Comments by "Andre Falksmen" (@andrefalksmen1264) on "" video.
-
15
-
@mahadevparmekar2565 I perhaps should have been more clear. When human beings were primitive hunter-gatherers, the institution of marriage does not exist and the social ranks when I mentioned earlier prevailed among all human groups. We know this, because uncontacted tribes no matter how far apart from each other on different continents, display that same arrangement.
We are getting into some complex areas of anthropology, sociology, and history. However, you must bear in mind the rise and fall of civilizations, and uncompleted development of society. That is to say, the institution of marriage is an entirely a construct of the Neolithic agricultural revolution and only groups who have had contact with peoples or themselves under went the process practice marriage.
The division of the women amongst the men, granted originally in polygamous form, the passing-down of property to one son, whom one could reasonably guarantee were indeed one Sons, is the basis for civilization.
2
-
@mahadevparmekar2565 I'm going to be honest, the institution of marriage and indeed civilization, reduced women to the status of property. Of course to be fair, even before that in prehistoric times they could still be seized as a spoil of war and impregnated by Victorious tribes. so it did indeed suppress women's mating instincts, and we should all be grateful for that because if it had not we would have never gotten out of the proverbial caves.
the evidence would suggest that indeed prehistoric human groups were matriarchal, in as much as an older female was considered the most important person in the group, but this was always for some clients magical abilities, in short superstition.
While, some semi civilized people may be settled and practice agriculture, while practicing matrilineal inheritance, we most certainly cannot find any dominant Society that ever practice such. Far from its readers, I would not hold the succession of female rulers, say in Nubian civilization or in early modern Russia, Austria, or Spain, as matriarchy, as aside from the head of state, all other power was vested in males.
To know if a people have had contact with other more developed peoples, even civilizations, there are always telltale signs. First, for nomadic peoples, there is always the presence of livestock. Cattle, horses, goats, and other livestock had to be domesticated in a settled environment, and these people how to obtain them after domestication by a trade or raiding. Notice that even pastoralist, like the Massi or the Dinka raise cattle, which had to be domesticated by settled People's first. Likewise, Bedouin tribes relied upon domesticated cattle, again confirming their contact with settled peoples.
1
-
@mahadevparmekar2565 I think you're trying to fudge the reality. The archaeological record shows that with settled agriculture, tribalism typically ends, and we move into the realm of private property. tribal base communal agriculture Typically does not survive and has only really been observed on a large scale in Papua New Guinea.
At the beginning of agriculture prominent men, called lugal's or big men in ancient Sumeria, did indeed keep harems and practice polygamy. It is only as the society becomes more complex and the division of labor goes beyond Agriculture and into Urban life that polygamy becomes a disadvantage. That is because for a farmer wife and children may be an asset, but for a grain Merchant, Until the children reach a certain age, they are largely a liability.
Of course there were other forces, religious forces that seem to put a check on the impetus toward polygamy and harems for all except for the most powerful people in a society.
If marriage put a check on both male and female sexuality, it did so only in as much as it's traditionally restricted women, at least in their first marriage, from all choice, and forced men into the position of having to show their productive Worth to a female's father rather than in seducing a woman.
Again, these may be harsh realities, but they have been the best things for human development and the cause of civilization.
1
-
@mahadevparmekar2565 well again, you have to remember those tribe had contact with more advanced societies or were once more advanced and experienced some sort of reversion.
The question of how does marriage benefit a man in the modern world, is somewhat more complex, depending upon the risk from the divorce laws. I would hardly think an a man in the Arab world, where there are not the same laws as in the west, would say that marriage is a disadvantage.
The way the marriage marketplace operates in the modern Western World makes marriage a grave disadvantage to most men. But then again most men are also at a great disadvantage even in the sexual Marketplace place.
whatever happens, the problem we face is that the family, and not the individuals, is the Bedrock of human civilization. No civilization can hope to survive in the absence of the family and the family cannot survive in the present condition.
Allowing women sexual choices has been a disastrous policy, which has been compounded by the notion of romantic love, and no fault divorce.
1
-
1