38
Extracted from
Labour Pains... coming to grips
with sexual equality. (After 5‑Collective)
Only a While the Mountain
Sleeps... the story of woman and a look at the Singapore Girl. (Moa Nam‑Ow, ed.)
People usually assume that
biological differences explain the difference in power between male and female.
But if we go back in time to the early societies – and don't forget, 99% of
human evolution took place in hunting and gathering societies – we find many
instances of women enjoying a degree of power and prestige far exceeding what
they have in modern societies. Women's work, even apart from child‑bearing,
was as highly respected as men's work, and usually as strenuous.
But even if it could be shown
that the earliest societies were male‑dominated (for which there is no
strong evidence), this provides no basis to claim that women should forever remain
subordinate.
39
If we can show that the unequal
relationship between the sexes came about through essentially historical
processes rather than being a simple result of biological differences, then we
can also show why that relationship can be changed. And how
we can use our wills and energies to change it.
For 99% of human history,
societies were sustained by the hunting of animals, fishing and gathering other
natural sources of food. For much of this period the only significant
difference between women's and men's work was that women bore and breastfed
children. Because it aided survival, societies tended to develop a
specialisation of work to some extent. But there remained a great variety of
work done interchangeably by both men and women.
40
In some societies the men
gathered while the women hunted; in others it was the other way around. From
the limited evidence available, it would appear that more often than not, women
gathered while men hunted.
In ancient Chinese
society, for instance, the gatherers were usually women. Evidence can be seen
from the Chinese character for 'wife' written as which in ancient
Chinese writing was
or
This character looked like a
person squatting to gather things, and the meaning of the word 'wife' at that
time was almost identical to the word, ‘woman’.
Gathering activities in those
days would include plucking, picking, knowing where such foodstuff could be
found, and learning how and where to store it, all of which was hardly random
activity and in fact, demanded a fair amount of skill.
41
42
44
45
46
47
48
49
So, why were women usually the
gatherers and men the hunters?
a)
The fact that women bore and breastfed children till a late
stage (before the development of animal rearing which provided a substitute for
mother's milk) must have limited their mobility. So, it made sense for the men
to hunt, especially big game, which involved long trips away from their
settlements.
b)
Given their primitive weaponry, hunting involved a risk to
life. With societies struggling to survive, it would have been important that
women as sole reproducers did not specialise in such activities.
c)
In societies where women were the gatherers, they would have
been the ones to 'discover' horticulture and agriculture. So, in the early
stages of farming communities, women would have been the main farmers.
50
The nature of farm work
demanded that the farmer remained more or less within the confines of her farm
to ensure the safety of her crops. In times when harvest was approaching and in
the event of unexpected weather, and simply because there were always so many
tasks to do (such as sowing and weeding), some people had to be constantly near
the land. If these people were female, it would have meant that they were not
as free to go hunting as in the past. Hunting thus became for them an
occasional effort rather than a full‑time occupation.
d)
These factors were often reinforced by the belief that the
Earth Spirit was female. Today, we still speak of Mother Earth. So, in most
societies, the only ones initially allowed to plant food crops were women. When
two persons were involved, one to dig the hole and the other to plant the seed,
the one planting had to be female although the one digging could be of either
sex.
51
52
We must stress that this
gradually‑emerging division of labour was not the direct outcome of
natural or biological constraints. In fact, there are several recorded cases of
societies in which women were the hunters and men the gatherers.
In other societies, people had
limited technology and knowledge. This meant that extensive physical mobility
was required. In addition, since resources were scarce, women as sole
reproducers were prevented from concentrating on activities such as hunting.
Still, both sexes had their
collective parts to play. In societies based mainly on gathering, women as the
gatherers would have been the main food providers since the meat supplied by
male hunters was less in quantity and more unstable in supply. As a result,
women had a high status in these societies.
53
HOWEVER, CHANGES WERE AFOOT.
SOME OF THESE CHANGES, OCCURRING OVER VAST PERIODS OF TIME, CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS
MEN SLOWLY BUT STEADILY ASSERTING SUPERIORITY OVER WOMEN. A MUTUALLY‑DEPENDENT
RELATIONSHIP IN WHICH EACH SEX HAD ITS COLLECTIVE PART TO PLAY DEGENERATED INTO
ONE IN WHICH WOMEN WERE SUBORDINATE TO MEN.
Turn over to see some of the
factors contributing to these changes:
54
NEW FIELDS OF KNOWLEDGE OPENED UP TO MALES
Men's hunting expeditions brought them into contact with
other tribes and important kinds of knowledge that women did not have access
to. What kinds of knowledge these were, we can only guess. Perhaps, it was
knowledge related to survival, or knowledge about water sources or the terrain.
Perhaps, it was knowledge about weapons and tools, or the locations of enemy
tribes. Whatever it was, this access to new knowledge on the part of men made
them more powerful and indispensable to the tribe.
DIFFERENCES IN TECHNOLOGY ARISING FROM SEXUAL DIVISIONS OF
LABOUR
With different kinds of labour
developing for men and women, the sexes specialised in different technologies.
Take, for instance, the area of tools. While hunting weapons were basically
designed for attack, farming implements were designed for digging or scraping
purposes. Therefore, hunting tools had a greater potential as instruments of
aggression. That men held this power in their reach also helps to explain how
they could have gained superiority over women.
55
Furthermore, women's energy was
most likely channelled more into tasks requiring persistence such as digging
and clearing whereas men's energy tended to be expressed in the form of
explosive strength – throwing of spears, fighting off animals, etc. These
factors may well have contributed to differences in physical upbringing.
56
As food supply increased, so
did the need to protect it from marauders. At the same time, rituals became
more elaborate to ensure the fertility of the soil. This meant that any
infringement of the religious rites could spark off blood feuds, and so warfare
became a more frequent occurrence.
Women, as mothers,
would often have had babies at their breasts or in their wombs. This made it
more difficult for them to fight wars.
57
Besides, men's role
as hunters would have meant that the task of defence or attack came to largely
depend on them, thus increasing their social importance. Moreover, their
mobility and the knowledge that came with it would have meant that they were in
a more likely position to determine who or what was a threat to the tribe.
Being invaders of another‑tribe would have added further to their status
if they returned with the spoils of war – slaves whom they had captured as well
as material wealth.
Lastly, since attack by animals
or another tribe was of more immediate concern than the amount of crops
gathered or sown, women may have become more secondary despite their
responsibility for the crops.
58
The gradually‑emerging
differences in the social roles of the sexes resulted in different
psychological attitudes and forms of conditioning. At first, men were not
inherently aggressive just as women were not inherently submissive. Later, men
as hunters with the responsibility of improving hunting tools and techniques,
as protectors of the tribe and its food supply, and as warriors with the
responsibility of fighting may have actually become more aggressive.
Further, as the ones whose
social role meant that they were more mobile, they could have become more
inclined to explore and to be more daring than women.
59
For women, on the other hand,
the various tasks that kept them increasingly around the home/ settlement meant
that the skills and knowledge they were developing were, in a sense, more
introverted. Even if they had power within the confines of their settlements,
they would have increasingly relied on men to interpret for them the realities
of the ‘outside world'. This dependency on men for such knowledge probably led
to psychological forms of dependency, contributing to their subordination to
men.
60
EMERGENCE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
Perhaps the strongest
reinforcement of women's inferior status came with the growth of private
property. In many societies, this signalled the end of collective ownership and
with it, the matrilineal* clan system. Family, kinship and a host of other
social ties were more and more linked to private property.
61
62
63
64
The initial emergence of
private property often took the form of tools and cattle owned by men. As
productivity increased, with the use of animal power and the introduction of
bronze tools, economic surplus also increased. In other words, it was
increasingly possible to accumulate wealth instead of having to consume
everything produced.
65
There developed social
divisions based on those who were able to accumulate the social wealth that was
produced and those who produced but were unable to accumulate. And so with the
development of private property, different groups of people lost out in the
production and redistribution of wealth, especially those who owned no properly
for a start.
66
67
68
69
As individual men came to own
more and more wealth in the form of tools and land, they extended their wealth
by also claiming control over their wives, children and slaves, all of whom in
effect, became their private property too. For instance, now it became
profitable to keep slaves captured in war rather than kill them as was past
practice. They could be put to work for their masters.
70
As wealth accumulated in the
hands of certain men, they became more powerful and able to oppose the more
democratic and collective structure of clan politics. Private property became
the rule, and internal government and armed forces were formed to support the
rule of these wealthy owners.
Over time, the male chief found
ways to give not only his wealth to his sons but also his authority and power.
To ensure that only their
legitimate sons inherited all the wealth, wives came to be more strictly
controlled. In the upper classes, women were increasingly domesticated,
developing a culture of femininity that generally reinforced their subordinate
status. Amongst the slaves who were now doing the productive work, slave women
were used for sexual pleasure as well. Women's status was thus increasingly
devalued, though the forms in which this happened became increasingly different
with the growth of class divisions.
71
These are some of the possible
factors accounting for the evolution of a male‑dominated society many many moons ago. In all societies where there was increasing
inequality and various forms of discrimination, the subordination of women
became a common feature.
Different factors combined to
lead to patriarchy in different societies. The tremendous variety of forms of
male domination makes it obvious that no single cause can explain everything.
It is also clear that different
factors would have shifted in importance over time – for example, physical
force which was once a crucial means of exercising dominance is no longer as
important as social and moral codes of behaviour in modern societies such as ours.
72
We do not know which factors
featured prominently, and cannot know for certain now.
At different points of
conflict, women must have fought desperately for their declining rights and
status. But they lost. To sum up, the origins and bases of patriarchy do not
lie solely (as commonly believed) or even primarily in biological factors. It
was much more than a question of mere physical strength or women's role as
child‑bearers. Social, economic and political factors contributed greatly
to the emergence of women's unequal status.
And new ideologies and myths
appeared that reinforced this sexual hierarchy.
Patriarchy had become the order
of the day!