> From: richard_hayes29_at_sGyYTOLLjuRrm7aeQmE-kH5tAPXReXho49dSvHY-Bz00VGhiHBp5IejK1mAngfEwyd3opEKwHXIy9kPPN4WB6GC8I6hTPg.yahoo.invalid
>
> I can't remember the source (it may well be old and/or unofficial), but I think at
> least one commentator identified a further aspect to this: the items a man needs to
> be allowed to fully participate in clan affairs are more expensive/hard to find than
> those which a woman would need.
>
> Would this have the effect of institutionalising a female majority at clan moots, etc. If
> so, would this have a moderating influence on clan/tribal politics? Or would it have no
> such effect as women would be at least as keen to goad their menfolk into machismo
> as the men would be to talk themselves into it?
Or does it reflect a sexism within the society that a man's requirements come before a
woman's? After all within the clan bloodlines tend to stick together and within bloodlines
close relatives do.
If we treat the sword requirement as poetic licence then there is only the spearhead and
knife that the man can't make himself. The cost of a woman's metal pan is probably similar.
Basically I see this equipment as reflecting what everyone but the poorest family will have
along with other tools such as a needle, a hatchet and a hoe.
--
Donald Oddy