[Figlio di Moros]

First, let me apologize to Yiwahikanak for raising this question in her thread, as it was a bit OT. In that thread, Rei made a comment that cause me to respond with a question of my own-

Feminism is advocating for organising women and girls, independently of the political three-party structure, independently of the male-led trade-union bureaucracies*, independently of the backstabbing liberal media, and forming its own committees to defend women's particular interests. Feminism should be forming committees which address issues that are actually relevant to the struggles of women and girls.

The current task ought to be: building state-feminism (liberals will disagree that this is the task of feminism - this is why we should ignore liberals).

Feminist theorists are not the feminist movement, they are the 'think tanks' which are studying to nurture and guide the course of the feminist movement. In turn, the feminist movement is not state-feminism, it is the movement which is fighting to build a new state-feminist solution which can then be enacted.

*I make sure to include that issue now specifically in light of the pioneering work in that area that women in South Korea are carrying out by trying to form their own union groups for the fields that they are most represented in - and failing that, asking for greater voice within existing unions as a bloc.

Would you agree that women are "the vanguards of religion"? It would seem to me that State and Religion encompass two seperate feilds of human society, the State being masculine and Religion being feminine. In that regard, would it not be better for women to restore their role in religion, and interacting with the state in regards to that, than asking for greater control of the masculine aspects of society?

In that, I meant that the state is a "monopoly of force", which main functions mimick the traditional roles of the Father in a functional family: tough love, protection of his children, material well-being and guidance of proper behavior.

Mothers, on the other hand, have a more "nuturing" aspect, which tends to lend itself better to Religion. The spiritual feild seems better suited towards the feminine sphere of society; while the "well-being" is still a concern, it's not merely material wellbeing, but emotional wellbeing as well, with a soft approach towards guiding proper behavior.

While these two feilds of human interaction naturally overlap, they are distinct pillars of civilization. With the question of "misogyny", "patriarchy", and "feminism" having being raised, it could be argued that the rise of feminism, and certain "male-unfriendly" movements, are simply a delayed reaction of the masculine-infiltration of religion, and the class breakdown that was inspired by it. With women, the natural "vanguard of religion", being disposed of their natural role in society, in combination with the destruction of "aristocratic"(i.e. warrior-poet) virtues in favor of the bourgeosie elite, it can begin to make sense that they sense their displacement, but confuse it with bourgeosie virtues, creating liberal-feminism.

I apologize if I'm articulating this improperly, or if you see areas with which to disagree, but the premise is that civilization should be based out of natural society, and the functions it display from natural functions. That the concepts of "State" and "Religion", the interaction of men and women, should arise from the natural condition of humanity as if organically, rather than be displaced with a degree of artificiality.

[yiwahikanak]

Thanks for the link, Figlio...when I can I'll return, read and respond.

[Velocity Girl]

Considering that the religions prevalent in the West include, as central aspects of their doctrinal texts, the subordination of women I'm pretty cool with not "restoring [my] natural role" within religion, but thanks for playing the "let's pretend to be kind of supporting feminism while actually openly advocating the subjugation of women" game. Unfortunately you lose. Not at the game (you appear to be quite successful at that), but in general.

[yiwahikanak]

I would love to restore traditional gender roles...provided of course the traditions in question are Cree, and not some hideous European thing.

[Rei Murasame]

I'm contemplating this thread. I have seen it, just it's a complex thing so I haven't decided how to phrase my response yet. But I will soon. As a 'what-to-expect', I'm going to basically end up arguing that religion (moral leadership, etc) and state functions both act in concert to govern and are actually intertwined with each other and so can't be separated that way.

[The Clockwork Rat]

I'm not going to give any constructive criticism unfortunately, however:

The spiritual feild seems better suited towards the feminine sphere of society ...

I.e. in the current climate, since "soft" emotions are tied to femininity, women should have a predominance over men regarding emotional development (to an extent through religion).

Why are "soft" emotions tied to women? I have had at least as many discussions with my father regarding emotions as I have with my mother, and neither me nor my father are what could be called 'effeminate'.

it could be argued that the rise of feminism

Weasel words

the rise of feminism, and certain "male-unfriendly" movements

Don't mix them; they contain distinct cores, even if some individuals happen to overlap.

natural role in society

What is this? Do you actually have solid prehistoric evidence of this, combined with absolutely concrete developmental psychology, which proves within reasonable doubt that such a thing exists?

in combination with the destruction of "aristocratic"(i.e. warrior-poet) virtues in favor of the bourgeosie elite

Now you have to explain the above with even greater precision.

the premise is that civilization should be based out of natural society, and the functions it display from natural functions

...

the natural condition of humanity as if organically

Again, what are these?

My excuse for incoherence is alcohol.

[yiwahikanak]

Are men just as capable of women as being loving and nurturing?

My experience says yes. Just as it tells me that some women don't have a nurturing, loving bone in their body. Ditto with men.

Wouldn't it make sense to have the naturally loving and nurturing among us doing the jobs that require loving and nurturing...rather than forcing people into these roles based on gender?

Or if you believe that one can foster a loving and nurturing nature in a person, why would you restrict that only to women?

I won't address the religious aspect, Figlio...not in any great depth, because I don't know much about, nor car for organised religion. Spirituality in my culture is shared by men and women, and is not dominated by any one gender so your initial points don't speak to me. Frankly, the same is true of governance.

[El Gilroy]

Tell me more about traditional Cree gender roles.

[yiwahikanak]

Tell me more about traditional Cree gender roles.

Can you narrow that question down a bit to what areas you'd be specifically interested in?

[El Gilroy]

Can you narrow that question down a bit to what areas you'd be specifically interested in?

No! Give me all of it!

(As you see fit.)

[yiwahikanak]

No! Give me all of it!

(As you see fit.)

Okay, I have a meeting, but I'll come back to this today...hopefully!

[Thompson_NCL]

Do you actually have solid prehistoric evidence

There is ample prehistoric evidence that there have always been distinct gender roles.

Men dominated women because we are physically superior and are not encumbered by pregnancy. It's only really since the industrial revolution and all the boons that came with it such as the changes in agriculture and lower infant mortality that men and women have come to have some parity is normal every-day life.

To say there are 'natural roles' is therefore entirely apt. The question is whether or not those 'natural roles' are still relevant.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Considering the 6th result of a google search turns up with this thread, it looks like yiwa will be leading the way in terms of a wider understanding of Cree gender roles.

There is ample prehistoric evidence that there have always been distinct gender roles.

I can't disagree on this; like you say, women have always been the ones giving birth.

It's only really since the industrial revolution and all the boons that came with it such as the changes in agriculture and lower infant mortality that men and women have come to have some parity is normal every-day life.

To say there are 'natural roles' is therefore entirely apt.

In which case I disagree that these are natural roles. "Natural" implies a level of stability over thousands of years and across all diaspora of the human race. People getting older is "natural", people learning through experience is "natural". When you can point to even presently existing examples of gender roles differing massively from those of Western societies (the men sit around decorating themselves and one another all day, heading off to fuck each other in the evening, whilst the women do all the manual labour), then calling our gender divisions "natural" is plainly incorrect.

[Redlom Xof]

They were spiritual healers which coincides with Figlio di Moros point on women and religion. Or it would just be a statistical coincidence that Figlio di Moros was talking about women in religion and the culture of cree, which has females in their 'spirituality', thus not proving anything of what Figlio di Moros had originally said. I just don't know.

[Pants-of-dog]

Some cultures would have had female representation in the state or in the religious spheres or both.

I think female participation in any of these spheres would be influenced by how patriarchal the culture was or is. It would also be influenced by how much these different spheres overlap. If the religious authorities hold all the power in a patriarchal culture, you can be fairly certain athat women are excluded from all roles with power.

[yiwahikanak]

I'm sorry I can't devote a lot of time to this right now because for once I actually need to work but...

I want to point out that in Haudenosaunee are a prime example of governance being led by, but not dominated by women and of gender roles or better put...division of labour...leading to an equality of the sexes rather than an inequality. Women continue to be the Clan Mothers and lineage is passed down through the mother and her clan. As described below, there was division of property which was not prejudicial towards women in the way that it has been traditionally so in 'western' culture. However the importance of women did not result in diminished male power or in subjugation of men in governance or spirituality.

When Americans and Canadians of European descent began to study Iroquois customs in the 18th and 19th centuries, they observed that women assumed a position in Iroquois society roughly equal in power to that of the men. Individual women could hold property including dwellings, horses and farmed land, and their property before marriage stayed in their possession without being mixed with that of their husband's. The work of a woman's hands was hers to do with as she saw fit. A husband lived in the longhouse of his wife's family. A woman choosing to divorce a shiftless or otherwise unsatisfactory husband was able to ask him to leave the dwelling, taking any of his possessions with him. Women had responsibility for the children of the marriage, and children were educated by members of the mother's family. The clans were matrilineal, that is, clan ties were traced through the mother's line. If a couple separated, the woman kept the children.[34]

The chief of a clan could be removed at any time by a council of the mothers of that clan, and the chief's sister was responsible for nominating his successor.[34]

In Cree society the home was the property and responsibility of the woman. As in, she had a proprietary right to the home which was not shared by the husband. A man lived in his wife's home.

We do not have a central, organised religion but rather a shared spirituality the overlaps with everyday life. Thus each individual can access our spiritual traditions. There are spiritual divisions of labour and obligations...there is 'men's business' and 'women's business' which are kept separate, but also much overlap. I will not go into much detail on our spiritual practices because it's culturally inappropriate to do so. We have medicine men and women...there are some medicines specific to women and others to men, and some apply to everyone (understand that when I speak of medicine, we do not regard it as a purely physical issue but rather as a holistic one, so a 'medicine' may deal with grief or spiritual confusion as well as dealing with regular physical aches and pains).

Division of labour did fall along gender lines (men hunted, women and children gathered and also prepared what was brought back by the hunters) but this did not translate into an inequality in power either in terms of governance or spirituality.

Important to is the issue of age, as we do not merely have division of labour and roles according to gender, but also by age. Thus elders of either sex had and continue to have, considerable importance in all aspects of our culture...governance or spirituality related and so on. The raising of children involves men and women of all ages...what you learn and who you learn it from is quite specific in our culture. Kinship relationships are complex and not merely about knowing what to call someone...it imparts specific obligations and reciprocal relations. For example...if I married a Cree man I would be expected to not speak directly to his father and vice versa...and my husband would be expected to keep a distance between himself and my mother. This is an equal obligation of men and women with that particular kinship relationship. My mother's sister's children are my siblings and my mother's sisters are my mothers...I go to them for certain things, but I would not approach my father's sister in the same way.

[Redlom Xof]

Some of what you just described would be described as sexist from some feminists. Also why don't the males get any custody rights if the husband/wife divorce ?

[yiwahikanak]

Some of what you just described would be described as sexist from some feminists.

Perhaps, though this is a major issue aboriginal feminists have with white middle class feminists. They don't really understand our culture, and often see division of labour as a sign of subservience or lessened power. Conversely, they will read too much into female ownership of the home, for example. There is certainly space within our own culture to redefine gender roles but that has to be done with our understanding of how these roles may impact power structures rather than according to what outsiders think is true.

Also why don't the males get any custody rights if the husband/wife divorce ?

Young single men who were not yet warriors lived in their mother's home. Single men who were warriors often lived in the Warrior's lodge. There would be no need for a man to have a home of his own.

[Thompson_NCL]

In which case I disagree that these are natural roles. "Natural" implies a level of stability over thousands of years and across all diaspora of the human race. People getting older is "natural", people learning through experience is "natural". When you can point to even presently existing examples of gender roles differing massively from those of Western societies (the men sit around decorating themselves and one another all day, heading off to fuck each other in the evening, whilst the women do all the manual labour), then calling our gender divisions "natural" is plainly incorrect.

Where does that behaviour occur?

In any event, deviations from the norm are not unexpected. They are usually due to some specific enviromental condition. For example in some Tibetan and north Indian societies, women could have two husbands because there were limited resources and the society needed to reduce the number of family units. But to say that this behaviour is natural when contrasted against mankinds long history would be incorrect.

Yes, in certain societies and cultures throughout history, gender roles have been distinctly different. But when viewed on the whole, the vast majority of cultures and socities have observed the roles we can also identify with today!

I should point out that we should not confuse 'roles' with the issue of equality. As Yiw's sources point out, women could have a measure of equality (or even supremacy in some cases) in societies, even if their roles generally remained the same.

Even in Celtic culture - which is ofted cited as a society where women had a high degree of equality - there is not a great deal of evidence to say traditional roles did not exist. Certainly some women were warriors, queens, druids and so forth. But broadly speaking the rulers were men, the majority of the warriors were men and so forth.

[yiwahikanak]

What often gets missed, Thomspon, is that gender roles or division of labour has been used as the justification for traditionally excluding women from exercising real political or social power in some cultures...while the existence of gender roles/division of labour has not impaired the substantive equality of the sexes in other cultures.

So when 'what is natural' is discussed, the conversation is imbued not only with assumptions about gender roles but also about how those gender roles support the power of one sex over the other as though this too is 'natural'.

We are not just speaking of isolated 'exceptions' to that 'natural order' (where female gender roles mean less real power for women). We are looking at how difficult cultures and societies have evolved either as egalitarian (not equal as in the same, but sharing power while still having some room for division of labour) or not. The 'not' group should not be seen as more legitimate or natural than the egalitarian societies and in fact if egalitarianism is what we seek (it should be imo) then we have no need to worry that our quest somehow 'goes against nature'.