|
Palliata -> RE: Therapy (2/8/2011 9:50:32 PM)
|
I'm regretting bringing up the natural vs unnatural thing now, but since I've already made myself the harbinger of thread drift, here goes nothing. Before I get started, let me clarify that I am in no way intending to demean female dominants or male submissives - I have the utmost respect for you guys and am a firm believer that biological determinism is fallacy. That was, in fact, my original point.
Anyway, the argument that the "earliest societies" were matriarchal is one I've heard before, though I've yet to see any solid evidence to support it. If you're referring to ancient tribal societies, we don't actually have any idea because they were pre-literate and therefore prehistoric. The guesses tend to fall along party lines - feminists support the idea of matriarchal organization, non-feminists do not. The only indications we have of that are so-called artifacts of the sacred feminine (not the Dan Brown one [;)]) which are interpreted by archaeologists as pointing to the existence of female deities. This interpretation is, itself, open to debate, as are any interpretations not based on written record. In any case I see no reason why this indicates that the mortal realm was matriarchal, nor have I ever heard an argument made to get from point A to point B on that - those who claim it as evidence seem to simply state it and move on.
The first known civilizations, those which sprung up in Mesopotamia (Sumeria, Babylonia, Assyria, Akkadia, etc.), were patriarchal in nature, leading most (myself included) to presume their predecessors were as well. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, one can only assume. Also typically patriarchal were the ancient Gallic, Germanic, Greek, Italic, Brittanic, Egyptian, Russianic, and Chinese civilizations which sprung up later, (in the case of Europe this includes both pre-indoeuropean and post-indoeuropean). These societies were also largely patrilinear, which most would argue is a further sign of male 'dominance.'
Arguments have been made for Celtic (both Gallic and Brittanic) matriarchy, but these are founded principally on the presence and prominence of female deities, which is not a necessarily or demonstrably causal relationship. I have not seen further evidence beyond those points with regards to the Celts, but I haven't researched them exhaustively so that may or may not exist. If anyone knows of it, I would be interested to see it. Arguments have also been made for matriarchy in Native American society as a result of the "Wise Woman" figure, and these hold more water, especially in light of the smattering of matrilinear tribes. However, even in the matrilinear tribes which possessed a role in the archetype of the wise woman, final say in practical, political matters almost always lay with the male leadership. Religious matters were the domain of feminine dominion, leaving us with a society which is more or less egalitarian and equal. It should be noted that most of the information about these tribes springs either from notoriously inaccurate oral tradition or from outside observations upon European arrival, meaning we have very little to go on with regard to what they were doing in the classical or pre-classical periods. Native South American and Central American peoples left more complete records which indicate patriarchal organization.
The only area I won't speak to is African history, as I frankly have no education whatsoever in it before the time of European arrival, and even then my knowledge is dubious at best. If anyone who specializes (or even has done significant personal research) in that area wants to chime in I'd be happy for the chance to gain a bit of knowledge.
Sociologists have looked to so-called 'lost tribes' for an answer to this question with, as I understand it as a layman, principally patriarchal results. Again, this is in no way my area, so input would be nice.
With regard to modern times, my original point was very much that modern times are characterized by a departure from our natural roots both in terms of culture and in terms of lifestyle, and most would agree it is still a "man's world" regardless. To the point regarding ants, bonobo, etc., the relevance is nil - we are not ants, bonobo, or elephants. The way they order their societies, if you want to call them such, is necessarily different.
To conclude, that which is natural is not necessarily right, and that which is unnatural is not necessarily wrong. Do what makes you happy.
|
|
|
|
