Gabby's question during the presentation
on Women's Roles in Ancient Greek really caught my attention, so I did some
research on women-centered societies and stumbled across this
"oddity" (by traditional patriarchal standards). The Minangkabau is
an ethnic group in Indonesia in which women are highly respected and honored.
And guess what...it's actually "a devoutly Muslim community."
Immediately, I thought to myself, what? Traditionally, Islamic societies
view women as inferior and treat them as such.
However, the Minangkabau break from
tradition, in a sense. In fact, the Minangkabau don't see men and women as
equals; judging from their practices, women take the cake. Although some of
their roles may at first appear "traditional," property passes from
mother to daughter--ultimately giving them the upper hand, so to speak.
Husbands move into their wives' homes, and decisions require an agreement
between the two genders. Even more notably, "girls are treasured." Conceiving
a daughter is wayyy better than conceiving a son, according to the Minangkabau
(and my parents...just kidding!).
At first glance, the women and men of this
society seem to fit traditional Western general roles. Women fulfill domestic
duties, while men occupy political and religious roles. But according to the
article, "both genders say that they value those roles, and each other,
equally." This concept might be difficult to some of you to grasp, which I
understand, because we live in a relatively more progressive society, but
consider the situation of the Minangkabau. They live in Indonesia in a society that many of us can't
completely comprehend. Due to their differences, their outlook on life is bound to be far
different than ours. The article I read provided quotes from Minangkabau
people, which I found were helpful to me in understanding their way of life.
"Even though it seems to be that men
have more functions than women, we are still the same,'” said Widya Indah
Lestari, a bright and articulate 16-year-old who covers her head, prays five
times daily, and plans to become a doctor."
“'Our tradition is based on the holy
Koran,'” said Lestari, [a woman]. “'The Koran says men will be the leaders. But
women are not under the pressure of men. Even though men lead women, it doesn’t
mean that women are less important.'”
Power and authority is indeed divided
among men and women but not in a Western sense.
According to Evelyn Blackwood, an
anthropology professor that studied the community, “'Yes, men have public
power. But think of them as front men, representing the community to the state
or to the mosque.'” Men have fancy titles, but women own the
land. It's a more balanced system than that of a patriarchal society. For
example, men and women are both involved in the decision-making process.
How does an Islamic society have such
different views? The answer may lie in a "their long-held customs, or
adat [...which] derives in part from the ancient animist and Hindu belief
system of the Manangkabau, which existed before the arrival of Islam to
Sumatra." The adat fuels the matrilineal inheritance fire, and the Manangkabau maintain that it can be
practiced alongside Islam.
Despite cases of abuse and violence in
this community (which are unfortunate aspects of every community), "women
remain central." In the words of the male chief, or datuk,
"'We devote everything to women.'"
Obviously, we should strive towards
equality in our current society, but since we often study patriarchal societies
(as many prominent societies were and still are), I thought it was fitting to
delve deeper into the philosophy behind a matriarchal society.
Source: https://www.thedailybeast.com/indonesias-minangkabau-the-worlds-largest-matrilineal-society?ref=scroll
5 comments:
This matriarchal community is intriguing. I find it interesting that if you just look at it from the outside, it might not seem that much different from a historically patriarchal Western society. Men are political leaders, and women stay in the home. However, the difference comes in WHAT the society values. In Western society, political power and physical strength, which men have held in the past, have been valued over household roles. Therefore, the society became patriarchal. On the other hand, the Minangkabau people value private household roles just as much, if not more, than the public positions held by men, and a matriarchal society was born. It makes you wonder how our country’s history (built from largely European traditions) would have been different if our ancestors had valued their families above politics struggles. Maybe our country would have been less unified politically; maybe we would have bonded together more strongly because we would have seen our countrymen as family instead of rivals. We can never know.
Lainey your comment about what would history be like if western societies valued the family life more is very interesting.
Just to clarify I am not saying that anyone sex should be more in charge of the valued areas of a community. But, when I think about a society that values and involves themselves more in family life I think of immediate gratification and not long-term gratification. What I mean by this is that people would probably be happier and enjoy themselves more, but I don't think societies/economies would grow at the rate that we have seen them grow in societies that focus on politics. It makes we wonder about the economic/societal effects. I think that pockets of territories would be more isolated since the community members focus on their family, but with an entire society that values leadership, I think the masses will become more unified over time. Nationalism probably wouldn't be as big of a driving force is family life came first and foremost, simply because the overall total community would not be as prioritized.
As per usual, Jessie, I love your blog posts and look forward to reading yours every week! :)
Ritchie, I highly respect your comment. I would agree that society would become very individualized if family life was a central focus and there would be no desire for a prospering people, furthermore a responsive governance. This would be a well-rounded argument if you were to ask Democrats this as the topic of individualism relates to a lot of issues Democrats feel so strongly about.
Obviously, there are different opinions as not all nations are like America, and there could very well be a territory somewhere in the world excelling in both family life as well as socioeconomic responsibilities as well, if so then I would love to learn more. However, for now, I would agree with your comment in relation to a huge nation such as the one we live in today.
Thank you, Farah, for your respect of my comment, I appreciate that. I also very much so respect your comment. I wasn't really trying to write a partisan comment, but if you insist.
Individualism is just as much a part of, if not more so, the Republican/conservative ideologies as it for Democrats. Individualism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, a doctrine advocating for freedom from government regulation in the pursuit of a person's economic goals. A large portion of the conservative platform is just that, individualism. Frankly, individualism seems more conservative than liberal.
Lol I guess I did not know the actual definition.. The more you know
Post a Comment