All these topics got me thinking about this. I mean, (arguably) the reach of Genesis is the worst offender to sexism in humanity's history, but those fables and that historical context for an extreme high point in sexism were only penned around 2000-3000 years ago. What happened before then for the equality seen in early human societies to dissipate?
---
12345679
when the first caveman came home and dinner wasn't ready
HEYO
---
"I'm not great at farewells, so uh... that'll do, pig."
Natalie Portman was here
Was there really equality in early human societies?
---
Shake your windows and rattle your walls.
In the majority of cases, no.
My last post in BUM's topic is relevant here, as is this article:
http://books.google.com/books?id=VYj_woVgA3EC&pg=PA93
---
The Albino Formerly Known as Mimir
I'd like to point out that, in this particular topic and usually elsewhere, sexism seems to imply inequality for women. While it's indisputable that genders aren't economically equal, the argument tends to ignore the fact that the debate should be more for fair treatment than gender specific biases because, brashly put, men and women are not equal. For instance, advertising has always used gender bias to sell products, but people today are so caught up in "the big picture" that subtleties in the media go largely unnoticed. The man-of-the-house figure of the 50s has been belittled into a fraternized, familially incapable being that couldn't tell the difference between hand soap and dish soap if they were labeled. On the surface, this seems like a victory for women-- they're smart, capable, and independent. The dominant male is put in his place, but these pigeonholing caricatures do nothing to alleviate the issue. It's like Randal in Clerks II; calling white people porch monkeys isn't the right way to approach progressive solutions. For those who haven't seen it, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2DxyAGzGxM
It'd also be good to clarify exactly when you're referring to, Peach, 'cause I'm pretty sure your definition of equality never existed.
---
"I'm not great at farewells, so uh... that'll do, pig."
Natalie Portman was here
(I actually started this before I read your response, Fox, haha)
I have to go work very soon, but I will finish reading that article afterwards.
I just wanted to clarify: By "equal," I don't mean "equally performed the same tasks," I mean, "we're valued equally."
I think this might be in opposition to your belief, mimir (Kody? Which would you like to go by?), but I very much believe that men and women are different. The male and female body ARE different and ARE capable of doing different things. Men (besides Arnold Schwarzenegger) can't have children, and women can't produce as many eggs as men do sperm. What I don't understand is at what point did the qualities of men come to be known as more valuable and "better" than those of women? (Maybe if I finish the article that question will be discussed.)
In hunter gatherer societies, yes, men and women had different roles, but they were not looked at as inferior or as property. They had equal value in the society. Unfortunately, that doesn't exist today.
---
12345679
Well, in a hunt/gather society there weren't many roles or options. It was more about survival than choice, and I have no evidence for this, but I wanna say women were probably treated more like property then than now. They had to abide by arranged marriages, get traded for stuff like peace or land, and definitely got physically abused without repercussions more than now. I can't say I understand why women's opinions weren't valued as civilizations grew and democracies were formed, but there's probably a correlation between their roles in early and modern societies. As for their value, I don't think it was value based on ability or competence, but a more accessorized form of value.
---
"I'm not great at farewells, so uh... that'll do, pig."
Natalie Portman was here
You can call me "Mimir", "Ryan", or "Kodi", my preference being "Kodi", but I don't like "mimir" or "Kody", because I'm picky about spelling and capitalization. Then why (you ask) was my old username "mimir"? Because I'm an idiot.
Sure, men and women are different, in the sense that sex is a natural kind. I don't expect men to bear children or women to use urinals. But when physiology isn't an issue, I don't see the sense in saying that one activity is more appropriate for one gender than another. A society where many more men than women are mathematicians and many more women than men are homemakers seems to me a sexist society.
In hunter gatherer societies, yes, men and women had different roles, but they were not looked at as inferior or as property. They had equal value in the society.
I doubt this is true. Besides, I think "separate but equal" doesn't work any better for gender as for race. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal
---
The Albino Formerly Known as Mimir
I'm on the fly and haven't really read much of the topic, but saw something about men and women being equal. As my dad always said, they are equal, but different.
For example, 1+1 = 2. These are equal, yet, different. On the right side there is no addition symbol, or 1's for that matter. Women and men definitely have some differences. The key is equal but different, I think.
Be back later.
---
SIGNATURE
I'd figure it's as simple as strength being the most important aspect millenia ago. Men could simply do more physical "work"
---
Joe Plumber and Bob the Builder for President in 2012!
America: Can we fix it? YES WE CAN!
This may be an interesting topic:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061207-sex-humans.html
It explains that gender roles for labor didn't start occurring until the upper Paleolithic, and that women were just as able hunters as men, and men just as able gatherers as women.
[The scientists point out in their study that gender roles were not always the same in early-human cultures, and there's nothing that predisposes either sex toward certain kinds of work.
"That women sometimes become successful hunters and men become gatherers means that the universal tendency to divide subsistence labor by gender is not solely the result of innate physical or psychological differences between the sexes; much of it has to be learned," the authors write.]
This piece of information from Wikipedia's "hunter-gatherer" page.
["A vast amount of ethnographic and archaeological evidence demonstrates that the sexual division of labor in which men hunt and women gather wild fruits and vegetables is an extremely common phenomenon among hunter-gatherers worldwide, but there are a few number of documented exceptions to this general pattern. A study done on the Aeta people of the Philippines states: "About 85% of Philippine Aeta women hunt, and they hunt the same quarry as men. Aeta women hunt in groups and with dogs, and have a 31% success rate as opposed to 17% for men. Their rates are even better when they combine forces with men: mixed hunting groups have a full 41% success rate among the Aeta."[8] It was also found among the Ju'/hoansi people of Namibia that women helped the men during hunting by helping them track down quarry.[11] Moreover, recent archaeological research done by the anthropologist and archaeologist Steven Kuhn from the University of Arizona suggests that the sexual division of labor did not exist prior to the Upper Paleolithic and developed relatively recently in human history. The sexual division of labor may have arisen to allow humans to acquire food and other resources more efficiently.[12] It would, therefore, be an over-generalization to say that men always hunt and women always gather."]
I've also read a book by historian Cynthia Brown, called Big History. Good book, but anyways, when describing paleolithic society she talks of Venus figurines, figurines modeled after women, usually very big (implying fertility), and she claims some archaeologists (though we cannot know for sure, and probably never will) believe it to be remnants of a time when women were revered with awe and respect for their ability to create life.
---
SIGNATURE
You should check out The White Goddess by Robert Graves. It's a work of science fiction in which he describes the descent of the various Indo-European polytheistic deities from a single White Goddess of fertility and feminine authority. It's neat. Only Robert Graves thought it was a historical text.
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your interpretation of Brown, BUM, but to me that sounds a little like a 45th-century historian looking at an issue of Playboy and saying "Look how Americans revered women with awe and respect for their ability to create life!"
---
The Albino Formerly Known as Mimir
And to you, Kodi, I recommend The Hotel of Mystery.
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir
Hard to say, Mimir. Like said, all we can do is speculate, which is what a few archaeologists had done there. With Playboy at least there is explanation, context, a key so to speak. With these ancient pieces of art, there's not really any evidence we have to conclude upon.
However, I will say, if you haven't looked, you should really look at these Venus figurines. There is nothing sexy about them, at least for today's standards. They tend to be grossly disproportionate, immensely bodied, something I don't think many people would have been in those days.
---
SIGNATURE
Yeah, there's no context. Just remember that while the existence of weird standards for womens' appearance is (as far as I know) universal, the details of those standards vary a great deal between cultures. For example, nowadays, American women may get breast implants, but the flappers of the 1920s wanted to have small breasts. The silhouette decals you see on trucks are just as disproportionate as Venus figurines, albeit in different ways.
---
The Albino Formerly Known as Mimir
actually, i think implants are going out of style again.
---
"I'm not great at farewells, so uh... that'll do, pig."
Natalie Portman was here
Right, I understand ideas of what is beauty change over time (at least, to some limit), and there is plenty of history around to showcase it.
Off-topic though, breast implants are pretty weird. I don't care if your breasts are small and you're self-conscious because you think they need to be bigger, don't get implants. Just don't.
---
SIGNATURE
Question: When did sexism start?
Answer: Tuesday
---
"...you should try reading my posts being getting all emo." --FoxMetal
Off-topic though, breast implants are pretty weird. I don't care if your breasts are small and you're self-conscious because you think they need to be bigger, don't get implants. Just don't.
Incidentally, are we allowed to call them "funbags?" Like, is it possible to do that without being sexist? Not that I do so habitually, or ever; I'm just wondering.
---
Shake your windows and rattle your walls.
I don't know if that's sexist. I mean... there's such a variety of names for either gender's naughty bits, I guess it's okay. Not something I'd say around someone I didn't know well enough to say it around though.
---
SIGNATURE