Man As The Hunter; Woman As The Gatherer

ONE NATION UNDER GOD: DIVIDED & JUSTICE FO R ALL? E M IL Y A. G ATL IN D R . G R ACI E L A C ABAN A

AN T H R OPOL OGY 4 5 9 F AL L 20 0 8 2 5 OC T OBE R 2 0 0 8

…REMEMBER THE LADIES, AND BE MORE GENEROUS AND FAVORABLE TO THEM THAN YOUR ANCESTORS. DO NOT PUT SUCH UNLIMITED POWER INTO THE HANDS OF THE HUSBANDS. REMEMBER ALL MEN WOULD BE TYRANTS IF THEY COULD. IF PARTICULAR CARE AND ATTENTION IS NOT PAID TO, THE LADIES WE ARE DETERMINED TO FOMENT A REBELLION, AND WILL NOT HOLD OURSELVES BOUND BY ANY LAWS IN WHICH WE HAVE NO VOICE, OR REPRESENTATION.

-Abigail Adams, letter to John Adams and the Continental Congress, March, 1776

Modern American culture remains centered around Judeo-Christian principles of femininity and masculinity. Within this construct, The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (2008) outlines the central ideals of gender roles for both contemporary men and women as: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7.

Both Adam and Eve were created in God's image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart Adam's headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin In the home, the husband's loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife's intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility Both Old and New Testaments also affirm the principle of male headship in the family and in the covenant community In the family, husbands should forsake harsh or selfish leadership and grow in love and care for their wives; wives should forsake resistance to their husbands' authority and grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands' leadership In the church, redemption in Christ gives men and women an equal share in the blessings of salvation; nevertheless, some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men

Clearly, the dominant theological beliefs driving the American gender roles automatically place women in the subservient position to men. This lasting legacy of the dominant male and the submissive female remains a central element to the gender constraining constructs of today. Males are the aggressive protectors, the caretaker of the childlike woman. Additionally, the submissive gender role always implies that feminine qualities are inferior to the masculine qualities. As a result, reinforcement of these cultural biases originating in theology dominates academic studies and interpretations. Ironically, archaeological explanations utilizing evolution restate religious ideology by demonstrating this cultural notion of the inferiority of femininity. Science rarely exists as an objective fact, but culturally explored topics that exude partiality of our cultural standards. In America, dominant popular belief espouses how femininity is inferior to masculinity. However, neither femininity nor masculinity is superior—they are complimentary equals. Living in 1|Page

Emily Gatlin

A Divided Nation

25 October 2008

the spirit of democracy, we must retain equality among all persons. Therefore, as American citizens living in 2008, we must actively remember to analyze the discourse and understand the gendered constructs presented as objective research. Contemporary depictions still adhere to classic depiction of the male-provider and protector. As a result, it is clear to see how these mainstream ideas continue to dominate the popular mindset. In the past, scientific and academic explanations often subjected partiality from the culturally defined gender role norms for behavior. Therefore, many past and dominant archaeological interpretations regarding the lifestyles from our prehistoric ancestors reinforce the in situ cultural notion of the traditional male-dominance. Archaeologists often impose these cultural biases into how they construe prehistoric life ways by emphasizing the sexual division of labor and the placement of the males in the ―more prestigious‖ subsistence activities. In these depictions, Frances Dahlberg (1981:1) summarizes the typical imagery for hominids two million years ago, ―five thin, wiry men who carry spears for throwing at game or enemies walk rapidly away from the group…the women walk more slowly; they are pregnant, carrying toddlers, and besides they are not going anywhere that day.‖ Clearly, the men exist as the active defenders for the sedentary females with their children. This clear tendency to place men as the aggressive sex clearly exists within the accepted archaeological interpretations. For example, in ―The Evolution of Hunting,” Sherwood L. Washburn and C.S. Lancaster (1968:293) state, ―human hunting…is a way of life, and the success of this adaptation (in its social, technical, and psychological dimensions) has dominated the course of human evolution for hundreds of thousands of years.‖ Thus, the evolution of man stems from this activity alone as it gave way to the evolution of the distinctly human behaviors. Washburn and Lancaster (1968:297) describe also how ―the whole human pattern of gathering and hunting to share—indeed, the whole complex of economic reciprocity that dominates much of human life—is unique to man.‖ Thus, the view as ―man the hunters‖ reinforces the ―naturalness‖ of male aggression and prestige from violent actions while pushing women to the side, out of the public eye to tend the children. Popular belief still maintains the ―man as a hunter‖ ideology as support for the ―status quo‖ of gender roles. Washburn and Lancaster (1968:299) propagate the justification of man as the hunter by explaining how ―part of the motivation for hunting is the immediate pleasure it gives the hunter…evolution builds a relationship between biology, psychology, and behavior, and, therefore, the evolutionary success of hunting exerted a profound effect on human psychology.‖ Hence, the dominant stereotype also tends to place intellectual capacities in males rather than females and reflects the traditional power structures allotting the majority of political power to men. Additionally, in ―The Origin of Man,‖ C. Owen Lovejoy (1981) explains how the portrayal of ―man as the hunter‖ reinforces that the distinctively human behaviors like bipedalism, social interaction, and complex language arise from male hunting as the primary subsistence strategy. Alternatively, in ―The Selective Advantage of Complex Language,‖ Robbins Burling (1986:2) points out how ―excellent coordination in hunting could be achieved with a far less intricate language than ours.‖ Instead, he (1986) assigns the prestige of power to the ability of communication. He (Burling 1986:14) asserts, ―Language, selected as a means for conducting increasing refined social relationships, came finally to permit the vastly more complex organization of modern human 2|Page

Emily Gatlin

A Divided Nation

25 October 2008

society.‖ In order to be a leader, the traditionally male citizen demands a higher command of language to retain public power and respect (Burling 1986). Therefore, the emphasis on the maledominated language as the authoritative figure demonstrates the prejudice that women naturally exhibit intellectually inferior language abilities. As effectively stated by Adrienne Zihlman (1997) in ―The Paleolithic Glass Ceiling: Women in human evolution,‖ this viewpoint of prehistoric man as a hunter ―gave an evolutionary basis for aggressive male behavior and justified gun use, political aggression and a circumscribed relationship between women and men as a ―natural‖ outcome of human evolutionary history‖ (96). Dahlberg (1981:11) points out how the sexually divided explanation ―overlooks the widespread practice of collective hunting…collective hunting involves both men and women and sometimes children and is unrelated to differences in physical size or geographic range.‖ Plainly, the ―required‖ sexual division of labor as outlined by the ―man as the hunter‖ proponents excludes consideration for equalitarian cultural practices. Additionally, the emphasis on how ―man as a hunter‖ dominated human evolution automatically excludes the important contribution of 50% of humans—the women. ―In the earliest stages of human evolution, gathering plant foods entailed technological innovations for collecting, carrying, and sharing food…that hunting emerged in human evolution relatively late, half a million years ago–as compared to human origins at over 3 million years—and emerged from the technological and social foundations established by the gathering of plant foods‖ (Zihlman 1997:98). Dahlberg (1981:16) explains Eleanor Leacock’s emphasis on the ―egalitarian society among hunters and gatherers where issues of status are irrelevant because both women and men produce goods and services for their own use, make decisions about their activities, and hence, control their own lives directly.‖ Clearly, the problem of completely downplaying the role of women as being an equally significant human demonstrates the inherent cultural bias within archaeological interpretations. Another problem exists with the imposition of our cultural standards upon past peoples or current peoples as Dahlberg (1981:17) points out how the Australian Aboriginal culture where age establishes authority, not gender. Additionally, how Turnbull’s (Dahlberg 1981:17) study of the Mbuti tribe ―female elders have both power and authority that male elders cannot match…female elders make explicit criticisms from the center of the group, while male elders confine themselves to grumbles.‖ Therefore, the automatic assumption that male authority supersedes any female power remains invalid within cultures other than our own. Additionally, the Australian Aborigines attempt to exhibit the balance of powers between genders. Therefore, in allotting more understanding to the role of women in prehistoric societies helps generate the widespread acceptance of these ―checks and balances‖ of power across gender lines. The United States of America Constitution written by the revolutionary ancestors exhilarated this same notion of the ―balance of powers‖ between governmental branches. Similarly, gender relations need to follow this same concept. Feminist critiques fail to exemplify the distinctively feminine characteristics and often dismiss them as male-created constructs. However, I feel the ideals of womanhood as empowering and the dominant feminist reaction to reject the public’s notions of femininity yields the negative connotation associated with ―feminism.‖ To me, femininity is the added ―check‖ to masculinity and has the potential to contain an equally 3|Page

Emily Gatlin

A Divided Nation

25 October 2008

powerful connotation. Today, many point to the equalitarianism within the recent addition to women’s presence within the politico power realm; however, a quick analysis demonstrates the reluctance claim femininity as an equally powerful as masculinity. Thus, in my attempt at being an ―informed citizen,‖ I try to research the coverage and political campaigns of both parties. Today, I click on the top story in the political news proclaiming, ―Republican National Committee Spends Thousands on Palin Clothes.‖ According to the article, Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin received $150,000 for her wardrobe (Cummings 2008). Pausing, it seemed oddly reminiscent of the press coverage of Hillary Clinton’s supposed cleavage sighting and the Washington Post’s 746-word article on it (Smith 2008). Helena Andrews (2008) brilliant summarizes how within our culture ―no matter how intelligent, how poised, how prepared, how wonky you are, when you’re a woman, only one question seems to matter: Who are you wearing?‖ Therefore, even the current presidential election demonstrates the clear dominant perspective that feminine traits are inherently inferior to masculine traits. For Sarah Palin, the media continues to emphasize her beauty pageants over her political policy. Additionally, the press immediately attacked Hillary Clinton’s cleavage as ―deliberate‖ and portrayed her as the classic feminist whiner. Thus, any attempt from women to engage within the realm of political power, popular culture immediately jumps to condemn as either extreme ―feminist‖ or ―beauty queen.‖ However, beauty is not a bad trait; cleavage is a distinct feminine characteristic. Criticism of these constructs within powerful women is an insult to women across the country. Clearly, women need to take a stand to say, ―Yes, I am a beauty queen. I have cleavage, but that does NOT in ANY way affect my competency as a HUMAN to be intellectually equal to any male.‖ However, true equality among genders remains the idealistic standard to exemplify the true American democracy. Until the acceptance of male nurses as ―men‖ and the female political figure ceases objectification by the popular media, America will remain a highly gender stratified society. I keep my optimism; I keep waiting for the mentality to change, one citizen at a time.

4|Page

Emily Gatlin

A Divided Nation

25 October 2008

Works Cited Andrews, Helena 2007 Hillary and the Giant Peach. Political Commentary. July 24. Electronic document, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5087.html, accessed October 22, 2008. Blazinet, Kenneth 2007 Clinton Hot and Bothered Over Cleavage Report. Daily News Washington Bureau, July 28. Electronic document, NYDailyNews Archives, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/07/28/2007-0728_clinton_hot_and_bothered_over_cleavage_r-1.html, accessed October 22, 2008. Burling, Robbins 1986 The Selective Advantage of Complex Language. Ethnology and Sociobiology 7:1-16. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 2008 The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: The Core Beliefs – The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Webpage. Electronic document, http://www.cbmw.org/danvers, accessed October 21, 2008. Cummings, Jeanne 2008 GOP donors critical of Palin's pricey threads. Political Election 2008 Commentary. October 22. Electronic document, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14840.html, accessed October 22, 2008. Dahlbery, Frances 1981 Introduction in: Woman the Gatherer. Frances Dahlberg (ed). p. 1-33 Lovejoy, Owen 1981 The origin of man. Science 211: 341-350. Smith, Ben 2007 Edwards: Full-Court Press Against Media. Political Commentary. July 31. Electronic document, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5132_Page2.html, accessed October 22, 2008. Washburn, Sherwood L and C.S. Lancaster 1968 The Evolution of Hunting. In: Man the Hunter. Richard B. Lee & Irven Devore (eds). p 293-303. Wylie, Adrienne 1997 Good science, bad science, or science as usual? Feminist critiques of science. In: Women and Human Evolution, Lori D. Hager (ed.) p29-55. Zihlman, Adrienne 1997 The Paleolithic glass ceiling: women in human evolution. In: Women and Human Evolution, Lori D. Hager (ed.) p. 91-113

5|Page