crap } >quit posting sickening atricles, slime. > B. Dog aleksand: 1. take your own advice 2. go see a shrink. you need one. 3. thank god for the "kill" file. it was made for articles like yours. needless to say that few people will ever read your postings again.
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (03/05/86)
In article <12@umcp-cs.UUCP> aleksand@maryland.UUCP (Richard aleksandr) writes: >Hey shithead! You're not a male feminist, you're an idiot whatever the hell >sex you are. Don't lump yourself together with other men. ... [a lot >of other offensive garbage] Hey, Bird Dog! If you're real, real lucky, one of these days you just might GROW UP. When (and if) you do, you're going to realize what being a REAL man is all about. And what being a human being is all about. When you're sitting there cleaning the Clearasil and old copies of Playboy with the pages stuck together out of your closet, remember these little juvenile exchanges. And feel properly embarrassed for your youthful idiocy. -- Toodles, Bill Ingogly
jackson@11367.DEC (SETH JACKSON 297-4751) (03/06/86)
>(in response to historical male dominance proving male superiority) >Yes, Seth, and blacks should be slaves, >Jews should be burned, Christians should be fed to lions, >Japanese should be put in internment camps, >etc. (have I said enough) > >Please, Seth, tell me I misunderstood you. OK, you misunderstood me. Nowhere in my posting did I attempt to prove male superiority or anything else. If you'll reread, you'll note that I simply raised some questions about why things are the way they are. The questions were raised in response to recent postings by women who expressed a great deal of hostility toward men, suggesting that men are involved in some kind of evil conspiracy against them. I'm simply trying to point out that this is not the case. My point is that the traditional gender roles evolved out of some need of society, and was mutually agreed upon by men and women at some point in time, as this arrangement allowed for a smoothly functioning society. Today, many women are attempting to change the traditional gender roles. Given that people are comfortable with the old way, it is to be expected that many people would fear and resist change. Rather than attempting to force change through self-righteous anger, it would be far more productive to understand why things are they way they are, and to convince people that the new way can work better for everybody than the old way. If you can't convince people of that, than perhaps change isn't such a good idea after all. -- "Without love in the dream it'll never come true" Seth Jackson
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (03/06/86)
> > Hey shithead! You're not a male feminist, you're an idiot whatever the hell > sex you are. Don't lump yourself together with other men. The men out here > don't get down on their hands and knees and ask their wife to strap on the > 10" dildo, as I have no doubt that you do. While your woman is getting into > the fudge-packing and you're squealing like a pig in your high pitched voice, > and yelling 'Shut up, you worthless wimp, or you're going to lick the dildo > again!', there are men out here who go through life with no such insecurities > as you seem to have- and women also. > > You'd better stick to perfecting your grunting and sucking technique and > quit posting sickening atricles, slime. > B. Dog There are all kinds of insults I could heap on B. Dog, but I don't want to start another pointless flame contest. I will just make the following suggestion: Either learn to express yourself in a civil manner, or get out. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
kathy@tolerant.UUCP (Kathy Kister) (03/07/86)
> > > > > > > > How do you account for the evolution of this male dominance? > > > > Seth Jackson > > > > >It doesn't help matters that men believe that only male offspring can carry > on the family blood line and that the female don't count. I would have thought > that everyone was past this, but I am constantly surprised by the number of > idiots (particularly, my fater-in-law) who believe this. Generally, only > the male carries the family name and is the only way to insure "immorality". Well, I really meant immortality, and you know it. But it was good for a laugh, wouldn't you agree? :wq >
terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) (03/08/86)
jackson@11367.DEC (SETH JACKSON 297-4751) says: >My point is that the traditional gender roles evolved out of >some need of society, and was mutually agreed upon by men and women >at some point in time, as this arrangement allowed for a smoothly >functioning society. I will agree with this statement. Those "traditional gender roles" are now in the process of changing, and both men and women are getting bent out of shape because of it. But, yes, the traditional roles _did_ provide for the needs of society, and not too long ago either. If you go back even 100-150 years, you would find a predominately agrarian society where families stayed together in a local area, on a farm. The man tilled the fields, herded the cattle/sheep/what-have-you, made sure house/barn/etc was in good repair and the like. The woman helped till the fields when necessary, often took sole responsibility for livestock (particularly chickens/sheep/goats), raised a garden, baked bread, hand-washed all laundry, made all the clothes, did all the housework sans modern appliances. The children helped out as age, size and propensity indicated. ALL INDIVIDUALS WERE MADE TO FEEL NEEDED AND WORTHWHILE! However, come the turn of the century/industrial revolution/whatever people started going to work in factories (men, women and children). Men went to work more because if they lived in the city there were no fields to till. They had more time to work. Women didn't because the laundry still had to be done by hand, the bread still was baked at home, and the budding home appliance industry was out of the average price range. Therefore, the woman still had a LOT of work to do at home. But, gradually, home appliances became relatively easy to acquire, and doing housework became relatively easy. Laundry--instead of a back-breaking, all-day job--became a matter of throwing the clothes in the washer, watching your favorite soap on TV, throwing the clothes in the dryer, watching your favorite soap on TV, and folding the clothes. No challenge, no effort, no feeling of satisfaction in a job well done because you really didn't do anything. Needless to say, women began to look around for more to do. Hence the beginning of the "changing traditional gender roles". And I don't blame anybody for it, but if I had to stay home all day long with only housework (2 hours max) facing me, I'd go stark raving mad. Consequently, I work. I enjoy my work. It gives me the satisfaction of a job well done. I think a lot of women are looking for that satisfaction, and don't feel they get it at home. DISCLAIMER: This is, of course, very simplistic and is only my assessment of the current state of "traditional gender roles". As I've stated before on this net, "I may be wrong. I've been wrong before, and I certainly expect to be wrong again at some point in time." Bye! -- \"\t\f1A\h'+1m'\f4\(mo\h'+1m'\f1the\h'+1m'\f4\(es\t\f1\c _______________________________________________________________________ Terry Grevstad Network Research Corporation ihnp4!nrcvax!terry {sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!terry ucbvax!calma!nrcvax!terry
ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (03/08/86)
In article <1530@decwrl.DEC.COM>, jackson@11367.DEC (SETH JACKSON 297-4751) writes: > [...] Nowhere in my posting did I attempt to prove > male superiority or anything else. If you'll reread, you'll note that > I simply raised some questions about why things are the way they are. I think people were responding to implicit assumptions in your questions. For example, *have you stopped beating your wife yet?* is a question, but there is propositional content to it. Yours had much propositional content, and the replies you have had so far seem to address that content quite well. Peter Ladkin
flackc@stolaf.UUCP (Chap Flack) (03/08/86)
> It doesn't help matters that men believe that only male offspring can carry > on the family blood line and that the female don't count. I would have thought > that everyone was past this, but I am constantly surprised by the number of > idiots (particularly, my fater-in-law) who believe this. Generally, only > the male carries the family name and is the only way to insure "immorality". ^--^--^--^ Was that intentional? :-) -- --------------------- Chap Flack ihnp4!stolaf!agnes!flackc Carleton College ihnp4!stolaf!flackc Northfield, MN 55057
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (03/09/86)
If a culture is to survive when pressured by adjacent cultures, it must
respond, and respond with aggression. This aggression may take the form of
open warfare of or more subtle hostility, but it nonetheless represents means
of coercion.
If a significant amount of a societies effort was expended in this
fashion, and if women were tied up bearing and caring for children, trying
to overwhelm the rather bad infant mortality odds, it seems likely that most
of the people who would be out patrolling, fighting, bargaining, etc., would
be men, who would grow more skilled in it; they would even be especially
trained for it. In fact, we see this happen in many less developed cultures.
If men grew more skillful at coercion than women, they might come to
predominate in the leadership of the society.
Anyone have a simpler explanation?
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat
(Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a!
mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat)
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.ingrid@pilchuckDataio.UUCP (the Real Swede) (03/11/86)
> In article <439@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?) writes: > > etc., etc., etc. > > >My boss is a women, the best man for the job. > > > >From: a male feminist :-) > > Hey shithead! You're not a male feminist, you're an idiot whatever the hell > sex you are. Don't lump yourself together with other men. The men out here > don't get down on their hands and knees and ask their wife to strap on the > 10" dildo ... > B. Dog *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR FLABERGASTED MESSAGE *** Who the hell are you, to employ such foul language on a public system! I've seen some flames in my time, but this crap takes the cake. If you don't have the decency or intelligence to rotate or censor your postings, LEAVE THEM AT HOME, WEIRDO!!!
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (03/13/86)
In article <1235@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > > If a culture is to survive when pressured by adjacent cultures, it must >respond, and respond with aggression. This aggression may take the form of >open warfare of or more subtle hostility, but it nonetheless represents means >of coercion. > > If a significant amount of a societies effort was expended in this >fashion, and if women were tied up bearing and caring for children, trying >to overwhelm the rather bad infant mortality odds, it seems likely that most >of the people who would be out patrolling, fighting, bargaining, etc., would >be men, who would grow more skilled in it; they would even be especially >trained for it. In fact, we see this happen in many less developed cultures. > > If men grew more skillful at coercion than women, they might come to >predominate in the leadership of the society. So, perhaps this dominance arose when the human population density finally got high enough that pressure from adjacent cultures was a common occurrence? And the time when females were dominant was before this? Sounds reasonable. And what will happen if the "global village" ever becomes reality? Will females dominate again? Horrors! Quick, Watson, the bazookas!! :-) Jeff Winslow
nazgul@apollo.uucp (Kee Hinckley) (03/14/86)
In article <1235@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > > If a culture is to survive when pressured by adjacent cultures, it must > respond, and respond with aggression. This aggression may take the form of > open warfare of or more subtle hostility, but it nonetheless represents means > of coercion. ... Hmmm. There have been some cultures that were very non-aggressive. The Hopi come to mind, but I may be wrong. Does anyone offhand know what the status of women in such cultures is? My recollection is that women do indeed have much more equal status. -kee -- ...decvax!wanginst!apollo!nazgul There was a man in our town, An Astrophysicist, Who found a place In Hyperspace By just a twist of the wrist. But when he sought the Near Now And gave another twist, He found that he'd Become somehow A Cyberneticist. A Space Child's Mother Goose
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (03/17/86)
In article <1235@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > > If a culture is to survive when pressured by adjacent cultures, it must > respond, and respond with aggression. This aggression may take the form of > open warfare of or more subtle hostility, but it nonetheless represents > means of coercion. > ... Look all the way back to the social organization of upper primates, such as gorillas. Gorillas suffer from high infant mortality just as primitive human cultures do, and if a mother dies, her child will almost certainly die as well. In such a situation, it's clear that you'd rather have the males doing the life-threatening work (such as driving off big cats), since you lose only one group member if a male dies, but at least two if a mother dies. In human cultures, the same situations applied. If the women didn't have lots of kids, the population would dwindle. If the women took up dangerous professions, such as soldiering or seafaring, it would put their kids at risk, or increase the chances that they wouldn't have kids, and the population would dwindle. While the root reason for all this is that men were ultimately more expendable, it also worked out that the men who went trading, raiding, or soldiering became more powerful than the people who stayed at home. -- Robert Plamondon UUCP: {turtlevax, cae780}!weitek!robert FidoNet: 143/12 robert plamondon Disclaimer: It wasn't me! The check is in the mail! They made me do it! It was an accident!
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (03/19/86)
> > If a culture is to survive when pressured by adjacent cultures, it must > > respond, and respond with aggression. This aggression may take the form of > > open warfare of or more subtle hostility, but it nonetheless represents means > > of coercion. > > Hmmm. There have been some cultures that were very non-aggressive. The > Hopi come to mind, but I may be wrong. Does anyone offhand know what the > status of women in such cultures is? My recollection is that women do > indeed have much more equal status. > The Hopi were/are a matriarchial society. Several generations of women in the same family live together and bring in husbands - men marry out into other women's groupings. -- jcpatilla ..{seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!aplcen!osiris!jcp If you pick nits, you have to eat them. It's the polite thing to do.
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (03/20/86)
> In article <1235@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > > > > If a culture is to survive when pressured by adjacent cultures, it must > >respond, and respond with aggression. This aggression may take the form of > >open warfare of or more subtle hostility, but it nonetheless represents means > >of coercion. > > . . . > > If men grew more skillful at coercion than women, they might come to > >predominate in the leadership of the society. > > So, perhaps this dominance arose when the human population density finally > got high enough that pressure from adjacent cultures was a common occurrence? > And the time when females were dominant was before this? Sounds reasonable. > > And what will happen if the "global village" ever becomes reality? Will > females dominate again? > > Horrors! Quick, Watson, the bazookas!! :-) > > Jeff Winslow My suspicion is that before competition between other clans/tribes/tribal nations became a significant factor, competition from the environment began the process. Note, however, that in the frontierlands of this country, where the environment was the major competition, very often women had (locally) as much authority as men ... there was too much to do to spend energy and time governing or dominating. And I suspect that, apart from the (admittedly considerable) asymmetries, of childbearing and child-rearing, in very young societies, there was not a major distinction between the authority of men and the authority of women. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
polard@suntek.UUCP (Henry Polard) (03/25/86)
In article <714@osiris.UUCP> jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) writes: > The Hopi were/are a matriarchial society. Several generations of >women in the same family live together and bring in husbands - men marry >out into other women's groupings. The Hopi, as well as several extemely patriarchial societies (such as the ancient Hebrews) are MATRILINEAL. It seems to me also that in most such societies, women are not oppressed as much as in most patrilineal societies. In MATRIARCHIES, women hold most of the power. I know of no well-documented matriarchies. The Hopi, according to SUN CHIEF and other books I have read, are run by the men for the most part. Could someone provide references about any true matriarchies? Thanks. >If you pick nits, you have to eat them. It's the polite thing to do. Munch. Say, I bet these things'd be great in a beer batter... -- Henry Polard (You bring the flames, I'll bring the marshmallows.) hplabs!nsc!voder!suntek
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (03/28/86)
This message is empty.
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (03/28/86)
<Well, here i go, walking on eggs again...>
I'm reporting on 2 ideas that i just read about, concerning why, in
prehistoric times, men were the bread-winners and women raised the
children. I'm sure that the enlightened, open-minded community which
contributes to this newsgroup will treat these ideas on their merits.{
These ideas from 2 anthropologists were recently reported in a magazine
article[1].
1.) Women in early big-game hunting societies did not get the chance
to hunt because of menstrual dysfunctions...If early woman joined
the hunts often enough, it would have endangered her reproductive
potential....There may indeed have been some societies where women
hunted, and because of it these societies did not survive. "Those
societies where women did not go out and hunt are the ones that
reproduced and survived."
[Women's] role as child bearer and rearer was more important to
the band than any of her desires to run after mammoths. "Men,"
Graham says,"are[sic] much more expendable than women." They
could be killed or maimed on a hunt, and the band would still survive.
2.) DeRios thinks that the reproductive odors a woman[sic] emits may
have been what excluded them from hunts. Animals..."would either
have fled or attacked" a band that included a woman.
----------
I'm not very interested in the topic personnaly, and have not thought much
about it, so my personal opinion isn't worth the cost of transmission.
Al Algustyniak
[1] "But, Oog, She Throws Like a Girl", Insight magazine, 10 Feb, 1986.nazgul@apollo.uucp (Kee Hinckley) (03/29/86)
In article <145@suntek.UUCP> polard@suntek.UUCP (Henry polard) writes: > In article <714@osiris.UUCP> jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) writes: > > The Hopi were/are a matriarchial society. Several generations of > >women in the same family live together and bring in husbands - men marry > >out into other women's groupings. > The Hopi, as well as several extemely patriarchial societies > (such as the ancient Hebrews) are MATRILINEAL. ... > In MATRIARCHIES, women hold most of the power. I know of no well-documented > matriarchies. The Hopi, according to SUN CHIEF and other books ... > Could someone provide references about any true matriarchies? Thanks. When I get home (if I get home?) I will try and remember to look through my notes, but I believe you are correct. I seem to remember that people have tried, but never found a society that was truely matriarchal. As a bizarre aside this reminds me of a paper I wrote. If you want a really strange society, consider Anne McCaffrey's Pern. There are three different methods of descent, depending on whether you belong to a Guild, one of the landowner holds, or to a dragon hold. (I may have the terminology wrong). The dragon holds are patriarchal, but the passage of power is matrilineal through the dragons! -kee -- ...decvax!wanginst!apollo!nazgul This is the Mummery Hiding the Flaw That lay in the Theory Jack built. A Space Child's Mother Goose (8 more messages to finish this poem!)