>Kelley Walker wrote:
> >
> > there is an argument that women's
> > subordination was the result of advancements in technological knowledge of
> > reproduction and the attempt to limit women's sexual activity so that
> > wealth could be passed to the 'right' offspring.
>
>This a fairly old argument, and has a sort of instant acceptability. I
>accepted it for a long time. But I wonder -- what was the origin of the
>desire to pass on wealth to the 'right' offspring? A ruling class has
>strong motives to prevent the parcellization of wealth. If I remember
>correctly, that was what destroyed the 'first' French feudalism. But (a)
>this motive is satisfied merely by restricting heirs to one. right or
>wrong, and (b) more importantly, it presupposes a ruling class -- the
>origin of which is what needs to be explained.
>
>Most attempts to 'explain' the origins of women's subordination seem to
>simply read current motives into the past.
>
>Carrol
hmmm. crap. now i'm remembering my critique of zimbardo? can't recall. wrote it over a decade ago. as i recall, it has a materialist basis when you get into the radical feminist stuff on religious practices. that is, prior to learning about copulation between male and female of the species, they didn't know that males were required for reproduction. if i'm not mistaken, and i probably am so maybe maureen can help, isn't their contemporary evidence from 20th of such peoples who don't know the connection between sex and childbirth?
roger will probably flip, but seriously, think about it. why on *earth* would people know that that fun thing you do has any relationship to a woman's missed periods? it takes at _least_ two weeks to miss a period.
but it was the domestication of animals that made the role of males evident. and, the argument goes, you see a corresponding shift in religious worship. from worship of goddesses to worship of gods and goddesses and the act of copulation as giving life. yadda. man, embarrassing, i used to be soooooo into the When God was a Woman stuff. :)
but once people found out that men played a role, then passing wealth thru the mother was no longer acceptable since she could have affairs, right? and if she did, then other men had a claim on her offspring and, therefore, the wealth that this child inherited by virtue of birth to _her_. liquidation of one's empire of wealth if she liked to get it on. :)