Marija Gimbutus, Her Works

Post Reply New Topic

mixtapebooty
You might be interested to know that WP has a PM (private message) facility and this (rather than the public forums) is the appropriate means by which to carry out private conversations. You have no right to restrict or otherwise limit the rule-abiding posting of any member in any thread regardless what former contact or discussion you have or have not had with them. This is a public forum, not an exclusive hen's-knitting circle.

I see no further point in addressing your self-contrary, grossly inaccurate summary of events given how very clearly you have demonstrated your intent to ignore reality. Suffice it say, it is far from my fault you chose to argue your views by resort to a fallacy and if you cannot cope with objective, completely non-personal criticism of your arguments, then perhaps a public forum is not the best place to publish your arguments.

You did not inquire about the demise of societies, you inquired specifically about a takeover of a matriarchy by a patriarchy, and I stand by my response that this is very unlikely to occur by peaceful means. In fact I find it highly unlikely such a dramatic transition could occur (at least without intermediate steps) by peaceful means even if the agent/s for change are internal (rather than an external patriarchy).
Do you actually dispute the actual answer I gave to your actual question, or is the is appearance that you are grasping at straws for the sake of continuing your unnecessary (and unseemly) hostility entirely representative of the reality?

Last edited by pandd on 15 Jan 2009, 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes there is certainly a correlation between females' economic contributions, and female status/gender stratification (although just as you describe, it is general rather than determinate).

However, post marital residency practices, and ownership/use rights of resources, are also important variables, and some argue that economic contribution is a variably indicative proxy for the (as the argument goes) more important variable of resource ownership or use-right/control, which itself is difficult to separate from issues of post-marital residence and patterns of kin-ship recognition, (ie whether descent is reckoned patrilineally, matrilineally, cognatically, or bilineally).

For instance in many PNG highland societies, villages practice patrilocal exogamy, acquiring their wives (sometimes as captives) from near-by villages with whom relations are often less than friendly. Although it is the wives who work the gardens, the gardens belong to the village and the wives (who are considered outsiders) are not viewed as owning the food they produce. Female status is very low in these societies.

Alternatively among the matrilocal (and matrilineal) Hopi, farm land was owned by clans, with use-rights of particular parcels of land under the control of matrilineages. Although husbands provided the labour (farming land whose use-rights belonged to his wife's matrilineage) it was a man's wife who was viewed as owning the food a man produced. Female status among the Hopi was much higher than that of females in the PNG highland societies referred to in the earlier example.

So the correlation you have posited is not entirely straight forward, although there certainly are examples where it appears both status and control of resources follow from actual labour contributions.

The Mbuti are good example of the latter, in that what property exists is generally controlled by those who produce it, female contributions to hunting are essential (indeed all able-bodied members of the band participate in hunting activities), both males and females gather, and males control some ceremonials which they are responsible for providing the resources for, while females have control over houses (which they build). In part, because of the importance of the labour of all band members (particularly to net hunting), wives are quite capable of simply taking their house down and walking away (to another band where she has relatives).

Such a series of variables limits the scope for inequality somewhat in that there are few resources to dominate, a lack of socially structured positions of power/authority, and all band members have the option of opting out (or voting with their feet as it is sometimes described) because their labour will be valued in any other band that will accept them (which is in most instances, any other band where they have a relative, by descent or marriage).

Because of examples such as these, some have argued that actual labour contributions might be a variably indicative proxy for resource control. Where labour results in control of resources produced, the correlation (between labour contribution and gender stratification) works much better than where the products are not controlled by those whose labour produces them.

Your comment about environmental factors is is also accurate.


It's not entirely clear; if sheknight means something other than that matriarchal is a redundant synonym for egalitarian and is in fact making an argument no different to "egalitarian societies exist", she has been less than forthcoming in confirming as much. Whether or not the Mbuti for instance, would qualify as matriarchal given sheknight's definition of matriarchal, cannot be either confirmed or denied on basis of the information sheknight has provided.

Quite what matriarchy means to sheknight is still a point of confusion to me, but frankly I see no likelihood of clarification of this matter arising from my querying her further on this.

In a rather round-about and convoluted way maybe my theory about men and women is proving itself out.

Try taking your own advice for once, and not breaking your own set of rules, there, pandd. For someone who knows so much about a topic, you are too quick, curt, and rude to justify yourself to me directly any farther. You're a really bad teacher that doesn't understand how to engage students who are trying to learn. Everything you wrote about me here is more grounds to establish that you are breaking WP rules than anything I've ever said about you directly. You're the f*****g hen in some unwritten pecking order that you are trying to establish in this thread by debasing people who are here trying to learn more about it, and who aren't following any strict set of guidelines for how they ask questions. Stop being a f*****g b***h.

The only rules that matter (and that I have referred to) are these. (They the TOS (Terms of Service) that every member must abide by as conditions of posting.)
I believe that I have not broken this set of rules, and I do not recall having previously stated that you personally had broken this set of rules.

Show me specifically where and how I broke the rule. You will only be helping the moderators purge me in your rampant attempt at a hostile takeover of this discussion. You're like a an intellectual fascist.

Calm down! No one needs to be banned here.

It's perfectly acceptable to disagree with someone's opinion, but not ok to trash them personally.

"I disagree" not "you're stupid, or hostile, or whatever". Don't ever assume you know what someone's intentions are when they post something. There are times I've been really surprised at what someone really meant. And disagreements can often be cleared up, or reduced, with more technical information on the subject at hand. Often, people disagree because it turns out they're talking about two different things.

Speaking of which, does anyone have anything more to contribute on the original subject, or have we all exhausted our memories for now?

For a subject I don't particularly find interesting, I certainly seem to be spending too much time here.

Pandd,

Is there any part of you that thinks maybe, possibly, you just came on too strong? Is there any chance that you were looking for a confrontation?