Printable View
-_- Actually, it's a very well known anthropological concept. I literally learned it in Anthro 101 (seriously). If you aren't aware of this trend, then don't blame your limited knowledge on us. Look it up for yourself. Pick up a textbook.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I'll agree with Virgil. It seems that feminism has effected and biased the field of Anthropology then.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Haha, yeah you're right... the collective group that values equality for men and women has infultrated the entire field of anthropology. We were in cahoots with the Jews and the Freemasons. Together, our three organizations now control the entire world!Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
No, I didn't say that it infiltrated it. I said that it effected it. It very possibly could have been the presentation of the text, or maybe it was a particular professor that chose that textbook for those particular reasons. Many years of study and learning will broaden your horizons.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Don't believe everything that you read in a book. I'm sure that you are skeptical of those books that oppose your current views.
Actually, I think the biggest supporter of the idea was Levi-Strauss, who isn't exactly popular with the feminists. They didn't like that he argued that the trade and use of women as objects was used to promote social cohesion in male dominated societies. Today it is, as far as I know, nearly universally accepted by anthropologist.
As to their being exceptions to the rule Virgil, there are very few things that have a direct 1:1 relationship with genes. Our culture has an effect on the expression of our nature, and our nature in turn effects the culture. The desire to control the paternity of your child is most likely genetic, but that doesn't mean in all situations that a culture that reacts to this will arise. However, obligatory female monogamy (male polygamy often found alongside this) is widely found in male dominated societies. The few female dominated societies we know of had no marriage structures.
Cultures evolve though, and today's conceptions of marriage are not going to be the same as those of primitive societies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Mmm. I think mostly he is, and while I cannot assert this with an entirely straight face, it is usually the feminine social cohesion that tames males, from elephants to apes like us--overly aggressive males usually aren't that successful, unless their dominance is moderated by the female acceptance.
Pip, I rather like Levi-Strauss, and should have figured out you'd be familiar with his early ground-breaking work; may I ask if you are male or female? I only ask in order not to assume.
I am not a very good feminist, however, as I am not sure what gender revisionism means, at the end of the day.
I don't think that there's a universally accepted direction and proposed outcome for feminism, the whole thing is just a reaction to the way that women have been treated throughout history. It's not so much a matter of logical organization as it is a sort of collective unconscious feeling of indignity. You'll find that in any group that's been oppressed. The civil rights movement for example was (at least in my opinion with what I’ve read so far) more the grand scale result of a visceral feeling and continuous need. Collectively, groups are irrational. You take a big group of people who have been oppressed and are reacting against the same source, that’s how change really seems to come about (look at the French revolution, the civil rights movement, the American revolution, pre-Nazi Germany, really the majority of fast, grand-scale changes; these weren‘t logical, well thought out events. They were just reactions to oppression and/or extreme need).Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
I could be wrong though; that’s just what I’ve been thinking about lately.
Nice point Woolf. I have done some slightly heavy reading in feminist theory, as when I was still working I took a shot at my doctorate under Nina Auerbach at U of Penn--but I do not think we can just flatten differences with a steam roller and then sing Hosanna. Gender divides are nearly universal in the evolution of life, and since I should have been in bed at least 3 hours back I'll edit myself later :lol:
(I will eventually shut up for a few days. I am under stress and posting is like my way of not wanting to deal with red tape. I should use my writing for that, but I need to relax here and there.)
Gender divides is a universal thing and of course there is a matter of degree only. In some countries women are simply taken as commodities and they are told to remain rooted within their family peripherals. They simply yieldingly succumb to the circumstances their husbands want or their parents want. The foundation of their systems or customs is their religion and in one religious text I have come upon a passage in which woman is a species that needs to be under a strict restraint all the time all else they are vulnerable. When she is a baby it is her parents who must kind of have her within their reach and after that she is the being that must get married to a man even against her will. Then she must always stay under the vigilance of her husband and if the husband dies she must be under her son' control or else she is likely to be led astray
Hi juniper - just to be clear - I am all for the liberation of women. It just makes fair sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
I agree that sex/ marriage is no longer about the strongest male dominating, and i don't think it's been that way for millennia. It's more about culture now, so I don't give much credence to the animal - human corollary as a result of that. If we were suddenly thrust back into some pre-historical situation, I think new societies would form rather than an animalistic model. I think it simplifies any meaning for our human cultural situation out.
We are lucky in the West that we have wealth and technology, and we are able to move on fronts like equality for women etc. The third world still has a long way to go.
Arranged marriage is like a business contract; it's all about convenience and survival. I don't see why that should have anything to do with sex. Breeding? Maybe. But sex?
Arranged marriage is not a business contract. It's not about conveniance and survival either. It is the Asian alternative to our "love" marriages. Both have their strong points. If it was just as you say then western asian women would not opt for this, but living in a multicultural city - I know that most asians do go for the arranged marriages. I'm not saying it will survive in the long term in western societies, but it is a fact in the asian subcontinent.
Historically, the male in such relationships have been unfaithful.
I don't think you can make this asserion about the whole of the asian subcontinent. We see and hear the bad stories only.
I think we'll move more towards a polygynandrous society (because in nature, that's just what happens when both sexes have an equal role in terms of obtaining resources and caring for young).
Maybe - I think serial monogamy is more likely and is normal now. Polygamy brings problems. Or did you mean polyandry? The only place I know of that has this system is Tibet. this was instilled in order to keep land and property together for economic reasons. A woman would be married to a man and his brothers in the full sense of the word.
As women obtain more power, I could see them starting to choose their sexual partners based on... well... fun, and their emotions. Why not?
Don't they do that already in the West? Yay to that too. There's plenty of time to be serious.
Interestingly, in China, due to the restrictions on births imposed by the government and the cultural preference for a male child - I read that there will be millions of chinese men who will not be able to find a female partner. This puts the women in a very powerful position, but whether it will produce significant differences in attitudes to women remains to be seen. (I hope it does by the way. )
Fascinating discussion. :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
As an offtopic comment, the idea that groups are always irrational is sort of debatable since there are situations where crowds as a collective might make better judgements than the individuals. There are some hypothesi that on certain conditions( diversity of opinion, independence,decentralisation and aggregation) the crowd may be smarter than all of its members.
As for an ontopic comment, the idea of "ownership - protection - paternity - cultural norms" seems believable. I mean, surely there are other influential reasons for why the cultural norms are what they are but this as one of the reasons seems quite plausible.
Allow me to ask a question here : What is the unit of a strong and well organized society ?
Religion . Isalm for instance , aimed at creating societies by organizing the relationships among human beings . Thus , the family , not the individual, becomes the unit of the society . In this light you can understand the relation between sex and religion .
Sex is " Organized not suppressed " within the instituation of marriage . The legistlation aimed at protecting the "Family " as a notion and a fundamental unit of its society . It is not looked at its nature only but at " its Effects " and Results , too.
Look for instance at the difference between the time of Solayman and Mohammad ( P.B U.T) . Although they are both prohets Solayman had many women . hundreds . We would ask how a prophet
would be allowed to do sex freely and have relations with that number of women . But at that time religion was in its basic form .With Mohammad the last of prohets , Religion becomes fully developped , it aimed at constructing a strong society with legistlations that organized every detail in your life .Sex is now looked at from different perspectives . It is not only to satisfy your needs which is very natural and not vulgar at all but also contributing in creating your own society as a Muslim . The number becomes limited and Mohammad married diffrent women from different tribes to make a social bond
between them .
Moreover ,a Muslim is taught how to control his desires and basic intincts , using his own free will :What transcends human beings above animals .
Animals cannot say " No" to their instincts , but a human being should say it when necessary .
Religion is not only God and prayer , it is a system of life . For sure a religious couldn't look at sex from one side as others do .
I would never allow any religion or belief system to dictate to me sexually or otherwise. As far as I am concerned all religions were created by men for insecure men, and for most of womens' existance she had no rights, thats until the 60's [or perhaps a little earlier] when women finally said no more. I thank God for this. Today she writes her own cheques/checks and SHE decides whether she will or will not get married and if/not she will have kids at all. Its took a long time to get here, we finally made it.
You'll be a long time living that one down in't cloob!Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Hmm, I'm not so sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
They don't call us "alpha males" for nothing.
In a case of survival of the fittest, the fittest will also make the damn rules!
Understand?
I wouldn't go along with that - I think arranged marriages are more about bigotry than anything else. Parents can ensure a "suitable" match for their children to ensure no undesirable genes are introduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I had a great case rceently where an Indian I know went back to India to meet and marry his spouse, who was completely unknown to him.
When I met with her on their return, I could only guess that his first thought on meeting her was "Thanks, Dad!"
She was bloody gorgeous!
Whether arranged marriages "work" in their own country, I have no idea, but of the many I know here, they "work" insofar as the woman does not complain about her husband having affairs or using prostitutes.
Of the 20 or so arranged marriages I know enough about to say for sure, I am confident every one of them has an unfaithful husband.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Depends which society you mean and what that society uses as its cultural norm.Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
I see that as extremely dangerous. Why would anyone let a religion rule the [arguably] most important aspect of their entire life?Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
Does this mean marrying nine year olds is ok? If Muhammad was the last prophet, then he must have been quite right.Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
What makes it necessary? How is it proof of free will if it is nothing more than a theological imperative? Surely, free will would require a conscious reasoning not to follow the instinct other than; "the quran says so"?Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
Yeah, I've heard it too, but that's anthropology, not science. You know often they change opinions in the social sciences? Every ten years. If it were up to social scientists (and they are not scientists) Freud would still be an acceptable means of trewating mental illness. And you yourself said Freud doesn't hold up to empiracal test. And neither will this.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
I'm in agreement with that. I said it's a complex relationship.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
That I do not believe. You yourself imply that some cultures do it and some don't. That means it's not biological. It is not a cause and effect phenomena.Quote:
The desire to control the paternity of your child is most likely genetic, but that doesn't mean in all situations that a culture that reacts to this will arise. However, obligatory female monogamy (male polygamy often found alongside this) is widely found in male dominated societies. The few female dominated societies we know of had no marriage structures.
Virgil Anthropology is a Science. It might come up in arts degrees as Archaeology does but its classed as a science because it originated in science and some of the most famous British Scientists of the 19th century were involved in the Royal Anthropological Society. Its foundation is in science.
No it's not a science. They don't take science courses, math courses, they don't take calculus, they don't take biology. They may take some simplified course material, but it has no rigor of scinece and scientific experimentation or mathematical underpinnings. My brother has his PhD in Anthropology and is a professor of anthropology. It's not science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niamh
I'm talking from a historical perspective Virgil. And i still disagree. There are Anthropological courses that do focus on Science, Maths and biology, maybe not in the states but certainly over here. Its ethnography. I've been considering doing one myself as part of my degree and just did an anthropological section in my current course that delt a lot with biology and i've done some in the past also.
Juniper i understand where you are coming from regarding the monogamy. When it comes to procreation, men like to know that their line is being continued. They cant be certain if this is the case if the woman they are with is has more than one sexual partner. Any of the men could be the paternal father. Monogamy for a woman generally garuntees that the children are his and that his lineage is continued.
[QUOTE=The Atheist;876009]You'll be a long time living that one down in't cloob!
They don't call us "alpha males" for nothing.
In a case of survival of the fittest, the fittest will also make the damn rules!
Understand?
I wouldn't go along with that - I think arranged marriages are more about bigotry than anything else. Parents can ensure a "suitable" match for their children to ensure no undesirable genes are introduced.
I had a great case rceently where an Indian I know went back to India to meet and marry his spouse, who was completely unknown to him.
When I met with her on their return, I could only guess that his first thought on meeting her was "Thanks, Dad!"
She was bloody gorgeous!
Whether arranged marriages "work" in their own country, I have no idea, but of the many I know here, they "work" insofar as the woman does not complain about her husband having affairs or using prostitutes.
Of the 20 or so arranged marriages I know enough about to say for sure, I am confident every one of them has an unfaithful husband.
Hi Atheist - well cloob's got to have someone to take the piss out of!
As for survival of the fittest - isn't that meaning survival of the one who best fits the situation rather than than the biggest/ strongest? A group has a better chance of survival than an individual. Ok so the group might be Big Baz and his mates - but they still have to co-operate as a group with inter group rules too.
As for the arranged marriages - well there is the "infrastructure of affairs" in the westernised - developed world that you don't get in the other countries so much. I really can't imagine that the half a billion nearly males on the Indian Subcontinent can do this, even if they wanted to. Most are in poverty too - 800 million?
Who knows though - it might be right. A bit of an indictment if it is true.
I guess it depends on how many survivors there are, but someone's going to want to be boss, and I'm seeing hairy knuckles being more likely to run the group than the guy with the bright ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
In the long term, a cooperative group maximising its resources is definitely the likeliest to survive nature, but the problem is, I wonder whether they'd get the chance to do so because the hairy knuckles will just kill and eat the nerd group. Taken away from our current evolved status, I suspect we might just become extinct quite quickly.
Yeah, the whole "wisdom of crowds" debate... that could be a whole other thread unto itself. For my part, I've gone into it a lot and I doubt it's validity. There are other scientists with a better background in psychology than me who would argue that it's plausable, and still other specialists who would say that it's a crappy parlour trick. Here's a youtube video that you might like about a "psychologist" who attempts to prove the theory and just winds up lying to everyone and looking like a jackass:Quote:
Originally Posted by Taliesin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DODGR...os=GcUIPbaDSes
Go to part 5 for Captian Dis's debunk.
Crowd behavior is a pretty interesting subject, there are people who dedicate their entire lives to it (sociologists).
Well alright, then what is marriage (and I'm talking about both arranged and the newfangled "love" marriages that we have in the west)? You pool your resources with another person, you create offspring and you take different roles in caring for them. That's the purpose of marriage, right? It's a partnership, a business contract. The business is the creation an upbringing of babies so that the species survives. Love doesn't even have to enter into the equation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Nah, I meant polygynandry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Poly = many
gyn = female
andre = male
It's like a tribe where the members mate with basically whoever. A fantastic example is the bonobos. They're these cool little type of chimp (which means that they're our first cousins). Basically every female in the tribe mates with every male, breeding is a group thing. Because the males can't be sure which of the offspring are theirs, they take care of ALL of the offspring equally. Bonobos are the most peaceful out of all primates (including ourselves). Serial monogomy might be a possability, too. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Yeah, I've been looking forward to seeing how that situation turns out. Serves them right for literally sending their daughters "up the river."Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Anthropology follows the emperical method of inquiry. If I wanted to do an experiment right now to see how salt effects the growth of one's lawn, and I built the experiment properly and with a good control, my results would still be valid despite the fact that I don't have any advanced calculus degrees. A piece of paper doesn't mean squat if the methodology is correct, my degree wouldn't effect the results at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
There's amazing research done on bonobos. I've seen video of them playing Pac-Man, lighting fires with cigarette lighters, and learning sign language. They're amazingly smart, I can't help but wonder how people disbelieve humans evolved from apes when you see the bonobo.
The use of sex in bonobo social structures is really interesting too. Although, they fondle their offspring to calm them when stressed, so I wouldn't be too quick to model our society after theirs lol. Mutual masturbation is also a common greeting amongst bonobo, males will often present erections to human keepers.
Unfortunately, they're endangered and happen to be located in one of the most dangerous countries in Africa.
Edit:
@Jozanny
Male, there's extensive information about me on my blog if you're really curious haha. (and two very bad poems)
Sorry I still disagree as to Anthropology. They do not take regular science or math classes nor do they even take statistics. Anthropology is part of the Liberal Arts departments not the Science, and so they have different pre-requisites and curriculumn. They are not scientists.
There is a world of difference between what social scientists consider knowledge and what scientists consider fact. Let me put it to you this way: there is a world of difference between Darwin (scientist) and Freud (social science crap).
Do you have less limiting diction when it comes to disparaging what isn't godspel in your worldview? Anthropology isn't astro-physics, but as the study of humanity it is a science, within certain parameters; it intersects with biology, forensics, and a number of other disciplines, and doesn't fall under mild epithets for feces. It is certainly more valuable than Catholicism's history of torture and child abuse and then covering all this up for the sake of protecting the divine sanction of the so called Church.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Also, the things that we've discussed so far are also supported by similar findings in biology and science psychology which is actually where I initially learned this stuff (unless you're now proposing that biology and science psychology aren't sciences either).
And furthermore (at least in my school), anthropology students are required to take two years of statistics. Their knowledge in mathematics is further expanded once they get to grad school. They're not idiots, Virgil. They know their own field.
They, bonobos, may be the real and only representatives of what man is, unconditioned, before religions tabooed sex, before nudity is considered obscene. Religions, cultures, ethics have crippled humans, and now why there is too much homosexuality and rape in society. The main and only reason is suppression, the free and natural transactions between genders. Once the lid of the religion and ethics is lifted again we will back to the bonobos system. However I am also not advocating that we must model our cultures into theirs and this will create havocsQuote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Would you like to expand on this view a little?Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
In fact this is in response to Orphampip's beautiful idea and I simply infused mine. I believe in nature. I take nature as a role mode. I feel that the farther we go from our natural state where instincts play a pivotal role not the manmade, man become more stress –driven. That said I cannot say we will take on a reverse course abruptly.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Yeah, it's fascinating and I commend anyone to take a look at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
I trust you're not suggesting homosexuality is any way analogous to rape.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
What is wrong with or unnatural about homosexuality?
Everyone loves a good bonobo.
I once saw video footage of an experiment done where they threw a bunch of bananas into the middle of a group of bonobos who hadn't had any dinner yet. With chimps they would have started shoving each other and fighting over the food. The bonobos just sort of got all stressed out, then all of them just immediately started humping each other. They finished up, and then leisurely ate the bananas. Now THAT'S good problem solving.
If there's too much, though, what would be the right amount of each?Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
I do not try finding unnatural elements with homosexuality but still heterosexuals are more natural. It is more operational. And in some society homosexuals have yet to have acceptance. Yet I do not profess acceptance and non-acceptance has anything to do with the idea of right or wrong in point of fact. In some society homosexuals are as horrified rapists, but yet in rape there is incursion.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I do not want argue here for or against homosexuality. All I want to point out is I support the idea of natural behavior in sexual matters and want to raise certain objections against our taboos, rules laden social systems
I used to work for a Lebonese family. They seriously do view homosexuality in the same light as we do, say, raping babies. Talk about effed up priorities...
This is not a question of 'right amount' and "wrong amount' of each of them. It is about human values, beliefs and human attitudes towards the use and abuse of these behaviors in a certain social setupQuote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
But you said there was 'too much rape and homosexuality'. 'Too much' means 'the wrong amount'. And as you said 'too much', as opposed to 'too little', you apparently think there should be less rape and homosexuality. So there must be a smaller amount of rape and homosexuality that you think is not 'too much'.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
May be you are right and what I wanted to say and what really got written could not be synchronized. For I am poor at English after allQuote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
This raises another interesting point, actually. How do we know what is 'natural' and what is 'cultural' in human behaviour? You suggest that rape is the result of tensions created by the oppressive effects of culture and religion - and that without those influences no one would force themselves sexually on another person.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
But one could also argue that it's only the influence of culture and religion that discourages humans from forcing themselves sexually on anyone else. In other words, the conventions of civilisation are designed to prevent rape, and generally speaking that's what they do.
Unfortunately, we don't have a human test group for this - as all humans live, one way or another, in groups that have rules of culture and morality.
My conclusion would be that the very fact that there are no humans who live without these things means that these things are natural to humans. Humans cannot live without culture and a moral structure (which tends to codify itself into religion), any more than koalas can live without eucalyptus trees. That is our natural state.
As i said, its obviously different in the states. For Anthropology over here, and Archaeology for that matter, you study biology and do some basic matamatics. I've opted to do an Archoeology course this summer and i have to do maths, and it's catagorised as a science course along with Anthropology. If i dropped one of my lit courses and opted for an Anthropology Course, i'd be working towards a Science Degree and not an Arts Degree. Yes they are found in Arts departments, but so is Geology. However they are also found in Science departments as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
For full Anthropology degree you'd study some genetics and even some aspects of medicine. With Biology, they would fall under the ethnography side of Anthropology, and would involve the study of Darwins Origins of the Species, and Robert Knox's Race of Men. Herbert Spencers Principles of Biology was very important to early Anthropological studies and most of the names above were involved in The Royal Anthropological Society.
Even when i worked as an Archaeologist, i used maths and, depending on the type of site, biology on a daily bases.
But as i said, its obviously different in the states. We dont Have "liberal Arts".
Anyway this is Off topic.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Get the nerds to gang up on hairy knuckles - or poison one of themselves in order to kill him off.
I think our specialisation would be a problem. We'd need particular specialists. You fishing - Prend for animal rearing - me for teach... oh no - I'd be the sacrificial one...
Thanks Juniper - polygnandry - every day is an education.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
I don't concur with the animal Bonobo analogy to humans. I think we're far too complex.
I can understand your view of marriages, but i don't see that your analysis is valid. Relationships are'nt about one thing and they change over time too.