Home » diaries » Ian Welsh's diary

Power and Gender


Many years ago I took a sociology course which really turned out to be about anthropology. (Indeed the two disciplines are so close that Carleton U used to offer a 100 level course called "Introduction so SocioAnthropology" or something fairly similiar to that.)

Anthropologists roughly divide societies into basic groups by how they extract a living from the environment. The basic groups are hunter/gatherers, horticultural (take a stick, push it in the ground, drop a seed in), agricultural (plows) and industrial (nomads exist off to one side). What's interesting about this is that that with very few exceptions (the Inuit are one) hunter gatherer bands are the most egalitarian societies, by far - even more egalitarian than modern industrial societies.

Agricultural societies, on the other hand, are the least egalitarian societies in general.

My Prof at the time positted the following: the more a gender contributes the more powerful they are. In typical hunter gatherer bands women account for 60% to 70% of the food - while the men are out hunting, they gather, and they gather, in fact, more food than the hunters bring in. In agricultural societies, on the other hand, men do the plowing, and women are generally relegated to the home.

But this begs an obvious question, one I immediately asked. If power is based on contribution, why aren't hunter gatherer bands matriarchal? After all, the women are actually contributing not an equal amount of food - but much more than the men!

The answer was interesting, and I think, has a lot of truth to it. Gatherers don't work in tight teams. Hunters, as a rule, did (remember, these guys didn't have guns.) So the men had stronger social ties than the women.

And it is true, in general, that wherever you see women with low status, they are kept from interacting much - from forming ties with other women, or even more so, with men outside their families.

In our own society, it is striking that when things go really bad it is often with women who have become practically house bound. And it is also notable that the 50's had women practically confined to the house.

None of this, really, should come as a surprise.

If you have the ability to produce more money, you'll be more powerful. And who you know is one of the biggest determinents of how influential and powerful you are. Simply mentioning that you are friends with a noted lawyer, or being known to hang out with powerful people, can make you money or scare off potential predators. Not to mention give you leverage against an abusive spouse.

The housebound period then, that many modern women go through when they have their children, reduces their power both directly by reducing their earning power, and indirectly because it is often accompanied by a collapsing social circle. Likewise the tendency of many to lose friends once they become married is something to be guarded against.

The general principles, however, suggest hope for those who prefer more egalitarian societies. Becasue, in general information societies, should we manage to attain such, will increase the ability to maintain and extend social ties despite physical circumstances, and upper body strength will be even less necessary than it is now to earning a living. The hangover of old attitudes, the glass ceiling and so on will still be there, but there should be more cracks in that ceiling, and more power and influence to use in combatting those attitudes.


Ian Welsh March 15, 2006 - 2:41pm
Ian Welsh's diary | printer friendly version | digg

What about specialization and scarcity

If the things that men do are generally more scarce, then men have more power. So, as long as the women are performing 'unskilled' activity, they will be at an economic disadvantage.
For example, in hunter-gatherer societies, I'd be very surprised if the men were incapable of gathering in addition to hunting - so that hunting rather than gathering, is the scarce resource.
Of course, the whole causation or correlation thing is an issue, but I would expect to see that polyadrous societies tend to give more powerful roles to females (although I haven't explored that extensively).

NateTG March 15, 2006 - 6:42pm
login to post comments
Why are you surprised that women

weren't the hunters? Women carry children for nine months and bear the children--that isn't something men were or will ever be able to do. Plus the fact that physically women are smaller and therefore in a primitive society less able to do physical work. There were some successful matriarchal societies, but they are few and not very well documented.

It just made sense that women would be the gatherers and the men the hunters. Big deal! Both were needed for survival.

Interestingly enough hunters and gatherer societies did't place much value in possessions or land. Hunters regard tools as novelties and didn't take particular care that could have increased production. Men were needed to bring home the meat, women gathered crops to supplement the meals.

There was a time when physical prowess played a role, but that is no longer true. Women can now be modern-day hunters and men can be modern-day gatherers.

When meat ran out, the hunters just moved on to greener pastures. Scarcity was cured by moving. That is not applicable to modern-day life. Egalitarian societies are now formed by both genders.

canuck March 15, 2006 - 8:17pm
login to post comments
Uh, maybe I'm missing something

in my article, but what makes you think I'm surprised? it's not just childbearing, it's speed at a sprint, depth perception and upper body strength, though.

Ian Welsh March 15, 2006 - 10:10pm
login to post comments
Women are

physically smaller than men?
You obviously haven't met my wife. She is 6' tall and I'm 5'10" (and I'm lying).
Size means nothing. Intelligence means nothing. Working together as a team means everything. Once one member takes control the team is weakened. Work together and the team becomes strong.
Almost 33 years later this team is as strong as it was when it started.
This is why the Japaneese auto makers are getting stronger. The American automakers are getting weaker because of no teamwork.

kimmy March 15, 2006 - 10:45pm
login to post comments
Very interesting point about

Very interesting point about teamwork.

I think it's a great thing (on and off the job), yet look how much pressure there is to ignore and scoff at the idea of company loyalty. I hear people say with such enthusiasm that we should all think of ourselves as independent contractors ready to be fired and rehired at any time and I think to myself: what an idiot.

jerseycityjoan March 16, 2006 - 7:33pm
login to post comments
Teamwork between men and women

that become marital partners isn't about competition between the two parties. It's more like give and take between equals.

There will be times when one of the partners is more dominant than the other, but that doesn't imply one is weaker or stronger than the other. Both, if the partnership is strong will have attributes they borrow from each other and each benefits from the trade.

Women do elect to have children and that usually means the burden of child rearing falls to the woman. If the woman is secure in her personality, she won't find that period of her life onerous. There are many rewards independent of power that nourish the child, both parents and the marriage. It really does take a high level of maturity to not place undue emphasis on the lack of the earnings the couple have foregone for one of them to stay home. (Usually, the woman, by choice!) What is often overlooked, is the contribution that is made to society when couples decide that parenthood takes precedence over earning power. Does that affect the woman's potential earnings for the remainder of her life? Well, not in my case it didn't...kept up and returned to University before re-entering the workforce. It just takes more planning for long term goals if both are to become the strong individuals they are capable of being. Self actualization doesn't stop because there are young children that 'need' to be looked after, it's more than that--for the family to grow they 'all' need to draw on each other's strengths and give when the time is right. Children draw on their parents in their formative years, men and women draw on each other and eventually in later years, parents draw on their children. Life is a circle--so too is parenthood, marriage, and/or being a member of one or other of the genders.

I dunno, maybe women are just more content and don't seek monetary reward as much as men? It does seem to work out that way, but I betcha if you asked women who stayed home and entered the workforce after the period when they stayed home to be with their children that they wouldn't trade places with their male counterpart. Each to his own? Is one more giving than the other? I do strongly object to being called more submissive, because that just isn't the case--there are just too many rewards for being willing to be the first to bend. And don't forget, this was a joint decision...the man agreed to be the primary bread winner during the time of reduced earnings.

Women's careers and lives are just different! "Viva la difference!" Doesn't mean one is superior to the other. Why do the genders have to be the same? They aren't built the same, so why not celebrate the differences and not dwell on the disadvantages/advantages of being one or the other?

canuck March 18, 2006 - 12:40am
login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.