Matriarchial Societies

[Lucius]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

Women significantly outnumbering men comes to mind.

 

Um, no.

 

The other way around.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Everybody outnumbers the palindromedary

[Lucius]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

Men will not be obsolete as long as there is furniture to be moved, things stored on high shelves, or bugs to squish.

 

Midas

 

I have one word for you: robots.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary provides a few more; androids, eunuchs, trained apes, lower shelves, taller women....

[McCoy]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

I know the Navajo were matrilocal' date=' but what were their divorce customs like and how were decisions of public policy made?[/quote']

Women could unilaterally divorce their husbands for any or no reason by putting their stuff outside the house.

 

Decisions of public policy were generally the older women discussed the problem until a consensus was reached. Men could decide where and what to hunt, or to go to war. All other decisions, what to plant, where to build new houses, the design of a new irrigation system, were made by the women.

 

On the Rez there is now a formal, elected government, but from what I hear the grandmothers sill have a lot of informal influence.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

Overall I really don't think it would be that different. Different gender predominantly in charge, different group decision-making styles in some cases, different degrees of emphasis on some things. But to imagine it would be a totally male-devoid society or one otherwise unrecognizeable would be stretching it.

 

If it's a case where women are the more aggressive ones and men are more submissive, some gender roles have switched but society would be pretty recognizeable.

 

If it's a case where women are "traditional" women but have managed to become the top of the heap, again some gender roles switch but not that far off from "normal" society.

 

IMO, etc. but based on my experiences growing up in a "matriarchal" society of my divorced mom and her divorced friends, and working in a predominantly female work group/workplace.

[McCoy]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

I hadn't heard that the Navajo were matriarchial (women were dominant' date=' made all the major descision, held more temporal power than men, etc). Nothing I've read brought it up. Tell me more?[/quote']

Depends on what you mean by dominant, major descisions, and held more temporal power.

 

As I said, a man owed his weapons. After the tribe was introduced to the horse, this included his saddle. The women owned everything else. Women could unilaterally divorce their husbands by putting his stuff outside her house. So while a man owned his saddle, he put it on his wife's horse. Annoy her sufficently and he's on foot.

 

Men hunted. If they wanted to eat anything other than game they killed and cooked themselves, they had to get it from their mother, their sister, or their wife. Women controled agriculture, planted, irrigated, tilled, harvested and cooked. They also took care of the few domesticated animals, dogs, and later horses and sheep.

 

Children belonged to their mother's family. It did not matter if their father was her husband, aother Navajo, or even a man of the Pueblo or Apache (young men from other tirbes were known to rade and rape when they could get away with it, hence the need of most of the men of the tribe to patrol their territory when not hunting). There was no concept of bastardry. Principal male role model for the children was their mother's brother, who was expected to take over his nephew's education shortly before puberty.

 

Most artifacts were made by women, they threw the pots, wove the baskets, worked leather, spun the thread and weaved the cloth. Cannot find one way or the other if this included making weapons, suspect it did. A few older men were also artisans, but for the most part they had been injured and could no longer hunt or fight.

 

So while the women did not tell the men how to hunt or organize their war parties, the men were fed, clotherd, and equiped at the sufferance of their female relatives. If wife, mom and sis all say "No," the answer is "No!"

 

Seems like temporal power to me.

[McCoy]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

One personal example, at my cousin's wedding, when I, a man, carried a folding chair into the hogan there were some dirty looks. When I opened it, and my sister sat on it, people visibly relaxed, and by the time the ceremony started six or seven women were sitting on chairs, while all the men sat on the ground.

[Alverant]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

If all else fails you can have a female-dominated religion in a theocracy. Women are the child-bearers. A theology could argue that logically the Creator was a woman and would make women, the gender who bears children, first and man second. (In the Real World we have the notion of Mother Nature and related Gaia deities.) In such a religion women would hold all the spiritual power and wield it in secular matters. I'm thinking a structure like the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages.

 

I also remember about a Greek play where the women refused to be intimate with their husbands until they stop making war. I'm sure that can be worked into things. I'm tired so I can't connect these thoughts right now. Goodnight.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

I also remember about a Greek play where the women refused to be intimate with their husbands until they stop making war.

 

Lysistrata. By Sophocles, I think.

[Vestnik]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

Lysistrata. By Sophocles' date=' I think.[/quote']

 

Aristophanes. Sophocles wrote tragedies.

[OddHat]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

Lysistrata. By Sophocles' date=' I think.[/quote']

 

Aristophanes. Sophocles wrote tragedies.

 

Being denied heterosexual sex isn't a tragedy?

 

Not if you're a classical era Greek.

 

Thanks, I'll be here all week.

 

(The above statement does not reflect the opinions or policies of HERO games, it's affiliates or lackeys. No classical era Greeks were harmed in the making of this post.)

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

Aristophanes. Sophocles wrote tragedies.

 

Thanks. Something didn't seem quite right about that. It's been several years since I've read any Greek drama.

 

 

 

Hey, at least I knew enough that I don't say his name to rhyme with "bifocals"...

[FenrisUlf]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

You can make the same case that cloning and artificial wombs eliminate the "need" for women' date=' but it doesn't show up as often in sci-fi, probably because a society of hot gay men is much more frightening to the average male sci-fi fan than a world of hot lesbians.[/quote']

 

The Italian Futurists might have liked it though. Well, except maybe for the whole 'gay' part, as they figured on sex vanishing after technoogy replaced women.

[Clonus]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

 

You can make the same case that cloning and artificial wombs eliminate the "need" for women, but it doesn't show up as often in sci-fi, probably because a society of hot gay men is much more frightening to the average male sci-fi fan than a world of hot lesbians.

 

Are they scarier when they are a world of hot telepathic men?

[Karmakaze]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

Are they scarier when they are a world of hot telepathic men?

 

You read Ethan of Athos, too?

[ThatDarnCat]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

The concept of women being weak and evil comes from the rise of some modern religions, two specific religions that I will not name but you can guess at. After all you have to blame somefur for those lustful thoughts if they will send you to hell. "The rape wasn't my fault; it was the woman, she made me lust after her by batting her eyelashes so seductively."

 

I have never found a matriarchal culture that wasn't artificial, but one of the best justifications is from Paladium games. When a ship runs aground on an island and the only spellcasters to survive are women, those survivors choose to make the men the lesser sex by force. As time goes on those who knew another way of life die out and you are left with the new society with no other known form of Gov't.

 

I created a Matrilinial society for my fantasy game world because that makes more sense in a world where men are larger and stronger. You will always know who your mother is so the sperm donor is less important in a survivalist culture.

[OddHat]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

The concept of women being weak and evil comes from the rise of some modern religions' date=' two specific religions that I will not name but you can guess at.[/quote']

 

Fisher and other anthropologists interested in gender issues have made a pretty good case for agriculture and resulting developments in land and property ownership being the major player in the decline in women's status versus men's status in post-Hunter/Gatherer societies. When the primary food source was tied to a single location, and when growing populations meant that migration to new areas had a higher social and physical cost, the importance of martial ability increased; that was an area where men had an advantage in the time of muscle powered weapons. Men became land owners, and in turn the dominant force in society and in the family (there were exceptions, where land ownership rights were not exclusively a male prerogative, and in those groups women's status remained higher). Religion changed to match this new social and economic reality.

 

We can't attribute the change on any one religion, as the same change was visible in every primarily agricultural culture, including China, Europe, and the Indian sub-continent. It also well pre-dated modern religions (Judeo-Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism).

[Clonus]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

The concept of women being weak and evil comes from the rise of some modern religions' date=' [/quote']

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora

 

In Greek mythology, Pandora ("all-gifted") was the first woman. Zeus ordered Hephaestus to create her as part of the punishment of mankind for Prometheus' theft of the secret of fire,

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

Yeah, the concept of women as "inferior" is almost universal, regardless of religious belief. Joss Whedon has a few things to say about it. While his rant includes Muslim and Christian influences, he talks about the ubiquity of the belief.

 

It's definitely a recommended read.

[Lucius]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

One thing troubles me about this idea.

 

Granted, it is very hard to say in what ways the two genders ACTUALLY differ innately as opposed to how they have been culturally programmed. And I will insert here all the usual caveats and disclaimers pertaining to generalizations.

 

But I think one of the major differences is this; women are far more driven to reproduce than men are. Men are very powerfully driven to have sex which can often lead to reproduction but doesn't have to if one is careful.

 

Just consider the facts of childbirth. Let alone the miserable months leading up to it, if the act of bringing forth is nearly as painful as it's said to be, and I were at risk of that every time I had sex, I'd swear a vow of celibacy. I can't imagine going through that ordeal by choice, and yet some women volunteer for it multiple times. I think it's obvious that having children is something women, in general

want very much. Very much indeed.

 

Now, even in our world as it is, overpopulation is a serious problem that some despair of solving. It's hard enough to get people to stop expanding the population recklessly as it is. In a world with the same technologies available, but where the people making all the decisions are the very ones who are MOST likely to want to bring more people into the world no matter what (and if the agony of childbirth and all the other attendent problems don't constitute a deterrent, I can't imagine what would - that's why I say "no matter what") wouldn't we have a far more crowded and overpopulated planet than we already do?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Did the palindromedary eat my tagline?

[OddHat]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

One thing troubles me about this idea.

 

Granted, it is very hard to say in what ways the two genders ACTUALLY differ innately as opposed to how they have been culturally programmed. And I will insert here all the usual caveats and disclaimers pertaining to generalizations.

 

But I think one of the major differences is this; women are far more driven to reproduce than men are. Men are very powerfully driven to have sex which can often lead to reproduction but doesn't have to if one is careful.

 

Just consider the facts of childbirth. Let alone the miserable months leading up to it, if the act of bringing forth is nearly as painful as it's said to be, and I were at risk of that every time I had sex, I'd swear a vow of celibacy. I can't imagine going through that ordeal by choice, and yet some women volunteer for it multiple times. I think it's obvious that having children is something women, in general

want very much. Very much indeed.

 

Now, even in our world as it is, overpopulation is a serious problem that some despair of solving. It's hard enough to get people to stop expanding the population recklessly as it is. In a world with the same technologies available, but where the people making all the decisions are the very ones who are MOST likely to want to bring more people into the world no matter what (and if the agony of childbirth and all the other attendent problems don't constitute a deterrent, I can't imagine what would - that's why I say "no matter what") wouldn't we have a far more crowded and overpopulated planet than we already do?

 

In every modern country where women have reached something close to economic, social, and educational parity with men, the birth rate has dropped. I'd say that more women working outside of the home (if that's how it worked out) would likely mean a world wide population crash rather than a boom.

[Clonus]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

 

Now, even in our world as it is, overpopulation is a serious problem that some despair of solving. It's hard enough to get people to stop expanding the population recklessly as it is. In a world with the same technologies available, but where the people making all the decisions are the very ones who are MOST likely to want to bring more people into the world no matter what (and if the agony of childbirth and all the other attendent problems don't constitute a deterrent, I can't imagine what would - that's why I say "no matter what") wouldn't we have a far more crowded and overpopulated planet than we already do?

?

 

No. Yes, a lot of women want to hold their baby in their arms. That doesn't translate into an abstract general desire to have everyone else reproduce more or even to have a really large family for themselves. Women have been leaders in the cause to develop and legitimise birth control because it acutely relates to their self interest.

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

*nods*

 

It seems that, given nothing better to accomplish, women will pop out a dozen or so precious little bundles that will love them unconditionally. But the desire for "babies! More babies!" is regarded with skepticism in today's society; most women I know would rather only have as many as they can sustain without much trouble. It seems to be the more subjugated types in America who are having "quiverfuls."

 

I know in my marriage, Josh wants children more than I do. While I'll be happy to bear a child when the time is right, I'm cautious about the idea of bringing something into the world when I lack the resources to care for it.

 

Some of my female friends don't want children at all, because they don't want to pass on genetic problems. Others have a single child, or want one. But the common theme amongst these is that they delayed the decision until it was financially viable.

[McCoy]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

Some of my female friends don't want children at all' date=' because they don't want to pass on genetic problems. Others have a single child, or want one. But the common theme amongst these is that they delayed the decision until it was financially viable.[/quote']

I don't think it's ever financially viable. Mine weren't planned, I know that sounds odd since they were adopted, but if asked "Are you financially secure enough to have a child now?" on they day before I met them the answer would have been a resounding "H*ll NO!"

 

Sometimes life is what happens while we are making other plans, and sometimes that's A Good Thing.

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

I don't think it's ever financially viable. Mine weren't planned, I know that sounds odd since they were adopted, but if asked "Are you financially secure enough to have a child now?" on they day before I met them the answer would have been a resounding "H*ll NO!"

 

Sometimes life is what happens while we are making other plans, and sometimes that's A Good Thing.

Well, yes, there is that. And I've heard that stated before, amongst the generation that raised me and my husband. But these preparations generally involve having money in the bank, adequate income to meet the basic needs of another person, and enough leeway to put some money away for college.

 

In other words, not deeply in debt and needing to take out a loan every time Christmas rolls around.

[nexus]

Re: Matriarchial Societies

 

Depends on what you mean by dominant, major descisions, and held more temporal power.

 

As I said, a man owed his weapons. After the tribe was introduced to the horse, this included his saddle. The women owned everything else. Women could unilaterally divorce their husbands by putting his stuff outside her house. So while a man owned his saddle, he put it on his wife's horse. Annoy her sufficently and he's on foot.

 

Men hunted. If they wanted to eat anything other than game they killed and cooked themselves, they had to get it from their mother, their sister, or their wife. Women controled agriculture, planted, irrigated, tilled, harvested and cooked. They also took care of the few domesticated animals, dogs, and later horses and sheep.

 

Children belonged to their mother's family. It did not matter if their father was her husband, aother Navajo, or even a man of the Pueblo or Apache (young men from other tirbes were known to rade and rape when they could get away with it, hence the need of most of the men of the tribe to patrol their territory when not hunting). There was no concept of bastardry. Principal male role model for the children was their mother's brother, who was expected to take over his nephew's education shortly before puberty.

 

Most artifacts were made by women, they threw the pots, wove the baskets, worked leather, spun the thread and weaved the cloth. Cannot find one way or the other if this included making weapons, suspect it did. A few older men were also artisans, but for the most part they had been injured and could no longer hunt or fight.

 

So while the women did not tell the men how to hunt or organize their war parties, the men were fed, clotherd, and equiped at the sufferance of their female relatives. If wife, mom and sis all say "No," the answer is "No!"

 

Seems like temporal power to me.

 

Interesting, I'd never read anything about that. Thanks for the information. I'll do more research.