[jessedhillon]

This is the saddest thing on this thread. Purportedly about a scientific paper detailing findings of genetic research. Somewhere along the way, we find you writing a lengthy objection to what you think feminism is, which unsurprisingly makes all the good points on your side and all the wrong points stacked on the opposite side. I can't even begin to object to your characterization of feminism, as your rendering is so beyond recognition that I can't accept that you would even be honestly interested in that line of thought.

First, that you have made it so far in life with such a thorough and articulated idea of what feminism is without even considering that you might have a slightly lopsided perspective, that perhaps your rebuttal to feminism perhaps coincides a little too conveniently with what you believe and doesn't seem to challenge you in any way -- that should be applauded as a feat of human obstinance par excellence.

Also unsurprisingly, when given a chance to substantiate your very large claims you provide an absurd caricature of Arab cultures, and some comment your wife made while watching a movie. It is literally amazing to me that -- unless you are posessed of remarkable self-awareness -- you are able to, given this evidence, continue to adhere to a worldview which is predicated on the supremacy of your beliefs, and that you can continue to believe in that supremacy even having looked over your own writings.

Literally, the only substantiation you have provided are abject speculations. You have simply declared your interpretation of a Jefferson quote to mean whatever you want it to mean, you have not at all demonstrated that women possessed political influence at the time, nor have you attempted to show how very obvious mechanisms against those efforts -- e.g. lack of suffrage, complete lack of female representation -- are mitigated or made irrelevant by any of this.

Your recollection of the history of feminism is pure fantasy, a Potemkin village constructed solely to assuage yourself apparently. That you cannot apparently analyze even to a first order your arguments herein and find them lacking suggest that to me that you are predisposed to accept the products of your own prejudices without much deliberation.

The facile composition of your argument coupled with the smug manner in which you present them, the certitude that you have reached meaningful conclusions with this lazy thinking -- well, I am left astounded.

[einhverfr]

Instead of a longish reply, I have decided to leave it at a citation you are looking for and a simple observation. (This is edited, so if there are posts to it that seem like a "Good Day, Fellow" "Axehandle" conversation that's my fault).

The citation is "Etching Patriarchal Rule" by Elaine Combs-Shilling, which discusses henna ceremonies and family structure in Morocco.

The observation is that every one of us has lopsided views that, for sake of getting everything done, we must generally assume to be mostly correct.

[jessedhillon]

The critique is not that you have a lopsided view. It's that you have put forward just an incredibly simple perspective but apparently have derived such significant meaning from it, and such weighty conclusions. Even now, you think that quoting someone adds heft to your evidence when the even more obvious question -- why are you limiting your analysis to intra-household dynamics only? -- doesn't seem to enter your mind.

(Also, I have lived among several cultures.)

I mean, you're correct that nobody can possess true objectivity. But the conclusion to be drawn from that, the better conclusion to me it seems, is that your own ideas need to pass through much more rigorous filters from multiple -- even antagonistic -- perspectives before being suitable for consideration by others.

About supremacy of one's own ideas -- yes we all have this bias. The point is that, knowing that you have this bias, it seems to me that you have not attempted to correct for it at all. As you have presented them, these ideas fall down to even basic opposition.

[einhverfr]

It seems to me that any reasonable length comment is incapable of capturing the complexity of any viewpoint.

> why are you limiting your analysis to intra-household dynamics only?

Because before industrialization:

1. Most households were businesses, and

2. Society largely functioned as a union of households, not a union of individuals (Indonesia is still this way, btw). Interestingly this was the basis of Aristotle's social theory and is generally considered to be representative of the Indo-European world before industrialization. From this perspective democracy would mean "one household, one vote" which is a fair summary of the pre-19th Amendment status quo, actually. Obviously this doesn't work if votes are private (and secret) or if women don't have the keys to power by collaborating to get agendas passed.

So intra-household dynamics is the question of power where those are the case.

Edit: the other problem is that extra-household dynamics and gender before industrialization leads to all kinds of apple/orange comparisons. How do you compare political assembly membership with collective plotting on political issues while washing laundry down by the river? Does it matter if the man's wife will likely know how he voted?

[einhverfr]

Just to make one clarification:

Obviously the household exists in a context regarding dealings with other households in a traditional culture so intrahousehold dynamics are important. Again, I said I saw modern feminism and women's suffrage arising as a response to changes in the interhousehold space brought on by industrialization.

This being said matriarchy and patriarchy are almost always a question of intra-household dynamics. The question is, whether women effectively hold the keys to power or whether women are isolated from eachother, unable to effectively organize and make their agendas compelling. A strong matriarchy/patriarchy in the household is a good indication of women being able to do this (again one sees this in Greek material despite the fact that the society was formally patriarchal with formal privileges associated with men only, see the drama of Lysistrata for a dramatic account, but also look at Faraone's works cited above).

The family is also generally a state in miniature. What goes on with the family is a mirror of state power structures (see Elaine Combs-Schilling, "Etching Patriarchal Rule" for some brief discussion of this, but also see "Mass Psychology of Fascism" by Wilhelm Reich for a psychologist's view). So intra-household dynamics are the among the best indications of political power structures in the whole of society.

In short, whoever has power at home, has power everywhere.

[tomp]

On the other hand, you have substantially backed up your claims and completely avoided logical fallacies, such as ad hominem. /sarcasm