OT Men and Women, was Having Babies

[Guest guest]

>, and everyone else,

>I'm curious on your opinions re: whether the arrival of Christianity

>improved the lot of Price's primitives. Esp. the women.

> B.

[HJ] From my own readings in anthropology (which admittedly are

of the popular variety, i.e. National Geo and Discover and Science),

I'd say it's a wash. Women in primative cultures often lived

and worked in a very proscribed life ... when the males were

around. One team went to this one tribe, as I recall, with male

anthropologists, and talked to the males, and heard all the great

exploits of the tribe and their history. Later they returned, with

a mixed team, and the women anthropologists got an entirely

different story. The women and children had their own life,

their own huts, and the men lived and worked more or less

separate. When the man came to dinner, the women and children

served him and sat diffidently while he ate. But the guys were

gone a lot, and the woman more or less took care of the family

most of the time and made a lot of the decisions.

What has been interesting in the couples I've observed is that

the men, when they want to make a decision, usually get their

way. But often as not, they leave the decision making up to

the woman. I discovered that early in our marriage: if I asked

" what do you want for dinner? " I'd get a lecture in return, which,

after many long discussions, boiled down to " I don't want to have

to think about it! " ... so I just started cooking what I like to cook,

which when you think about it, gives me power of life or death

over the family. In most families, the woman ends up being

the center of one kind of power, though the male is usually

the more aggressive. This has been documented in groups of

apes and chimps also ... the females soothe and calm the males

and actually tend to be the " glue " of the group. Also one male

may be driven out by another male ... but females tend to stick.

I think guys ARE built more for things that require less empathy

and more willingness to take risks ... killing large animals for instance.

Which doesn't mean they have " less emotion " ... just that

their " emotion " tends to be anger or aggression rather than empathy or fear.

They are better at committing violence too. If a burglar breaks

into our house, I'd rather have a large aggressive male in my

defense. This is also true of chickens ... while the hens eat,

the rooster looks for enemies, head high ... and he'll attack

to protect his hens. One even tried to protect them against,

say, *me* trying to feed the hens, and the car. Which is really

kind of sad, this little guy could get himself killed by mindlessly

defending, but it's not that different from the algorithm in

some cultures.

PS. Folks, we DO need to watch the titles! Early on we agreed

that being OT was ok, but change the subject based on what

we are REALLY talking about! I'm as guilty as anyone, so I

changed this one ...

Heidi [HJ] [HTG]

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Heidi.

I wish I was as articulate as you. Everything sounds so easy when you say it.

B.

On Tue, 07 Decs2004 15:39:25 -0800, Heidi Schuppenhauer

<heidis@...> wrote:

>

>

> >, and everyone else,

> >I'm curious on your opinions re: whether the arrival of Christianity

> >improved the lot of Price's primitives. Esp. the women.

> > B.

>

> [HJ] From my own readings in anthropology (which admittedly are

> of the popular variety, i.e. National Geo and Discover and Science),

> I'd say it's a wash. Women in primative cultures often lived

> and worked in a very proscribed life ... when the males were

> around. One team went to this one tribe, as I recall, with male

> anthropologists, and talked to the males, and heard all the great

> exploits of the tribe and their history. Later they returned, with

> a mixed team, and the women anthropologists got an entirely

> different story. The women and children had their own life,

> their own huts, and the men lived and worked more or less

> separate. When the man came to dinner, the women and children

> served him and sat diffidently while he ate. But the guys were

> gone a lot, and the woman more or less took care of the family

> most of the time and made a lot of the decisions.

>

> What has been interesting in the couples I've observed is that

> the men, when they want to make a decision, usually get their

> way. But often as not, they leave the decision making up to

> the woman. I discovered that early in our marriage: if I asked

> " what do you want for dinner? " I'd get a lecture in return, which,

> after many long discussions, boiled down to " I don't want to have

> to think about it! " ... so I just started cooking what I like to cook,

> which when you think about it, gives me power of life or death

> over the family. In most families, the woman ends up being

> the center of one kind of power, though the male is usually

> the more aggressive. This has been documented in groups of

> apes and chimps also ... the females soothe and calm the males

> and actually tend to be the " glue " of the group. Also one male

> may be driven out by another male ... but females tend to stick.

>

> I think guys ARE built more for things that require less empathy

> and more willingness to take risks ... killing large animals for instance.

> Which doesn't mean they have " less emotion " ... just that

> their " emotion " tends to be anger or aggression rather than empathy or fear.

> They are better at committing violence too. If a burglar breaks

> into our house, I'd rather have a large aggressive male in my

> defense. This is also true of chickens ... while the hens eat,

> the rooster looks for enemies, head high ... and he'll attack

> to protect his hens. One even tried to protect them against,

> say, *me* trying to feed the hens, and the car. Which is really

> kind of sad, this little guy could get himself killed by mindlessly

> defending, but it's not that different from the algorithm in

> some cultures.

>

> PS. Folks, we DO need to watch the titles! Early on we agreed

> that being OT was ok, but change the subject based on what

> we are REALLY talking about! I'm as guilty as anyone, so I

> changed this one ...

>

> Heidi [HJ] [HTG]

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>Thank you, Heidi.

>I wish I was as articulate as you. Everything sounds so easy when you say it.

> B.

You are welcome, but easy? I'm usually accused of

overcomplicating ...

Heidi [HJ] [HTG]

" Cheer up....Things could get worse "

So I cheered up.....and sure enough, things got worse

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/7/04 6:38:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> >, and everyone else,

> >I'm curious on your opinions re: whether the arrival of Christianity

> >improved the lot of Price's primitives. Esp. the women.

_____

~~~~> I don't know about generally, but according to the stories about the

Orthodox saints of Alaska (missionaries from Russia), the Inuit often abused

their wives, and Christian missionaries improved the lot of the women in part by

sanctioning separations (not divorce) where needed to protect the women.

I'd imagine, just as guesswork, that it would depend on what group of

primitives we are discussing. Women tend to do better off near the equator

where

they play a greater role in food procurement and tend to have lower status

towards the poles where they play a lesser role in procuring food.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/11/04 6:16:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, hl@...

writes:

> Thus, I find it unfair to use a religious group to speak of issues

> pertaining to cultural anthropology, such as spousal abuse

_____

~~~~> Are you suggesting that anyone has actually done this? We weren't

discussing issues such as spousal abuse among the Inuit except specifically as

adjunct to the issue of the effect on the condition of women by Christianity as

it enters a primitive culture. It is difficult for me to conceive of a way to

discuss what effect Christianity has on the condition of women in a primitive

culture without discussing Christianity, missions, or religious groups in

general.

I offered the little I could think of on the subject, though it wasn't much.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/11/04 4:39:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> What about female genital mutilation in

> parts of Africa?

____

~~>Does that occur in hunter-gatherer groups? I failed to mention that the

general relationship between latitude and the status of women is only

applicable to hunter-gatherer groups.

____

>AIDS being highest in married African women lates teens to

> early 30's? Women may have less vegetation to gather in the northern

> hemispheres compared to the southern. It is traditional though that the

> women in the north cut the meat up, dry it, chew the sinew for sewing and

> tan the hides.

_____

~~> The relationship between latitude and status is indirect. The direct

relationship is between the role in food procurement and status. I don't recall

how food preparation compared to actual acquisition of food in relation to

status, according to the anthropologists that advance this idea.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> ~~~~> I don't know about generally, but according to the stories about the

> Orthodox saints of Alaska (missionaries from Russia), the Inuit often

> abused

> their wives, and Christian missionaries improved the lot of the women in

> part by

> sanctioning separations (not divorce) where needed to protect the women.

>

> I'd imagine, just as guesswork, that it would depend on what group of

> primitives we are discussing. Women tend to do better off near the

> equator where

> they play a greater role in food procurement and tend to have lower status

> towards the poles where they play a lesser role in procuring food.

>

> Chris

Was it Price or Steffanson that said the Inuit were the happiest, best

natured people they'd ever met? What about female genital mutilation in

parts of Africa? AIDS being highest in married African women lates teens to

early 30's? Women may have less vegetation to gather in the northern

hemispheres compared to the southern. It is traditional though that the

women in the north cut the meat up, dry it, chew the sinew for sewing and

tan the hides.

Its very difficult to determine familial abuse prior to alcohol, non

traditional food introduction and cultural loss from outside influence in

relation to the amount it always increases during and after it is all

introduced. Am miffed at the sanctioning of separations. All marriage

traditions in cultures I've read do not say until death, no matter what. Are

the tribal beliefs included, asked for, understood or is sanctioning

separations only because the interpretation is from the missionary beliefs?

If they were Catholic did the culture understand celibacy? If not and not

knowing intentions, were the men intimidated and threatened by other men

they didn't know around their wives?

Wanita

[Guest guest]

[Chris] I don't know about generally, but according to the stories about

the Orthodox saints of Alaska (missionaries from Russia), the Inuit

often abused their wives, and Christian missionaries improved the lot of

the women in part by sanctioning separations (not divorce) where needed

to protect the women.

I'd imagine, just as guesswork, that it would depend on what group of

primitives we are discussing. Women tend to do better off near the

equator where they play a greater role in food procurement and tend to have

lower status

towards the poles where they play a lesser role in procuring food.

[Wanita] Was it Price or Stefansson that said the Inuit were the happiest, best

natured people they'd ever met?

Its very difficult to determine familial abuse prior to alcohol, non

traditional food introduction and cultural loss from outside influence in

relation to the amount it always increases during and after it is all

introduced. Am miffed at the sanctioning of separations. All marriage

traditions in cultures I've read do not say until death, no matter what. Are

the tribal beliefs included, asked for, understood or is sanctioning

separations only because the interpretation is from the missionary beliefs?

If they were Catholic did the culture understand celibacy? If not and not

knowing intentions, were the men intimidated and threatened by other men

they didn't know around their wives?

[Deanna] and Wanita, thank you both for demonstrating by such a

pertinent example why science and religion don't mix. I don't

know the stories you are referring to here and would love to hear more

from you about the specifics, but I would venture to say that the term

missionary has a very distinct meaning. It usually means converting the

people to a certain religion, and perhaps giving some social assistance

as well. Wanita, you bring up two scientists performing studies in the

disinterested search for why, how and/or what a group of peoples are

practicing. So I think by the very different natures of these

visitations into primitive cultures, perhaps very different

understandings of the cultures result. NAPD on p. 62 speaks of missions

and the resulting degeneration from eating the modern foods that came

from one of the oldest Catholic Alaskan Missions. The religious folks

were not there to learn about the people, they were there to introduce

religion with all of the trappings entrenched in western civilized thought.

Thus, I find it unfair to use a religious group to speak of issues

pertaining to cultural anthropology, such as spousal abuse. Let's face

it, religious missionaries often come into a culture with a goal of

changing it. With this goal in mind, exaggerations or misunderstandings

of primitive lifestyles can result. Price and Stefansson came to learn

about the cultural practices that already existed. Big difference.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/11/04 8:04:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, hl@...

writes:

> Have you any scientific evidence Inuit

> men often abused there wives, as stated above? If not, then how can you

> say the sanctioning separations improved the lot of women? I don't see

> how your logic is worthy without clear examples of abuse cited.

____

~~~~> My post did not involve any logic whatsoever and was qualified by

" according to the stories about the Orthodox Saints of Alaska... "

Chris

[Guest guest]

[Masterjohn] I don't know about generally, but according to the

stories about the Orthodox saints of Alaska (missionaries from Russia),

the Inuit often abused their wives, and Christian missionaries improved

the lot of the women in part by sanctioning separations (not divorce)

where needed to protect the women.

[Deanna Wagner] Thus, I find it unfair to use a religious group to

speak of issues pertaining to cultural anthropology, such as spousal abuse

[Masterjohn] Are you suggesting that anyone has actually done

this? We weren't discussing issues such as spousal abuse among the Inuit

except specifically as adjunct to the issue of the effect on the

condition of women by Christianity as it enters a primitive culture. It

is difficult for me to conceive of a way to discuss what effect

Christianity has on the condition of women in a primitive culture

without discussing Christianity, missions, or religious groups in general.

[Deanna] One objective way to see the effect Christianity has had on

the condition of women in a primitive culture would be to have social

scientists present before and after, comparing the the difference. As I

alluded to, Dr. Price found degeneration in the peoples exposed to the

missionaries in Alaska. This was nutritional in nature, of course, but

his pictures are very telling. I see healthy primitives before white

culture infiltrated, no bruises seen at all. Furthermore, you are

deferring to " stories " from Christian missionaries to say that

Christianity made the lives of primitives better. This example is

comparable to the fox guarding the chicken coop. IOW, it is an example

of begging the question: the Christians say that women are abused and

that they improved their lives. Have you any scientific evidence Inuit

men often abused there wives, as stated above? If not, then how can you

say the sanctioning separations improved the lot of women? I don't see

how your logic is worthy without clear examples of abuse cited.

Deanna