When it comes to a mysterious problem, the french say "Look for the woman!” But after you read more history, biology, evolution, you keep trying to explain your problems, the natural conclusion, when you want to find a thread is "Look for the money!Of course, this after money was invented. But also before this invention, and after they will no longer exist in this form, it will also be about resources. Beyond ideologies, of ideas, currency, the cause is a material one. Everything to money and everything from money!
Marx would have had no problem with that. I found a reference somewhere to the connection he was making with the development of tools and the organization of society. He believes that the water mill led to serfdom. Cum? I don't know, and it doesn't look like a bijective function anyway. That is, serfdom does not involve the water mill and vice versa.
A question I have always asked myself, I tried to answer him in "The civilization of hunger”, but I don't remember if I cut the subject in the final version or not, it's how it came out Patriarchate. (I think I put one sentence at most, and I had to cut a lot anyway). I also asked people from feminist organizations. They sent me to the literature without answering me. I asked historians... My hypothesis, written since then and seen by a few people was that the weight of relationships between one sex or another in society was decisive for the situation of women. Relationships involving... the production of material goods.
It was clear that agriculture, at least in the beginning, she must have been accompanied by the matriarchy. I pray, matrilineal societies, that is, in which rank and wealth are transmitted through the female line. Women in hunter-gatherer societies gather plants, providing most of the community's food. Hunting is rare, considering also the means with which it is practiced, something that provides a small portion of the food. Jared Diamond shows in "Why is sex a pleasure?” that actually hunting is more of a male social activity, and women benefit little from the game brought by their partners. In other words, it mainly serves their "big data"., helping them with the hierarchy in return. Let's not forget that game is shared in the community, that is, the neighbors also benefit from it, who may also consume sexual supplements from successful hunters. Although there is so much data that shows what hunting is like in these communities, some evolutionary biologists still stubbornly speak of the great advances brought about by this activity as an engine of evolution. Just proof of phallocentrism!
Agriculture developed from gathering, which Jared Diamond also says in “Guns, germs and steel”. And of course, women invented agriculture, they also moved on with her property, hereditary transmission, that is, societies were matrilineal. Until when? What we also learned at school, what Engels also said, is that in the beginning there was matriarchy (matrilineal societies). But how did we get to the patriarchy?? What happened to the farmers??
My hypothesis was that these societies were conquered by warring others, who were mainly nomadic animal breeders. Being military superiors, they subdued the peaceful ones (still primitive) by farmers. Sure, things were more complicated, there is nothing pure, they all kind of did one and the other, in different proportions depending on the climate.
In societies of nomadic herders, women have a less important economic role, while men are involved in the main economic activity. More, economic relations between men become more important than those of female kinship in agricultural societies. Where agriculture does not go, or it goes very badly and little, animal husbandry prospers. Arabia, Jews in the Bible, even the ancient Indo-Europeans seem to have been such societies. When there were problems with animal resources, those populations were migrating and preying on peaceful farmers. This is how some states could have emerged. Some historical data seemed to agree with this idea. Even recent history speaks of the Rwandan symbiosis between the Tutsi population, you come from the north, livestock breeders and Hutu, Bantu farmers, LOCAL. However, they held political power by tradition, and no one got upset until the white man put in his racist pigtail.
However, the question "how patriarchy arose” seems to have another answer. Or not? Indeed, the first farming societies were matriarchal and still are. The difference between matriarchal and patriarchal ones is… the tools. At first, the hoe was used, and women were good at it. Then the plow came along and things changed. Where is the shovel left?, women were left with a somewhat dignified status. Women in these societies, even if they immigrated, they tend to work outside the home in a very large proportion. Descendants of plow societies tend to work less outside the home, and in these societies men are considered better leaders. Needless to say where most Europeans come from, including Romanians. Mentalities are perpetuated.
But I can't surrender without conditions. Perhaps the plow led to the rise of patriarchy. But what do you need for the plow? Of oxen! Cuza appropriated the peasants according to the number of pairs of oxen. However, between the domestication of animals and cultivated plants in our area of the world, (The Middle East we are now bombing, that's where they all come from), at least, it was not a very big phase shift, they happened almost simultaneously.
But no matter how it was, the cause of patriarchy is one: the money (the resources). Women became objects for sale, like animals, like other people, slaves that is. All the restrictions placed on women in patriarchal societies also come from money. I saw a documentary "Women of Kabul". There it was about some women who were in prison for premarital sex. Everyone, including them, he only talked about money. They were guilty of some kind of tax evasion. They had evaded normal transactions in that society. The Bible speaks, it seems, about the transition to patriarchy. The surrounding societies had made the transition, it was also the time for the Jews. Male circumcision was also a consequence? As a female aversion measure? That's not my point, but I am inclined to accept it.
Whatever its origin, patriarchy is slavery, and a civilized society should get rid of all traces of it as the most shameful past. famine, the rush for resources seems to have many historical implications. But not always related to what we call "civilization".
Serfdom and the water mill, the Marx, women of kabul, exchange items, The Bible is the transition from matriarchy to patriarchy.
http://www.descopera.ro/cultura/8573984-patriarhatul-sustinut-de-tehnologie
