I did a search on Matriarchal Societies on AltaVista and found that some people purport that there were actually some sucessful matriarchal societies, which were, according to the link, threatened and eventually absorbed by Jewish, Moslem and Christian patriarchies.
Others apparently dispute this, as put forth in The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory : Why an Invented Past Will Not Give Women a Future by Cynthia Eller (the link did not include a review of the book).
A speaker a couple of years ago at our local Unitarian Universalist Fellowship (sic) also believed that there were successful matriarchal societies in prehistory, and that the matriarchies were agrarian, where fertility and numerous children were prized to be able to help with the planting and harvest, and patriarchies, which were hunting societies, which followed the herds and the weak and sick who could not keep up were left behind. Children were seen as burdens until they could hunt, and women held less of a place of respect because of pregnancies and children which placed a burden on the tribes limited resources. Men would not want to support children that they could not guarantee were theres in a world where survival was so precarious and the food supply was short.
Sort of hijacking my own OP, but I think it all ties in, in a way.
Yes, that accords with my own readings several years ago when I was researching European prehistory. Much of the current “Goddess Culture” literature draws strongly upon the writing/research of Marija Gimbutas. After reading a couple of her books I was left with the firm conclusion that she was hanging a large tapestry of social, cultural and political conclusions on a very thin peg of archaeological remains. Suffice to say that I cannot imagine a cultural anthropolgist seting forth similarly vast speculations about a culture that she had never visisted, had never been recorded by any outside source, had no decipherable written records, etc. based upon a few physical artifacts and settlement patterns (which, for that mater, are not as homogeneous as Gimbutas sometimes portrays).
But I do like those staetophygus figurines. They’re cute.
Again, I do think this is partly a generational thing.
While “player” doesn’t have quite the same connotation as “slut”, it’s a lot closer than stud. Also, it’s true men get more leeway (at least, from my experience), but not so much more.
Sheesh, if we didn’t call them ‘whores’ and ‘sluts’, then they might be able to hang on to their self-esteem, and nothing will keep you out of a girl’s pants better than her self-esteem.
Well, I don’t have any problem with sluts, or whatever the male equivalent would be. I just don’t go out with them as dates in hopes of a monogomous relationship.
I do know that in every relationship I’ve been in my past, er, actions were questioned thoroughly. I don’t believe there is much of a double standard anymore. Its fading.
However, it is still around in our language. I agree that “player” is probably the closest equivalent, but it still misses the mark.
Fading? Perhaps. Quickly? Significantly? I’m not so sure. As a the unanimously elected spokesperson for the young (“Generation Y” if you must), I can say that the term “slut” and all the negative connotations that it carries are still all over the freakin’ place (among frat types in particular, but that’s generalizing).
You also might want to take a look at the “Bad Jennys” thread in IMHO; several posters there describe women they’ve known as “sluts.” We should all go over there and get on their cases . . . or at least post a link to this thread.
LaurAnge and aynrandlover, I have to admit that I don’t remember hearing the term player in that sense before it was mentioned in this thread. Like you said, probably a generational thing.
Testy:
That’s true, but it also seems to have something to do with the power structure as to who gets the worst slamming.
[Badtz Maru, I like your smiley face design.]
VarlozZ, I’ll have to check out that thread and perhaps post a link (if I can think of anything constructive to say).
It is very definitely a generational thing. FTR I’m the ripe young age of 25 and I don’t think about gender inequality unless someone else brings it up.
BUT
Where I work, in a VERY small company, I can attest to the people of, uh, a few generations ago still having this supposed inequality ingrained in them. Kind of, uh, disappointing. But the hope, at least, is in this particular myth’s decline.
Unfortunately, I don’t feel the PC or feminist crowd is helping anything either.
I found the threadVarlosZ mentioned in the IMHO Forum. I noticed that three or four posters used the s-word in a derogatory fashions towards females they perceived to be sexually promiscuous. I posted a suggestion that they discuss the use of the word slut at this thread, and I posted a link. So far as I can tell, none of them have replied. But it seems that the ones using the word are young.
Just A Girl says:
Silky Threat, a couple of posts later in that thread, says:
Jeanie, who was born in 1975, says this:
and RickJay says:
Badtz Maru, who posted to the current thread earlier, posted this
at the “Bad Jennys” thread.
A poster whom I like and admire, Triskadecamus, used the term whore in a BBQPit thread title.
While I don’t think these terms are always used to denigrate women because of sexual promiscuity, I believe our language has been contaminated to the point that these sorts of words are used as general insults. It’s a trend I don’t care for.
I know men who are called sluts, tarts etc. and women who are called ‘players’ ( same kind of thing really ).
Thinking back, there was a VERY pretty girl at UNI i was interested in and then a friend said ‘she is a real tart, keep away’, so i went straight over and attempted to chat her up, it didn’t put me off !
I think, to be totally honest, slutty women keep quiet while slutty men tell all there friends.
nb: Geordie is english slang for someone from Newcastle.
joke - Why are geordies so quick in bed ?
Answer - So they can get back to the pub and tell there friends !