Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?
Thu, 25 Jul 1996 21:16:30 GMT (Goddess in Training) wrote:

> wrote:
>: Well, while there are tons of myths about matriarchy, I can find
>: little reference to actual matriarchy societies...however, I know that
>: they have existed and will exist.
>How do you know this? Not suspect it, mind you, but actually *know* this?

Know: To perceive directly with the senses or the mind
knowledge: familiarity, awareness, or comprehension acquired by
experience or study.

I KNOW because I have seen through study and experience. I am doing
backward tracking research to find credible sources now. I have
already posted one such source.

FWIW, I could easily reverse your folks logic and say there's NO
evidence of a Patriarchy ever having existed. There isn't any more
evidence for a patriarchy. All monarchy is based on male OR female
ascension. Dictatorships are dictatorships, not patriarchy (using
your definitions) So in a sense you are correct. There is little or
no evidence of EITHER a patriarchy or matriarchy.

What a worthless discussion.

>Children belong to the family of the mother, they are
>: not even seen as relatives of the father! He is not obliged to
>: take care of his children, that is the task of the eldest brother of
>: the wife. Every man is obliged in the first place to take care of
>: the children of his sister(s).
>So a male still helps provide for the children? That doesn't make it
>either patriarchal or matriarchal. Who has the political power in this
>sytem? The men or the women?

By your definitions, the only society that could be EITHER must kill
off the other sex. What a rediculous idea.

>: When a Minangkabau man and woman marry, they do not form a family in
>: our sense of the word. The woman keeps on living
>: with her family, and when the pair gets children, they stay with her.
>: Sometimes the husband lives with his wife in her family's
>: house, sometimes he only visits his wife.
>Again, forming a family in a different way from ours does not make it
>: Matriarchy makes the women independent of the men.
>The women may be independent of their husbands under this system, but it
>doesn't sound like they are independent of *all* men, and they sound
>distinctly dependent on their brothers.

I think you need to read the information more carefully. The brother
is OBLIGATED to care for the children. That creates INDEPENDANCE for
the women.

I grow bored of this....

I actually started off thinking there was no evidence of matriarchy,
but mentioned this to my wife (who's a historian specializing in
ancient civilizations), she laughed.

Take a look at my next post. Another matriarachy.