"Beside that the theory is dumped on us with the addition that as long as we can’t disprove it, it is a viable theory.
First of all, Latro, Satyagrahi didn’t insist on your disproving him; he said he that he would apply Occam’s Razor in comparing his theory to one provided by someone else. Thanks to Sua, we know exactly what Satya meant by that ;).
Second, so long as you can’t disprove, it is a viable theory. Conversely, if it’s a “crackpot” theory, it should be very easy to disprove.
Bear in mind, the tiny amount of knowledge I have on this subject was from reading a classic (1975) article by a feminist anthropologist. It’s been a few years since I read it, so I’d have to do some checking to restate some of its points; and the article has never been put on the web to my knowledge.
As I recall though, the author specifically says that there has never been a known society in which women have been dominant; and she explains why it is that matriarchal societies aren’t really societies in which women are dominant, or even equal to men, in a substantive sense.
So I imagine that were this feminist anthropologist posting with us today that she would have some grounds on which to cast doubt on what Satya has given us.
This brings me to my reply to smiling.
smiling, thanks very much for your civil reply. I do appreciate it.
I highly doubt that Satya was trolling since he was not resopnsible for the OP. He didn’t exhibit anything like the demeanor of a troll, and that’s why I so strongly objected to the treatment he was receiving.
" Why should I have to provide cites? The onus is still on Satygrahi to provide some for his/her side. Lets see some that aren’t from a “feminine studies” book and we’ll talk."
Well Satya did offer to come up with some cites. It’s possible he wasn’t able to find any; it’s possible he did some research and changed his mind. But in either case it’s also possible that he was hounded off the board for no good reason.
My big problem with your position is encapsulated in your second sentence.
What if Satya did draw his information from a feminist scholar?
BTW, I’ve never heard of “feminine studies.” As distinct disciplines there is women’s studies (or woman studies as it’s sometimes called); there’s gender studies, and then there is what’s generally called a “feminist” approach to existing disciplines whether that be anthropology, literature, history or what have you. Much like Lemur’s “neo-feminism,” your use of such a term suggests that you really don’t know very much at all about feminist scholarship. Possibly nothing at all.
How, therefore, can you assume that it is so erroneous?
It is simply ignorant to assume that feminist scholarship will be false simply because it is feminist scholarship. There is, on the contrary, a great deal of feminist scholarship that is very highly thought of–in addition to some stuff that is debatable and controversial. Where warranted, the latter do tend to fall out of favor, like discarded theories in every discipline.
There are many, many, many different positions within what can loosely be called feminist–inside and out of academia. There are also a lot of longstanding debates between different feminist positions. There is no single monolithic “feminism.” Still less a single monolithic “neo-feminism” or “feminine studies” ;).
Your initial response to Satya suggests that you have, at hand, some reliable evidence that what Satya posted derives from some sort of “feminist” agenda. Can you cite that evidence? If not, you really shouldn’t be saying such things; or when you say them you should make clear that they are an impression you’d formed rather than something you know authoritatively.
(On the same grounds, I’d say, that Satya should have made clear from the start that what he was offering was a debatable theory.)
" *