Verbena
Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011
|
| Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 17 2011,17:19) | |
| Quote | | I gave a few thoughts about DGS, and it is a fascinating field. Exemples of different models are present in nature, such as lion prides being patriarchal but still having the females do the heavy work of hunting and providing for food, in contrast with hyena prides which are matriarchal. I think to understand the patriarchy in humans, we'd have to go way back in time, when hominids started socializing. Males hunt, females care after the offsprings. I once read a study linked to this that provided a few "inherent" differences between male and female behaviors in everyday life due to these very early "roles" in hominid groups. Will try to track down the study if I can find it (it was about 15 years ago)... |
The phylogenetic line can give a lot of insight into mating strategies as the theory of matri/patrilocality in proto-species is thought to be fundamentally linked to mating strategies manifest in contemporary species, including humans. Patrilocality is thought central to theories of male resources control, male alliances and female vulnerability to oppressive sociocultural practices ( see Smuts, 1995). Lion females live in their natal groups which is more matriarchal. The males are basically just there to protect offspring from rogue males, they get mating rights for this, but its a pretty short, brutal life compared to the females. (I'm not a lion specialist, so this is a laymans opinion!)
| Quote | | Is Man The Hunter a fact or an assumption? I can't remember where I read it but there was some question a while back whether women joined in the hunt. Was there great sexual dimorphism in our early history or was it... er... bred for, later? And did the technology/tools of the time (spear throwers, e.g.) even the field? I dunno. |
In our history? How far back? Sexual dimorphism is I think thought to be driven by sexual selection. Ridley hypothesises sexual division of labour is to be one of the reasons homo sapiens success over other hominid species. Hunting and gathering targets 2 specializations which results in the group being bigger than the sum of its parts and enables food sharing and cooperation. Calories provided by female gathering form the majority of calories in contemporary h/g societies, men hunt for meat (which is more perishable that gathered food so must be consumed quickly and so food sharing and trade takes place). Food sharing - the way humans indulge in it - is unique among primates which have strict dominance hierarchies.
I don't doubt that some women have hunted, but I don't recall reading anything which stated that this was the norm and the men gathered. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. The sexual division of labour occurs universally in the most egalitarian of societies. Anthropologists tend to agree that hunter-gatherers are less sexist than agriculturalists. In the Ache and Hadza hunter-gatherers, males are keen hunters and appear relatively more sexually permissive society than the Hiwi and the !Kung who are intermittent hunters and are less permissive.
I'm not sure what you mean about technology and tools. What field did they even between men and women? Not that I'm aware. Female autonomy and leadership in 'primitive' egalitarian societies such as hunter-gatherers has always been a hot topic for feminists. The late Marxist feminist anthropologist Eleanor Leacock tried to assert that she had found such societies (17th century Montagnais Native Americans and among the Iroquois), but the evidence for this has been found to be spurious. Women can and do exert influence in their own realms in such societies, but don't generally gain formal political power over group decision-making, though they can informally via kin, etc. A good example of the lack of formal power is seen in marriage arrangements where in many societies free partner choice for women is virtually unknown or severely constrained. Marital alliances are negotiated by parents or male relatives. Although women may informally make their preferences known, it is often basically men who decide upon the marriage options of not only their mates, but their daughters, sisters, and nieces. (Low 1987).
Dunno if that makes any sense. I'm trying to write a blog piece at the same time!
--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com
|
