Was there ever a gender equal pre-agricultural age?

[garybuseysdentist]

I've heard this theory a few times but I'm not so sure. From the docs and articles I've read men were always the dominant ones.

The 3 docs (one involving a french doc maker, the other a few aussie men looking for gold and a very old D. Attenborough film) I've watched about PNG tribes who have either very limited or no contact with the outside world showed nothing in terms of equality. The men were always the ones meeting the strangers and trying to communicate with them, the women were barely involved if ever. In the aussie doc the natives were ''trading'' very young girls with the white men for sea shells.

Then there's the articles about the uncontacted Amazon tribes, a few photos from a few years ago showed men pointing their bows at the plane circling them... no women in site. Or the tribe on a small island south on India where no contact is believed to have been made : the men shout and throw spears at any approaching boats, no women in sight once more.

I mean, it seems to me like these men were as aggressive and dominant as ever. I read somewhere that Marx was one of the people who came up with the idea of this gender equal pre-agricultural paradise. I don't know if that's true or not but then again he was a fucking moron so I wouldn't be surprised.

Humans were hunter gathers for hundreds of thousands of years. The idea that there was one basic type of hunter gather society that existed throughout that time and throughout the different environments that humans found themselves in is almost certainly false.

It's also worth pointing out that hunter gather societies that survive today do so because they live on land that is geographical isolated or unsuitable for agriculture (or both). They may not be typical of historical hunter gather societies.

This study says contemporary hunter gatherers tend to be equal, but farming communities are male dominated.

I studied this a little very long ago. The general feeling was that hunter-gatherer societies were more egalitarian and less violent towards women because gathering produces more, and more consistent, calories. i.e. piss off the women and you won't eat. Hunting was once in a while and could be inconsistent. That doesn't mean there were gender/sex roles but that the power was less obvious and exercised.

Once fixed agriculture started, being big and strong and guarding access to land and food meant powerful men could do what they wanted. And what they wanted was normally very bad for women.

The Scythians were, based on some records, extremely egalitarian. Both young women and young men had to kill an enemy in battle before being permitted to marry. They were herders rather than fixed farmers, and their martial focus was horse archery - something both sexes can excel at.

Problem was, they struggled to replenish their population after sustained conflict with societies that prioritised women's reproductive functions and were swept away by other tribes.

I don't think controlling women's reproduction is a uniquely human thing, it tends to happen in pretty much all social mammals. Watch any documentary where a alpha baboon, hippo or stag sees another male try to start anything funny with one of his ''properties'' and see how he reacts. Chimp alpha males are especially violent, not surprising since they seem to be most pshyco primate there is ... after humans, ofc.

I remember a book called (I think) Women's Evolution by Evelyn Reed which dates from the 1970s or 80s in which she talked about the change from hunter gatherer to agrarian societies. I can't remember much about it (apart from feeling that I wanted to buy hundreds of copies and give one to every woman I met) but two key things were that in the earliest societies 'family groups' were made up of women and their male blood relatives so a boy child's male mentor would be his uncle and there was no emphasis on fatherhood. I think she argues that the link between sex and birth was not understood. Their were strict controls as to who was allowed to have sex with who and lengthy breast feeding, so reasonable periods between pregnancies. The picture she painted was of societies with different roles for the sexes but recognition that they were equally important. I seem to recall that one of the first steps in women's subjugation was the move to requiring a girl to leave her family group on marriage and join the group of her husband where she would naturally be at a disadvantage. And I am pretty sure that she argued that women invented language or their role in language development was more significant than men's role.

it tends to happen in pretty much all social mammals

No it doesn't. It happens in mammals where there is a 'harem' system. There are many example of mammals that mate exclusively, at least until babies are semi-adult. And also examples (bluebirds) where the females pair off with the best nest-builders and mate with the biggest.

Studies on size of bollocks in relation to this are enlightening. Chimps have enormous bollocks in relation to size and act like utter arseholes. Orangs don't and don't. Sexual diamorphism is also a sign that males will be violent in mate-guarding. Plenty of animals where the female is the same size or larger.

Maybe in a hunter-gatherer society, there's not much scope for hierarchy because (as Marx might put it) "The people own the means of production"--anyone can go out and look for food, and have an equal chance of getting something. And of the food they can find, very little can be stored, so there isn't anything that can be called "wealth", only an ability to work.

If you start growing crops, there's a product coming in which can be traded or stolen or demanded as taxation. And once the idea is established that some people can live off work done by others, well then, let the women do the work and the men can do more useful things like being priests and soldiers and kings! It's an idea even poor men can support, because even a lower-class man can be priest/soldier/king of his own home!

No it doesn't. It happens in mammals where there is a 'harem' system.

Yeah, you have a point and it's probably not a good comparison since humans are more than a notch above baboons and seals in terms of evolution. I mean we already know that human male and female brains and instincts have no innate differences while in the natural world the female mammal is far more nurturing while the male is far more aggressive.

in the natural world the female mammal is far more nurturing while the male is far more aggressive

You don't know what you're talking about.

humans are more than a notch above baboons and seals in terms of evolution.

This is not true.

I mean we already know that human male and female brains and instincts have no innate differences

Actually we don't know this, far too little is known about how our brains work to judge. Certainly there is no evidence to support our brains being better or worse based on sex. There believe there are no clear morphological differences bw men and women. But the effect of male/female hormones on the brain are not fully understood.

while in the natural world the female mammal is far more nurturing while the male is far more aggressive.

Never generalise in zoology. Certainly female mammals nurture their young ie feed them milk but in some species males are also very nurturing (bushbabies for one), in others males can be less so or entirely absent. Or the nurture of the young is carried out by non-breeding individuals. And aggressive to whom? Females with young are pretty much the most aggressive individuals in many mammal species.

What does equality mean in a tribal culture though?
Does it mean that everyone does the same job? Or does it mean that all roles are equally valued?
Perhaps child rearing is seen as equally high status as defending the tribe.

What does equality mean in a tribal culture though?

What does it mean in any culture for that matter? I'd say equal access to resources (including but not limited to: food, water, such education and health care as is available), equal power in terms of decision-making. Equal input of labour (not necessarily equal roles). Equality in reproductive choices bw sexes (but these may be very limited in reality).

Certainly there is no evidence to support our brains being better or worse based on sex.

Yes to this.

There believe there are no clear morphological differences bw men and women. But the effect of male/female hormones on the brain are not fully understood.

If you mean there are no clear morphological differences between the brains of men and women, that's not true. There are many well-documented morphological differences between men's and women's brains, but then again there are also well-documented morphological differences between men's and women's hearts, lungs, bones, etc. so it's no big whoop. Different ≠ inferior.

What does equality mean in a tribal culture though?

What does it mean in any culture for that matter? I'd say equal access to resources (including but not limited to: food, water, such education and health care as is available), equal power in terms of decision-making. Equal input of labour (not necessarily equal roles). Equality in reproductive choices bw sexes (but these may be very limited in reality).

I'd add equal status: male and female labour is accorded on average equal value, men and women are equally likely to get the highest honours and the fanciest burials, are equally likely to be doing the dull but necessary work in a society, etc.

Yes, I have wondered about this a lot too. Loving this thread :)

I would go with saying of equal status - value and respect, but not equal in terms of roles and interchangabilty of the sexes taking on those roles.

I was thinking as other PPs have mentioned that with many women and children dying in childbirth and infancy that this should typically mean that women became precious and valued - but then you come on to the question of how you treat something rare and valuable...do you revere, protect and nurture it, or covet, hoard and control it?

I'm going off to read some of the links and about Scythians and bollock size to try to discover some answers! :)

I came across this and thought of you OP. The example is from the anthropologist Eleanor Leacock (1981) 'Myths of male dominance' (which I just ordered from Amazon where it's £10.80), but I'm paraphrasing from another source.

There was a nomadic, Indian nation the Montagnais-Naskapi in Canada (I believe they still survive). Apparently when European settlers came into contact with them in the mid-17thC they had no concept of private property, of authority, male superiority and did not punish their children. Men and women also had sexual freedom before and after marriage. Apparently one told a Jesuit priest that - not knowing who the fathers were, the tribe loved all children. not just their own.

People without concepts of private property and with no interest in money or accumulation and without leaders to dictate activities, don't make diligent, committed trading partners. So the Europeans set out to change their culture. They were persuaded to beat their children. The first public beating was of a girl and apparently one of her relatives gave a lecture to the bystanders saying, 'This is the first punishment by beating we inflict on anyone of our nation'.

They were persuaded also to get chiefs and bring their women to order, apparently insinuating that women that don't obey their husbands were creatures of the devil. Apparently the women ran away and the Jesuits got the men to chase them down and threaten them with imprisonment. I suspect, but my source doesn't say, that imprisonment was probably a new concept for the tribe as well....

My source for the story by the way was 'Caliban and the Witch', by Silvia Federici (2014). It's a compelling analysis of how and why women have been oppressed historically.

If you don't know what to buy yourself for Xmas I recommend it, but get some gum guards for the angry teeth grinding that accompany reading it.

Men waving spears or bows and arrows at strangers doesn't necessarily mean a society is unequal. It depends what you mean by equality.

I would have thought that hunter-gatherer societies tended to be more equal because there is no surplus to be sold/owned. If food is abundant, everyone can take what they need. People in hunter-gatherer societies can have much more leisure time because they spend much less time "working". I would also imagine that, thousands of years ago, childbirth would be considered an important thing. Add into that the fact that people may not have fully understood how babies were made and there'd be no concept of men owning women or children.

Conversely, I've also read that Iceland is the most egalitarian country partly because conditions there were so severe. Everyone had to do everything; you couldn't afford to exclude women from working/food acquiring because people would have starved.

I've often thought that those who accuse Marxists of callousness, invoking Stalinism and the deaths of millions, ironically neglect to consider the millions of deaths caused by capitalism. The deaths that were preventable but happened because of the expendability of the working class, or the land wars on the colonial frontier, the soldiers in world war 1, the Iraqi civilians in recent times, the potato famine, Ethiopia in the 80s, people who've died of diseases where the medicine patent is privately owned, etc etc. All preventable, all died in the name of profit.

In Stone Age times life so hard everyone pitched in to all the jobs they weren't segregated. Lots of cave paintings done by women

but then you come on to the question of how you treat something rare and valuable...do you revere, protect and nurture it, or covet, hoard and control it?

Wow! That’s such an intelligent question. I think all the bad things that have been systematically done to women, and still are, are covered right there.

And so much of the controlling is done under the guise of protecting. That makes it so much harder to identify.

Problem was, they struggled to replenish their population after sustained conflict with societies that prioritised women's reproductive functions and were swept away by other tribes.

IMO, I think this is the main reason why any egalitarian/matriarchal societies have eventually died out.

It makes sense that as communities come into contact with each other, the one that has been based on a hierarchy of dominance and control is going to wipe out / swallow up the more egalitarian one.

I have this, I didn't write it and don't know where it cam from.
I think it was on social media. I copy/pasted it to a friend and dug it out my email.

According to Engels, while there has always existed a sexual division of labor in human society, it is not until the rise of private property that this division becomes hierarchical. Before the rise of private property, society was organized under what was called “mother right”, i.e. a person’s family is traced through their mother, given the difficulty of identifying with certainty the father in primitive communist society. But because private property grew out of male labor, and became concentrated in male hands, mother right gave way to “father right”. In order to bequeath his property to his son, the father needed to know with certainty who his sons were. This meant controlling the reproductive labor of the female sex, and its subordination to male supremacy; thus the advent of patriarchy

As others have pointed out this is not based on any sort of hard evidence.

Sort of linked to this discussion:

www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/dec/05/how-neolithic-farming-sowed-the-seeds-of-modern-inequality-10000-years-ago?CMP=fb_gu

Did anyone see Extreme Wives, it was on BBC and you can see it on iplayer. Kate Humble visited 3 societies one in Kenya, one in Israel and one in India. The Indian one was a matrilineal society, children had mother's name, wife controlled the money, ran the business and the youngest daughter inherited everything including the duty of caring for parents. It was interesting, I think it was episode 2.

If you watch episode 1 have a hanky ready, young women married off to older women who didn't have sons so they wouldn't have DIL to care for them. Young wife was expected to fill the gap and provide male children from illicit relationships. Then there was the rescue of a 14 year old who was going to be circumcised at a sort of mass FGM event where 350 girls were circumcised.

The 3rd was Haredi Jews where women are expected to have many children, the woman featured had 15. The men spend their time studying the Torah and get some government money for that but the women are the main earners. How they do it with 15 kids I do not know.

It was a very interesting series.