How historically and scientifically accurate is "The Origin of the Family, Private P"

[Dogs On Acid]

Currently about 1/5th into the book. Quite good so far. But I'm always skeptical to it's validity, taking into account it was published 118 years ago...

Edit: The name of the topic doesn't fit. Could the mods edit the name of the topic to:

"How accurate is "The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State""

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Take Engels' opinions on the existence of matriarchy with a huge grain of salt. In fact, it's no longer scientifically tenable. If you look on permanent-revolutionDOTorg, and read "To know a thing is to know its end", Trotskyists Alex Steiner and Frank Brenner discuss the book in the context of a heated polemic; this took place between them and the Northist SEP. Section 9 of the essay focuses on Engels' book.

[Dogs On Acid]

Take Engels' opinions on the existence of matriarchy with a huge grain of salt. In fact, it's no longer scientifically tenable. If you look on permanent-revolutionDOTorg, and read "To know a thing is to know its end", Trotskyists Alex Steiner and Frank Brenner discuss the book in the context of a heated polemic; this took place between them and the Northist SEP. Section 9 of the essay focuses on Engels' book.

Could you please post a link?

Engels' argument on the transition to patriarchy is the progressively focused inheritance to the father and his children, instead of the mother and her gens. This in turn gave the father material power over the life of his wife, by owning tools of acquiring food and owning the roof over the family's head.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Could you please post a link?

Engels' argument on the transition to patriarchy is the progressively focused inheritance to the father and his children, instead of the mother and her gens. This in turn gave the father material power over the life of his wife, by owning tools of acquiring food and owning the roof over the family's head.
That isn't possible, seeing as I don't yet have 25 posts. I gave you the link already. You just can't click on it.

[RedGrunt]

I was under the impression that in anthropology the notion of 'matriarchy' was still up to debate? I know there was a period where it declined as an explanation, but I thought that it had been brought back more recently? Regardless, I'd be interested in what people think of Engel's book and how valid it is.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Take Engels' opinions on the existence of matriarchy with a huge grain of salt. In fact, it's no longer scientifically tenable.How is it scientifically untenable? I know of no evidence for the existence of matriarchies in the past and I can totally understand if past speculation was based on evidence that has more or less been show to have been misread or unreliable. But I don't see how a physical science could really disprove a past form of possible social arrangement.

[coda]

I haven't studied the text in question thoroughly.. but I know Engels mentioned there in the text of the Iroquois nations in relation to Matriarchies of having formed political structures where the women held power economically, politically as well as socially and religion, where power was passed down matrilineally. Thus, would constitute a Matriarchy. How they chose to delegate power however, was to politically share it with their men counterparts, democratically electing positions of leadership. Their form of matriarchy was in no way gender-exclusive and dehumanizing as Partriarchy.

[bcbm]

there are matriarchies (the minangkabau for example) and it is quite possible pre-agricultural human society was more matriarchal but the problem is that those looking for evidence of matriarchies often expect to see an inverse of patriarchy with women being tyrants, when in fact matriarchies seem to be more egalitarian in their power dynamics. in any case, patriarchy is certainly the result of sedentary agricultural societies and was likely non-existent in foraging societies.

[Blanquist]

I don't understand, I never read this Engels book because I didn't understand what he was talking about.

Did he say matriarchy existed and now people are saying it never existed?

What about current China? The women is the boss and controls all the money, Shanghai men cook and clean, etc.

[bcbm]

Did he say matriarchy existed and now people are saying it never existed?

basically.



What about current China? The women is the boss and controls all the money, Shanghai men cook and clean, etc.

i don't think this necessarily says anything about whether the society is patriarchal or matriarchal but for counterpoint- female infanticide.

[Blanquist]

basically.



i don't think this necessarily says anything about whether the society is patriarchal or matriarchal but for counterpoint- female infanticide.

It's really part of the culture in Shanghai, the men cook and clean and give all of their paycheck to the wife and she controls how it is spent.

It's extreme in among the Shanghai people but much less so in other parts of China. There are more women than men in Shanghai.

[bcbm]

engels relies a lot on morgan and the belief in monogamy or polygyny in pre-agricultural societies which is probably false.


It's really part of the culture in Shanghai, the men cook and clean and give all of their paycheck to the wife and she controls how it is spent.

It's extreme in among the Shanghai people but much less so in other parts of China. There are more women than men in Shanghai.

again i don't think this means anything about whether a society is matriarchal or patriarchal.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I haven't studied the text in question thoroughly.. but I know Engels mentioned there in the text of the Iroquois nations in relation to Matriarchies of having formed political structures where the women held power economically, politically as well as socially and religion, where power was passed down matrilineally. Thus, would constitute a Matriarchy. How they chose to delegate power however, was to politically share it with their men counterparts, democratically electing positions of leadership. Their form of matriarchy was in no way gender-exclusive and dehumanizing as Partriarchy.

In "A People's History" I think Zinn's argument is that the Iroquois nations generally had male-only voting, but because women controlled a portion of production that no decisions could actually be made without consent from women. It's been a while since I read that section and I've only read a couple of other things about the Iroquois (also not recently), so I could be wrong.