Male dominance has an evolutionary basis
2020年4月13日 日常Then only the bulwarks of androarchy will be pulled down. This was the solution that the Ashanti of Ghana offered in olden times, and so did the Nairs of Kerala. It is popularly said that matriarchy (or gynarchy) does not exist. In a nutshell, the purported unity of male kin is a myth, although the internal fissiparity of a group is temporarily transcended in a situation of opposition with another group of a similar kind.If both the roles socio-economic and procreative are combined in one man, then the system would have "husbands".
Male dominance has an evolutionary basis, but cultural streams championing the cause of equality have time and again challenged it, since it is known full well that androarchy is destructive to all. First, pre-cultivation societies such as hunting-gathering are egalitarian. Thus, they should be accorded equality at every step. Boys come to believe they are a different species because of the preferential treatments they receive, as families accommodate to their idiosyncrasies. To connote the latter, another term is required. We have to internalise the fact that difference is not inequality. Boys come to believe they are a different species because of the preferential treatment they receive, as families accommodate to theiridiosyncrasiesPatriarchy is not the correct term to connote "male dominance", for it means "the rule of the father". Gender equalisation should precede gender sensitisation. Culture makes us human. The social system has to begin with the thesis of de-sexualisation.Further, roles of fathers and mothers are not mutually exclusive. Two assumptions underline this conclusion. The panacea to this conundrum comes from culture.(The author is director, Anthropological Survey of India).
Now, we face a paradox. First, while women are essential for biological reproduction of a group in an androarchal society, men are needed in a female-right society not only for procreative functions, but also for organising control over property, for economic production, and defending the community and its territory against predators. The latter cohabits with an unspecified male.It is likely that brothers may be kept in for social and economic functions, whereas "husbands" or "lovers" would be "visiting", expected to fulfil the task of procreation.Culture can do miracles, provided the will has to be socially created and sustained. In course of time, they will become different. If it creates inequality, on one hand, on the other, it can also devotedly work toward its annihilation. That is the reason why female-right societies (which are called "matrilineal", since the property is passed from mother to daughter) are constrained to keep men in their group for several social and economic purposes, besides impregnating their women. They may collapse as one in single-parents. To invoke a mythological metaphor: a single parent is androgynous, ardhnarishwar, half-male, half-female. She becomes, so said anthropologist Edward Evans-Pritchard, a "sociological male", who transfers bridewealth (in the form of cattle head) to another household to seek its unmarried daughter as "his" wife.Unfortunately, scant attention has been paid to the study of friendship, especially among women.
Kinship theorists offer interesting insights into human societies. In their studies of extreme androarchy, like in traditional China, anthropologists have found that in many contexts, the authority-wielding men executed the decision that in fact was suggested by their women.Charity begins at home. Among the Nuer of Sudan, a "rich woman" can acquire a wife for "him[her]self". The Khasi families of Meghalaya provide an instant example. Males live under the illusion of "omnipotence".That happens in patrilineal societies as well.For a study of foundations of human behaviour, we often turn to the primate world. The oft-repeated conclusion is: Chimpanzee is our nearest relative. What exists is the differential influence that women, particularly older in age, exercise on decision-making.By contrast, women did not own land, they were bereft of the muscular prowess needed for arduous agricultural work, and because of marrying out, kin-women were all dispersed.Notwithstanding the biological kinship between the chimpanzee and man, what sets them apart is "culture". And, father is not universally male. Children are not boys and girls; they are human beings.Thus the idea of "extreme androarchy" is incorrect. Socialisation focusing on gender equality can alter the "mindset" of generations.
A common assertion, presumably supported by historical and biogenetic research, is that the institutionalised male-dominance, what is called androarchy here, began with the emergence of agrarian societies. For this the wherewithal of legal and social machinery is imperative. Second, kinspersons have "natural consanguineous solidarity. The hypothesis that in a patrilineal society, women are isolated is also disconfirmed, because empirical studies point out that women of different families within the same group or even of different groups forge stable ties among them.Thus the assumption that fathers are always male, and so "fatherly rule" is also "male rule", needs scrutiny. I propose "androarchy" as a suitable term for situations where males, as decision-makers, exercise power, obtaining compliance from all, including women. The children born to her are the legitimate offspring of her "husband", whose lineage is obviously saved from oblivion. Women and children suffer from oppressions and denials. Of umpteen societies that the world has, less than 45 have been identified as matrilineal." These propositions can be systematically demolished. It happened because men owned land, they had physical strength to work so that they could produce for all, including the consuming members (and women were included in this category), and they (of the same kin group) were clustered at one place.
The genomic sequencing of chimpanzee DNA in 2005 revealed its 99 per cent similarity with human.Socialisation focusing on gender equality can alter the https://www.hg-machine.com/product/naturl-potato-chips-production-line.html potato chips machine "mindset" of generations. On one hand, culture is the genesis of human values, espousing the unity of all men and women; on the other, it promotes inequality, of genders, races, age grades and strata.
Male dominance has an evolutionary basis, but cultural streams championing the cause of equality have time and again challenged it, since it is known full well that androarchy is destructive to all. First, pre-cultivation societies such as hunting-gathering are egalitarian. Thus, they should be accorded equality at every step. Boys come to believe they are a different species because of the preferential treatments they receive, as families accommodate to their idiosyncrasies. To connote the latter, another term is required. We have to internalise the fact that difference is not inequality. Boys come to believe they are a different species because of the preferential treatment they receive, as families accommodate to theiridiosyncrasiesPatriarchy is not the correct term to connote "male dominance", for it means "the rule of the father". Gender equalisation should precede gender sensitisation. Culture makes us human. The social system has to begin with the thesis of de-sexualisation.Further, roles of fathers and mothers are not mutually exclusive. Two assumptions underline this conclusion. The panacea to this conundrum comes from culture.(The author is director, Anthropological Survey of India).
Now, we face a paradox. First, while women are essential for biological reproduction of a group in an androarchal society, men are needed in a female-right society not only for procreative functions, but also for organising control over property, for economic production, and defending the community and its territory against predators. The latter cohabits with an unspecified male.It is likely that brothers may be kept in for social and economic functions, whereas "husbands" or "lovers" would be "visiting", expected to fulfil the task of procreation.Culture can do miracles, provided the will has to be socially created and sustained. In course of time, they will become different. If it creates inequality, on one hand, on the other, it can also devotedly work toward its annihilation. That is the reason why female-right societies (which are called "matrilineal", since the property is passed from mother to daughter) are constrained to keep men in their group for several social and economic purposes, besides impregnating their women. They may collapse as one in single-parents. To invoke a mythological metaphor: a single parent is androgynous, ardhnarishwar, half-male, half-female. She becomes, so said anthropologist Edward Evans-Pritchard, a "sociological male", who transfers bridewealth (in the form of cattle head) to another household to seek its unmarried daughter as "his" wife.Unfortunately, scant attention has been paid to the study of friendship, especially among women.
Kinship theorists offer interesting insights into human societies. In their studies of extreme androarchy, like in traditional China, anthropologists have found that in many contexts, the authority-wielding men executed the decision that in fact was suggested by their women.Charity begins at home. Among the Nuer of Sudan, a "rich woman" can acquire a wife for "him[her]self". The Khasi families of Meghalaya provide an instant example. Males live under the illusion of "omnipotence".That happens in patrilineal societies as well.For a study of foundations of human behaviour, we often turn to the primate world. The oft-repeated conclusion is: Chimpanzee is our nearest relative. What exists is the differential influence that women, particularly older in age, exercise on decision-making.By contrast, women did not own land, they were bereft of the muscular prowess needed for arduous agricultural work, and because of marrying out, kin-women were all dispersed.Notwithstanding the biological kinship between the chimpanzee and man, what sets them apart is "culture". And, father is not universally male. Children are not boys and girls; they are human beings.Thus the idea of "extreme androarchy" is incorrect. Socialisation focusing on gender equality can alter the "mindset" of generations.
A common assertion, presumably supported by historical and biogenetic research, is that the institutionalised male-dominance, what is called androarchy here, began with the emergence of agrarian societies. For this the wherewithal of legal and social machinery is imperative. Second, kinspersons have "natural consanguineous solidarity. The hypothesis that in a patrilineal society, women are isolated is also disconfirmed, because empirical studies point out that women of different families within the same group or even of different groups forge stable ties among them.Thus the assumption that fathers are always male, and so "fatherly rule" is also "male rule", needs scrutiny. I propose "androarchy" as a suitable term for situations where males, as decision-makers, exercise power, obtaining compliance from all, including women. The children born to her are the legitimate offspring of her "husband", whose lineage is obviously saved from oblivion. Women and children suffer from oppressions and denials. Of umpteen societies that the world has, less than 45 have been identified as matrilineal." These propositions can be systematically demolished. It happened because men owned land, they had physical strength to work so that they could produce for all, including the consuming members (and women were included in this category), and they (of the same kin group) were clustered at one place.
The genomic sequencing of chimpanzee DNA in 2005 revealed its 99 per cent similarity with human.Socialisation focusing on gender equality can alter the https://www.hg-machine.com/product/naturl-potato-chips-production-line.html potato chips machine "mindset" of generations. On one hand, culture is the genesis of human values, espousing the unity of all men and women; on the other, it promotes inequality, of genders, races, age grades and strata.
For the BJP, specially for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and party president Amit Shah, nothing is of greater value than achieving the long-term political objective of converting a secular and democratic India into a Hindu State. Evidently, the leaders had sensed what the media had failed to do — that voters were not re-electing the Congress. But now, this privilege has been denied to the JD(S) and Congress and Mr Vala went with the principle of the single largest party. Indisputably, this is a regime which bends the same rule differently and cites precedents from different perspectives whenever this suits its immediate objective. Henceforth, it cannot be presumed that the BJP would respect or honour every electoral verdict.
The fear of these happenings, if unchecked, eventually developing into something close to fascism will ring more blaringly with Mr Yeddyurappa assuming office. The government in Karnataka is important for the BJP because it provides opportunity to harness latent Hindu sentiment.Irrespective of the turn of events in Karnataka’s politics and legislature and whether the Supreme Court post-facto gives a nod to the swearing-in of B. The way the BJP government’s installation in Karnataka has been scripted must be seen alongside occurrences of the blatant flouting of laws and principled politics being thrown to the winds since May 2014. But so was the mandate in Goa last year a verdict against the incumbent BJP. However, the "rider" in the Sarkaria Commission report, that the single largest party can be invited only if it is supported by the required number of independents, was not factored in before he took his call. Kumaraswamy to become chief minister. It would be tempting to dismiss the claims of Mr Yeddyurappa as either the rant of an overambitious politician intent on boosting the morale of his party cadre or a feverish rush of a superstitious leader. The BJP may yet not be able to prove its majority and be forced to make way for H.This goal became clear towards the end of the counting day when Mr Modi walked into the BJP headquarters and declared he would not allow the state’s development journey to be trampled upon or that the BJP would not lag in efforts to create a "brighter future" for Karnataka. However, the naked use of the state machinery and the subversion of various arms of the State intensifies worries that have been voiced since late 2014 after the rampant targeting of minorities and critics of the BJP became the recurrent theme. People who till the other day considered anyone from the south of the Vindhyas as Madrasis suddenly consider Kannadigas as one of them, people who have sacrificed a lot because of the politics of appeasement. From a nation that took pride in making the minorities, not just religious communities, comfortable and secure, the BJP feeds on the majority’s perceived hurt and sense of ignominy heaped in the past.D.S. The BJP cannot afford Mr Yeddyurappa to fail in his trial of strength.
Never has the future of democracy appeared as critical as it is now as the checks and balances which Indians prided as existing within the system are now being slowly eroded block by block, institution after institution, making India more of a shamocracy. This is a pointer to the political credo of the present regime and its belief in majoritarian principles, the bigger you are, the greater shall be your powers. Yeddyurappa as chief minister or nullifies it, there is no longer an iota of doubt that the BJP has any qualms in quashing constitutional propriety, setting precedents aside and trampling on political morality at the altar of its political ambitions. From that moment it was evident that come what may be, the BJP would use every tool available — legal or illegal, ethical or unethical, moral or immoral — to form a government in the state. But his confidence has to be contextualised within Siddaramaiah’s "open to dalit as CM" statement before the counting. Only decisive mandates will henceforth prevent the BJP from grabbing power.
The juxtaposition of Karnataka governor Vajubhai Vala’s decision with last year’s directives of the governors of Goa and Manipur when inviting the BJP to form governments in those states exposes the BJP’s intention of being in saddle despite the outcome of tight elections.
The tearing hurry and preconceived plan of forming a government regardless of the outcome became evident when Mr Yeddyurappa declared on polling day that he would take the oath on May 17, and this is what has happened.The Karnataka government is necessary for the BJP not just for its dominance in the state and because it reopens a shut doorway to southern India. Legal luminaries close to the BJP have been putting forth the viewpoint that Goa’s case cannot be equated with Karnataka because one is https://www.hg-machine.com food machinery factory a small state, while the other is one of the larger states in the country. Such logic is anti-democratic and endorses the principle of strongmanship — that the set of rules for smaller states will be different from those for biggest states. The governors in Goa and Manipur justified their decisions stating that the largest post-poll alliance was invited. This will predictably be given a patriotic veneer because India is increasingly coming under the grip of an Indian version of neo-McCarthyism.. Every inducement will be offered in the blatant horse-trading that begins now. The verdict is more important for the BJP’s core constituency in its principal bastions in the north and west.
The BJP argued that the mandate was a rejection of the Congress and this prompted the governor to follow the convention of inviting the single largest party to form the government. Large sections are willing to support the BJP merely because it espouses Hindu interests and seeks to "cut down" the minorities to their size to end their "pampering" by the "sickular" parties.The BJP and its ideological parent, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, is little but a breeding ground of autocrats masquerading as democrats. The BJP may have tried to conceal Hindutva in its campaign but Yogi Adityanath’s deployment established once again that the BJP consistently uses majoritarianism as a foundation in its electoral face-pack.
The fear of these happenings, if unchecked, eventually developing into something close to fascism will ring more blaringly with Mr Yeddyurappa assuming office. The government in Karnataka is important for the BJP because it provides opportunity to harness latent Hindu sentiment.Irrespective of the turn of events in Karnataka’s politics and legislature and whether the Supreme Court post-facto gives a nod to the swearing-in of B. The way the BJP government’s installation in Karnataka has been scripted must be seen alongside occurrences of the blatant flouting of laws and principled politics being thrown to the winds since May 2014. But so was the mandate in Goa last year a verdict against the incumbent BJP. However, the "rider" in the Sarkaria Commission report, that the single largest party can be invited only if it is supported by the required number of independents, was not factored in before he took his call. Kumaraswamy to become chief minister. It would be tempting to dismiss the claims of Mr Yeddyurappa as either the rant of an overambitious politician intent on boosting the morale of his party cadre or a feverish rush of a superstitious leader. The BJP may yet not be able to prove its majority and be forced to make way for H.This goal became clear towards the end of the counting day when Mr Modi walked into the BJP headquarters and declared he would not allow the state’s development journey to be trampled upon or that the BJP would not lag in efforts to create a "brighter future" for Karnataka. However, the naked use of the state machinery and the subversion of various arms of the State intensifies worries that have been voiced since late 2014 after the rampant targeting of minorities and critics of the BJP became the recurrent theme. People who till the other day considered anyone from the south of the Vindhyas as Madrasis suddenly consider Kannadigas as one of them, people who have sacrificed a lot because of the politics of appeasement. From a nation that took pride in making the minorities, not just religious communities, comfortable and secure, the BJP feeds on the majority’s perceived hurt and sense of ignominy heaped in the past.D.S. The BJP cannot afford Mr Yeddyurappa to fail in his trial of strength.
Never has the future of democracy appeared as critical as it is now as the checks and balances which Indians prided as existing within the system are now being slowly eroded block by block, institution after institution, making India more of a shamocracy. This is a pointer to the political credo of the present regime and its belief in majoritarian principles, the bigger you are, the greater shall be your powers. Yeddyurappa as chief minister or nullifies it, there is no longer an iota of doubt that the BJP has any qualms in quashing constitutional propriety, setting precedents aside and trampling on political morality at the altar of its political ambitions. From that moment it was evident that come what may be, the BJP would use every tool available — legal or illegal, ethical or unethical, moral or immoral — to form a government in the state. But his confidence has to be contextualised within Siddaramaiah’s "open to dalit as CM" statement before the counting. Only decisive mandates will henceforth prevent the BJP from grabbing power.
The juxtaposition of Karnataka governor Vajubhai Vala’s decision with last year’s directives of the governors of Goa and Manipur when inviting the BJP to form governments in those states exposes the BJP’s intention of being in saddle despite the outcome of tight elections.
The tearing hurry and preconceived plan of forming a government regardless of the outcome became evident when Mr Yeddyurappa declared on polling day that he would take the oath on May 17, and this is what has happened.The Karnataka government is necessary for the BJP not just for its dominance in the state and because it reopens a shut doorway to southern India. Legal luminaries close to the BJP have been putting forth the viewpoint that Goa’s case cannot be equated with Karnataka because one is https://www.hg-machine.com food machinery factory a small state, while the other is one of the larger states in the country. Such logic is anti-democratic and endorses the principle of strongmanship — that the set of rules for smaller states will be different from those for biggest states. The governors in Goa and Manipur justified their decisions stating that the largest post-poll alliance was invited. This will predictably be given a patriotic veneer because India is increasingly coming under the grip of an Indian version of neo-McCarthyism.. Every inducement will be offered in the blatant horse-trading that begins now. The verdict is more important for the BJP’s core constituency in its principal bastions in the north and west.
The BJP argued that the mandate was a rejection of the Congress and this prompted the governor to follow the convention of inviting the single largest party to form the government. Large sections are willing to support the BJP merely because it espouses Hindu interests and seeks to "cut down" the minorities to their size to end their "pampering" by the "sickular" parties.The BJP and its ideological parent, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, is little but a breeding ground of autocrats masquerading as democrats. The BJP may have tried to conceal Hindutva in its campaign but Yogi Adityanath’s deployment established once again that the BJP consistently uses majoritarianism as a foundation in its electoral face-pack.
