• BruceTwarzen@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    I read an article like that a few month ago and the thing that i still don’t get is that i used to watch all these documentaries about these remote tribes that have no or hardly any connections connection to the outside world. And they all have pretty strict gender roles when it comes to hunting, gathering and stuff. That’s the only reason that this is so burned into my mind.

    • bluGill@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      It makes logical sense to have gender roles. Just to survive means females between teens and mid forties need to be pregnant or nursing a baby. Both those will limit hunting, thus making gathering the better role. Of course died in childbirth is likely .

      Note that the above does not preclude women hunting. It limits them to less active roles at times, but different stages of child bearing will put different limits on ranging from full abilities to practically a cripple. Also hunting takes different forms, and some are more amenable to help than others.

      We also know men would gather at times.

    • Silverseren@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      7 months ago

      Those tribes would have still been formed after the development of agriculture, which is when stricter gender roles started to be formed.

      • ExLisper@linux.community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        What do you mean? Australian aboriginal tribes didn’t form after development of agriculture. They existed in the same for until colonisation. Just because agriculture was invented doesn’t mean it influenced every culture in the world.

      • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Yes but no. In that they don’t seem to practice agriculture, and also they’re in the middle of the Amazon rainforest or that island off the coast of India and have been for millenia. The Inuit also had strict gender roles, no agriculture, but very “foreign” to an European those roles were.

      • daltotron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        formed, no, but you could definitely make an argument for the influence of agriculture. would be kind of hard to prove, though