[Glorantha] Re: Grandmother, a patriarchal concept?

In message <004c01c6a052$b1a12bd0$0200000a@malkhome02> "Malk Williams" writes:

>Regarding what you first said, to wit, that 'Women are no more
>"inherently nurturing and inclusive" then men.' I can go along
>with the "no more inclusive" bit - I know an awful lot of women
>who are extremely cliquey and exclusive, but I do think that
>women *in general* are more inclined to nurturing than men *in
>general*, and I think that has a biological, not sociological
>root. It is a tendency that becomes more pronounced after a
>woman has given birth, partly due to circumstance and partly
>due to hormonal changes that occur at the time.
>
>Obviously, this doesn't mean that all women are natural nurturers,
>any more than in means that all men are violent sociopaths, but I
>am absolutely certain that there are emotional and behavioural
>differences between men and women, which although they are best
>expressed as tendencies rather than absolutes, and the way in which
>they are manifested might vary between cultures, are in fact founded
>in the physical differences rather than just societal expectations.

That argument breaks down as soon as you identify a social group where the majority of women hand over nurturing to someone else though choice. One such social group is the English upper classes who routinely employ nannies to handle child care.

Now it's possible to argue that social pressures are removing that choice and that may sometimes be the case but cultural attitudes rarely conflict with basic instincts. Which leads me to believe that nurturing is, for the most part, learnt behaviour. This view is supported by research into why some women make particualarly poor mothers. It turned out that most of them had experienced inadequate care when they were children - they just hadn't learnt the nurturing behaviour patterns. So while they could look after the baby's physical needs they failed to provide the right mental and emotional stimuli.

>> I also remember the first enthusiasm of feminism which claimed that
>> all the world's problems would be solved by having female leaders
>> because they were naturally more caring and concilitary. Then we
>> got Margaret Thatcher as PM.....
>
>Well, quite. On that point, we can sing from the same hymn sheet.
>Probably in glorious harmony! But then I doubt that many women
>would be entirely happy with Maggie as representative of their
>gender, even the deluded souls that actually like the old termagant.

In my experience she is not atypical either but then I'm used to mixing with strong minded women.

>P.S. Point of interest, of tangential relevance to the matriarchy
>discussion. A few years ago, the Anglican Church concluded a debate
>that led to the ordination of female priests. I am given to
>understand by one who should know (a female Anglican priest!) that
>the bulk of the opposition to the change actually came from female
>church members, who are a powerful force within the Church. I am
>not going to try to draw any conclusions from that regarding the
>possible nature of matriarchies, or on the nature of women in general,
>but I thought it was interesting, nevertheless.

That doesn't surprise me in the least, I've seen the same reluctance to accept change among women on all sorts of issues.

-- 
Donald Oddy
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/