Black People Politics : Correlational Matrix Between Polygyny and Rape

Discussion in 'Black People Politics' started by Perfection, Oct 14, 2013.

  1. Perfection

    Perfection Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,464
    Likes Received:
    495
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +1,015
    Queen Fieldpea was bringing out some very powerful insights in another room and so in respecting the integrity of the topic there, I decided to extract some of what I found to be a foundation for an interesting dialectic here.

    She wrote:

    Brother Perfection, thank you for using the word, *proclivity*...thank you so much because very recently, I've come across some peer review studies involving the impulse to rape that, in a way, are arguing (from an evolutionary biological standpoint) that are arguing a point about the 'functional, evolutionary good or the functional evolutionary inclusion *as a survival strategy* of rape as a means for the human male to assure the passing on of his *genetic-self* (my re-statement of the arguments I've so far come across).

    I find myself at least *willing* to learn more about this theory because rape (and polygynist systems) shares at least one trait in common, practically for males: Both apportions the lion's share of gender-POWER *over women* to the male.

    The apportionment of gender-POWER is what interests me, too. Is there a 'latent' male *proclivity* to rape? Are there any organized human systems in existence that promotes (sanctions) rape? Outside of what is possible in men's prisons, say?

    Are the evolutionary biologists on to something? IONO, but their hypotheses are *remarkable* at the very least!

    Again, thank you for *proclivity*.

    One Love, and PEACE
    -------------------- --------------------- -----------------

    Queen Fieldpea I'm interested in your query concerning what you coin the "apportionment of gender-POWER." I'm feeling that. With your permission, I would like to borrow that phrase, use it as the foundation for the discussion then test its relevance to the phenomena of rape, polygyny systems and the proclivities by the benefactors of that system and phenomena which may lead to various types of female abuses.

    For those who will join the discussion please share your insights with the following considerations in mind:

    1) How much in-put should Black Woman-participants have in designing the systems of polygyny they will be part of? 10%?, 50%?, 95%? Please delineate every proportion to an analysis.

    2) What are the side-by-side comparable arguments with polyandry and polygyny?

    3) Why is it necessary to resist the system for "baby brides" in the black polity?

    a. Are baby brides to be allowed more so in the East that the Western hemispheres of the globe? Why?

    4) If parents allow their young girls to be married to older spouses, does this validate the relationship or should outside forces intervene to 'rescue' the little girls from the parents?

    5) How SHOULD rape be defined? Will your definition be modified contingent upon the gender?
     
  2. Fieldpea

    Fieldpea Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    778
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    The 602
    Ratings:
    +778



    Thanks for how you've structured your OP. Of course, I want to participate. No fleshed out responses, yet--right away, I want to make a copy of your OP so that I can begin doing my 'end of chapter' questions...lol. I welcome the questions *as useful guidelines*--and as how you intended them to be put to use.


    Now that you've pulled this from the other forum, I agree with you--this is more of a stand alone subject that deserves to be treated as *separate and distinct* from the other topic *while at the same time* becoming at least one more way to attempt to develop criteria for measuring, causally, *the nature of* intended goodness and/or usefulness of such systems in varied social environments (even including the actual physical environment and conditions) that Black folks inhabit and must survive.


    Changes my orientation maybe only just a little bit--opens things up for me--especially in terms of approach to how I want to hunt for peer reviewed articles that were relevant to the argument I was pursuing in the other forum--in that *in here*, I don't have to as rigidly strive to be an 'objective finder' of info. In here, I find more freedom to explicate *my own views*, suss my own self, too, re: the impulse to rape, the roots behind such an impulse, what the definition is, how easy or hard is it to recognize that kind of thing, causally as well as effectively, and beyond the physical act, how in *other ways*, rape is being done--psychologically, socially, spiritual, etc.


    As of now, I already identify the intent to *bargain* being involved when desperation/highly emotional or stressful states aren't the primary drivers urging the males and females to come to a committed agreement involving longterm mating/survival supporting strategies.


    Consideration of *conditioned responses to stimuli* that can NOT possibly promote a healthful state of ma'at are employed by men towards women--and is being *accepted* as good and righteous, too--in many proud, otherwise ancient and honorable cultures where the marriage state is structured under a system describing polygamy/polygyny). No matter how ancient and honorable, *there IS something wrong being produced* from these cultures *by now*as in present-day.


    I believe this is the over-arching *good* that the other forum has brought to all of our attention, too. There are matters that, once brought to our attention, just plainly *screams* that there is actual 'damage done' to the women and girl-children, as well as unquestioned damage done BY WOMEN (mothers) acting alongside of their men/husbands the *instant* that the men are no longer precluded from gaining sexual access to younger and younger females--at the very least meaing their own girl-children--produced from their own, culturally sanctioned polygamous/polygynous systems.


    As a collection of disparate minds from around the world, we (at Destee) now get a chance to at least *consider* the overt and latent possibilities-to-realities that informs what amounts to alternative marriage systems being earnestly promoted *for wider introduction* into our otherwise traditionally sanctioned 'monogamous' culture.


    Limits. What should humans, males and females, agree to recognize to be acceptable limits that MUST NOT BE CROSSED before said humans can logically maintain that a marriage system--ANY marriage system, in fact--is inevitably *good* for ALL of its practitioners? Can damaging permutations towards excess power sliding toward one gender as opposed to the other--can any damaging permutations associated with gender-POWER (ascendancy) be honestly identified, judged fairly, and then be eradicated *via agreement* (or other types of enforcement efforts)?


    If yes, then how? If not yes, then in truth, why not? Tilts towards one gender over another describes the principles of ma'at in operation? How?


    Evolutionary biologists and developmental psychologists are, for their own purposes, digging into efforts to describe *the effects* of polygyny on large human populations. I've found genetic, biologic, psychologic, and anthropologic *abstracts* where some within each of these scientific disciplines are already looking at *the impulse to rape*, and how this impulse influences effects to small groups/clans/tribes/cultures/societies, and civilizations, *good, bad, or indifferent (functionally).


    I should say here, that *typically* functionalists 'don't measure or assess results' within ANY single human or human group from the aspect of right or wrong, good or bad, moral or amoral. The evidence gathered leads them, more or less, to attempt a best YES or NO response to their own guiding, structured hypothesis. If their results are inconclusive, they'll report that too. IF THEY DON'T, then they face challenge from others in their field (meaning more hypotheses, more research) until a *grand theory* has been developed, OK?


    So, it's about YES or NO or INCONCLUSIVE. How anyone other than the scientific researchers and their research findings determines to act upon (incorporates or accepts) the *yes or no or inconclusive* is on them.


    As a lay person, I have my own views on RAPE. I take my best overstanding of the most common, lay-person's definition for rape and I apply it to other arenas. As such, I don't bother to restrict myself to defining rape only in terms of the physicality of the rape act. I've never been raped, physically. I *have been raped* in other non-physical ways (my overstanding in operation with that prior statement).


    I immediately recognize how some evolutionary biologists and developmental psychologists would and should concern themselves with the study of RAPE and how it relates to the apportionment of gender-POWER as played out in polygynous systems. In my view, culturally proscribed and automatic apportionment to one gender over another **** near BEGS for longterm *ill effects* in VIOLATION of Ma'at principles (duat, ying/yang, etc.).


    Anyhow, Perfection, like I mentioned way up there somewheres...lol...let me start with your *guideline questions*. I hope that what I wind up with allows me to apply my results not only in here, but into the other forum as well.


    I'm hoping for the two-bird advantage.


    One Love, and PEACE
     
  3. Perfection

    Perfection Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,464
    Likes Received:
    495
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +1,015
    We should be clear...I'm a student learning at your feet. I opened this room because of the powerful information you were bringing out in the other area and I wanted a chance to learn more without the restrictions. I'm familiar with these issues of course, but not as in-depth as you. And I would like to learn more of this subject and related matters from your wisdom, insights and suggestions (and those others who may participate).

    May I begin with how you partially defined rape:

    the impulse to rape, the roots behind such an impulse, what the definition is, how easy or hard is it to recognize that kind of thing, causally as well as effectively, and beyond the physical act, how in *other ways*, rape is being done--psychologically, socially, spiritual, etc.

    ...As a lay person, I have my own views on RAPE. I take my best overstanding of the most common, lay-person's definition for rape and I apply it to other arenas. As such, I don't bother to restrict myself to defining rape only in terms of the physicality of the rape act. I've never been raped, physically. I *have been raped* in other non-physical ways (my overstanding in operation with that prior statement).

    May I direct your attention more so to the underlined. Now I ask what happens when we define 'rape' like this? Or, more specifically, what happens to the mental orientations of us Brothas if we begin to define 'rape' in this manner? Written another way, we Brothas start understanding rape in terms of the "non-physical ways." Would you co-sign if I added another dimension to your definition by saying rape, is, in part "the taking away, and or the prevention...sometimes by force, sometimes not." Examples for us could be:

    1) rape: black male unemployment rates...decisively getting denied jobs in this economic downturn. if there are ANY available jobs then they are not going to black men.

    2) rape: so-called black on black violence. (This means of course we obviously have the wherewithal and energy to rape each other). Disclaimer: Notwithstanding Dr. Amos Wilson's dialectic on the same subject and the underlining causative elements he identifies.

    a. Queen Fieldpea may I offer a subsection here regarding "violence"? Should violence too be redefined? Can we redefine or,at least, add to the traditional definition? That is to say, cannot "violence" too be non-physical?

    3) rape: driving while black...in groups, individually...harassed?

    This is not to withdraw or divert attention from the physical and how, according to the statistics (if we believe them) that women experience the traditional views of rape more so than men. My point is that perhaps the men folk could begin to see certain phenomenon differently when their definitions of certain concepts are expanded. In other words, I think what you state here is fruitful as we consider the "non-physical ways" which rape and violence occurs.

    Could we become more sympathetic to how baby brides feel when they are compelled to marry older adults? Is it reasonable, or far fetched, when one says that a girl at 12 years of age is being "raped" if she is paired to marry older adult males? Is this a form of violence but not 'physical'?
     
  4. Fieldpea

    Fieldpea Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    778
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    The 602
    Ratings:
    +778
    I do believe that it is not only our indigenous Afrikan people* who are responsible for taking 'all that they are' and then moving all of us *forward into the future* by finding/shaping out/implementing new strategies that *might mean our continuance and survival*, our continued PRESENCE *as a people* on this earth, whole and healthy and READY, *best that we can be*, physically, mentally, and psychologically to stand as SOVEREIGN BEINGS on this earth--it's not just an indigene Afrikan's job to manage to do something like this--but it is also OUR responsibility, our JOB as *Neo-Afrikans* of the Diaspora to do no differently HERE 'in the West'.


    Our overall SURVIVAL *anywhere* depends on what we do WITH/FOR *our children*! What WE *become* in our peoples' collective futures *here* in the West, *there* anywhere in Afrika, and around the world, besides, DEPENDS on our striving for the full manifestation of our finest, SOVEREIGN SELVES. Best that our environment allows. Best that our situations affords us. Best that we can KNOW, given time. But *best* that our environment DENIES us?


    Culture. The great POWER of culture. The survival and success at being who we truly are, singly and collectively *depends* on the environment that shapes and influences us (crucible). Culture amounts to alot of things, but at some point, we need to recognize that culture is a *coersive system*. Culture *can* become a trap. Culture at its best is comforting and affirming. Culture at its worst can become an albatross.


    ENVIRONMENT matters! ENVIRONMENT *shapes us*. THE PRESSURES that we live under, and what good that we can possibly glean from what we've lived through, from what we might possibly do on any given day *has VALUE*. It really does.


    So, as what I call us, as Neo-Afrikans of the Diaspora, what have we gleaned from our collective pasts on this ball of dirt that can and ought to be good and useful and 'helpful' for a SOVEREIGN PEOPLE *to have and to hold* and to bind ourselves to--such that we can survive THROUGH OUR CHILDREN *one generation at a time? When the STRENGTH in character of our men is at stake? When the WIT/WISDOM in character of our women is at stake?


    Honestly, we Neo-Afrikans actually have sojourned in the West in excess of 500 years. The *sojourn, itself* IS THE REASON that we are of 'the Diaspora', so...Should we look to the past (Our-story) first to learn, next to assess, and finally to absorb our cultural stories all over the world, in order to glean lessons and meanings that inevitably guides us to independence and SOVEREIGNITY, *despite the environments of culture* that otherwise encases us *as we make our homes* all over the world? Yes, I think so.


    Just KNOW that we, collectively, will be nonetheless shaped by either stagnant culture (mores) as well as *culture as FERMENT*. WE, as hard as we might try to become otherwise, are *influenced* overtly and latently by environment (culture) that prevails where we live, rightly and wrongly.


    Perfection, I have to stop here. I still plan on my attempts to answer your set of questions, but for now I've got alot of tasks that I have to get out of the way at home, then I've got another dr's appt to see to. Maybe it'll be tonight when I can begin with posting my answers, but I already know I want to finish what I started (up there) before answering. For my own answers, I think I need to *frame them* with the kind of intro that I've decided to do.


    In the meantime,


    ...As a lay person, I have my own views on RAPE. I take my best overstanding of the most common, lay-person's definition for rape and I apply it to other arenas. As such, I don't bother to restrict myself to defining rape only in terms of the physicality of the rape act. I've never been raped, physically. I *have been raped* in other non-physical ways (my overstanding in operation with that prior statement).


    Perfection, you clearly overstood what I meant (in terms of how I see and use the lay-definition of the word, rape). Yes, violence needs to be added/considered. And yes, 12 year old brides--in fact, any 'bride' of tender years is *raped* by a fully adult male (when attacked after a battle as a *spoil of war*) and as husband--and when it's about marriage, I don't care if such marriages and marriage consumations are *sanctioned* by the man's and girl's culture, neither--ANY *girls* are too young to submit to full blown sex acts performed *on them* by full blown males! Too young! Physically and mentally, too. Too young.


    Later when I can get back to this forum, I'll post the OED definition of that word, CONSUMATION. Notice how the root-word is CONSUME. The word, CONSUMATE(ion) also has meaning in terms of *finality related to the completion of a contract*. As you know, in some cultures, marriage is based on contracts between families.


    But I gotta run. Hope I didn't mess up too much--no time to edit. If I did screw something up, I'll clean it up later.


    One Love, and PEACE
     
  5. Fieldpea

    Fieldpea Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    778
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    The 602
    Ratings:
    +778
    ...As a lay person, I have my own views on RAPE. I take my best overstanding of the most common, lay-person's definition for rape and I apply it to other arenas. As such, I don't bother to restrict myself to defining rape only in terms of the physicality of the rape act. I've never been raped, physically. I *have been raped* in other non-physical ways (my overstanding in operation with that prior statement).


    Perfection, you clearly overstood what I meant (in terms of how I see and use the lay-definition of the word, rape). Yes, violence needs to be added/considered. And yes, 12 year old brides--in fact, any 'bride' of tender years is *raped* by a fully adult male (when attacked after a battle as a *spoil of war*) and as husband--and when it's about marriage, I don't care if such marriages and marriage consumations are *sanctioned* by the man's and girl's culture, neither--ANY *girls* are too young to submit to full blown sex acts performed *on them* by full blown males! Too young! Physically and mentally, too. Too young.


    Later when I can get back to this forum, I'll post the OED definition of that word, CONSUMATION. Notice how the root-word is CONSUME. The word, CONSUMATE(ion) also has meaning in terms of *finality related to the completion of a contract*. As you know, in some cultures, marriage is based on contracts between families.[/quote]



    Here goes, Perfection. My first attempt to answer a couple of the end of chapter questions. Though the issue regarding child brides is important to your OP, maybe I can respond with what I see wrong with polygyny as it captures young kids for brides; but, once I started working on answering the questions, my answers evolved *directly* into an attempt to set the table for, yes or no, the VALUE of polygyny in an Afrikan context, by focusing on as broad an Afrikan context as possible, and by dealing with discussing the most basic biological imperatives that WOMEN must deal with, or wield, or what have you--to *what it means to me* when Afrikan WOMEN auto-participates in using their own girl-children to feed their polygynous system. In approaching your OP in this way, I think it enables me to more fairly and properly limn why I believe it important to object to what polygyny effectively has done to WOMEN and girl-children (DENY POWER TO THE FEMININE GENDER), why I believe it is a system that the Black polity should find anathema *in this day and age*, AND why I can't help but be encouraged--for our Afrikan sisters' sakes (old and young)--for the burgeoning movements originating around the world designed to *win freedom for young girls (at least) via EDUCATION for GIRLS within societies that have (and still do) practice polygyny right today.


    And Dr. Chancellor Williams' brilliant work, 'The Destruction of Black Civilization'--its title, Perfection, keeps chiming in my head. At this point, I *almost* cannot BELIEVE what I am thinking, re: mate bonding/marriage systems and what might(?) happen if a culture *shifts* from a longstanding, granite-like, proven foundation to one of sand.


    Anyway, here goes--for me, maybe this exercise will be not only challenging, but enjoyable and revealing, too:


    1) How much in-put should Black Woman-participants have in designing the systems of polygyny they will be part of? 10%?, 50%?, 95%? Please delineate every proportion to an analysis.


    100%. The whole nine yards behind something like this. BALANCE within the polygynous system is maintained—the gender integrity of such a marriage system is protected--ONLY should WOMEN design such a marriage system from inception, to abandonment. ABANDONMENT, as the adults of such a system *risks* unwheeling *the most key portions of* their culture the instant that MEN *take over*--and MEN WILL ATTEMPT TO TAKE OVER their own polygynous system. ALWAYS. WOMEN see *continuance* of their opportunities to procreate. MEN see the POWER to rule. So…just where do children fit in?


    Perfection, I think any WOMEN who find themselves facing a crisis situation such that they, as a group, must first gather together, sit down, and then sum up some kind of *grave reality* confronting them—I believe these WOMEN had better be the *key participants* making such a decision that *goes against the grain* or *initiates a foundational change* for the group, vis a vis *allowing WOMEN to, as a select subgroup, for ALL to honorably marry a ‘single MAN’ of their group, for the purposes of procreation and protection. No joke. They’d better be the final arbiters, too—and not EVER find themselves left out of the decision matrix, leaving their MEN as arbiters--no matter how well-meaning the men are *at the outset*. WOMEN, then, are most likely the ones who approaches their MEN, ASKING IF ‘their MEN can agree to such a change’ in their otherwise *dedicated mate-bonding structure* that has otherwise sustained the continuance of the group before ‘crisis hit the collective’.


    Why do I think this way? Because. WOMEN bear and nurture children. The institution of any kind of marriage system is *supposed* to be organized for two reasons: Control over inheritance and to assure that a child is the true issue (y- and mtDNA) from both married parents. MARRIAGE is an institution which is supposed to exert orderly SOCIAL CONTROL over the sexual/mating behaviors of WOMEN AND MEN. ORDER is the key driver. When it’s about the future of the group—and especially about *out and out* survival for the group, itself, then WOMEN are more naturally predisposed to *envision the possibilities-until-reality* that needs to inform *the plan* that is intended to secure the survival of the group. As such, these WOMEN design the polygyny system as a *temporary, STOP-GAP measure*. STOP-GAP! Instituted as a TEMPORARY MEASURE meant to allow increased births to bring the group's numbers *back to normal* levels. Yet, somehow, the temporary measure is never abandoned.


    Viewed as a longterm re-direction of the initiating culture, something detrimental has emerged throughout ALL polygynous societies. WOMEN *must* (are taught to) abdicate their born responsibility to provide the best, immediate environment for the sake of their children. As such, these poor WOMEN *are nuts*. A WOMAN that, in accordance with cultural mores, gives this PRIMARY woman’s responsibility over to a MAN is *out of natural sync* with her born purpose *as an adult*--first and finally--and thus should be deemed *unfit* to shoulder her natural responsibility to her children (to the future). Polygynist systems REQUIRES such an abdication of primary purpose from the kinds of FEMALES that *polygynous systems produces* the world over, so...


    In the beginning—during the formulation and onset of polygynous marriage systems within groups, it is *best* should the decision to encourage/arrange polygynous marriages emanates from the WOMEN. When born from the WOMEN in agreement after an assessment of an urgent, extremely threatening situation that presents the possible end of the group, WOMEN (for the sake of children) are the best, naturally oriented gender to fight for the life (lifestyle/culture) FOR those children. IF their INTENT was to preserve their culture for their children, this is not what came to be, eventually.


    I don’t know, anymore, if this old saw is at all true, but if it is, then any male-dominated polygynous systems has lost contact with this so-called truth:


    The BLACK WOMAN is the MOTHER of Civilization. Really? Is this the case, today? Is this the case in a polygynous context? Mother of Civilization. Does this mean *competent wielder of civilizing forces*? Does this mean author of what is, in fact, BUILT into a system of interconnected civilizing forces? In a polygynous context, too? The BLACK WOMAN. Mother of Civilization.


    IF THIS IS TRUTH, then this DOES NOT MEAN that the BLACK MAN is the Mother—the nurturer and purveyor of the key beliefs and subtle nuances which comprises THE CULTURE that both BLACK WOMEN and MEN are oriented to build upon, defend and preserve, so...


    To tell you the truth, Perfection, I believe that WOMEN are the better *planners*, while MEN are the better *builders* bringing the plans into being. When the arena under consideration (needing to be built or preserved) is the FAMILY, and all that should secure and support the family, WOMEN, when not out of sync, confused, or insane, will willingly tell the MAN what is needed—and from a perspective of *building* the safest, most secure environment for the children being born—and as this is his family, too, The MAN should then strive to bring such plans into being.


    Hard decisions, Perfection. Opting for polygyny required *the readiness* to act on hard realities—ALL for the sake of the group’s survival (continued, re-stabilized success at the production of children).


    2) What are the side-by-side comparable arguments with polyandry and polygyny? Both of these systems deals with the re-distribution of, and the re-purposing of the genders, vis a vis *assigned gender roles* linked to POWER (final authority) within the family as well as positioning (influence) within a larger, socially dependent structure (the group/tribe/nation). Historically, given how it continues that WARS and natural disasters tends to deplete the available male populations in many areas, polygyny has become the most dominant, pluralistic marriage structure in the 3rd world. PLURALISTIC marriage strategy implemented at some point in the past, while even more cultures maintain under MONOGAMY.


    The matter of WAR and natural disaster being linked to polygyny is important to note. Wherever WAR and natural disaster has been *managed without polygyny*, MONOGAMY remains the dominant marriage structure. Another something to note is how closely *any* marriage strategy is related to religious beliefs. Anyhow…


    NOTE: I’ll put together *my own envisioning* of a polyandrous family structure (should be fun). I’ll attempt to JUSTIFY my own belief that polyandry is the more stable, gender fulfilling system that polygyny can possibly be.

    ******************************************************************

    I'm not finished with answering Question #2, Perfection. Just needing to take a break. Since what I've so far done is NOT anything like in its *final form*, please consider it all as more or less a 1st draft, OK?


    Note: Perfection, since I first posted this, I've done all kinds of edits to it--I want you to be aware of this; but, I didn't bother to note the edits because most of the edits involved wiping out stuff that the Reply link automatically provides. From here on out, should I do an edit, I'll highlight in red, OK? I've found places where I need to complete thoughts--and so far, that's been the nature of any of my edits, otherwise.


    One Love, and PEACE
     
  6. Perfection

    Perfection Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,464
    Likes Received:
    495
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +1,015

    Powerful. What you are saying parallels what is being said in scientific literature and by those who study anthropology and sociology. Your words quoted remind me of this piece I ran across in graduate school called Chasity: Its Development and Maintenance. It's a rather old one back in 1880. It can be found in a British publication called the Westminster Review; Volume CXIV; July-October issue. It reads, in part,:

    "In women the love of children also rests on organic function, and the ante-natal and post-natal experience. Lactation gives rise to child-care, and, later, develops into maternal solicitude and domestic responsibility. Her children are linked with a series of cerebral experiences which are but the registration of varying physiological conditions, the emotional activity surviving the physical causes which brought it into play."

    He goes on to state:

    "The primary impulse being constant and the induced consequents following invariably, the conditions of heredity are completely fulfilled, and she entails upon posterity the physiological metamorphoses and the cerebral conformation that accompanies them."

    To me that part and the one to follow reminds me of the "continuance" you spoke on. Then the author writes:

    "With the man the love of children lacks the organic basis and its psychological unfolding, and must be called into play by grafting it as a secondary sexual characteristic. The women, having mental conceptions unknown to her mate, and being capable of transmitting them, had to confer these upon generation of sons who are under a favorable environment for the development of these conceptions, and man has thus been more literally 'born of woman,' than has hitherto been suspected."

    The point is then summarized by the author:

    "With man, then, both paternity and love of children were borrowed factors, supported and molded by social or sentimental necessities which were chiefly created by woman, and which took ages to develop into sufficient coherence to make him co-operate effectively with the primitive woman in the career of child-care, which is the basis of the family."

    What can you extrapolate from this piece Queen Fieldpea?
     
  7. Fieldpea

    Fieldpea Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    778
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    The 602
    Ratings:
    +778



    For me, these excerpts that you've posted above are discussing what I mean by how it is that AFRIKAN/Black WOMEN as Mothers of Civilization are the primary wielders* of civilizing forces.


    Rightly or wrongly, we are the *best possibly equipped* to wield civilizing forces--to be the MOTHERS of Civilization (including today).


    One Love, and PEACE
     
  8. Fieldpea

    Fieldpea Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    778
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    The 602
    Ratings:
    +778


    Civilizing Forces: The article excerpts discusses the *in-born capacity* in WOMEN to strive to secure the lives and safety *of children* as in the overarching PURPOSE for WOMEN to exist *separate and distinct* from men. The writer speaks of *organic* in regards to WOMEN. The writer also discusses some of the neuro-chemical processes which 'fires up' within WOMEN, before and after childbirth (ante- and post- is how he put it) that causes what I described as a WOMAN's *pre-disposition* where childbirth is concerned. I agree with the author. Pre-disposition to mean *organic*. Organic to mean evolved from the 'inception' of sex determinative differences (inherent gender differences).


    Further, the writer then describes how MEN must be *taught and/or conditioned* over an evolutionary-like timeframe, to come anywhere *close* to being 'receptive adherents' of what WOMEN *are* when it comes to children, and the importance of securing and caring for children. MEN, otherwise, are predisposed to *spread their seed* with as many sexual partners that they can attract or overpower (rape); then, MEN can simply move on. This is the MANs nature (organic; pre-disposition).


    Even after a rape incident, the group (tribe) *can* continue (believe it or not). We see this all the time in war-torn 3rd world countries (news reports). What remains at stake, though, is the continuance of the FAMILY structure. The status as a civilization demands that FAMILY structure should be in place and operating *normatively* at the very least (even after rape). The household, food, clothing, TEACHING of *group values* informing LIFE to be worth living: positions on morality, defined characteristics (agreed upon) that means *right and wrong* to the group and its individuals, ‘what makes sense’ given the environment the group/FAMILY must deal with, god-concepts, heroism, etc.


    WOMEN are the *organic* purveyors of any cultural insights, advancements and TRUTHS valued by the group, re: FAMILY to boy-children over untold generations. MEN as boys HAD TO BE TAUGHT the importance OF children and their survival. Such orientation ‘from males is IN-ORGANIC (latent at best). Taught *first, at her knee*, but eventually as a positive 'unfoldment' interpenetrating the *culture* that they all inhabit and contribute to, as full fledged *boys to 'initiate-man’ (the male knowledge a culture acquires which signifies ADULTHOOD and the initiate’s *role* in FAMILY life, the tribe, in the cosmological scheme of things, etc., as householder and protector, and eventually elder, and etc. BEFORE THE EYES AND OVERSTANDING *of the WOMEN and their children.


    Perfection, I thought, today, about the definition of an AFRIKAN BLESSING. I was once told that an Afrikan Blessing is that *confrontational moment* when a mother or wife has to get the attention of her child or husband *just long enough* to make plain how the child or man’s behavior is *unacceptable*--and in no uncertain terms. If this is the definition behind the term, Afrikan Blessing, then no matter how the WOMAN or WIFE conducts her blessing, THE OVERARCHING PURPOSE is that that child or husband is proceeding along (in regards to something) as if THE FAMILY’s survival/successful, longterm outcome is NOT at stake, and she ain’t having that!


    That moment of correction, though, no matter when or where it occurs (at the grocery store, at some club, before the tribal council—no matter where it happens) is the MOTHER/WIFE’s contribution to the continuance *of the culture* expressed in no uncertain terms, and involves (possibly threatens) the longterm health and safety *of the FAMILY*--at least, the organic meaning of Afrikan Blessings *stems* from this defensive action. But, too, it takes the mores of the overarching CULTURE that this family belongs to, to mediate (assure) that such blessings are conducted *fairly and to the effect* that the WHOLE is preserved.


    Anyway, as I keep thinking about what that author wrote, stuff keeps surfacing, so as it happens, I’ll keep posting what comes to me.


    Also, AFRIKAN MEN have been taught that Afrikan Blessings are not to be the sole purvue of AFRIKAN WOMEN. This is a FUNDAMENTAL LESSON that MEN have been taught, too. All too often, MEN exercise an Afrikan Blessing *with their young* in terms of stopping the questionable action, then at some point says to their child/ren, “Wait til your mother finds out.”


    The Lack of an Initiation System in AA Family Life

    In many Afrikan cultures, the MEN will come together, gather up their sons at around age 12 or 13, separate themselves from the WOMEN and girl-children, and over a few weeks they will *initiate* their sons into the secret ways of their culture. WOMEN are rarely (if ever) involved in these initiations. FOR MEN ONLY. With captivity, the middle passage, debarkation onto foreign shores, and *sale into slavery*, somewhere along the lines, *continuity* (connection) to the sacred initiation systems got disrupted, or *lost*. The enslaved WOMEN, the ones who had the most access to their young during slavery, HAD NO KNOWLEDGE of the MEN’S initiation systems! No knowledge and no chance at all of even passing on *bits and pieces* to their sons.


    This disconnect that happened with our 12 and 13 year old sons, culturally, likely devastated us—no matter the initiative system lost, and lost from whichever tribal culture represented in slaver ship’s holds—and thus undoubtedly did extreme damage to our chances (as descendants of those peoples) to reform FAMILY in the fullness of meaning that our Afrikan ancestors overstood the concept.


    I bring this up because I remember a conversation that I had with a Jamaican couple many years ago. We were talking about the differences between how I was raised by my 2 parents and how they were both raised. The man explained that his wife was to have TOTAL responsibility over any girls that they might have, but when it came to his son, she would have TOTAL control until their son/s reached age 13; then, HE, as father would take on TOTAL control.


    I looked at his wife and she was nodding her head in full agreement. So I asked the brother what did he mean by control would go to him? Why couldn’t they BOTH raise all of their children all of the time? He shrugged his shoulders and said, “At 13, he’ll be *too much* for his WOMAN to handle. When that time came, HE’d take over. Anything his son/s might do that would upset the household would be brought to HIM, and HE would settle the matter (disciplining) with his sons. Otherwise, HIS WIFE would still exercise most of the control within their household *and over his son*.


    From then til now, I still think that *a semblance* of an Afrikan framework, re: FAMILY survived slavery, and that the Jamaican couple’s approach to establishing their household once they began to have and raise kids reflected that framework.


    One Love, and PEACE
     
  9. Fieldpea

    Fieldpea Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    778
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    The 602
    Ratings:
    +778

    WOMEN are the *organic* purveyors of any cultural insights, advancements and TRUTHS valued by the group, re: FAMILY to boy-children over untold generations. MEN as boys HAD TO BE TAUGHT the importance OF children and their survival. Such orientation ‘from males is IN-ORGANIC (latent at best).




    Maybe, alongside of any majikal teaching/training that the sons receives, maybe reinforcement of the role of MEN within the framework of FAMILY is also taught to the sons. I'm saying, the MENS *tribal rationale* for staying and supporting the WOMEN in the responsibility of childrearing is presented to the sons in a *formalized way* with the goal being *adding such an in-organic orientation* to the tribe's *overarching definition* OF 'what it means to BE a man'.


    One Love, and PEACE
     
  10. Perfection

    Perfection Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,464
    Likes Received:
    495
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +1,015
    Wow...reminds me of another piece. There was a quote inside a powerful work by one of my favorite Nigerian Authors. Her name is Ifi Amadiume. In her book, Reinventing Africa: Matriarchy, Religion & Culture (1997) on page 81 she quotes someone by the name of Wendy James who observes:

    "Society is more than a diagram, and where the matrilineal principle is enshrined, for whatever practical or symbolic purpose, the nodal position by women must be more than a diagrammatic matter. There must surely be evaluative connotations, even a theory of the central focus provided by women in the definition of social relations stemming from the matrilineal principle. The granting of a key position to women in the logical, formal ordering of wider relations surely invites us to look further, not necessarily for 'female rule' in a crude power sense, but for equally strong affirmations of central qualities, even primacy, of women's positions."

    If the above is considered, then your concerns here can be treated. You write:

    In many Afrikan cultures, the MEN will come together, gather up their sons at around age 12 or 13, separate themselves from the WOMEN and girl-children, and over a few weeks they will *initiate* their sons into the secret ways of their culture. WOMEN are rarely (if ever) involved in these initiations. FOR MEN ONLY. With captivity, the middle passage, debarkation onto foreign shores, and *sale into slavery*, somewhere along the lines, *continuity* (connection) to the sacred initiation systems got disrupted, or *lost*. The enslaved WOMEN, the ones who had the most access to their young during slavery, HAD NO KNOWLEDGE of the MEN’S initiation systems! No knowledge and no chance at all of even passing on *bits and pieces* to their sons.

    Amazing observation Queen Fieldpea. Until now, I failed to understand this part of the historical record through the prism for which you are providing. Here, when you're speaking about the enslavement of our people, you indicate an error on part of the village fathers for "initiating" the sons and not the daughters and Mothers. The latter, of course, who are primacy in the knowledge and who laid the foundation but was moved out of that which is necessary for the sustaining of the communities. These errors was to the detriment of the people ergo you state the consequent:

    The enslaved WOMEN, the ones who had the most access to their young during slavery, HAD NO KNOWLEDGE of the MEN’S initiation systems!

    And since they had no knowledge of the system, the Queens that is of the "initiation," could this then have contributed to their enslavement? Or at least for its length? In any invasion, the first things to be targeted is the opponent's communication systems.

    As I related that to the correlational matrix, the narrative is not new. Baby brides is thematic or should we say paralleled to the village fathers (of present day) failing or neglecting to see the importance of having Black Queens design the systems for which they will be part of and who will ultimately be responsible for--in your words--the 'continuance' of the civilization. Said another way, the basis for any Afrikan system must be what Queen Amadiume calls the "motherhood ideology."

    Why the fear of "motherhood ideology"?

    Whooaaa...you putting it down Queen Fieldpea...pardon me in being so behind because I got so much to comment on what you're writing. I already know I won't be able to keep up though:lol:
     
Loading...