FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183  
184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   >>   >|  
in many minds by three distinct ethnologic phenomena, which are, moreover, often confounded: (1) kinship and heredity through females; (2) matriarchy, or woman's rule in the family (domestic); (3) gynaicocracy, or woman's rule in the tribe (political). (1) It is a remarkable fact that among many tribes, especially in Australia, America, and Africa, children are named after their mother, while rank and property, too, are often inherited in the female line of descent. Lafitau observed this custom among American Indians more than a century ago, and in 1861 a Swiss jurist, Bachofen, published a book in which he tried to prove, with reference to this "kinship through mothers only," that it indicated that there was a time when women everywhere ruled over men. A study of ethnologic data shows, however, that this inference is absolutely unwarranted by the facts. In Australia, for instance, where children are most commonly named after their mother's clan, there is no trace of woman's rule over man, either in the present or the past. The man treats the woman as a master treats his slaves, and is complete master of her children. Cunow, an authority on Australian relationships, remarks (136): "Nothing could be more perverse than to infer from the custom of reasoning kinship through females, that woman rules there, and that a father is not master of his children. On the contrary, the father regards himself everywhere, even in tribes with a female line of descent, as the real procreator. He is considered to be the one who plants the germ and the woman as merely the soil in which it grows. And as the wife belongs to him, so does the child that comes from her womb. Therefore he claims also those children of his wife concerning whom he knows or assumes that he did not beget them; for they grew on his soil." Similarly with the American Indians. Grosse has devoted several pages (73-80) to show that with the tribes among which kinship through females prevails woman's position is not in the least better than with the others. Everywhere woman is bought, obliged to submit to polygamy, compelled to do the hardest and least honorable work, and often treated worse than a dog. The same is true of the African tribes among whom kinship in the female line prevails. If, therefore, kinship through mothers does not argue female supremacy, how did that kinship arise? Le Jeune offered
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183  
184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

kinship

 

children

 

female

 
tribes
 

master

 
females
 

custom

 

descent

 

American

 

Indians


mothers

 

treats

 

father

 

prevails

 

ethnologic

 
mother
 

Australia

 

plants

 
belongs
 

African


contrary

 

offered

 

considered

 

procreator

 

supremacy

 

claims

 

devoted

 
polygamy
 

Grosse

 

compelled


bought
 

Everywhere

 
obliged
 

submit

 

reasoning

 

position

 
Similarly
 

Therefore

 

treated

 

assumes


hardest

 

honorable

 

commonly

 

inherited

 
Lafitau
 

observed

 

century

 
property
 

Africa

 

reference