Fascinating link, thanks for posting it.
They do indeed; I look forward to your visit, Plains. You’ll be setting history and I doubt it can be done, but hell, prove me wrong. I’d love to see it. 
Interesting. I’ve read up on this similar thread on your site, Anthropik, on Thesis 6. You explained that in foraging societies, there were sometimes female hunters. Did it ever work the other way around, however, where a male would be allowed to take a more female role and partake in gathering if he wished? Would there be a few male gatherers as well, or would this not take place?
Also, those 3-6 genders you’ve talked about–could you elaborate more on that, such as give an example of a society that had multiple genders over 2?
Did it ever work the other way around, however, where a male would be allowed to take a more female role and partake in gathering if he wished?
Depending on the culture, sure.
Also, those 3-6 genders you've talked about--could you elaborate more on that, such as give an example of a society that had multiple genders over 2?
In North America, for most cultures it was a minimum of three: male, female and Two-spirit. Really, the idea of just two genders is decidedly in the minority.
Thanks.
I’ll be honest…
I don’t see ancient man being a inspiring feminist in thought.
As much that I try to respect women I dislike the notions of feminism entirely.
My 2 cents: I recall from the stories of Stone-Age lifestyle having Yequana people in Liedloff’s The Continuum Concept that the tribal members did what they felt like doing and what needed doing. There was a situation in which a man didn’t want to tend a garden for his family, so the neighbors shared with his family. The whole community took care of everyone. The stories suggested that, in general, the men did the hunting, the boys played hunting, the women and girls cared for small children and did the home tending and food preparation.
When I imagine how the roles in my family would play out in the circumstance of us having to meet our needs in a direct way, I see me and my 5-year-old being the only 2 of us at this point who could conceive of killing an animal for food. Despite having been vegetarian for 10 years, I can no longer imagine living without animal foods. My daughter makes up stories about how she would kill an animal, which animal she would feel okay killing, etc. My husband, at this point, would have trouble killing a fish. Even from the store, he chooses not to eat mammals, only birds and fish. I know that I would continue to do the small child care. Even now, I cannot imagine going away to work as my husband does. I work from home. I waited many years to have children, until I had found a way to stay with them.
My point, sort of: Biology affects desires. Instinct communicates via biological means. Practices/roles arise both from biological instincts (perceived as intuition-what feels right) and from circumstances, necessity, what works. Assigning value to or ranking traditional roles seems pointless and probably damaging to the continuing meeting of the community’s needs.
Assigning value or ranking does strike me as a big “no-no”, but I don’t see an issue with having roles as long as they serve the needs of the community.
Most indigenous cultures allow for a diversity of gender roles, even if as a general rule those with Y chromosomes fill one role regularly and those w/o fill another role regularly.
I personally think the roles of the sexes are meaningless constructions whether it be the archaic ones or the reality that comprises our contemporary present.
If one was to look at the mating instinctual rituals of Tazmanian devils from Australia I believe that is what originally humans were.
My wife and I both share all the child care and raising.
Our set up is a little bit different than many,where as,at this point I attend school and she works out side the home.I watch him when I’m home,and vise-versa.
Our family is pretty egalitarian,and the house work is shared as well.
As far as the killing of animals goes,we both have fishing experience,though mine is very recent.I feel my wife would leave the hunting to me however,for the most part,as I have more of an interest in it.Experience with her attests to her resourcefulness, so I am sure she would hunt if for some reason I were not able to.
It has been said here already that gender roles are an artificial construct and I have to agree with that for the most part. I have definitely read examples of tribal cultures being what I would refer to as misogynist. My own ancestry is predominately Northern European (Norse and Saami) and in those cultures women were sometimes the warriors and hunters.
For myself: I hunt, I cook, I gather food, I can (and have) defend(ed) myself with guns, knives, pool-sticks and the occasional steel-toed boot, I heal with plants, I am a mother…
Two of my favorite things are silk skirts and antique sawed off shotguns. Screw gender constructs.
In my life on the streets, in the wilderness and everywhere between I have found that I have the ability to take on any role and perform nearly any needed function be it mother, warrior or hunter (just not wage-slave, argh). Perhaps, I’m not typical (in fact, I KNOW I’m not typical LOL). Nevertheless, I think it’s important for all of us to remember that part of wildness is the ability to adapt. Evolution is not survival of the most bad-ass, it is the ability to adapt according to need, and that includes gender perceptions.
Someone once said that if a woman is not a feminist she is by definition a masochist, but that’s another topic 
What about dominant biological sexes that comprises every species?
I’ve never heard of any animals with “dominant biological sexes.” There’s certainly some animals where males and females vary greatly, and might even be mistaken for different species, or where the male might be four or five times bigger, but does that make them “dominant”? I’ve never heard any evidence that would back that up, except as a projection of civilized power relationships onto natural relationships where they don’t belong–just like “alpha wolves” or Goodall’s chimp studies.
Biologically, morphological differences between sexes is called “sexual dimorphism.” It can be measured. Humans have some of the smallest degrees of sexual dimorphism in the entire animal kingdom, right up there with penguins. And there is a high correlation between sexual dimorphism and the strictness of gender roles in those species, i.e., those with lower sexual dimorphism are the most likely to swap traditional gender roles (like penguin males safeguarding the eggs through winter), which would point to similar propensity for lax gender roles in humans (which is exactly what we see).
ah, I see that I misunderstood thejoker’s last post now… ~smacks self in head~ must go edit (or kill) my replying post now…
[quote=“jason, post:33, topic:246”]I’ve never heard of any animals with “dominant biological sexes.” There’s certainly some animals where males and females vary greatly, and might even be mistaken for different species, or where the male might be four or five times bigger, but does that make them “dominant”? I’ve never heard any evidence that would back that up, except as a projection of civilized power relationships onto natural relationships where they don’t belong–just like “alpha wolves” or Goodall’s chimp studies.
Biologically, morphological differences between sexes is called “sexual dimorphism.” It can be measured. Humans have some of the smallest degrees of sexual dimorphism in the entire animal kingdom, right up there with penguins. And there is a high correlation between sexual dimorphism and the strictness of gender roles in those species, i.e., those with lower sexual dimorphism are the most likely to swap traditional gender roles (like penguin males safeguarding the eggs through winter), which would point to similar propensity for lax gender roles in humans (which is exactly what we see).[/quote]
I’ll give you a hint…
I dislike both feminism and male emasculation in modern settings.
Does this give you an idea of what I am talking about?
Don’t worry…
Hang around me too long you will see that I confuse everyone for some odd reason.
( Not always on purpose either. 
)
I dislike both feminism and male emasculation in modern settings.Does this give you an idea of what I am talking about?
That just makes me more confused. You said:
What about dominant biological sexes that comprises every species?
Feminism and “male emasculation” (whatever that means; I don’t think I’ve encountered that in modern settings, either; eunuchs haven’t been popular for a long while) are properties of human culture, so that gets us even further from “dominant biological sexes that comprises every species.”
[quote=“jason, post:37, topic:246”][quote=“TheJoker”]I dislike both feminism and male emasculation in modern settings.
Does this give you an idea of what I am talking about?[/quote]
That just makes me more confused. You said:
Feminism and “male emasculation” (whatever that means; I don’t think I’ve encountered that in modern settings, either; eunuchs haven’t been popular for a long while) are properties of human culture, so that gets us even further from “dominant biological sexes that comprises every species.”[/quote]
Is there a dominant sex in human beings? That is all I’m asking.
We can surely see it in other species beyond man.
Is there a dominant sex in human beings? That is all I'm asking.We can surely see it in other species beyond man.
I don’t see it in any species, that’s what I’m saying. What species has a “dominant sex”?
[quote=“jason, post:39, topic:246”][quote=“TheJoker”]Is there a dominant sex in human beings? That is all I’m asking.
We can surely see it in other species beyond man.[/quote]
I don’t see it in any species, that’s what I’m saying. What species has a “dominant sex”?[/quote]
Praying Mantis and lions to name a couple…