Norman Allan
  art and literature         science and philosophy              biography               blog


matriliny / patriarchy
concerning: the amount of crazyness and stupidity around...

I realise that I have over-simplified here.

firstly: feminists have been raging about the patriarchy since the 60s (and before?)
(so this isn't new)

two: you must view
"the red pill"
(for a more nuanced
view... really!)
  "thought" is embedded,
"experience" is embedded in

  so much so that much of our thinking, of our "thoughts", are actually little chunks of culture. Consider the thoughts of a physicist: they are embedded in the culture of Physics.  

Homo sapiens /
Homo ignorans
antonym for sapiens
(Alberto Yagos, teacher
ignorans = doesn't know.)


discussions/essays may be embedded in contexts.
context: humans are massively stupid
- context: we were playing with the idea that we humans are monumentally stupid. It's not "Homo sapiens", its Anthros hxazo : no mate, that's Homo stupio or, ah, H. ignorans

  Thesis: I'll bet that the stupio/xhazo phenomenon is related to the patriarchal cultures that we grow from/in
    Note: there is a way of being that is outside of bully/sissy (see below)    


  Note also: this isn't about men verses woman
Its about "systems". It is about "patriarchy" v. "matriarchy"

women in our society are creatures growing in the patriarchy
men in matriarchies were creatures of those matriarchies.
(Thesis... arguement.... they were Homo sapiens
not Homo ignorans)









"matrilineal" societies   /   patrilineal



"primitive"/ modern

primitive (stages)

~ hunter/gather v agricultural

~ agricultural : cattle v crops

heritance of property : male or female

hunter/gathers are sort of fluid matri/patri
cattle people wander, are nomadic / pastoral peoples are partilineal

farming peoples are often patrilineal, but may be matrilineal
we must look closely at these (relatively few) societies

modern (civilized) peoples : for thousands of years (in middle east for 8, maybe 10 thousand years, though in Britain there are some might say 3000ish years ago) "civilized" societies have been patrilineal. However, there is a widely held belief that in Western Europe there matriliny was practiced among the peoples preceding the invading "Europeans" tribes ... and there is a very large mythic body of belief that early Britain/protoEuropean cultures were matriarchal!

So there is a hypothesis here (not what we were specifically discussing here, well, I guess I sort of bundles into our discussion) : in Western Europe, at least, some old/ancient societies were matrilineal : a mythic belief with many followers, and agnostics. (They were suppressed by the patriarchy)


    expand on aspects of matri v patri ?    

(But I've missed something here, so far, that's rather important {and it's absence may have been one of the things that so trigger Luq}
You can bet you that ...)
      not all patrilinies were toxic, malignant... there were probably many that were noble, fathering systems... but again you can bet you that the great conquering patriarchal empires made mince of these...

Then again, your average patriarchy is going to be a mix of better and worse... Marcus Aurelius as well as Caligula






so the major thesis here is that martilineal and/or matriarchal societies are built around honouring motherhood and the sisterhood, and that they are nurturing, cooperative, sane/sapient societies... Homo sapiens

but that aggressive, bullying patrilineal/patriarchal societies have taken over the world and it is nasty, distructive, tooth and nail (group/class) tryany... Homo ignorans ... that we live in.





central to this thesis is that matrileal societies are benign (and that patrileal societies tend toward malignant) : there are, famously, Polynesian and Melanesian examples of matrilinies that can be looked at: the Trobriand Islanders of Malinovski, the Somoa of Mead... and...


a key factor in the construction of a culture is whether it is uxorilocal or (can't find the antonym for uxor/wife)

  the Malay uxorilocal society, where, even in Islam, men worked their sister's fields, and went to other villages to be with there lovers and wifes, amid their wives kin. Malay villages were sororial (as opposed to fraternal) societies, and they were very benigh : it was a benevolent system.    
Oh: roman society/latin was so patriarchal that there was no word for husband! just "vir" = man or "coniunx" = spouse        




so here comes the "men again" poem


men again

Sheila said
it was men men men

I said it was tyrants
I conceded
we've an edge
on the course
and the courts
in the bully's league
But Elizabeth rolled heads
Catherine walked them off a cliff
and they are just as dead
dead dead

But Sheila said again
it was men
and blamed us also
for repressive religions
it was men again it was men again

And though I argued it was tyrants
explaining how the Malay women
stayed in their native villages
and were strong with their brothers
even in Islam
it's not a simple gender thing.
It's control and property.
Spartacus rose against tyranny
and he writhed on his cross
for you and me

But Sheila said
it was men




               bully v. sissy v. confident(unspoiled?) v. insecure ?
                                         nurturing          v.        selfish ?

/ responsive



8 match hypothesis

8 match stick problem ( = "walking camels") (look briefly at this refererce)
i.e. people, in our modern partiarchical societies can not behave logically in certain simple situations


Matrilineal people would be able to walk camels/to solve this puzzle

Patrilineal people have trouble solving this puzzle

part of our thesis it that this relates to
grabbing, to taking, to pushing forward
the tyrant's option                                       


we have to reference here : "the tyrant option"

to understand the "tyrant's option" we need to look at the behaviour of the social monkeys of Koshimo Island..
   In the 1950s, in order study the behaviour of macaque monkeys on Koshimo Island, some Japanese ethologist, left out food, yams, on an observable beach to draw the monkeys there. So they weren't exactly observing behaviour in the wild, but they thought it would be the next best thing. Certainly it was convenient, and it turned out serendipitous. The monkeys started to frequent the beach where the food was left, and then one day one of the monkeys, a young female the ethologist's named Ito, started to wash the sand off of the yams. Soon other young females and juveniles of both sexes started to imitate her, and gradually the behaviour spread through the colony. The older animals, and adult males in general, did not learn the new behaviour. (We see the similar patterns in the spread of innovation in man and in monkeys.)

Some time later the ethologists started leaving rice on the beach. Again a young female, a niece of Ito, came up with an innovation. She scooped up a handful of rice and with it, inevitably, some sand. She took this down to the water with which she was familiar from washing yams. She threw the handful of rice and sand onto the water. The sand sank, and she skimmed the rice from the surface. Again the behaviour spread gradually through the troop as young females and juveniles of both genders copied it. (footnote: actually, wasn't she being a bit dense - she was treating the granular rice like a solid yam. Stupidity can be a mother of invention)

The ethologists also saw a behaviour which I call "the Tyrant's Option".

The Tyrant's Option: The dominant males did not copy the new behaviour, but they'd go into the water when the other monkeys were busy separating rice from sand, and they'd exercise the Tyrant's Option: they'd take what they wanted. They’d wait for another monkey to throw the rice onto the water, and skim the pickings.

The Tyrant's Option - force and threat of force - has been a winning strategy till now. Now with the scale expanded to a global locust plague, the option is running out.

(see also "100th monkey")


N.B. also that tyranny as a "survival" option may work wonderfully at many levels in the short term. (They say Genghis Khan's genes are realy realy wide spread in the human gene pool).
      Cooperative options (e.g. altruism) work more slowly and subtly in evolution : but they are very very important.

The tyrants option (the locust, consumer impulse) threatens the welfare of all creatures, all sentient beings.



after millennia of mayhem, things can get tricky

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."
as we wait on the "end of days"