If our society had been historically dominated by women...

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Hmm, well, even if women were to make up the majority of political leadership, I don't think that, culturally, society would have shifted away from the patriarchal family structure. The way human reproduction and gestation occurs, being fairly debilitating for women compared to a lot of other animals, and the fact that reproduction was extremely important back during the days when medicine was mostly junk and child death rates were high, I just can't really picture women in general emerging as the dominant gender in society in ye olden times.

Of course that has no bearing on a select few women eschewing the role of mother and rising to political power. You could argue that societies evolved from families so they naturally became patriarchal as well, but that doesn't have any bearing on the ABILITY of women to have dominated politics throughout history. But in that case, would it have been very different? The idea that women are above the cruelty and savagery of men is obviously a big fat load of bullshit. They might have had less of a focus on glorious combat and more of a penchant for subterfuge, I guess, but lust for power and control doesn't select by gender in the slightest.

It probably would have been different, but I doubt it would have been better. Humans governing humans is always a messy business.

In maternal cultures, the families are not patriarchal, the mother is the head of the family, the person who conducts business, owns the property, and decides what the family will do. It isn't that women are " above" savagery, it is that in the maternal culture violence and savagery are not cultivated. the warrior is not elevated, instead violence is thought of to be gross and repulsive and not admired. In paternal culture, boys fight to " prove" themselves, that does not exist in maternal culture, instead they "prove" themselves by showing compassion and great deeds for the benefit of society. It is a matter of what is socially acceptable and promoted. The way these things were viewed in Hopi society, Bravery is seen not fighting back. To stand in the face of all horrors without becoming like those who do such things is admired. Instead it is admired to replace evil with good instead of fighting with violence and even in the face of hate, to treat them as family and with kindness and compassion and show them a better way. The "idea" that any human has authority over another is what is very different. Force is considered horrific and not even considered an option. In Hopi society, you do not " govern" anyone, in fact that is against core Hopi beliefs to do so at all. It is a voluntary society instead.

We were taught that you an give your choice to no one and only you can make your choice. That when you give your choice to another, that creates power and power will always be abused. Hopi believe that if you give your choice to another ( by electing an official) than you are responsible for everything that person does with that power. If they make orders in war that results in people being killed, you are responsive the same as if you killed them with your very hands yourself. That is how important your choice is viewed,by Hopi, so that is not possible to do and still have the ability to prevent it from happening.

Hm, not sure how matriarchal the Hopi can really be counted as, as the internet tells me they have male chiefs. That already kind of shoots a big hole in it. They are matrilinial though, so it's pretty close. Even still, correlation does not imply causation. The Hopi people may be more or less matriarchal, and they may be more or less peaceful, but those two aren't necessarily linked.

Apparently there aren't any true matriarchies on Earth from what I can find on it. But then, the definition is murky. Some starkly portray it as the opposite of a patriarchy, in that women are dominant over men. Apparently some schools of feminist thought though portray matriarchy as not being simply the opposite of patriarchy, but being about "harmony with nature" which admittedly just sounds like a fanciful load of crap promoting an agenda. I'm gonna stick with it meaning female dominance because it's simpler. Which also means that patriarchy means male dominance, and you could argue that there are really many true patriarchal societies today either. That's not to say women are afforded all the same opportunities as men, but if say, America, was an actual patriarchy, Hillary Clinton would never be considered a candidate for President. So we're more like... progressing towards a gender egalitarian society. Slowly. We'll get there.

The internet tells you they have male chiefs? ROFL. No, The Hopi do not have "Chiefs" as you understand them to be. That is fiction, a lie created by others, but not actually real. "Chiefs" are a Non Hopi invention. Even Elders are not considered " Chiefs' instead they are like "advisers" they offer advice and their wisdom, but also insist that people must make their decisions for themselves. Elders do not even make the decisions for the tribe. What you think are "Chiefs" are like the heads of clubs they started, nothing more. We have " religions societies" that get together and do different things, but are still completely voluntary.

It isn't that there are no matriarchal societies, is that what you understand of those societies that is different. Saying a word like " chief" and thinking that means leader is what is misunderstood. The concept of chiefs did not even exist until the US government tried to appoint chiefs of tribes for them and then everyone just laughed at the idea and ignored them instead. It isn't reality. According to the way the western society talks about Hopis, all Hopi men would be " Chiefs" LMAO. Pretty much every story you read about Hopi men in the west they refer to them as " Chief".

The Europeans dealing with the tribes had no understanding or method to deal with nonpatriarchal cultures without chiefs, so tried to create them to make it easier for them. They did not actually exist in Hopi culture however.

 

[Kolby Jack]

Hm, not sure how matriarchal the Hopi can really be counted as, as the internet tells me they have male chiefs. That already kind of shoots a big hole in it. They are matrilinial though, so it's pretty close. Even still, correlation does not imply causation. The Hopi people may be more or less matriarchal, and they may be more or less peaceful, but those two aren't necessarily linked.

Apparently there aren't any true matriarchies on Earth from what I can find on it. But then, the definition is murky. Some starkly portray it as the opposite of a patriarchy, in that women are dominant over men. Apparently some schools of feminist thought though portray matriarchy as not being simply the opposite of patriarchy, but being about "harmony with nature" which admittedly just sounds like a fanciful load of crap promoting an agenda. I'm gonna stick with it meaning female dominance because it's simpler. Which also means that patriarchy means male dominance, and you could argue that there aren't really many true patriarchal societies today either. That's not to say women are afforded all the same opportunities as men, but if say, America, was an actual patriarchy, Hillary Clinton would never be considered a candidate for President. So we're more like... progressing towards a gender egalitarian society. Slowly. We'll get there.

My understanding on the Hopi is that opinions among anthropologists are somewhat split. Some insist that they aren't a matriarchy, and have never been a matriarchy, and matriarchal societies only exist in theory. I've seen others say that the Hopi are a matriarchy, but they are the only matriarchy to have existed in recorded history. And a sample size of one is a pretty shit sample size.

But I'm pulling all of this from an Intro to Anthropology class I took years ago. Someone who's an actual, degree-certified expert on the matter would be appreciated.

As an aspiring anthropologist, I'm inclined to agree that there hasn't been a real matriarchal society that we know of. There are certainly many, many cases of women in power and plenty of cultures that hold women in much higher esteem than is typical, but dominance? Doesn't seem like it. In fact, even if you go with the agenda-reinforcing idea that a patriarchy is about "power, control, and dominance" and a matriarchy is about "harmony and cooperation," there STILL hasn't been a true matriarchy. Even bonobos are actually quite violent against other apes.

 

[Kolby Jack]

~Too many quotes, TOOOO MANY QUOOOOTES!~

I'll admit ignorance here. I basically don't know anything about the Hopi and I'm not about to spend hours doing research to settle a debate on an internet forum. But I also won't take you at your word. Nothing personal, I just don't take anyone's word when it comes to describing the value of their own heritage. WAY too much bias involved. But I will refrain from saying anything else about the Hopi, because I'm pretty sure I'd only end up putting my foot in my mouth.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

~Too many quotes, TOOOO MANY QUOOOOTES!~

I'll admit ignorance here. I basically don't know anything about the Hopi and I'm not about to spend hours doing research to settle a debate on an internet forum. But I also won't take you at your word. Nothing personal, I just don't take anyone's word when it comes to describing the value of their own heritage. WAY too much bias involved. But I will refrain from saying anything else about the Hopi, because I'm pretty sure I'd only end up putting my foot in my mouth.

Of course not taking a Hopi's word about the "Hopi" is what one should expect? Here this should help you:

The concept of the Indian ?chief? is really a European concept. Europeans felt that it was natural that the leader of the society-designated with the title ?king? or ?chief?-had a right to tell other people what to do.

The Europeans, and later the American government, assumed that patrilineal descent was somehow natural, normal, and universal. That is, a son always inherited from his father. The matrilineal systems followed by many tribes, ranging from the Cherokee in the Southeast to the Iroquois in the Northeast to the Tlingit in the Northwest Coast to the Hopi in the Southwest, seemed to be beyond European comprehension.
http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/1354

Most of what people have been taught about the tribes is terribly false.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Hm, not sure how matriarchal the Hopi can really be counted as, as the internet tells me they have male chiefs. That already kind of shoots a big hole in it. They are matrilinial though, so it's pretty close. Even still, correlation does not imply causation. The Hopi people may be more or less matriarchal, and they may be more or less peaceful, but those two aren't necessarily linked.

Apparently there aren't any true matriarchies on Earth from what I can find on it. But then, the definition is murky. Some starkly portray it as the opposite of a patriarchy, in that women are dominant over men. Apparently some schools of feminist thought though portray matriarchy as not being simply the opposite of patriarchy, but being about "harmony with nature" which admittedly just sounds like a fanciful load of crap promoting an agenda. I'm gonna stick with it meaning female dominance because it's simpler. Which also means that patriarchy means male dominance, and you could argue that there aren't really many true patriarchal societies today either. That's not to say women are afforded all the same opportunities as men, but if say, America, was an actual patriarchy, Hillary Clinton would never be considered a candidate for President. So we're more like... progressing towards a gender egalitarian society. Slowly. We'll get there.

My understanding on the Hopi is that opinions among anthropologists are somewhat split. Some insist that they aren't a matriarchy, and have never been a matriarchy, and matriarchal societies only exist in theory. I've seen others say that the Hopi are a matriarchy, but they are the only matriarchy to have existed in recorded history. And a sample size of one is a pretty shit sample size.

But I'm pulling all of this from an Intro to Anthropology class I took years ago. Someone who's an actual, degree-certified expert on the matter would be appreciated.

When they talk about " no one knows for certain how the decisions are made" like here for example :
http://voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/unconquered.html#.V9eVHvkrLcs
that is actually false, the decisions are made by the women.

 

[Kolby Jack]

~Too many quotes, TOOOO MANY QUOOOOTES!~

I'll admit ignorance here. I basically don't know anything about the Hopi and I'm not about to spend hours doing research to settle a debate on an internet forum. But I also won't take you at your word. Nothing personal, I just don't take anyone's word when it comes to describing the value of their own heritage. WAY too much bias involved. But I will refrain from saying anything else about the Hopi, because I'm pretty sure I'd only end up putting my foot in my mouth.

Of course not taking a Hopi's word about the "Hopi" is what one should expect? Here this should help you:

The concept of the Indian ?chief? is really a European concept. Europeans felt that it was natural that the leader of the society-designated with the title ?king? or ?chief?-had a right to tell other people what to do.

The Europeans, and later the American government, assumed that patrilineal descent was somehow natural, normal, and universal. That is, a son always inherited from his father. The matrilineal systems followed by many tribes, ranging from the Cherokee in the Southeast to the Iroquois in the Northeast to the Tlingit in the Northwest Coast to the Hopi in the Southwest, seemed to be beyond European comprehension.
http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/1354

Most of what people have been taught about the tribes is terribly false.

Oh no, sorry, that was misleading on my part. I'll buy that you guys don't have chiefs as I understand the concept, but when it comes to the Hopi being a matriarchy or being super peace-y peaceful types, I mean... what you say is nice to know, but I can't really trust it without observing it with my own eyes, or at least seeing good research from an unbiased source. I'm sure that research exists, but as I said before, I don't really care enough about this discussion to look it up.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Hm, not sure how matriarchal the Hopi can really be counted as, as the internet tells me they have male chiefs. That already kind of shoots a big hole in it. They are matrilinial though, so it's pretty close. Even still, correlation does not imply causation. The Hopi people may be more or less matriarchal, and they may be more or less peaceful, but those two aren't necessarily linked.

Apparently there aren't any true matriarchies on Earth from what I can find on it. But then, the definition is murky. Some starkly portray it as the opposite of a patriarchy, in that women are dominant over men. Apparently some schools of feminist thought though portray matriarchy as not being simply the opposite of patriarchy, but being about "harmony with nature" which admittedly just sounds like a fanciful load of crap promoting an agenda. I'm gonna stick with it meaning female dominance because it's simpler. Which also means that patriarchy means male dominance, and you could argue that there aren't really many true patriarchal societies today either. That's not to say women are afforded all the same opportunities as men, but if say, America, was an actual patriarchy, Hillary Clinton would never be considered a candidate for President. So we're more like... progressing towards a gender egalitarian society. Slowly. We'll get there.

My understanding on the Hopi is that opinions among anthropologists are somewhat split. Some insist that they aren't a matriarchy, and have never been a matriarchy, and matriarchal societies only exist in theory. I've seen others say that the Hopi are a matriarchy, but they are the only matriarchy to have existed in recorded history. And a sample size of one is a pretty shit sample size.

But I'm pulling all of this from an Intro to Anthropology class I took years ago. Someone who's an actual, degree-certified expert on the matter would be appreciated.

As an aspiring anthropologist, I'm inclined to agree that there hasn't been a real matriarchal society that we know of. There are certainly many, many cases of women in power and plenty of cultures that hold women in much higher esteem than is typical, but dominance? Doesn't seem like it. In fact, even if you go with the agenda-reinforcing idea that a patriarchy is about "power, control, and dominance" and a matriarchy is about "harmony and cooperation," there STILL hasn't been a true matriarchy. Even bonobos are actually quite violent against other apes.

Hopi are actually matriarchal. Although men are considered to not be " beneath" women, as in our culture no one is beneath another (unlike in patriarchy) it is still women who make the decisions in the end. Women hand down their property to their daughters, and traditionally the men did not own property. Men did not even have a say in divorce, for example. If a woman wanted a divorce, all she did was put the males possessions on the door step and he had to leave. Women controlled money and trade and made the decisions for the tribe. Men became a part of the woman's family and take the woman's name, and did not have a say in that, the tribes business, the property or the children.

 

[Saetha]

snip

That doesn't... really relate to anything I said, given that I just commented on the general opinion in the anthropologist community of whether or not matriarchies exist.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Hm, not sure how matriarchal the Hopi can really be counted as, as the internet tells me they have male chiefs. That already kind of shoots a big hole in it. They are matrilinial though, so it's pretty close. Even still, correlation does not imply causation. The Hopi people may be more or less matriarchal, and they may be more or less peaceful, but those two aren't necessarily linked.

Apparently there aren't any true matriarchies on Earth from what I can find on it. But then, the definition is murky. Some starkly portray it as the opposite of a patriarchy, in that women are dominant over men. Apparently some schools of feminist thought though portray matriarchy as not being simply the opposite of patriarchy, but being about "harmony with nature" which admittedly just sounds like a fanciful load of crap promoting an agenda. I'm gonna stick with it meaning female dominance because it's simpler. Which also means that patriarchy means male dominance, and you could argue that there aren't really many true patriarchal societies today either. That's not to say women are afforded all the same opportunities as men, but if say, America, was an actual patriarchy, Hillary Clinton would never be considered a candidate for President. So we're more like... progressing towards a gender egalitarian society. Slowly. We'll get there.

My understanding on the Hopi is that opinions among anthropologists are somewhat split. Some insist that they aren't a matriarchy, and have never been a matriarchy, and matriarchal societies only exist in theory. I've seen others say that the Hopi are a matriarchy, but they are the only matriarchy to have existed in recorded history. And a sample size of one is a pretty shit sample size.

But I'm pulling all of this from an Intro to Anthropology class I took years ago. Someone who's an actual, degree-certified expert on the matter would be appreciated.

When they talk about " no one knows for certain how the decisions are made" like here for example :
http://voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/unconquered.html#.V9eVHvkrLcs
that is actually false, the decisions are made by the women.

That doesn't... really relate to anything I said, given that I just commented on the general opinion in the anthropologist community of whether or not matriarchies exist.

It actually does, you were saying that they were split on whether or not Hopi are a matriarchy, I am stating that yes, the Hopi are. A society where the women make the decisions for the tribe and men really do not have a say in that in the end would be a matriarchy. Tribal decisions are actually made by women.

 

[Saetha]

Hm, not sure how matriarchal the Hopi can really be counted as, as the internet tells me they have male chiefs. That already kind of shoots a big hole in it. They are matrilinial though, so it's pretty close. Even still, correlation does not imply causation. The Hopi people may be more or less matriarchal, and they may be more or less peaceful, but those two aren't necessarily linked.

Apparently there aren't any true matriarchies on Earth from what I can find on it. But then, the definition is murky. Some starkly portray it as the opposite of a patriarchy, in that women are dominant over men. Apparently some schools of feminist thought though portray matriarchy as not being simply the opposite of patriarchy, but being about "harmony with nature" which admittedly just sounds like a fanciful load of crap promoting an agenda. I'm gonna stick with it meaning female dominance because it's simpler. Which also means that patriarchy means male dominance, and you could argue that there aren't really many true patriarchal societies today either. That's not to say women are afforded all the same opportunities as men, but if say, America, was an actual patriarchy, Hillary Clinton would never be considered a candidate for President. So we're more like... progressing towards a gender egalitarian society. Slowly. We'll get there.

My understanding on the Hopi is that opinions among anthropologists are somewhat split. Some insist that they aren't a matriarchy, and have never been a matriarchy, and matriarchal societies only exist in theory. I've seen others say that the Hopi are a matriarchy, but they are the only matriarchy to have existed in recorded history. And a sample size of one is a pretty shit sample size.

But I'm pulling all of this from an Intro to Anthropology class I took years ago. Someone who's an actual, degree-certified expert on the matter would be appreciated.

When they talk about " no one knows for certain how the decisions are made" like here for example :
http://voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/unconquered.html#.V9eVHvkrLcs
that is actually false, the decisions are made by the women.

That doesn't... really relate to anything I said, given that I just commented on the general opinion in the anthropologist community of whether or not matriarchies exist.

It actually does, you were saying that they were split on whether or not Hopi are a matriarchy, I am stating that yes, the Hopi are. A society where the women make the decisions for the tribe and men really do not have a say in that in the end would be a matriarchy. Tribal decisions are actually made by women.

To be bluntly honest, I would value the opinion (However split) of a community of highly-educated writers and researchers who make a living off of studying and comparing cultures, over one person on the internet.

And to specify, I didn't say that the Hopi were not a matriarchy. I said some experts believe they aren't, and some experts believe they are, but are also alone in that status.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

~Too many quotes, TOOOO MANY QUOOOOTES!~

I'll admit ignorance here. I basically don't know anything about the Hopi and I'm not about to spend hours doing research to settle a debate on an internet forum. But I also won't take you at your word. Nothing personal, I just don't take anyone's word when it comes to describing the value of their own heritage. WAY too much bias involved. But I will refrain from saying anything else about the Hopi, because I'm pretty sure I'd only end up putting my foot in my mouth.

Of course not taking a Hopi's word about the "Hopi" is what one should expect? Here this should help you:

The concept of the Indian ?chief? is really a European concept. Europeans felt that it was natural that the leader of the society-designated with the title ?king? or ?chief?-had a right to tell other people what to do.

The Europeans, and later the American government, assumed that patrilineal descent was somehow natural, normal, and universal. That is, a son always inherited from his father. The matrilineal systems followed by many tribes, ranging from the Cherokee in the Southeast to the Iroquois in the Northeast to the Tlingit in the Northwest Coast to the Hopi in the Southwest, seemed to be beyond European comprehension.
http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/1354

Most of what people have been taught about the tribes is terribly false.

Oh no, sorry, that was misleading on my part. I'll buy that you guys don't have chiefs as I understand the concept, but when it comes to the Hopi being a matriarchy or being super peace-y peaceful types, I mean... what you say is nice to know, but I can't really trust it without observing it with my own eyes, or at least seeing good research from an unbiased source. I'm sure that research exists, but as I said before, I don't really care enough about this discussion to look it up.

I am not sure what an " unbiased" source would be for "Hopi". Most of what is taught in western society about " Hopi" is so ridiculous to us, it reads like a comedy. The one thing that is overwhelmingly apparent is that western society has no understanding of the Hopi people at all. lol

 

[Kolby Jack]

Hm, not sure how matriarchal the Hopi can really be counted as, as the internet tells me they have male chiefs. That already kind of shoots a big hole in it. They are matrilinial though, so it's pretty close. Even still, correlation does not imply causation. The Hopi people may be more or less matriarchal, and they may be more or less peaceful, but those two aren't necessarily linked.

Apparently there aren't any true matriarchies on Earth from what I can find on it. But then, the definition is murky. Some starkly portray it as the opposite of a patriarchy, in that women are dominant over men. Apparently some schools of feminist thought though portray matriarchy as not being simply the opposite of patriarchy, but being about "harmony with nature" which admittedly just sounds like a fanciful load of crap promoting an agenda. I'm gonna stick with it meaning female dominance because it's simpler. Which also means that patriarchy means male dominance, and you could argue that there aren't really many true patriarchal societies today either. That's not to say women are afforded all the same opportunities as men, but if say, America, was an actual patriarchy, Hillary Clinton would never be considered a candidate for President. So we're more like... progressing towards a gender egalitarian society. Slowly. We'll get there.

My understanding on the Hopi is that opinions among anthropologists are somewhat split. Some insist that they aren't a matriarchy, and have never been a matriarchy, and matriarchal societies only exist in theory. I've seen others say that the Hopi are a matriarchy, but they are the only matriarchy to have existed in recorded history. And a sample size of one is a pretty shit sample size.

But I'm pulling all of this from an Intro to Anthropology class I took years ago. Someone who's an actual, degree-certified expert on the matter would be appreciated.

When they talk about " no one knows for certain how the decisions are made" like here for example :
http://voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/unconquered.html#.V9eVHvkrLcs
that is actually false, the decisions are made by the women.

That doesn't... really relate to anything I said, given that I just commented on the general opinion in the anthropologist community of whether or not matriarchies exist.

It actually does, you were saying that they were split on whether or not Hopi are a matriarchy, I am stating that yes, the Hopi are. A society where the women make the decisions for the tribe and men really do not have a say in that in the end would be a matriarchy. Tribal decisions are actually made by women.

You are a picture of a cat with devil horns. I mean I get it, you want to represent your people, but you can only do so much with that on an anonymous internet forum. For all we know you can be like, a 1/16th Hopi delusional wackadoo. That's extremely unlikely, and also NOT an invitation to tell us your life story, but you should be able to get why we can't just take everything you say about the Hopi as gospel. This isn't an interview, I mean, we literally know nothing about you. Again, not an invitation. I really don't care at this point.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Hm, not sure how matriarchal the Hopi can really be counted as, as the internet tells me they have male chiefs. That already kind of shoots a big hole in it. They are matrilinial though, so it's pretty close. Even still, correlation does not imply causation. The Hopi people may be more or less matriarchal, and they may be more or less peaceful, but those two aren't necessarily linked.

Apparently there aren't any true matriarchies on Earth from what I can find on it. But then, the definition is murky. Some starkly portray it as the opposite of a patriarchy, in that women are dominant over men. Apparently some schools of feminist thought though portray matriarchy as not being simply the opposite of patriarchy, but being about "harmony with nature" which admittedly just sounds like a fanciful load of crap promoting an agenda. I'm gonna stick with it meaning female dominance because it's simpler. Which also means that patriarchy means male dominance, and you could argue that there aren't really many true patriarchal societies today either. That's not to say women are afforded all the same opportunities as men, but if say, America, was an actual patriarchy, Hillary Clinton would never be considered a candidate for President. So we're more like... progressing towards a gender egalitarian society. Slowly. We'll get there.

My understanding on the Hopi is that opinions among anthropologists are somewhat split. Some insist that they aren't a matriarchy, and have never been a matriarchy, and matriarchal societies only exist in theory. I've seen others say that the Hopi are a matriarchy, but they are the only matriarchy to have existed in recorded history. And a sample size of one is a pretty shit sample size.

But I'm pulling all of this from an Intro to Anthropology class I took years ago. Someone who's an actual, degree-certified expert on the matter would be appreciated.

When they talk about " no one knows for certain how the decisions are made" like here for example :
http://voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/unconquered.html#.V9eVHvkrLcs
that is actually false, the decisions are made by the women.

That doesn't... really relate to anything I said, given that I just commented on the general opinion in the anthropologist community of whether or not matriarchies exist.

It actually does, you were saying that they were split on whether or not Hopi are a matriarchy, I am stating that yes, the Hopi are. A society where the women make the decisions for the tribe and men really do not have a say in that in the end would be a matriarchy. Tribal decisions are actually made by women.

To be bluntly honest, I would value the opinion (However split) of a community of highly-educated writers and researchers who make a living off of studying and comparing cultures, over one person on the internet.

And to specify, I didn't say that the Hopi were not a matriarchy. I said some experts believe they aren't, and some experts believe they are, but are also alone in that status.

Of course they must be more "highly educated" in the history of my culture than I am. Most of what so-called " western experts" write about the tribes is so absurdly ridiculous they should be considered comedy writers. They tend to make up quite a bit of nonsense.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Hm, not sure how matriarchal the Hopi can really be counted as, as the internet tells me they have male chiefs. That already kind of shoots a big hole in it. They are matrilinial though, so it's pretty close. Even still, correlation does not imply causation. The Hopi people may be more or less matriarchal, and they may be more or less peaceful, but those two aren't necessarily linked.

Apparently there aren't any true matriarchies on Earth from what I can find on it. But then, the definition is murky. Some starkly portray it as the opposite of a patriarchy, in that women are dominant over men. Apparently some schools of feminist thought though portray matriarchy as not being simply the opposite of patriarchy, but being about "harmony with nature" which admittedly just sounds like a fanciful load of crap promoting an agenda. I'm gonna stick with it meaning female dominance because it's simpler. Which also means that patriarchy means male dominance, and you could argue that there aren't really many true patriarchal societies today either. That's not to say women are afforded all the same opportunities as men, but if say, America, was an actual patriarchy, Hillary Clinton would never be considered a candidate for President. So we're more like... progressing towards a gender egalitarian society. Slowly. We'll get there.

My understanding on the Hopi is that opinions among anthropologists are somewhat split. Some insist that they aren't a matriarchy, and have never been a matriarchy, and matriarchal societies only exist in theory. I've seen others say that the Hopi are a matriarchy, but they are the only matriarchy to have existed in recorded history. And a sample size of one is a pretty shit sample size.

But I'm pulling all of this from an Intro to Anthropology class I took years ago. Someone who's an actual, degree-certified expert on the matter would be appreciated.

When they talk about " no one knows for certain how the decisions are made" like here for example :
http://voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/unconquered.html#.V9eVHvkrLcs
that is actually false, the decisions are made by the women.

That doesn't... really relate to anything I said, given that I just commented on the general opinion in the anthropologist community of whether or not matriarchies exist.

It actually does, you were saying that they were split on whether or not Hopi are a matriarchy, I am stating that yes, the Hopi are. A society where the women make the decisions for the tribe and men really do not have a say in that in the end would be a matriarchy. Tribal decisions are actually made by women.

You are a picture of a cat with devil horns. I mean I get it, you want to represent your people, but you can only do so much with that on an anonymous internet forum. For all we know you can be like, a 1/16th Hopi delusional wackadoo. That's extremely unlikely, and also NOT an invitation to tell us your life story, but you should be able to get why we can't just take everything you say about the Hopi as gospel. This isn't an interview, I mean, we literally know nothing about you. Again, not an invitation. I really don't care at this point.

Many on this forum already know my life's story. I was born on the reservation, and yes, I get it, you want to go on talking about a topic you know nothing about and don't want to hear from someone who actually does because it is not worth your time to actually research it prior to discussing it. Got it.

Yes, that IS an invitation to actually educate yourself on the topic prior to dismissing anyone who IS educated on the subject. However, with your determination to keep yourself willfully ignorant on the subject, due to " lack of care" ( as you so eloquently stated) I conclude there isn't much more to discuss.

 

[Saetha]

Of course they must be more "highly educated" in the history of my culture than I am. Most of what so-called " western experts" write about the tribes is so absurdly ridiculous they should be considered comedy writers. They tend to make up quite a bit of nonsense.

Well, a few things here. It's not that they are necessarily more educated in YOUR culture, but in the basics of anthropology in general. You could be working with a misunderstanding of what a "matriarchy" truly is, in anthropological terms. You could be making false steps in your comparison of your culture to other cultures (Something comparative anthropologists would be trained and educated in.) You could be doing or thinking any number of things that, while your knowledge of the Hopi may be valid and informed, your knowledge of how that can be put to use in an anthropological context is flawed.

EDIT: Also all Kolby's saying is that its hard to verify the facts of your identity and claims when you're an anonymous person on an internet forum.

 

[Kolby Jack]

Many on this forum already know my life's story. I was born on the reservation, and yes, I get it, you want to go on talking about a topic you know nothing about and don't want to hear from someone who actually does because it is not worth your time to actually research it prior to discussing it. Got it.

Yes, that IS an invitation to actually educate yourself on the topic prior to dismissing anyone who IS educated on the subject. However, with your determination to keep yourself willfully ignorant on the subject, due to " lack of care" ( as you so eloquently stated) I conclude there isn't much more to discuss.

Pretty sure I said I was done talking about the Hopi a few posts back. Everything since has been a response to you. And I could try and say I do care about the Hopi in order to make you feel better, but I really don't, at least not above any other culture on Earth. When I kick in to my anthropology studies fully, and if I happen to focus on Native American cultures, then I'll be happy to learn more about your people (preferably from someone who can verify their identity and background). But, as it stands, it's 1:30 in the morning and I'm going to watch TV until I fall asleep and I'll probably forget this entire conversation in a few days.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Many on this forum already know my life's story. I was born on the reservation, and yes, I get it, you want to go on talking about a topic you know nothing about and don't want to hear from someone who actually does because it is not worth your time to actually research it prior to discussing it. Got it.

Yes, that IS an invitation to actually educate yourself on the topic prior to dismissing anyone who IS educated on the subject. However, with your determination to keep yourself willfully ignorant on the subject, due to " lack of care" ( as you so eloquently stated) I conclude there isn't much more to discuss.

Pretty sure I said I was done talking about the Hopi a few posts back. Everything since has been a response to you. And I could try and say I do care about the Hopi in order to make you feel better, but I really don't, at least not above any other culture on Earth. When I kick in to my anthropology studies fully, and if I happen to focus on Native American cultures, then I'll be happy to learn more about your people (preferably from someone who can verify their identity and background). But, as it stands, it's 1:30 in the morning and I'm going to watch TV until I fall asleep and I'll probably forget this entire conversation in a few days.

I didn't ask for you to care about the Hopi, I simply stated that you were actively discussing a topic and dismissing others on that topic due to choosing remain willfully ignorant on the topic and that it would be advisable to research the topic prior to dismissing or bother to discuss it at all. Have a good rest.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Of course they must be more "highly educated" in the history of my culture than I am. Most of what so-called " western experts" write about the tribes is so absurdly ridiculous they should be considered comedy writers. They tend to make up quite a bit of nonsense.

Well, a few things here. It's not that they are necessarily more educated in YOUR culture, but in the basics of anthropology in general. You could be working with a misunderstanding of what a "matriarchy" truly is, in anthropological terms. You could be making false steps in your comparison of your culture to other cultures (Something comparative anthropologists would be trained and educated in.) You could be doing or thinking any number of things that, while your knowledge of the Hopi may be valid and informed, your knowledge of how that can be put to use in an anthropological context is flawed.

EDIT: Also all Kolby's saying is that its hard to verify the facts of your identity and claims when you're an anonymous person on an internet forum.

You stated I could be making false steps, however, that is simply unfounded until that is shown to be the case. Although my choice fields of study are Immunology and Pediatric Medicine and not Anthropology, I am fully aware of how to properly observe, formulate and test to draw a conclusion. For the most part, there are very few Anthropologists that are worthy of consideration, as I have found, they are far more likely to be inaccurate in their conclusions and not only are their observations terribly biased and often blatantly fictitious, often their entire purpose of their work is to be self promotional rather than have any factual basis in science.

Please show me how my knowledge can be put to use in an anthropological context could be flawed? I really have to hear this.

 

[Saetha]

Of course they must be more "highly educated" in the history of my culture than I am. Most of what so-called " western experts" write about the tribes is so absurdly ridiculous they should be considered comedy writers. They tend to make up quite a bit of nonsense.

Well, a few things here. It's not that they are necessarily more educated in YOUR culture, but in the basics of anthropology in general. You could be working with a misunderstanding of what a "matriarchy" truly is, in anthropological terms. You could be making false steps in your comparison of your culture to other cultures (Something comparative anthropologists would be trained and educated in.) You could be doing or thinking any number of things that, while your knowledge of the Hopi may be valid and informed, your knowledge of how that can be put to use in an anthropological context is flawed.

EDIT: Also all Kolby's saying is that its hard to verify the facts of your identity and claims when you're an anonymous person on an internet forum.

You stated I could be making false steps, however, that is simply unfounded until that is shown to be the case. Although my choice fields of study are Immunology and Pediatric Medicine and not Anthropology, I am fully aware of how to properly observe, formulate and test to draw a conclusion. For the most part, there are very few Anthropologists that are worthy of consideration, as I have found, they are far more likely to be inaccurate in their conclusions and not only are their observations terribly biased and often blatantly fictitious, often their entire purpose of their work is to be self promotional rather than have any factual basis in science.

Please show me how my knowledge can be put to use in an anthropological context could be flawed? I really have to hear this.

I can't say! Because I'm not an anthropologist either!

I wouldn't trust a chain mail letter over an actual doctor. I wouldn't trust an uncle ranting at a family dinner over a scientist. I wouldn't trust a single unverified source on an internet forum over a entire community of anthropologists.

 

[LostCrusader]

Clearly a true matriarchy would have the only currency be Snu Snu.