I think it can be an interesting area of thought if you aren’t trying to use it to push a revolution. I think it’s interesting to ask, how much of “femininity” or “masculinity” derives from the average biological makeup of females vs males, and how much is centered more on social choices/custom/etc. over time.
Unfortunately, almost no one wants to look at gender/sex questions outside the context of trying to push their preferred revolution.
When you study native tribes in the US you get an idea. I've been in several matriarchal societies and they all have the same roles as patriarchal societies. The only difference is the emphasis. It really annoys the tribes because the US will send people to talk to tribal members and demand to meet with a man as the leader and then try to lead the women in rebellion against the patriarchy. It's happened several times over the years and always ends with laughter at the fools.
But then you get into academic studies and they act as if there never was a matriarchal society and men have always been brutishly ruling over everyone. I gave a lecture once, and the moderator showed me the comments afterwards. It was entirely people quoting from textbooks or professors but no experience with the cultures themselves.
Depends on the department somewhat. I had an anthropology professor who, while rather far left-leaning, was also very socially conservative on specific issues. She brought up a few matriarchal cultures and what-not and emphasized motherhood a bit, yet while trying to get her doctorate thesis going she kept bumping heads with a bunch of career feminists who were essentially anti-motherhood in general.
She wasn't a TERF either, at least at the time, being a strong proponent of gender spectrum nonsense. I didn't entirely agree with her opinions on a lot of things, but I at least respected her as a decent person otherwise. But I won't deny that she was part of the same system that was actively brainwashing a lot of college students, even if she was well meaning and somewhat duped.
I have met people who study cultures directly and know what they're talking about. It's why I always check how they did their study first. I've discovered that people in other fields have no idea how anthropology or history work. Computer science is right out.
I've been told the only way to find out information is to sit in a formal interview to do anthropology. We haven't done that in decades. It doesn't work, because it's so out of the norm for the interviewee that they either lie or tell jokes the interviewer won't get.
We are still losing as long as the concept of "gender" is taken seriously enough to argue about.
I think it can be an interesting area of thought if you aren’t trying to use it to push a revolution. I think it’s interesting to ask, how much of “femininity” or “masculinity” derives from the average biological makeup of females vs males, and how much is centered more on social choices/custom/etc. over time.
Unfortunately, almost no one wants to look at gender/sex questions outside the context of trying to push their preferred revolution.
When you study native tribes in the US you get an idea. I've been in several matriarchal societies and they all have the same roles as patriarchal societies. The only difference is the emphasis. It really annoys the tribes because the US will send people to talk to tribal members and demand to meet with a man as the leader and then try to lead the women in rebellion against the patriarchy. It's happened several times over the years and always ends with laughter at the fools.
But then you get into academic studies and they act as if there never was a matriarchal society and men have always been brutishly ruling over everyone. I gave a lecture once, and the moderator showed me the comments afterwards. It was entirely people quoting from textbooks or professors but no experience with the cultures themselves.
Depends on the department somewhat. I had an anthropology professor who, while rather far left-leaning, was also very socially conservative on specific issues. She brought up a few matriarchal cultures and what-not and emphasized motherhood a bit, yet while trying to get her doctorate thesis going she kept bumping heads with a bunch of career feminists who were essentially anti-motherhood in general.
She wasn't a TERF either, at least at the time, being a strong proponent of gender spectrum nonsense. I didn't entirely agree with her opinions on a lot of things, but I at least respected her as a decent person otherwise. But I won't deny that she was part of the same system that was actively brainwashing a lot of college students, even if she was well meaning and somewhat duped.
Somewhat duped is half of academia. The other half knows and either chooses to continue or wants to sell it.
I have met people who study cultures directly and know what they're talking about. It's why I always check how they did their study first. I've discovered that people in other fields have no idea how anthropology or history work. Computer science is right out.
I've been told the only way to find out information is to sit in a formal interview to do anthropology. We haven't done that in decades. It doesn't work, because it's so out of the norm for the interviewee that they either lie or tell jokes the interviewer won't get.