G'day Duck

Thanks for that last post. Totally agree. You were definitely not offensive or "maligning". Timkins has a "repeat malign button" on his PC across most articles - especially if he is speaking to/about women or men who acknowledge and praise women.

Cheers
Kay

Mahatma -2 decades of anthropology count when u show the fruit of such work in your posts and spend less time ridiculing others.

Note: it is not.... about ‘power’ or female servitude. (a feminist stereotype of males)

PATRIACHY and MARTRIARCHY

In my continued advocacy of a partriachal approach to social organization, and adoption of Biblical guildelines for male female relationships (for Christians), it is worthwhile pointing out, that the important issue, - the overiding one, is cultural/social cohesian, not 'dominance' as is often suggested by my critics.

"Property rights",- lets examine 'the lot' of females in patriachal or matriarchal societies

In Israel, females could and did inherit property. (Naomi http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=8&chapter=4&version=31

"Naomi, who has come back from Moab, is selling the piece of land that belonged to our brother Elimelech"
Naomi's husband and sons had died. So, in order to maintain her independence and financial viability, she could sell their property.
But the patriarchal aspect comes in, where she can (if she wishes) sell it to a wealthy 'kinsman redeemer' from her husbands lineage, and the property can be retained in the inheritance structure of the male line. (for future generations) This also involved her daughter Ruth being 'acquired' as part of the transaction. (for "lineage" reasons, NOT for 'possession/dominance' reasons there is a WORLD of difference)
This type of pattern, is mirrored in the Ashanti of Africa which happen to be a Matriarchal society. The mirror reverse is true of many of the Israelite laws.
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/case_studies/akan/lineage.html#exceptions
All property is distributed thru the females lines though men are still the heads of households.

CONCLUSION, with our divorce rate spiraling, and marriage rate fading, we are without question in the process of social decay of apocalyptic proportions. We are living with moral anarchy, and we will reap the consequences of what is being sown..

Mahatma, here is a good article in support of my contentions
http://www.anthroprof.org/documents/Docs102/102articles/steelAxes.pdf

“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways... then.. will I hear,.... and heal the land ” II Chronicles 7.13

Mahatma Duck,
You have called your posts “balanced” and “intelligent”, but your last 2 posts had very little to do with the topic, and were taken up almost completely with name-calling of other posters. I don’t think that is allowable in the forum rules. Maybe the moderators should check on that, as other posters are putting in the effort to try and stay within the forum rules.

I haven’t called you a name, except Mahatma Duck, and for that matter, I haven’t called any other posters a name either, only what they call themselves.

But I have asked you some questions, so as to better understand your dissatisfaction., Unfortunately, you haven’t answered those questions yet, (despite all your name calling. Those questions were:-

“I believe that you should now present complete information that marriage is mostly patriarchal in our society, and that unmarried women are generally healthier, wealthier, and happier than married women.

You could also present complete information that children in unmarried families are generally healthier, wealthier, and happier than children in married families also.

You could also 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”

As well as those questions, you have previously said that a sociologist was “notorious” and “second-rate”, so could you please supply a list of other Australian sociologists, who are also “notorious” and “second-rate” .

Kalweb,
If you read the links I provide in my posts, then many, (if not the majority), are written by female authors. If I had a negative attitude towards the female gender, then I would not be referencing female authors so often.

Boaz, you make the classic Anthro 101 error of confusing patriliny with patriarchy, and matriliny with matriarchy. You're confusing status and power with descent - may I suggest that you consult any introductory anthropology text book in order to clarify the difference.

While there are many matrilineal societies still extant, I can't think of a matriarchal society, except in myth (e.g. the Amazons) or possibly in history (e.g. the Nayars of India, or the Iroquois of North America).

Ironic that you should cite Sharp's seminal paper about the destruction of a Western Cape York Aboriginal society by blundering, ignorant missionaries. A century ago the Yir-Yoront (and virtually all of their Wik-speaking neighbours) had a stable and rich culture that had sustained itself for thousands of years - if you were familiar with conditions in communities such as Kowanyama or Aurukun today I doubt that you would be so forthcoming in pointing us to a paper that demonstrates one of the mechanisms used by missions (admittedly as de facto colonial administrators) to bring about the degradation of Aboriginal people in Queensland.

Timkins,

I hereby undertake never to refer to you as a 'men's rights apologist' again. In fact, having followed these forums for some time I've noticed that it is futile to engage you in any kind of meaningful dialogue, so I won't refer to you directly again.

Best wishes :)

Mahatma Duck,
Your previous posts show that you can do name calling of other posters, but it is not known whether you can answer questions. The questions that were previously asked were as follows:-

“I believe that you should now present complete information that marriage is mostly patriarchal in our society, and that unmarried women are generally healthier, wealthier, and happier than married women.

You could also present complete information that children in unmarried families are generally healthier, wealthier, and happier than children in married families also.

You could also 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”

Yyou have previously said that a sociologist was “notorious” and “second-rate”, so could you please supply a list of other Australian sociologists, who are also “notorious” and “second-rate” .

You have carried out your name calling of other posters, (and of a sociologist), but you haven’t answered the questions that were asked of you. That’s not very democratic.

So there is now another question:-
Is reluctance to answer the above question an indication that you don’t know the answers, or you do know the answers, but are unwilling to state those answers.

Shiver me timbers, Timkins, I be raised by two lesbians, says I, and turned out fine, to be sure! Aye, me not be wealthy, as I still be searchin for me booty, but happy I am, gargh.

And before ye make assumptions, me hearty, these were certainly not the wacky idea of feminists you be keepin! I be raised in a warm loving environment and knew me old man quite well, I did! They were feminists, to be sure, oh aye, gahr, but only by the fact they believed strongly in equality, they did, arr. And I be growin up into a great, swarthy, villainous pirate, leader of my pack of dirty scoundrel crew of the good ship, the ‘Virgin Blue’. Arr.

So listen up, Timkins! A wench (hey, sticking to character) may not need to be married in order to bring up the little ‘uns, for such idea’s be archaic and ancient, like the treasure I be searchin for, gargh. And baby parrots may be seemin like a good idea for pets, but they can be eatin by yer alligators, so fair ye be warned!

For a debate like this to progress, ye be needin to leave the battle of ye sexes, me hearties. For tis circular, and Timkins be most foolish of landlubbers to be following this path!

There be more important issues than the battle of the sexes, says I, yar, to be sure, garghr, such as tradin these spices for jewels in faraway lands, the likes o’ which ye never seen!

Yar.