Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Inzae" data-source="post: 652780" data-attributes="member: 4600">matriarchyI have not read all the arguments here but I am going to this evening and get back to this post.&nbsp; But, diving in waters which I perhaps should mesaure the depth of first.&nbsp; I iwll proceed with a few simple clarifications.Matrilineal descent means nothing more than one's closest and most meaninglful relatives are on the mothers side of the family and not the fathers.Matriarchies are those societies in which women, as&nbsp; a group, hold power over men as a socail category.&nbsp; No matriarchy has ever been anthropologically observed nor historically documented.The presence of a queen or powerful female figure does not indicate a matriarchy.anr, with regards to the subject of this post's beginning, I would suggest the temple priestesses not be referred to as prostitutes in the first place.&nbsp; Its like calling Geisha prostitutes.&nbsp; Not comparable.&nbsp; back later.davis</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Inzae, post: 652780, member: 4600"] [b]matriarchy[/b] I have not read all the arguments here but I am going to this evening and get back to this post. But, diving in waters which I perhaps should mesaure the depth of first. I iwll proceed with a few simple clarifications. Matrilineal descent means nothing more than one's closest and most meaninglful relatives are on the mothers side of the family and not the fathers. Matriarchies are those societies in which women, as a group, hold power over men as a socail category. No matriarchy has ever been anthropologically observed nor historically documented. The presence of a queen or powerful female figure does not indicate a matriarchy. anr, with regards to the subject of this post's beginning, I would suggest the temple priestesses not be referred to as prostitutes in the first place. Its like calling Geisha prostitutes. Not comparable. back later. davis [/QUOTE]

Verification