Early men and women were equal, say scientists - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Study shows that modern hunter-gatherer tribes operate on egalitarian basis, suggesting inequality was an aberration that came with the advent of agriculture. Our prehistoric forebears are often portrayed as spear-wielding savages, but the earliest human societies are likely to have been founded on enlightened egalitarian principles, according to scientists.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists[/url] [IMG]http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/5/15/1431675992226/b11fb5f4-2812-4f95-bf41-13059d6964c3-620x372.jpeg[/IMG]

That's both depressing and good. Depressing because we're not like that any more and good because we can refute anyone who says that male=dominant and female=submissive is coded into us and isn't worth tackling as a social problem.

Its not even so clear cut until the 1700s really, in mideval times if you were a blacksmiths wife you were in the back banging out arrow heads to pay your taxes while your husband made money doing other chores, the same delegation of duties was seen in other professions where women often worked on the management side of things while men did the main day to day business This whole males are breadwinner mentality didn't come about until the industrial revolution when self run shops were destroyed and farms were heavily industrialized and specialized.

I thought this was already well-known. Until a large scale development of agriculture and the formation of civilization, women were equal and even sometimes considered higher than men. Even after agrarian society was formed, women were still revered through religious forms and idols, just not seen equally in the setting of hard, agricultural labour.

Paradoxically, when humans have less to share, they share more.

[QUOTE=Edge97;47731253][url]http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists[/url] [IMG]http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/5/15/1431675992226/b11fb5f4-2812-4f95-bf41-13059d6964c3-620x372.jpeg[/IMG][/QUOTE] King of obvious honestly; as soon as a social order comes in those who are strongest take over and attach ideas of good leadership to physical strength.

She took the article out of context, the sci article mostly talks about the mating habits of the hunters. Even if it's not hard-wired into us, it can still have a major effect on a social-scale. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("alt of perma'd gimmick Raga" - Orkel))[/highlight]

They would have had to have been to deal with the burden of surviving with barely any tools and barely any language. They'd have to all work together regardless of gender to just make ends meet.

This is where the article totally missteps: [QUOTE]...but the earliest human societies are likely to have been founded on enlightened egalitarian principles, according to scientists.[/QUOTE] I don't really the feeling from the scientists that this was the case. They talk about some computer simulation, and then say it matches the study of the two groups: [QUOTE]The findings appear to be supported by qualitative observations of the hunter-gatherer groups in the study. In the Philippines population, women are involved in hunting and honey collecting and while there is still a division of labour, overall men and women contribute a similar number of calories to the camp. In both groups, monogamy is the norm and men are active in childcare.[/QUOTE] In hunting-gathering tribes, both sexes will have to add to the calorie pool, unless they live in an area with incredibly abundant food. That's why you see big differences in complexity between hunting-gathering tribes in Australia and New Guinea for example. Unless there's a food surplus, complexity can't really emerge. This has nothing to do with enlightenment and everything to do with survival. Disclaimer: I'm no scientist.

Not exactly a surprise. Most tribal societies practice some degree of egalitarian/matriarchal organization. That said, those societies consistently get steamrolled by agricultural, warring, patriarchal societies, so just because it's how we did things once doesn't mean it was bound to succeed in future.

or maybe "scientists" have just tried their hardest to find something that suits them going into this thinking "if we prove that women have always had equal rights then we'll get a fuck loads of money for appealing to the zeitgeist" i'm not trusting it.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;47731519]This is where the article totally missteps: I don't really the feeling from the scientists that this was the case. They talk about some computer simulation, and then say it matches the study of the two groups: In hunting-gathering tribes, both sexes will have to add to the calorie pool, unless they live in an area with incredibly abundant food. That's why you see big differences in complexity between hunting-gathering tribes in Australia and New Guinea for example. Unless there's a food surplus, complexity can't really emerge. This has nothing to do with enlightenment and everything to do with survival. Disclaimer: I'm no scientist.[/QUOTE] another way of putting this in traditional anthropological terms is that surplus permits a hierarchy of wealth, and thereby other hierarchies. bear in mind the author of the article is embellishing when she talks about enlightenment and principles, aka the intellectual motives of ancient humans which we know nothing about

[QUOTE=Sprockethead;47731445]Paradoxically, when humans have less to share, they share more.[/QUOTE]It actually makes sense. When you have little but share it, there's a chance of forming relationships which increases survival. When you have a lot, your chances of survival are already high so there is no point in sharing.

[QUOTE=Sableye;47731376]Its not even so clear cut until the 1700s really, in mideval times if you were a blacksmiths wife you were in the back banging out arrow heads to pay your taxes while your husband made money doing other chores, the same delegation of duties was seen in other professions where women often worked on the management side of things while men did the main day to day business This whole males are breadwinner mentality didn't come about until the industrial revolution when self run shops were destroyed and farms were heavily industrialized and specialized.[/QUOTE] That's being a bit generous. It's been on and off in intensity but some kind of male dominance has almost always been present. In medieval times you could be the blacksmiths wife but never the blacksmith if you were a woman. Plus there's the whole royal line only going to a women if there's no male heir thing. Roles were defined and often women had some measure of control, but never on the same level as the men. The ancient world was no better for the most part: Ancient Greek women were barely even able to leave the house.

This seems to have been taken out of context to suit some political agenda.

[QUOTE=shozamar;47731873]That's being a bit generous. It's been on and off in intensity but some kind of male dominance has almost always been present. In medieval times you could be the blacksmiths wife but never the blacksmith if you were a woman. Plus there's the whole royal line only going to a women if there's no male heir thing. Roles were defined and often women had some measure of control, but never on the same level as the men. The ancient world was no better for the most part: Ancient Greek women were barely even able to leave the house.[/QUOTE] I can't really give you online sources since this is from an offline book, but you could (at least in some periods of the middle age in some parts of europe) become (as an example) a smith as a women, but of course it was pretty uncommon. Women were however very active in other parts of the economy, running shops and the like. At least according to the book I've read on the subject. Other than that I agree.

When you barely have food in your table I bet you aren't too concerned with gender roles, equality or most modern issues. You simply do what need to be done, man, woman, child..

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;47731519]This is where the article totally missteps: I don't really the feeling from the scientists that this was the case. They talk about some computer simulation, and then say it matches the study of the two groups: In hunting-gathering tribes, both sexes will have to add to the calorie pool, unless they live in an area with incredibly abundant food. That's why you see big differences in complexity between hunting-gathering tribes in Australia and New Guinea for example. Unless there's a food surplus, complexity can't really emerge. This has nothing to do with enlightenment and everything to do with survival. Disclaimer: I'm no scientist.[/QUOTE] She's probably just using the word "enlightened" as a way of comparing it with today's social climate

[QUOTE=shozamar;47731873]That's being a bit generous. It's been on and off in intensity but some kind of male dominance has almost always been present. In medieval times you could be the blacksmiths wife but never the blacksmith if you were a woman. Plus there's the whole royal line only going to a women if there's no male heir thing. Roles were defined and often women had some measure of control, but never on the same level as the men. The ancient world was no better for the most part:[B] Ancient Greek women were barely even able to leave the house[/B].[/QUOTE] unless you were spartan, then you could even be a politician. [QUOTE] "Why are you Spartan women the only ones who can rule men?" "Because we are also the only ones who give birth to men." Gorgo, Queen of Sparta and wife of Leonidas, as quoted by Plutarch[1] [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=shozamar;47731873]That's being a bit generous. It's been on and off in intensity but some kind of male dominance has almost always been present. In medieval times you could be the blacksmiths wife but never the blacksmith if you were a woman. Plus there's the whole royal line only going to a women if there's no male heir thing. Roles were defined and often women had some measure of control, but never on the same level as the men. The ancient world was no better for the most part: Ancient Greek women were barely even able to leave the house.[/QUOTE] Celtic and German tribes had some measure of equality. Women would often serve as a secondary line of defense, and in some tribes, fought alongside men in the front lines. When an entire tribe is on the move, everyone fights, so either the women fought alongside the men and stood a chance, or the weak Roman bastards slaughtered everyone.

Read the article. There is no evidence. Literally. The scientists gathered geneological data, created a computer model, the model created some results, they made a guessabout what they meant. Moreover, they modelled two tribes, around 40 people in total. That's not really anything more then a hypothesis with that data sample. There are a lot of contradictions too. The article says gender equality provided an advantage, but states that with argiculture and ability to accumulate resources it was gone. I thought it was an advantage? Then the scientists continues to say that gender equality is the reason we evolved from monkeys. I mean, what? [Quote] Dyble said that egalitarianism may even have been one of the important factors that distinguished our ancestors from our primate cousins. “Chimpanzees live in quite aggressive, male-dominated societies with clear hierarchies,” he said. “As a result, they just don’t see enough adults in their lifetime for technologies to be sustained.”[/quote] Ehm, but we had clear hierarchies for the most part of the last 10000 years, yet we preserved technologies just fine. [Quote]The findings appear to be supported by qualitative observations of the hunter-gatherer groups in the study. In the Philippines population, women are involved in hunting and honey collecting and while there is still a division of labour, overall men and women contribute a similar number of calories to the camp. In both groups, monogamy is the norm and men are active in childcare.[/quote] In other words the findings appear to be supported by nothing. Slaves sure contributed more calories to reserves than egyptian elite, yet they were not equal or superior to them. Overall the article only has some hypotheses, nothing proven. I would bet that the scientists are trying to make fame boarding the gender equality trend. I mean the model sure could show at least something else to talk about (considering its just "people walked in groups and did some activities together"). The hypothesis that women took part in hunting and other usually male dominated activities is interesting. I dont see any gender equality in their study.

[QUOTE=bunguer;47731980]When you barely have food in your table I bet you aren't too concerned with gender roles, equality or most modern issues. You simply do what need to be done, man, woman, child..[/QUOTE] It's the opposite of today. I like it when people complain about equality and women not taking certain jobs that only men take and then complaining about sexism in said jobs. God forbid women have choices other than for example IT based jobs because hey those are reaaally fun to do for a living, and let's never bat an eye as to why we don't see women taking those kinds of jobs that could literaly cost you an arm and a leg.

IIRC Anglo-Saxon women also retained a right to inherit property, but were stripped of it after the Norman invasion. [editline]15th May 2015[/editline] Automergeeee

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;47732007]unless you were spartan, then you could even be a politician.[/QUOTE] Yeah, from what I remember of a module I did concerning Ancient Greece, Sparta was always a bit of an anomaly society-wise. Actually discerning how different they were is made harder by the relative lack of sources.

[QUOTE=shozamar;47732059]Yeah, from what I remember of a module I did concerning Ancient Greece, Sparta was always a bit of an anomaly society-wise. Actually discerning how different they were is made harder by the relative lack of sources.[/QUOTE] In Sparta, when a young boy entered training, he would be fed very little, often times near starving. If he was caught trying to steal extra grain, he would be punished, not for stealing, but for being a bad thief.

[QUOTE=Lucien1337;47731999]She's probably just using the word "enlightened" as a way of comparing it with today's social climate[/QUOTE] What is "enlightened" about hunting and gathering where everyone is forced to do hard labor just to make it to the next day? That's just such a weird thing to put into this context. [QUOTE=Moustacheman;47732114]In Sparta, when a young boy entered training, he would be fed very little, often times near starving. If he was caught trying to steal extra grain, he would be punished, not for stealing, but for being a bad thief.[/QUOTE] Or that's what Greek authors who weren't Spartans wanted everyone to think. The city-state in question wasn't really all that respected by others, there's a lot of mythology.

[QUOTE=gudman;47732139]What is "enlightened" about hunting and gathering where everyone is forced to do hard labor just to make it to the next day? That's just such a weird thing to put into this context. Or that's what Greek authors who weren't Spartans wanted everyone to think. The city-state in question wasn't really all that respected by others, there's a lot of mythology.[/QUOTE] Sparta wasn't respected, partly because of Athenian influence, especially after the Persian Wars. Sparta was one of Athen's biggest rivals, and the two differed immensely in their systems of belief.

[QUOTE=Vasili;47731947]This seems to have been taken out of context to suit some political agenda.[/QUOTE] Its amusing that you are getting rated dumb by people who clearly didn't read the article or study. This study says literally NOTHING about division of labor or social dynamics. Read it yourselves, don't take my word for it. This is quite common in modern journalism: journalists taking a study out of context and suggesting things as concrete that the authors themselves didn't suggest even tangentially.

[QUOTE=Satane;47732489]It probably is coded in to us though. Tribes without gender roles probably died out because they weren't as efficient at managing resources. Men - more muscles, simple as that. If you waste the muscles on picking berries you're wasting resources.[/QUOTE] "Egalitarian basis" doesn't mean "wasting muscles on picking berries". It means everyone was doing what they could.

Christ is there any quality control at the guardian? This is a shitty article through and through. I legitimately burst out laughing reading it. I mean it's not controversial at all that HG societies tend to have more egalitarian resource allocation and power structures, but it fucking stinks when people say "IN THE PAST MEN AND WOMEN WERE EQUAL". I mean do you have an interest in understanding social organisation, or do you just want to peddle the naturalistic fallacy?