Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 29th, 2016, 07:23 PM   #571
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 436

Monogamy is contrary to patriarchy. Patriarchal societies are polygamous, specifically polygynous, witness the Arabs and ancient Chinese.

The notion that a strong emphasis on goddess worship used to be typical of prehistoric culture is wishful thinking. Aboriginal cultures, which are the actual living evidence, show no such aspect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
zoetropo is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 30th, 2016, 04:39 AM   #572

Tammuz's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Munich
Posts: 36

Quote:
Originally Posted by xander.XVII View Post
In other words, nuclear family proved to be the only successful model in the majority of world societies throughout history and across continents?
No, in my view it is not. I think you were saying this, not me. I wrote:

Quote:
Since the nuclear family is the basic core of this system, in my view this concept can´t really be called ´successful´, measured against modern ethical criteria.
Of course, this assessment depends on the used criterion. I chose the ethical criterion which is in my view most crucial for the assessment of a cultural level. Moreover, patriarchy has outpaced pre-patriarchal (= matriarchal or egalitarian) systems all over the world exactly because it chose warfare and slavery as a means to come out on top. Thus, its ´success´ compared to other systems is based on violence and nothing else. In other words, to call the achievements of patriarchy a ´success´ is pure Darwinism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetropo View Post
Monogamy is contrary to patriarchy. Patriarchal societies are polygamous, specifically polygynous, witness the Arabs and ancient Chinese.
I wrote:
Quote:
Of course, males were allowed to maintain multiple relationships (...) what was abolished only by Judaism and by Christianity.
So monogamy is not "contrary" to patriarchy but a special case of it. Contrary to patriarchy is either the absence of marriage in any form or a marriage of the type ´one wife/multiple husbands´ (polyandry). This type has occurred in history very rarely.

In Mesopotamia it seems to have existed along with polygyny in the 3th mill. BCE, as the juridicial ´reforms´ of King Urukagina of Lagash in the 24th century BCE show which illegalized polyandry under penalty of stoning a contravening female. Another new law by this king was the permission for a husband to knock out the teeth of his wife in case she utters something what goes against the grain of him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetropo View Post
The notion that a strong emphasis on goddess worship used to be typical of prehistoric culture is wishful thinking. Aboriginal cultures, which are the actual living evidence, show no such aspect.
So-called ´aboriginal´ cultures are long since infected by patriarchy, which had its beginnings so many millennia in the past that there was enough time to spread its ideas all over the planet. Is there any evidence that these aboriginal cultures had no goddess-centered faith in the last - let us say - five or six millennia? Of course, there is not such evidence. So, the present state of these cultures says nothing about their state in the past millennia.

It´s not just ´wishful thinking´ that the earliest cultures were goddess-centered. A close look to Sumerian, Egyptian, Aegean and Chinese religion shows clearly that goddesses were dominant in prehistoric times. I will come back to this point in a special thread in the near future.

Last edited by Tammuz; December 30th, 2016 at 06:39 AM.
Tammuz is offline  
Old January 7th, 2017, 03:46 PM   #573

Domnall Ballach's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2016
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tammuz View Post
Moreover, patriarchy has outpaced pre-patriarchal (= matriarchal or egalitarian) systems all over the world exactly because it chose warfare and slavery as a means to come out on top. Thus, its ´success´ compared to other systems is based on violence and nothing else. In other words, to call the achievements of patriarchy a ´success´ is pure Darwinism
Come now, no-one has ever gone to war over methods of marriage! The reason monogamy is successful is because it allows everyone to get married, ending the population bottlenecks that beset Mesolithic tribes and engaging all men within the social system (thereby stabilising tribes, nations, and states).

Quote:
So-called ´aboriginal´ cultures are long since infected by patriarchy, which had its beginnings so many millennia in the past that there was enough time to spread its ideas all over the planet. Is there any evidence that these aboriginal cultures had no goddess-centered faith in the last - let us say - five or six millennia? Of course, there is not such evidence. So, the present state of these cultures says nothing about their state in the past millennia
1) Assumptions about ancient cultures - i.e., the basis of nearly everything you're saying - aren't valid if they're not backed up by evidence.
2) An inability to prove something wasn't does not constitute proof it was.

Very, very shoddy.

Quote:
It´s not just ´wishful thinking´ that the earliest cultures were goddess-centered. A close look to Sumerian, Egyptian, Aegean and Chinese religion shows clearly that goddesses were dominant in prehistoric times. I will come back to this point in a special thread in the near future.
Goddesses being present does not mean 'goddess-centred.' You'll notice that all the pantheon chiefs were male. Also none of those civilisations you wrote of are prehistoric.
Domnall Ballach is offline  
Old January 11th, 2017, 07:42 AM   #574

Tammuz's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Munich
Posts: 36

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domnall Ballach View Post
Come now, no-one has ever gone to war over methods of marriage! The reason monogamy is successful is because it allows everyone to get married, ending the population bottlenecks that beset Mesolithic tribes and engaging all men within the social system (thereby stabilising tribes, nations, and states).
The question is not whether monogamy is ´successful´ but whether the patriarchal system connected with it can be called ´successful´.

I hold that it can be called this way only from a Darwinistic view because its success is anchored in violence. You speak of "stabilising (...) states", but you fail to mention (though you should know, as a historian) that from the beginning of patriarchy, this so-called stabilization was intrinsically based on slavery. In Sumer, for example, enslavement started with capturing people from beyond Sumer and later involved war prisoners from within Sumer. In the first case, non-Sumerian tribes were often raided especially for the purpose of enslaving them. The male slaves were used as workers (sometimes blinded to prevent escape) while the females mostly served as concubines, that is, sex slaves. Moreover, the institution of concubinage shows how patriarchy handled monogamy in practice: females were forbidden to have more than one love-mate while males were allowed to have a number of such.

As long as you don´t take into account these circumstances and don´t bring them up, your appearingly positive picture of the patriarchal system is incomplete and kind of ideological.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domnall Ballach View Post
Goddesses being present does not mean 'goddess-centred.' You'll notice that all the pantheon chiefs were male. Also none of those civilisations you wrote of are prehistoric.
Of course, they are not, but a close look on their religions shows that goddesses must have been of primal importance in prehistoric religion. In Sumer, for example, the fertility and heaven goddess Inanna was the most important deity until the time of Sargon the Great (ca. 2,300 BCE) who gave thanks to Inanna on the occasion of his military achievements. According to an Akkadian legend, it was Inanna who made Sargon´s (usurpative) kingship at all possible. This goddess was, furthermore, the most venerated deity in Sumer at all, with temples in at least 13 cities. This importance is only explainable by the rooting of this goddess in a type of prehistoric fertility goddess superior to any prehistoric male deity. Otherwise, one can not explain how a female deity could have achieved such a significance.

The strongest argument for prehistoric priority of goddesses is maybe the parthenogenetic capacity of many of them. Take the Greek Gaia, Hera, and Nyx, take the Sumerian Nammu, take the Egyptian Hathor and Nut. It is impossible to explain the parthenogenetic capacity of these deities on the basis of prehistoric priority of males gods. Patriarchy involves male´s proudness of his fertility. Why should patriarchal priests devise goddesses able to give birth to children without male participation? This make no sense. So parthenogenetic goddesses present some evidence that in pre-patriarchal times fertility was originally assumed to be exclusively female, and not male.

Furthermore, the famous ´Seated Woman´ of Catal Huyuk (7th mill. BCE) is evidently a forerunner of the most important Anatolian goddess Cybele. Show me any historic male deity which can be traced back to a Neolithic god as early as the 7th mill. BCE - you´ll find none.

In Chinese religion, the oracle goddess Nu Gua is the most important creator deity since the creation of mankind is ascribed to her. Do you really think that this is a patriarchal fantasy? No, this idea is prehistoric and non-patriarchal.

Last edited by Tammuz; January 11th, 2017 at 09:06 AM.
Tammuz is offline  
Old January 12th, 2017, 04:45 AM   #575
Lecturer
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: Australia
Posts: 319

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abhishek View Post
The biggest victim of feminism have been women themselves, followed by institution of family.

Feminism ,or to accurate people who pushed concepts of feminism, indulged in social engineering in which they changed social beliefs such that it not only became norm for women to work, but also something that was linked to a self worth of women, with housewives being treated as losers. This meant that beckies of the world got their "right to work" (against which there was no law anyway) and got liberated. OR did they?

90%+ work/jobs in this world are drudge repetitive jobs, needing just average to low IQ drones. Just because you work in an air-conditioned office doe not mean that your job would be satisfying. What beckies of the world got from feminism was an opportunity to do as much a drudge work as their husbands, be equally miserable, with both of them paid less than their parents, and then drown their sorrow in a bottle of rum after work, and destroy their family life.

The biggest beneficiary of this social change have been big capitalist corporations, followed by man hating lesbodykes. I see a lot of half educated people wondering "why wages have remain stagnant since 1970's?" (This one exclusive to Americans);"Why is it that our parents could manage their household on one income, but we cannot manage it even on two?". I means no **** sherlock. Your parents used to manage their household on single income because at that time only one of the parent use to work; but since now both of you are working, what has happened is that you have effectively doubled supply of labour in a single generation. This oversupply of labour (which entered market gradually, else it would have cause collapse of wages, rather than stagnation) have cause wage stagnation, and now two of you, putting nearly double the effort your parent put, and still paid a combined effective pay that is similar to your parent. This is demand-supply 101. And let's not even talk about harmful effect of absentee mother has on development on Children. This effect is well documented by psychologists, and absentee parents ,and permissive and uninvolved parenting has been one of the reason for rise of generation of safe space hogging SJW crybully twits. And that is if there is a family to begin with, as work related stress lead to domestic conflict, and wage stagnation meant that raising kids become prohibitively costly leading to depression in birth rates.

And the worst of this affair is that most of women may not have chosen this life. Once a substantial amount of women buy into this propaganda that their self worth is dependent on their job or what they earn, and they enter workforce, they increase supply of labour and stagnate wages while inflation/cost of living keep on increasing, the women who were not interested to work in a decorated sweatshop , has to join in to sustain family.


Idea of 'working women' was pushed by big capitalists (where does all the money for tenure in useless disciplines and media comes from?) who gained most from wage stagnation, and since this phenomenon has maxed out and wages could not depress further on its account, those similar elites are pushing for "moar refugees" as influx of surplus labour would ensure that wages remain effectively stagnant for one more generation, after which automation would replace need for labour in nearly every ,but most intellectually rigorous, jobs; and the social order at that point would be cast in stone with a permanent royalty and a rabble of bottom feeders who could never rise up to them in any circumstance.

It is amusing to watch how people regularly fall for brainwashing propaganda ,which is disastrous for their own interest, with such a regularity. This is true for people on both side of political spectrum.

Elites of today is not nobility of past. They do not depend on land and military prowess for their status. Their hold on society is in direct relation to their ability to manipulate brainless hordes of sheep using mass media by funding right kind of people who would bring around the changes they want. This is not only evident in case of labour related policies, but also in manufacturing societal divisions as a divided society is much easier to control than an undivided one.
This is a good post although it is well worth remembering that women in previous generations also worked - typically in factories, markets etc... often when they were still raising children.
The full time house-wife is a bit of a upper-middle/upper class phenomena that is often perpetuated by Hollywood golden age films and popular culture but it isn't quite as prevalent as is portrayed.
The other thing today is the amount of consumable **** people buy. I know women that own over 30 pairs of shoes.... Why anyone needs so many shoes baffles me. Recently I took a drive to a rural town and spoke to an old lady in an info centre who would have been about 80 years of age. She came from a family of nearly 10 brothers and sisters - now I got onto the subject of how life was when she was younger and she said that growing up she had 1 outfit that was for dressing up aside from some regular clothing.

1 outfit and 1 pair of shoes for special occasions - people were just a lot less materialist in previous generations.
Redaxe is offline  
Old January 12th, 2017, 07:49 PM   #576
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2013
From: Agraphur
Posts: 684

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redaxe View Post
This is a good post although it is well worth remembering that women in previous generations also worked - typically in factories, markets etc... often when they were still raising children.
The full time house-wife is a bit of a upper-middle/upper class phenomena that is often perpetuated by Hollywood golden age films and popular culture but it isn't quite as prevalent as is portrayed.
Not really, people of today just lack the understanding about how hard and time consuming housework once was. Spinning, sewing clothes from scratch, and mending them, preserving food without refrigerator, Cleaning a house without a vacuum or real access to hot water.
It's amusing that feminists of today project their own experiences on housework not being a big deal, dismissing women's main contribution to history like they were lazy and not smart enough to see through the patriarchy.
Yezdigerd is offline  
Old January 12th, 2017, 08:34 PM   #577

VHS's Avatar
VHS
Viable Human Solutions
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: An inconsequital planet
Posts: 3,102

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yezdigerd View Post
Not really, people of today just lack the understanding about how hard and time consuming housework once was. Spinning, sewing clothes from scratch, and mending them, preserving food without refrigerator, Cleaning a house without a vacuum or real access to hot water.
It's amusing that feminists of today project their own experiences on housework not being a big deal, dismissing women's main contribution to history like they were lazy and not smart enough to see through the patriarchy.
Of course, today's technology reduce the workloads of houseworks.
Washing machines and dryers alone have saved much time and energy.
Rice cookers allow children to have basic culinary skills.
Stainless steel knives? I cannot imagine using carbon steel knives in kitchens today, but I can safely say that ceramic knives do not worth the hype.
Yes, feminism may have derailed, but this poster is still worthy of attention today!

Click the image to open in full size.

Of course, certain boys and men's magazines also suffer from over attention on physique (note: I have put Chinese medicine as one of my hobby, so I know that the physical build of Arnold Schwarzenegger does not equal physical health), women, material possessions, or more.
Yes, aspirations are important.
VHS is online now  
Old January 23rd, 2017, 09:25 PM   #578
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Vatican occupied America
Posts: 624

Simple past Feminism was about gender equality, modern feminists are not about that they're trolls trying to offend men and idiots blaming them for their lives which to be a hardcore troll have to be extremely empty combined with their dark hearts. Worst of all they don't even know they're trolls.
Disciple of Sophia is offline  
Old January 24th, 2017, 12:45 PM   #579

holoow's Avatar
Uncivilized barbarian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Vilnius, Lithuania
Posts: 3,304

Men were sacrificed in place of women throughout all time and it's OK, not oppression. Seriously, any supporter of feminism must be totally dishonest.
holoow is online now  
Old January 24th, 2017, 02:49 PM   #580

Edric Streona's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Japan
Posts: 2,717

It's a broad umbrella.

There are sensible ones who just fight abuse of women and for equal rights.
Then there are hateful bigoted ones who are the equivalent of angry white guys. Bitter hateful trolls.
Edric Streona is online now  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
dirty, feminism, word



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Steven Pinker defends Equity Feminism and criticizes Gender Feminism Sharks And L0ve Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 6 March 10th, 2017 06:04 PM
Word for word translation of Livy's description of triplex acies OctaBech Ancient History 2 March 7th, 2017 02:02 PM
Is "Orientalism" still a dirty word? timdog General History 12 May 27th, 2011 07:52 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.