Patriarchy?matriarchy?

[Dustypuppy]

The works of eminent feminists such as Mary Daly have inspired much debate in academic circles, how far will this go? Woll the return of the Goddess spark a change in sociological values and recreate the supposedly 'matriarchal' age of prehistory?Surely there is no need to tip the balance this far, certainly, women in Western society have been denied much over the last two millenia, and it is only right that they reclaim their proper place in society, equal to that of men but not superior for that would be just as harmful to both sexes as the last age has been, surely the key word is balance? I for one cannot see any rapid change in the near future, yes, the Goddess is a rallying figure and it is wonderful that she has reemerged but to me this won't change much more than it already has in the collective unconsicous of the Western word with regards to this particular issue. Take Hinduism as an example of a religious system that has had, at its centre the worship of Devi, the Great Goddess for much of its existence. The role of women and their position in society isn't so different from women in the West in many ways with regards to careers and the like, in fact in many cases it is worse, the same too applies in much of Africa where tribal religions have lived along side Christianity. One looks to the wild, one sees at the head of a pack of lions a male, gorillas, a male, it is simply the way nature works, now im not saying that men are any better because of this, on the contrary im a strong supporter of womens rights and believe that they should be given a the same oppurtunites s men if they so desire in any given field. What is your view on this issue?x

[talamh]

One looks to the wild, one sees at the head of a pack of lions a male, gorillas, a male, it is simply the way nature works, now im not saying that men are any better because of this, on the contrary im a strong supporter of womens rights and believe that they should be given a the same oppurtunites s men if they so desire in any given field. What is your view on this issue?x

I'm no zoologist but a quick Google search indicates that both lions and gorillas are matriarchal in structure and organization. And in many religions and aboriginal social structures, heredity is through the mother. So maybe you should do a little more research into the origins or matriarchy and patriarchy.

Doesn't it seem just logical that heredity should be through the mother since it's usually easy to know who is the mother but not easy to know who is the father. In an ideal world neither gender would hold dominance over the other. The problem as I see it, is how to we get from where we are now in a highly-structured patriarchy to the balanced world of gender equality. (Equality of opportunity - being equal doesn't mean being the same.)

It has been shown time and time again that leaving the problem alone to work itself out does not work. Leave it alone and it gets worse. There's a lot of backlash against affirmative action programs but in my experience, that is the only way so far that brings about meaning ful change.

[David19]

I believe that men and women should have the same rights as each other, but i've seen a lot of people (both pagan or feminist's) say that Matriarchy is better, i don't think it is since i don't think the world will become a better place if women gain complete power, i doubt women dominated world would suddenly make gay marriage legal (it is in England, but i don't think the majority of the world, etc).

I don't think any gender is better than any other, so i don't think women or men should be on top. I think in some religions, women have had a better life than others and i think some admire women (i think), like Judaism believe you get the mystical Jewish thing (i don't know much about Judaism) from your mother and also lines are traced through the mother (i think anyway).

Anyway, i hope that made sense.

[Dustypuppy]

you make a fair point, howevr. i think you misinterpreted my example, yes, they are matriarchal, the female is key to the existence of the pride, but it is still the alpha male who is effectively dominant, as we see in society through the ages it has been women who have often provided the bed rock of a group, even the Biblical accounts suggest this throgh figures such as Mary Magdelene who was of pure faith, yet she is often derided and lowered in status in favour of the male aspect of the early church throughout recorded western history this hs been the case and i cant see a change in attitudes anytime soon, patriarchy is too far ingrained on the psyche it is true.x

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

I think the greatest problem with modern radical feminist politics is that there is the idea that in some mysterious way, matriarchy is better than patriarchy. It be honest, I think rule soley by men or solely by women is inhernetly flawed, as that automatically blocks out half the population. Many radical feminists lay the blame for all the world's ills on patriarchy's doorstep, but I don't think this solves anything, and instead points the finger. Getting upset because your female ancestors may have been opressed won't solve anything. yesterday is dead and gone, worry about the present and the future. People should stop getting hung up over gender. Yes, men and women may think differently - I imagine that's something that will be hardwired into us for some time to come - but that doesn't mean that they should be treated differently.
I also think a lot of the time radical feminist authors idealize matriarchies and WILL edit history to make things seem more appealing - Z. Budapest is a case in point. Other authors have said some pretty stupid things as well - Elizabeth Gould Davis theorized that the first humans were all women, and males were mutations, and for some bizzare reason she is highly respected among radical feminists. Marija Gimbutas made absolutely insane speculations about ancient cultures based on the most fragile and fragmentary of evidence and then passed her speculations as established fact.
Fortunately nowadays more and more feminist authors are looking at their radical roots and saying "Okay, this is good, this isn't so good, etc" and people aren't saying nearly as much crazy B.S. as they once were.

[_Banbha_]

Originally posted by Silverfire Darkmoon: Marija Gimbutas made absolutely insane speculations about ancient cultures based on the most fragile and fragmentary of evidence and then passed her speculations as established fact. I give you Gould and Z. Budapest as radical romantics, but Gimbutas was a pure scholar, who during her life held her own and then some at academic conferences where she defended her work vigourously. All Scholars of Paleo and neolithic Europe, the Indo-European and Proto Indo-E's and Bronze age cultures speculate and theorize to a wide degree(read Bruce Lincoln!). Gimbutas's work does have it's weakness's but after her death(coward's) a massive backlash occured filled with lies(that she worshipped the Goddess and so was creating a mythos, etc. for one--Not true). There is a bias in much of the orthodoxy in the ancient culture fields against intrpreting evidence in any other way than the establishment. They are covering their turf and you will likely not have a career at all unless you are in agreement or are very circumspect. If your going only on her reputation in certain circles, I would reccomend reading her. There is something to the Gould's wild story, but I would only discuss it in the context of the science forum. It's based on the instabiltity and deteriation of the Y chromozone. Gould gave it her wild spin and fantasy, the science though is real and established.