Teacher get's death threats and racist hate mail for banning God Bless America.

[Kralizec]

How do you know Hunter-gathere societies were "egalitarian" - they left no written records and the only reports come from Western observers.

That being said - what reports we have indicate a basic division, men hunt and women gather. This would generally extend to "men go to war (because it's like hunting)" and "women stay home".

It's a tiny step from that to reaching a position where only men are involved in decisions about when to hunt or fight and then you have your basic Patriarchy.

As I said, in era where families were more self sufficient the "economics" engaged in by women were home-based, brewing, weaving... etc.

It's simple - women get pregnant, and it takes nine months for women to procreate, ergo women cannot do physically strenuous jobs or travel long distances while "procreating", men can. Gender roles are based on this simple truth, they have not "developed", i.e. fundamentally changed, in most societies all that has happened is that they have adapted to different economic models.

This happens even today - men go back to work much sooner after the baby is born (in general) whilst women stay home to take care of it, whether they can go back to work later depends on whether they can afford childcare (economics) much more than personal preference. Those who can afford childcare are no different from medieval ladies who hired wetnurses and nanies.

Which just proves that, really, we are all stinking rich in the modern West.

About the hunter-gatherers, I read about it a long time ago but I forgot where. It makes sense though, the returns on hunting and gathering varies with the seasons and you can't adhere to a strict sexual division in labor for something as essential as food supply. The only exception being that the riskier hunting jobs are left to the men, since a tribe's ability to sustain its population depends more on women than men. But let's leave this to the anthropologists.

Wetnurses and nannies are full blown surrogate mothers, taking care of a small number of kids or even one. Childcare is much less than that, and cheaper by any standard. For some societies, Saudi Arabia comes to mind in particular, childcare would be financially viable for the bulk of the population and would enable a lot of women to work. But cultural taboos prevent this.

[HoreTore]

Women stay home longer than males, now?

Perhaps in patriarchal and oppressive societies like England. In more civilized countries(norway, of course), where the decision on who stays home is not decided by economics, men and women care for their children equally, and almost every child goes to kindergarden. Thus, both males and feamles get a few months off work after the baby is born, then when the vacation is over it's back to being productive.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Women stay home longer than males, now?

Perhaps in patriarchal and oppressive societies like England. In more civilized countries(norway, of course), where the decision on who stays home is not decided by economics, men and women care for their children equally, and almost every child goes to kindergarden. Thus, both males and feamles get a few months off work after the baby is born, then when the vacation is over it's back to being productive.

In your society men are being encouraged to breastfeed.

Your opinion is not valid.

[HoreTore]

In your society men are being encouraged to breastfeed.

Your opinion is not valid.

I see you too have the habit of not reading more than the headlines...

[Tellos Athenaios]

About the hunter-gatherers, I read about it a long time ago but I forgot where. It makes sense though, the returns on hunting and gathering varies with the seasons and you can't adhere to a strict sexual division in labor for something as essential as food supply. The only exception being that the riskier hunting jobs are left to the men, since a tribe's ability to sustain its population depends more on women than men. But let's leave this to the anthropologists.

Indeed you cannot. Because often hunting doesn't bring home enough to sustain you. In fact, in hunter gatherer societies the only one to "make a profit" is grandma.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I see you too have the habit of not reading more than the headlines...

I read the articles - have there not been at least two men who wanted to do this?

I remember one was taking hormones to encourage lactation.

So -basically - having fathered the bairn he was trying to make himself more like a woman.

Fundamental Man Fail.

Indeed you cannot. Because often hunting doesn't bring home enough to sustain you. In fact, in hunter gatherer societies the only one to "make a profit" is grandma.

Ah - but because the hunting is harder and carries greater risk it is the higher status activity.

Hunter-Gathering basically divided up the work Man-Woman as far as we know. Women worked near the camp, men went ranging.

[HoreTore]

I read the articles - have there not been at least two men who wanted to do this?

I remember one was taking hormones to encourage lactation.

So -basically - having fathered the bairn he was trying to make himself more like a woman.

Fundamental Man Fail.

The article.

It all started with a minister stating that women should be more lax about breast-feeding pressure, it should be more down to individual choice and the hysteria and fear-mongering should stop. Then a journalist made a story about a tribe in the Congo where the males breast-feed their offspring.

The article also mentions a swede who attempted to make himself able to lactate in a tv-documentary.


This was of course seized upon by the people who only read headlines, and in their mind, the minister had said that males should breat-feed their children and that several men already do. Which of course is both ridiculous and wrong.

Ah - but because the hunting is harder and carries greater risk it is the higher status activity.

Hunter-Gathering basically divided up the work Man-Woman as far as we know. Women worked near the camp, men went ranging.

....and as everyone knows, what they did in the stone age was the peak of efficiency. /sarcasm

Almost everything done in the past was either idiotic, irrelevant or inefficient. Looking to the past to determine the present is nonsense.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

....and as everyone knows, what they did in the stone age was the peak of efficiency. /sarcasm

Take a moment to think there.

OK - division of labour into specialisms is more efficient, Homo Sapiens Sapiens are successful for this reason. It is economically inefficient for both men and women to interupt their careers for their children, it is also inefficient viz the raising of the children to hand the duty off to a third party, as well as being more risky.

Almost everything done in the past was either idiotic, irrelevant or inefficient. Looking to the past to determine the present is nonsense.

No more or less than today.

[HoreTore]

Inefficient with kindergardens? No. One person looking after ten children is of course more efficient than one person looking after one child. And that's before we add in differences in value created by those persons. As for being more risky, of course it's not. The scientific research available suggest it's less risky, and actually better for the child(though it's too early to make final conclusions).

As for interrupting careers. Interrupting a career where the norm is not to interrupt will lead to a personal economic loss. Interrupting a career where the norm is to interrupt won't lead to any personal economic loss. As for total loss to society, it makes no difference who interruptstheir careers, what matters is total amount of time away from production, which is the same whether one parent or both take days off. In essence, what that argument leads to is that having children in a society is an economic loss, which is clearly a false statement.

[Moros]

Not that long ago I stumbled upon this: http://www.ted.com/talks/tony_porter_a_call_to_men.html
It made me shiver.

I guess I'm too sexist for this talk. And while it's true there's an inequality that shouldn't be there. But man people can overact and go too far.

Edit: Gah! It's actually somewhat okay, now that I rewatched. Gah! still a bit much though.

Anyway everybody is sexist anyway. Some just convince themselves and or others they aren't.

Also singing a nationalist song isn't bad per se, but shouldn't be forced either. Kids should do as they like when it comes to that. As long as they don't sing anything overly offensive. The white man marches on, would for one obviously go to far. But is it a big deal? Nah.

Personally I don't think nationalism should be taught in school. Nationalism isn't about being proud really, it is about twisting truth and idealising. It only creates justification to look down to others or worse. One can be well proud isn't the right word, but happy to be part of a country or just like the country. But real nationalism is bad. Ever tried having a historical discussion with people who had school with real nationalistic ideas inserted? Not just a pledge of allegiance. Nationalism had caused problems for historical curriculum in every country with big discussion and sometimes even more. Also working for the betterment of a country sounds a bit like the thirties really. Don't want to go there...

When it comes to letting school teach morals to your children that's like well dumb and lazy. It's your responsibility to teach your child not only how to behave but morals, though it will form its own in the end, you can influence it at least. But you can't expect a school or teachers to do so. Everyone has their own morals, father and mother might even have discussions about it, how can a teacher teach the correct set to each and every one of them. The only thing you could teach at school is the 'golden rule', don't do to others what you wouldn't like to be done to you. But that's where it ends. And yes if you'd connect this with the sexism discussion and add certain cultural backgrounds, you already might have a problem with parents.

[Kralizec]

Ah - but because the hunting is harder and carries greater risk it is the higher status activity.

Hunter-Gathering basically divided up the work Man-Woman as far as we know. Women worked near the camp, men went ranging.

You do not seriously think that in times when hunting game was rare, the men would just sit on their arses while the women went scavenging for plant food?

I vaguely recall now that I've read about this in a book I own detailing human history from the stone age age till late antiquity. I'm not sure where it is right now, so this wiki will have to suffice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer

Hunter-gatherer societies also tend to have relatively non-hierarchical, egalitarian social structures. This might have been more pronounced in the more mobile societies.
Full-time leaders, bureaucrats, or artisans are rarely supported by these societies.[16][17][18] In addition to social and economic equality in hunter-gatherer societies there is often, though not always, sexual parity as well.[16][19] Hunter-gatherers are often grouped together based on kinship and band (or tribe) membership.[19]
...
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 uncommon phenomenon among hunter-gatherers worldwide. Although most of the gathering is usually done by women, a society in which men completely abstained from gathering easily available plants has yet to be found. Generally women hunt the majority of the small game while men hunt the majority of the large and dangerous game, but there are quite a few 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."

[Kadagar_AV]

You do not seriously think that in times when hunting game was rare, the men would just sit on their arses while the women went scavenging for plant food?

I vaguely recall now that I've read about this in a book I own detailing human history from the stone age age till late antiquity. I'm not sure where it is right now, so this wiki will have to suffice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer

That must be local...

From what I read in school and after the men are the ones with bite marks and stuff...


last I read women took care of the group at large, gathered, and hunted small game...

The men did all of the above and also went out in groups hunting the big game.



So yes, men did all the jobs women did (if you don't count giving birth and feeding them the first period of their lives), but women didn't do all the jobs men did, ie, big game hunting.

So again, I think the study you show points at a local phenomenon, maybe where the big game is no longer a real danger?

[Moros]

I remember it started really with the introduction of the plow and similar tools, which women weren't strong enough to handle or much less efficient at handling. Not sure how much that theory was supported and all though. Just something I remember reading once.

[Kadagar_AV]

I remember it started really with the introduction of the plow and similar tools, which women weren't strong enough to handle or much less efficient at handling. Not sure how much that theory was supported and all though. Just something I remember reading once.

Nah.

[Fragony]

I remember it started really with the introduction of the plow and similar tools, which women weren't strong enough to handle or much less efficient at handling. Not sure how much that theory was supported and all though. Just something I remember reading once.

The plow is a much more recent invention than you would expect, what you read is certainly not true