Re: Roots of contemporary sexism

i don't have any disagreement with the idea of the long history of
patriarchy . . . i am less comfortable with the idea of "the beginnings of
civilization" . . . what does "civilization" mean in a world systems
perspective . . . 
cheers,
craig harris


> ----------
> From:         wwagar@binghamton.edu[SMTP:wwagar@binghamton.edu]
> Sent:         Sunday, November 11, 2001 10:22 PM
> To:   Shahijm2@aol.com
> Cc:   Threehegemons@aol.com; wsn@csf.colorado.edu
> Subject:      Re: Roots of contemporary sexism
> 
> 
>       Jane Shahi makes a valid point.  Conserving culture is difficult
> if not impossible without homes in which mothers and fathers pass on
> values and mores to their young children;  and in this process, mothers
> are generally much more active than fathers.  The more a culture is
> challenged by alien influences, the greater its need for unquestioning
> (and preferably sequestered) mothers.  
> 
>       But is it not true that since the beginnings of civilization,
> patriarchy has been the dominant mode of gender relations everywhere?  Am
> I saying something deeply controversial?  Civilization = patriarchy.  The
> exploitation of the poor has everywhere been accompanied by the
> sexploitation of the undersex, women.  Surplus value has been sweated from
> the many by the few, and from women by men.  The less agency granted to
> women, the easier it has been to keep them down and to take advantage of
> their services in home, nursery, field, and factory.  One of those many
> services is the acculturation of young children in the values and mores of
> the male-dictated society, including an unexamined acceptance of
> traditional gender roles.
> 
>       The culture of the Taliban is, to my way of thinking, one of
> the most odious and reactionary examples of how sexism penetrates
> "civilized" life, but there is plenty of sexism to go around in the United
> States and other "advanced" societies.  Whatever the Taliban may think,
> Western societies have only begun the long march to gender equality.
> 
>       Warren
> 
> 
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 Shahijm2@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > In a message dated 11/11/01 2:23:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
> > Threehegemons@aol.com writes:
> > 
> > << In the last few days we've seen a number of accounts as to why
> intense 
> > gender 
> >  inequality exists in Afghanistan.  Among the reasons I recall:  decline
> in 
> >  traditional masculine occupations (an explanation that may have more 
> >  relevance in other parts of the world), men spending their lives in 
> > religious 
> >  schools or armies, rebellion against the Soviet-backed government (an 
> >  explanation that may have relevance elsewhere as well, not only in
> formerly 
> >  Communist states, but also in the US, where the right to abortion is
> seen by 
> >  its foes as the epitome of the imperial nature of the federal
> government), 
> >  cultural structures that predate the modern world, colonialism, etc,
> and 
> >  perhaps, metaphorically, a parallel with earlier persecutions of women
> that 
> >  were connected to capitalist transformations.
> >  
> >  I'm not sure why a number of these factors, in combination, might not
> be at 
> >  work.
> >  
> > I would like to add one thing more to the list above:  Some cultures are
> very 
> > protective of their women.  It might look like oppression to an
> outsider.  
> > Women are the transmission belts of a culture.  They are the ones
> primarily 
> > involved with imprinting cultural mores on young children, passing down 
> > customs, traditions, etc.  When a culture feels threatened from outside 
> > influences, I suggest that they clamp down on their women because they
> are 
> > afraid of losing their culture.  (sorry - no historical evidence for
> this, 
> > only my own observation.)
> > Jane Shahi
> >  
> > 
>