The insults were uncalled for and unwarranted. That said, let's look at the points you made.
Snoweel said:
Even though you use two question marks where protocol askes for either one or three, not the average of the two
I'm a rebel.
It's a fact that human beings care for their own children to an exponentially higher degree than they do for the children of others.
Dynastism being one of the few forms of immortality available to us, not to mention the overriding power of genetic material to ensure its continuing propagation.
No one is saying people don't care about their own kids more than others. However, thats not relevent, because its not what you said. You said:
What I meant by "unavoidable" was that such a situation (of which patrilineage is also a product) becomes unavoidable when men are expected to take an equal role in the moral upbringing of their children, as opposed to merely teaching male children how to fight, hunt, farm, etc.
The situation in question is that of men oppressing women do to a need to try and control their "superior" form of reproduction. Notice that you said "their children" not "all children" or "the children". You weren't referring to the children of others. Hence, my disbelief on that statement remains.
All these factors have the ability to be both cause and effect.
Are you saying these are the reasons that matriarchies don't dominate the world and that I've been unable to comprehend this fact?
Once again, while they are causes, they are as much effects.
The point remains - matriarchies' (and other matrilineal societies) only legacy is in the freakshow pages of history books.
I'm not debating whether these things are cause and effect. I'm saying that a society's simply being matriarchal/matrilineal is not an indicator that that society is doomed. No one is saying anyone can't comprehend anything. There weren't as many matriarchal/matrilineal societies throughout history as there were patriarchal/patrilineal ones anyway, and considering that quite a few societies get wiped out on the road to modernism (that is, the current period), there's nothing substantial to say that having women in charge of a society means that society will inevitably come crumbling down.
Something of an overwhelming coincidence, don't you think?
Not when you look at it in the larger frame of context. It isn't a coincidence, it makes sense for other reasons. Matriarchal/matrilineal societies have nothing inherently unstable, its just that the few known ones were wiped out for reasons unrelated to sex or gender.
I suppose you're a big fan of Douglas Adams (may he rest in peace).
I am indeed!
You are aware that outside forces besiege every society, not just the matriarchal/matrilineal ones?
Yes, hence why not only matriarchal/matrilineal ones crumble as history progresses. Ones ruled by men do too.
Human beings, regardless of gender, care far more for their own offspring than for others'. Exceptions aside.
Agreed, but again, that's not what you were saying earlier.
Women, regardless of patrilineage/matrilineage of the society, can be near certain of whether or not their children really are theirs, and will thus have a vested interest in their children's welfare on a personal level.
True, but this doesn't necessarily assume a man won't be as certain that a child is his also, at least not to the point where its good enough for him. We live in a patrilineal society now, but the majority of men are damn sure their kids are theirs.
Men, however, are faced with extreme uncertainty as to the assuredness of their paternity in a matrilineal society, and as evidenced wherever paternity is dubious, males mostly "couldn't be arsed" (to be vulgar), to have much to do with the raising of their young, particularly where other males are equally as likely to be the father of any particular child.
I disagree. There is no "extreme uncertainty" in men knowing if their children are theirs. Its generally taken as a given unless evidence is brought forward to the contrary. As I said, in our patrilineal society, there is no widespread uncertainty on the part of fathers that their children are theirs.
Of course, this could be entirely the result of socialisation, but if the procreative drive is as linked to the desire to propagate genetic material as evolutionists would have us believe, then I'd say this attitude is as much to do with biology as it is to do with society.
There is no biological factor in men being unsure that their children are theirs, just that men desire to father as many children as possible. And even that is still being debated by anthropologists.
I don't see the conflict in the two statements. Sex is not synonomous with gender, but rather sex is only one of myriad things that designate and define one's gender.
Either you believe gender is distinguished solely by sex or you don't. I think we both know the answer to that one.
We do. It is not distinguished solely by gender, as I said earlier.
And as for "society", you fail to realise that women comprise more than half of society. And since they do, they must surely take half of the blame for their alleged "oppression" at the hands of the other half.
Your logic is faulty. Assuming that because there are a lot of women, yet oppression of women remains, ergo they must accept and be partially to blame for the oppression, is untrue. That's like saying that, because African slaves were more numerous than white people on plantations, but never rebelled, they were to blame for being slaves on those plantations. It just isn't true, and the reasoning is extremely draconian. You're blaming the victims for being victims.
Or maybe claiming to be "oppressed" is nothing more than a clever way to exploit a particular social system (one that rewards victims for inaction?)
Ah, the international feminist plot to claim victimhood so they can gain unfair compensation right?
Seriously though, that arguement is something of a joke. Women aren't given the same advantages as men in this society. While maybe "oppression" isn't the right term, its still true they're disadvantaged.
And before you flame me for perceived callousness, I'm actually working to a point, which by now should be obvious.
I don't flame people. I have before, and the resulting flame wars were embarrassing to both myself and other people. Hence, I just don't do it anymore.
Sadly, I'm afraid I missed your point, what was it again?
True, but what does this have to do with the debate at hand? Homosexuals and lesbians are largely on the periphery of heterosexual politics.
This isn't just heterosexual politics, its sexual politics period. As for what those examples have to do with the debate, they're examples that sex alone does not determine gender.
Can you think of a single reason why such a society wouldn't respect secular prostitutes other than impersonation of holy men and women? I agree it's possible, but I can't for the life of me think how, in the context of sexual politics.
Yes. They might hold, for example, that religious prostitutes have what they do sanctioned by their deity, and are thus more pure (something that could be easily proven in a campaign by such temple prostitutes being able to use
Remove Disease to make sure they're not diseased), whereas secular prostitutes are seen as dirty. Or perhaps secular prostitutes aren't seen as holy, which temple prostitutes are, and hence the godless whores are less worthy of respect, since they serve no higher power. There are myriad reasons, most of them focusing on the religious aspect. Religion has always played a part in politics, even sexual politics.
Of course, we're starting to get seriously outside the boundaries of the debate here. This helping tleilaxu?
