Let us hope...

[espritch]

From the latest commentary:
As Carl Sagan and I once discussed, the engraved plaque aboard Pioneer 10, designed by Carl and Linda Sagan and Frank Drake, was intended to serve as a greeting to extraterrestrial civilizations, but Puritanical busybodies altered the illustrations of Homo Sapiens so that no reproductive means is to be seen on the female of our species, while the male is appropriately equipped. Strange…..
Though it's dumb and blind on its current path, Pioneer 10 will reach the giant red star Aldebaran, the eye of Taurus the Bull, more than two million years from now.
Let us hope that by the time Pioneer 10 reaches Alderbaran, the female of our species will have developed genitalia, or at least that we will have finally admitted that they already have them.
"That's Man's science. Therapeutic Touch is Women's science!"
Let us also hope that by then, no one will be stupid enough to label something as “man science” or “woman science”, especially something that has been so thoroughly debunked by a kid that no one with an ounce of sense would label it “science” of any sort.

OK. Such hopes may be far fetched, but I can dream can’t I?

[neutrino_cannon]

The story about the plaque has got me interested. What, was somebody afraid of offending aliens?

Indeed, it may be too much to expect that sexism will go away in the near future, it seems to ingrained in society. Is there any evidence for a phylogenic origin of sexism (not that it would offer any justification).

[zensidhe]

Well, this is all second hand but...

A friend of mine who did a lot of women’s studies in collage mentioned to me that the invention of the plow is what really divided the sexes and a social value level.

Before the plow (and hence farming) the men would hunt and the women would gather and each contributed to the society as a whole. But once plowing fields became a staple of farming, farming became a man's game since the plow is heave and needed men to pull it. After that the woman’s only role was to stay home and make babies (not an unimportant role but one that does not empower you).

Over many generations both sexes came to accept their new roles and society formed around that.


I'm sure there is MUCH more to the topic, but that is the small bit I remember from our conversation. After all, I was just letting her go on about it so I could get in her pants...

Just kidding..

[technoasis]

Sorry if this is a repost. Just had a horrible mouse accident.

Originally posted by zensidhe


Before the plow (and hence farming) the men would hunt and the women would gather and each contributed to the society as a whole. But once plowing fields became a staple of farming, farming became a man's game since the plow is heave and needed men to pull it. After that the woman’s only role was to stay home and make babies (not an unimportant role but one that does not empower you).



I can't accept that the invention of the plow was the divider of the sexes. For one thing, tilling the fields all day is probably less empowering that childrearing. For another, farm work doesn't end when the furrows are broken. Women were actively involved in planting, caring for, harvesting, preparing and storing the fields' yields. On subsistence family farms, women were traditionally in charge of the poultry house. Many were also the "CFO's" of the family business, kept the accounts and helped determine what livestock and crops would be needed each year.

Since even after the plow was invented, women in agricultural societies contributed equally to society and since their role was hardly limited to "staying home and making babies", my poor opinion of women studies is not changed by your friend's comments.

Then again, I'm biased since I do stay home and make babies... and read toward my PhD in math... and write novels... and am more empowered than most of the pissy feminist-types who can't believe I bought into traditional, sexist, stifling female roles.

[zensidhe]

Well,

Don't make a judgment based on what I've told you. There was a lot more involved that just the invention of the plow. However, I see your point. I have found many, non hard science collage courses are really nothing more then the professors chance to preach his or her pet theories to a captive and impressionable audience.

But then, that's just me.



Originally posted by technoasis
Sorry if this is a repost. Just had a horrible mouse accident.



I can't accept that the invention of the plow was the divider of the sexes. For one thing, tilling the fields all day is probably less empowering that childrearing. For another, farm work doesn't end when the furrows are broken. Women were actively involved in planting, caring for, harvesting, preparing and storing the fields' yields. On subsistence family farms, women were traditionally in charge of the poultry house. Many were also the "CFO's" of the family business, kept the accounts and helped determine what livestock and crops would be needed each year.

Since even after the plow was invented, women in agricultural societies contributed equally to society and since their role was hardly limited to "staying home and making babies", my poor opinion of women studies is not changed by your friend's comments.

Then again, I'm biased since I do stay home and make babies... and read toward my PhD in math... and write novels... and am more empowered than most of the pissy feminist-types who can't believe I bought into traditional, sexist, stifling female roles.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by zensidhe

Before the plow (and hence farming) the men would hunt and the women would gather and each contributed to the society as a whole. But once plowing fields became a staple of farming, farming became a man's game since the plow is heave and needed men to pull it. After that the woman’s only role was to stay home and make babies (not an unimportant role but one that does not empower you).

I am psychic. I can tell things about you without ever having met you.

1) You were not raised on a farm.

2) You do not know many farm wives.

[zensidhe]

Ok...

Obviously, I need to further clarify my statements. There are really two points that are being misunderstood.

Point one is that the this whole plow thing happened a REALLY long time ago. Like, early man and his first tools. These are NOT modern farms with chicken coops and such. We are talking cave men and women...
This had NOTHING to do with modern farms of the last few centuries were the entire family was involved in the process to no lesser degree then any other family member. Those plows are being pulled by oxen or some other beast of burden, not the farmer himself.

Point two is that this was something I over heard at dinner and can not extrapolate on, beyond what I have already expressed. For all I know it could be total bunk.

Cheers all. Happy Friday.

[technoasis]

Fervently beating a dead horse, but still --

This idea might have a thread of truth if these advanced cave men were planting a wonder crop that clothed the family (off the vine, mind you. If a woman is staying home and having babies she can't be expected to do anything productive, fulfilling and creative like weaving) and provided food all year long (ditto with drying and storing food).

Also, it would have to be edible without any preparation since we wouldn't want these forebearers of today's soap-opera watchers and bon-bon poppers to have to dirty their hands cooking or making clay pots. They are squirting out babies and letting their mind decay, remember?

Finally, this wonder crop would have to need very little tending, because we would need the forebearers of our male oppressors to be able to have time to develop and empower themselves.

Face it, there has always been a struggle for food and for most of history and prehistory, the majority of men and women have worked every day, all day to feed themselves and keep their family warm. Survival usually required the work of all members of the family.

If there ever was a true divider of the sexes, the plow wasn't it. I think you would have to go back to the evolution of the mammary gland. When a woman can't leave a suckling child for longer than a couple of hours at a time without being in pain, that's a good reason for sticking around the house and not doing fun things like plowing fields.

I hope the woman spreading this nonsense was talented in other areas <ahem>, since she doesn't sound particularly bright.

[zensidhe]

It seems to me that you are completely missing the point. This is not your fault. You do not have the benefit of hearing this professor's (or whoever the hell it was) ideas first hand, and I didn't do a great job passing them along (see comment about her pants above).

It really had more to do with providing food and such. I think a bit of sarcasm was taken completely out of context. The idea was that because the majority of the work involved in both hunting and gathering the food was being done by the men... blah blah blah...

This is not to say that women simply became lumps of baby making flesh. That would be ridicules. And also unheard of as, since as you pointed out that's never really been the case. But simply that this started to set a social standard where the male was the provider and the female and children were the provided for...

This has nothing to do with cooking, cleaning or nursing. Also, I never said anything about women letting their mind decay...

You seem really passionate and a little upset about this whole idea. So Lets just say that your mammary gland theory trumps what I heard at dinner and call the horse dead. After all...
The mammary gland is one of my favorite glands in the whole body. Why shouldn't it have led to the downfall of women in early society... :)

It's still Friday.

[technoasis]

I guess the line that bothered me was "After that the woman’s only role was to stay home and make babies (not an unimportant role but one that does not empower you). "

Obviously, that was not female's "only role". Maybe this was a mis-type, a mis-quote or a mis-thunk? It got my dander up a bit.

I'm honestly not that passionate about it, just in a curiously argumentative mood.

If we're in agreement that the downfall of the liberated, independant woman are those old modified sweat glands, I can fall back on the excuse that always makes me shudder and want to slap the woman who uses it... "I must be hormonal."

Have a good Friday. I'll try to focus my argumentativeness on my poor, unsuspecting (and of course, horribly oppressive) husband. He'll be begging for mercy by Saturday!

[zensidhe]

Well, when said the whole "only role" comment, I was speaking sarcastically. It was a jab at anyone who would think that simply not being able to pull a plow would make another human of little worth. I know that no rational person would draw this conclusion. After all, we are talking about cave men and cave women.

Note that I said no rational person. I'm sure there are plenty of folks, even today, that would say that women are of little worth for an even more inane reason but I digress.

Here's a poignant quote from Heinlein.

"All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly which can -- and must -- be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempting to formulate a "perfect society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!" is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly -- and no doubt will keep on trying."