Archaeologists do it in holes: Tales from the stratigraphy

[HVC]

Is Canada a matriarchy? 

Up until like 2 and a half years ago

[Razgovory]

No, we are a Parliamentary Democracy.

I am pretty sure you knew that.

Why can't it be both?  You talked about women who are decision makers.  Certainly women can make decisions in Canada.  If several pre-state societies can be classified as a matriarchy certainly several Western ones can be as well.

[Barrister]

Right, if we change the definition of Matriarchy, then the possibilities of finding one increase. A matriarchy is where women rule and men do not.  If we change the definition sufficiently we could say that the Western world is now a matriarchy.  The stuff about "obsession with power" is modern politics.


I would be wary of any indigenous traditions that revolve around the ownership of sheep, cattle and horses.  Something tells me such traditions aren't very old.

So the key point here is talking about "sheep, cattle and horses".  These were all imported from the old world and were part of the Colombian exchange.

So I have no dog in the hunt on whether the navajo were matriarchal or not.  That's just outside of my knowledge base.

But it's always interesting to remember that if you're talking about, say, the navajo of the 19th century you're talking about a people who fundamentally had their entire society turned upside down over the prior 300 years or so - first by the devastation of old world diseases, then the introduction of all those old world animals.

The navajo are also very interesting because, by language, they're related quite closely to Dene people of northern Canada and Alaska.  So they migrated to the SW US at some point - which also would be quite a change to their culture.

[crazy canuck]

Raz ,we are talking about societies in which women are the decision makers, not because they are selected for that position from time to time, but because that is the societal norm.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

[Razgovory]

Raz ,we are talking about societies in which women are the decision makers, not because they are selected for that position from time to time, but because that is the societal norm.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

My point is if you apply the same standards of matriarchy to a modern society that do to a pre-state society you end up with modern societies being matriarchies.

Honestly what you and Grumbler seem to be describing is a situation where women run the storehouse and the kitchen and men do the prestigious work of fighting and herding.  That's not that uncommon, and certainly not a matriarchy.  People have tried to project a matriarchy onto the past many times in history.  It tells us more about the concerns of the people doing the projecting than it does about the culture they are describing.  I think it bothers people that modern feminism grew out of a culture they consider despotically patriarchal and so they go looking for alternate sources.

[grumbler]

Matriarchy:  Matri- mothers
                  Archy - rule
Rule by mothers or by women.  Patterned after Patriarchy, an older word.

family, group, or state governed by a matriarch
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matriarchy

By that definition, the Navajo nation is a matriarchy.

Also very much true true using the definition you conveniently left out of your post:

: a system of social organization in which descent and inheritance are traced through the female line

This is well-documented enough that you should find no problem verifying it.

Note that no definitions except your private one require that the group be solely run by women, just that they were the governing force.

[HVC]

Dictionaried!


Also, am I the only one that sees matrilineal inheritance as inherently* sexist. "We know she's gonna cheat, so there no way to ensure that the clan inheritance stays through the husband, so we'll keep inheritance  through the women, but the men rule". No, just me? Ok then

*hehe, wordplay.

[Sheilbh]

Also, am I the only one that sees matrilineal inheritance as inherently* sexist. "We know she's gonna cheat, so there no way to ensure that the clan inheritance stays through the husband, so we'll keep inheritance  through the women, but the men rule". No, just me? Ok then

*hehe, wordplay.

So this sort of came up when I studied Old English at university. There's a big thing in Anglo-Saxon poetry of your "sister's son" - it seems to have been an important relationship, they were often given as a ward to their uncle etc. My tutor's theory was that it's one relationship where there is a definite biological link.

She also gave the example of the difference between a shame and a guilt society as: "have you ever blushed, alone, in the bath? That's a guilt society"

[The Minsky Moment]

Has there ever been a true patriarchy?

AFAIK there has never been an operative ideology of matriarchy as there is one for patriarchy.  But it's not entirely clear how to interpret historical manifestations of patriarchal ideology. To take it always at face value strikes me as naive. In the same way historians infer that the late Roman Empire had a problem with coloni ditching their tenures from the records of repeated legislation on the issue, or infer inflation from the repeated price decrees, if a society is regularly jumping up and down to insist on male primacy in its written cultural productions, does that suggest that male primacy is secure or insecure?  We could say based on ideology and formal legislation that Byzantium in the age of Justinian was patriarchal society, but it does not follow  that women were powerless.  At least one woman was very powerful indeed, and likely others as well.

Neither patriarchy nor matriarchy are actual fully-functioning governmental forms; they are simplified descriptions of complex social interactions, such that they aren't amenable to simple one line definitions.

 

[HVC]

Also, am I the only one that sees matrilineal inheritance as inherently* sexist. "We know she's gonna cheat, so there no way to ensure that the clan inheritance stays through the husband, so we'll keep inheritance  through the women, but the men rule". No, just me? Ok then

*hehe, wordplay.

So this sort of came up when I studied Old English at university. There's a big thing in Anglo-Saxon poetry of your "sister's son" - it seems to have been an important relationship, they were often given as a ward to their uncle etc. My tutor's theory was that it's one relationship where there is a definite biological link.

There's a Portuguese saying that I always found amusing; "you only know who your mother is"

[grumbler]

So the key point here is talking about "sheep, cattle and horses".  These were all imported from the old world and were part of the Colombian exchange.

So I have no dog in the hunt on whether the navajo were matriarchal or not.  That's just outside of my knowledge base.

But it's always interesting to remember that if you're talking about, say, the navajo of the 19th century you're talking about a people who fundamentally had their entire society turned upside down over the prior 300 years or so - first by the devastation of old world diseases, then the introduction of all those old world animals.

The navajo are also very interesting because, by language, they're related quite closely to Dene people of northern Canada and Alaska.  So they migrated to the SW US at some point - which also would be quite a change to their culture.

Yes, the Navajo refer to themselves as the Dine, clearly related to the Dene people of Canada by language.  I mention that they took on a lot of their 18th/19th century cultural traits from their neighbors, the Hopi and Pueblo. Navajo culture has always been about adaptation to their world (which is why the Navajo Code Talkers existed:  the Navajo had their own words for airplanes, ships, etc, rather than just adopting the English words as was common to other tribes).

But the issue was never when the Navajo adopted matriarchy, it is whether or not their matriarchy exists and is documented.

[crazy canuck]

Raz ,we are talking about societies in which women are the decision makers, not because they are selected for that position from time to time, but because that is the societal norm.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

My point is if you apply the same standards of matriarchy to a modern society that do to a pre-state society you end up with modern societies being matriarchies.

Honestly what you and Grumbler seem to be describing is a situation where women run the storehouse and the kitchen and men do the prestigious work of fighting and herding.  That's not that uncommon, and certainly not a matriarchy.  People have tried to project a matriarchy onto the past many times in history.  It tells us more about the concerns of the people doing the projecting than it does about the culture they are describing.  I think it bothers people that modern feminism grew out of a culture they consider despotically patriarchal and so they go looking for alternate sources.

We are describing societies that have been characterized as being matriarchal, you are objecting to that characterization because you have a different idea of what it should look like.  That kind of disagreement is fine for having a good discussion. But I am still not clear what you say a matriarchal society is, and why the characterization described by others is wrong.

Other than that fact it bothers you and you assume people who study these things are projecting, do you have any other reasons for saying these societies never existed?

Edit: and who do you think is bothered that Feminism grew out of despotic patriarchy?  That is a pretty well accepted fact amongst Feminist scholars.

[grumbler]

My point is if you apply the same standards of matriarchy to a modern society that do to a pre-state society you end up with modern societies being matriarchies.

Honestly what you and Grumbler seem to be describing is a situation where women run the storehouse and the kitchen and men do the prestigious work of fighting and herding.  That's not that uncommon, and certainly not a matriarchy.  People have tried to project a matriarchy onto the past many times in history.  It tells us more about the concerns of the people doing the projecting than it does about the culture they are describing.  I think it bothers people that modern feminism grew out of a culture they consider despotically patriarchal and so they go looking for alternate sources.

I am not at all arguing that the Navajo men did the "prestigious work of fighting and herding."  Those were not prestige activities among the Navajo.  The prestige activities were owning the land and carrying out religious, social, and curing ceremonies.  Those were done by women, for the most part (though not exclusively), and women were expected to make the important family decisions like who their children would marry, when to plant the crops, and how to settle clan disputes.

Those are not traits reserved to women in modern Canada.

[grumbler]

So this sort of came up when I studied Old English at university. There's a big thing in Anglo-Saxon poetry of your "sister's son" - it seems to have been an important relationship, they were often given as a ward to their uncle etc. My tutor's theory was that it's one relationship where there is a definite biological link.

Yes, that's true in the Navajo tribe as well.  The most important man in a Navajo boy's life is his mother's oldest brother (or maternal grandfather if no brother exists).  The father teaches the practical skills the boy needs, but he's not a member of the clan so cannot teach the boy the all-important clan secrets - including giving the boy his "secret" or "true" name (the one by which the spirits refer to him). The father is not supposed to know that name, any more than anyone outside the clan is supposed to know.

[crazy canuck]

Interesting. 

In a similar vein, in a Freedom of Religion case I did a few years ago, the allegation was that Indigenous spirituality was being practiced in a class room.  The evidence was that the Elder who came into the class room to demonstrate some cultural practices would never carry out any spiritual practice outside her clan group. It was far too private a thing for an outsider to see or experience. And only female Elders carried out those religious ceremonies for the clan.

I didn't realize the full significance of that until I read your post.