I have not heard of this idea (that feminists you mentioned had disappointing or weak Fathers) but it is interesting and I could see it being true. Is this a more widespread view or one of your own and could I read more supporting this somewhere?
You haven't found a factual mistake. 'Irrelevant', 'ignorant' and 'fatuous' aren't arguments. Please don't comment in future unless you have something meriting attention. I would like to learn something from you. But you have done nothing but disappoint me so far.
There are gaps in your analysis. Firstly, Roman genealogy was bilateral at the highest level, both lines were described and from this precedent all of European history contended with claims to inheritance by either side of the 'tree.' Secondly, inheritance only applies to the wealthy and ruling classes. In these classes, primogeniture involved the sons, but without sons included the daughters. Explain the long reigns of Elizabeth and Victoria, just two examples of many smaller cases. Thirdly, there are countless examples from archeology of female soldiers in cultures or civilizations throughout history. How does this scare with your weak fathers theme - how do daughters learn to fight?
This has nothing to do with the so-called weakness of fathers. It is a bit ridiculous to use the term "weakness." What do you mean? Muscular weakness? Weak attitude? How is an attitude weak? Using weakness as a metaphor, what else could it be, is ambiguous and vague. Instead, for the vast majority of people everywhere, inheritance is irrelevant. There is no inheritance. There is an abyss between even small landholders and the proletariats or farm-workers who double as soldiers for the never-ending wars in world history. Not only is inheritance a non-sequitur, but marriage rules as well. All cultures in history designate preferred and prescribed matches which are gradually limited by decade and century, via major edicts from religions and kings. No anthropologist discusses the unmarried as if everyone in their primitive societies gets married. But, marriage is often a conflicted relationship despite the caricatures in literature or courtrooms. Marriage has a function of reproduction and socialization for higher orders of state - it is a status game even where reproduction is merely a matter of rape.
Your theme of 'feminism and weak fathers' is uninformed misogyny. Where does it get you? Is your parting shot about male feminists valid? It sounds like conscience, morality, ethics, and even sentiments - as misguided as they usually are - are out of the picture. Do fathers love their daughters, even some of them? Does that not generalize?
Originally, only male descent (agnatio) was recognised. This is clear from the ancient code of the Twelve Tables. A mother had no right of succession to a son who had died intestate.
And I doubt you'd object to the term 'strong mother', so don't pretend you don't know what 'weak father' means, no matter how much the term 'weak' upsets you. Even the etymology of 'virtue' is testament to the importance of moral and physical strength in men: Latin virtutem, "moral strength, high character, goodness; manliness; valor, bravery, courage (in war); excellence, worth," from vir "man".
You cannot present an argument that is objective or empirical.
Your notion of male descent is hogwash: cultures can be agnostic, sororal or bilateral and most are bilateral: both genealogical lines are recognized and were recognized back to Hunter-Gatherers as determined by ethnological studies of primitives who have not been affected by Western or other empires.
Your shtick is nonsense from your deep anxiety states under Western capitalism where you learned the erroneous practice of misogyny and are subsequently suffering with your attitude.
I have presented several instances of empirical facts discounting your opinion, you have rebutted nothing. Your definitions are pathetic. The Commandments and the Old Testament are Jewish books and the Jews are matriarchal: only the offspring of Jewish women are Jewish regardless of the male’s status background.
Time for you to stop taking pills and starting investigating the historical and contemporary reality: don’t speak on subjects you have not researched - it looks weak!
You haven't identified a factual mistake in the post: originally, only male descent (agnatio) was recognised in Rome. Your comments don't discount this; they're simply irrelevant to it and will be ignored as undeserving of further attention unless you improve them. For the benefit of other people reading this, however, you are confusing matrilineality with matriarchy. Even Gerda Lerner, a feminist, points out in 'The Creation of Patriarchy' (OUP, 1986) that 'no matriarchal society has ever existed' (p.31). That, Mr. Welfare, is 'the historical and contemporary reality'. Like everyone else who has ever lived, you live in a patriarchy, despite your evidently Marxist-feminist fantasies.
That’s an interesting error, matriarchy is not matrilineality!?
You confuse male domination with patriarchy and patriarchy with the West. The West today is composed of bilateral descent lines, as it has been for the millennia of the ruling classes and castes. Only at the peasant level is male dominance, or pejorative patriarchy, determinative of inheritance for the scant few eldest sons of landowners in a society where not only serfs and slaves were in the majority but most workers were not from landholding families.
Your sense of historical reality is amiss. Why have there been slave revolts, serf revolts, peasant uprisings in every single nation or empire since the beginning? And at a constant and continuous rate?? I will tell you: because they are landless and disenfranchised and living in poverty while their patriarchs live the life of excessive royalty and affluence!
You take patriarchy - a contested notion of hierarchy in the war-torn West for granted and fail to see its weaknesses.
Since matrilineality is recognized, then the culture is matriarchal and may also be patriarchal to the extent that men are also recognized by descent lines. In many cultures, there is a group of men making decisions and implementing them and this goes for patriarchy. Patriarchy may also refer to the practice where the son lives with the father and after marriage near the father. In these cultures, wives are exchanged between father/sons/brothers and affines: other kinship groups. This is considered the practical reason for the incest taboo; there are many other reasons though. This is an objective basis for using the term patriarchy.
However, the relations between groups, the naming of offspring to indicate their connection to these groups, and the roles of mothers and female elders does not somehow disappear in front of the mask-wearing men! Some cultures ‘appear’ more patriarchal than other cultures because of the relations within households or the political negotiations by men with other groups, f.e. for trade purposes.
These roles do not eliminate the roles or functions of women, nor the complex beliefs in relation to marriage prescriptions and preferences. The group of elders making all the decisions are covered by whether their decisions will be accepted and work.
Today, in the West, marriage practices are bilateral, not patriarchal. The main reason for this is the father-daughter relation that transfers paternal authority to the daughter. This is a very clear and obvious factor which goes back centuries, and can even be found in ancient societies.
You refuse to account for historical instances of queens, or the influence of queens, matriarchs, landowners who are women, or the political effects of a gender imbalance on entire cultures and states, ie war, which are reflected in household relations where daughters are preferred.
We have established that you failed to find a factual mistake in the post. But now, Mr. Welfare, you are making factual mistakes in your own comments. The canonical position of anthropology is that there has never been a matriarchy. Stop embarrassing yourself. Read more; type less. Or perhaps you'd like to mansplain to Gerda Lerner and all the other feminist anthropologists why they are wrong? Base your comments on facts, Mr. Welfare, rather than tired Marxist-feminist fantasies that have been articulated better by others: inspired by Bachofen, Engels already made all these mistakes.
Your error is to posit patriarchy regardless of patrilineality or patrilocality, but there is wide variation. Likewise, you differentiate matrilineality from matriarchy, and fail to account for matrilocality. If your rendition of the cultural universal is true, why is Mother’s Brother accorded jural authority and/or dominance in the household over the husband, and in the variant where authority is shared between Mother’s Brother and husband or Ego’s Father. But the kicker is that women groups handle the situation of conception, birth and socialization, and are often the “medicine” doctors.
What is your patriarchy but a violence prone form of domination which accomplishes no functional task?
The issue you imbibe on is that men are in charge but are today weak - an aspersion on masculinity. The facts are that genealogy is bilateral and that the elder gen regulates the younger gen - that there are laws in both senses of codified and cultural norms.
To get away from the old debates with Engels, Bachofen and Briffault, you need to examine the debates around Levi-Strauss, Homans, Radcliffe-Brown, Leach and Needham, among others. In this latter and more recent discussion, patrialinesl cultures are identified, matrilineal cultures are identified, bilateral cultures are identified and several others because many cultures are polygynous and older men take on very young wives, but all this wife-trading does not mean “”patriarchy”” because if you look at the whole again you see “”husband-trading.””
I have not heard of this idea (that feminists you mentioned had disappointing or weak Fathers) but it is interesting and I could see it being true. Is this a more widespread view or one of your own and could I read more supporting this somewhere?
I haven't seen the weak fathers idea developed much apart from in Jane Austen's novels.
You are irrelevant and ignorant. Stop posting on patriarchy, it is fatuous.
You haven't found a factual mistake. 'Irrelevant', 'ignorant' and 'fatuous' aren't arguments. Please don't comment in future unless you have something meriting attention. I would like to learn something from you. But you have done nothing but disappoint me so far.
Please, keep posting about the patriarchy. It's great.
Of course. Patriarchy is reality.
There are gaps in your analysis. Firstly, Roman genealogy was bilateral at the highest level, both lines were described and from this precedent all of European history contended with claims to inheritance by either side of the 'tree.' Secondly, inheritance only applies to the wealthy and ruling classes. In these classes, primogeniture involved the sons, but without sons included the daughters. Explain the long reigns of Elizabeth and Victoria, just two examples of many smaller cases. Thirdly, there are countless examples from archeology of female soldiers in cultures or civilizations throughout history. How does this scare with your weak fathers theme - how do daughters learn to fight?
This has nothing to do with the so-called weakness of fathers. It is a bit ridiculous to use the term "weakness." What do you mean? Muscular weakness? Weak attitude? How is an attitude weak? Using weakness as a metaphor, what else could it be, is ambiguous and vague. Instead, for the vast majority of people everywhere, inheritance is irrelevant. There is no inheritance. There is an abyss between even small landholders and the proletariats or farm-workers who double as soldiers for the never-ending wars in world history. Not only is inheritance a non-sequitur, but marriage rules as well. All cultures in history designate preferred and prescribed matches which are gradually limited by decade and century, via major edicts from religions and kings. No anthropologist discusses the unmarried as if everyone in their primitive societies gets married. But, marriage is often a conflicted relationship despite the caricatures in literature or courtrooms. Marriage has a function of reproduction and socialization for higher orders of state - it is a status game even where reproduction is merely a matter of rape.
Your theme of 'feminism and weak fathers' is uninformed misogyny. Where does it get you? Is your parting shot about male feminists valid? It sounds like conscience, morality, ethics, and even sentiments - as misguided as they usually are - are out of the picture. Do fathers love their daughters, even some of them? Does that not generalize?
Originally, only male descent (agnatio) was recognised. This is clear from the ancient code of the Twelve Tables. A mother had no right of succession to a son who had died intestate.
And I doubt you'd object to the term 'strong mother', so don't pretend you don't know what 'weak father' means, no matter how much the term 'weak' upsets you. Even the etymology of 'virtue' is testament to the importance of moral and physical strength in men: Latin virtutem, "moral strength, high character, goodness; manliness; valor, bravery, courage (in war); excellence, worth," from vir "man".
You cannot present an argument that is objective or empirical.
Your notion of male descent is hogwash: cultures can be agnostic, sororal or bilateral and most are bilateral: both genealogical lines are recognized and were recognized back to Hunter-Gatherers as determined by ethnological studies of primitives who have not been affected by Western or other empires.
Your shtick is nonsense from your deep anxiety states under Western capitalism where you learned the erroneous practice of misogyny and are subsequently suffering with your attitude.
I have presented several instances of empirical facts discounting your opinion, you have rebutted nothing. Your definitions are pathetic. The Commandments and the Old Testament are Jewish books and the Jews are matriarchal: only the offspring of Jewish women are Jewish regardless of the male’s status background.
Time for you to stop taking pills and starting investigating the historical and contemporary reality: don’t speak on subjects you have not researched - it looks weak!
You haven't identified a factual mistake in the post: originally, only male descent (agnatio) was recognised in Rome. Your comments don't discount this; they're simply irrelevant to it and will be ignored as undeserving of further attention unless you improve them. For the benefit of other people reading this, however, you are confusing matrilineality with matriarchy. Even Gerda Lerner, a feminist, points out in 'The Creation of Patriarchy' (OUP, 1986) that 'no matriarchal society has ever existed' (p.31). That, Mr. Welfare, is 'the historical and contemporary reality'. Like everyone else who has ever lived, you live in a patriarchy, despite your evidently Marxist-feminist fantasies.
That’s an interesting error, matriarchy is not matrilineality!?
You confuse male domination with patriarchy and patriarchy with the West. The West today is composed of bilateral descent lines, as it has been for the millennia of the ruling classes and castes. Only at the peasant level is male dominance, or pejorative patriarchy, determinative of inheritance for the scant few eldest sons of landowners in a society where not only serfs and slaves were in the majority but most workers were not from landholding families.
Your sense of historical reality is amiss. Why have there been slave revolts, serf revolts, peasant uprisings in every single nation or empire since the beginning? And at a constant and continuous rate?? I will tell you: because they are landless and disenfranchised and living in poverty while their patriarchs live the life of excessive royalty and affluence!
You take patriarchy - a contested notion of hierarchy in the war-torn West for granted and fail to see its weaknesses.
Since matrilineality is recognized, then the culture is matriarchal and may also be patriarchal to the extent that men are also recognized by descent lines. In many cultures, there is a group of men making decisions and implementing them and this goes for patriarchy. Patriarchy may also refer to the practice where the son lives with the father and after marriage near the father. In these cultures, wives are exchanged between father/sons/brothers and affines: other kinship groups. This is considered the practical reason for the incest taboo; there are many other reasons though. This is an objective basis for using the term patriarchy.
However, the relations between groups, the naming of offspring to indicate their connection to these groups, and the roles of mothers and female elders does not somehow disappear in front of the mask-wearing men! Some cultures ‘appear’ more patriarchal than other cultures because of the relations within households or the political negotiations by men with other groups, f.e. for trade purposes.
These roles do not eliminate the roles or functions of women, nor the complex beliefs in relation to marriage prescriptions and preferences. The group of elders making all the decisions are covered by whether their decisions will be accepted and work.
Today, in the West, marriage practices are bilateral, not patriarchal. The main reason for this is the father-daughter relation that transfers paternal authority to the daughter. This is a very clear and obvious factor which goes back centuries, and can even be found in ancient societies.
You refuse to account for historical instances of queens, or the influence of queens, matriarchs, landowners who are women, or the political effects of a gender imbalance on entire cultures and states, ie war, which are reflected in household relations where daughters are preferred.
Your notion of patriarchy is ideological.
We have established that you failed to find a factual mistake in the post. But now, Mr. Welfare, you are making factual mistakes in your own comments. The canonical position of anthropology is that there has never been a matriarchy. Stop embarrassing yourself. Read more; type less. Or perhaps you'd like to mansplain to Gerda Lerner and all the other feminist anthropologists why they are wrong? Base your comments on facts, Mr. Welfare, rather than tired Marxist-feminist fantasies that have been articulated better by others: inspired by Bachofen, Engels already made all these mistakes.
Look at Murdock’s 1967 “Ethnographic Atlas”
Your error is to posit patriarchy regardless of patrilineality or patrilocality, but there is wide variation. Likewise, you differentiate matrilineality from matriarchy, and fail to account for matrilocality. If your rendition of the cultural universal is true, why is Mother’s Brother accorded jural authority and/or dominance in the household over the husband, and in the variant where authority is shared between Mother’s Brother and husband or Ego’s Father. But the kicker is that women groups handle the situation of conception, birth and socialization, and are often the “medicine” doctors.
What is your patriarchy but a violence prone form of domination which accomplishes no functional task?
The issue you imbibe on is that men are in charge but are today weak - an aspersion on masculinity. The facts are that genealogy is bilateral and that the elder gen regulates the younger gen - that there are laws in both senses of codified and cultural norms.
To get away from the old debates with Engels, Bachofen and Briffault, you need to examine the debates around Levi-Strauss, Homans, Radcliffe-Brown, Leach and Needham, among others. In this latter and more recent discussion, patrialinesl cultures are identified, matrilineal cultures are identified, bilateral cultures are identified and several others because many cultures are polygynous and older men take on very young wives, but all this wife-trading does not mean “”patriarchy”” because if you look at the whole again you see “”husband-trading.””
Have a good day!