Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Deep-seated attitudes to women have roots in ancient agriculture

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 64 posts

Re: Deep-seated attitudes to women have roots in ancient agriculture

#21

Post by zeteo »

jgj wrote: post #9
tokenadult wrote: post #5

A claim about "all-powerful mother goddesses" before the end of the fifth millennium BC is inherently unhistorical. The submitted article notes, "For each group, the data included a description of its agricultural methods as far back in time as it was possible to go using historical evidence or, in the case of groups which did not have a written language, the first time they were observed by outsiders." That's much n…

> it is at least as likely that the statues are porn as that they are representations of powerful goddesses I'm not so sure there is or needs to be a distinction between the two. Penis goes in, life comes out. You can't explain that. Well, paleolithic man couldn't. But they could draw/sculpt it and revere it for both its pleasure- and life-giving properties.

>Penis goes in, life comes out. You can't explain that. Well, paleolithic man couldn't. But they could draw/sculpt it and revere it

It was not until 1677 [1] that people started to discover how reproduction works beyond "penis goes in, life comes out". Yet there are no major religions documented before that (in about 5000 years of recorded history) which revered crude vulva drawings. Whereas pornographic graffiti has been widespread everywhere from the streets of Ancient Rome [2] to modern boys' bathrooms.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonie_van_Leeuwenhoek#Discove...

[2]http://www.pompeiana.org/resources/ancient/graffiti%20from%2...

Re: Deep-seated attitudes to women have roots in ancient agriculture

#22

Post by [deleted] »

abduhl wrote: post #15
mmatants wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reverence is the debatable aspect here. Statue of a goddess implies respect, pornography implies objectification and a very different power relationship. So if we draw conclusions about the role of women in that society, interpreting statues as porn versus pedestals makes a difference.

I'm sorry, but when did pornography start implying objectification? Last I checked, both men and women watched porn.

[deleted]

Re: Deep-seated attitudes to women have roots in ancient agriculture

#23

Post by mdakin »

tokenadult wrote: post #5

A claim about "all-powerful mother goddesses" before the end of the fifth millennium BC is inherently unhistorical. The submitted article notes, "For each group, the data included a description of its agricultural methods as far back in time as it was possible to go using historical evidence or, in the case of groups which did not have a written language, the first time they were observed by outsiders." That's much n…

History and truth are often out of synchronization (esp. in these days of pervasive propaganda/active manipulation of the population using mass communication technology). The chapters of the human story that played out 15,000 to 5,000 years ago in Africa/Europe/Near East/India are still being figured out by a combination of archeological, genetic, and linguistic research. Concerning the worship of "Earth/Mother Goddesses" vs. "Sky Gods" (e.g. Yahweh, Zeus, Thor, etc.) and the interactions of the different groups of people who preferred (and oftentimes forced upon others) their own visions of deity, if you want to engage rationally on this topic, I recommend researching and understanding (and contesting in an actual rational manner if you believe that the hypothesis is false) the "Kurgan Hypothesis."[1] There are some good books about it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis

Re: Deep-seated attitudes to women have roots in ancient agriculture

#24

Post by hackinthebochs »

jbattle wrote: post #17
hackinthebochs wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Farming promoted "development", but it was also the cause of the majority of social inequality in society. Those who controlled the food supply had an inordinate amount of power over the population, far more than could be achieved in hunter-gatherer societies. Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" for a decent introduction regarding this.

I think you have that backwards - in an agricultural society, food production is distributed - so you can't have control over the food supply unless you have an inordinate amount of power over the population.

The point is that the existence of agriculture leads to many things, of which even more centralized control is the result. Agriculture by its nature supports more people than necessary to produce the food. This surplus necessarily begets an underclass and an a ruling class. The book Guns, Germs, and Steel has some very interesting case studies of societies that grew into very stratified political societies based on the discovery of agriculture. The cause/effect implication is clear because of analysis of cultures with a recent common origin who where the difference in outcomes were only a matter of properties of the land which encouraged or precluded agriculture.

Re: Deep-seated attitudes to women have roots in ancient agriculture

#25

Post by zeteo »

>The plough was heavier [...] it gave men an advantage over women. [...] Women descended from plough-users are less likely to work outside the home, to be elected to parliament or to run businesses

And this is why North European countries, which used the heaviest plows [1], are the most backward in their treatment of women. Oh wait...

In any case, as anyone who has had a serious conversation with a farmer can attest, the bulk of the work in agriculture is by far in harvesting and not in plowing. Pretty much all traditional societies "allow" women to do that.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carruca

Re: Deep-seated attitudes to women have roots in ancient agriculture

#26

Post by stygianguest »

zeteo wrote: post #25

>The plough was heavier [...] it gave men an advantage over women. [...] Women descended from plough-users are less likely to work outside the home, to be elected to parliament or to run businesses And this is why North European countries, which used the heaviest plows [1], are the most backward in their treatment of women. Oh wait... In any case, as anyone who has had a serious conversation with a farmer can attest,…

Also interesting is their assertion that society first changes very quickly after the introduction of the plow, but then has very long lasting effects. Why did the first change quickly but the second have long lasting effects?

Re: Deep-seated attitudes to women have roots in ancient agriculture

#27

Post by stinos »

mmatants wrote: post #13
jgj wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is at least as likely that the statues are porn as that they are representations of powerful goddesses I'm not so sure there is or needs to be a distinction between the two. Penis goes in, life comes out. You can't explain that. Well, paleolithic man couldn't. But they could draw/sculpt it and revere it for both its pleasure- and life-giving properties.

Reverence is the debatable aspect here. Statue of a goddess implies respect, pornography implies objectification and a very different power relationship. So if we draw conclusions about the role of women in that society, interpreting statues as porn versus pedestals makes a difference.

> pornography implies objectification and a very different power relationship

that's way too general. There's enough pornography out there, recent and old, where people are just having nice sex without there being some sort of power/dominating relationship nor where things get objectified to the extreme.

Re: Deep-seated attitudes to women have roots in ancient agriculture

#28

Post by sageikosa »

zeteo wrote: post #21
jgj wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is at least as likely that the statues are porn as that they are representations of powerful goddesses I'm not so sure there is or needs to be a distinction between the two. Penis goes in, life comes out. You can't explain that. Well, paleolithic man couldn't. But they could draw/sculpt it and revere it for both its pleasure- and life-giving properties.

>Penis goes in, life comes out. You can't explain that. Well, paleolithic man couldn't. But they could draw/sculpt it and revere it It was not until 1677 [1] that people started to discover how reproduction works beyond "penis goes in, life comes out". Yet there are no major religions documented before that (in about 5000 years of recorded history) which revered crude vulva drawings. Whereas pornographic graffiti has…

I'm no anthropologist, but the document leaving religions were social organizing at broader scales (market communities and early cities) than the basic coming of age rituals/education that were best left to family, clan and kin (hunters, herders and farmers).

Re: Deep-seated attitudes to women have roots in ancient agriculture

#29

Post by bitwize »

Plows were usually drawn by animals, not people. If this hypothesis holds, horses and oxen should have even higher status than men.

This is all an exercise in intellectual wankery that reminds me of the bit in Cryptonomicon where Randy's girlfriend publishes a paper correlating Unix beards with female oppression.

Oh, and by the way, 'twas Margaret Mead -- a woman and hardly an apologist for the patriarchy -- who put the lie to the myth that preagricultural human society was matriarchal. There have been matrilineal societies, but in these the property tended to pass from father to daughter's husband rather than father to son.

Re: Deep-seated attitudes to women have roots in ancient agriculture

#30

Post by jgj »

zeteo wrote: post #21
jgj wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is at least as likely that the statues are porn as that they are representations of powerful goddesses I'm not so sure there is or needs to be a distinction between the two. Penis goes in, life comes out. You can't explain that. Well, paleolithic man couldn't. But they could draw/sculpt it and revere it for both its pleasure- and life-giving properties.

>Penis goes in, life comes out. You can't explain that. Well, paleolithic man couldn't. But they could draw/sculpt it and revere it It was not until 1677 [1] that people started to discover how reproduction works beyond "penis goes in, life comes out". Yet there are no major religions documented before that (in about 5000 years of recorded history) which revered crude vulva drawings. Whereas pornographic graffiti has…

First and foremost, the 2nd link you posted is full of hilarious; thanks for sharing.

> II.7 (gladiator barracks); 8767: Floronius, privileged soldier of the 7th legion, was here. The women did not know of his presence. Only six women came to know, too few for such a stallion.

I don't know that I'm arguing for anything 'major' or 'documented'; for any specific religion or culture; or for anything at all beyond the fact that crude vulva drawings can be either or simultaneously a show of reverence and sexual interest. That we (meaning largely post-Testament historians) haven't documented the intentions of ancient cave-artists as being born of such duality is hardly evidence against that possibility.

Post reply on HN