Deep-seated attitudes to women have roots in ancient agriculture • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by s_baby » Fri, May 03, 2013, 2:20 AM UTC

hackinthebochs wrote: post #53

zeteo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, weight of farm tools is a naturally continuous variable. There are heavy hoes, light plows and lots of ground in between [1] [2]. Transforming weight into a binary variable with an arbitrary separation point is not sound statistical practice. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattock [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ard_(plough)

>Transforming weight into a binary variable with an arbitrary separation point is not sound statistical practice But the separation is not arbitrary. "Light enough to wield by women" is the important statistic here, so the value in question is binary by nature. Weight in isolation simply isn't what is being considered here.

The effectiveness of a tool as a function of its weight is not necessarily linear either.

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

#62

Post by bitwize » Fri, May 03, 2013, 7:36 PM UTC

s_baby wrote: post #60

bitwize wrote: post #29

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…

You must not remember the story of the golden calf. There are plenty examples of worshiping domesticated animals.

No, I've heard of it; in fact after typing that I thought "does that explain sacred cows in India?"

But worshiping domesticated animals isn't as universal or persistent as patriarchy supposedly is.

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

#63

Post by stygianguest » Sat, May 04, 2013, 9:42 AM UTC

hackinthebochs wrote: post #54

stygianguest wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't understand your critique. Can you explain it more?

First they find support for the hypothesis that the place of women in society can change very quickly because their function in society changes.

Then they find support for the opposing hypothesis that such changes in society have long lasting effects, i.e., that the position of women in society does not change quickly.

Finally they place both opposing hypotheses in a single narrative.

To me, this is a major inconsistency, perhaps only due to the journalist rather than the scientists. Both hypotheses should be discarded since neither fits all the observations.

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

#64

Post by s_baby » Tue, May 07, 2013, 7:28 AM UTC

bitwize wrote: post #62

s_baby wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must not remember the story of the golden calf. There are plenty examples of worshiping domesticated animals.

No, I've heard of it; in fact after typing that I thought "does that explain sacred cows in India?" But worshiping domesticated animals isn't as universal or persistent as patriarchy supposedly is.

It's persistent in pre-traditional societies.

The orthodoxy is pre-traditional societies were about equal in likelyhood between matriarchy, patriarchy, and both. If you're looking at dominant deities for this definition.