14

This is something I been thinking about, and sort of throwing out it here.

Many human societies are extremely, and indigenous can be as complex as with how rules/laws are managed in societies. Now a common type of inequality that is often mentioned is about resource type inequality like food, water, and many other things human need to live, but the first inequality was that made elites could of been from who controls, and pass down ritual knowledge.

Finally, and most provocatively, the widespread cultural transmission of ritual creates a different kind of elite: An epistemic elite regarded as possessing esoteric knowledge of the supernatural and trusted with leading group-wide rituals. This enables mutually beneficial alliances to form between the epistemic and material elites: Shamans, in return for material privileges of their own, purport to reveal hidden truths favorable to the continuation of the unequal social order. “The ritual and religious lives of these transegalitarian communities became channels through which the community is half persuaded, half coerced into accepting the new status quo” (p. 145). Religion, on this account, is the handmaiden of inequality, hierarchy, and living in shit.

Societies that are either matrilineal, or patrilineal are kin type society have a system where inequality could slowly form over time depending of the complexity on how belonging are passed down, leadership, and rituals knowledge .

“the competitive and fraught relations between communities (and hence the advantage of signaling one's wealth, strength and allies) opens this door to aggrandizers to turn wealth into political leadership, and leadership into wealth” (Sterelny, 2021, p. 139). Clan-like organization, in which patrilineal (or, in some cases, matrilineal) kin groups have strong obligations to assist each other despite geographic separation, creates networks that “enable would-be aggrandizers to recruit social and material support, and through which that support could be rewarded” (p. 151).

NOTE: this my opinion I posted some things supporting things are similar to my theory if your interested.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/mila.12420

This is something I been thinking about, and sort of throwing out it here. Many human societies are extremely, and indigenous can be as complex as with how rules/laws are managed in societies. Now a common type of inequality that is often mentioned is about resource type inequality like food, water, and many other things human need to live, but the first inequality was that made elites could of been from who controls, and pass down ritual knowledge. > Finally, and most provocatively, the widespread cultural transmission of ritual creates a different kind of elite: An epistemic elite regarded as possessing esoteric knowledge of the supernatural and trusted with leading group-wide rituals. This enables mutually beneficial alliances to form between the epistemic and material elites: Shamans, in return for material privileges of their own, purport to reveal hidden truths favorable to the continuation of the unequal social order. “The ritual and religious lives of these transegalitarian communities became channels through which the community is half persuaded, half coerced into accepting the new status quo” (p. 145). **Religion, on this account, is the handmaiden of inequality, hierarchy, and living in shit.** Societies that are either matrilineal, or patrilineal are kin type society have a system where inequality could slowly form over time depending of the complexity on how belonging are passed down, leadership, and rituals knowledge . > “the competitive and fraught relations between communities (and hence the advantage of signaling one's wealth, strength and allies) opens this door to aggrandizers to turn wealth into political leadership, and leadership into wealth” (Sterelny, 2021, p. 139). Clan-like organization, **in which patrilineal (or, in some cases, matrilineal) kin groups have strong obligations to assist each other despite geographic separation, creates networks that “enable would-be aggrandizers to recruit social and material support, and through which that support could be rewarded”** (p. 151). NOTE: this my opinion I posted some things supporting things are similar to my theory if your interested. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/mila.12420

10 comments

Matrilineal societies don't even have to be matriarchal. The ancient Egyptians were generally/often (? there is such a long history, I don't want to oversimplify) matrilineal, as an example. This led to incestuous marriages, as the men still wanted power and control, but descent was mainly recognized through mothers, as your legitimacy can only be 100% sure wrt your mother. Absent DNA anyway. But it seems to have been rare for women to actually rule.

And matriarchal societies aren't necessarily better for women. The Mosuo are famous for their matrilineal and matriarchal society, but basically it results in brothers just leeching off of their sisters their whole lives and doing no work. The women do everything in that society.

Men are always a problem basically.

How do men manage to exploit Matrilineal kinship system to their benefit in the first place? Like your example about ancient Egyptians I seen some Aboriginal Australians societies have Matrilineal kinship, but men somehow managed to take control of the leadership.

One common thing I notice though that is that uncles start more having control, so maybe uncles could change to men benefits over many generations?

Matrilineal descent just ensures legitimacy better than patrilineal. Men still control women's reproductive capacity, it just puts more power in the hands of maternal uncles and grandfathers, as well as brothers, yes.

Again, this is why the Egyptians were very incestuous. Many women were forced to marry their brothers and uncles, even sometimes their own fathers.

I think matrilineal descents would actually encourage even more control of women in some ways, although cloistering them would be less necessary I suppose.

Women seem equally fucked in matrilineal societies, just in a different way. The men still get to fuck of and so none of the emotional and physical labour of child rearing. Women still do all this work.

Copied from what I put on a different thread the other day, because it seems relevant here.

Agree inequalities show up in any other system. I think if society was based around valuing children, truly valuing them, it wouldn’t.

A radical change would be society recognising the value of children, and the importance of centring their value for the prosperity of society.

The off shoot of centring the importance and value of children and their experience in childhood, would be that women’s value to their survival and best possible development would be valued. What women need to be able to fulfil the ways in which we mother that men can’t replace, would then need to be prioritised. So women’s safety, dignity, privacy. Our physical and mental health care. Our best work life balance. Our women only support networks. Our choice when and how to become mothers. As well as our choice not to become a mother, if that’s what’s right for us. Doing what’s best for children requires doing what’s best for mothers, including enabling not being a mother to be a very real and valued choice; because unwanted children isn’t what’s best for a woman to be a mother whose mothering best meets her child’s needs.

If we had a child centric society, all women would have much greater value, and as such safety and freedom.

And it doesn’t have any negative impacts for men either. Fathering is hugely valuable also, just in a different way that isn’t based on their biology carrying and feeding children.

This would be a truly radical overthrow of the patriarchal hierarchy, that would allow all women to be liberated from men and be nothing but a positive change for all society.

*I do not mean child centric as in child led or children being the only thing of value or being spoilt or indulged etc. just that all adults were once children, and all the research indicates our childhood has by far the biggest impact, detrimental or positive, on who we become as adults. If we want a healthy, productive, free & happy society capable of addressing the world’s problems effectively with peace and dignity, then centring the importance of children has the greatest chance of this. Which includes only women who want to be mothers having children.

I agree with you so much on this. It's the natural order of things too, honestly. Kids should always be more important than adults. No. 1 priority for society.

[–] Lilith 1 points Edited

Hmm yeah. I've been noticing how so much of our cultural knowledge today is passed on through corporations. The necessary understanding of fields of human inquiry on which our society depends is locked within those institutions and controlled by them today. You may not enter certain industries unless you know the right people. You may not access the hiring process unless you know the right people and have gone to the right schools. Even many quite easy kinds of work listed as "entry level" will be listing one year of prior experience and prerequisites that are designed to exclude those who are new to that industry or type of work.

I don't think religion is anything special in this way. It is a form of knowledge that gets passed down in a selective and secretive way, like everything else. Secular culture with its atheist masses hasn't done away with any of that. Cultural reinforcers have been made out of our news media, our arts, and our celebrities.

In patrilineal systems, it is the sons of the father who dominate. In matrilineal systems, it is the sons of a particular mother who dominate. Males still rule in matrilineal cultures.

It is matrilocal systems, tho' they are very rare, that male rule is somewhat mitigated.

even in matrilocal societies the women still really value their sons. There are stories in matrilineal/matrilocal Native American societies where the mother die with their son in battle, and another where the mother goes solo finding her lost son