Were Early Men and Women Equals?

[Sunstone]

Early men and women were equal, say scientists

"Early men and women" here refers to men and women living in hunting/gathering groups prior to the development of agriculture. Humanity spent more time in such groups than it has spent in post-agricultural groups and complex societies. In other words, we pretty much evolved to live in hunting/gathering groups.

The study referred to in the above link is interesting, but not in my opinion definitive. It is based on the close study of only two hunting/gathering groups.

It finds that men and women are equals in those groups, which I do not dispute. But I think if they had studied more than just those two groups, they might have found that sexual equality in hunting/gathering groups tends to depend on whether or not (or the extent to which) men and women contribute about an equal number of calories to the group's food supply.

That is, those groups in which men and women contribute about equally tend to have sexual equality, while those groups in which there is a large difference in the contributions of men and women tend to have sexual inequality.

Prior to the rise of agriculture, most of our ancestors would have lived in relatively food rich environments where -- presumably -- men and women tended to contribute a more or less equal number of calories to the group's food supply -- and hence, were probably sexually equal.

While some patriarchal groups might have been around in food poor environments during our early evolution, they were probably few and far between and patriarchy probably rose to widespread prominence only with the development of agriculture about 12,000 years ago.

I base my views on other studies I've read that were conducted some decades ago.

By the way, it interests me that groups in which men and women are equal more or less tend to have what we moderns might call "open marriages", rather than the sort of closed marriages you typically find in patriarchal societies. They also have lower rates of domestic violence, rape, and sexual molestation, from what I've read.

Comments?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I think that this relates the same way in the microcosm with regard to households where a man and woman are equal contributors both with income and household chores. In my experience, they tend to view each other as equals as opposed to a household in which one is the primary wage earner and one is primarily the homemaker.

So yes, I can very much see how hunting/gathering groups that contribute equal shares would demonstrate more sexual equality.

 

[atanu]

I think that this relates the same way in the microcosm with regard to households where a man and woman are equal contributors both with income and household chores. In my experience, they tend to view each other as equals as opposed to a household in which one is the primary wage earner and one is primarily the homemaker.

So yes, I can very much see how hunting/gathering groups that contribute equal shares would demonstrate more sexual equality.

But I toil at earning to be at service of my home boss.

 

[David T]

But I toil at earning to be at service of my home boss.

Indeed!!! And we perform like a trained seal with tempting promises of treats if we perform. For some, as the relationship gets older the treats become threats!!!! That's always a sign of things gone bad. The secret to a good relationship is that the right amount of treats are distributed and they are always a happy occasion!!!!

 

[shunyadragon]

Early men and women were equal, say scientists

"Early men and women" here refers to men and women living in hunting/gathering groups prior to the development of agriculture. Humanity spent more time in such groups than it has spent in post-agricultural groups and complex societies. In other words, we pretty much evolved to live in hunting/gathering groups.

The study referred to in the above link is interesting, but not in my opinion definitive. It is based on the close study of only two hunting/gathering groups.

It finds that men and women are equals in those groups, which I do not dispute. But I think if they had studied more than just those two groups, they might have found that sexual equality in hunting/gathering groups tends to depend on whether or not (or the extent to which) men and women contribute about an equal number of calories to the group's food supply.

That is, those groups in which men and women contribute about equally tend to have sexual equality, while those groups in which there is a large difference in the contributions of men and women tend to have sexual inequality.

Prior to the rise of agriculture, most of our ancestors would have lived in relatively food rich environments where -- presumably -- men and women tended to contribute a more or less equal number of calories to the group's food supply -- and hence, were probably sexually equal.

While some patriarchal groups might have been around in food poor environments during our early evolution, they were probably few and far between and patriarchy probably rose to widespread prominence only with the development of agriculture about 12,000 years ago.

I base my views on other studies I've read that were conducted some decades ago.

By the way, it interests me that groups in which men and women are equal more or less tend to have what we moderns might call "open marriages", rather than the sort of closed marriages you typically find in patriarchal societies. They also have lower rates of domestic violence, rape, and sexual molestation, from what I've read.

Comments?

In summary of my previous studies in anthropology I believe the consideration of equality in primal cultures is misleading. Basically men and women became specialized and complementary each have their own turf, and to a certain extent autonomous.

This primal specialization and autonomy of men and women societies extended into the present more in the Chinese culture more than Western cultures.

More to follow.

 

[PureX]

Early men and women were equal, say scientists

Comments?

No two humans are "equal". So the use and application of the ideal of equality, here, is relative, and contextual. As an absolute condition, nothing can be "equal" to anything else unless they are the same thing, which then renders the comparison incoherent.

I think it's important to understand this in any discussion of social equality because it illuminates the fact that we are always equal in some way, and unequal in others, regardless of what individuals or groups of individuals we are comparing.

So I guess my question would be; in what ways were early males and females considered equal? And how are these significant to us, now?

 

[sun rise]

I also would not generalize from a couple of samples. And even in a society which is close to equal, some might be "more equal than others" with rough equality but with a male or female dominant in the group.

In a later period, it's easy to find examples of matriarchal societies such as Art, religious artifacts support idea of Minoan matriarchy on ancient Crete, researcher says

 

[metis]

Much depends on how food and protection are obtained. The greater reliance on hunting favors more male dominance versus those that rely more on gathering. Bands that lived in areas prone to frequent warfare also tend to be more male dominant. In my immediate family, my wife claims total female dominance-- I'm so oppressed.

 

[Stanyon]

it interests me that groups in which men and women are equal more or less tend to have what we moderns might call "open marriages", rather than the sort of closed marriages you typically find in patriarchal societies. They also have lower rates of domestic violence, rape, and sexual molestation, from what I've read.
Comments?

Something I found interesting pertaining to this idea as far as interactions with various Native American tribes was from the journals and letters of the Lewis and Clark expedition as described in Stephen Ambrose's book Undaunted Courage, I cannot quote from the book directly because I have since donated it to my local library but I will give a general overview of their firsthand accounts in this regard. It seemed that among most of the tribes they encountered along the way it was common for the tribal leaders to share their wives with the leaders of the expedition and the common tribesmen to share theirs with the rest of the crew, It may have been just a courtesy or offer of friendship for some but for others it seemed to have a more practical value. William Clarke took along with him his inherited black slave York, he was the first black man most of the tribes had ever seen and were impressed with his skin colour and stature so more than a few chiefs wanted him to mate with their women to hopefully produce male warriors for their tribes, by all accounts he seemed a busy man in this regard. The downside to all this was venereal diseases which they planned for by taking along largely mercury based treatments, maybe almost as dangerous as the diseases they were treating to begin with.

 

[shunyadragon]

Much depends on how food and protection are obtained. The greater reliance on hunting favors more male dominance versus those that rely more on gathering. Bands that lived in areas prone to frequent warfare also tend to be more male dominant. In my immediate family, my wife claims total female dominance-- I'm so oppressed.

Actually, this is a misleading view of ancient cultures going back to the Neolithic, For example; China in the Neolithic and Bronze Age was subject to frequent wars of the most brutal nature, where the winner took no prisoners, and the winner most often suffered casualties of 70%+. The women in the early tribes and kingdoms of China were left with the responsible to rule. This lead to an autonomous women's culture in many kingdoms.

When writing developed in China, the women of the royal houses all the way down to the servants, and in some cultures of China women developed their own writing that men could not read, I have translated some of this poetry collected by Confucius, and it represents the oldest known woman's literature in the world,

I believe most ancient cultures were hunter/gathering societies, and fought neighboring tribes. I still believe the specialization between men and women created autonomous cultures within cultures,

 

[metis]

Actually, this is a misleading view of ancient cultures going back to the Neolithic, For example; China in the Neolithic and Bronze Age was subject to frequent wars of the most brutal nature, where the winner took no prisoners, and the winner most often suffered casualties of 70%+. The women in the early tribes and kingdoms of China were left with the responsible to rule. This lead to an autonomous women's culture in many kingdoms.

But ya gotta be careful about that. Let me give you an example.

With the Iroquois confederacy, only the women could declare war against another band or tribe, so does that make them matriarchal or egalitarian? The answer is no as they were very patriarchal in most other aspects.

In every traditional society that we're aware of, women had certain roles that were expected, and those roles in certain areas may overlap some designated male roles. And in some cases, a particular role(s) may supersede the roles of males, such as with the Iroquois. But we gotta be careful to make these exceptions the norm because they largely aren't.

In Scandinavia, for another example, male and female roles evolved to become closer to equal than any modern or probably traditional society that we know of. Why this occurred goes at least as far back as the Vikings (not the football team ), whereas the men often were gone for extended periods of time both with their fishing and their marauding, thus leaving the women and the elders to lead the societies. However, even today with they being the closest to equal, there still is more male dominance.

I believe most ancient cultures were hunter/gathering societies, and fought neighboring tribes. I still believe the specialization between men and women created autonomous cultures within cultures,

The issue of warfare is sporadic. The Mohave Indians didn't even have a word for "war" in their traditional vocabulary.

Generally speaking, the rule of thumb we have in cultural anthropology is that whomever controls the resources, controls the society. But variations can and do occur.

 

[shunyadragon]

But ya gotta be careful about that. Let me give you an example.

With the Iroquois confederacy, only the women could declare war against another band or tribe, so does that make them matriarchal or egalitarian? The answer is no as they were very patriarchal in most other aspects.

In every traditional society that we're aware of, women had certain roles that were expected, and those roles in certain areas may overlap some designated male roles. And in some cases, a particular role(s) may supersede the roles of males, such as with the Iroquois. But we gotta be careful to make these exceptions the norm because they largely aren't.

In Scandinavia, for another example, male and female roles evolved to become closer to equal than any modern or probably traditional society that we know of. Why this occurred goes at least as far back as the Vikings (not the football team ), whereas the men often were gone for extended periods of time both with their fishing and their marauding, thus leaving the women and the elders to lead the societies. However, even today with they being the closest to equal, there still is more male dominance.

I believe this represents specialization and in some cases autonomous societies within a society, of roles in societies and not equality.

The issue of warfare is sporadic. The Mohave Indians didn't even have a word for "war" in their traditional vocabulary.

War is war regardless of whether you have word for it. I would not consider the Mojave typical.

Generally speaking, the rule of thumb we have in cultural anthropology is that whomever controls the resources, controls the society. But variations can and do occur.

I belief in hunter/gatherer societies 'control of the resources' did not reflect the relationships between men and women, and equality is not a good word either to describe these relationships. I believe the concept of 'control of the resources' evolved as humanity became more civilized.

The Baha'i Faith does not teach that men and women are equal. The teaching is more practical in that the spiritual law is for legal and social equality.

 

[metis]

War is war regardless of whether you have word for it. I would not consider the Mojave typical.

I didn't imply they were typical, but the likely reason they didn't have a word for "war" is because they didn't experience it because of their location. The Inuit, for example, have over 20 different names for "snow", and that's largely because of their necessity to convey what the conditions of that are because of survival's sake.

Sometimes we get carried away with this issue of war, maybe embedded in our minds by paying so much attention to the wars rather than peace. Even when war did break out, many were nearly bloodless, thus ending quickly.

BTW, do you know what "counting coup" is? That act alone in Amerindian society often ended a particular conflict.

I belief in hunter/gatherer societies 'control of the resources' did not reflect the relationships between men and women, and equality is not a good word either to describe these relationships.

It absolutely does as we've studied many peoples over the last several centuries that lived in a traditional lifestyle. Most had an overwhelming number of what we call "prescribed roles", namely duties that are to be just performed by men and duties to be performed by women. In virtually every case that we know of, all of these societies were patriarchal to varying degrees.

I believe the concept of 'control of the resources' evolved as humanity became more civilized.

"Resources", as I used it, refers to all that is necessary for survival, which includes protection of the band/tribe. Generally speaking, the harsher the total environment, the greater emphasis on male domination.

And we even see it in our comparative physique, with men being noticeably larger and stronger on the average. Even our shoulder and hip joints are structured differently whereas it is easier for men to throw things and run faster on the average. This has to be for a reason, and no doubt much of this has to do with these different prescribed roles over millions of years.

Also, I do also need to mention that women were the only ones to be able to breast feed, so that very much limited their ability to provide resources, especially hunting and warring.

Anyhow, have a nice weekend.

 

[shunyadragon]

I didn't imply they were typical, but the likely reason they didn't have a word for "war" is because they didn't experience it because of their location. The Inuit, for example, have over 20 different names for "snow", and that's largely because of their necessity to convey what the conditions of that are because of survival's sake.

Sometimes we get carried away with this issue of war, maybe embedded in our minds by paying so much attention to the wars rather than peace. Even when war did break out, many were nearly bloodless, thus ending quickly.

I do not get carried away with the issue of war, but also I avoid citing isolated exceptions and extremes to understand the nature of human culture and society over al.

BTW, do you know what "counting coup" is? That act alone in Amerindian society often ended a particular conflict.

Yes, but not particularly relevant here in this discussion.

It absolutely does as we've studied many peoples over the last several centuries that lived in a traditional lifestyle. Most had an overwhelming number of what we call "prescribed roles", namely duties that are to be just performed by men and duties to be performed by women. In virtually every case that we know of, all of these societies were patriarchal to varying degrees.

Nothing is absolute here. What you describe here reinforces the concept of specialization and autonomous roles between men and women that leads to social cooperation, and not 'equality.'

"Resources", as I used it, refers to all that is necessary for survival, which includes protection of the band/tribe. Generally speaking, the harsher the total environment, the greater emphasis on male domination.

In the primal cultures the supposed domination for resources by the hunter (men) over the gatherer (women) is not that black and white. Observations of current more primal cultures reveals that hunting resources are not always consistent enough to dominate, and gathering may be the dominant source of 'resources.' I believe cooperation is more the rule here and not domination of one over the other. Actually evidence indicates that in many primal cultures, both men and women sometimes participated cooperatively in both dependin the relative scarcity of resources. In reality our ancient ancestors were gathers first, and hunting evolved later.

And we even see it in our comparative physique, with men being noticeably larger and stronger on the average. Even our shoulder and hip joints are structured differently whereas it is easier for men to throw things and run faster on the average. This has to be for a reason, and no doubt much of this has to do with these different prescribed roles over millions of years.

Also, I do also need to mention that women were the only ones to be able to breast feed, so that very much limited their ability to provide resources, especially hunting and warring.

True, but these factors contribute to the argument of inequality in primal cultures, a more cooperative relationship based on specialization of roles, and in some cases autonomous roles in the certain aspects of society for both.