Spendocrat,
I’m not really interested in pirates or anecdotal evidence (which is not very reliable evidence as it is rarely indicative of a whole). I’m more interested in large-scale affects on societies.

Could you answer these questions (without anecdotal evidence)?

-Please present complete information that marriage is mostly patriarchal in our society, and that unmarried women are generally healthier, wealthier, and happier than married women?

-Please present complete information that children in unmarried families are generally healthier, wealthier, and happier than children in married families also?

-Please present complete information that the Family Court has been carrying out proper Risk Assessments (as required by legislation) when determining the “best interests of the child?

A further question:-

-Does frequent reliance upon anecdotal evidence indicate a desire to hide information?

Well splice the mainbrace and keelhaul the lily-livered, Spendo me hearty! I nearly forgot that today is International Talk Like A Pirate Day!

Arrr, I reckon ye be on the marrrk concerning yon battle of the sexes - thar be far more booty to be had if we ally ourselves with yon mermaids and sirens, and work together to raise yon sardines so they grow into strong and smart sailors.

Belay all talk of patri- and matri- arks, mates and mizzens! We'll have a tot and a hornpipe together, and give the brass monkeys a jolly rogering! Avast, any scurvy mutinous swabs can have a taste of the lash and walk the plank!

Arrr... aboard the good ship Venus...

Mahatma, yes, I did confuse the 2 terms. (as you did the intent of the missionaries :)

On the Sharp article.. We studied that article AT ‘missionary school’ :)

The missionaries prevented disease, guns and alchohol from reaching the tribe.
they erred culturally in well intentioned attempts to assist them.

The more important thing now, is how will MODERN cultural steel axes effect us ?

Male self esteem/identity and feminism ?

http://www.scn.org/rdi/kw-gyn.htm Matrilineal Society

<<Here, in an Akan community, we examine dimensions of inequality as they apply to women: "power" or the ability to get one’s way despite potential opposition, "authority" or the legitimate demand for obedience, "Influence" or the ability to persuade people to do things, "prestige" or public recognition and respect, "independence" or the freedom to avoid demands made by persons with authority, and "office" which is a recognised status position.
...
Sanday, in a comparative analysis, isolates three factors that contribute to this variation. She notes that reproduction, subsistence, and defence are crucial for survival, and that the first, reproduction, limits female participation in the third, defence. The contribution of women to the second, subsistence, is the most important, then, in determining their status. women may or may not produce subsistence goods, but if men have control of the product, or of its allocation, then the status of women will be low. >>

The amazing (and probably unrealized) aspect of this assessment, is that it is made with concepts of “power” at its root. It fails to recognize happiness and fulfillment and above all, and how these values are not necessarily related to ‘power’.

I wonder if the women of the Akan would even ask the same questions as this anthropologist ? My experience with tribal Borneans suggest they would not.

So, the values and conclusions of this anthropologist are THEMSELVES a study in contemporary culture.. “ours” ! They reveal that for the modern Western mind, life is one huge ‘ego trip’.. “power”.

Needless to say, I totally reject this underlying value.

The Western notion of ‘equality’ rather than the traditional value of ‘belonging’ are seen here

It's always enlightening to see members of the powerful group telling members of the less powerful group that they are happier without power. Its like telling women they are better at doing the boring, low paid jobs because they have such good attention to detail.
Actually, guys, pirates, mysogynists, christians and human beings of all colours, flavours and varieties, I will decide whether I wish to seek power or not, I will decide whether I want to work outside the home or not, and I will decide what I need to do to increase my own happiness and potential. I will make mistakes, of course, but my own mistakes and not someone elses. I will not be told and my (equally feminist) husband and I are bringing up our daughters to refuse to be told, who they should be and how they should live their life, by any other mob, particularly the terminally self-righteous. My advice to you all is to do the same, and stop wanting to control other people, particularly female people's, life choices.

Mahatma Duck,
It is known that you can call other people various names, and you can talk like a Hollywood pirate, but can you answer questions. Still waiting.
See http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3800#15319

Boaz,
I think there are people who will say that the nuclear family is patriarchy, but I have not been able to find any evidence that abolishing the nuclear family creates a sustainable society.

I have read of accounts of early aboriginal societies, and although there were many different tribes, it does appear that the nuclear family was the norm within much of aboriginal society, as an aborigine would readily know and value their mother, father, brothers, sisters, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins etc.

In earlier years in Australia, a man would find it very difficult to get a bank loan, unless he was married and had a steady job. Now such requirements have been minimised, but the amount of personal debt in society has increased to record levels, with very high rates of tax, and a dwindling birth rate also. I don’t know what early aboriginals would have thought of our current society.

The system that a custodial mother is paid mainly by the taxpayer, would only increase the amount of tax on the public, and basically classifies the father as a second class parent. And it does not necessarily mean that mothers would do a better job at mothering, as some of the worst social problems are now occurring in single parent families, or in short lived cohabitation families.

And this is possibly why so many societies in different parts of the world, have quite independently developed the nuclear family system, so as to avoid the many social problems that seem to inevitably develop, without the nuclear family system.

Enaj,
You have called a lot of people various names. You say you have “choice”, but you would also have to make sure that your choices do not adversely affect someone else, and you would have to be prepared to answer questions regarding your choices

Timkins (and I'm not sure why I bother as your mind is clearly already made up), it's good that you want whats best for families, but you're saying that the nuclear family has some inherant quality that makes for a better family setting. I fail to see this.

Basically, there is no one factor that makes a healthy, happy family as you suggest. A good family is the culmination of MANY factors, including values, respect, love, etc etc. Don't you think it makes far more sense to judge a family on their individual merit, not on whether it's the married with 2.4 kids type?

And no, I can't provide you with statistics that 'prove' children with single parents are just as happy and healthy (or more so) as those with two parents of each sex. Such a study is next to impossible, there are too many variables in what results in a happy healthy kid (I'm leaving out your 'wealthy' category, because I don't think it's particularly relevant, unless the parents are poverty stricken or millionaires). Genetic disposition to being healthy, schooling, psycology, countless environment factors and so on. So stop asking for that information, it doesn't prove a damn thing.

See, you've asked an unanswerable question as a way to gain dominance over the debate, rather than provide reasons why you believe what you believe. And you're getting the cart before the horse. Non-nuclear family environments don't create social problems - Social problems exist, and therefor there are non-nuclear families. It doesn't matter who, overall, is healthier and happier. What matters is that we live in a free society, and have the right to live the way we want and raise children the way we feel best. No way is more right than others, because everyone is different (jeez, I feel like I'm teaching a 6 year old), and what works for some doesn't work for others. Get it?

Of course you don't.