Re: What Matriarchy?
Sisial@ix.netcom.com
Wed, 24 Jul 1996 08:13:35 -0700
Daniel Maltz wrote:
>
> Sisial@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> : If someone were to enter a physics
> : conversation and make a comment that the book they were reading defines
> : an atom as 'a tiny particle', a physicist would recognize that the
> : person is probably reading an older philosophical work or a childs book.
> . . .
>
> : The fact
> : remains that matriarchy has been defined as both matrilineal and
> : matriarchate. I'm only suggesting that we clarify whether the definition
> : in an argument is one or the other and move on.
> Your analogy is a good one. If the book you were reading defines
> matriarchy as matrilineal, I would also conclude that you have been
> reading either an older philosophical work or a child's book.
I agree. Unfortunately, matriarchy (matrilineal) has been used and is
still in use. It's based on 19th century arguments. These arguments are
still used by some today. The above post by cougar is a prime example.
But, I will respond to this point there.
|