Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

Psych Lit · Guru

RE: Matriarchal societies

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Psych Lit wrote:

BoxDog wrote:

There were real life heterosexual women that considered themselves "lesbian" by being tied to the movement or whatever for political reasons versus the identity ones. To further the cause of Womens Rights,

Now, see, I remember it just the other way around. Seems to me, in the 70's, lesbians were sort of reluctantly welcomed (if at all) into the feminist communities, because they were considered sort of a "black eye" to feminism, which wanted to maintain the heterosexual profile, and not sully it with ... you know ... those people...

You might be interested in reading up on LEEDS, who were the marginalized group of which you're speaking, I think, but really, they were just that, and considered by the larger feminist movement as pretty much an irritating, counterproductive pain in the ass.

I must have been unclear. What I was trying to say is the separatist lesbian movement was reluctantly infiltrated by heterosexual women to a degree to further the feminist movement in general. Not the other way around. Yes, lesbians were probably the equivalent of a one eyed, three legged, runt from a litter in the seventies. With straight women burning bras and gay men taking beatings by cops. Now, of course, we see that heterosexual "sisters" have pretty much moved away from the band because their fight is over, they "have it all". Despite the marginal difference in pay. Despite the continued harrassment, they have made a life and paved a path to self sufficiency. As did alot of us. But the world opened up to straight women in a way it hasn't and may never to gay women. And women, in general, may be the leading reason this continues.

And see, I remember both of these things. I remember the "lavender menace" Friedan split but i also remember the women who embraced lesbianism because they were caught up in some sort of empowerment trance of woman bonding but really didnt enjoy or want the sexual aspect of being with women. This is where i was going last week with the womens studies groups and women who id as lesbian but had not or could not conceive of acting on that.
btw great article bd. there are occasionally those moments in the history of the world where the world opens up and articulates aspects of individual lives that maybe couldnt or wouldnt have happened at any other point. if nothing else lamar van dyke sounds like a very interesting woman, and the story of her life really reflects the history of lesbians for the last 50 or so years. i chuckled remembering some of those arguments that were both informative and divisive of both the womens movement and lesbianism ..."

Hey, just found this brief ... okay, maybe not all that brief, but it's an easy read (and GOOD!) article, which yes, mentions the Friedan thing: Lesbian History: Lesbian Feminism

"... As the Second Wave of feminism picked up steam during the 1960s, feminist discourse largely ignored lesbianism. Some feminists harbored hostile attitudes towards lesbians, however. Some viewed lesbianism as a sexual rather than a political issue..."

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 23:37, 2009-03-09

Psych Lit · Guru

BoxDog wrote:

There were real life heterosexual women that considered themselves "lesbian" by being tied to the movement or whatever for political reasons versus the identity ones. To further the cause of Womens Rights,

Now, see, I remember it just the other way around. Seems to me, in the 70's, lesbians were sort of reluctantly welcomed (if at all) into the feminist communities, because they were considered sort of a "black eye" to feminism, which wanted to maintain the heterosexual profile, and not sully it with ... you know ... those people...

You might be interested in reading up on LEEDS, who were the marginalized group of which you're speaking, I think, but really, they were just that, and considered by the larger feminist movement as pretty much an irritating, counterproductive pain in the ass.

I must have been unclear. What I was trying to say is the separatist lesbian movement was reluctantly infiltrated by heterosexual women to a degree to further the feminist movement in general. Not the other way around. Yes, lesbians were probably the equivalent of a one eyed, three legged, runt from a litter in the seventies. With straight women burning bras and gay men taking beatings by cops. Now, of course, we see that heterosexual "sisters" have pretty much moved away from the band because their fight is over, they "have it all". Despite the marginal difference in pay. Despite the continued harrassment, they have made a life and paved a path to self sufficiency. As did alot of us. But the world opened up to straight women in a way it hasn't and may never to gay women. And women, in general, may be the leading reason this continues.

And see, I remember both of these things. I remember the "lavender menace" Friedan split but i also remember the women who embraced lesbianism because they were caught up in some sort of empowerment trance of woman bonding but really didnt enjoy or want the sexual aspect of being with women. This is where i was going last week with the womens studies groups and women who id as lesbian but had not or could not conceive of acting on that.
btw great article bd. there are occasionally those moments in the history of the world where the world opens up and articulates aspects of individual lives that maybe couldnt or wouldnt have happened at any other point. if nothing else lamar van dyke sounds like a very interesting woman, and the story of her life really reflects the history of lesbians for the last 50 or so years. i chuckled remembering some of those arguments that were both informative and divisive of both the womens movement and lesbianism and loved this quote below tho its from the salon reporting of the same new yorker article.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 18:56, 2009-03-09

"There also was quite a bit of sexual tension. At the time, lesbianism itself was complicated by the fact that, for some women, it was "not a matter of sexual preference, but rather one of political choice." Perhaps it was not surprising, then, that some women confused lesbianism with celibacy. As evidence, Levy digs up a 1975 essay called "Nobody Has to Get F*cked" in which Barbara Lipschutz urges women to "free the libido from the tyranny of orgasm-seeking. Sometimes hugging is nicer." One can see where some might have have come up with the mistaken notion that most lesbians prefer to cuddle. The Van Dykes, however, had no such issues. Says Chris Fox, the woman Heather ditched back at the farm who later joined the Van Dykes: "It's so weird that people talk about feminism being anti-sex -- as if. As if! People were f*cking their brains out."

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

I confess, I like this thread subject in PART, because there are so many who proclaim matriarchal societies don't exist, (and this article says the same:

"Political power in Mosuo society tends to be in the hands of males, which for many scientists disqualifies them as a true matriarchy, and they would be rather called "matrilineal".)

and never HAVE existed.

Perhaps it's time... smile

Anway...

Mosuo, One of the Last Matriarchal Societies The land where women rule! By Stefan Anitei, Science Editor 23rd of September 2006,


In the Xiaolianghshan Mountains, Yunnan province (South East China), live the Mosuo people, one of the last living matriarchal societies today. They are closely related to Tibetans. In their social system, paternity and marriage are not the same as in our world. The main pillar of the family is the mother. The family units can join three women generations with their sons. Grandmothers, mothers and daughters can inhabit the same house, without the presence of fathers or husbands. Only uncles, brothers, sons and nephews are happily accepted. Sex is practiced freely. They only have to choose a partner to spend the night and only incest is forbidden. Typical marriage and fidelity are something like heresy. Obviously, they don't seem to present signs of jealousy. The western love tragedies of revengeful and victimized lovers make them laugh. They think the visitor is kidding them "How is it possible to end your precious life for something so banal like sex?" Otherwise, in the Mosuo language doesn't exist the word "rape" - even if rape does exist - but is less common than in other cultures. The woman is clearly the center of this culture. Mosuo homes are designed as four rectangular structures, with an open central courtyard. Animals and humans will live together in this home, with much of the first floor dedicated to housing for the livestock (yaks, sheep, goats, water buffaloes, horses, geese, poultry, pigs). It is common to have animals wandering in and out of the house all day. The first floor will also have the main cooking area, and the main eating/visiting area. The second floor is used most commonly for storage, and for the private rooms for Mosuo women! (the rest of the family will sleep in communal quarters). Women and men are grouped in "clubs". When two young people are attracted by each other, they start a relationship, working together, having social activities and rejoining every evening in a big party center to sing and dance together. The boys give girls gold, silver or jade jewelry or silk fabrics. The girls donate wood or leather accessories. Older men can also give as presents salted meat, green tea, sugar or wine to young women, in order to achieve the probation of the old women. Once achieved, they are engaged or - properly said - they are a couple. We talk about "walking marriage". They won't live together, but instead, they will spend from time to time the night together, all wrapped in secrecy. And at the woman's will. The men will walk to the house of their 'partner' at night, but return to their own home in the morning. Even if they have sons, he is not a father in the meaning given in our society. He is just the biological father, a procreation tool. The sons belong to her family and the father can only visit them. The uncles deal with their education, care or admonishment, but always with less authority than the mother. Reversely, the children have to care their old uncles. Traditionally, a Mosuo woman interested in a particular man will invite him to come and spend the night with her in her room. Such pairings are conducted secretly, so the man will walk to her house after dark, spend the night with her, and return home early the next morning. Few Mosuo women will have more than one partner at a time, even if they are not expected to do so. Mosuo women can change partners as often as they like. In fact, they practice "serial monogamies", and some relationships can last for a lifetime. So they are not a culture sexually promiscuous as one might think. And "walking marriages" with non-Mosuo are very strongly forbidden. Mothers are responsible with the family, but they also decide the inheritances and pass the family name. None can interpose a woman's authority and even less a man. " Rest of article may be found here:

Mosuo, One of the Last Matriarchal Societies - The land where women rule! - Softpedia

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 20:59, 2009-03-09

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 21:06, 2009-03-09

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

BoxDog wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

BoxDog wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

nesea wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

I've just been sitting here thinking about matriarchal societies, and trying to envision one in routine day to day exchanges, and societal norms.

I've been wondering how apt women would be to just become a reflection of a patriarchal society, with the only real difference being the distribution of power.

I don't think that would happen, because of the inherent nature of a woman, which dictate interests, etc. Don't know, though.
food for thought ...

I think it's interesting to note matriarchal societies are alive and well in the animal kingdom. Whales, elephants and bees just to name a few.

Good point! Thanks!

<The Black Widow of Chaillot>

March 2nds New Yorker has a contributing article by Ariel Levy worth looking at. She has a Post lesbianism (uh-huh, that's what I said, not her) view of matriarchal ideologies and culture. Levy, having been born in the seventies, is part of the group that missed the brief boat. Hell, I missed it. Only by a little bit, all the same I missed it. Some of her past writings included in depth analysis of the subcultures known as lesbian separatist communities. One chapter in a book of hers was called, The Future That Never Happened. Or some such. It's kinda what we've been kicking around now for a little while. Whether queer women have been absorbed into pop culture as a fad and now a fade. As is the case so often, women may have been our greatest enemies. Our own women, womyn, wimmins. Whatever. The lesbian branch of the gay rights and Womens rights movements blended together, homogenized and became collectively recalled as a political movement rather than a sexual identity one. There were real life heterosexual women that considered themselves "lesbian" by being tied to the movement or whatever for political reasons versus the identity ones. To further the cause of Womens Rights, well I think it backfired. I find it hard to believe that after a bazillion years lesbians have either scampered back into a closet or made a conscious decision to become bisexual to move about society more freely to please everyone else. As women often and historically have done. And where we are now is knee deep in gay for a day partners for a little minute. Really, I almost understand the simple minds asking questions like, how could they be GAY, they have CHILDREN? They were WITH MEN! It's so old school, western euro, but so true and hard to debate. A "womans place" has become the largest remaining point of civil discrimination. While the old Jewish grandmas loved their gay grandsons, "such good boys", not so much the girls. The saddest part to me, is that dating women fully entrenched in bisexuality is nearly impossible to avoid.

Please accept my apology in advance, it's not like I said bisexual vermin. ;)
Now, see, I remember it just the other way around. Seems to me, in the 70's, lesbians were sort of reluctantly welcomed (if at all) into the feminist communities, because they were considered sort of a "black eye" to feminism, which wanted to maintain the heterosexual profile, and not sully it with ... you know ... those people...

You might be interested in reading up on LEEDS, who were the marginalized group of which you're speaking, I think, but really, they were just that, and considered by the larger feminist movement as pretty much an irritating, counterproductive pain in the ass.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 18:56, 2009-03-09

I must have been unclear. <BD

Naw, I think I probably read it wrong.

You DO know about my oft reviled "reading comprehension" problem, yes??

But seriously, I probably skimmed too quickly (distractions here) my bad.

--------------------------------------
What I was trying to say is the separatist lesbian movement was reluctantly infiltrated by heterosexual women to a degree to further the feminist movement in general. Not the other way around. Yes, lesbians were probably the equivalent of a one eyed, three legged, runt from a litter in the seventies. With straight women burning bras and gay men taking beatings by cops. Now, of course, we see that heterosexual "sisters" have pretty much moved away from the band because their fight is over, they "have it all". Despite the marginal difference in pay. Despite the continued harrassment, they have made a life and paved a path to self sufficiency. As did alot of us. But the world opened up to straight women in a way it hasn't and may never to gay women. And women, in general, may be the leading reason this continues.

I would agree, with the caveat that the world is still closed to women in so many ways, regardless of their sexual preferences. It's a matter of degree, I guess. Does seem for every glass ceiling a straight woman has to break through, there's another floor above that for the lesbian.

I do agree women contribute, by quiet, passive acceptance, a lot to their own subjugation and status as second class citizens -- but you and I both know we both know women who refuse to acknowledge that such inequality even exists, except in our own minds, and make no bones about announcing such at every opportunity.

Facts don't seem to alter these opinions a scintilla. Maybe they fall into the category you identify above -- "I've got MINE, so to hell with the rest of my gender."

On a different thread I touched upon the vast difference between empathy and sympathy, but this is about flat out denial, and women who actually live lives where they do experience sexual discrimination are simply "not trying hard enough" and "savoring the role of 'victim." I do think women are sometimes the most harsh critics of women, and often the most adamant about blaming them for their own condition.

I so weary of the woman who says: "Well, just BE equal, then, if you think you're not! I did!" There may be a smattering of truth in that, but the larger truth is that all the resolve in the world isn't going to change the fact list Psych posted overnight for women as a group. Yeah, sure -- I've had lots of jobs where I was the only woman on site, and the first woman to hold that position. I know it can be done, but then too, I've had opportunities not every woman has had, and I still feel discrimination -- I mean ... I KNOW it's THERE, and until more "comfortable" "don't rock the boat" women are willing to likewise acknowedge its presence, those who do will have to carry a more heavy burden in the uphill climb to equality.

People like to point to Oprah, to prove, for instance, that black American women can "succeed" and the discrimination they face is of their own making, and in their own heads. Those more vain, point to themselves. :) What they fail to accept, though, is that Oprah is extraordinary, and we cannot demand every OTHER woman, black or otherwise ALSO be extraordinary. Yes, of course there are Oprahs, and Hillary Clintons, and Helen Kellers amongst us, but much as we may WISH we could all be gifted in ways they are/were, the simple truth is some of us are just plain people with more ordinary "gifts" like ... being really good with children, or a great swimmer, or WHATEVER.

Okay ... I'm drifting now. :)

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 20:19, 2009-03-09

nesea · Senior Member

BoxDog wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

nesea wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

I find it hard to believe that after a bazillion years lesbians have either scampered back into a closet or made a conscious decision to become bisexual to move about society more freely to please everyone else. As women often and historically have done.
Please accept my apology in advance, it's not like I said bisexual vermin. ;)

ouch ... lol ... scampering huh ..

really ... it didn't happen that way

Date: Mon Mar 9 6:24 PM, 2009

Ariel Levy can sue me. I don't have time to request copyright auth. Rather, she can sue anonymous. ;) Here's a piece of her article from last weeks edition of New Yorker Magazine.

bd

ABSTRACT: AMERICAN CHRONICLES about Lamar Van Dyke and the lesbian separatist movement. In the late nineteen-seventies, several thousand women in North America decided not to concern themselves with equal pay for equal work, or getting their husbands to do the dishes. Why capitulate, why compromise when you could separate, live in a world of your own invention. The lesbian separatists of a generation ago created a shadow society devoted to living in an alternate, penisless reality. There were many factions from the Gutter Dykes in Berkeley to the Radicalesbians in New York City. The most colorful separatists, although they were not the most influential, nor the most ideologically stalwart, were the Van Dykes, a roving band of van-driving vegans who shaved their heads, avoided speaking to men, and lived on the highways of North America for several years. Tells how the founding Van Dykes, Heather Elizabeth and Ange Spaulding first came to hit the road in 1977. Ange took the name Brook Van Dyke because she was loquacious: a babbling Brook. Heather Elizabeth became Heather Van Dyke, and then, eventually, Lamar Van Dyke, after Hedy Lamarr. Perhaps, they thought, they could persuade every lesbian in America to cast off the slave name shed been given at birth or taken at the altar in favor of this tough-sounding moniker that proclaimed: Your eyes do not deceive you: I am a real live lesbian. Mentions feminists who were drawn to lesbianism not as a matter of sexual preference, but rather one of political and ideological choice. Writer describes meeting Lamar Van Dyke for the first time. She is an unusually large woman with short, dark hair and tattoos winding up and down both arms. Tells about Van Dykes childhood in Buffalo. She left home at nineteen and conceived a child after a one-night-stand, a girl whom she gave up for adoption. She was married three times. Her third husband, Bruce Beyer, was an antiwar protester who fled to Sweden. There, Van Dyke attended an international womens conference where she became exhilarated by the brand of radical feminism being espoused. Describes other members of the Van Dykes and tells about their travels around the United States and Mexico. Describes how one member of the group introduced the others to sadomasochism and how S & M became divisive among the Van Dykes and the larger womens movement. Lamar Van Dyke moved to Seattle in 1980 and became a kingpin in the local S & M scene, opening a tattoo parlor. Tells about her reconnection with her daughter, Traci Lewis. Van Dyke works with men now, and even speaks to them. A woman in her sixties who has been resolutely doing as she pleases for as long as she can remember is not easy to come by, in movies or in books, or in life.ABSTRACT: AMERICAN CHRONICLES about Lamar Van Dyke and the lesbian separatist movement. In the late nineteen-seventies, several thousand women in North America decided not to concern themselves with equal pay for equal work, or getting their husbands to do the dishes. Why capitulate, why compromise when you could separate, live in a world of your own invention. The lesbian separatists of a generation ago created a shadow society devoted to living in an alternate, penisless reality. There were many factions from the Gutter Dykes in Berkeley to the Radicalesbians in New York City. The most colorful separatists, although they were not the most influential, nor the most ideologically stalwart, were the Van Dykes, a roving band of van-driving vegans who shaved their heads, avoided speaking to men, and lived on the highways of North America for several years. Tells how the founding Van Dykes, Heather Elizabeth and Ange Spaulding first came to hit the road in 1977. Ange took the name Brook Van Dyke because she was loquacious: a babbling Brook. Heather Elizabeth became Heather Van Dyke, and then, eventually, Lamar Van Dyke, after Hedy Lamarr. Perhaps, they thought, they could persuade every lesbian in America to cast off the slave name she'd been given at birth or taken at the altar in favor of this tough-sounding moniker that proclaimed: "Your eyes do not deceive you: I am a real live lesbian." Mentions feminists who were drawn to lesbianism not as a matter of sexual preference, but rather one of political and ideological choice. Writer describes meeting Lamar Van Dyke for the first time. She is an unusually large woman with short, dark hair and tattoos winding up and down both arms. Tells about Van Dyke's childhood in Buffalo. She left home at nineteen and conceived a child after a one-night-stand, a girl whom she gave up for adoption. She was married three times. Her third husband, Bruce Beyer, was an antiwar protester who fled to Sweden. There, Van Dyke attended an international women's conference where she became exhilarated by the brand of radical feminism being espoused. Describes other members of the Van Dykes and tells about their travels around the United States and Mexico. Describes how one member of the group introduced the others to sadomasochism and how S & M became divisive among the Van Dykes and the larger women's movement. Lamar Van Dyke moved to Seattle in 1980 and became a kingpin in the local S & M scene, opening a tattoo parlor. Tells about her reconnection with her daughter, Traci Lewis. Van Dyke works with men now, and even speaks to them. A woman in her sixties who has been resolutely doing as she pleases for as long as she can remember is not easy to come by, in movies or in books, or in life.

BoxDog · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

BoxDog wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

nesea wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

I've just been sitting here thinking about matriarchal societies, and trying to envision one in routine day to day exchanges, and societal norms.

I've been wondering how apt women would be to just become a reflection of a patriarchal society, with the only real difference being the distribution of power.

I don't think that would happen, because of the inherent nature of a woman, which dictate interests, etc. Don't know, though.
food for thought ...

I think it's interesting to note matriarchal societies are alive and well in the animal kingdom. Whales, elephants and bees just to name a few.

Good point! Thanks!

<The Black Widow of Chaillot>

March 2nds New Yorker has a contributing article by Ariel Levy worth looking at. She has a Post lesbianism (uh-huh, that's what I said, not her) view of matriarchal ideologies and culture. Levy, having been born in the seventies, is part of the group that missed the brief boat. Hell, I missed it. Only by a little bit, all the same I missed it. Some of her past writings included in depth analysis of the subcultures known as lesbian separatist communities. One chapter in a book of hers was called, The Future That Never Happened. Or some such. It's kinda what we've been kicking around now for a little while. Whether queer women have been absorbed into pop culture as a fad and now a fade. As is the case so often, women may have been our greatest enemies. Our own women, womyn, wimmins. Whatever. The lesbian branch of the gay rights and Womens rights movements blended together, homogenized and became collectively recalled as a political movement rather than a sexual identity one. There were real life heterosexual women that considered themselves "lesbian" by being tied to the movement or whatever for political reasons versus the identity ones. To further the cause of Womens Rights, well I think it backfired. I find it hard to believe that after a bazillion years lesbians have either scampered back into a closet or made a conscious decision to become bisexual to move about society more freely to please everyone else. As women often and historically have done. And where we are now is knee deep in gay for a day partners for a little minute. Really, I almost understand the simple minds asking questions like, how could they be GAY, they have CHILDREN? They were WITH MEN! It's so old school, western euro, but so true and hard to debate. A "womans place" has become the largest remaining point of civil discrimination. While the old Jewish grandmas loved their gay grandsons, "such good boys", not so much the girls. The saddest part to me, is that dating women fully entrenched in bisexuality is nearly impossible to avoid.

Please accept my apology in advance, it's not like I said bisexual vermin. ;)
Now, see, I remember it just the other way around. Seems to me, in the 70's, lesbians were sort of reluctantly welcomed (if at all) into the feminist communities, because they were considered sort of a "black eye" to feminism, which wanted to maintain the heterosexual profile, and not sully it with ... you know ... those people...

You might be interested in reading up on LEEDS, who were the marginalized group of which you're speaking, I think, but really, they were just that, and considered by the larger feminist movement as pretty much an irritating, counterproductive pain in the ass.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 18:56, 2009-03-09

I must have been unclear. What I was trying to say is the separatist lesbian movement was reluctantly infiltrated by heterosexual women to a degree to further the feminist movement in general. Not the other way around. Yes, lesbians were probably the equivalent of a one eyed, three legged, runt from a litter in the seventies. With straight women burning bras and gay men taking beatings by cops. Now, of course, we see that heterosexual "sisters" have pretty much moved away from the band because their fight is over, they "have it all". Despite the marginal difference in pay. Despite the continued harrassment, they have made a life and paved a path to self sufficiency. As did alot of us. But the world opened up to straight women in a way it hasn't and may never to gay women. And women, in general, may be the leading reason this continues.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

BoxDog wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

nesea wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

I've just been sitting here thinking about matriarchal societies, and trying to envision one in routine day to day exchanges, and societal norms.

I've been wondering how apt women would be to just become a reflection of a patriarchal society, with the only real difference being the distribution of power.

I don't think that would happen, because of the inherent nature of a woman, which dictate interests, etc. Don't know, though.
food for thought ...

I think it's interesting to note matriarchal societies are alive and well in the animal kingdom. Whales, elephants and bees just to name a few.

Good point! Thanks!

<The Black Widow of Chaillot>

March 2nds New Yorker has a contributing article by Ariel Levy worth looking at. She has a Post lesbianism (uh-huh, that's what I said, not her) view of matriarchal ideologies and culture. Levy, having been born in the seventies, is part of the group that missed the brief boat. Hell, I missed it. Only by a little bit, all the same I missed it. Some of her past writings included in depth analysis of the subcultures known as lesbian separatist communities. One chapter in a book of hers was called, The Future That Never Happened. Or some such. It's kinda what we've been kicking around now for a little while. Whether queer women have been absorbed into pop culture as a fad and now a fade. As is the case so often, women may have been our greatest enemies. Our own women, womyn, wimmins. Whatever. The lesbian branch of the gay rights and Womens rights movements blended together, homogenized and became collectively recalled as a political movement rather than a sexual identity one. There were real life heterosexual women that considered themselves "lesbian" by being tied to the movement or whatever for political reasons versus the identity ones. To further the cause of Womens Rights, well I think it backfired. I find it hard to believe that after a bazillion years lesbians have either scampered back into a closet or made a conscious decision to become bisexual to move about society more freely to please everyone else. As women often and historically have done. And where we are now is knee deep in gay for a day partners for a little minute. Really, I almost understand the simple minds asking questions like, how could they be GAY, they have CHILDREN? They were WITH MEN! It's so old school, western euro, but so true and hard to debate. A "womans place" has become the largest remaining point of civil discrimination. While the old Jewish grandmas loved their gay grandsons, "such good boys", not so much the girls. The saddest part to me, is that dating women fully entrenched in bisexuality is nearly impossible to avoid.

Please accept my apology in advance, it's not like I said bisexual vermin. ;)

Now, see, I remember it just the other way around. Seems to me, in the 70's, lesbians were sort of reluctantly welcomed (if at all) into the feminist communities, because they were considered sort of a "black eye" to feminism, which wanted to maintain the heterosexual profile, and not sully it with ... you know ... those people...

You might be interested in reading up on LEEDS, who were the marginalized group of which you're speaking, I think, but really, they were just that, and considered by the larger feminist movement as pretty much an irritating, counterproductive pain in the ass. smile

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 18:56, 2009-03-09

BoxDog · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

nesea wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

I've just been sitting here thinking about matriarchal societies, and trying to envision one in routine day to day exchanges, and societal norms.

I've been wondering how apt women would be to just become a reflection of a patriarchal society, with the only real difference being the distribution of power.

I don't think that would happen, because of the inherent nature of a woman, which dictate interests, etc. Don't know, though.
food for thought ...

I think it's interesting to note matriarchal societies are alive and well in the animal kingdom. Whales, elephants and bees just to name a few.

Good point! Thanks!

<The Black Widow of Chaillot>

March 2nds New Yorker has a contributing article by Ariel Levy worth looking at. She has a Post lesbianism (uh-huh, that's what I said, not her) view of matriarchal ideologies and culture. Levy, having been born in the seventies, is part of the group that missed the brief boat. Hell, I missed it. Only by a little bit, all the same I missed it. Some of her past writings included in depth analysis of the subcultures known as lesbian separatist communities. One chapter in a book of hers was called, The Future That Never Happened. Or some such. It's kinda what we've been kicking around now for a little while. Whether queer women have been absorbed into pop culture as a fad and now a fade. As is the case so often, women may have been our greatest enemies. Our own women, womyn, wimmins. Whatever. The lesbian branch of the gay rights and Womens rights movements blended together, homogenized and became collectively recalled as a political movement rather than a sexual identity one. There were real life heterosexual women that considered themselves "lesbian" by being tied to the movement or whatever for political reasons versus the identity ones. To further the cause of Womens Rights, well I think it backfired. I find it hard to believe that after a bazillion years lesbians have either scampered back into a closet or made a conscious decision to become bisexual to move about society more freely to please everyone else. As women often and historically have done. And where we are now is knee deep in gay for a day partners for a little minute. Really, I almost understand the simple minds asking questions like, how could they be GAY, they have CHILDREN? They were WITH MEN! It's so old school, western euro, but so true and hard to debate. A "womans place" has become the largest remaining point of civil discrimination. While the old Jewish grandmas loved their gay grandsons, "such good boys", not so much the girls. The saddest part to me, is that dating women fully entrenched in bisexuality is nearly impossible to avoid.

Please accept my apology in advance, it's not like I said bisexual vermin. ;)

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

nesea wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

I've just been sitting here thinking about matriarchal societies, and trying to envision one in routine day to day exchanges, and societal norms.

I've been wondering how apt women would be to just become a reflection of a patriarchal society, with the only real difference being the distribution of power.

I don't think that would happen, because of the inherent nature of a woman, which dictate interests, etc. Don't know, though.
food for thought ...

I think it's interesting to note matriarchal societies are alive and well in the animal kingdom. Whales, elephants and bees just to name a few.

Good point! Thanks! smile

nesea · Senior Member

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

I've just been sitting here thinking about matriarchal societies, and trying to envision one in routine day to day exchanges, and societal norms.

I've been wondering how apt women would be to just become a reflection of a patriarchal society, with the only real difference being the distribution of power.

I don't think that would happen, because of the inherent nature of a woman, which dictate interests, etc. Don't know, though.
food for thought ...

I think it's interesting to note matriarchal societies are alive and well in the animal kingdom. Whales, elephants and bees just to name a few.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

I've just been sitting here thinking about matriarchal societies, and trying to envision one in routine day to day exchanges, and societal norms.

I've been wondering how apt women would be to just become a reflection of a patriarchal society, with the only real difference being the distribution of power.

I don't think that would happen, because of the inherent nature of a woman, which dictate interests, etc. Don't know, though.

food for thought ...

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

I was reading an interesting piece the other day, on how the early suffragettes may have been influenced by their observation of American Indian women, in respect to ... well, respect. :) Treatement. Power. The article I was reading specifically mentioned the Onodaga Nation, which, I'm not clear precisely on the connection, or if it's a synonym, but there is a definite link between them and the Iroquois.

This is an excerpt from the article, which may be found here: Feminist Pioneer

"...In the late 19th century, Wagner stated, there were no models in the "civilized" world of what equality between men and women would look like. She identified her own racism as a factor shaping her consciousness of the "highest civilization" Gage and Elizabeth Cady Stanton referred to in their writings. Interactions with the people of the Onondaga Nation, she said, provided our foremothers not only a model of egalitarian gender relations, but served to inspire this areas radical reform movements relative to health, food, and dress as well."

This inspired me to read further, and I came across this article:

http://www.pbs.org/warrior/content/modules/women.pdf

Here is an interesting portion (at least to me) of that article:

Women in Haudenosaunee Culture

"...Every community defines its own roles for men and women, and each culture has its own structure of relationships. In the United States, an individuals basic identity is first defined by his or her family. One's identity is further defined through the community, then state of residence, and finally by nation of origin.

Although US society is changing, most people inherit their legal identity (last name) from their father. For many years, property rights and family finances have most commonly been controlled and/or managed by the male parent. While the US has traditionally been a patriarchal society, we trace descent bilaterally, through both our mother's and father's lines.

In Haudenosaunee culture, the clan is the strongest element in determining people's identity. One's immediate community is next in importance, followed by the reservation to which they, or their ancestors were born, followed by nation or tribe. Again, the ties of kinship form the basic organization of society; a clan functions just as the American family does it is the central source for economic, moral and emotional support, defining status and interrelationships.

The Haudenosaunee divide their society into two main descent groups (anthropologists call each half a "moiety") of four clans each; in the bird group are the snipe, heron, hawk and deer; in the animal group are the wolf, beaver, turtle and bear.

A Seneca is directly related to any member of his or her clan, and members can include other Senecas, or other members of the League: Mohawk, Oneida, Cayuga, Onondaga or Tuscarora tribes. Historically, the two groups of Haudenosaunee clans have been exogamous, meaning that their tradition demanded that members of the bird clans marry members of the animal clans, never within their own clan.

A man would retain allegiance to the clan of his birth, but live "matrilocally" in the longhouse of his wifes clan. Descendents of a marriage between a woman of the Turtle clan and a man of the Hawk clan would belong to the Turtle clan.

Thus, kinship ties were spread across all eight clans in a wide kinship structure, resulting in a cohesive group, unlikely to wage war internally.

Women are highly respected in Haudenosaunee society because of the roles they have played in the creation (Sky Woman) and in the formation of the Great Law (Jigonsaseh, the Mother of Nations). The earth itself is seen as a woman from which all things are born, creating new life that allows all of the living things on earth to continue into the future. In Haudenosaunee society, clan, national/tribal identity, and property rights are all are determined through the maternal line; this is in keeping with the Six Nations Great Law, which emphasizes a balance of male and female roles.

Historically, Haudenosaunee women took care of all things that concerned village life, such as internal affairs, property and crops. Men took care of the group's external factors, such as hunting/fishing, warfare, diplomacy, etc.

Today, Haudenosaunee women retain strong roles:

* National and family identity is recognized through the maternal line. If your mother is/was a Seneca, you are a Seneca. It is that simple. It is also true that if your father is a Seneca, and your mother is not, you would not be a Seneca.

* Property is owned and inherited through the maternal line, and in traditional communities is controlled by the clans. There are sections of land that belong to the wolf clan, of which Ely Parker was a member. Ely Parker lived on wolf clan land when he was at Tonawanda. This land is still inherited through the maternal line.

* Women select and depose the chiefs, both to Grand Council and local councils. of chiefs. For the traditional Senecas today at Tonawanda, the Clan Mother has the ultimate power to "dehorn" (depose) the chief of her clan.

* Clan Mothers assign names from the pool of names that are associated only with that clan. Upon death, the name of the deceased goes back into the pool to be given to someone else, connecting people of the past to people of the future.

* Women are always part of the decision-making process. And if the men are not considered to be doing the right thing, the women will step in to correct them."

(end of excerpt)