if man and woman are equal would we survive?

For most of human existence, we have sustained ourselves by foraging. That is collecting naturally occurring plants and animal. There seems to have been a rough division of labor by gender, men hunted women collected plants. If modern foragers are any example (and it is thought they are) approximately 2/3 of the food consumed on a daily basis was collected by women. Men contributed only 1/3. In forager bands men and women are equal, because women control a critical necessity (food). The same goes for tribal horticultural societies where women own and cultivate the gardens that provide approximately 2/3 of the food consumed. Gender inequality is a product of intensive agriculture and industrialization. And it is in those societies that humans have had the most problems.

0 Replies

I noticed a while back that the distribution of household chores were a tad unbalanced.
Womens chores were to be done on a daily basis.
Food shopping,cooking,washing(clothes/dishes)dusting,woamen usually deal with kids
Mens chores on a every now and again basis.mowing the lawn,fixing the car,putting up a shelf.

Yes men may work all day and be the main bread winners but thats only because most get paid more for doing the same jobs as women can do.
How is that equal??!!

Yes most men are physically stronger and are therefore better in some ways but in all other ways we should be equal.

0 Replies

Men aren't always the head of a family. Some tribes have a matriarch rather than a patriarch. This goes to show that just because it isn't done our way doesn't mean it doesn't work. In the same respect, since men and women have never been equal in every respect, you cannot make the assumption that it wouldn't work.

0 Replies

If by "equal" you mean "exactly the same" than things wouldn't so much crash down as simply be built quite differently in the first place.

0 Replies

Aquiunk and Kristie,

I don't think your view of history is defendable. I think you are falling for the trap of putting modern American values onto previous cultures.

In almost every culture from the beginning of history to modern times, women have had the role of housekeeper and caretaker of children. This not only includes the "foraging" societies of Aquiunk and the "Matriarchies" that Kristie brings up. Likewise men have always taken the role of hunter and defender.

The term "Matriarchy" has been way over-used in our modern attempt to search for equality. It is true that women were given power in their "keeper of the house" role. Native American tribes are often cited, and it is true. A womans role and her right to make decisions about the family were remarkable.

But even in these alleged "Matriarchies". Men were given a distinct and prominent role in the both the political and sacred. Look at the religious figures (i.e. priests) in these Native American cultures. They were predominantly male.

I understand our modern culture's desire to make the genders equal as part of our quest to make an fair and just society.

The attempt to back this up with history is ill-advised. History repeastedly tells the story of distinct, well-defined and concrete gender roles.

Whether this means that our society will ultimately fail will be a question for future historians.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Aquiunk and Kristie,

I don't think your view of history is defendable. I think you are falling for the trap of putting modern American values onto previous cultures.

.

Pointing out that foragers and horticulturalist organize themselves differently the complex state level societies is not projecting modern values onto other cultures in other times. It key issue is control of critical resources. In all foraging and horticultural societies, with the exception of artic groups such as the Inuit, women control a majority of the food. There is nothing to suggest this was any different in the past. Control of resources gives one a more equal standing in any society. Gender roles are also distinct, if for nothing else for biological reasons. But gender distinctions do not automatically translate into status inequality all other considerations being equal. There is no evidence that the role of ritual leader is a predominately male preserve. Outside of assigned subsistence roles, non complex societies assigned status by talent.

Cultural anthropology shares a part of the blame for the homocentric view of non complex societies. Until the 1960's the over whelming majority of field researchers were males. Thus the male role was over emphasized. (man the mighty hunter etc.) Is has not been until the last generation of anthropologist that female roles have been examined in any detail. When womens' roles are considered, the power equation in non complex societies looks very different.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

In almost every culture from the beginning of history to modern times, women have had the role of housekeeper and caretaker of children.

They were predominantly male.

Two key words. Almost and predominantly. Which means not all.

0 Replies

Acquiunk wrote:

....
Gender roles are also distinct, if for nothing else for biological reasons. But gender distinctions do not automatically translate into status inequality all other considerations being equal.

I agree with this. And, I wanted to point out that when comparing different cultures, value laden words like "equal", "advanced" and "fair" are problematic. Values are very much a part of culture.

Quote:

There is no evidence that the role of ritual leader is a predominately male preserve. Outside of assigned subsistence roles, non complex societies assigned status by talent.

This, I respectfuly disagree with. There is plenty of evidence.

From Jupiter, to Gilgamesh, to Odin to Osiris to Quetzalcoatl, the King of Gods nearly universally... from ancient Egypt to the the Maya and the Aztecs of ancient America to the Hebrew God... is a male figure. There are often female associates, but even in mythology, the keeper of power is predominantly (and maybe exclusively but I admit there may be a few exceptions) male.

Kings as well, were predominantly (almost Universally) expected to be Male. There were exceptions to this even in Europe, but they were always considered to be exceptions, and power was passed throught the Male lineage. This again was true in widely divergent times and cultures from ancient China to the Aztecs to Europe to the Roman empire to African empires.

Quote:

Cultural anthropology shares a part of the blame for the homocentric view of non complex societies. Until the 1960's the over whelming majority of field researchers were males. Thus the male role was over emphasized. (man the mighty hunter etc.) Is has not been until the last generation of anthropologist that female roles have been examined in any detail. When womens' roles are considered, the power equation in non complex societies looks very different.

You are right to point out that present day scholars (i.e. antropologists) are predominantly male. But this is not unexpected. The scholars, scribes, historians and writers from nearly every culture were also male. Don't hold this against them. They are just repeating the pattern that we are now discussing.

Look, the history including primary source documents are available and obvious. If you pick up the religious texts from any of the widely different cultures scattered about the many diverse culture you will find a clear pattern. In myths, and in historical accounts, men are prominant. Rulers are predominently male.

As you point out, even the people writing the history from each of these cultures are male.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

This, I respectfuly disagree with. There is plenty of evidence.

From Jupiter, to Gilgamesh, to Odin to Osiris to Quetzalcoatl, the King of Gods nearly universally... from ancient Egypt to the the Maya and the Aztecs of ancient America to the Hebrew God... is a male figure. There are often female associates, but even in mythology, the keeper of power is predominantly (and maybe exclusively but I admit there may be a few exceptions) male.

Kings as well, were predominantly (almost Universally) expected to be Male. There were exceptions to this even in Europe, but they were always considered to be exceptions, and power was passed throught the Male lineage. This again was true in widely divergent times and cultures from ancient China to the Aztecs to Europe to the Roman empire to African empires. .

The examples you give are from complex state level societies in which males are dominant. It is very different in non complex societies such as foragers and horticulturalists. Here women control critical resources and their status is much higher. In these culture status is more likely the product of individual accomplishment, not gender ascription.

The majority of anthropologist used to be males, but not any more. Women are well represented in the profession and the rise of women and gender studies in field work is directly attributable to this. As I stated above, traditional ethnographies over emphasized male activities. The ethnographies of the last 35/40 years have addressed this imbalanced with interesting results.

0 Replies

Interestingly, I just heard a segment on NPR about just this topic. They had a male and female anthropologist each representing a point of view you would expect from their gender. The female anthropologist mentioned the equality inherent in hunter-gatherer societies.

I don't think I buy it.

Even in a hunter-gatherer "non-complex" society, the males must of necessity take on the role of defender and provider. Not only are males physically stronger, they also don't have the liability of pregnancy. For at least the times of pregnancy, females are dependant on males.

Let's put ourselves in the role of a male in a "non-complex" society. Basically females in our society need our protection (at least during pregnancy) and rely on us to provide for sustenance for themselves and their offspring.

On the other hand, being "non-complex" males. Males can hunt. Males can gather. Males can take initiative, invent, form social bonds. Males in a "non-complex" society can pretty much take care of themselves.

There is basically one thing we need from females. (Well, there is also the unique ability of females to give birth and nurse, but males in divers cultures have considered these secondary).

Not only that, human males have been known to use their physical strength to take what they need (including sex) from females.

It is difficult to believe that egalitarian primitive societies somehow Universally evolve in to male dominated societies when they get more advanced (I use this word in the sense of the normal temporal trend).

It is true that from ancient Egypt, to ancient America, to ancient Europe to ancient Asia... it seems that by the time a society begins to develop laws, writing, art and religion, it almost always puts males into the dominant role.

Based on this, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that the more simple societies from which they sprung also had males in dominant roles.

I think you are giving to much weight to the fact that most antropologists have been male. From logic and from history, male dominance seems to be the norm.

It is much more likely that as our society tries to give females a more equal role (based on our modern values), anthropologists are trying to see history and culture in a way that backs up their social goals.

I doubt that an objective view of the facts, including studies of hunter-gatherer societies, will show that they conformed at all to modern views of "equality" between males and females.

I would love to hear of specific cases to the contrary if you have any.

0 Replies

Dont mix up equality with role reversal.

0 Replies

Many societies that preceded ours do put men and women into those particular roles, but others have them in just the opposite ones, I think even modern societies that exist today. Some Native American tribes have multiple "gender roles" that can be played by people of the same biological sex.

Furthermore, from what I understand, the concept that pregnancy is a debilitating time for a woman and the idea that doing physical work and so forth during pregnancy is harmful is a rather recent idea. In particular, I've never heard of hunter-gatherer societies (which you mention) having any conception of the sort. There is no biological reason for a woman to have any traditional womanly role other than the bearing of children.

You cannot say that something is a human universal simply because you cannot find an exception to it. Even if there isn't one, in the whole history of the whole world which you cannot possibly have knowledge of even a small percentage, it could still be possible and just not extant. Without a logical, deductive reasoning (i.e. we all must breathe the earth's atmosphere, otherwise we would be dead), you cannot claim that there is a universal.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Many societies that preceded ours do put men and women into those particular roles, but others have them in just the opposite ones, I think even modern societies that exist today. Some Native American tribes have multiple "gender roles" that can be played by people of the same biological sex.

Can you give an example of a culture where the dominant political and religious roles are not played by men?

We talked about household roles being a source of power. It is true that in some cultures women had ownership of household property which gives economic power.

But even in these cultures, the political and religious roles are played by men. Look at the Navajo culture for example. This is an example where women have household authority, but the primary dieties are male, the defining religious ritual is exclusively male and the political power is both traditionally and historically male.

I have given lot's of examples to back up my point, you keep using the vague term "some societies". I would love to discuss a counter example.

Quote:

Furthermore, from what I understand, the concept that pregnancy is a debilitating time for a woman and the idea that doing physical work and so forth during pregnancy is harmful is a rather recent idea.

I think I can safely assume you have never been pregnant.

Pregnancy is a physically demanding time for a woman with real problem. From back pains, to cramps, to common problems like diabetes and anemia, pregnancy is fraught with real medical difficulties.

Sure, "less complex" and more equal societies may have insisted that women in their third trimester of pregnancy get out into the fields to do her share, but I assure you that pregnancy causes real concerns that will keep a woman from being as productive during this time.

To suggest that the real difficulties experienced by women during pregnancies are modern inventions is a little ridiculous.

Quote:

You cannot say that something is a human universal simply because you cannot find an exception to it. Even if there isn't one, in the whole history of the whole world which you cannot possibly have knowledge of even a small percentage, it could still be possible and just not extant. Without a logical, deductive reasoning (i.e. we all must breathe the earth's atmosphere, otherwise we would be dead), you cannot claim that there is a universal.

I don't know what the term "human universal" means.

What I am saying is that over and over again, in very diverse societies in different environments separated by great geographical distances, the same pattern is repeated. Men are put into the dominant political and religious roles. This is reflected by the cultural norms, by history, by the mythology and by the history of nearly every society that has developed.

If gender roles were somehow randomly assigned, one would explect mathematically that half the societies that developed would have female chief dieties, females in political power, etc. The fact that this hasn't happened should be enough to make you question your point of view.

There is something that causes developing societies to put males into these dominant positions. It is clearly not just random chance. There is something common to all of these societies to cause this pattern.

That is all that I am saying.

0 Replies

I can't remember the names of the cultures at the moment, but a random google for "matriarchy" (to which google responds, "did you mean "patriarchy"?) gets me this:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-05/uop-imm050902.php
I'm sure you can find more on your own, if there is stuff on the internet about it.

I was under the impression that diabetes was genetic, not something that comes and goes like the flu.

And we all get minor back pains and we all get cramps once a month when not pregnant. I'm sure it's worse for pregnant women, but even in America you see pregnant women actually doing things and living their lives like normal people as opposed to invalids. I am not saying that whatever biological effects of pregnancy, or pain, or whatever are modern inventions - I am saying that the idea that pregnant women have to be taken care of by men because that is the way things are is a modern invention.

If you don't know what "human universal" is than you should think before you go making them. A so-called human universal is something that is believed to be true for every human population that could possibly exist - something that we all share because we are human. That's what you are saying, is that these specific, Western gender roles, are something that all human beings have in common.

Unless you believe that some god somehow created cultures across the world, than cultural histories, mythologies, beliefs, and practices are not "randomly assigned" or even "assigned" at all. People move, influence each other, are effected by different events, movements, beiefs, and so forth which go back farther than anyone probably wants to speculate, probably back before we were even considered human by most biology textbooks. Someone didn't roll a random number generator and assign cultural traits in an even spread across the world. So in other words, if x% more cultures have cultural trait y, it means absolutely nothing.

Obviously there are things that cause cultural traits to emerge. But I think it's pretty safe to say that whatever caused the cultural trait to emerge here is not the same thing that caused it to emerge somewhere in Africa, for instance. If there were, it would have to be a human universal, which is what you're proposing here.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Unless you believe that some god somehow created cultures across the world, than cultural histories, mythologies, beliefs, and practices are not "randomly assigned" or even "assigned" at all. People move, influence each other, are effected by different events, movements, beiefs, and so forth which go back farther than anyone probably wants to speculate, probably back before we were even considered human by most biology textbooks. Someone didn't roll a random number generator and assign cultural traits in an even spread across the world. So in other words, if x% more cultures have cultural trait y, it means absolutely nothing.

You are misstating my argument.

I am asserting that at least 95% of cultures (and perhaps more) throughout history are what you and I would both call "Patriarchical". I specifically define this as a society that has a male-dominant religious and political system as shown by history, writing and theology. (I will give you the Minangkabau in rural Indonesia, but if you read the article you posted you see that even the author hedges her argument that this is a "traditional" Matriarchy. The fact that she starts talking about the "search" for a single Matriarchy and then dithers about whether her prime example really meets the traditional definition should tell you that they are pretty rare.)

If 95% of separate human societies with no signifcant contact develop distinctly male-dominated societies, and there are no corresponding female dominated societies (although there are some middle cultures like the Minangkabau), this is evidence that there is something affecting the development of these societies.

Quote:

Unless you believe that some god somehow created cultures across the world, than cultural histories, mythologies, beliefs, and practices are not "randomly assigned" or even "assigned" at all. People move, influence each other, are effected by different events, movements, beiefs, and so forth which go back farther than anyone probably wants to speculate, probably back before we were even considered human by most biology textbooks.

I am not making a religious argument. Quite the contrary, I am making a statement about how cultures have evolved, and making a hypothesis about why this has happened.

There is no question that ancient Egyptian, ancient American and ancient Chinese all developed male-dominated societies independently. It is improbable that these societies had any contact with each other before they were well developed.

So the question is why this happened? Your theory about cultures mixing just isn't logical.

Quote:

Obviously there are things that cause cultural traits to emerge. But I think it's pretty safe to say that whatever caused the cultural trait to emerge here is not the same thing that caused it to emerge somewhere in Africa, for instance. If there were, it would have to be a human universal, which is what you're proposing here.

So what is your explaination of the fact that the vast majority of societies in many different regions are male-dominant in religion, politics and history?

0 Replies

rufio-

"equal" can't mean everything the same.If it did we would have ovaries and fun bags and big fat bottoms and we wouldn't be able to play football as stylishly as we do.Or they would have testicles and hairy chests and calloused hands and that would never do.

spendius.

0 Replies

My point is that every society has things affecting their developement, but it's rarely the same thing.

Are we talking about matriarchy, gender roles, or equality here? I only searched for matriarchy to show that there are societies where western gender roles are not the norm. There are plenty of other examples of that, regardless of what the official term "matriarchy" does or does not mean.

I didn't say everything about a culture could be explained by cultures mixing. I said that a lot of the roots of cultural beliefs probably go back to long before we were even considered human, and probably have to do with small series' of events over time rather than some sort of mass hypnosis or something.

First of all, I just said in the last two posts that we can't really know all the details of why a culture evolved in such and such a way. Second of all, you're the one who's claiming to know. So why do you think they did? Also, how can a society be "male dominant" in "history"? I don't know what you mean.

Spendius - I'm sure your bottom is plenty big and fat from sitting around reading message boards all day. ;-)

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

First of all, I just said in the last two posts that we can't really know all the details of why a culture evolved in such and such a way. Second of all, you're the one who's claiming to know. So why do you think they did?

This is an interesting question. Here is my hypothesis. I think it is pretty logical and likely true. I would be interested to read your counter hypothesis.

The one thing that human beings accross the globe have always had in common is biology. Biology has a lot to say about how societies develop.

Let's start with the easy points.

In every society it is the Women who nurse the babies. This part of culture is, of course, mandated by biology. But what does it mean. If the women are spending the time nursing the baby, this means that the men are free to hunt, forage and defend. In any couple that cares about raising kids, this division of labor is the most logical. Thus, you see it repeated over and over again.

But, how will this affect developing societies? As women are by necessity spending lots of time with their kids, it makes sense that they will be seen as nurturers. And, as we see from nearly all of the examples, this role is expanded in other parts of most societies even into areas where a womans biological differences aren't important.

Evolution has clearly affected the biological differences between men and women to meet the reproductive needs of the species, it seem probable that our instincts evolved as well. There is real evolutionary advantage to having nurturing females and protective males. This is certainly true in other species (though not all) there is no reason to be against this idea in the human species.

If I am correct that both human biology and perhaps evolution prompts human males and females in to respective defending and nurturing gender roles, you would expect to see these traits ascribed to males and females in the vast majority of societies that develop, even if they develop independently. This is exactly what we see and is evidence that my hypothesis is correct.

So what do you think? Do you have an alternative hypothesis?

0 Replies

if man and woman are equal would we survive?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know