oh! youre a feminist? how cute!

Dictionary.com

You may also want to look into some Prozac.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Phil

it is a fact that women ARE held back by the old boy network, the private mens' clubs, the businessMENS associations, etc., so dotn you fuckin dare call me condescending. I spent 8 years working for the rights of Prostitiute women and I've witnessed first hand the prejudices women face when trying to get a foot on the ladder.

Yes, I'm sure the prostitutes you were helping were being held back because they were women, and not because of low socioeconomic status, unfortunate circumstances, or working in an illegal profession.

I'm glad you support everyone's right to choose their own future. And for all I know, the "businessmen's" associations in Wales are discriminatory and sexist. But I disagree that it is the same in the US.

[Phil]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Yes, I'm sure the prostitutes you were helping were being held back because they were women, and not because of low socioeconomic status, unfortunate circumstances, or working in an illegal profession.

I'm glad you support everyone's right to choose their own future. And for all I know, the "businessmen's" associations in Wales are discriminatory and sexist. But I disagree that it is the same in the US.

many of the women were educated, nurses, university students, but stereotyping always takes precedence.

i apologise for writing with anger in my previous post, but i get protective about my client group.

[JayMcGee]

prostitution is not illegal in the UK (or Wales)

[bluecuracao]

Just research Native American, African and Chinese cultures--there's plenty of stuff out there taught in anthropology classes.

Is it really that hard to believe that many cultures had matriarchal societies?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by bluecuracao

Just research Native American, African and Chinese cultures--there's plenty of stuff out there taught in anthropology classes.

Is it really that hard to believe that many cultures had matriarchal societies?

No, it's neither hard to find or believe. They have reoccurred repeatedly, throughout history, and have but one thing in common....they're all history....they all failed.
All the matriarchal societies have fallen by the wayside because they couldn't sustain themselves, couldn't defend themselves. Sure, they might have been progressive, nurturing, peaceful, utopias....but that doesn't do them a bit of good if they can't fend off aggressive neighbors. Blame the neighbors all you want, it's still the reality of history, none of them strong were enough to survive.

[Shawnee123]

And the neighbors were aggressive, marauding, egocentric males, so it's really no surprise.

The more things change...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

And the neighbors were aggressive, marauding, egocentric males, so it's really no surprise.

The more things change...

That's exactly my point. Any government/society that wants a piece of this planet has to be strong enough to hold it. Patriarchal societies usually make that a priority, sometimes at the expense of everything else, whereas Matriarchal societies stress social improvement.

Since social improvement is desirable and strength necessary, the best solution is a balanced society where both sexes have input, both are respected and listened to. But that means nobody gets everything their own way.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Since social improvement is desirable and strength necessary, the best solution is a balanced society where both sexes have input, both are respected and listened to. But that means nobody gets everything their own way.

And there we have it: the Utopian society of which we dream.

I agree Bruce. I just wish strength weren't so necessary. What is in us that makes us want to conquer, own, and control? As we evolve, will we ever lose the primal urges of our ancestors?

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No, it's neither hard to find or believe.

Alrighty then.

[Aliantha]

To a man it probably would be. Don't be too hard on them, they can't help it.

[DanaC]

Didn't you know? It's feminist conventional wisdom. That there is no documentable evidence of this it's because:

1) Scribes and historians and archeologists are primarily male and have a male-dominant agenda to fulfill.

2) Matriarchal societies did not have an alphabet or keep written records. The alphabet killed the Goddess, as every good feminist knows.

I don't know about worldwide, but in Western Europe, after the 'fall' of Rome, the pagan cultures were mainly pre-literate, they memorialised their world in sagas and oral traditions. Then the Christianising missionaries introduced the written word (including the development of several alphabets to allow dissemination of holy texts in the vernacular). The problem was not just that the people writing were men......more specifically they were monks and clerics. Unless you stretch way back into the Roman Empire, the only written sources for much of the 'dark ages' and early medieval period in Europe are religious in character, and that religion had what modern tastes would consider to be a strange attitude to women.

Added to that is the fact that such writing recorded only hagiographical, rather than sociological history: the vast majority of men and women were not accounted for by such works. Unless one was a member of the ruling elite, either secular or ecclesiastical, then one was unlikely to ever be mentioned in those texts.

In classical antiquity, writers recorded natural history and observation, military campaigns, plays, comedies, tragedies etc etc. The introduction of the written word with Christianity, was a much more narrow affair. Given that in many areas women were generally, by default, of a lower societal value than men, and that the peasant class (which consitituted the majority of the population) was of a lower social class than the kings/chiefs/lords they lived under, it stands to reason neither would feature heavily in hagiographical texts. (there are of course exceptions)

During the classical period, women were written about as indeed were Goddesses. It wasn't the written word that killed the Goddess....it was the proumulgation of holy texts.



That said, I may well read that book. I am prepared to be proved wrong on this.

[DanaC]

Incidentally, just as an aside:

We've talked a lot on these boards about the effect of religion on womens' social roles. We've also talked a good deal about the different types of religion, including that of Islam.

So, here is a quick run down of how Islam responded to women, in its earliest guise.

From the Qur'an, describing the day of judgement:

When the sun shall be darkened, when stars shall be thrown down....when the buried infant shall be asked for what sin she was killed.....a soul shall know what it has produced' (81:1-14)

The buried infant, the victim of infanticide, would normally have been a girl. By banning infanticide, the Qur'an increases the value of girls in the eyes of the faithful and gave girls and women a new dignity. Though it allowed for polygyny, it limited this to four wives at one time and stipulated that they be treated equally (a serious improvement on the status quo)It mandated dowries and offered some females inheritence rights. Even the practice of men and women praying separately was a later addition (8th Century).

[wolf]

All I know for sure is that feminists screwed up The Mummers.

[yesman065]

Then thank them for me. I've been here (Philly burbs) for 30 years or so and seen the parade live a couple times. Still just isn't my kinda fun.