![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Currently Matrifocal redirects to this article, but it really shouldn't. Social scientists use the term "matrifocal" to refer to family structures where the mother-child bond seems to be more stable and enduring than the father-child bond or husband-wife bond, so that the basic family unit seems to be a mother and her children, with various ephemeral men coming and going. Matrifocality does not mean that women occupy the positions of power and authority in a society, so it is far from being synonymous with matriarchy. AnonMoos ( talk) 23:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Its pretty clear this article was written entirely by feminist women . It stands to reason that if the wiki page for Patriarchy is defined as: "...fathers hold authority over women, children, and property." then a similar and opposite meaning should apply here, yet that is not the case. The Matriarchy page is written to sound like a more forward way of thinking but it is simply the polar opposite of Patriarchy. Perhaps it is the Patriarchy page that needs adjustment, but whatever the case these two pages dont reflect opposite points of view as described. 10:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.60.22 ( talk)
I'm sorry, but I'm removing the POV tag, because no specific concrete issues have been alleged here on this talk page to support the tag (only generalized uncited grousing). AnonMoos ( talk) 04:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The tag resulting from the Expert-Subject template says, "Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article." Please add accordingly, so experts and all of us know what issue is to be addressed. Nick Levinson ( talk) 14:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I propose to delete the Expert-Subject template because no "reason or ... talk parameter" has been added despite a request for it and so it does not appear the template is posted for its generally intended purpose. The article was already associated with the WikiProjects for both anthropology and sociology and still is, so they've already been notified about the tagging editor's concern despite its lack of a reason. I'll wait a week for any response before I delete the tag. Nick Levinson ( talk) 17:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not feel strongly about this, so I will leave it at that. However, I do not understand that how an all male volunteer organisation is relevant to the topic of Matriarchy. (Mind You, It would have been relevant if it was some power wielder, like communist party of North Korea). In the third world countries there are many unisex schools and colleges, i.e. both some specific to boys and some specific to girls. Similarly, in the first world armed forces, women, no matter how good, are not allowed combat positions. This is as true of US, as it is for Britain and Israel. Will these institutions too be included in the article?-- nids (♂) 05:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I've posted a clarified list item on Hinduism, based on the two notable organizations that are both known as RSS. The sourcing is cited. One of the RSS organizations considers women as national leaders merely as exceptions from the norm, which is men. The other RSS organization debated the issue without taking a position. As the beginnning of the In Religious Thought section already states, the views reported are not universally held. However, the views stated in the section and their proponents are important enough for reporting. The view of either RSS favoring the candidacy or election of, say, Indira Gandhi may be reportable, but until that is sourced what is now reported is the strongest case to date and an endorsement of Ms. Gandhi may be reportable alongside the presently-reported position. If even clearer writing is helpful or additional sourcing is known, please offer it. If a rewriting is supported by the sourcing, I'm happy for us to use it. I did not attempt deep research into databases or through Google, so, for all I know, it may not be difficult for editors to find additional sourcing. However, I already tried Academic Search Premier (EbscoHost) and JStor and may have exhausted both regarding the two RSS organizations. Nick Levinson ( talk) 17:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"However, this reluctance to accept the existence of matriarchies might be based on a specific, culturally biased notion of how to define 'matriarchy': because in a patriarchy 'men rule over women', a matriarchy has frequently been conceptualized as 'women ruling over men', whereas in reality women-centered societies are - apparently without exception - egalitarian."
This statement is not incorrect but it's extremely misleading. The way it's worded, a reader could come off thinking that matriarchy means egalitarianism. I assume here they're actually talking about matrilocal societies because matriarchy has a strict definition, it means "women ruling over men". I'm not assuming malice but the way it's worded almost sounds like someone playing sleight of hand with the definition of matriarchy. If patriarchy means men ruling over women than, naturally, matriarchy must mean women ruling over men. -- 87.198.51.106 ( talk) 15:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
LoL, theoretical linguistic evasiveness. the article says that one person has proposed that matriarchy be redefined as gender egalitarianism. why does this kind of linguistic hair spitting matter, when, after all, words are defined by how most people use them, rather than by how one person proposes that we use them?
the proposed change seems to only have the purpose of concealing the embarrassing fact that we know of no matriarchies rather than to clarify matters.
but this only seems to kick the can down the road, because there don't seem to be any gender egalitarian societies either. we are attempting to create one, or rather to transform our society into one, but feminists are usually among the very first to remind us, rather loudly, that we haven't succeeding in doing it yet.
all they can do is to appeal to societies where women seemed to have high status. i've actually read Malinowski's books on the Trobriand Islanders, and I suggest that you do so too. He is a great anthropologist, among other things, but men ruled in the Trobriand Islands. All the chiefs were men, for example, and a wife/mother's brother or other male relative was the head of the family.
and just because a man worked to support his sister is no reason to label the family unit as matriarchal. brother/uncles simple preformed many of the same tasks that husband/fathers do among us.
as for the Iroquois, you offer no evidence whatsoever for the claim that mothers ruled. it would seem strange if the American Colonials didn't mention such a fact, since, after all, they were very familiar with the Iroquois.
there's a tendency to read into seeing women "out of their place" in one's own culture and society as evidence of either a topsy-turvy society and culture or as signs that women ruled, but this is naive. maybe women/mothers did have more power among them than among the colonists, but so what? that would not be evidence that women ruled or that their society was gender equal. our own society is a case in point.
the question Wikipedia should ask itself is, what is its first order commitment, to the truth or seeking equality for women. is it a tool to propagandize toward that noble goal, or does it serve the noble goal of truth? do lies and obfuscations truly advance the cause of gender equality?
the Trobriand Islanders were clearly not matriarchal or gender egalitarian, so they should be dropped entirely or be mentioned merely as for Malinowski's redefinition of matriarchy as a society where maternal uncles acted as heads as the family -- to avoid the confused idea that they Trobriand Islanders were "matriarchal."
as well, you mention the stand of most anthropologists being that matriarchy is unknown, but then spend most so much time talking about these fascinating possible "matriarchal" societies. shouldn't an encyclopedia represent the views of the consensus of scholars in the field rather than, like the silly old TV show "In Search Of," the less likely but somehow more "interesting" possibilities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.224.120 ( talk) 18:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
i fail to see what "matriarchal" families has to do with the question of matriarchy in the strict sense. a matriarchy is a society where women rule collectively. women have doubtless always governed over some families, either when men were absent or because they were too weak or even too disinterested in ruling their families. Even in male-supremicist Islam, women are sovereign over some spheres of family life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.224.120 ( talk) 18:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Her being queen in the 16th century has very little to do with Matriarchy in the usual or commonly-accepted sense. Queen bee syndrome (one woman in an exceptional position, able to suspend for herself only some of the rules which ordinarily apply to women, without doing anything much to improve the position of women in general) does not seem to be very matriarchal. AnonMoos ( talk) 01:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The definition that a matriarchy is a society in which females have "control of property" had been edited so that it said "control over men, children, and property". I reverted. There's a split among sources as to whether matriarchy is closely parallel to patriarchy or is also inclusive of equality, i.e., includes anything nonpatriarchal. Natural language does not always follow simple mathematical logic. Descriptive dictionaries, which are more authoritative than prescriptive ones, describe words as the community of speakers use them, causing definitions in many word pairs to not be parallel. Other sources may also define nonparallelistically, and do. In the article, the definitions are clarified in the body; the lead only summarizes and does not take a side. Nick Levinson ( talk) 16:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC) (Moved down and elevated to level 2: 17:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC))
In the article the most prominent examples of matriarchies are certain tribes, like the Iroquois.
I would argue that Vietnam under the Trung Sisters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trung_sisters could be considered a good example of a matriarchy in world history. In particular, Vietnam was a soverign state for about three years with an all-female government and almost an all-female military. The military was actually relatively powerful and well-organized, sucessfully repealing the Chinese for three years.
The best 'jobs' in that State were probably high ranking positions in the military, and if they belonged to women it is unlikely there were very many male breadwinners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoltankiss2 ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
An editor at an IP has proposed the merger of the Gynarchy article with the Matriarchy article (presumably into this article, not the other way around). Discussion, if any, should be at that article's talk page, not here, for centralization. Nick Levinson ( talk) 17:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC) (Corrected a link: 17:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC))
I really don't see that these points are on topic unless there is evidence that the religion specifically rules out matriarchy. Matriarchy is the topic of the article. Compare the Catholic Church with the Unitarians. The Catholics don't allow women priests, the Unitarians allow women in any role. The Unitarians aren't a matriarchy! They are relatively equal, that's all. Of course if you ban women taking part at all you thereby ban them dominating the situation, that's obvious. But if we go down that road, we should cover all of society, culture and economy. If girl foetuses are disproportionate aborted, that goes against matriarchy, but the point is trivial; it goes against equality is the main point. I propose to delete the section. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
this whole things seems pointless. of course there are organizations that are "ruled" by women. a religious example would merely be a case in point, one that might fly in the face of our own ethnocentric expectations, but matriarchy, in the strict sense, means women ruling a society collectively, the way that men rule all societies collectively. (exclusively) women's secret societies are ruled by women, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.224.120 ( talk) 18:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
In primitive peoples, women often high status. Because there is a general lack of women. If a society is very belligerent as living women, usually in a parallel reality, regardless of the men's perception of reality. Example: The men are not headhunters for sport, but to make a good impression on the girls. There is some countries with a royal line of women. This is because the old women can not reproduce. Or rather that the old women proliferate through sons and grandchildren. First, by controlling others. Not least arrange marriages. This means that it is largely the old women who informally controlling man society and cynical suppresses the young women.
However, there are societies where men have a mother-role. The women respond to this by being exaggerated female. Jesper7 ( talk) 21:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
A series of edits from IP 173.51.29.188 was followed by an edit (mostly a deletion) by editor Dougweller. I've edited since.
We cannot re-add content that violates copyright; an editor wanting to add the underlying information should rewrite it in their own words or explicitly quote with attribution. It was interesting but I'll leave the re-editing to others who may know those topics better than I do. Quoting is either with quotation marks or in a blockquote and we cannot quote too much of a single article without infringing copyright.
Subsectioning the section on feminist thought is generally acceptable but not if it confuses readers by suggesting that all of it after the beginning fits the subsections created. The subsections that were added applied only to portions, so either we'd need comprehensive subsections or we shouldn't subsection. I deleted those headings. However, the culture and chronology subsectioning elsewhere is a good idea; thank you.
The video game item needs sourcing. If the linked-to articles have it, then those source citation/s can be copied to this article (attributing in the Edit Summary which article/s the copying was from). If a single source is sufficient for the entire item, then one citation at the end will be enough; otherwise, place citations where they support content.
I tagged another paragraph as needing citations, corrected syntax, punctuation, and a spelling style, rephrased and deitalicized where not within our encyclopedic style, and added the Who template after a pronoun as it is unclear whether the unnamed woman answered her own question or Gorgo answered it. I'm also not sure that the answer, and therefore the question, adds anything to the article, since the answer "she" gave is unclear, since women who are mothers of men could be found worldwide, not just in Sparta.
I added the general location of the Mosuo, to complement the section heading, but also added the Dead Link template. Perhaps someone else has the information, such as archive.org.
I look forward to a new article on feminist utopias, since the term is newly redlinked. I hope someone writes it; the subject is probably notable. Emily Wax is also redlinked; if she's notable, please consider writing that one, too.
I reformatted some ref elements for consistency.
Minor: I spaced a list item, unnamed ref elements where the name was not used elsewhere, and deleted an unneeded space and "Foreign Service; Saturday, July 9, 2005.</ref>" (the last was after the usernamed editor's editing).
Nick Levinson ( talk) 16:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Currently Matrifocal redirects to this article, but it really shouldn't. Social scientists use the term "matrifocal" to refer to family structures where the mother-child bond seems to be more stable and enduring than the father-child bond or husband-wife bond, so that the basic family unit seems to be a mother and her children, with various ephemeral men coming and going. Matrifocality does not mean that women occupy the positions of power and authority in a society, so it is far from being synonymous with matriarchy. AnonMoos ( talk) 23:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Its pretty clear this article was written entirely by feminist women . It stands to reason that if the wiki page for Patriarchy is defined as: "...fathers hold authority over women, children, and property." then a similar and opposite meaning should apply here, yet that is not the case. The Matriarchy page is written to sound like a more forward way of thinking but it is simply the polar opposite of Patriarchy. Perhaps it is the Patriarchy page that needs adjustment, but whatever the case these two pages dont reflect opposite points of view as described. 10:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.60.22 ( talk)
I'm sorry, but I'm removing the POV tag, because no specific concrete issues have been alleged here on this talk page to support the tag (only generalized uncited grousing). AnonMoos ( talk) 04:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The tag resulting from the Expert-Subject template says, "Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article." Please add accordingly, so experts and all of us know what issue is to be addressed. Nick Levinson ( talk) 14:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I propose to delete the Expert-Subject template because no "reason or ... talk parameter" has been added despite a request for it and so it does not appear the template is posted for its generally intended purpose. The article was already associated with the WikiProjects for both anthropology and sociology and still is, so they've already been notified about the tagging editor's concern despite its lack of a reason. I'll wait a week for any response before I delete the tag. Nick Levinson ( talk) 17:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not feel strongly about this, so I will leave it at that. However, I do not understand that how an all male volunteer organisation is relevant to the topic of Matriarchy. (Mind You, It would have been relevant if it was some power wielder, like communist party of North Korea). In the third world countries there are many unisex schools and colleges, i.e. both some specific to boys and some specific to girls. Similarly, in the first world armed forces, women, no matter how good, are not allowed combat positions. This is as true of US, as it is for Britain and Israel. Will these institutions too be included in the article?-- nids (♂) 05:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I've posted a clarified list item on Hinduism, based on the two notable organizations that are both known as RSS. The sourcing is cited. One of the RSS organizations considers women as national leaders merely as exceptions from the norm, which is men. The other RSS organization debated the issue without taking a position. As the beginnning of the In Religious Thought section already states, the views reported are not universally held. However, the views stated in the section and their proponents are important enough for reporting. The view of either RSS favoring the candidacy or election of, say, Indira Gandhi may be reportable, but until that is sourced what is now reported is the strongest case to date and an endorsement of Ms. Gandhi may be reportable alongside the presently-reported position. If even clearer writing is helpful or additional sourcing is known, please offer it. If a rewriting is supported by the sourcing, I'm happy for us to use it. I did not attempt deep research into databases or through Google, so, for all I know, it may not be difficult for editors to find additional sourcing. However, I already tried Academic Search Premier (EbscoHost) and JStor and may have exhausted both regarding the two RSS organizations. Nick Levinson ( talk) 17:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"However, this reluctance to accept the existence of matriarchies might be based on a specific, culturally biased notion of how to define 'matriarchy': because in a patriarchy 'men rule over women', a matriarchy has frequently been conceptualized as 'women ruling over men', whereas in reality women-centered societies are - apparently without exception - egalitarian."
This statement is not incorrect but it's extremely misleading. The way it's worded, a reader could come off thinking that matriarchy means egalitarianism. I assume here they're actually talking about matrilocal societies because matriarchy has a strict definition, it means "women ruling over men". I'm not assuming malice but the way it's worded almost sounds like someone playing sleight of hand with the definition of matriarchy. If patriarchy means men ruling over women than, naturally, matriarchy must mean women ruling over men. -- 87.198.51.106 ( talk) 15:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
LoL, theoretical linguistic evasiveness. the article says that one person has proposed that matriarchy be redefined as gender egalitarianism. why does this kind of linguistic hair spitting matter, when, after all, words are defined by how most people use them, rather than by how one person proposes that we use them?
the proposed change seems to only have the purpose of concealing the embarrassing fact that we know of no matriarchies rather than to clarify matters.
but this only seems to kick the can down the road, because there don't seem to be any gender egalitarian societies either. we are attempting to create one, or rather to transform our society into one, but feminists are usually among the very first to remind us, rather loudly, that we haven't succeeding in doing it yet.
all they can do is to appeal to societies where women seemed to have high status. i've actually read Malinowski's books on the Trobriand Islanders, and I suggest that you do so too. He is a great anthropologist, among other things, but men ruled in the Trobriand Islands. All the chiefs were men, for example, and a wife/mother's brother or other male relative was the head of the family.
and just because a man worked to support his sister is no reason to label the family unit as matriarchal. brother/uncles simple preformed many of the same tasks that husband/fathers do among us.
as for the Iroquois, you offer no evidence whatsoever for the claim that mothers ruled. it would seem strange if the American Colonials didn't mention such a fact, since, after all, they were very familiar with the Iroquois.
there's a tendency to read into seeing women "out of their place" in one's own culture and society as evidence of either a topsy-turvy society and culture or as signs that women ruled, but this is naive. maybe women/mothers did have more power among them than among the colonists, but so what? that would not be evidence that women ruled or that their society was gender equal. our own society is a case in point.
the question Wikipedia should ask itself is, what is its first order commitment, to the truth or seeking equality for women. is it a tool to propagandize toward that noble goal, or does it serve the noble goal of truth? do lies and obfuscations truly advance the cause of gender equality?
the Trobriand Islanders were clearly not matriarchal or gender egalitarian, so they should be dropped entirely or be mentioned merely as for Malinowski's redefinition of matriarchy as a society where maternal uncles acted as heads as the family -- to avoid the confused idea that they Trobriand Islanders were "matriarchal."
as well, you mention the stand of most anthropologists being that matriarchy is unknown, but then spend most so much time talking about these fascinating possible "matriarchal" societies. shouldn't an encyclopedia represent the views of the consensus of scholars in the field rather than, like the silly old TV show "In Search Of," the less likely but somehow more "interesting" possibilities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.224.120 ( talk) 18:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
i fail to see what "matriarchal" families has to do with the question of matriarchy in the strict sense. a matriarchy is a society where women rule collectively. women have doubtless always governed over some families, either when men were absent or because they were too weak or even too disinterested in ruling their families. Even in male-supremicist Islam, women are sovereign over some spheres of family life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.224.120 ( talk) 18:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Her being queen in the 16th century has very little to do with Matriarchy in the usual or commonly-accepted sense. Queen bee syndrome (one woman in an exceptional position, able to suspend for herself only some of the rules which ordinarily apply to women, without doing anything much to improve the position of women in general) does not seem to be very matriarchal. AnonMoos ( talk) 01:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The definition that a matriarchy is a society in which females have "control of property" had been edited so that it said "control over men, children, and property". I reverted. There's a split among sources as to whether matriarchy is closely parallel to patriarchy or is also inclusive of equality, i.e., includes anything nonpatriarchal. Natural language does not always follow simple mathematical logic. Descriptive dictionaries, which are more authoritative than prescriptive ones, describe words as the community of speakers use them, causing definitions in many word pairs to not be parallel. Other sources may also define nonparallelistically, and do. In the article, the definitions are clarified in the body; the lead only summarizes and does not take a side. Nick Levinson ( talk) 16:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC) (Moved down and elevated to level 2: 17:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC))
In the article the most prominent examples of matriarchies are certain tribes, like the Iroquois.
I would argue that Vietnam under the Trung Sisters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trung_sisters could be considered a good example of a matriarchy in world history. In particular, Vietnam was a soverign state for about three years with an all-female government and almost an all-female military. The military was actually relatively powerful and well-organized, sucessfully repealing the Chinese for three years.
The best 'jobs' in that State were probably high ranking positions in the military, and if they belonged to women it is unlikely there were very many male breadwinners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoltankiss2 ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
An editor at an IP has proposed the merger of the Gynarchy article with the Matriarchy article (presumably into this article, not the other way around). Discussion, if any, should be at that article's talk page, not here, for centralization. Nick Levinson ( talk) 17:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC) (Corrected a link: 17:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC))
I really don't see that these points are on topic unless there is evidence that the religion specifically rules out matriarchy. Matriarchy is the topic of the article. Compare the Catholic Church with the Unitarians. The Catholics don't allow women priests, the Unitarians allow women in any role. The Unitarians aren't a matriarchy! They are relatively equal, that's all. Of course if you ban women taking part at all you thereby ban them dominating the situation, that's obvious. But if we go down that road, we should cover all of society, culture and economy. If girl foetuses are disproportionate aborted, that goes against matriarchy, but the point is trivial; it goes against equality is the main point. I propose to delete the section. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
this whole things seems pointless. of course there are organizations that are "ruled" by women. a religious example would merely be a case in point, one that might fly in the face of our own ethnocentric expectations, but matriarchy, in the strict sense, means women ruling a society collectively, the way that men rule all societies collectively. (exclusively) women's secret societies are ruled by women, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.224.120 ( talk) 18:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
In primitive peoples, women often high status. Because there is a general lack of women. If a society is very belligerent as living women, usually in a parallel reality, regardless of the men's perception of reality. Example: The men are not headhunters for sport, but to make a good impression on the girls. There is some countries with a royal line of women. This is because the old women can not reproduce. Or rather that the old women proliferate through sons and grandchildren. First, by controlling others. Not least arrange marriages. This means that it is largely the old women who informally controlling man society and cynical suppresses the young women.
However, there are societies where men have a mother-role. The women respond to this by being exaggerated female. Jesper7 ( talk) 21:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
A series of edits from IP 173.51.29.188 was followed by an edit (mostly a deletion) by editor Dougweller. I've edited since.
We cannot re-add content that violates copyright; an editor wanting to add the underlying information should rewrite it in their own words or explicitly quote with attribution. It was interesting but I'll leave the re-editing to others who may know those topics better than I do. Quoting is either with quotation marks or in a blockquote and we cannot quote too much of a single article without infringing copyright.
Subsectioning the section on feminist thought is generally acceptable but not if it confuses readers by suggesting that all of it after the beginning fits the subsections created. The subsections that were added applied only to portions, so either we'd need comprehensive subsections or we shouldn't subsection. I deleted those headings. However, the culture and chronology subsectioning elsewhere is a good idea; thank you.
The video game item needs sourcing. If the linked-to articles have it, then those source citation/s can be copied to this article (attributing in the Edit Summary which article/s the copying was from). If a single source is sufficient for the entire item, then one citation at the end will be enough; otherwise, place citations where they support content.
I tagged another paragraph as needing citations, corrected syntax, punctuation, and a spelling style, rephrased and deitalicized where not within our encyclopedic style, and added the Who template after a pronoun as it is unclear whether the unnamed woman answered her own question or Gorgo answered it. I'm also not sure that the answer, and therefore the question, adds anything to the article, since the answer "she" gave is unclear, since women who are mothers of men could be found worldwide, not just in Sparta.
I added the general location of the Mosuo, to complement the section heading, but also added the Dead Link template. Perhaps someone else has the information, such as archive.org.
I look forward to a new article on feminist utopias, since the term is newly redlinked. I hope someone writes it; the subject is probably notable. Emily Wax is also redlinked; if she's notable, please consider writing that one, too.
I reformatted some ref elements for consistency.
Minor: I spaced a list item, unnamed ref elements where the name was not used elsewhere, and deleted an unneeded space and "Foreign Service; Saturday, July 9, 2005.</ref>" (the last was after the usernamed editor's editing).
Nick Levinson ( talk) 16:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)