pms laflame at
Sat Oct 24 00:18:36 PDT 1998

>He argues that Levi Strauss naturalized male domination
>or the patriarchal family in the form of the exchange of women since Levi
>Strauss thought that this was the necessary consequence of the endogamy
>to which the incest taboo gives rise. But there is no reason why men have
>to exchange women. It could be visa versa or the exchanges could simply
>not be gender specific.

Rakesh, baby, long time no post. I love the way you think, boobala.

>This leaves open the explanation for male domination
>if it is not the result of the incest taboo. I understand that Pierre
>Bourdieu's upcoming book is on the anthropology of male domination; I hope
>he engages Godelier.

Couple of ideas:

In The Temple OF My Familiar, Alice Walker describes a scenerio where the men have to dominate cause they have no lives and want the women's attention. This is back when men and women didn't live together, they just "visited".

For years I've been mulling about a reaction to the up front, vulnerability of the penis. Viola, Penocentrisity. And the whole sky-god thing! Where could that have come from, heh?

Would'cha be so callous If you didn't have a phallus Pointing towards the sky? Would'cha be so gloomy If your honky-tonk was wombie And ya didn't have to die? Would'cha be so bossy, Would'cha have to rage, Would'cha have to spit-- If your jewels were wrapped up yummy, Way down in your tummy, And was topped off with a clit?

Nighty nite- Paula

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list