During a discussion today about
women’s issues, I came across a question regarding the equality of men and
women in our hunter/gatherer history. Is
the predominant story of pervasive patriarchy an accurate description of our anthropological history? Were women always frail and submissive to
their stronger, hunting counterparts? This
time period seems ideal to investigate the “real” issue of male/female equality
as it would be relatively free of societal construct and influence. By investigating this issue, we can truly get
to the basis of what “human nature” and gender equality is really like. Thankfully, I stumbled upon this great review written by Dr. Ernestine Friedl who uses her anthropological expertise to
explore this issue. According to her
research, male dominance is directly related to gender control over food
distribution, a relationship subject to tribal structure and the physical environment. Thus, a variety of patriarchal and egalitarian
structures existed (and still exist) and this relationship is still applicable to gender equality in modern society.
To begin, I would like to define
three main terms that will be useful for understanding her discussion. First, a patriarchy is defined as a system of
society in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. Conversely, a matriarchy is a system of
society ruled by women. Finally and
intermediately, an egalitarian society is one characterized by belief in the equality of all people, especially in political, economic,
or social life. Using these definitions, Dr. Friedl’s
investigation points to a range of patriarchal and egalitarian societies present in our history, but truly
matriarchal structures were absent from her findings. The incidence of patriarchy was found to be
in relation to the amount of dominion men had over the distribution of
food. Groups heavily dependent on meat
and the hunt (example: Eskimos) are presented as strictly patriarchal. Women in these groups are “treated almost
exclusively as objects to be used, abused, and traded by men.” On the opposite end, Washo Indians of
southern California relied much less frequently on long hunts and more on
communal hunting and gathering. Women
had the opportunity to lead and otherwise there was “relatively little
difference in male and female rights.”
Dr. Friedl provides other examples of less egalitarian structures where
men have dominion, but women do have the ability to exert influence. Ultimately, dominion and status is awarded to
the group who controls the distribution of resources, a process dictated by
physical environment and biological constraints and usually, but not always,
associated with the male gender.
Dr. Friedl does address the division
of hunters vs. gatherers into the respective male vs. female groups and
attributes the division to the specialization required for these actions and the
reproductive capacity of women. As in
economics, it is more effective for two individuals to separately specialize in
tasks rather than for the individuals to perform averagely in both tasks. Conceptually, men could specialize in
gathering and women could specialize in hunting. However, hunting would be made inefficient with the presence of a small child on your back. The possibility of carrying and gathering is really what has solidified
the “woman as gatherer” idea beyond the temporary constraints of pregnancy. Interestingly, this perspective provides no
comparison of male vs. female intelligence, superiority or submission. It is simply most cost effective to design a
method of food production where the males specialize in the more taxing,
randomized pattern of hunting while women gather resources, bear, and raise children.
The power of this article lies in
its ability to contradict the patriarchy-as-inherent/historical-truth
story. We are certainly familiar with
the story of the powerful hunter returning to dominion over his wife and family.
Although this was certainly the case in
some instances, it is not the case for all. Tribes existed with the promotion of egalitarian
values and power relative to the distribution of labor. There is no reason to accept patriarchy as
the default human pathway as it simply is not true.
While reviewing the points of her article,
Dr. Friedl relates this relationship of resources/status to contemporary
society. Modern day Eskimo women might
be relatable to the middle class housewife, devoid of contribution to the
family resources and subject to her husband’s dominion. Dr. Friedl states “only as controllers of
valued resources can women achieve prestige, power, and equality” (Handmaid’s
Tale anyone?). Currently, women are
reducing the number of/closeness in age of their children and gaining more
influence and power in the workforce.
She concludes with a powerful statement:
In many
countries where women no longer devote most of their productive years to
childbearing, they are beginning to demand a change in the societal
relationship of the sexes. As women gain
access to positions that control the exchange of resources, male dominance may
become archaic, and industrial societies may one day become as egalitarian as
the Washo.
Feminism,
after all, is about equality.
