Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Sex and Relationships

It Wasn't Feminism That Killed the Neanderthals

By Caryl Rivers, Women's eNews. Posted December 18, 2006.


Anthropologists who suggest early humans survived by dint of separate gender roles are grabbing headlines, displaying the media's fondness for evidence -- however dubious -- of the species being hardwired for male dominance.
Advertisement

Did Homo sapiens survive because they were a prehistoric version of "Leave It to Beaver," while Neanderthals perished because they practiced an early brand of feminism?

Did unisex hunting doom the big bipeds, while male Homo sapiens played the part of Ice Age Ward Cleaver, marching off to hunt big game while June tidied up the cave in her pearls? Did this behavior ensure that humans would take over the world?

Is it true that, as a headline in the Toronto Star put it, "Equality Killed the Caveman?"

A study in this month's issue of Current Anthropology argues that division of economic labor by sex helped early humans win the survival race.

With Neanderthals, so this story goes, both men and women hunted big game to fuel their large bodies, got themselves whacked too often and went on their unisex way to extinction. Scientists Steven L. Kuhn and Mary C. Stiner, both of the University of Arizona, authored the article, after examining skeletal remains of Neanderthals, male and female, that bore the marks of rough wear and tear.

What is it about this story, dear reader, that landed it in the New York Times science section, in other papers around the world and on many blogs? Did someone whisper to the news media, "Psst! You can find an anti-feminist spin in the cold fossil bones of Neanderthals, so go for it?"

Would anyone in the mainstream media have given any ink at all to a controversy involving a species that vanished eons ago if bashing feminists wasn't involved?

Questionable Science

The science in this storyline is itself questionable.

Could enough Neanderthals -- male or female -- have suffered enough fatal encounters with wild prey to lead the entire species to extinction? This would have required so many encounters with the most dangerous prey as to call that premise into question.

Illinois University archeologist Olga Soffer suggests that instead of taking on a 6,000-pound creature with sharp tusks, early hunters more realistically set their sights on dead or dying juveniles and a few adult females. "If one of these Upper Paleolithic guys killed a mammoth, and occasionally they did," Soffer muses, "they probably didn't stop talking about it for years."

It's likely that Neanderthals, like early humans, scavenged kills by other predators and often set their sights on the most vulnerable prey. They ate shellfish and tortoises, and probably hunted game like ibex and wild horses. They needed to take in many calories for their large bodies, and communal hunts in which men, women and children took part may have been the most effective way to fend off starvation. They only had stone weapons, which were not optimal for the sort of male pack hunting that developed when iron weapons were invented.

It probably wasn't equality, but climate, that killed off the Neanderthals, some scientists say. Recent deep-sea core research shows that temperatures dropped sharply around 24,000 years ago. This could have created a severe drought that could have reduced the number of prey Neanderthals could catch. This would have been especially damaging to a species that needed a lot of food.

Brains over brawn

While the Arizona scientists speculate that very different gender roles helped early Homo sapiens explode out of Africa to dominate the planet, others have a different idea. Richard Klein of Stanford University believes that it was a cognitive advance, perhaps the rapid development of language, that gave early humanoids the edge over Neanderthals. Brains triumphed over brawn.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: feminsm, cave woman, male dominance

Caryl Rivers is a professor of journalism at Boston University and co-author, with Dr. Rosalind Barnett of Brandeis, of Same Difference: How Gender Myths Are Hurting Our Relationships, Our Children and Our Jobs (Basic).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What Have You Done For Me Lately?
Posted by: edith on Dec 18, 2006 1:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least early humans and/or Neandrathals seemed to have hunted in groups, lived in groups, and advanced in groups. Today isolation of the individual, by mental illness or by choice, is not uncommon. We have options for female participation in work that two or three generations ago were unheard of. It seems to me irrelevant what the ancients did. No female college graduate is kept out of law school or out of a professional job because the interviewer or employer believes feminism was a failed Neandrethal experiment.

Gender inequality exists today and must be corrected by reference to today's realities, not to social dynamics long since past. Academics have the luxury of research on 20,000 year old people, job applicants do not. We need today's data, not the Flintstones'. We have difficult choices today, which did not exist in Paeleolithic times, choices that are not tied to gender- like jobs exported overseas(where Indian women and men for example may do jobs US workers recently did).

The internationalization of the work force and the weakness of unions are of far greater concern to today's real life women than an interesting but irrelevant academic discussion by Boston-area intellectuals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bias
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 18, 2006 1:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with all this speculation is that the bias of the speculators interferes with the search for truth. In any event whatever happened way back then helped create our current circumstances which are becoming grim because there are so many monkey-brained money-stained bullshit-scatterers in our poliltical leadership.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: bias Posted by: jwg
I had no idea........
Posted by: Lizmv on Dec 18, 2006 1:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that because I'm female, I can't read a map, park my truck or play video games. Guess I'll have to stop doing those things. Gee, I wish someone would come up with a comprehensive list of all the things my female brain can't grasp, so I will know what it is I have to stop doing!

One question, if humans are 'hardwired' for male dominance, why do females WANT equality? And how could the human race survived if females were unable to protect themselves and the children from predators while the males were off hunting?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I had no idea........ Posted by: hagwind
» RE: I had no idea........ Posted by: Sunfell
» RE: I had no idea........ Posted by: joe2171
» RE: I had no idea........ Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» You prove the scientist's point Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: You prove the scientist's point Posted by: SatanicJamboree
Darn maps and oter things
Posted by: malaparte on Dec 18, 2006 3:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey , maybe el presidento is really female. But don't forget other great men of the past and present such as the scarecrow in the Wiz. , Donny Rumhead as well as almost all the repubs. in Wash. Then there's the great leaders of the amoral majority, Fallwell, Dobson etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Map theory
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Dec 18, 2006 3:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Neanderthal males left the women behind during hunting trips because they kept telling them to stop and ask for directions instead of using the map.

But since paper wasn't invented yet, the map was made of stone and probably weighed in excess of 100lbs, making it impossible to chase prey while carrying the map.

So in conclusion, if Neanderthal males had only stopped and asked for directions like the females told them, they would not be extinct today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Map theory Posted by: joe2171
» RE: Map theory Posted by: jwg
Already starting the week on a low note . . .
Posted by: MAD on Dec 18, 2006 4:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Psst! You can find an anti-feminist spin in the cold fossil bones of Neanderthals, so go for it?"

Would anyone in the mainstream media have given any ink at all to a controversy involving a species that vanished eons ago if bashing feminists wasn't involved?"

Psst! As usual, we're scraping the bottom of the barrel for print-worthy, feminist material, but let's put some lipstick on this pig and see if it'll fly anyway.

Would yesterday's tawdry exposé, that I have dubbed "Wellesleyens Gone Wild", been noteworthy in any but the most sensational of ways had it not taken cheap shots at the vile "Johns" who likely coughed up a week's salary to bang some doctoral candidate looking for a shortcut to stardom?

Once again, Alternet refuses to dispense with the "us vs. them" binary gender construct. Many of its articles, properly framed, would go a long way towards engendering a spirit of unity among both sexes, but as it stands, Alternet now seems interested in playing on *sigh* prehistoric antagonisms?!? Tell us you're not intentionally widening the gender divide in order to "spice things up".

Happy Holidays

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's the fault of the MSM
Posted by: hotar on Dec 18, 2006 5:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wouldn't blame the researchers for their theories (theories, not conclusions). Their job is to offer up ideas for consideration and criticism, based on the evidence they have collected.

The problem here is with the author of this piece and with the mainstream media, dumbing down and sensationalizing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Agreed. Posted by: fanny666
Worse than religious beliefs
Posted by: laoma on Dec 18, 2006 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is understandable, though no less reprehensible how conservative fundamentalists have derived their anti-female beliefs. What is not publicized or discussed as often however is the more insidious 'Fifth Column' of reactionary 'scientists' who do the same in the name of science. This is the dangerous, yet very attractive aspect of scientism - science used as pseudo-science ideology, which appeals to the untutored beliefs of the average person.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ridiculous bias
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Dec 18, 2006 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Firstly, it's ridiculous to take one scientific hypothesis and turn it into a storm of "anti-feminist science". The author provides no other examples to support such a trend, yet still suggests the scientists who put forward this hypothesis are deliberately biased.

If anything, the media has had a pro-feminist slant in the science department for a long time. I've read a steady barrage of "women are better at this, women are better at that, men are worse at this" etc. sort of articles for many years now, without reading of any sort of feminist protest against it. I suppose if it works in your favor, it must be true, eh?

Secondly, I think it is clear that division of labor makes us more effective as a society. If there was no division of labor in Neanderthal tribes, it's not surprising that they'd be less apt to survive because each contributing member of the tribe would be contributing less efficiently (out of trying to do everything that's needed to survive). That part of the hypothesis seems sound; what needs to be proven (or disproven) is whether the Neanderthals actually operated that way.

Comparing their situation to ours does not hold water, since nowadays we must all specialize to do a specific part of society's activities. No one living in modern society does everything from the growing of food to the manufacturing of advanced goods themselves. So viewing this Neanderthal hypothesis as being an attack on modern feminism is, frankly, lacking in sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Balance
Posted by: CMaciolek on Dec 18, 2006 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the real issue is not which sex is playing which role, but that the roles are balanced. If a female is better at hunting mamoth than a man, then that man should take up cave-keeping.

It was pride that killed the neanderthals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Balance Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Balance Posted by: joe2171
» RE: Balance Posted by: ladyoracle
» RE: Balance Posted by: Jimbo
» RE: Balance Posted by: wolfcry
» RE: Balance Posted by: jwg
Memo to Intelligent Designer (or Occupant)
Posted by: hagwind on Dec 18, 2006 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite the elegance of your protocol and rigorous adherence to proper clinical procedure, we have concluded that patriarchy is a failed experiment. Continuing the experiment poses a statistically significant risk to the test subjects and their habitat. It is time to pull the plug. Good try; better luck next time.

Your Dissertation Committee

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» pretty typical Posted by: MartianBachelor
w0x0f
Posted by: w0x0f on Dec 18, 2006 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess I've been a failure all my life and didn't know it. As an airline transport pilot (now aged out thanks to another kind of -ism) and now an accountant, I guess I've been dragging down both professions and didn't even realize it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

isn't it weird
Posted by: carolcarre on Dec 18, 2006 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but most hunter/gatherer societies have women out working at gathering, folks, not sitting in a cave waiting for meat. If you watch any of those wonderfully bigoted NGC programs about hunter/gatherer societies, you will notice despite all the focus on the male hunting prowess and the celebration of meat, most of the food comes from the gathering and scratch agriculture, not from "meat". This is well documented by anthropologists. In fact, the success rate of hunters is so low that if anyone had to depend on them for food, they would starve. One can easily understand why everyone celebrates when a piece of meat is brought home: it is such a rare occurrence as to be worth celebration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: isn't it weird Posted by: Jimbo
» NOW I get it! Posted by: hagwind
» RE: NOW I get it! Posted by: Jimbo
» RE: isn't it weird Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: isn't it weird Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: isn't it weird Posted by: joe2171
» RE: isn't it weird Posted by: jwg
» RE: isn't it weird Posted by: grammasanity
Would this article be here if...
Posted by: jaby on Dec 18, 2006 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it were about anthropological research that was positive toward women and derogatory towards men? For example, if the story in the Toronto newspaper was about how language originated with women and that is why us girls are better at all things verbal and communication, would this be on Alternet? Would the author and others on this board defend a boy's right and ability to score high on the verbal section of the SAT?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Would this article be here if... Posted by: theoblivionofnow
"Little" men....
Posted by: zenobia13 on Dec 18, 2006 6:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This all comes down to a few retarded (socially or otherwise) anthropologists' belief that the female is just an *addendum* to the male, that she is an incomplete, or biologically-deviant, male. There have been primitive cultures that have supported this idea for millenia. Judeo-Christianity is one -- God-guy creates a man "in His own image" and the bewildered man points to his penis and says, "What have you got that'll fit on this?" God-guy rummages around in a drawer and says, "Here, this is all that's left. See if you can make that work."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Little" men.... Posted by: Jimbo
» RE: "Little" men.... Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: "Little" men.... Posted by: Logic's Edge
» Humans are female Posted by: fanny666
» RE: "Little" men.... Posted by: grammasanity
» RE: "Little" men.... Posted by: joe2171
Klein is Right
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Dec 18, 2006 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Homo Sapiens had better language skills. This allowed us to work in groups of 50 as easily as neanderthals could work in groups of 5. Not to mention we bred like rabbits compared to neanderthals. lol. That is the biggest advantage of being able to communicate with a larger group -- it leads to a much larger selection of mates.

As far as women and men hunting together and stuff like that? gimme a break... Picture a woman with a baby at her breast, and a spear in hand. lol. It didn't happen. Between grooming, sanitation, herb/veggie gathering, and child care, they did not have the time to learn hunting. We survived as a species, precisely because it didn't happen often. If women were forced to hunt, it would be evidence that our species was not resilient enough to survive. Same holds true today. If women are forced to fight in a war, that war is probably going very very badly. There might be a few women who fight, but this is only because the men had no choice -- sometimes your skills demand that you use them. If a woman can kick the tar out of all the men around her, then chances are she'd become a warrior. But the number of women who took that path have always been inconsequential. At least until modern times.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Baby at breast Posted by: BlueTigress
» Point missed Posted by: chief of okeefe
» RE: Klein is Right Posted by: montims
» RE: Klein is Right Posted by: jaby
it's a choice
Posted by: mrd on Dec 18, 2006 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our past does not determine our fate--we do. We as a species can choose gender equality, or to cling to outmoded models of social interaction (as though those that 'worked' in the past were our only option).

Even if inequality got us where we are today, it’s pretty clear that sustaining patriarchal modes of existence are not sustainable now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: so very true Posted by: tlCampbell
Another Ignorant Feminist Intellectual
Posted by: faultroy on Dec 18, 2006 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Leave it to a woman to find issue and cause turmoil where there is none.
The above author--a journalist no less--decides to pick a fight with PHD's in their respective fields.
Ever since the advent of famed anthropologist Margaret Meade, we have been taught that a separation of work allowed civilization to flourish.
We are told, that women are peculiarly centered around child rearing (could that have anything to do with fact that the have BREASTS??)--but of course that has nothing to do with the facts to this New Age Feminine Einstein. We are told this has no merit (perhaps there was a Stone Age version of Title 9?) Prior to the Feminist Revolution no one questioned this obvious empirical fact. Today, we cannot even espouse theories without the Feminine Left calumniating the authors.
Every primitive culture in the world that we know of has a division of labor based on gender and no primitive societies allow their women to go to war. In war, primitive cultures were taken as slaves, their children brought to the winner's territory and ultimately assimilated into their society. Thus the genetic legacy of the loosers did not
die out entirely.
Men with their greater muscle mass (on average 30 per cent more) are geared towards more physical aspects of survival while women are more adept at home and hearth.
However we need a New Age writer to rewrite the reality of history. So what scholarship does she supply? Nothing...you see she is a woman and it is her perogative to disagree--so there!!! Its not the facts that count, it's how you feel about them that matters.
Why do these femine chipmunks get to spout off this nonsense?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hi Matthew... Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Another Ignorant Feminist Intellectual Posted by: bansidh@citlink.net
Klein my ass
Posted by: redstarwraith on Dec 18, 2006 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Steven Mithen is the one who first talked of cognitive advances homo sapiens enjoyed over neandrethal - not Klein.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So many time travelers...
Posted by: xenacat on Dec 18, 2006 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how marvelous it is we have so many "scientists" and other sorts who were actually there to see how the Neanderthals did things! I want a ride in that there time machine - kinda curious about Viking women myself. Did they really beat their men with sticks before sex? Inquiring minds want to know...Truth of the matter is, no one knows how pre-historic gender roles were constructed or what really killed these people off. Clearly, the usual BS anti-fem spin is occurring in the media, but what else is new? My suspicion is that all were so concerned about getting the next meal that they really didn't give a hoot about who brought in the next scavaged piece of meat or who gathered the damn blueberries, just so long as some one did. Lives were short, infant mortality very high, so that rather argues against our modern sort of elaborate judeo-christian gender constructs. But then, I don't have that time machine so I can check. Damn!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Huh? Posted by: tweedster
» RE: Huh? Posted by: xenacat
» RE: Huh? Posted by: joe2171
SCIENCE BACKS SUMMERS
Posted by: cognitorex on Dec 18, 2006 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(cognitorex blogspot: published CCTimes, Feb 06' )

Regarding the storm over Harvard President Summers' remarks:
In a recent yet unpublished study relating to proclivity and prowess in applied math and physics, researchers simulated being lost while driving. The husband drove and the wife rode. Cortex electrodes revealed that the wife stimulated the intuitive zone while the man's mathematical nodes were active. Post-simulation, the wives claimed that knowing where they were going seemed the paramount issue while the men, on debriefing, said they were calculating how much faster they would have to drive to make up for lost time.
Case closed?
Not entirely. On switching positions at the wheel, men's math activity tended to decline, particularly among those who felt they wouldn't be lost if they were driving. Ninety-two percent of the wives asked for help, although it was outside the test parameters, but 8 percent of the women did have increased mathematical activity. None would disclose what formulas they were devising.
There!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It appears that Jean Auel is right!
Posted by: aida1200 on Dec 18, 2006 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms. Auel's Earth's Children series postulates Neanderthals ("Clan" people) actually disposed genetically to a strict division of labor and male dominance, and modern/Cro-Magnon humans (the "Others") more flexible in both choice of tasks and leadership. I had supposed that her object was to show that sexism is not merely reactionary but actually "cave-mannish" in a figurative sense. Maybe she hit on something more!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I like anthropology, but find the climate theories more convincing
Posted by: counterpoint on Dec 18, 2006 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I studied some anthropology for a year in Boston (as a side line to graduate psychology) and researched a paper on a then popular theory (also out of Arizona): that early humans had driven the large animals on the north American continent to extinction. Remember that one? Made it to all the popular magazines. But you know what? After a few evenings in the Peabody library at Harvard I had learned enough to find that the same data was better explained by archeo-botanical evidence on the change in vegetation in line with temperature changes.
Today I'd pay special attention to those studies focussing on mental and communication. As a previous comment said, being smarter and able to share knowledge was likely the decisive factor for survival, especially under changing conditions. Military analysts tend to look at logistics and communication capability first. A tank without fuel or ammo, or no clue where to cross the river is worthless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I know what you mean. Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: I know what you mean. Posted by: joe2171
"Darwin Made Me Do It!"
Posted by: CrystalD on Dec 18, 2006 9:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nowadays, very few people outside of the fundie fringe sincerely believe that there is a God-given mandate for male dominance. "Eve ate the apple" and "St. Paul told women to be silent in church and obey their husbands" doesn't cut much ice with the largely-secular majority.

What has replaced it as a convenient excuse for male dominance is what historian Robert McElvaine calls the "Darwin Made Me Do It" excuse. Most secular people would laugh at the idea that a big, bad-tempered supernatural being in the sky told them that men must dominate. However, pour this old wine into the new bottle of sociobiology and it becomes respectable! Men dominate women because it's in our genes, it's Nature's way! Voila!

Biologist Robert Sussman has done a great job of demolishing such ideas in his book "Man the Hunted." Basically, he posits that the ideas of "Man the Hunter," male dominance, et cetera have their roots guess where - in the Abrahamic religions which still suffuse our culture. After all, modern science originated in monasteries and among clerics. That big, bad-tempered, bearded Sky Guy is alive and well in our psyches even if we're secular.

And, when it comes right down to it, why justify male dominance or anything else with "It's always been this way?" The ancient Greeks had slaves - does that mean we ought to? A common medieval cure was to apply freshly killed pigeons to a patient's feet - does that mean we ought to opt for dead pigeons in lieu of antibiotics when we're feeling under the weather? No, and no.

One thousand years ago, the Scandinavian countries were patriarchal and warlike - Vikings. Now they are peaceful, prosperous, and have the highest quality of life and most gender-egalitarian cultures in the modern world. The Swedes and Norwegians didn't say, "We used to be Vikings, so we have to continue to behave like Vikings." No. They focused on the quality of life for their citizens in the here and now, with excellent results. Maybe we'd do well to take a leaf from the Scandinavian book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Actually--- Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Actually--- Posted by: joe2171
» RE: "Darwin Made Me Do It!" Posted by: fanny666
Once Upon A Time....
Posted by: WitchyNy on Dec 18, 2006 9:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there were very few people. Mankind lived by hunting and gathering. Women died in childbirth all the time. Babies and children died all the time too. Most adults died young. So it was important to have lots and lots of babies to keep the people going. It was important work.

Nowdays we have too many people. And people live longer. So if we are going to have less babies born.... the women need something to do besides give birth and take care of children all their lives.
(still important work-mind you)

Women have always been just as smart as men...but the women were busy with the babies and children. Now they are taking over work that men consider their work.

This scares and angers the men.
So here comes all the figthting. We need to sit around the tribal campfire and figure this all out.
Come, brothers and sister, let us reason together.


[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Once Upon A Time.... Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Once Upon A Time.... Posted by: fanny666
» RE: Once Upon A Time.... Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Once Upon A Time.... Posted by: fanny666
» RE: Once Upon A Time.... Posted by: joe2171
» RE: Once Upon A Time.... Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Once Upon A Time.... Posted by: Robba29
» Robba and Fanny- Posted by: WitchyNy
» Whoa...Witchyny Posted by: Robba29
» RE: Whoa...Witchyny Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Whoa...Witchyny Posted by: Robba29
» RE: Whoa...Witchyny Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Whoa...Witchyny Posted by: Robba29
Science as polemic
Posted by: Ghoulman on Dec 18, 2006 10:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would anyone in the mainstream media have given any ink at all to a controversy involving a species that vanished eons ago if bashing feminists wasn't involved?

Hold on, I'll call Bill O'Reilly and ask (if he can tear his hands away from molesting his co-workers that is).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Real Science / Gender Differences
Posted by: fanny666 on Dec 18, 2006 10:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is odd that this theory made it into large media outlets. It seems that it was for its inflammatory stance more than anything.

I am a neuroendocrinology researcher, and I'm always fascinated by how pop-science talks about gender differences in brain and cognition. The fact is that there are differences between male and female brains- but this has nothing to do with one gender being "dominant" or better or whatever. I have not read the book "Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps" but I thought it was interesting that the author of this article said it "attacks womens' brains" - I wonder what it said men "can't do". I certainly hope that the book explains that there is a spectrum of gender differences in cognition, and it's not black + white.

Women have a thicker corpus collosum than men. This is the fiber track that connects both hemispheres of the brain. Because of this, women tend to be better at multi-tasking, and men tesk to be better at focusing in the face of distractions. It's not that one is "better" but they are different. Just one example.

The hippocampus is an area of the brain involved in spatial memory- there are many steroid receptors, and it is thought that this is why there are gender differences in this arena. Men tend to use cardinal directions when navigating, and women tend to use landmarks- maybe this is where the bombastic "women can't read maps" statement comes from. Obviously, it's not that simple.

Some Gender and Brain Differences

This is an article written for non-scientists, it goes into one study in depth, but keep in mind that there are plenty of tasks that women do "better" - if that word can even be used.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hmm...
Posted by: Blue Heron on Dec 18, 2006 10:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm just wondering about all the fascination with Neanderthals. Can't we just be thankful we evolved past the ape stage and not worry about whether gender had any kind of role? I mean, I believe in evolution, but yuck. Just imagining what they must have looked like gives me the shivers, and not in a good way!

Or do we dwell on these nasty creatures because we are scared of moving towards the future? Let's not fear the modern world, people. And also, those who are frightened of women having basic rights probably should be blasted back to our dark and creepy Neanderthal past.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hmm... Posted by: Logic's Edge
» fair enough Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: fair enough Posted by: jaby
» yeah Posted by: Blue Heron
a book to ponder
Posted by: axjxhx on Dec 18, 2006 11:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i recently read a book that in it's introduction, focuses on how the female brain has evolved from the primitive "gatherer" to "hunter/leader" through career and modern day requirements. anyone who is interested:
"The New Feminie Brain"
by Mona Lisa Schultz, M.D., Ph. D.

she basically explains what the physical differences have been between male and female brains and how they work...and how that has evolved through time. it is a VERY interesting read.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Such Danger in Labels - Choose your own tribe!
Posted by: DivaCleavage on Dec 18, 2006 11:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's all about conditioning - what we are taught - what is expected out of us. Then, there are successes and failures along the way. We are all capable of doing everything, but I also think individuals steer towards certain talents and abilities. Imagine the guy who just wasn't good at throwing a spear struggling to invent something else or modifying his technique and being beaten for doing it because it wasn't the right way. There is danger is justlfying limiting people to roles because of preconceived notions that certain types "cannot" do certain things.

I am female and not only LOVE video games, but excel in their play. I not only read maps well, I was the 20th person back out of 160 in my leadership class in the US army on our land navigation course where we had to not only read a map, but accurately use a compass, a protractor & actually cross terrain, locate a can containing the next map coordinates, and then go from there (against infantry, rangers, clerks, every job category - and I was an administrative specialist). There were only 11 other women - the ratio of male-to-females in 1988 on the surrounding bases.

Oh, but I also have a high sex drive and that isn't supposed to exist in women, either, is it?

Did we evolve or not from Neanderthals? So, does this matter in relation to now or not? Did those women just sit there or did they have to fend off predators? Did they have to go on mini-hunts to feed their young and themselves? Is that not surviving? Does remaining in the cave imply they were passively sitting there? If you've ever been camping in the wilds, you wouldn't be thinking that.

Did we evolve from the year 1500? Did we evolve from 1950? 1980? There will always be those trying to keep us in the cave with whatever justification they can. Unfortunately there are those among us who are willing to be kept there, waiting, starving, (waiting to be fed emotionally, physically, intellectually), for whatever reason. Maybe they are trying to please someone, their spouse, their mommy or daddy, or their god, or just doing what they think they are supposed to be doing.

I'm just glad I have a choice what tribe I hang out with now, (in fact, I have a passing membership in many mini-tribes) that I have the opportunity to learn to hunt and gather for me and mine and that I am amongst those who will share their bounty when I am unable to get my own. When I have an overabundance, I give to other tribes/individuals who may not have found a tribe yet.

Nobody can define you. Find your own tribe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Irrelevance
Posted by: mazur on Dec 18, 2006 12:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In fact, the whole question of whether homo sapiens is biologically hardwired for male dominance (I think it is) is irrelevant to the decision whether males should dominate females, or vice versa, or neither (my opinion), in the sense that we cannot deduce this decision (or policy proposition) from biological facts, or any other facts for that matter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sloppy propaganda
Posted by: Leman on Dec 18, 2006 12:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, I am not talking about the article about Neanderthals. I am talking about this one. I don't mind reading things I disagree with, as long they are well written. Propaganda is a fine art and not everybody can do it right and in a good taste. I hardly ever agree with the things Barbara Ehrenreich writes but I also hardly ever argue with her. Her supporters are usually sloppy in one way or another and are just asking for trouble. Her writings are always in a great style - I just have to respect her professionalism and shut up. Barbara Ehrenreich is an awesome propaganda master. The author of this piece doesn't seem to be.

Would anyone in the mainstream media have given any ink at all to a controversy involving a species that vanished eons ago if bashing feminists wasn't involved?

Would the author of this article bother writing if not for an attempt (failed, IMHO) to tie a scientific paper to the World Penis Conspiracy?

The science in this storyline is itself questionable.

Any science is questionable in a sense that it leads to more questions. That's not what the author of this "critique" meant, is it?

Now comes the real question: how many people in this forum actually read the original paper? No, not the one in "Toronto Star" - the one in "Current Anthropology". I am slowly ploughing through it (a lunch here, a quick coffee break there) and so far I have not seen anything wildly unscientific about it. I'll try to finish it after work and try to dig in more detail.

And the main thing: if there were an article claiming that early humans survived because their females were chained to the crib and were forced to have 30 children each - would you see it as an attempt to attack womens' reproductive freedoms? Today? Would anybody (including the oft-mentioned neocons) see it this way? It would be a bit of a stretch, IMHO.

Give it a rest. Write about real issues (without trying to tie them to some entertaining stories about Neanderthals). Then people are more likely to read your stuff. Please, don't give the art of Propaganda a bad name by such sloppy work.

P.S. Nevertheless - thank you for turining my attention to this paper.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sloppy propaganda Posted by: fanny666
» Link Posted by: fanny666
» Thank you (nm) Posted by: Leman
well done
Posted by: ethanay on Dec 18, 2006 12:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this is a well-written article, in my opinion. States the problem, offers critiques from other professional anthropologists and alternative hypotheses, all of which are conspicuously absent from the articles.

At times I get frustrated with what I see as an illiteracy of evolution and biology within the ranks of feminists because of the fear that it will lead to the "males are hardwired to dominate females and females are hardwired to be dominated" biological determinism, and thus everything "Must" be socially constructed. This protectionist stance is naive and counterproductive at best. I personally believe feminism would be a much stronger, more grounded and coherent movement if it incorporated some key observations from the biological and evolutionary sciences into its framework.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Links please?
[