In message <Pine.GSO.4.58.0607031924150.25698@paju.oulu.fi> Mikko Rintasaari writes:
>I'm not sure what you are going for, but here's an example
>from the real world.
>
>During our parallel to the Viking era (we didn't do the ship
>raiding thing) the finns were divided into large tribes with
>no strong central leadership (even on the tribal level). The
>society mostly centerer around wealthy farmers (big houses
>and lots of land) as sort of free carls.
>
>In this society it was the top woman of the house (the wife)
>that wielded the wealth and power. The traditional woman's
>dress contained much of the ready cash in jewelry, and was
>impressive and expensive othervice too. The men were often
>away for weeks or months at a time hunting and fighting, so
>it made sense for the women to be the stowards who bossed
>the workforse around and run the house.
>
>Parhaps not quite a matriarchy, but one could argue that the
>women held more wealth and power than the men.
Patriarchy comes from undervaluing work done within the house and thereby undervaluing women. Women can then be excluded from important decision making and have reduced legal rights because they are seen as incompetant. A matriarchy would do the reverse.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/Received on Tue 04 Jul 2006 - 12:57:46 EEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed 18 Jul 2007 - 23:38:05 EEST