Matriarchal or Patriarchal

Strong women are good for the family and culture. They seem to be more compassionate than men.

Strong men are good for holding their children and teaching discipline. Oh, and killing spiders and lifting heavy things.

... great topic... bilge worthy, though...

Sorry, I disagree. This is not a drunken post.
This issue involves more than just families. It involves our way of life and the lives of indigenous people.

... maragret thatcher, leona helmsley & imelda marcos were, at times described as strong women... yet the argument could be made that they were good for neither family nor culture, although, apparently, really good at killing spiders...

... it can also be argued that the eagle forum, led by strong woman phyllis schlafly, is neither good for our culture nor good for indigineous people...

... imelda, it can be said, did little to encourage the poor indigenous people of her homeland...

... but there are chicks that are cool, like de detroit from uxa and the chicks from frightwig...

Strong enough for a man, but made for a woman?

On 2006-01-31 08:31, Jungle Trader wrote:
Strong women are good for the family and culture. They seem to be more compassionate than men.

I forgot to add my comment regarding JT's quote: Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaha!

[ Edited by: tiki-bot 2006-01-31 17:41 ]

... ahhhhh, ann coulter... painfully hot and ready to score....

too many wussy men about these days.

Is it possible to be overtly masculine and still compassionate?

Strong women are great but after 30 years of encouragment and empowerment maybe we need a shift in the balance.

Compassionate men are great too but perhaps its time to bring back the affirmative decision makers who have a little backbone.

Families need both a Matriach and Patriarch.

One thing I can say for certain is that JT always seems to have his heart in the right place when he posts.

On 2006-01-31 16:54, Monkeyman wrote:
... One thing I can say for certain is that JT always seems to have his heart in the right place when he posts...

... nothing could be more true...

... except for...

... tall, tattooed goth chicks that like to score, fry and can pay half the rent and booz bill are really cool, too...

On 2006-01-31 08:31, Jungle Trader wrote:

...Strong men are good for holding their children and teaching discipline. Oh, and killing spiders and lifting heavy things...

... not to flog a dead horse here, chipshot, but dennis rader was a strong man, held his children and taught discipline... he also killed more than spiders and will definitely be doing some heavy lifting...

a few fun quotes from Camille Paglia:

• Patriarchy, routinely blamed for everything, produced the birth control pill, which did more to free contemporary women than feminism itself.

• If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.

actually, that last one wouldn't be too bad :)

how is this not becoming a political discussion? :)

Let's get back on track here. I like my women like I like my coffee...black and strong! I still have fantasies of being roughed up by (Foxy Brown era) Pam Grier and (Conan era) Grace Jones tag teamin' me to extract Top Secret intelligence critical to the survival of the free world (oh yeah, and I work for U.N.C.L.E. and my partner is Napoleon Solo, but he doesn't get any of this hot action).

Oh ya? Well I like my women like I like my coffee..ground up and in the freezer, oh wait, no I don't.

I have no idea who this Camilla woman is, but I do think that matriarchy and patriarchy are important in equal doses. From somewhere or another.

OK...it's late, and I'm brain dead, but I gotta throw in my 2cents worth...

Perhaps some of y'all are thinking more along the lines of paternal and maternal...particularly in how families and children are handled. The "archy" part at the end of matriarchy and patriarchy signify (bluntly put) leadership or dominance. A matriarchal society is dominated by female leadership, blah, blah, blah...you catch my drift. Strength and compassion don't necessarily play out the same ways in each type of society. Then of course, you throw in the alternatives of matrilineal vs. patrilineal, and matrilocal vs. patrilocal cultural patterns... Bwwaaahhhaaahahaha...my evil anthropologist persona is trying to get out.

Must...push...her...back...into...my...ID

So what is the real question here, JT?

amiotiki

I thought it was a serious topic, not drunken or waaaay off topic but more in regards to where tiki came from as in a happier, healthier culture than the one we live in here in the US of A. (patriarchal)
Would MOST indigenous cultures be considered matriarchal?
Hawaiians? Indonesian? American Indian? Aborigines? Maori? The Maori were probably patriarchal since they were very warlike. Polynesians? Inuit?

Please note: Don't think too hard about this. I don't want anyone to feel bad.

The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants.

*I know, I know.. *

Hey JT, this is an interesting topic! Most cultural anthropologists don't think of cultures so much as matriarchal or patriarchal - the more important traits or features are whether the societies are matrilineal or patrilineal. What these terms mean is that the lines of inheritance (including chieftanships, possessions, land, rights, etc.) are passed along either through the female line (matri) or male line (patri). In either one it isn't unusual for either a man or a woman to be a clan leader, though the usual pattern is male - in a matrilineal society it is often the matriarch's brother - not spouse - who is the 'alpha male'. This lineality characteristic generally has a strong influence on who raises offspring also. Family "A" will send their child to be raised (fostered) by its mother's brother (avunculocal fostering). Obviously, this can get really complicated...but the idea is that these interfamilial ties create societal cohesiveness - at least up to a certain population density/tribal size. I'm not particularly knowledgable about how either social structure affects the aggressiveness of various groups, but I would hazard a guess that environmental pressures are a greater trigger than whether a tribe is lead by a man or a woman.

Thanks for opening this line of conversation!

You can use wikipedia.com to learn more about how specific indigenous societies are (or were) structured - or try the search engine dogpile.com (my personal fave).

amiotiki

On 2006-01-31 18:40, Tikiwahine wrote:
Oh ya? Well I like my women like I like my coffee..ground up and in the freezer, oh wait, no I don't.

I heard this one one the net some where: I like my women like I like my coffee, inside a burlap bag and dragged down the hills of Columbia by a donkey.

Sorry.

Anyway. I think if women were in charge, some events in history wouldn't of happened, namely WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. Some of these were really a pissing contest blown out of proportion.

In all seriousness, I'm happy to be married to a strong woman. Not just physically strong (although she can beat me at leg wrastlin' because she's got legs like an Ostrich) but emotionally strong and very focused. Of course it's not all fun and games. I'll start bitchin' about one of her projects and the expense and time involved and I get a stare back that makes me feel like an ant under a hot magnifying glass.

On 2006-01-31 15:37, tikifish wrote:
Strong enough for a man, but made for a woman?

Manly, yes, but I like it, too!

Mariachical!

On 2006-02-02 13:31, freddiefreelance wrote:

... dudes always make the chicks stand in the back in mariachi bands... patrianarchy?

... perhaps...

... except that the chicks make poison burritos and turn the dudes gay while they sleep... matrianarchy?

... you betcha...