Talk:Matriarchy/Archive 1

'unambiguously matriarchal'?
Oh goodness. One wonders if this isn't a resistance to acceding control to women. There are certainly few unambiguously patriarchal societies as well. Propose this entire comment line (and its references) be removed. Ugh.

Siberia / Yakuts / Russian Repulic of Sakha
User:Rogper added some interesting information, but it needs to be worked on before adding back to the main page:


 * In sub-Arctic regions, there have existed polygamic relations where each female, her children and cattle lived separately and self-determinating, where the female acted as the family head and conducted cermonial rituals. That's it, the so-called (Yakut) ye-usa, 'matriarchal families'. However, several such ye-usa made up one (Yakut) aga-usa, 'patriarchal family'.
 * In Siberia, matriarchal families (Yak. ye-usa) have existed amongst Yakuts until modern time, where the female acted as the family head, living separately with her children and cattle. However, several such matriarchal units made up one patriarchal polygamic family (Yak. aga-usa), thus not formally a matriarchy.

Please help fix this paragraph. Here's my take on User:Rogper's comments, although I'm not sure if my wording is correct:


 * In Siberia, matriarchal families have existed in the Sakha Republic region of the Russian Federation.

That's all I've got so far... --Viriditas 10:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You are a perfectionist Viriditas! :-) I cannot currently comment in which particular "Republic" of Russian Federation semi-matriarchy families existed, other than just within Yakut groups; but I can check it up when I got more time. Note that at that time there were no republics of Russia!:-) For more sources, check out Marie Antoinette Czaplicka. Since she was a social antropologian, I hope some antropologian can contribute to more info about her. See my neuatral changes and enhancements above. // Best regards, Rogper 15:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the cite. --Viriditas 10:44, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not 'extremely rare'
Anthropologist Donald Brown and feminist Joan Bamberger seem to be in error. Non-patriarchal societies can be found around the world, and I will be updating this page in the coming days with examples from the relevant literature. A cursory search results in a plethora of good, documented evidence for contemporary and historical matriarchal societies, so it looks like Brown and Bamberger's opinions are no longer accurate.
 * Brown/Bamberger are not who we should be consulting here. Misogynists.


 * Well bear in mind Brown and Bamberger have a very narrow definition of "patriarchy" and "matriarchy", so for instance the Minangkabau qualify as a patriarchy even though their land is owned by women.


 * Anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday argues that the Minangkabau qualifies as a matriarchy. Her argument should be added to the page.


 * Actually, I believe their definition (men/women as the dominant element in community affairs) is standard in anthropology, even though it may differ from more politicised definitions found in gender theory. For instance:


 * "The managerial head of the land of the Garo lineage is the husband of the 'matron'. Village council is formed by all the adult male members of the village."


 * "The government administration is solely the responsibility of Khasi men."


 * That's all anthropologists mean by "patriarchy". I think they refer to the societies you link to as "matrilineal".


 * Just because their definitions are "standard" in anthropology doesn't mean they're correct. Some anthropologists (Peggy Sanday, Ifi Amadiume) and many archaeologists (Gro Mandt, Jiao Tianlong, Du Jinpeng, Kristina Berggren, Jeanine Davis-Kimball) continue to challenge these so-called "standards" and object to many of the conclusions that claim to negate the existence of matriarchal societies in the past and present. Max Dasho covers the challenge to contemporary anthropology quite nicely, and demonstrates the underlying ethnocentric and gender bias behind their alleged "refutation" of matriarchy.


 * It's latent misogyny pure and simple. The occidental world certainly has no shortage of that.


 * Well, what is a correct definition? Are the anthropologists wrong because they're not using the one the gender theorists are? Or are the gender theorists wrong because they're not using the one the anthropologists are? It seems to me part of the problem is that the word "patriarchy" has become totemic among some gender theorists, whereas anthropologists need words with narrow well-defined meanings if they want to say useful things about societies. It really is one word with two different meanings. Dashu is making the same mistake, assuming that her definition of "patriarchy" is the "correct" one and accusing the anthropologists of dissembling when they use the word differently.


 * No one is saying that male domination is universal. However, it does look like all or almost all societies have this one feature in common, that men predominate in the realm of public affairs. Anthropologists call this "patriarchy" with a straightforward etymology (Dashu's "feminist reframing" notwithstanding). It seems to me much of Dashu's (and possibly Eller's) arguments could be avoided if they weren't so concerned about enforcing the meaning of words they seem to feel so strongly about.


 * Philosphers of science have correctly pointed out that scientific discoveries are not independent from socially defined attitudes and constructions, nor are they free from value judgements. See: Thomas Kuhn, Richard Miller. Gender theorists have also observed that scientific inquiry is not immune from eurocentric and phallocentric biases. See: Sandra Harding, Merrill Hintikka, Evelyn Keller, Lynn Nelson, Helen Longino, Nancy Tuana. (Masolo, African Philosphy in Search of Identity, 1994, p.266).


 * I quite agree. However, Eurocentric and "phallocentric" (I assume you mean androcentric) biases are hardly the only kinds being brought to the table. What surprises me, however, is how little content there is in these arguments: they seem to be as much about the meaning of words as they are about the cultures being examined.

Matriarchies in mythology
Aloha. I'm in the process of NPOV'ing this article, as well as attributing sources, authors and refs. Could you please provide a citation for your recent additions? If you want, feel free to add some substantiating refs on the Talk page. Also, the comments you are "rebutting" do not claim that the worship of female deities equates with a higher status of women, but in fact states, where the Minoan Great Goddess [were worshipped]...women and men were apparently equals. Equality is not the same as a "higher status of women", so your paragraph sounds more like a straw man argument. Does the article claim that the worship of female deities equates with a higher status for women? I don't see that in that article, but I could be wrong. Finally, your comments on the legal status of women in Spain and the Netherlands sounds like a false analogy coupled with the former straw man. The reasons for the legal status of women in both countries are entirely different, and have no bearing on the worship of a female deity. Of course, this is probably not your claim but merely reflects the opinion of someone else, so if you could post a cite that would be great. Thanks in advance. --Viriditas 04:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I am fairly certain that I first encountered that line of reasoning in Ronald Hutton's The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles. It's also alluded to in the second edition of Stephen Goldberg's Why Men Rule: The Inevitability of Patriarchy.  Smerdis of Tlön 11:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt reply. Since I am trying to promote a NPOV, I would like to frame each claim within the context of the original author or authors.  There are a number of reasons for doing this, particularly  the attributing of claims and counterclaims.  For example, there are objections to Eller's claims, and those should be identified in context.   Would it be possible for you to attribute "that line of reasoning" with a specific claimant?  For example, "According to Goldberg and Hutton, more recent history gives little reason to believe..." I appreciate your effort in this endeavor and I again, thank you in advance for any time you can spare in promoting a NPOV. --Viriditas 02:14, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I apologize for sounding like a broken record and harping like a seal, but who is it that assumes the worship of female deities "equates with a high status for women"? I don't see how equality equates with "high status", and I don't see any authors in the article making such a claim.  Again, this appears to be a straw man and should be rephrased.  What do you think? --Viriditas 04:55, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * That would be the people, whoever they are, who are asserting that in Minoan Crete there existed a "goddess culture" of sexual egalitarianism, and who are making that claim a few paragraphs up. Truth is, we know little about the law of Crete, except that they were very good at tax collection.  The claim of a "goddess culture" is an argument from iconography; the business about Spain is a counter-argument from iconography.
 * I'm going to copy these comments to the talk page of the article; it might be easier that way.Smerdis of Tlön 13:49, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I can't find that asertion in the article. The editor who posted the unattributed claim in question, wrote: ...the Minoan Great Goddess was worshipped in a society where women and men were apparently equals.  There is no claim in the article that equality was as a result of Goddess worship, nor is that belief found in the Minoan civilization article.  Do you know which claim (or which author) Hutton was countering in the context of his book?  I can't find an argument from iconography.  IMO, Hutton is making a rhetorical straw man argument. It would be nice if we just stick to the facts at hand.    --Viriditas 23:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Attempting to respond, I've attempted to edit the paragraph so that it reports Hutton's argument as I understand it, without attempting to relate it to Crete specifically.


 * Speaking of the unattributed claim, what is the current status of the evidence for the belief that Minoans, or pre-Greek Minoans, worshipped a "Great Goddess"? This was Evans-Wentz's hypothesis, but many of the most famous of the snake-goddess statuettes have recently been uncovered as likely forgeries.  The few originals left may have depicted a snake charmer or dancer or some similar popular entertainment that may or may not have had religious implications, like the bull frescoes.  I hate to imagine what future generations think we worshipped if they got their ideas about our religion from the women painted on the covers of heavy metal albums.  They were made to confirm what turn of the last century archaeologists wanted to find, and what their speculative comparative religion told them to look for.  It does not seem unlikely that the Minoan pantheon included goddesses, most did; the pre-eminence of a goddess among their deities is much less well established.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:28, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making a sincere effort to accomodate my complaint. I'm not sure what the status of the Minoan goddess is at this time, but I will definitely be looking into it.  --Viriditas 11:03, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposed expansion of article to incorporate competing POV's

 * 1) Marie Antoinette Czaplicka - Matriarchy in Siberia
 * 2) Max Dashu - Debunking of Eller, Hutton
 * 3) Cheikh Anta Diop  - Afrocentric POV
 * 4) Nah Dove
 * 5) Marija Gimbutas
 * 6) Ronald Hutton
 * 7) James Mellaart
 * 8) Peggy Reeves Sanday - Reconfiguration of matriarchy
 * 9) Ruth Shady

Help requested. --Viriditas 22:58, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jewish matriarchy
''In ancient rabbinical tradition a person has to be born of a jewish mother in order to be jewish. According to tradition, the jewish nation is inherited through the mother while the tribe is inherited through the father. Through centuries of occidental contact, the jewish community is more patriarchal in nature, though firmly matriarchal in conception.''


 * This sounds like matrilineality, not matriarchy. --Viriditas 12:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I am Sybilla and I am just working on the German article about matriarchy. It is all messed up and in need to be structured. Looking for ideas I came to this page and realized that this is not optimal, neither. Viriditas requested for help and maybe we can work together correspondingly. My English is not good enough for an encyclopaedia, so I’ll stay on the discussion page, but I know a lot about matriarchy, that could be helpful. Here is the translation of the German outline:

concept of structure
NOTE: I suggest to implement here only „true“ scientists as such as either a) did research on location and have had contact with matr. peoples or b) academically working researchers who publish (like dissertations) on the base of secondary literature or c) scholars who describe their own ethnic group in which they were born. The work of feminists and others, who are just using the word “matriarchy” (in a wrong or right way) would puff up and also dilute the article in my opinion. We have to place them somewhere else (like critics or discrimination on matriarchal studies).
 * Definition – (etymological, and characteristics that only belong to this term of its category. Matriarchy has to be in the same category as Democracy, Monarchy or Anarchism etc. – and to be in the list of ‘Forms of civilization’ not government, because a synonym of matriarchy is ‘regulated anarchy’ and neither matriarchy nor anarchism is a form of government, actually there is an absence of government)
 * History (but not the history of ‘matriarchal studies’, which should be another article)
 * Repression of Matriarchy (by patriarchy)
 * significant characteristics (more detailed as in the definition and with examples)
 * Social structure
 * Forms of transitions from matriarchy to patriarchy (such as the amazons)
 * Economy/Subsistence
 * gender ratio
 * description of roles, duties and responsibilities
 * Generation ratio
 * children/eldest
 * Consensus democracy
 * in matriarchies
 * influence on modern age
 * Cult
 * Different Definitions of matriarchy in short and comparisons of scholars (detailed definition on the scholar’s page)
 * List of matriarchal peoples (link to a list)
 * Literature
 * Science
 * Fiction
 * Movies
 * See also
 * External links

Please find proper expressions and add your ideas and correct my English, if you will take the time. Question: in what English is the wikipedia written (US, British…)? One important website on matriarchies is www.matriarchy.info, I have added it to the links. -- sybilla 19:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Aloha, Sybilla! Your english is great.  I think your proposal is fantastic.  When I have some free time I'll try to respond to your points and help update the page.  Happy new year! --Viriditas  | Talk 10:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unattributed statement from main article
''In modern times, some authors have used matriarchy as the antithesis to the feminist view of patriarchy. In this meaning, matriarchy is a state where women and female values dominate the culture unequally.''
 * 205.238.164.140 added this general, unattributed statement, so I have moved it to talk for discussion. I'm not sure what 205.238.164.140 means by feminist view of patriarchy, or what this view by some authors (unknown) entails. If 205.238.164.140 can't be more specific, then I don't see the point of including this statement in the article.  Additionally, I'm not familar with what the author means by female values. Last time I checked, men and women had similar values, regardless of gender roles.  Finally, I'm not familiar with any definitions of matriarchy where men and women have roles based on inequality.  In fact, the opposite is true.  Perhaps the author is confusing matriarchy with patriarchy. --Viriditas  | Talk 10:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I did not add that statement to the article, but I will add something like that back in once I can find some good citations. I think it's a good illustration of the feminist double standard when you say this:  "Finally, I'm not familiar with any definitions of matriarchy where men and women have roles based on inequality.  In fact, the opposite is true.  Perhaps the author is confusing matriarchy with patriarchy."  Feminisists tend to view patriarchy as clearly unegalitarian and evil while they view matriarchy as some sort of blissful utopia.  But in point of fact, if there were any society that was controlled by women (however benevolent) to the extent where it could be called a matriarchy, this would be just as un-egalitarian as any patriarchy.  --Blackcats 20:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Good for you. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Viriditas  | Talk 04:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * UPDATE - I found those citations rather quickly and went ahead and added a new section about the use of the word "matriarchy" by masculists and other critics of feminism. --Blackcats 20:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Charles E. Corry is a geophysicist and civil rights activist, he is a Fellow of the Geological Society of America and listed in Marquis Who's Who in the World, Who's Who in America, Who's Who in Science and Engineering and similar publications; Edward S. Nunes is a software engineer and "masculist" activist; Pianke Nubiyang is a Black Nationalist (possibly Nation of Islam) and "masculist" activist. None of these "sources" are notable in any way.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a usage guide. --Viriditas  | Talk 03:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eldest mother?

 * in which community power lies with the eldest mother of a community

Is this really what defines a matriarchy, that one particular woman has all the community power? &mdash;Ashley Y 10:33, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Robin klein appears to have changed the lead. Here are the two different versions, side by side:


 * 1) A matriarchy is a tradition (and by extension a form of government) in which community power lies with the women of a community. Matriarchy is distinct from matrilineality, where children are identified in terms of their mother rather than their father, and extended families and tribal alliances form along female blood-lines. Matriarchy is sometimes extended to refer to "government by women", although this is more technically termed gynocracy.
 * 2) A matriarchy is a tradition (and by extension a form of government) in which community power lies with the eldest mother of a community. The word matriarchy derives from the latin words matri meaning mother and arch meaning chief or prime. It refers to the ancient tradition of mother dominated societies and clans, though it is often confused as meaning woman dominated.
 * --Viriditas | Talk 06:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd say that was more accurate. --Wetman 15:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm going to change it back unless it can be justified. &mdash;Ashley Y 03:06, 2005 May 18 (UTC)


 * The first case is termed a gynarchy (or sometimes gynocracy), not matriarchy, the term matriarchy only applies to the second case. However, the two are commonly confused in popular usage, as seen here and elsewhere. Gynarchy means rule by women. As a play on words, one might also term a succession of women-led administrations/monarchies (like in Arizona, New Zealand, the Netherlands or 16th century England) a gynasty.

The word matriarchy means rule by the mother. Matri means Mother and arch means chief if it was rule by women then the term would have been Feminiarchy or the like.

Ashley Y removed the definition and asked for an explanation to justify the definition. Ashley Y did not give any justification for removing the definition, in the first place. Why so? Robin klein 02:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No-one objected to my suggestion for more than a day, so I made the correction. "Please have discussion before reverting. Otherwise wikipedia will go to hell. Has it not yet gone??"


 * And your reversion is wrong, see for instance or any dictionary. Please restore my correction. &mdash;Ashley Y 03:23, 2005 May 20 (UTC)


 * Mothers are definitely women, in that sense it satisfies both the dictionary definitions. But an encyclopedia is not a dictionary, see: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Instead, it is an elaborate description of the essential aspects of concepts and their implications. Truly if an encyclopedia is created in the image of dictionary then wikipedia would go to hell, Has it not yet gone?? Robin klein 04:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not proposing turning the entry into a dictionary definition, I'm only using the dictionary as an authority for the definition of the word. If you cannot provide evidence for your "eldest mother" notion, please restore the correct definition. &mdash;Ashley Y 04:22, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

The dictionary definition that is so vehemently refered to states: '' 1: A social system in which the mother is head of the family.'' see:

if one has to go by the dictionary definition, the valid definition is, a system dominated by "the eldest mother". The second definition states: '' 2: A family, community, or society based on this system or governed by women.''

the second definition is a corollary to the first. Why do you have selective perception of the second corollary and fail to observe or ignore the first definition. Robin klein 05:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you accept the dictionary as authority:

2: A family, community, or society based on this system or governed by women.''


 * ...which is exactly what I put in my correction:


 * "in which community power lies with the women or mothers of a community"


 * Could you please restore the correction? &mdash;Ashley Y 08:10, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

No, when the definition states "mother donimamce" it includes women, because mother is a subset of women. But on the other hand when the definition states only rule by women, it does not imply necessarily mother dominance. That is why rule by women is a corollary of the core definition of the core definition eldest mother as chief of the community

you wrote: "which is exactly what I put in my correction:"

In the definition that you wrote you only stated the corollary i.e: rule by women and deleted the core definition rule by the mother.


 * The definition clearly includes governed by women, regardless of whether they are mothers. Secondly, it mentions mothers as head of the family. This idea of "eldest mother as chief of the community" seems to have come from nowhere. &mdash;Ashley Y 03:26, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Selected bibliography for Mother Dominance

 * Smith R.T. (2002) Matrifocality, in International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (eds) Smelser & Baltes, vol 14, pp9416.


 * Johann Jakob Bachofen, Das Mutterrecht, (1861) Stuttgart: Krais and Hoffmann, "Myth, Religion and Mother Right" (ed) and trans. Ralph Manheim; Princeton University Press; 1967


 * Smith R. T. (1973) "The Matrifocal Family" in "The Character of Kinship", ed. by Jack Goody; & reprinted in his 1996. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U. K.


 * Peter Kunstadter (1963) A Survey of the Consanguine or Matrifocal Family; American Anthropologist, vol 65, pp 56-66.


 * Marler J (Ed) (1967) From the Realm of the Ancestors: An Anthology in Honor of Marija Gimbutas.


 * Tanner N; Thomas L L; (1985) Rethinking Matriliny: Decision making and sex roles in Minangkabau; in Thomas L, von Benda-Beckmann F (eds) change & continuity in Minangkabau: Local, regional, & historical perspectives on west Sumatra. Ohio University Press, Athens, OH. pp 45-71.


 * Lepowsky M (1993) Fruit of the motherland: Gender in an egalitarian society. Columbia University Press, New York.

Please also check already existing bibliography-references given in the Matriarchy article.

''For he who asks for a pond to drink, show him a river and quench his thirst" Robin klein 02:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That's nice. Now can you provide some quotations from these works that support your odd theories? &mdash;Ashley Y 03:26, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

That was not nice, you reverted without giving any bibliography, why am I inferior that I have to give bibliography and not you. These papers all deal with matriarchy so I would have to quote the entire papers and I am least tempted to do so. Besides the references are given so that you may read it since you are the one calling it odd theory without giving any support or quotations to support the definition you write. That is POV.

you wrote "Now can you provide some quotations from these works that support your odd theories?"

These are not my theories, I have given bibliography of works that are written by theorist who proposed this. Besides, this issue has been addressed by R. L. Smith and I may quote him (though I do not know whether That would be copyright infringment). He uses the term matrifocality as is increasingly the case in anthropology. Where instead of the term Matriarchy, the term "Matrifocality" is used as an all encompassing term to refer to Mother dominated kinship systems including seemingly matrilinial systems like the Nair tarwad.

"Matrifocality is a property of Kinship systems where the complex of affective ties among mother and children assumes a structural prominence because of the diminuation (but not disappearance) of male authority in domestic relations" (from Smith R. L. (2002) Matrifocality; in "International encyclopedia of the social and behavioural sciences" (eds) Smelser and Baltes; vol 14 pp 9416.) Robin klein 03:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Nair Matriarchy
see this article by a sociologist and historian of malayali life: 

Please have discussion before deleting. Otherwise wikipedia will go to hell. Has it not yet gone?? Robin klein 16:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Great! Add that information to the article: had the section explained how the Nair are matriarchal, rather than saying The Nair community in Kerala follows matrilineal system of inheritance and not matriarchy (emphasis mine), I wouldn't have deleted it. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 16:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

See the wikipedia article Nair. the article only speaks of matrilineal system and not matriarchy. the website you have pointed as evidence  even though calling the nairs matriarchal goes on to describe what is matrilineal system " It consists in theory of all persons who can trace their descent in the female line from a single ancestress. In its simplest form the family consists of a mother and her children living together with their maternal uncle, that is the mother's brother as the Karanavan (senior male) of the family.  In its complex form it consists of a mother and all her children, both male and female, all her grandchildren by her daughters, all her brothers and sisters..and the descendants on the sisters' side -- in short, all the relatives of the woman on the -female side living together in the same block of buildings, dining together in the same hall, and enjoying the property in common.  There were instances of families containing a hundred or more members living in different buildings in a large compound. All the members, however many their generations, should be able to trace their common descent from one ancestress."

A famous nair diplomat and Indian civil service officer KPS Menon in his autobiography "Many worlds revisited" clearly explains that nair caste is matrilineal and not matriarchal as projected by others.

The autobiography of a person eg: KPS Menon, is by very virture of being an autobiography a POV description of the world and not a sociological theory. Any sociologist (and Yes ONLY SOCIOLOGIST and ANTHROPOLOGISTS are the experts here as they study societies) would tell that the nair community is matriarchal.

The statement pointed out refers to matriarchy, not matrilineal system.

".....In its complex form it consists of a mother and all her children, both male and female, all her grandchildren by her daughters, all her brothers and sisters..and the descendants on the sisters' side -- in short, all the relatives of the woman on the -female side living together in the same block of buildings, dining together in the same hall, and enjoying the property in common....."

This is exactly what is meant by Matriarchial system, in traditional societies these individuals would be residing at their father's side/ male side, not the side of the mother/female as mentioned in the statement that has been pointed out. Robin klein 19:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

You have again pointed out what is meant by matrilineal system ie tracing descent through the female side to a female ancestor. In the wikipedia article matriarchy ''In a Nair family, amongst all the women at home, the eldest mother would become the head of the family. However this does not imply that the decision making was in the woman's hand. The 'Karanavan' was responsible for making most decisions''. It is clear that in nair community the senior most male member enjoys all the power in the family. More than anything a keralite knows about nair community better. K P S Menon was a scholar who served as Indian ambassador and dismissing his view in favour of some armchair academician of Europe is stupid. Please understand the difference between matriarchy and matrilineality

Nair Matriarchy and important male role
It was stated: "It is clear that in nair community the senior most male member enjoys all the power in the family."

Yes in a nair tarwad or household the karnavan or the "maternal uncle" enjoyed decision making but it was on behest of the Matriarch, because he was always under the matri-arch or the eldest mother. Besides just because there is a matriarchal system does not mean that others are subjugated. To assume that in a matriarchy there is cannot be rights and powers to others is fallacious induction. Just because a male has power in a matriarchy does not mean that the system does not exist. It is like saying, because the penguin cannot fly it is not a bird.

Secondly you wrote: "More than anything a keralite knows about nair community better. K P S Menon was a scholar who served as Indian ambassador and dismissing his view in favour of some armchair academician of Europe is stupid."

Anthropologists do not make arm chair theories they spend considerable time amongst the people they study and even learn their language and literature. The social sciences have rigorous methodology and controls in inference and theory development. It is not armchair statements as thought in societies where social sciences are not given respect or taken seriously.

Just as one would not substitute the theories of a physicist for what a famous ambassador might express, in the same way the theories of social scientists cannot be substituted by the opinions of a presumably famous ambassador or administrator or the like.

Most social scientists take the traditional nair tarwad as the prime example of matriarchal system Robin klein 15:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

From the ethnography, it sounds like the Nair are matrilineal rather than matriarchal per se, much like the Minangkabau? On the other hand, as mentioned here Sanday prefers to expand the definition of "matriarchy" to include these kinds of matrilineal societies. &mdash;Ashley Y 01:44, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Selected Bibliography for Nair Matriarchy
To begin with, the seemingly Matrilinial tradition of the Nair Tarwad but which is essentially matriarchy is referred to in social and cultural anthropology as "Matrifocality".


 * Dumont L (1953) The Dravidian Kinship terminology as an expression of marriage. "Man" 51 (224): 143


 * Radcliff - Brown A R (1953) Dravidian Kinship terminology. Man (169): 112.


 * Dumont L (1957) Hierarchy & marriage alliance in South Indian Kinship. Occassional papers of the royal anthropological institute, no.12


 * Smith R.T. (2002) Matrifocality, in International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (eds) Smelser & Baltes, vol 14, pp 9416.

Now please give bibliography of research by Anthropologists before you revert again. Robin klein 02:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, so it looks like the Nair aren't matriarchal at all, they're "matrifocal". They are also clearly matrilineal. &mdash;Ashley Y 03:29, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

No,

the term matrifocality is increasingly used in anthropology, where instead of the term Matriarchy, the term Matrifocality is used as an all encompassing term to refer to Mother dominated kinship systems including seemingly matrilinial systems like the Nair tarwad. Robin klein 04:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

this issue has been addressed by R. L. Smith and I quote him (though I do not know whether That would be copyright infringment).

"Matrifocality is a property of Kinship systems where the complex of affective ties among mother and children assumes a structural prominence because of the diminuation (but not disappearance) of male authority in domestic relations" (from Smith R. L. (2002) Matrifocality; in "International encyclopedia of the social and behavioural sciences" (eds) Smelser and Baltes; vol 14 pp 9416.) Robin klein 04:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly, it's all about kinship reckoning and domestic authority, an expansion on matrilineality. Matriarchy, by contrast, refers to "community authority" or authority outside the household. It's a different thing. &mdash;Ashley Y 04:41, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

That is POV, that is not what anthropology states.

Matriliny is stated in anthropology: where one belongs to ones mothers lineage. Kingship reckoning and domestic authority (forms community authority) and is matriarchy or increasingly refered to as matrifocality Robin klein 04:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you confusing "kinship" with "kingship" by any chance? That might be the source of your confusion. Anyway kinship reckoning is matrilineality, and "matrifocality" is a good name for domestic authority (which is likely to include matrilineality also). Matriarchy and community authority are another matter. &mdash;Ashley Y 04:55, 2005 May 21 (UTC)


 * Also no more reverts for you today as you've had three already. &mdash;Ashley Y 05:01, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Dear ashley,

you wrote: "Are you confusing "kinship" with "kingship" by any chance?"

you are right it should have been kinship and not kingship as I had erroneously written.

Havent you ever heard of a word called typo (trying error). I am sure you do and am also sure that you know that it was typo. please argue with reason and references, which you have demanded from others but never provided yourself. Besides dont try to weaken an arguement through malice, to score a point. Robin klein 05:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

you also wrote: "Anyway kinship reckoning is matrilineality, and "matrifocality" is a good name for domestic authority (which is likely to include matrilineality also). Matriarchy and community authority are another matter."

That is YOUR statement. we need statements by anthropologists which are published in research journals and handbooks. the anthropologist R.L.Smith has stated that the term matrifocality is a better substitution for the term matriacrhy, because it includes diverse form of matriarchy or Mother dominated kinship systems like the nair tarwad.

I have provided you with bibliography, please read them before reverting again Robin klein 05:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the quotation of R.L.Smith that you've provided, and I agree that the Nair are matrifocal by this definition. But you haven't actually provided any quotations that support either your definition of "matriarchy" or that matrifocality is a form of matriarchy. As defined, matrifocality seems to be an expansion on matrilineality, not matriarchy. You should read a bit more into the literature about the difference between domestic and community power. &mdash;Ashley Y 05:23, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Ashley you have been asking me time and again for quotations, but you have never given any at all for your arguements. why so?? Robin klein 05:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually I think the one you provided from R.L.Smith supports my argument. It gives a good definition of matrifocality and carefully limits authority to domestic relations. &mdash;Ashley Y 05:34, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

you wrote: "Actually I think the one you provided from R.L Smith......" thats what I have been saying, that it is what you are think (POV) and not what the anthropologists are saying. R. L. Smith stated that matrifocality is a term increasingly used for various forms of matriarchy, please read:


 * Smith R. L. (2002) Matrifocality; in "International encyclopedia of the social and behavioural sciences" (eds) Smelser and Baltes; vol 14 pp 9416.

The point is that you dont have a point. It is just POV that you have been writing. Read all the works that have been listed. Robin klein 06:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You said "R. L. Smith stated that matrifocality is a term increasingly used for various forms of matriarchy". Do you have a quote for that? The quote you provided doesn't say that at all. Instead you have your own POV that you have been writing. &mdash;Ashley Y 06:42, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Engendered?
"The Trobriand Islands were considered a matriarchy by anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski; the dispute this view has engendered is discussed at that entry" ... I just wanted to mention that this is one of the funnier sentences I've seen on wikipedia, Kudos! Ronabop 05:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Definitions
One more thing: would someone please clarify the differences between matriarchy, matrilineality, and matrifocality? Thanks! Uncle Ed 21:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

matriarchy: social power in hands of senior women. matrilineality: a type of kinship descent reckoning by which group membership or rights and responsibilities are inherited through females. matrifocality: a family pattern with the mother as the head of the household and with few adult male members living in the house. For example, in some Caribbean societies and social classes there are many woman-headed households comprising mother, daughters and grandchildren, with adult males as auxiliary members, at most. 199.126.43.209 05:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Engel & racism
The article mentions that Engels "formed the curious and rather racist notion that some primitive peoples did not grasp the link between sexual intercourse and pregnancy". Labeling Engels "rather racist" in this context is not only unnecessary but also anachronistic... The idea of non-occidental people as more or less inferior race was quite prevalent in the 19th century, even among so-called "progressive" thinkers, no matter how repulsive we may find it.

Relevance of conference organizers?

 * ...two World Congresses on Matriarchal Studies. The first one was held in 2003 in Luxembourg, Europe; it was sponsored by the Minister of Women's Affairs of Luxembourg, Marie-Josée Jacobs, and organized and guided by Heide Goettner-Abendroth. The second one took place in 2005 in San Marcos, Texas/USA, it was sponsored by Genevieve Vaughan and again led by Heide Goettner-Abendroth.

Are the sponsors and organizers really relevant to the section "Matriarchal societies"? I propose that the text be changed to:


 * ...two World Congresses on Matriarchal Studies, held in 2003 and 2005.

(and retaining the links to the congress websites, of course).

G-J 14:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Question about meaning
"Marija Gimbutas has advocated the strongest form of the hypothesis, that of military conquest and forced cultural displacement, in recent decades, and given a lot of evidence."

I think this should either read:

In recent decades, Marija Gimbutas has advocated the strongest form of the hypothesis, that of military conquest and forced cultural displacement, and given a lot of evidence.

or

Marija Gimbutas has advocated the strongest form of the hypothesis, that of military conquest and forced cultural displacement, and has, in recent decades, given a lot of evidence.

Does anyone know the intended meaning? --Jonovision 11:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What evidence anyway? Considering she has been dead for over 10 years now, I doubt there have been many recent "discoveries" by this woman. Saying that she gives evidence is not the same as actually having peer-reviewed and unambiguous evidence, so where is it? --TheOtherStephan 13:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Gynecocracy
Should Gynecocracy be merged with this article? I added a link to gynecocracy in the Related section of this article, but it's an orphaned article and a stub. Maybe just a mention that another form of matriarchy is gynecocracy and describe the few differences. Or make Gynecocracy redirect to this article, since they're the same thing. I don't know how to do either of those things, and there needs to be discussion first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Millancad (talk • contribs) 21:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC).


 * They refer to basically the same thing, but Gynecocracy has its etymological explanation and alternative form Gynocracy, which would all have to be copied over. AnonMoos 21:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Gynecocracy can have that covered in it's Wiktionary article, or here. --Millancad 08:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Motherland" in Polish and Russian
"Homeland" is ojczyzna in Polish and отчизна  (otchysna) in Russian. Both words mean approximately ”fatherland” as they derive from the respective words for "father" -- ojciec and отец (otyets). Neither of both languages has a word meaning ”motherland”. Though Russians indeed speak of their country "mother Russia", it is so because the name Россия (Rossya) is of a female grammatical gender, like the names of many other countries in Russian, and not because of any traces of matriarchy in the language! Before the Revolution they used to say about ”mother Russia and father Tzar".

--- While reading this I see many mistakes. We have no word in Russian which literally means "Homeland". Very frequently word "Rodina" is used. I consider that "Rodina" can be equivalent to your "Homeland". (Russian translating computer program also translate ”Homeland” as "Rodina"). But "Rodina" is much closer to ”Motherland”, it is of female ("grammatical") gender and is associated with a mother. "Rodina" means "the place of your birth". (Russian translating computer program also translate ”Motherland” as "Rodina"). "Otechestvo" or "Otchizna" means "Fatherland" not approximately but very closely. "Otechestvo" means country, "Otchizna" means country too, but earlier it meant the land that father gave to his inheritor-son. The word is derived from patriarchy times, now it is used very seldom. Russians never speak of their country "mother Russia", only in false or foolish movies. Really, word "Rossia" (Russia) is of a female gender, like the names of many other countries in Russian. But Prussia (P-Russia with a capital of Berlin) is also of a female gender. Many words that are connected to land, to country are of female gender in Russian. The word "land" in Russian is of female gender too ("zemla"). It is not surprising if to take into account that the land was considered like a female who gave a birth in Russia, Ancient Greece, India etc. Genders of words are very different and surprising in all languages. But I think that the meaning of the word, its usage, associations, history are much more informative.

Now words "Otechestvo" or "Otchizna" are not actual. "Rodina" (motherland) is used almost always. 22:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Slava25

The Borg, Alien and Tesla
A list of fictional venues should probably include the Borg of Star Trek, which were eventually depicted as a hive mind similar to bee society, led by its own version of a queen bee. Somewhat along these lines is the extraterrestial species depicted in the Alien movie series. Also worthy of note is Tesla's interview by John B. Kennedy from January 30, 1926 in Colliers where a vivid description is given of the future of the human race as a female-dominant hive mind interconnected through cell phones and similar technology in a wireless world-wide communications network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.185.139 (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There's nothing that I remember indicating female Borg generally have higher status or authority than male Borg. AnonMoos 17:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

so where's the "opposing view?"
half of the patriarchy page is a pro-feminist "opposing view" so how come that's not the case here? I thought wikipedia did not endorse political parties...


 * Good point! --John Ericson 16:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The main "opposing view" relevant to this article is that many think that a true matriarchal society (in any meaningful sense of the phrase) has never existed at any time in human history. If matriarchies have never existed, then it's not surprising that there hasn't been any accumulated practical experience with the drawbacks and and bad points of matriarchies... AnonMoos 17:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's a very fair comment.
 * Ironically, the existance of feminism is evidence of patriarchy, and the existance of patriarchy is the justification for feminism.
 * The article (in its current revision) does clearly note reliable sources regarding the view that strict matriarchy may never have existed. It also does this in the lead, which I think is appropriate.
 * On this page however, it is not appropriate (imo) to make the opposing view too prominent, because Wiki needs a namespace somewhere dedicated to providing as many reliable sources as possible regarding the case for matriarchy. There are literally thousands of such sources.
 * Overall, the current concensus is against those who propose matriarchies, however, majority and consensus do not guarantee truth, not only that, Wiki is committed to presenting all significant and notable points of view.


 * Finally, matriarchy is not a political ideology, it is a hypothesized (and maybe actual) social structure that may (or may not) have been observed in various times and places and can be described without being recommended. I am not actually aware of any political ideology that does in fact recommend women ruling men. Feminism certainly does not. Feminism is opposed to patriarchy, egalitarianism being the usual political ideological association. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * neither article should be supporting either view to begin withNeuromusic (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite so, text should be written from the NPOV. However, there is also the practical question of space devoted to particular POVs. There is more literature on library shelves than we can store in Wiki articles. The case in favour of historical and contemporary matriarchies is a minority view, but a notable and rational one. While it is largely WP:UNDUE under patriarchy, I think a good case can be put that the majority view is actually UNDUE at this namespace, for the very good reason that among advocates of historical matriarchy it is not accorded much weight. Matriarchy is the topic of discussion here. A co-ordinated approach to a set of related articles seems the ideal. Perhaps one day ... Alastair Haines (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Alastair Haines
I'm not too happy with these recent edits. Calling Britannica "wrong" on this point without a source certainly seems inappropriate. It doesn't seem entirely clear whether a consensus exists, so leaving it as it was, simply pointing out Britannica's stance without the commentary, seems more appropriate. -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah! Yes, Britannica is absolutely right. I have surveyed some hundreds of books and articles regarding matriarchy and patriarchy (and some alternative views). The consensus of professional academics and the proponderance of published work is quite concisely and correctly described by Britannica, who undoubtedly researched it even more than I have.


 * Every known, documented society, from every period in history, has always expected men to bear the burden of responsibility in dyadic male-female relationship (like marriage, but wider than this also). Whatever roles are performed exclusively or mainly by men, e.g. dancing, or weaving, cooking, hunting, warring, whatever ..., these become associated with high status. If the majority of doctors, builders, or agriculturalists are women, these become lower status. Finally, in so far as societies do have any central organization, binding members by taboo or law or whatever, positions recognized as chief or elder are either exclusively, or near exclusively held by men.


 * Most anthropologists consider post feminist Western societies to be no exception. The serious executive authority is in free market enterprises, and women head less than 2% of the top businesses in the developed world. Artificial structures in government and education often have high or higher proportions of women than men, but have lost status (it is supposed) in direct proportion to changes in these areas.


 * At this point, many feminists would agree with the facts, pointing to patriarchalism being extremely deep rooted and as yet hardly dinted, despite decades of effort. Other feminists dispute various facts. However, nearly all would agree that the majority of women perpetuate the division of labour along gender lines, the vast majority prefering domestic responsibilities to public ones.


 * Steven Pinker, Donald Brown and Steven Goldberg have written accessible works that cover the consensus (by which is meant vast majority with little controversy).


 * But to conclude. My edit was in part light hearted, the lead in to this article is highly slanted. "Britannica sides with the anthropologists", lol. Seriously! Since I know what they all say, I just edited the text to make the previous editor's bias more clear. I should jolly well hope Britannica listens to the experts ... and so should Wiki!


 * The Matriarchy article should cover two things:
 * the now debunked theory that matriarchy was a natural, prototypical social organizing principle during prehistory.
 * the minority opinions, also debunked, that various so-and-so peoples of specific far-away-lands have particular forms of matriarchal society
 * There is now too much data on all such supposed matriarchies for such proposals to carry any weight. There are clear features of male dominance in even the least structured societies. Usually, pro-matriarchy writers conflate matrilocality and matrilineality with matriarchy. There are many matrilocal or matrilineal societies, only underscoring women's preference for domestic focus.


 * I'm a little busy writing my own book atm to engage in edit wars on this subject at Wikipedia. People remove quotes I provide that do not suit their own personal tastes. Wiki has clear policies, and good means to resolve disputes, but it is tiring going through all the hoops.


 * My advice is that you read the Britannica article. Reliable sources on this subject are not hard to find.


 * Alastair Haines (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, please try and observe WP:POINT in the future - "making POV more clear" certainly isn't helpful. I've tried to "fix" the paragraph, but I have little knowledge on the subject, so I'd appreciate it if you (or anyone else) would take a look to make sure I haven't made some subtle change that introduced an error. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent change...
I just dropped in to read about the concept of matriarchy, and was surprised by the disregard for known archeological fact displayed in the article. The change history made it obvious those passages were all recently added by 66.245.5.11. Based on two conferences and a book, which are not even referenced in the text or even described more than by name. Unspecified "matriarchal societies coming out of the woodwork" hardly seems like a solid base to throw away everything known so far. That these societies are "self-described" is alla very well, but what are they? Is it an apartment in New York who's inhabitants have decided to adpot a matriarchal system? Even if it's more of a society than that, how can it's existance say anything about what did or did not take place during the neolithic age?

I've never contributed to wikipedia and didn't feel confident to revert these changes myself, so I arite this on the discussion page instead. Thankfully, the pre-change version of the article was still available so I could find the information I was looking for without ideologically motivated smoke screens. 194.27.168.244 (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Modern consensus
Has the dust settled? Have we finished our research and determined whether any matriarchal societies have ever existed or persist in modern times?

And has anyone, such as feminists asserted that if they did exist (or more of them came into being) it would be a Good Thing?

Are the differences between men and women significant enough for this to matter?

And how much of all this fuss is related to male cruelty or indifference toward women?

Can there be a stable and just society in which man have more power than women and yet men and women have equal value and enjoy equal happiness? Uncle Ed 21:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In order -- yes, yes (there aren't any), off-topic, off-topic, off-topic, off-topic (and unanswerable anyway since the question begs the definition of terms like "just"). 71.9.8.150 (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Nairs again
Nairs are traditionally matrilocal and matrilinear, but have definitely never been anything else. Women have never always had less authority (de jure or de facto) than the karanavar and other senior males in the home (ruling out matrifocality) and had absolutely no political power in society (ruling out actual matriarchy). "Matriarchs" could order younger family members and low-caste workers around, and that was it. --Kannan91 (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested topic: Matriarchies in Fiction, Societies without a Patriarchy in Fiction
I am certainly no scholar, but I have never encountered any fiction that describes a society that has neither Patriarchy nor Matriarchy. I think it would be interesting and useful to list works of fiction (literature and/or feminist critique) that describes matriarchal societies, and/or societies that exist without a patriarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.78.68 (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Try reading a series of books by Paul O. Williams called the Pelbar Cycle. There are 7 books in all and they are a Matriarchal Rule. They are in the Sci-Fi section. The women rule while the men do the menial work of housekeeping and serving as well as hard labor, depending on the wife's stature in the society, decides the amount of labor. The women work too, but mostly as guards or in politics. When you get the chance they are a nice read. They are about men making changes rather than in our times where women make a stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.65.182 (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

World of Warcraft
Sorry for being a nerd here, but I don't think that Blizzard's (the developer) reason for allowing male characters to be other "classes" but the druid had anything to do with population dips. Male nightelves could attain any class already in beta-testing of the game.

According to Blizzard lore: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/encyclopedia/508.xml

Anyway, Is the WoW section really needed though? It seems an awful lot like Trivia.

--64.173.240.130 (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Qualified praise
I suspect this article will always be subject to unsourced POV insertion, and weasling or deletion of quotes from reliable sources. However, despite the "law of entropy" at work here, the overall "shape" of the article seems to be coming together.

There are several helpful ways of viewing this topic -- consideration of animal matriarchy does imo deserve pride of place. It is real and uncontroversial. In fact, just as patriarchy is real and the consensus understanding of historical social structures (including the present) in Homo sapiens.

I think it is good that the article doesn't really delve into the ethics of the subject, since there's a suit of articles available to give the extensive feminist treatment of the topic better justice than this article can.

I only visit here rarely, and I've seen a lot of progress since my last visit. Thanks to those responsible. With a burst of referencing and copy-editing, this article could get to GA (if ideological differences could be laid aside). Once at GA, it may slow some of the unhelpful edits. If anyone wants to work on getting this article to GA, I would be keen to provide constructive feedback, though I'd prefer to refrain from direct contribution on this particular topic.

Once again, thanks to those who've pushed things towards objectivity and reality, and away from ideology and speculation. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed non-human animal section
I've been unable to verify this list due to competing definitions of the term. The article might be able to take this into account. Until that time, the content follows below. The original author has been contacted. Viriditas (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead
There exist many matriarchal animal societies including bees, elephants, and killer whales.

Matriarchal social organization in non-human animals
There are many animal societies that are matriarchal, these are not limited to, but include:
 * Ants
 * Bees
 * Bison
 * Bonobos, the closest living human relative. (Genetically Common Chimpanzees who are patriarchal are just as close to humans (98% DNA similarity). However physical traits, male to female ratio and most importantly sexual behaviours make the Bonobo arguably the closest human relative.)
 * Asian Elephant
 * African Bush Elephant
 * Killer Whales
 * Spotted Hyenas
 * Naked Mole Rats
 * Termites

Jewish Nitpick
That national membership ("Jewishness") is defined by the mother is absolutely true. However, tribal membership, priestly lineage, kingship, and inheritance, are passed through the father. The one exception to the latter is daughters of a father with no sons inherit him. Jewish women in the ancient world did have extensive rights compared to their contemporaries in western cultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.206.103 (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Some people confuse matrilineality with matriarchy, though they're very different things... AnonMoos (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Avuncular"?
Is the word "avuncular" actually used as a technical term in anthropology? The article avunculism does not suggest that it is... AnonMoos (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have seen it used somewhere in passing, but wasn't paying close attention. What are you suggesting we use instead, "avunculist"? --dab (𒁳) 11:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In ordinary language, the word "Avuncular" has very strong connotations of fond uncles giving their nieces and nephews presents, and so should be avoided here unless it's the most commonly used technical term, which it doesn't seem to be. In my somewhat eclectic and selective exposure to ethnographic literature, I've mainly seen "avunculocal".
 * By the way, I would guess that "avunculurism" on the Avunculism article is a simple misspelling for "avuncularism". Also, currently the Avunculism and Avunculocal residence articles don't seem to be aware of each other's existence at all... AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Better organization of article
This is a similar note to what I just put on the patriarchy talk page, after reviewing both articles. Besides having huge expanses of unsourced, WP:OR, WP:POV or questionably relevant material, the current organization is very poor. To make it more in keeping with wikipedia standards and formatting (not to mention even the most basic academic standards), I recommend something like the below, depending on sources.
 * Short Lead
 * Etymology and related terms
 * Scientific views
 * Biological sciences
 * Sociology/Psychology or Social Psychology, as most appropriate
 * Anthropology
 * Political science
 * Gender studies (which is interdisciplinary)
 * Other viewpoints
 * Historical
 * Religious and mythological
 * Popular culture
 * Feminism
 * Sexual supremacist (male or female)
 * Issues (that cut across some or all of the above):
 * nature v. nurture-related issues
 * debate over whether and what societies matriarchal/patriarchal (short and link to table article)
 * debates on whether patriarchy is good, bad or neutral
 * etc. CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I really don't think that animals should be discussed before humans in this particular article, and it's difficult to discuss what matriarchy is (or isn't) without first touching on the history of the 19th-century anthropological theorizers. I see no real reason why the layouts of the Matriarchy and Patriarchy articles must be subsection-by-subsection identical... AnonMoos (talk)


 * They don't have to be identical, because obviously one may draw more on discipline than another. But where there is information on one that is relevant to another it needs to be included. And there needs to be some logical order. As for history of anthropology, that still fits in under an anthropology section. Now if there suddenly was a bunch of other relevant WP:RS anthropological info it might be integrated, or some current info might be consider WP:undue or WP:POV or something else that would support paring it down. Speaking generally since I've only skimmed the article and not an expert in the area. But frankly the disorganization of the article would discourage any expert who happened by to add information, and discouraging good editing is not our job :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but the status of existence, and the overall role in intellectual history, of Patriarchy and Matriarchy are really not very parallel at all, and if you don't know much about the concrete specifics concerning the concept of matriarchy (which is inextricably intertwined with 19th-century anthropological theorizing), then I don't see what particular relevant qualifications you have to engineer a sweeping reorganization of this whole aritcle. AnonMoos (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously I wouldn't suggest changes until had a better handle on the specific parallels and divergences and to what extent each of those categories above is relevant. But one must first make one's suggestions to see who's paying attention and what they think, must one not?? Assume good faith that editors will have a handle on basic concepts before they try to edit and don't discourage them from editing before they even start. Per WP:etiquette. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Unilineal social evolution
It might improve the article to clarify that the prevailing mid-19th-century anthropological view was that all human societies went through the same broad sequence of changes; the exact list of stages of development varied somewhat between different anthropologists, but the basic steps were from hetaerism through matriarchy to early tribal patriarchy to advanced civilized patriarchy. It was thought that "primitive" tribes were stuck on various lower rungs of the ladder of unilineal cultural development, and could throw light on the earliest prehistory of civilized societies. Outside of anthropology, this unilineal view was taken up by Friedrich Engels (among others).

So, many of the 19th-century scholars who were most zealous in positing early matriarchal societies also thought that matriarchy was a somewhat primitive and outmoded form of social organization... AnonMoos (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this should be the main focus here. Actual matrilineal societies should be discussed at matrilineality. This is mostly a topic of 19th century cultural theory and feminism. I am not sure what you are saying re hetaerism? Are you saying the theory was that matriarchy is a consequence of hetaerism?


 * I suppose we should also give a brief account of the contemporary mainstream. As I understand it, "male domination in the public/political realm" (emphasis mine) is a cultural universal. From this it naturally follows that the extent of male domination depends on how much of a res publica your society is in the first place. In paleolithic band society, there isn't much of a "public/political" realm to begin with, and males will be reduced to try and "dominate" their own peer groups, while it is only with the emergence of urban civilization in the Neolithic to Bronze Age that this translates to actual "male dominance". In this sense, it is perfectly true that the Paleolithic or Mesolithic Ur-society would have been egalitarian (not matriarchal), and civilization is indeed to blame for patriarchy. --dab (𒁳) 11:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're asking my personal opinion, hetaerism in any truly meaningful sense of the word never really existed, any more than matriarchy in a strict sense. However, some 19th-century anthropological theoreticians regarded matriarchy as one rung (or a small number of rungs) up the ladder of cultural evolution from hetaeism.


 * In the real ethnography of hunter-gatherer bands, "leadership" mainly meant being able to persuade your relatives, through long discussions, that your proposed course of actions was the best one. Men certainly tended to dominate certain prestige activities (such as going out alone for days at a time to hunt big game, and warfare), but women were generally not economically dependent on men (in fact women usually collected the majority of food eaten by band members), and women were by no means uniformly excluded from public deliberations and decision-making. AnonMoos (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose this agrees with my take on the matter. I suppose feminists have a point in claiming that patriarchy was a secondary development, co-occurring with the development of civilization itself. The real question would be whether this is meaninful, and whether the current movement towards an egalitarian society has anything to do with historical findings (would the women's right movement have been "wrong" if it could be shown that women never had any rights?). Another question would be, are they willing to go as far as claiming that civilization itself was a mistake? Are they really prepared to give it all up and go back to a paleolithic society? That's easy to say from your armchair, but quite a different thing when your teeth start falling out at the age of 32. Provided you are one of the lucky 5% who make it to 32. As it stands, the opposite of "patriarchy" is "egalitarian society". It is unfortunate that a few die-hard second-wave feminists insist to keep calling this "matriarchy", because they shoot down their own case by perpetuating a misnomer. --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The link on "Hetaerism" actually didn't lead to anything informative when I wrote the messages above, sorry; I've since changed it into a meaningful disambig page... AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)