Comments on: the amateur anthropologist

By: Alessandra

Alessandra — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:20:45 +0000

Institutions need to be understood, and the reasons they exist and persist has to be understood apart from any moral judgement of them. This is especially true when the institution is one you want to abolish.
=============================
There is no understanding that does not involve moralities and judgements regarding social institutions.

By: Ray Arrowood

Ray Arrowood — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:26:17 +0000

I enjoyed reading this thread. I will just post some links where you folks can find some research that addresses many of the questions I read.

The first is a great article by the female anthropologist Evelyn Reed who discusses the present state of anthropology.

http://www.angelfire.com/pr/red/feminism/challenge_of_the_matriarchy.htm

The next link is about sex and Bonobo society, which discusses their matriarchal social system which is probably very similar to what our ancestors experienced.
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/anthropology/anthro2003/origins/bonobos.html

This last link is the latest theory of human evolution based on a multidisciplinary study, that contains some startling conclusions and a vast amount of evidence to support them.

http://www.serpentfd.org/index.html

If you enjoy this literature, please stop my blog site for other important research links and a discussion.

By: Robert Waldmann

Robert Waldmann — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:20:34 +0000

“My honest reaction is just to say of course not there is no analogy, but I think it would be useful to start working on longer responses.”

I admit it might also be useful to attempt to learn the basics of English punctuation at this late date.

I meant

“My honest reaction is just to say “of course not there is no analogy,” but I think it would be useful to start working on longer responses.”

By: anne

anne — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:56:26 +0000

Robert Robert

You are respected and loved for good reason
Anne

By: Robert Waldmann

Robert Waldmann — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:11:04 +0000

How do I extend the initial comments ? You mean the post ? I think Polygamy should not be allowed. I for one don’t believe in cultural relativism at all (will post on that above I guess).

Now if 3 men and 2 women want to sleep together taht is totally fine by my, but I think the legal relationship in a polygamous legal marriage can not possibly be fair and equal and so should be ruled out. This is a little bit like not accepting labor contracts in which people agree to accept less than the minimum wage or say endentured servitude etc.

Freedom to do this and that and freedom to enter into this and that contract are not the same exactly. The state is involved in recognising and enforcing contracts and an asymmetric marriage shouldn’t be enforced.

Also for the strawman libertarian who gets to decide if a woman is allowed to take a second husband ? I think in polygamous societies the first wife does not have a veto. In what sense is the resulting arrangement freely accepted by all concerned ?

I bet the issue will be raised often by opponents of gay marriage. That is, they will ask if supporters of gay marriage also support polygamy. My honest reaction is just to say of course not there is no analogy, but I think it would be useful to start working on longer responses.

By: lise

lise — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:39:56 +0000

The articles from the New York Times are devastating, just devastating. AriLev mentioned the power imbalances between men and women that can typify a society or social group. We should be speaking to this issue. I hope that Robert Waldmann will think to extend the initial comments and examine what a traditional institution in which women are set at a terrible disadvantage can mean. Anne and Alison and AriLev need further support.

By: lise

lise — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:08:04 +0000

Anne and Alison are entirely right in the gentle criticisms they made of the posts and comments. They were polite but they were justly critical. The subject of polygamy was discussed with no regard for the meaning to women. As Anne and Alison argue polygamy is socially destructive and especially debilitating to women. A democratic society is not thinkable with polygamy; a society in which women are not placed in abusive relationships is even less thinkable. The post was no doubt well intended, but never thought of the destructiveness of the institution for women and Anne and Alison were much in the right to be critical. I am sad that Anne and Alison were not taken more seriously.

By: anne

anne — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:50:07 +0000

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/18/international/africa/18property.html?ei=5094&en=61483272e1048466&hp=&ex=1108789200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all&position=

AIDS and Custom Leave African Families Nothing
By SHARON LaFRANIERE

[continued...]

[not. -- David]

By: anne

anne — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 06:43:35 +0000

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/18/international/africa/18cnd-africa.html

AIDS Blamed as South Africa’s Mortality Rate Soars
By MICHAEL WINES

JOHANNESBURG - In an implicit but devastating account of the havoc AIDS is causing here, South Africa’s government reported today that annual deaths increased 57 percent from 1997 to 2003, with common AIDS-related diseases like tuberculosis and pneumonia fueling much of the rise.

[snip. --- David]

By: anne

anne — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 06:43:08 +0000

Alison

Reading through several times, I am much moved by your response. Please do follow and add much to this comment as you wish. As difficult as AIDS has been for so many through Southern Africa, I have long been struck by the special ways in which women have been effected. Ways that point up social imbalances that must be changed however difficult the changes. As though AIDS were a double cruelty for women.