- cross-posted to:
- space@beehaw.org
- anthropology@mander.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- space@beehaw.org
- anthropology@mander.xyz
You must log in or register to comment.
I heard from an Aboriginal tour guide that in native populations everyone just did the role they wanted / were good at, and it was only from the introduction of Christian missionaries that such a division of labour was encouraged.
Buffalo bird women (native American) considered it boys work to hunt ,and girls to tend the fields.
Interesting. My source is obviously anecdotal and from another country. Is it verified that Buffalo tribes always thought this vs. being influenced by European colonisers?
(I don’t want to fall into the trap of thinking older civilizations didn’t have the same gender hang-ups as modern ones.)
It seems likely that every human culture has had some concept of gender and norms related to it. Those roles can be permissive or strictly enforced. They can match the expectations our culture gives us, or they can be surprising to us. Beside average size, and childbearing, there is unlimited flexibility in how a culture might define the roles and how they might enforce them.
While it is a tempting thought, it seems unlikely that we, here and now, have somehow managed to create the absolute worst human culture in the millions of years we have been at this. I agree that we should be watchful of that pitfall. Western self loathing, is in itself another way of assuming that we must be the main characters in the human story.
Many gender norms come from the fact that if your nonmodern society is to survive, all women need to be pregnant or nursing a baby from their late teens until they are 40. (Or more likely until she dies in childbirth). Pregnant and nursing a baby put some restrictions on what a woman can do, which in turn will influence culture .
It is hard to know. ‘Buffalo bird women’ was the name of a specific person who grew up just before Europeans arrived (but smallpox arrived before she was born, and probabchanged culture). If you google you can find interviews with her as an old Lady. She gives a picture of how things changed over her life ,but not so much before.
Unfortunately north America in general doesn’t have easy access to materials that survive for centuries and so there is limited archeological evidence to work off. (Not zero, but we know little about culture because they couldn’t leave much evidence of it behind).
It’s important to question the beliefs we’re raised with, especially when seeking truth as scientists tend to do. I’m glad to see research like this, and especially the bit at the end of the abstract about examining prior conclusions that were influenced by patriarchal cultural bias. There’s something about how hard this notion of, “men hunt, women gather and take care of children, in all human societies past and present” is to shake that has me reminded of something:
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
That heuristic is generally taken to be accurate among the scientifically literate, Carl Sagan coined it even, but it is deeply flawed. Cultural notions of ordinary define what is seen as extraordinary. An idea that is normalized in our society needs much less evidence to convince people of it, while one that goes against normality needs much more to even begin to gain traction. The concept is flawed because ‘ordinary’ is socially defined, so while it can be used to discredit obviously wrong ideas like the existence of ghosts, it can also be used to discredit obviously wrong ideas like the CIA using LSD to (try to) control peoples’ minds. Pretty extraordinary claim, but it did happen. Maybe you see the issue with this heuristic, while the idea expressed is intuitive, it hides a sneaky cultural bias.
I think something similar goes on with ideas like the one this study refutes. It seems so clear in our patriarchal society that men and women are different, suited to different roles as we’ve been told so many times growing up, that the opposite concept is extraordinary. So you get scientists coming up with truly extraordinary explanations of why women are buried with hunting tools to maintain their conception of ‘normal’, and anyone who wants to refute it needs to go above-and-beyond only to still be met with skepticism.
If persistence hunting was really happening, female bodies might actually be better suited for the task.
Our ancestors probably weren’t eating horses in cool climates though. At least not very often! :-)
Yeah I’ll let the scientists debate this one out before believing this. Every time this comes up there’s not enough evidence to make a convincing case. This one seems to have evidence from all around the world and makes some very bold claims.
Will be interested in how this new information changes things. It wouldn’t surprise me that women hunted. There’s always been girls in every traditional “male” activity I’ve done throughout my life.
I feel like we probably just never interpreted the evidence that was out there in the correct way because of our biases. I don’t see why they would have gender segregation when everyone could just do whatever they wanted to/were good at. Seems like the simplest method to me too.
I agree I don’t think they would have had gender segregation I just think the ratio of hunters would skew towards more males because of interests and danger.
It makes sense for men to be more exposed to danger, we can’t bear children
And it’s not like all hunting requires top-tier physicality, if someone is just good at tracking that’s arguably the most important part of hunting, since you have to find game to kill it.
I’ve found it notable that a lot of people have latched onto the idea of humans as endurance/persistence hunters, tracking their prey down slowly until it’s exhausted… While also entirely ignoring that women tend to do better than men in ultra-marathons (and more so the longer the ultra-marathon is).
And also how some people latch onto the idea of teamwork and communication being essential for hunting, and also decide that women are better at communication and cooperation, then fail to consider that maybe such a communication advantage might outweigh a physical advantage.
Also there can be advantages to being small in some situations, too, like for stealth, or for climbing trees, or making their way through dense brush. Or for surviving with less food and water on long journeys.
Also literally anyone in a society like that, even the least built of them, would be in better shape than the vast majority of humans from modern sedentary cultures. Including gym bros, I’d argue, because building a physique by active lifestyle (vs a few hours of targeted exercise within an overwhelmingly sedentary lifestyle) optimizes for that lifestyle in a balanced way and won’t leave you with odd weak spots (no forgetting leg day, or forgetting to work out your core, then ending up with weird aches and pains).
I just watered my plants on the balcony. I noticed that one pigeon had taken a shit near one of the pots. Then I remembered that neighbor that feeds tens of them before they fly to bombard every balcony near him. I started feeling some kind of frustration. Then I opened this thread, saw your nickname. Started reading your comment. Negativity started going away. A laugh escaped near leg day. Cool.
On topic, there are quite a few reasons why women are better the longer the distance gets. Which is very nice, since ultra-marathons are one of the few sports that are not yet super-tainted by commercial interests and steroids. One of the few clean sports, and women are better XD
The little time I spent looking for information on persistence hunting, I didn’t come across any convincing arguments against it. That’s why I commented the way I did in my first comment. But I like the idea very much.
As for the gym bros, all I have to say, training for pleasure instead of training for pain is way more sustainable in the long run! ;-) No hate though, something is better than nothing. I guess.
