We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Quite some time ago, I read about a people -I think it was a people of islanders in the Pacific Ocean- where women were displaying what is considered in Western societies as a masculine behaviour, and, in reverse, where men were “effeminate”.
I do not know where I heard about this people and even if it does exist at all.
Do you have any recollection of such a people and which one it may be?
N.B. There is no sociology nor anthropology This Site and I thought this post made more sense in the history website. Please move it to another forum if I was mistaken.
You may be thinking of the Vanatinai people.
From a NY Times article on the Vanatinai:
Dr. Lepowsky found evidence of the equality on every hand. Unlike other Pacific cultures, Vanatinai has no special men's meeting houses or male cult activities. The language is gender-neutral, with no pronouns like he or she. Boys as well as girls care for younger siblings, and men are expected to share in child care as fathers. In many other New Guinea societies, which consider women inferior to men, menstruation is thought of as a form of pollution and menstruating women must go into seclusion, but not on Vanatinai. Women there also have as much sexual freedom as men…
The new husband is expected to spend several months to a year in "bride service," living with and working for the wife's parents and presumably earning their approval. Later on, the couple normally alternates living with the wife's kin and the husband's.
It's not a complete role reversal, but the Vanatinai are much closer to gender egalitarianism than anthropologists generally find.
Reminds me of this aspect of Korean culture:
The haenyeo, literally meaning "sea women", are female divers in the Korean province of Jeju. They are representative of the matriarchal family structure of Jeju [… ] It could also be said that women simply were more adapted for the job, with their bodies keeping them warmer and being more suited to swimming than a male, with more body fat.
Traditional gender roles are hurting both men and women. Here’s how we can fix that
D espite what many of us want to believe, the gender divide in our culture remains very much alive.
It stems, in part, from a stubborn cultural insistence that men and women play traditional — and inherently unequal — gender roles.
The evidence exists everywhere. At home, women still carry much of the domestic and child-raising burden, in spite of the fact that studies showhaving both parents equally involved at home improves children’s well-being and school performance.
Furthermore, despite recent policy initiatives designed to promote gender equality in the workplace, gender diversity among corporate leadership teams remains low — something that’s often justified by the problematic reasoning that women aren’t qualified for leadership because they’re inherently too emotional or might become pregnant, two timeless staples of gender stereotyping.
Personally, I’ve witnessed this both in my career and at home.
At home, my career initially took the backseat to my husband’s because I had to be that stabilizing force for my family. And when I did go back into the workforce, I made less money and had to fight harder than my male counterparts to obtain the senior management and leadership roles I deserved.
The difference was so great that when I became a co-pastor at World Changers, I made combatting the gender divide a key priority.
A Simple Way to Understand the Origin of Gender Roles
As evidenced by the infamous Google Memo debacle a few years ago, there is much confusion in our society regarding the best way to think about gender similarities and differences. From the vantage point of the unified theory, people are generally using only two “vectors” in thinking about sex and gender, when the reality is that we need three.
The two vectors are the so-called "biological" and "social" forces. The biological generally refers to the genetic, physiological, evolutionary, and hormonal “nature” dimension, whereas societal roles, norms, ideals, and expectations for how men and women ought to act form the "social force" dimension. What is missing in this analysis is a clear understanding of the human mental architecture that is neither a purely "biological" nor "social" force.
A recent article in the American Psychologist on gender stereotypes makes the problem clear. Alice Eagly and colleagues examined the gender stereotypes of people in the United State from 1946 to 2018.
Specifically, Eagly et al. examined perceptions of men and women on agency, which the authors define as the tendency to “orient toward the self and one’s own mastery and goal attainment (e.g., ambitious, assertive, competitive),” and communion, which the authors define as the tendency to orient toward the “other and their well-being (e.g., compassionate, warm, expressive).” The authors note: “Communion prevails in the female stereotype, and agency in the male stereotype.”
Consistent with my point above about "biology" versus "society," the Eagly article explains that there are two primary ways of understanding why people tend to see men as more agentic and women more communal. They state: “Although some people ascribe such trait essences to biology, others instead ascribe them to socialization and social position in society” (Rangel & Keller, 2011).
The article does not explore human mental architecture, nor core mental relational tendencies, like attachment style. For the article, the authors examined stereotypes on agency and communion over 50+ years in the U.S. They also included a third construct, competency (i.e., the extent to which men or women were perceived as the generally more or less competent or intelligent). What did they find?
Over the years, women were seen as increasingly more competent, such that they now are rated as the more competent and intelligent group. We should note that this is an interesting and somewhat counterintuitive finding, given the claims by some that modern society is pervasively sexist. I agree with Eagly et al.'s interpretation of this finding, which is that as women have been given the freedom to attain and have now regularly outpaced men in things like educational attainment, people are evaluating their general competence accordingly.
Our primary focus here is on the agency and communion variables. Given the remarkable change in attitudes toward gender in the last 50 years, and the huge societal push to see men and women as having no essential (i.e., nonsocially constructed) differences, and all the work to challenge gender stereotypes and move away from a socially constructed gender binary, it seems to me that a basic, straightforward prediction would be that the differences between the stereotypes that people have about men being more agentic and women being more communal would be expected to go way down.
After all, if we are awakening to the idea that the gender identity binary is simply a function of the social construction of reality, then shouldn't our newfound freedom allow us to be unshackled from these primitive notions and allow people to toss off the shell of rules imposed upon them by society?
What did the study find? A massive convergence, stemming from enlightenment about the true nature of gender as a social construction? Not at all. In fact, they found basically the opposite.
The perceived differences between men and women increased over the years. Women are now seen as even more communal, whereas men generally stayed the same on their perceived agentic advantage. This means that the perceived distance between the key personality features of the two genders is now even greater than 50 years ago.
In the words of the authors: “In sum, U.S. poll data show that it is only in competence that gender equality has come to dominate people’s thinking about women and men. For qualities of personality, the past 73 years have produced an accentuated stereotype of women as the more communal sex, with men retaining their agency advantage."
The authors used tortured logic to try to defend their social role construction view that “gender stereotypes stem from people’s direct and indirect observations of women and men in their social roles.” Although clearly social roles play a huge part in how people experience their gender and sexuality, from the vantage point of the unified theory, it is not the primary origin/source of the gender differences (see here, here, and here for analyses of gender from this perspective).
So what is the source of the gender differences in agency and communion? On aggregate, human males and females have different relational tendencies.
Just as the description of agency suggests, on average men tend to be more “self-over-other” oriented, whereas on average women are more “other-over-self” (i.e., communal). (Hopefully, readers will be clear that aggregate claims of population-level differences are different than claims about specific individuals).
This is not hard to understand when we map the human relationship system using the "Influence Matrix." The Influence Matrix says that humans have an intuitive mental architecture that (pre-verbally) guides their perceptual-motivational-emotional ways of being the world in relation to others.
Specifically, we humans automatically and intuitively map our place in the “social influence matrix.” That is, we are constantly tracking self-in-relation-to-other, and use that to act accordingly. Here is the map.
The idea is that folks perceive self-in-relation-to-other on these dimensions. We track first our "relational value and social influence," which is the black line. And we also track our relative power (dominance-submission), love (affiliation-hostility), and freedom (autonomy-dependency).
How we see ourselves in relation to others on these process dimensions plays a guiding role in navigating the social world. It is important to note that basically all scholars of the human condition agree that humans are social animals and that they care about things like attachment and love and status and power.
And it is generally agreed that these drives are not socially constructed, but are at the core of our structure and existed long before modern society. From this vantage point, it is a function of our mental structure rather than our "socialization" that gives rise to patterns like the fact that if we don't experience high relational value in our development, then we are much more likely to get depressed (see here).
Directly relevant to the issue at hand, we see the Influence Matrix includes two “self-other” quadrants, one of which is the upper left corner and the other is the lower right. The upper left is “self over other” and emphasizes the poles of dominance, autonomy (i.e., independent goal attainment), and hostility. The lower right, aka the “other over self,” quadrant emphasizes affiliation, dependence (i.e., longing for connection and need for approval), and submissive deference to others.
In other words, the Influence Matrix clearly maps the core representations of the central features of "agency" and "communion."
It is essential that we recognize that this human mental architecture existed long before the social construction of reality (which is perhaps only 50,000 to 150,000 years old), and is certainly much older than ideas about what is socially justifiable for how men and women should act in the 21st century.
The Matrix goes back to a time when we were primates rather than persons thus we are talking about tens of millions of years. The Influence Matrix analysis directly accounts for the counterintuitive finding from the Eagly article and provides a frame that explains why gender stereotypes are so "robust" (to use their word).
To begin with, the Matrix explains in a direct and straightforward way why there are “self-over-other” and “other-over-self” tendencies and archetypes in the first place. Notice, this says nothing about males/masculinity or females/femininity per se. It simply says something about the mental architecture needed to navigate the social world. However, we can then use basic logic to understand why, on aggregate, males/men tend toward the former and females/women the latter.
For example, long before we were humans, females were giving birth and taking care of their young. Is it any surprise at all that their architecture would be more relationally oriented? My point is that we can analyze the general relational features of being a male and female human primate and see that males tend to lean relatively more toward self-over-other, whereas females tend to lean toward other-over-self.
This analysis means that Eagly et al have the explanatory sequence backward. Rather than social roles driving the perception of difference, it is clear from this analysis that the mental architecture is prior, and is the primary driver of the personality differences and people's perception of them.
As such, the Matrix helps explain other "counterintuitive" findings about gender role/job preferences, like the Nordic gender-equity paradox, which is the finding that greater gender equity in social roles and expectations is associated with greater (not lesser) divergence in things like employment preferences.
The real point is that our society is painfully confused in its understanding of sex and gender differences (and similarities!). A core reason for our confusion is we have an unhelpful "biology" versus "sociology" binary—as if these are the only two forces, and we need to choose either one or the other.
Of course, in the real world, forces are interacting all over the place. Moreover, there are "mental" forces that are neither "biological" nor "social." Rather, we need a clear analysis of the animal-mental dimension of complexity, which as the Tree of Knowledge shows us, is its own plane of complex adaptive behavior and is different from both the "Cell-Life" biological plane and "Person-Culture" societal plane.
By mapping the mental architecture of the human relationship system, the Influence Matrix fills in the missing piece of the puzzle. With it, perhaps we can achieve more light and less heat on this polarizing issue.
"The Future of Men" explores evolving gender roles
With the role of men in society evolving, and a power shift toward women at work and home, the "traditional" male is dying out, according to author Jack Myers.
Myers argues men will "be increasingly defined, dominated, and controlled by women" in his new book, "The Future of Men: Masculinity in the Twenty-First Century."
"These young men are not their fathers, they're not their grandfathers. Young men who are growing up more and more in fatherless homes, growing up in homes where the woman is out-earning her husband, where they're both working -- they're not just defying traditional gender norms," Myers said Tuesday on "CBS This Morning."
Myers said younger men are "out-educated by women" and being "out-performed" by women economically, defining the last generation of "traditional" men as those in their late 20s.
"The jobs that are being created now in the workplace are requiring a college education. Only 40 percent of college degrees are going to men versus 60 percent going to women, which is a flip of where we were in the 1970s," Myers said. "Economically, under 30, single, unmarried women are out-earning single, unmarried, childless men under 30 by almost 20 percent."
New York Times reporter and CBS News contributor Jodi Kantor, who has written extensively about gender and workplace issues, said in her reporting, she has heard "everyday dilemmas" of people who are trying to navigate the "new system."
"What we see in our reporting is really that gender roles are converging more than ever before in society, whether you look at women taking combat positions in the military or fathers staying home -- almost nobody is living out the kind of gender script or marriage script that their parents did. And we find a lot of social confusion," Kantor said sitting alongside Myers on "CBS This Morning."
Confusion can also surface when younger men, who may not have necessarily learned "traditional gender norms" at home, enter the workforce and are imposed with the various "norms," Myers said.
"We need to change the narrative around young men, and we also need to create a better sense of the man's role in a relationship and help him understand," Myers said, pointing to the need of more dynamic portrayal of men in media and advertising.
Stay-at-home dads, for example, have increased from 1.1. million in 1989 to 2 million in 2012, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
However, Myers said the new generation of men aren't getting the kind of support that women have had, and his book aims to provide men with tools to embrace the shifting gender roles.
"Churches, local organizations, community group are not supporting men the way they're supporting women. And men are not supporting men the way that women are supporting women," Myers said.
But working women in America are still earning .79 for every $1.00 men make, and top CEOs across industries and political leadership positions are still dominated by men, leaving Kantor to point out that "barriers for women are especially stubborn in many cases."
"So we've got this complex, duel situation that often ends up feeling less like men are dominant, then women are dominant -- but that people are sharing the anxiety of earning money and raising a family more equally than ever before," she said.
European History & The Origin of Gender Roles
My original question was: “What was the origin of the idea of gender roles in our society?” Below is a compilation of what I found, and basically the idea that women should stay home and be the caregiver because they are the weaker sex, while the men, because they are stronger, would run the home, rule the tribe and then the world, does not reflect the attitudes of our Ancestors. My sources mostly include books which cite historical accounts of the people encountered within our race and our pre-Christian lore.
I will begin with a non-peer reviewed scientific essay (which cites peer-reviewed sources) that describes how the introduction of the plow within communities over time, changed the view of the community regarding male and female “roles”. What this research shows is that there is a correlation between agriculture advancement (the introduction of the plow) and the eventual subjugation of women and that it originated in the middle east around 4,000 BC and not in Europe. In fact we do not see this ideology (gender roles) reflected within Europe (and especially within tribes that had no contact with the Arabs) until after 1,100 AD and the introduction of the plow during the Roman Empire days.
Here I will give some quotes from the paper.
…We find that, consistent with existing hypotheses, the descendants of societies that traditionally practiced plough agriculture, today have lower rates of female participation in the workplace, in politics, and in entrepreneurial activities, as well as a greater prevalence of attitudes favoring gender inequality…
…Men tended to work outside of the home in the fields, while women specialized in activities within the home. This division of labor then generated norms about the appropriate role of women in society. Societies characterized by plough agriculture, and a resulting gender-based division of labor, developed the belief that the natural place for women is within the home…
…A particularly interesting example is Fernand Braudel’s (1998) description of how gender relations, culture, and society were impacted by the adoption of the plough in Mesopotamia between 4,000 and 6,000 BC. He writes: “Until now, women had been in charge of the fields and gardens where cereals were grown: everything had depended on their tilling the soil and tending the crop. Men had been first hunters, then herdsmen. But now men took over the plough, which they alone were allowed to use. At a stroke, it might seem that the society would move from being matriarchal to patriarchal: that there would be a shift away from the reign of the all-powerful mother goddesses. . . and towards the male gods and priests who were predominant in Sumer and Babylon. . . and was accompanied with a move towards male domination of society and its beliefs”…
So within the paper we can see the research that links plow use between 4,000 and 6,000 BC in Mesopotamia, to when ideologies started to change regarding women. It should be no surprise that within the cultures present in “Mesopotamia” (Modern day Iraq and surrounding areas) where the plow was first introduced, that women today are treated the worst in the world, in fact they are quite literally 2nd class beings, sometimes regarded as less than “human”. These ideologies are well rooted by time… we are talking some 8,000 years.
This idea that women are less than their male counterparts is reflected within all of their religious belief systems. According to the Old Testament and/or the Torah we are told that the MALE god created man first and from man he created woman to be man’s servant (help mate).
The Creation of Eve
Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being.
Genesis 2:21 … but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
Genesis 2:22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”
This attitude that man is first continues and is expounded upon within the Christian books:
1 Corinthians 11:8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man.
1 Corinthians 11:9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
1 Corinthians 14:34 women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
1 Timothy 2:11-13 A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, and then Eve.…
Titus 2:5 to be self-controlled, pure, managers of their households, kind, and subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be discredited.
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
- We learn that the idea that there should be gender roles is linked to the introduction of the plow and men working in the field, women spending more time within the home.
- The introduction of the plow has its origins in Mesopotamia, modern day Iraq, not Europe.
- The ideology that women belong to men is reinforced within the desert dwelling peoples “Laws” and religions all the way to today (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). I quoted the Christian scriptures because our people are mostly under its influence, however, you can find in each of the three the same ideology regarding females, ie: Sharia within Islam.
- We already know that the Semitic god (Jehovah, Jesus, Allah) is male and has no female counterpart.
Note: I think it is absolutely deplorable that we as a people know more about these nasty non-white invaders’ history than we do of our own history. And what is even more disgusting is that some (well a fair majority anyway) of our race actually believe that the history in the bible is their race’s history.
Now when we look upon our history, the pieces that were not destroyed by the introduction of Christianity, we see an entirely different view of women, a view that does not reflect “gender roles”. Below I will offer proof, though limited in scope, for which I do believe counters the above and leaves no doubt in my mind that our folk never thought of our women in any way like the Semitic people do, in fact it is completely opposite.
Note: The introduction of the plow and the introduction of Christianity are, get this, during the same time frame. The heavy plow came to Europe in the early Middle Ages from around year 900 to 1300 AD. [Source]
Christianity, as we all know, even though it was introduced to our folk starting in the year 350 AD, didn’t take hold of all of our people until around 1200 to 1300 AD.
Now I will attempt to show that before the introduction of the plow and Christianity our folk valued women. Women were leaders, priestesses, warriors, and sought after for healing (doctors) and were highly respected for their counsel. I will show by example that men and women worked together, fought together and ruled together, and that we had Priestesses as well as Priests. That the old Gods, the True Gods of our folk, included both Male and Female and that the Feminine is what rules our lives and determines our fate. That the aspect of our “higher self” is female, yes even if you are a male.
I’ll begin with a few excerpts from a book entitled “History of the Northmen”
Things I noted: Both men and women hunted together:
men and women hunted together
We all know of the infamous “Berserkers”, well women also became “mentally diseased” with what they describe as an illness…
Martial Insanity = Berserker
Even the female sex did not escape the “martial fury”
From this one source we can see that men and women shared work, and shared the battle field both on land and at sea. We were together.
The above is just one source, we have others. The “myth” of the Amazon Women actually has historical basis, as we can see with the blonde hair, blue eyed people who ruled a vast area of Europe for many thousands of years. They were known as the Sarmatians. Historical documents tell us about these people. One thing to note is that women played a prominent role in warfare.
The Sarmatians emerged in the 7th century BC in a region of the steppe to the east of the Don River and south of the Ural Mountains in Eastern Europe. For centuries they lived in relatively peaceful co-existence with their western neighbors the Scythians. Then, in the 3rd century BC, they fought with the Scythians on the Pontic steppe to the north of the Black Sea. The Sarmatians were to dominate these territories over the next five centuries. Pliny the Elder (23–79 AD) wrote that they ranged from the Vistula River (in present-day Poland) to the Danube.
Herodotus (4.110–117) credits the unusual social freedoms of Sauromatae women, including participation in warfare, as an inheritance from their supposed Amazon ancestors. Later writers refer to the “woman-ruled Sarmatae” (γυναικοκρατούμενοι).
Hippocrates explicitly classes them as Scythian and describes their warlike women and their customs:
Their women, so long as they are virgins, ride, shoot, throw the javelin while mounted, and fight with their enemies. They do not lay aside their virginity until they have killed three of their enemies, and they do not marry before they have performed the traditional sacred rites. A woman who takes to herself a husband no longer rides, unless she is compelled to do so by a general expedition. They have no right breast for while they are yet babies their mothers make red-hot a bronze instrument constructed for this very purpose and apply it to the right breast and cauterize it, so that its growth is arrested, and all its strength and bulk are diverted to the right shoulder and right arm.
Another tribe called the Cimbri who were classified as a Germanic People (tall and blue eyed) that lived in the North, aka: Jutland, shows a similar relation between men and women, and that the women accompanied the men on their expeditions:
Cimbri footnotes, Teutonic Mythology Volume 1 by Jacob Grimm
Strabo gives this vivid description of the Cimbric folklore (Geogr. 7.2.3, trans. H.L. Jones):
Their wives, who would accompany them on their expeditions, were attended by priestesses who were seers these were grey-haired, clad in white, with flaxen cloaks fastened on with clasps, girt with girdles of bronze, and bare-footed now sword in hand these priestesses would meet with the prisoners of war throughout the camp, and having first crowned them with wreaths would lead them to a brazen vessel of about twenty amphorae and they had a raised platform which the priestess would mount, and then, bending over the kettle, would cut the throat of each prisoner after he had been lifted up and from the blood that poured forth into the vessel some of the priestesses would draw a prophecy, while still others would split open the body and from an inspection of the entrails would utter a prophecy of victory for their own people and during the battles they would beat on the hides that were stretched over the wicker-bodies of the wagons and in this way produce an unearthly noise.
The Cimbri are depicted as ferocious warriors who did not fear death. The host was followed by women and children on carts. Aged women, priestesses, dressed in white sacrificed the prisoners of war and sprinkled their blood, the nature of which allowed them to see what was to come.
Something we need to note here is the age of the women priestesses – they were OLD, they had long GREY hair. This counters the argument I hear all the time that a woman is all washed up by the time she is 30 definitely by the time she is 40 because she can no longer bear children. Such a shame that the Semitic thought footprint is so engraved upon our folk that our men would actually think the only thing women were good for or best at was furthering the race.
Next we can enter the Icini tribe of Britian who led by their Queen Boudica, attacked the Romans.
Gaius Suetonius Paulinus, was campaigning in Wales, Boudica led the Iceni and the neighbouring Trinovantes in a large-scale revolt:
…a terrible disaster occurred in Britain. Two cities were sacked, eighty thousand of the Romans and of their allies perished, and the island was lost to Rome. Moreover, all this ruin was brought upon the Romans by a woman, a fact which in itself caused them the greatest shame… But the person who was chiefly instrumental in rousing the natives and persuading them to fight the Romans, the person who was thought worthy to be their leader and who directed the conduct of the entire war, was Buduica, a Briton woman of the royal family and possessed of greater intelligence than often belongs to women… In stature she was very tall, in appearance most terrifying, in the glance of her eye most fierce, and her voice was harsh a great mass of the tawniest hair fell to her hips around her neck was a large golden necklace and she wore a tunic of divers colours over which a thick mantle was fastened with a brooch. This was her invariable attire.
In the above I have used just 3 sources that show before the Christian influence was forced upon our folk (from all regions of Europe) that men and women worked TOGETHER especially when it meant defending one’s tribe or community. It is plain to see that no one scoffed at the idea of a male leader or warrior, nor did they scoff with a female leader or warrior. Why should we scoff at this idea today? Have we been looking at the relationship between men and women with a Semitic lens?
What about the Vikings? Well, in my opinion, the Vikings arrive near the end of our folk, right at the cusp of complete Christian takeover. We know the Vikings were a well traveled people. We can see within their laws (from 920’s called the Grey Goose Laws) the Jewish and possibly Islamic influences, which were, get this, introduced by an immigrant. Even so, we can however find bits of the Heathen way within the Sagas. Here is one example:
In the first few chapters of Laxdæla saga tells the story of Unnur djúpúðga (the Deep Minded), who was already widowed when she left Norway for Scotland with her father and son. When they, too, were killed, she felt that she had to leave Scotland and join the remainder of her family in Iceland. She arranged for a ship to be built, gathered her family and followers, and sailed for Iceland. Once in Iceland, she claimed land, settled there, arranged for a farm to be built, and then ran the farm. Over the years, she gave away portions of her land holdings to supporters, and arranged marriages for her daughters. When she died, she was laid in a ship in a burial mound, an honor by that time, usually reserved for men.
What about the rest of our lore, our Native Spirituality? What examples does it give us on how men and women regarded each other? Does it show a submissive female, one who is bound to the duty of her husband? One who if it was not for the man would not have been created? Or does it show and promote strong women, women who were not just beautiful but also revered for their wisdom?
In our creation story we are told that the first two humans were created out of trees. In case you think this is a wild concept, remember that trees represent DNA. They were both created at the same time from different types of trees. One was not made from the other. In reality and within all of nature it takes a male and a female TOGETHER to create human life, (in fact all animal life) which proceeds forth only from the female. The whole idea that woman came out of a man is absolutely ludicrous, is totally unnatural and serves only one purpose.
The creation of Ask and Embla
All of our Ancestor’s major Gods were married to Goddesses and they all brought forth children. The fact that they had children did not hinder in any way the role of either God or Goddess.
For instance, Odin was married to Frigg and both sit TOGETHER on the high seat that overlooks the world.
In Grímnismál, Odin and Frigg are both sitting in Hliðskjálf
Next we will look at what is known as Sedir, a Norse term for a form of Shamanism. We can see that the “gender role” has crept in during the Viking Age because supposedly it was unmanly for a man to be a Sedir it was looked at as solely a woman’s job (as part of her “gifts” from the Gods). But what does our Godly example show? Two of the Aesir and Vanir deities are noted masters of seidr: the Goddess Freya and the God Odin. Both can be seen as the Godly models of seidr practitioners among their respective genders. That Odin was seen as a master also shows us that there was not a distinction between male and female roles, especially godly ones until a later time within our lore.
The roles of the Seidr
We also have a term for the Chief and Priest of the klan or folk. Again this position was not limited to men. We know this because of the words used, a A goði or gothi is the Old Norse term for a priest and chieftain. Gyðja signifies a priestess. Again we see no separation between males and females.
While men were remembered for their deeds (Heroes) the females were highly revered for their wisdom in our history:
Teutonic Mythology Volume 1 by Jacob Grimm
In contrast the Semitic attitude is that woman should remain silent, especially in church and are not allowed to become priests. In fact it was our beloved, wise and much sought after Seidr who by doctrine (law) were made into witches and devils and burned alive in the name of Christianity. And since it was customary for this profession to be mostly female, it was a direct assault against our wise and gifted women folk.
Another example we have of teamwork is our Gods and Goddess of War.
Freya is a goddess of war (she also has other attributes). The name of her house in Asgard is Sessrumnir placed on the field Fólkvangr, which means “field of the host”, “people field” or “army field” It is a place where half of those that die in a battle go for the afterlife, while Odin will receive the other half. Freya is always given the first choice. After she had picked the ones she wanted, the rest were sent to Odin.
Odin is a god of war (he also has other attributes). Odin is in charge of a place called Valhalla, where the dead warriors that are chosen by the Valkyries go. These dead warriors train daily until the great battle arrives that they partake in called Ragnarok.
Valkyrie, a group of maidens who served the god Odin and were sent by him to the battlefields to choose the who were slain and of those, who were worthy of a place in Valhalla. While the theme is that Freya gets first choice and Odin second, it is only through the Valkyries that this choice is made. Odin does not choose these warriors himself.
Our beloved primordial beings collectively known as the “Norns” the weavers of fate are all female beings.
Also found within our lore is a primordial female being called a Hamingja (pronounced “HAHM-ing-ya”). Today she would be considered your guardian angel or your higher self (she is actually a combination of the two). She knows everything about you and she carries the memories of your ancestors. It is she who speaks for you at death. She is not bound to you. If you are a wicked, evil person she can rip herself away from you and when that happens you are basically doomed to the dark regions of Hel. (Note: our Hel, unlike the Christian hell has many regions.) This is the “SHE” that Miguel Serrano is referring to in all of his works, his “beloved”.
Your Hamingja is what can “reincarnate” today as one of your ancestors. Because of her, we are not only connected through blood (DNA) but through her we also connect our Higher Self – Soul – Guardian Angel to our Ancestors. It is she who has the power of restoring blood memory and gives guidance (intuition).
According to Serrano, men have a soul – their Hamingja and women ARE a soul.
Now even though we can see that within our history, men and women had shared duties including on the battlefield, that women were not created to be a man’s subject, and that women were revered for their wisdom even in old age, this does not mean that men were not required to be “Manly”. Men were expected to be strong “he men” warriors, not the sissified puff masters we see trolling the streets today. What the faggots call a “White Knight” or “Alpha Male” was normal for our men. We know this because of the 3 main swear words that if one was called unjustly would require the recipient to avenge himself by killing the accuser. Being too feminine was not allowed. Having male gay relations was not allowed. The swear words are ragr, strodinn, and sordinn, all three meaning the passive role of a man included in same-sex activities among males.
Our men also treated their female counterparts with the utmost respect and adoration. Never do we read within our pre-Christian history of men who mistreated, berated or placed their wives under subjection.
This should bring new light to the verse of the bible (a book from our enemy) which says at 1 Corinthians 1:19 For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate”. How ironic is it that our wise were our women? How ironic is it that these enemies of ours instilled a belief so strong that our highly valued women, women who were revered second only to the Gods for their wisdom and advise would be demoralized and destroyed?
Teutonic Mythology Volume 1 by Jacob Grimm Teutonic Mythology Volume 1 by Jacob Grimm
How could we allow as a people this foreign influence about women to poison our very souls? And we wonder what happened, how did things get so bad? Well when you take away the “wisdom” of the people, our greatest gift, and turn them into demons and sinners bound for hell it sure makes for a dumber society, doesn’t it? Enough is enough!
In conclusion I will say this, one of the most important duties a woman has is in bringing forth life and rearing her children. One of the most important duties of a man is in making sure his family is safe and is not wanting. Procreation is our #1 goal, second should be in rearing our children with our TRUE traditional values. Especially today, when we are facing extinction as a race. We must not allow our children to continue to fall into the Semitic cultural trap, a trap that was devised and perfected a long time ago to destroy the unity of family bond, and within this bond the working together of both male and female for a stronger family and by extension, race. Our men and women have, before the Christian influence, worked together in all aspects of life. No one was ever denied a position, high or low, based on their gender. No one, not even the Gods… and this is what made us stronger. Today we can plainly see that the effects of the Semitic “gender role” ideology the separation of the male and female that was forced upon our folk, has made us weaker as a family, as a folk and as a race.
You can download Jacob Grimm’s Teutonic Mythology and other great works by visiting this website.
Posts Related to 6 Traditional Gender Roles: Are They Good for Modern Relationships? That We Thought You Would Like: Staff Picked Interesting Articles Worth Reading
What Do Men And Women Really Want From Their Relationships
When it comes to maintaining a relationship, it always requires a certain amount of effort on both sides. However, things may become much easier if you know exactly what men want in a relationship, and what women are looking for. Read this article for some tips on communication, personal space, and cheating.
Age Difference in Relationships: Is it Possible to Close the Age Gap?
Making your relationship as quality as possible is something every couple strives for. Finding your soulmate and a person who understands you doesn’t necessarily mean that there isn’t a big age difference between you two. The only thing that is different is the fact that you might have different views on life at one point as well as different priorities, which you should coordinate with each other in order to make everything work.
Why Do People Cheat in Relationships? 7 Excuses Cheaters Make
Being cheated on is not a pleasant feeling and certainly not something people want for themselves, yet it is a common thing today, within many relationships and marriages. It is good to know why some people cheated, to be able to better understand causes and to eventually prevent being cheated on.
Bad Relationships? 7 Relationship Signs that You and Him Are Toxic
When you read this article, you might find the answer as to why your relationship is having a downfall. Your relationship might be saved. So go ahead and read on these signs before it is too late!
9 Reasons Why Family Oriented Women Make the Best Girlfriends
As a family oriented girl, you are probably well-rounded and understand the purpose for you being here. There is no time for you to wonder what the future will bring, as you have family obligations now to take care of. This makes you a great prospect as a girlfriend, because many guys want a girl who will take care of them and their future children.
[International] Looking Beyond Traditional Gender Roles to a World Where Childcare and Household Chores are Shared Equally
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, many people have found themselves unemployed or with drastically reduced hours, while others have shifted to working from home. And the closing of schools and other childcare services has meanwhile dramatically increased the burden of unpaid care work on families – especially women.
"Look Beyond" is a new campaign that seeks to ensure that this burden is equally shared by both men and women, and encourages society to look beyond traditional masculine and feminine roles to a world where household chores and childcare have no gender.
Implemented jointly by UN Women and UNFPA, the campaign is taking place in the Eastern Partnership[i], within the framework of a European Union-funded regional programme. It was designed around the belief that the unprecedented situation of a world-altering pandemic can also provide us with a unique opportunity: to address imbalanced power dynamics and preconceptions about what women and men can and should do, that are at the root of the unequal distribution of unpaid care work.
Men doing more unpaid care work means that women will be under much less stress, will have more time to dedicate to their professional development and will be empowered to transcend outdated gender roles in other ways. Challenging gender stereotypes within the family and encouraging men to understand and define their masculinity in different ways has also been shown to decrease the number of incidents of domestic violence, allowing women to feel safer in their own homes.
Survey finds UK is abandoning traditional views of gender roles
In the 1950s, it was a given that women should have dinner ready, touch up their makeup, tidy up and silence the children before their husbands came home from work.
How far we’ve come. According to a new survey, entitled British Social Attitudes 35, nearly three-quarters of the British public now disagree with the attitude that women should look after the home while men are out earning a living.
Traditional views of gender roles have continued to decline, according to the latest survey of social attitudes by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), with 72% disputing the conservative view that women should dedicate themselves to housework, compared with 58% 10 years ago.
The reverse opinion held as recently as 1988, when 48% felt a woman’s place was in the home and only a third disagreed with the traditional model of family life.
Men lag six percentage points behind women in their abandonment of traditional roles, the data showed. Age too, was a factor: 45- to 54-year-olds were most likely to disagree with women staying at home. And those with more educations and higher household incomes were also more likely to support women in the workplace.
Attitudes towards mothers of young children going to work were more nuanced, with a third of Britons saying they thought those with pre-school children should remain at home – a figure unchanged in five years.
In that period, there has been a fall of five percentage points in the proportion who believe those women should take up part-time work, to 38%. There was also a slight fall in the proportion of respondents who thought mothers should work part- or full-time once their offspring are at school, down four points to 76%.
“The people of Britain are moving away from the idea that men should be breadwinners and women homemakers,” said Nancy Kelley, the deputy chief executive of NatCen.
“Yet when we asked people if they thought mothers of pre-school age children should work, we found no increase in support in recent years, against a backdrop of several policy changes aiming to help working families manage work and childcare.
“People are supportive of parental leave being shared between men and women but, in practice, very few actually do. This suggests that government must look beyond the law if they are hoping to balance raising a child between mums and dads.”
Every year since 1983, NatCen has interviewed more than 3,000 people about life in the UK and the way that the country is run. New questions are added each year, but all are designed with the intent of repeating them to chart changes in attitudes over time.
This year, for the first time, in the wake of the #metoo phenomenon, NatCen explored attitudes around a man commenting loudly on a woman’s appearance in the street, by asking respondents their opinion of a scenario in which the man loudly comments that she “looks gorgeous”.
The findings were surprising: overall, uninvited comments from men about a woman’s appearance were thought to be wrong by 57%. But while 61% of men thought such remarks were wrong, just 52% of women were of the same opinion.
This year’s survey comes at a turbulent time for the country as the government battles within itself to reach an agreement over the terms of leaving the European Union, public services falter after a decade of austerity policies and social cohesion comes under threat from tensions between generations, ethnicities and economic status.
On Brexit, NatCen found that support for leaving the European Union had increased considerably since 2015. That year, only 22% said they wanted to leave the EU now, 36% hold that view.
Paradoxically, however, the rise in support for leaving the EU has been accompanied by an increase in the number of people who believe that the country will be economically worse off as a result – from 40% to 45% since 2015 – and an increase in the number of people who feel strongly European, up six points to 31%.
This article was amended on 11 July 2018. An earlier version said that figures from NatCen showed “support for leaving the European Union had increased considerably since the referendum in 2015.” The referendum was in 2016, and the the sentence has been corrected to say “since 2015.”
Shifting gender roles: at home and in the workplace
Stay-at-home dads and working moms are a much discussed demographic lately. Traditional gender roles are being challenged by powerful counterexamples, as American families create something new. The benefits are far and wide for everyone.
All around us, the gender wall is being torn down in the Mom-at-home, Dad-at-work family model. Earlier this month, the Philadelphia-based Pew Research Center published a study reporting that 71% of mothers work. A few days later, The Center For American Progress released a study finding women are the breadwinner or co-breadwinners in two thirds of families.
In 1975, 47% of mothers worked.
TIME Magazine addressed the phenomenon with their March 26th cover story, The Richer Sex. A book by the same title has made an enormous splash in social commentary outlets. In his show on WHYY, Voices In The Family, host Dr. Dan Gottlieb recently ran a great story about stay at home dads and its trend in local families.
This migration of lines that used to divide labor is a glorious thing because it challenges the notion of stereotypes. Once the main oppressive idea is torn down, there is room for many others to fill the space. This is good news for everyone.
One just has to look around to see bountiful examples of flexibility in family structures. Of the families in our life, there are configurations: working moms, single parents, stay at home moms, two working parents, communal living, multi-generational families and stay-at-home Dads.
One single Mom explains it this way, “I am the sole provider and caretaker for my three year old. I have been blessed with finding flexible jobs in real estate and in the restaurant business where I can be at home with my daughter when she’s not at school and then work while she’s sleeping. We might not live an extravagant life right now, but I feel grateful to be able to be the one spending majority of her days raising her.”
Another parent talks about communal living as “…really family style living, shared between people who might not be blood relatives, but live together sharing the responsibilities of living as a functioning unit. Because of this, it’s hard to find the ‘right’ people, but when it’s right, it’s wonderful.”
A family with two parents says, “We are a two mom home. One of us works full time at home raising our two very busy sons and works part time on the weekends doing massage and reiki. The other works full time in non-profit public health agency during the week. Having a parent at home is important to us, it definitely has its challenges at times, but has been completely worth it for us as a family.”
There are a million and one reasons, running the gamut from choice to necessity, that factor into the way a family is structured. Work, family and the intermingling of the two could create a beautiful harmony. With the tearing down of gender norms, maybe other norms will get torn down along with it.
How is your family composed?
Northwest Philly Parents is a partnership between Newsworks and Germantown Avenue Parents.
'Kingdom of women' study reveals the real cost of traditional gender roles
Compared to other parts of the world — where female warriors are written off as myths and female scientists have had to fight for recognition — the villages of an ethnic group in Southwest China stand out. The Mosuo live in what's called a "kingdom of women."
In matrilineal Mosuo culture, women inherit property, plant crops, and run households. Grandmothers act as heads of households. Children take the mother’s surname. Perhaps the most famous feature of Mosuo culture are the “walking marriages” – arrangements where partners don’t live in the same household. Instead, women can choose as many or few male partners as they choose, and raise the children independently of their fathers.
The women run the show and it's having a profound impact on their health.
The cultural differences between matrilineal Mosuo and their counterparts, who live in patrilineal societies, are evident in the body according to a study published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Mosuo women living in matrilineal societies tend to have far fewer markers of chronic disease – including lower blood pressure and signs of inflammation which can lead to heart disease or diabetes.
Siobhán Mary Mattison is the study’s senior author and the director of the University of New Mexico’s Human Family and Evolutionary Demography Laboratory. She tells Inverse that the Mosuo don’t have it easy in either matrilineal or patrilineal societies, but the women-dominated societies offer them one crucial ingredient that may be playing out in their long-term health: autonomy.
“Women work really hard doing day-to-day household labor in both settings, but in the matrilineal communities, they do so with help from their natal families and with significant autonomy in decision making,” she tells Inverse.
How does culture affect health? – Mattison’s study analyzed blood samples from 371 Mosuo women and blood pressure readings from 958 women who lived in either matrilineal or patrilineal societies. The team analyzed blood samples looking for signs of C-reactive protein, a marker of inflammation, while also taking blood pressure measurements.
In patrilineal societies, 8 percent of women showed signs of chronic inflammation — more than double that of men. The same pattern held for blood pressure measurements. Thirty-three percent of women had high blood pressure in patrilineal societies compared to about 26 percent of men.
In matrilineal societies, the pattern wasn’t just dampened. It was completely reversed.
In that case, 6 percent of men showed signs of chronic inflammation compared to 4 percent of women. Twenty-eight percent of men had high blood pressure compared to 26 percent of women.
This might look like men fare worse in female-dominated society, but the paper suggests that’s not the story these numbers tell. The statistical analysis showed that the detrimental effects of living in a patrilineal society for women were statistically significant. By comparison, the health effects of living in a matrilineal society on men weren’t as statistically strong.
In the paper, the authors argue this probably comes down to the fact that men still enjoy autonomy within matrilineal Mosuo societies and access to resources — suggesting that it is beneficial to have autonomy, regardless of gender. Being the head of a household — whether male or female — was linked to lower levels of C-reactive protein in the body, demonstrating a “protective effect” of autonomy, the authors explain.
However, the study shows that the “protective effect” of autonomy appears to be especially pronounced for women, says Mattison.
“Women in these matrilineal communities have a great deal of autonomy in decision-making and excellent social support," she explains. "Given that women tend to be at greater risk of chronic disease worldwide, the fact that they actually do better than men in this realm of health is telling."
Beyond the Mosuo – The daily lives of the Mosuo and the daily lives of people in Western societies don’t make perfect comparisons. But the underlying issues that link autonomy and health can play out in any context.
One reason that the Mosuo women may fare worse in patrilineal societies is that they experience more psychosocial stress and its consequences, Mattison explains. There are clear links between social injustices like racism and stress responses in the body. Even the anticipation of prejudice is linked to an increase in blood pressure, a 2012 study found.
“The stresses of patriliny for women — distance from family, lower autonomy, and control — may activate cortisol and other physiological pathways of the stress response that, over the long term, can take a toll on their bodies, including through inflammation and blood pressure,” she says.
The detrimental effects of a loss of autonomy and control, particularly when gender roles rob someone of that control, have been documented in Western societies too. A survey of 1,596 women conducted in 2017 found that 18 percent had experienced discrimination in health care, 41 percent experienced discrimination in obtaining equal pay and promotions, and 31 experienced discrimination while applying for jobs.
Mattison cautions that the experiences of one group of people are not enough to explain the diverse experiences of humanity. We need far more research to pin down how gender roles can influence health in cultures around the world. But culture itself is universal, as is the fact that it can influence our health.
“Nonetheless, the bottom line is: we ignore culture at the peril of science and health,” she says.
Not recognizing how deep culture can penetrate – into our cells, hearts, and minds – means we’re missing a key piece of the puzzle.