A place where women rule.

Ophelia · Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 7:17 am Post subject: A place where women rule.

I just visited Penelope's blog, in which she mentioned
A Thousand Splendid Suns and later that she didn't read books with a feminist theme. I don't either, but feminism is something i'm very much aware of.

I thought once again that in other parts of the world men are not necessarily the enlightened beings we know in the west-- though even here, enlightenment did not come easily or painlessly to our grandfathers (for instance, women only got the right to vote in 1945 in France).

We often think of women in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, but I think in many respects the situation of African women is even worse, only it does not attract foreign attention so much because there are no veils, nothing visible for cameras to film.

I looked up this story I had heard about of a group of Kenyan women who just gave up on the whole lot of the dreadful local males, and built their own village where they live with their children (I don't understand how the men were persuaded to stay out though).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/08/AR2005 070801775.html

For a video of the women (interview in English, text in French):

http://www.kewego.fr/video/iLyROoaftqih.html

President Camacho · Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject:

This really makes me think about evolution in general.

I remember reading about the warring city-states in early Greece. Before that was warring civilizations in early Mesopotamia. Every major civilization, for that matter, in the west and in the east has been preceded by tribal war until one tribe overcame the others and consolidated the separate tribes in order to create a single civilization, usually with one culture having a more significant impact than the other.

Then I think about African societies like these. How have they been allowed to survive?

I think about the early cultures that have been conquered. Were they too weak because they failed to cooperate with one another for a common defense? Yes, these people would have definitely been over-powered by those that formed large groups.

Then I think about those who not only came together for common defense but were able to create a society where every man was able to produce more per man. More food, more homes, more ....

Then technology through the support structure for 'thinkers'.

Advantages and advantages and advantages... more and more and more...elimination of weaknesses... a step ahead the invaders, a step ahead those that we want to plunder from... PROGRESS.

It makes me wonder how a civilization that forces its women to seek shelter AWAY from the men... a division... is able to survive. Shouldn't an invading tribe be able to come in and steal these women away and kill their children? To force them into unions with the invaders and leave the conquered males without a chance to procreate?

Why isn't nature allowing this to happen?

Penelope · Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 6:58 am Post subject:

President Camacho · Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 7:22 am Post subject:

Great point. The question of ethics/morals is too much to ignore.

Where did it come from though? Why do we care? There needs to be a reason why we care just like there is a reason why we walk on two legs.

Could it be that the tribes that cooperated and cared for one another formed more cohesive units and had a competitive advantage over those that didn't?

If this is the case then it is another reason that evolution needs to be perceived as a tool that effects change. Is that change always good?

I also think about primitive forms of life on earth. These microbial creatures made their food through fermentation and excreted methane. Some forms are still around today! Scientist say that they would have exhausted their food supply if it wasn't for the evolution. Evolution produced Cyanobacteria. These tiny bacteria now had the ability to utilize the sun's energy through photosynthesis. Amazingly enough they were so awesome that they sucked out a significant portion of the world's built up greenhouse gas methane and pumped the atmosphere full of oxygen. There were no oxygen breathing animals at the time to suck up all this oxygen. Earth cooled and entered an ice age and a mass extinction event occurred.

The evolved attribute of 'caring' may prove to be our photosynthesis.

Penelope · Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 7:46 am Post subject:

Ophelia · Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 9:49 am Post subject:

Mr President,

I don't think of this in terms of evolution making it impossible for men and women to be together, and needing to bring in the special police squad from outer space to sort us out.

The general world-wide evolution is for women to take on more responsibilities and work their way towards equality, but in some parts of the world the changes are painfully slow.

The Kenyan village in the article is an example of that particular moment in history when the women have heard of what was happening outside their villages, and start thinking that they no longer have to endure the type of treatment their mothers have endured since prehistoric times.
The woman leader speaks English, was invited to visit the United Nations, got some advice there... For the moment a large number of the traditional males refuse to see the light.

If you think of the picture of the prehistoric couple you show in your blog, the social contract then was that the man carried a stick: his roles were bringing food (hunting) and protecting his women and children against enemy tribes (ie, other men). His strength and qualities as provider and protector also made him unchallenged lord and master within the family.

I noticed that in that picture they had no luggage to carry, but I read that, again in Africa, when a tribe moved , and as they had no pack animals, the women did all the carrying, as the men took their role as armed protectors seriously and didn't want to be distracted from it (well, my interpretation).
In some African tribes, the men don't even work in the fields, so that leaves defence and council meetings of wise men for speeches and tribal decisions.

In this case there were local wars, so the women were not even protected anymore, and were then rejected for having been raped.
That's a description of a traditional society in a shambles, in which the women were getting nothing in return for holding their side of the contract.

It's an extreme situation, but it doesn't mean that humans can't sort themselves out .

For example, in that village of women and children, perhaps the next generation of males would be wiser than their fathers?
The village was visited by foreign tourists, so that would open a window to other customs.
Those women were also managing to send their kids to school for the first time, and usually that's the crucial step: the girls learning to read.

I read a review of a book several years which described a situation in China in the first half of the twentieth century.
It started with two women announcing that they would not get married (I imagined they found the prospect of life-long servitude to the husbands and inlaws unappealing) and they bought a house where they did some work from which they could live-- at the time it was a scandalous decision to make in a very rigid and traditional society, but I think it was made possible by the fact that there were foreigners living in China; later on in China some of the men themselves didn't want the old ways anymore.
These women were then joined by a few others-- it never spread to a colony or a villlage though if I remember correctly, just the one house.

Has anybody heard of this book? Perhaps I' ll add it to Ralph's riddles, I certainly haven't managed to google to yahoo the answer.

Penelope · Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 10:55 am Post subject:

Mr Pres and Ophelia - This anecdote seems very apt to this thread!

A little girl was watching her mother prepare the leg of lamb joint for the oven.
'Why do you cut off the little bone from the end of the joint, Mum?'

'Because my mother always did', said the mother

then the mother asks her mother - why she cut off the knuckle from a leg of lamb.....'because my mother did' is the reply.

Then the mother's mother asks her mother why she cut this small bone from the joint....'because it wouldn't fit into my roasting tin otherwise'.

Was the reply.

Moral - Don't always trust perceived wisdom. Smile

DWill · Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject:

It's an unfamiliar idea to me that evolution functions through social or cultural transmission. Are you (Pres. Commacho) talking about the Darwinian process, or are you just drawing a parallel? I certainly see societies evolving technologically, but this is a use of the word that isn't connected with natural selection, I tend to think. There could be disagreement on this, but the change that we've seen over a couple millennia seems to be just that, change, but not corresponding to physical changes which evolution depends on (even the development of compassion would be a physical change, wouldn't it?) Sorry, this is not as clearly said as I would like it to be.
DWill

ralphinlaos · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 3:40 am Post subject:

Penelope, I think your anecdote was pertinent to many of the threads here. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Ralph

Penelope · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 5:12 am Post subject:

Robert Tulip · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 8:37 am Post subject:

This theme of cultural evolution is fascinating. We can obviously see cumulative adaptation, the basic Darwinian principle, operating at cultural levels. For example, military and commercial technology evolve by competitive selection. Similarly, institutions evolve in a cumulative way - FA Hayek gives a good explanation of this in The Constitution of Liberty in his discussion of English common law with its basis in evolving precedent rather than in theoretic principle such as the Napoleonic Code. The trouble with cultural evolution, as with genetic evolution, is that it is easy to go down a blind alley, a niche which seems adaptive but has some deeper flaw which will eventually cause its undoing. I think of military imperialism in this light - an adaptive method which in the short term produces immense prosperity for a few, but which sows the seeds of its end through its valorisation of a false consciousness. This is most vividly displayed in the encounter between Rome and Jesus, where Rome's false imperial consciousness, grounded in Gods who did not exist, was challenged by an ethic of pure love. Jesus claimed that adaptivity to long term reality required an ethic of love - a faith that the meek shall inherit the earth. This seems absurd to a soldier who has power to steal the property of the meek, but Jesus seems to look forward to a world where spiritual transformation will dissolve the military power. This relates to the power of the feminine, which relies more on moral persuasion than physical force, pointing to a future world where force is not the main determinant of power.

President Camacho · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 8:45 am Post subject:

My reply to Ophelia's thread is partly influenced and polarized from the book I'm reading about the rise and fall of civilizations.

The niche idea that Mr.T brings up is illustrated in the way that early cyanobacteria evolved and were able to prosper until they sent the world into an ice age and caused a mass extinction event.

Because other cultures do things differently does not mean they're taking the path of success or failure. Right now, no one can know what culture is the 'cyanobacteria', flourishing now and headed for certain demise, and what culture isn't.

My reply concerned the division. I don't know how a culture divided can succeed in the long term. How does this affect the children? That is probably the most important question with respect to where the culture is headed in the future.

The real concern lies not with the individual women but what road that culture is headed down. Suppose it benefits the women to be separated from the males as seems to be the case. The ontogeny in this scenario may obviously benefit but at what cost? Is this better for the progeny; the future of those people? Who can say?

Empirical evidence is probably the only salvation of someone that wants to take a crack at this. The answer will still only be an educated guess. What are the odds that this division will help? will last? will benefit the future of the society?

I agree that women's rights are necessary for a more productive civilization. Limiting the access to various 'markets' lowers efficiency. I hope the men and women one day can reconcile, changes can be made, and the society can 'progress'.

Update your profile Mr.T and start a blog.

ralphinlaos · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 12:15 pm Post subject:

Hi Robert -

I would like to suggest that the world is going backward rather than forward. Spiritually speaking, that is.

Do you not believe, as the soldier does, that "the meek shall inherit the earth" is just absurd?

"Jesus seems to look forward to a world where spiritual transformation will dissolve the military power." When is this supposed to take place? When is it supposed to START taking place? In many cases, spirituality is the very reason for a strong military power. We've had over two-thousand years to get this spirital transformation on the road.

Are you suggesting that a nation ruled by a woman ("the power of the feminine") would be a more spiritual, uplifting society than that ruled by men? We've had many women leaders and rulers throughout history, and they've been just as nationalistic, imperialistic and chauvinistic as the men.

Am I wrong?

Ralph

Ophelia · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 2:04 pm Post subject:

Ralph wrote:

President Camacho · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 2:15 pm Post subject:

Is going backward in spirituality a good thing or a bad thing? First, I would have to ask why spirituality was brought about in us. Was it to escape some kind of perceived evil or personal stress? Was it to fill a some void? What advantages does it have?

If perceived evil is being eliminated, if the magnitude of personal stress is lessened, and if voids are being filled... will spirituality naturally decline? Most would then say that the decline of spirituality is a good thing.

Inspiration, motivation to change, and leaps forward are brought about by some inadequacy. If there is no inadequacy notable, if there is no reason to change, then there will be less inspiration and practically no motivation.

Loss of inspiration is a bad thing, right? It can be compared in some way to spirituality in that it is human and intangible. Would the person in a perfect universe be able to change something that someone would call inspired? No, because it is perfect and there is no reason for change.

Escaping the existential world for the magical will lose me every time. "I think we need to be more magical and need to put more effort into changing from human beings into balls of mystic light and love so much that we melt into a pool of love and evaporate into the atmosphere where we can sprinkle down on all the little animals, amen." Lost me...

The meek do inherit the earth, I believe. Just look at the birth rate of developed nations compared to under developed nations for some evidence. There is more evidence still when looking at birth rates of the different classes in a country. (won't get into that though, for fear of persecution.)

I personally don't think that any one person should 'rule'; whether that person be male or female doesn't matter.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT