...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
stop romanticizing ancient Egypt
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ I already explained why political leadership has traditionally been masculine as it largely ties to defense and protection. This is why historically when females come to power as political leaders it is rather exceptional or under atypical situations. A significant part of political leadership is protection of the people against both foreign and domestic threats. As such, is it really a problem that most cultures prefer a man to fill this role even in mother-right or so-called "matriarchal" cultures?? Egyptian culture shows traces of matrilineal practices and scholars to this day remark about the prominent status that women in Egyptian society had compared to their contempary neighbors in Asia and Europe, yet the role of king is still primarily male, even though the institute of kingship involved female relatives-- especially the mother and chief wife. The Elamites whose civilization was the first in Iran were also matrilineal with the king being succeeded by his maternal sister's son, yet it the monarch was a still a man. Even the matrilineal tribes that comprise the Iroquois Confederacy or Haudenosaunee of North America had only male chieftains and [i]never[/i] females, even though it was a council of female elders who gave the final vote of approval for a man to become chief. Are there exceptions to this rule of political leadership and authority being male? Of course! There were matrilineal tribes in the Congo, in Siberia, and even in the Amazon that had female chieftains, but such tribes resided in very secluded areas where there was little to no conflict or instances of warfare and so military defense was not really an issue. In the patrilineal cultures of the Celts of northwest Europe and Iranian peoples of the plateau, a woman could become queen if there was no male heir or inherit the throne as dowager (widow), yet all girls of noble birth were given martial training from childhood similar to the boys just in case. Still, even though capable women were put on the throne as rulers they were still exceptions to the expectation of male rulers for the obvious reason that men are better suited for battle. This begs the question, why are many 'modern' women in the so-called West like Cooney and especially radical feminists so keen in having women in the government not simply as representatives or legistlators but as chief executors even when that role requires powers of defense especially during a wartime situation? Again, this is not to say that a woman can't or shouldn't fill that role, but generally men tend to be better suited to it than women for the said reason that men were typically the fighters. I am also curious if Cooney and other women of line of thinking only associate authoritarianism with men and the male sex only. Surely, someone like her familiar with history would know about the 'Good Queens' like Cleopatra, Roman Empresses like Julia Agrippina and Messalina Veleria, Chinese Empresses like Wu Zetian and Zhao Feiyan or queens of England like Mary I and Elizabeth I. I could go on and on since corruption and abuse of power doesn't just pertain to men only. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3