Hunters or Farmers?
In the university anthropology and history classes I've taken, the textbooks and professors say that in hunter-gatherer cultures men and women were relatively equal and that male dominance increased with civilization. On this site many writers (mistakenly?) claim male dominance comes from hunting and gathering. Maybe only slight male dominance is natural though, not as much as the civilized people on this site desire. Just because I'm aroused by my husband's dominance doesn't mean my desire is natural. He's aroused by my glitter strawberry lip gloss. Maybe this is a civilized taste.
If it's civilized, doesn't that make it more dubious?
Um
#1 If it's civilized, doesn't that make it more dubious?
So what is dubious about desire, whether it be "civilized" or not?
Quit trying to analyze a basic desire. Quit trying to pack such a desire into a box which may not fit.
We are human. We have desires. I don't believe we have any desires that can be neatly categorized, so quit trying to do so. Our desires are quirks of nature simply because we are intelligent beings who rise above that which is prescribed by nature. In the "Animal Kingdom", true intelligence is ignored by what Darwin calls "Evolution Of The Species", which requires the survival of the fittest, which means strength and the ability to thwart the onset of any attacker.
We, as humans, do not fit into that scope. Rarely will you find a human who is fit enough to survive a drop into a true jungle. Most would die within a few days.
Many of the things we do are attempts at survival; this is true, but not at any level approaching that required of the jungle.
Instead, we, as humans, battle each other's intellect, which, for the most of us, remains quite idle and available for creative thought. This "Creative Thought" has resulted in many permutations of societal interactions, only one of which has become known as "Taken In Hand".
The "Taken In Hand" trend has a foothold in our society because it is both intellectual and natural. It is intellectual simply because we are intellectual beings capable of radical imagination. It is natural because we are naturally intellectual beings.
Mick McCleod
#2 Civilised?
Even hunter gatherer societies tend to be male dominated to a certain extent, the chiefs are usually male.
I do think there is a biological tendency for men to be more inclined to strive for high dominance roles. Otherwise it seems unlikely that male dominance would have increased with civilisation. You tend to find men occupy most leadership roles whatever kind of society you visit. It seems to be a universal tendency.
Louise
#3 These are theories anyway, projections into the past ...
This theory that hunter-gatherers are more equal and farmers began to subject women is anyway mostly a conjecture into a very unclear history. Yes, they are using even current hunter-gatherer societies for support, but I suspect that the results are tainted by the scientists biases and projections into a very scarce and ambiguous evidence.
I don't believe that hunter-gatherer women were necessarily on equal status. If one looks even further back at chimpanzee societies the picture turns around again, there seems to be extreme male domination and females are more or less a possession. So this makes me suspicious of the idea that human hunter-gatherers are suddenly equals if preceding and subsequent societies were not.
Though it's no evidence at all, I can't help but to think of the movie "Avatar", I can't imagine our heroine be happy with a male who is not eventually stronger than her. Notice how condescending she was in the beginning and how with growing respect she became more attached. Somewhat like this is how I understand even that supposed equality in hunter-gatherer societies.
But surely I too am projecting. In the end, I agree with the first response, it is more important to discern your very own and current desire in the now, not worry too much about the natural history.
#4 Civilized
Now that I feel pretty well past trying to justify this desire morally, I find myself preferring to think that this is a civilized taste. After all, when I watch old anthropology movies of hunter-gatherers in class, I admire the hunters as good, brave, and wise people, but I don't find them sexually attractive. I much prefer a guy with toothpaste and books and some uncertainty about life and the universe. Civilization makes sex more complicated, but I like it that way.
Um
#5 Hunting versus Agriculture
Hi Um,
It may be helpful to remember that the theories postulated by your professors and textbooks are just that; theories. Unless some brilliant physicist invents a time machine, no one will ever know anything for certain that happened before written record.
My mother was an anthropologist and my husband is, so I'm familiar with the Hunt/Gathering vs. Farming argument you describe. Both theories make sense! Animal protien was very important to our evolution as a species, and men were just better equipped to handle that aspect of life.
A good insight into the differences between Hunt/gathering vs. Farming can be found in the book, "Guns, Germs and Steel", by Jared Diamond.
Women, however, were better equipped to handle family life whether it be within or without their own nuclear circle. What's life without meat and hides and evrything else that comes from hunting? Not very good. But how would life have been for the hunters if there was no cohesion between their people, in a world full of human enemies, dangerous animals and disease? Chaos! There would be no "culture" to speak of.
Add to this that the vast majority of anthropologists used to men, who focused primarily on male rituals and roles (the roles of women in "primitive" societies are still not studied as much as their male counterparts). Each gender has it's own special talents and in a functional society, one steps in where the other is lacking.
On the other hand, I would consider strawberry flavoured lip gloss a very civilized "taste"! ; )
Mariela
#6 Natural to Civilized
Thank you, Mariela. What does your husband, as an anthropologist, think of this desire? Does he give an anthropological explanation for it? Were his reservations about this kind of relationship for years of your marriage related to his studies? I have no hope of purifying my sexuality to that of a gatherer's, but I'm still curious about this topic. I know Diamond is interesting, but he says nothing of spanking.
I figure admiration for male strength, courage, and pride is natural and universal, but excitement over discipline seems civilized to me. I think of this sexuality as one of civilization's achievements--like writing and math. Hunter-gatherers seem too harmonious and easy for my kind of drama.
Um
#7 Well, my man is a Physical
Well, my man is a Physical Anthropologist, not a Social or Cultural Anthropologist, so he would say that desire in general, is biological. He may say that our preferences for dominant men are natural, as the strongest male stands the best chance of siring strong offspring and insuring the survival of his genes forever. That's a biological drive.
My husband had a traditional upbringing, incidentally, so he took me in hand from our first date, and will continue to do so until the day he dies. That's who he is and he makes no apologies. And I make no apologies for turning into butter in his hand when he does!
My mother (the Social Anthropologist), might say your desire is cultural for the exact same reasons! If she were not such a prude, she would explain that since we don't have to worry about sabre-toothed tigers anymore, we seek out other ways of obtaining an adrenaline charge and the resulting endorphine flood.
Personally, I think that we all think too much about some things. As long as your not hurting anyone, and youre clearly fulfilled with it, then why not have at it?
Hope this gives you enough to think about!
#8 Upbringing
But, Mariela, here you attribute your husband's taken in hand nature to his "traditional upbringing." My husband had a traditional upbringing too. I bet that's common in men who view this peculiarity as normal and take it in stride.
Um