Marija Gimbutus, Her Works

Post Reply New Topic

pandd, I believe that you would rather argue for the sake of arguing. I already stated why I stand by my definition of matriarchy, yet instead of acknowledging that with a return argument, you repeat your non-argument. I even went so far as to allude to the dictionary definition ignoring the meaning as implied in actual, real matriarchies. Never has there, nor is there, a matriarchy where women rule over men, nor oppress them. Instead they are egalitarian.

Please take the time to tell me why I'm wrong. Please show your evidence of a matriarchy that is not egalitarian. Prove that I am mistaken when I insist that matriarchies are what I say they are, which is not, and I repeat, not, the opposite of patriarchy. If it were, it would match your dictionary definitions, all of them, not some, but as I stated before, there is confusion over the definition.

As for not quoting you exactly, you are correct that I should have checked. As I said, I have problems assimilating new sites, but I'm working on it. However, I'm positive that you are not "one of the people disagreeing with me". You had only one post when I answered you the first time. How could you be one of the people disagreeing with me when you weren't even around?

Frankly, I find myself questioning that you don't know what mra's are. The "diversity of thought" is a common thing for them to say. I am very, very familiar with them, to the point of building a website just about the mens rights groups. They are very good at doing what you just did. You jumped into the middle of a conversation about feminism, and instead of stating a coherent argument, you start flaming, and as is typical with mras, you did so in a pedantic way. With all of the things I've said on this thread, the thing you latch onto is one word. You accuse me of arguing to further my ideals, which is something I freely admit to doing. Of course I want to prove that matriarchy works. I want the whole world to see that. Yet you are doing exactly what you accuse me of. It is you who needs to argue from a place of emotion, without presenting anything to back how you feel. I can back up my ideals with tangible proof that they lead to peace. Can you do the same?

If you are not affiliated with any mras, even just online, you sure have the same problems that they do.

["mixedtapebooty"I think that these arguments are inapplicable to the statement that I made in the context of this discussion.
[/quote]
Context is entirely irrelevant to deductive validity. Both arguments were simply different linguistic expressions of the logical fallacy "some A are B therefore all A are B".

Last edited by pandd on 14 Jan 2009, 1:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

That's just a fancy way of saying that you aren't saying anything. I still have no idea what you are trying to argue. I can only infer that you have problems with the feminist movement. I can't be positive, since you haven't actually come out and said that, but my experience suggests I am seeing what I've seen in mras in you.

This thread needs to get back to the op.

It is quite clear you form characterizations of others not correlated to reality.


Yes you stand by it, but you can offer no basis in reality for it. The closest you come is an outright admission that you want to define the word as something it is not, simply because otherwise what you argue is not true. That is intellectually bankrupt, and as interesting as 'proving unicorns exist' by redefining the word to mean the most similar thing to a unicorn that actually exists and saying 'see, told you so'.
That bores me.
As does desperate name-calling in an attempt to perceptually frame those one imagines are opponents.

Is it, well you you're welcome to tell mixedtapebooty that, although in all honesty, even though I disagree with her point, I do believe she had one, expressed it quite clearly, and would be more inclined to describe her language as eloquent and precise rather than 'fancy', but to each their own.

Do you even care?
I can only infer that you are so eager and desperate to engage these mras that you probably see them in dust bunnies under your bed. All this mras hysteria does nothing for your credibility.

I personally dislike the dominant way that pandd entered this discussion. I think it was extremely counter productive to the other members here, and could have been much more polite and less argumentative. Gary makes a point about getting to know people before just attacking what they write. Entering the discussion with opinions about what multiple members in the discussion have stated really overbearing. We've been on this thread for days, and now we are dealing with a total topic killing know-it-all. The idea isn't to exemplify AS traits to an extreme because you don't have an outlet elsewhere, unless that is the whole point of a thread, in which case, this is not. Everyone in this thread had been really cool with differences in opinion until now. I'm not going to do the mental work for someone else that I've already done for myself concerning forethought and approach to a thread discussion and how it affects other members. My point is that I'm not learning anything new about the topic by getting into silly personal quarrels that someone wants to start directly with the discussion group. That type of communication wouldn't last in a real discussion, and it won't last here. I hope that we can put a stop to it, forever.

pandd, again, you make no sense. You're so emotional. If you want to say that I am intellectually bankrupt for making the statement that matriarchies are egalitarian, no matter what the dictionary says, that's fine. If you find the word "fancy" to not be acceptable somehow, I really don't care. But you sound silly to me, as you have yet to refute what I've said, beyond claiming the dictionary says something else. I made it clear why I believe the dictionary definition is incomplete. Please try to contradict my statement that patriarchy is not the opposite of matriarchy, and that matriarchies are egalitarian. If you like, we can discuss why feminists insist on keeping the word matriarchy, instead of egalitarian. Somehow I doubt you're interested, though.

Are you claiming I've called you names? I have not. I did just call you silly, and if that counts as name calling, then I'm guilty. No need for you to make things up, though.

You are also exaggerating when you call my opinions about mras "hysteria", or that I'm "desperate to engage them". The truth is that I had my fill of dealing with them a long time ago. Once I figured them out to my satisfaction, I quit dealing with them altogether. Now I only aim to educate others on them, as they are not what they purport to be. No need to speak to them any longer to hear more of the same old baloney. I was less than thrilled to think I had encountered one, and I still think that your initial dealings with me on this thread are very similar to how they behave. If you are not familiar with their ideas or behavior, then you cannot refute my opinion about them, or say that my knowledge of them is "hysteria". If you are familiar with them, you are being untruthful in feigning no clue about them. Which is it?

If my guess that you have a dislike for the feminist movement is incorrect, you should correct me. I find it telling that you didn't acknowledge that I said you come off as having issues with feminism. I could be wrong, but I doubt I'll get a straight answer out of you. Oh, well.

Does anyone think that men could have peacefully ended a matriarchal society?

I'm leaving this thread alone, in hopes that removing myself will get it back on topic. I was really enjoying it, until recently. It felt great to talk to people who had different opinions, stated in such thoughtful, non-personal ways. I had just been telling my significant other how refreshing that was, literally moments before the flaming started. Hopefully, it will pick back up and I can rejoin. And maybe pandd will stick around and state some real opinions. Maybe let us know what's going on behind that fire. I really don't like guessing peoples' motivations, but when they won't talk to me and tell me what said motivations are, I may end up with an incorrect view of them. I truly do not want that to happen.

I personally have no idea what you're talking about.

I think there was nothing impolite and argumentative about my post, and I think if you really cared about politeness and not being argumentative, your comments would be directed elsewhere. I find your accusations dishonest.

This is not the 'getting to know you' section of the forum. There is a sub-board specifically for that purpose, and this thread is not in that section.

No it is not. Trying to exclude someone from the conversation is overbearing, against the spirit and purpose of this forum, and seems very petty, elitist and immature.


Actually you and sheknight are killing the topic by turning from the subject matter to personal attacks in an attempt to exclude another user. This strikes me as very catty and high-school-esque behavior.

If you can point to where I was impolite before sheknight launched into her snide and aggressive attacks (which in her hot-headedness inadvertently included an attack on your own words) replete with lame attempts to name-call, I'd be most interested. The point is not to re-create NT patterns of cliqueness, and inability to engage in discourse without trying to turn everything into some pathetic little high-school cat-session.


You certainly cannot put a stop to people posting comments on the forum, nor on them posting comments that respond or comment on other peoples' comments. Your point ignores the purpose and function and mode of operation of these forums. There might be forums somewhere where it is fine to exclude others as you are attempting here, but WP is not such a forum. At WP it is not considered rude to post in a thread, or to respond to multiple posters within one post (rather these are common standard practices), but it is rude anywhere to try to limit the participation of others.



How very ironic. What makes you think I'm emotional, because I'm quite certain you are, and somewhat paranoid (of these MRA folk) to boot. Clearly history going on there. Has it occurred to you that your history with these people might be clouding your judgement?


You've given no reason why the dictionary definition is incomplete, and as I have already pointed out (and you prefer, quite dishonestly, to ignore) the dictionary is the least of the reasons for my opposition to the definition you are attempting to posit, simply because you believe such a definition would make your argument correct. If you do not understand what is intellectually bankrupt in redefining words to make otherwise untrue statements true, all for the purpose of pushing your ideological cart (and why have such an ideology if it is unsupportable without resorting to such nonsense), then it's unlikely I or anyone else can explain it to you. You either 'connect' with logical processes and respect them, or not.


Please actually present an argument (you know premises with logical connections that imply a conclusion) for your assertion, because I've presented my argument, you have not countered it, and I see no reason why your lack of an argument, with a failure to counter mine, would call for further arguing on my part.
I doubt you can present an argument to support your definition, because the only reason you wish to change the definition is to make a statement that otherwise appears wrong to you correct, for ideological purposes. You want it to be true that there are and have been matriarchies, yet believe you cannot do so if you apply the proper definition of matriarchy. Apparently those that do not play along with this blatant ideology-serving nonsense are universally Mens rights activists. Odd, I did not know MRA were the only type of people interested in truth and logic.

All this MRA is simply petty name calling, plain and simple. Deny it all you like, you are very transparent, although your emotionality might not allow you to see just how much so.

LOL, no, it is not an exaggeration. You give so much about yourself away with your snide attacks and attempts to label others as MRA (as though everyone shares your view of these folk thus making it some kind of deep and meaningful insult....in your mind).


And started seeing them where they are not, which fact is quite revealing about you.


Of course, I'm sure in your mind all your 'enemies' (and no doubt they are legion) all conduct themselves the same way.

If you were less hot-headed and emotionally wrapped up, you might realize that I've never commented on your knowledge of these people you refer to. What demonstrates hysteria and paranoia to me, is the way in which you see them where they are not, seem to view them as hive-like clones who act as one, and seem very reactionary towards people you (for no reasonable cause) assume to be one of them.
Looks like hysteria and paranoia to me.

If you were interested in a rational and mature discussion, it would not matter to you whether or not I were anti, neutral or pro feminism. If of course you merely want to engage in ad hoc personal attacks, obviously the identity of others becomes more important. The meaning of matriarchy does not depend and is not defined by my personal views (nor your's although this latter point appears to go way over your head), so my personal views are not relevant to the conversation. Your attempt to make the issue personal is revealing of the kind of person you are. Your comments say much more about you than they do about me, these MRA folks and anyone else combined.

I find it telling that you launch these personal and obviously very emotional attacks in an attempt to control discourse and frame things according to an ideology that apparently you think is unsupportable unless you dishonestly redefine the meaning of matriarchy without giving any reason why others should accept this redefinition, but simply endlessly asserting it while making accusations that the un-countered arguments of others are non-arguments.
In the mean time, I doubt the MRAs are hiding under your bed, or in your fridge, and I doubt there are any participating in this thread. So Dont' Panic.

I cannot imagine any means of ending a society (of any kind) that I would apply the word 'peaceful' to. It's plausible a society could be drastically altered by peaceful means, but I doubt that it's particularly common.

I've changed my mind. Humans of both sexes are all violent and aggressive beings.

I'm a little confused about how things blew up here. I didn't see anything wrong with pandd's original post. Isn't it normal to split hairs over terminology? Plus I suspect that the feminist definition of matriarchy is different from the mainstream one. Mainstream thinkers may not be familiar with the models that feminist scholars talk about.

Here's an example of a matriarchy from another species. According to the book The Lemur's Legacy, ring-tailed lemurs are matriarchal through most of the year (although I don't remember if the writer actually uses the term matriarchal or not). The males have their pecking order, the females have their pecking order, and for most of the year the males defer to the females. That's because the males are low-testosterone outside of mating season. Come mating season, however, it's a free-for-all as male testosterone levels surge and all heck breaks out. I wouldn't want to live there.

There may be other social species that also follow this pattern: elephants?

Humans are not matriarchal in this sense, because men are high testosterone year round and high testosterone folks do not naturally defer to lower testosterone folks. However, some societies are matrilinear (which is different), and societies in which females make higher economic contributions (agriculture, textiles, gathering in more primitive societies; office jobs in modern economies) are generally more egalitarian than societies in which females do not make major economic contributions (e.g. where hunting or herding is waaay more important than gathering or gardening, usually because of the climate or ecosystem type). I think if you had a society in which women long made major economic contributions, that society might look matriarchal to someone in a more patriarchal society. But "matriarchy" has also been used to refer to societies where women had any voice at all - I'm thinking of an early Star Trek episode, which made fun of a planet ruled by women. So I'm not sure what you would call such a society.

Are people arguing about whether egalitarian societies exist? or what to call them?

All pandd wants to do is cause tension. It's obvious. Like a little four year old, demanding that everybody look at him. The intent was to focus attention on himself, and he got his way. He came in stomping and hollering, got the reaction he wanted, and still, it's not enough. This thread has to be about him, and that's all there is to it. He'll get attention any way he can, including blatant lies, and ridiculous assumptions about paranoia, etc. Pandd is maaadddd, and he wants everybody to know it. Okay, we get it.

Pandd, you are acting like a little kid. A whiny, snot-nosed little brat. Grow up. I realize I hit a nerve with you, but get over it. You write the longest posts on this thread, and every one of them is about you. No substance. You have no idea how I feel until I tell you how I feel. At least I had the decency to state that I wasn't certain if what I was getting from you was in fact true. Yet with every line you write, your insecurities grow brighter.

Something that life experience has taught me is that there are some people who just get off on being obnoxious. Nothing can be done about them, except to walk away.

Hopefully this forum allows us to put annoying punks on ignore. (now you can truthfully say I called you names, unlike before, when you lied. You are an annoying PUNK) I'm going to go look for that option now.

I left because I was getting afraid of getting hit with a rock from some old dig in Turkey or something.