Anne, meet Zlata

I believe there are two novel perspectives here that would be helpful if integrated into the broader political spectrum: that of a woman, and further, that of a child. As this forum aims to concentrate on the former, I shall concentrate on the former in the context of the latter.

The perspective of a little girl is particularly moving, both because it is that of an innocent child--children are seldom sucked into the prevailing winds of bigotry and hatred--and because it is that of a woman--which is moving, partly I believe, because we still identify women with vulnerability (perhaps unjustly so, but then again perhaps not; please do not misinterpret this as sexism).

In war this is particularly poignant, for although women and children have been known to fight, wars are generally begun by men (although this might be an accident of history; men have traditionally held positions of power, and I do not, for a moment believe that, were these positions held by women, there would be no more war). I think the main reason we find these narratives so moving is because they express the disgust, and childlike innocence of those who have not yet given themselves over to the most deplorable, self-interested, hateful, vile instincts of humankind.

Hope nothing I said will be construed as sexism. It would be a shame to be identified as "the sexist" in the Women's History forum .

-Akolouthos

Originally posted by Mila I also agree that being a woman carries some extra... something... in such situations. It's a lady in danger reaction, really - it's probably biologically a part of us to feel more sympathy for women in distress because, perhaps, women were more likely to need help escaping whatever danger there was. It could be just a primitive instinct we evolved to ensure men took their women's hands while fleeing hairy mammoths...

Interesting. I tend to lean more toward societal conditioning, but I do believe your "Mammoth Hypothesis" is also a plausible explanation.

I think I agree with you. I do believe that wars would be carried out differently. That doesn't mean, however, that we wouldn't find new, inventive, ways of causing each other pain.

I also agree that female rulers, both historical and modern, are poor examples, being reared in a patriarchal society. Still, in societies where we suspect similarities existed between the roles of women and men, it doesn't seem to make much difference. The Scythians, for instance, were feared by many ancients.

I don't know of any strictly matriarchal societies (except for the prehistoric, gynocentric, global matriarchal culture a few quacks have proposed). It would be interesting to see how such a society redefined common human issues. A more interesting question would be as follows: Could it do this in light of the patriarchal historical record?

-Akolouthos

Hm. Got a bit of the cultural relativism going on, eh? Well I won't say your wrong.  It is very interesting how we value different things across cultures, but I feel that gender is one of many factors at play, albeit sometimes a primary one.

With so many mitigating factors then, don't "patriarchal" and "matriarchal" become invalid terms? I've never liked them much myself when they have been used to describe anything as broad as an entire culture. I think, then, that it is up to us to define our so-called "patriarchal" society and come up with an alternate definition that fits what we've been terming "matriarchal". Any ideas?

Perhaps it is impossible to come up with satisfactory definitions other than those we have for gender status in society. If you could come up with a couple I can use, I'd be in your debt.

-Akolouthos

Heh. Gotcha. I agree that an ideal solution to sexism and racism would be a society in which we simply didn't notice. I think all of us are morally called to chastise ourselves when we do notice. However, I don't see how we'll ever get to the ideal when so many are opposed. For instance for every K.K.K. member in the U.S. we have a "civil-rights" advocate who depends upon the conception of a "Culture of Intolerance" for their relavence. Likewise, for every beer-drinking, belching, misogynist in the U.S. we have a rabid, hairy-armpitted feminist who depends on the conception of a "Culture of Patriarchal Oppression" in order to remain relevant.

That isn't to say for a moment that racism and sexism aren't real problems. I just find it hard to see how we can even come close to the ideal when the entire dialogue has been hijacked by militant ideologues.

-Akolouthos

I think we are in agreement on the basics of how society should function. Now if only we could get it to function the way it should. BTW:

I'd never considered it before, but I'm on board 100%. Subsidize a very important societal function and, at the same time, shut-up the "Housewives are an insult to feminism," crowd. Wonderful idea!

-Akolouthos