In “The Origins of Women’s Oppression,” Brewer (following Engels) argues that the shift to plough agriculture led to women’s exclusion from food production and, hence, their subjugation. This contradicts previous theories about women being biologically predisposed to childcare and housekeeping and men being biologically predisposed to providing and protecting, and asserts social/economic factors as the cause of the strict delineation of male/female roles. Even in modern society these roles persist. Do you think this division of labor is determined by biology or by social/economic factors?
Related
19 thoughts on “In “The Origins of Women’s Oppression,” Brewer (following Engels) argues that the shift to plough agriculture led to women’s exclusion from food production and, hence, their subjugation. This contradicts previous theories about women being biologically predisposed to childcare and housekeeping and men being biologically predisposed to providing and protecting, and asserts social/economic factors as the cause of the strict delineation of male/female roles. Even in modern society these roles persist. Do you think this division of labor is determined by biology or by social/economic factors?”
I was very intrigued by the theory Brewer proposed, and I think that the shift to plough agriculture can definitely be a legitimate reason for the subjugation of women. I think that social and economic factors are defiantly the reason for the double standard that woman face today in the work fields and in general. If we think about woman’s role in the hunter gatherer society, the women held equal responsibilities as the men, they contributed just much. If anything, the added responsibility of a woman bearing a child should greaten her status as a female. Shouldn’t her body be considered strong for being able to carry another human being? However a woman’s body is also softer and weaker than a mans physically in terms or muscle. I guess you can say that her strength is not about the muscle but a different kind of strength. I think that the shift to agriculture definitely moved the woman predominantly into the home and therefore eased the way into her subjugation. Because the society no longer needed the women outside, she became bound to the home and seemingly “weaker” duties. Also as time goes on we see things coming up like chivalry, where women are made into soft, gentle, weak objects that need the protection of man. That is entirely fueled by the society. A mans capability of accomplishing is not more that a woman’s. It’s years upon years of flawed thinking in society that has led us to where we are today.
I agree with Brewers theory that switching to a lifestyle of agriculture led to the woman’s role in bringing in income being diminished, therefore causing the subjugation of women. I don’t disagree that women are biologically predisposed toward child care and men to protection. However, I don’t think that either of them are predisposed to housekeeping or providing, rather those tasks come along with child care and protecting, respectively. The switch to an agricultural society simply defined their roles as such because, for the most part, only the men were capable of the backbreaking farm labor, automatically leaving the housekeeping the woman, if he division of labor was to be fair. This wouldn’t necessarily be a problem if not for the fact that the breadwinner gets more acclaim because of nutrition being an immediate survival requirement, which puts the woman in a “lesser” positions and so opens the door for subjugation.
Women in general are weaker than men biologically in terms of strength and muscle, therefore during the agriculture period women would stay home and bear children and take care of them while men do the labor outside. Due to this Brewers theory is correct because agriculture lowered women from bringing in income slowly diminished. However is doesn’t mean child care couldn’t be done by men and women couldn’t do labor outside such as farm labor which can me excruciating. Since the importance are given to the men for providing food as the main component for survival lead society to believe that the men are more dominant and would lead the women. This is the thinking that has been conditioned since that time and still leads today.
I agree with Mohammed. I believe that the men should be the one that protects and supports the family while the women should stay at home taking care of the children and family. By saying this, doesn’t mean that the women’s job is easy. Just because they’re not getting paid doesn’t make it any less hard! Also, another thing I wanted to say. There are other ways of payment other than money. It could be for personal benefit!
Brewer`s theory makes a lot of sense to me. At the same time, I don`t look at women as inferior to men. Men and women took on roles that felt natural to them. It makes sense the way the roles were divided. Looking at modern women, I wouldn`t say they lack power. The ones who choose to stay at home and take care of the family, do so. The ones who choose to have a career, go for it and are very successful. In my opinion, in both cases women have just as much influence and power within family and society as men do. As mentioned in the article, woman is more of a nurturer, who keeps the family in a social and emotional balance, but I don`t think that she feels inferior or unhappy because she was “forced” to take on this role.
I agree with Brewer’s theory regarding women having a more diminished role in society, thus leading to the subjugation of women. I believe that social/economic determinants are a huge reason why women have gone through this. As the agricultural society began to rise, the women had to become more responsible for the nurturing and developing of their children. If the male was the “hunter-gatherer”, women had no choice but to raise their families. I do believe though, biologically some women are just as fit to contribute for a family as much as the dominant male. Engels research did show that women were just as good, if not better in hunter-gatherer situations. They were able to provide the same if not more labor than some of the dominant males in society. In the end, I believe the males wanted to be the ones looked upon as the provider, thus forcing women to nurturing and raising their children which became the domino effect in society during those times.
Women did play their part in hunter-gathered societies and then this new way of producing food and breeding animals is invented. According to Brewer this “invention” hindered women causing subjugation.
I feel however that it did hinder women in the work field but gave them a new “job” that many don’t realize how-hard it can be. Not only must their bear children and maintain the house hold. But I think biology plays its part.
I feel biology is the cause of division of labor. Women can have children as to were a mans body is not capable of breeding. I feel that even in hunter gathered society this hindered them as I can picture a women hunting while pregnant. Men role is to provide.
I’m glad that in today’s time women are gaining the same status quo in the work force as challenging as it may be this biological factor slows women down.
I agree with Brewer’s theory that the shift to agriculture caused a separation between the jobs a woman is seen fit doing versus a man. It’s followed around for a while but at the same time looking at the modern world now we have steered out of that road quite a bit. I do think however, even though agriculture was a reason that secured different gender positions, men and women are biologically separate. That isn’t to say a woman can’t do a “man’s job” and vice versa but that naturally woman and men are better at different things. While one may lack in the physical department the other lacks in the emotional department.
One thing that made me uncomfortable reading this article though was that women’s jobs are seen as inferior to men’s jobs. Staying at home, taking care of a family, raising kids, etc. is just as, if not harder than going out to work everyday. Both roles are important regardless of who takes the role. One role shouldn’t be seen as less than the other. Nowadays there are definitely places that enforce these gender barriers but both a woman’s role and a man’s role are easily interchangeable.
I think the division of labor is determined by both biology and social/economic factors. Biologically speaking, there are differences between the two genders. Biologically, men are better at some things, while women are better at other things.
The society that we are in also plays a role. different societies have different tasks that need to be done. A hunter gatherer society has equally important roles for men and women. Men would hunt for meat, while women cared for the young and foraged for other types of food, like fruit, berries, and vegetables. The agricultural society caused the roles of men and women to start changing. As Brewer mentioned, women’s roles changed and started to become more meaningless. I think it was that that cause women’s oppression to come about.
I believe that women oppression and labor division was primitively determined by biology but the social of economic factors strengthen it and nurtured it to elongate the gap of those discrepancies between gender roles. The previous theories we discussed in this course already proved physical characteristics and other factors play a major role in oppression and discrimination. But i do not agree that agriculture led to women’s exclusion from food production and their subjugation. Before agriculture was created, women were already oppressed. Just analyzing the process of reproduction, we see that Men are genetically superior to women. As Barash points out that “men produce millions of sperm while women produce only one egg at a time and about 400 in a lifetime. Therefore men have an interest in impregnating as many women as possible to maximise their genes in the next generation, while women go for quality, looking for the most genetically suitable male partners. That itself proves that women were oppressed before the birth of agriculture.
In my opinion, I believe women were born to do both roles, work and take care of a family. This is the reason why in modern society women are doing both roles. There are several reasons why women are working and taking care of a family. One of the reasons is the cost of living. Before, a home could be maintained with one income because things were not as expensive as they are now. Nowadays, in order to support a family and live a comfortable life, two incomes are needed. Technology is a second reason why women are performing roles as both a provider and a caretaker. Previously, women’s lack of physical strength made it harder for women to work in agriculture and fabrics environment. Now days, the development of new machineries and equipment have made it easier for women to work in those environments. Another reason is that there are more opportunities available for women. More women are graduating from college and becoming more self-sufficient providing a large chunk of the family income.
On the other hand, I disagree with the men being biologically predisposed to providing and protecting, and assert social/economic factors instead because in most regions of the world women are the provider and head of household. Many times when men get divorce, they do not want to continue with their responsibility of supporting the family. In many cases women have to take them to family court for child support in order to receive financial support. Therefore, I strongly agree that women are a major source of family income and protecting their family.
i believe woman are biologically predisposed to childcare, just even by the simple fact that women are the ones who get pregnant and give birth. they naturally know how to nurture , and even have a natural motherly instinct. i dont believe that for this reason, women shouldve been subjugated nor be looked at as if their role is inferior to a man’s role. i agree with brewer that agriculture started the subjugation of women,but it shouldn’t have been that way. if women were able to bear children and still have a role in the hunter gather society, they also couldve helped with the agriculture. Men underestimated women and simply made them stay indoors and raise children and do housekeeping, which men are most certainly capable of doing as well. i am glad that today women have the opportunity to get a career and also know how to be providers for their families, because they have the same capacity as a man to do so.
I Agree with Brewer and his argument about the shift of agriculture leading to women’s subjugation. However, I don’t believe that it was social factors alone that pushed woman. I believe that women are biologically predisposed to childcare because woman alone carry children and men do not. In addition, men are predisposed to providing and protecting because men are built with more muscle power than woman. Women are also more emotionally vulnerable than men. Little can affect a man’s emotions like a woman’s and dealing with children, it can only be with emotions that woman have naturally. So to make my claim, I believe that biology plays a big role in the exclusion of woman from food production. In addition, I believe that social and economic factors led to women being subjugated as well. After the Hunter-Gatherer Civilization, agriculture became a more resourceful means of making money. Agriculture is more physically draining than hunting and gathering. Women were excluded due to their biological makeup being weaker than men. They couldn’t undertake a lot of the physical stress that came with agriculture, which kept them at home with their children. Therefore, I believe that without the biological predisposition of both men and women, the social factors the subjugated woman would have never been able to stand.
I actually believe that the division of labor is determined by social/economic factors but those factors may have came about due to biological factors. Biologically men and women are built different and their bodies adjust to certain things that different from one another. I think that since the beginning of time, as stated in the article, yes women and men did share some of the same roles. When time passed, I believe that their knowledge and social/economic factors made them aware of their biological abilities and they were able to separate their strengths and weaknesses. Women of course were the only ones that can bear children which would limit their abilities at times but I do believe that women can do just as much work as men can. I think that since men were seen as more dominant and women were the ones who were seen as more emotional, they were the ones to take on things like cooking, cleaning, and looking afer the children, while men went out and worked to put food on the table. This mindset came from social/economic factors and was what we were taught. It was drilld in our minds.This is more of a team work situation, in my opinion though, not a state of who can do this better than the other. I believe that if women were chosen to work like men and the men chosen to do the things women did, it would work just the same. It’s the way that we were trained to think that would hinder our minds from thinking otherwise. the only setback of course would be women when they are pregnant.
Biological factor has some impact on the roles between females and males. Females are smaller, weaker, and are child bearers for a prolonged period of time. This makes their male partner to become the stronger part of the family. Males hunt for food, and are the “breadwinners, who compete in an achievement-oriented society that leads to stress and anxiety” and they need “women to restore the balance”. However, social and economic factors have a much greater impact on women’s subjugation than biological factors because although the males performed more labor intensive work, females provide more for the families and were usually in charge of caring for the animals which were domestically owned for food supply along with reproducing and raising children. During the shift to plough agriculture, women were excluded from agriculture for several reasons. Plough agriculture was more labor intensive thus the males took control of agriculture and herding and females cooked, raised children, took care of craft production of hides, and cared for the meats. Women were also excluded even from food production because of their biological role of reproduction and in this role they become incapable of working for certain period of time. Men wanted more children in order to obtain more workers for the field thus the females were stuck reproducing more children and raising them. Skills of plough agriculture were then passed down to the boys of the household meanwhile the females were left inside to cater to their part of the process. Females were seen as weaker and only child bearers to males which led to the males deciding to take over the household. This view became very “normal” and “natural” over time to the extent that women themselves started to believe that they are inferior to men. This explains that even though biology has a place in the exclusion of females from plough agriculture, females’ social status in the household/village overpowered the biological factor.
I think that division of labor is determined more by biological factors rather than social/economic because the fact that physically men stronger than women is still valid today the same way as it was many hundreds years ago. This factor alone determines what tasks/responsibilities males and females can carry in order to survive and develop throughout the evolution process and, as a result to form social unit (family). It is proven by many researchers that women are more emotional than men and more responsive on help request, hence naturally predisposed for caregiver role. It doesn’t mean that man cannot care for a child, but due to maternal instinct females usually do that better. I do agree with Brewer partially because we cannot fully disregard social/economic aspects because they influenced on division of the labor.But I do think that main factor is in difference of biological nature between female and male species.
I strongly agree with Eden and the fact that women are, indeed, predisposed to child care, and in addition, housekeeping, simply because those are things that come naturally to a woman, especially when they carry a child. For nine months they have a tiny human growing inside of them, and only women know the feeling they get from it. A woman finds herself emotionally attached to their child, and with this comes, protection and care. They soon start to develop what we know as maternal instincts. Men are predisposed to providing and higher levels of protection, because they are, in fact, stronger than women. However, this does not mean that neither, men nor women are entitled to only take on such roles. For a long time coming, both men and women have become providers of the household they build. As Lana says, some women decide to stay home; others decide to build their own future. I find myself agreeing with Brewer, because it is true that, biologically, the agricultural shift has been a very big influence in the subjugation of women, and the predisposition of men.
Women have been oppressed by society simply because we live in the male’s world. It’s a great argument, and a very interesting article. I do believe that oppression started with growth of agriculture, and never stopped, because ever since then there was little opportunity for women to stand out; most of the spots under the sun are already taken by male rival, who doesn’t need to take maternity leave or doesn’t perform well enough because of cramps of some sort. However, I know couples where men stay home, and women are breadwinners; Or husbands that are better cooks and housekeepers than wives; or dads that take better care of kids than their moms; and those families are happy! Makes me wonder, maybe the shift is finally happening, and females are getting equal rights, slowly but surely?
I do agree with brewer that the shift to plow agriculture has played a part in in the oppression of women. But i don’t think that this is the only reason for their women’s oppression. The roles of male and females in society are more biologically based. Women when impregnated release certain hormones or pheromones(cant remember which but probably both) that make them more attractive to the opposite sex. The evolutionary purpose of this is to keep men around to protect and provide for Women while they have children. This is enough proof for me to think that biology plays a role in this. On top of this Women are more predisposed to childcare which is why they have kids and not men. Women are more emotional and better suited to provide emotional comfort to an infant. Men on the other hand are a different story. Some can definetly provide emotional support for a child but i think on the whole women are better at it. They have natural motherly instinct which men dont. Women come with a built in nursing system and can feed a child when hungry. Men cant do that.
English 1012: Fall 2014 Tue/Thu 
I was very intrigued by the theory Brewer proposed, and I think that the shift to plough agriculture can definitely be a legitimate reason for the subjugation of women. I think that social and economic factors are defiantly the reason for the double standard that woman face today in the work fields and in general. If we think about woman’s role in the hunter gatherer society, the women held equal responsibilities as the men, they contributed just much. If anything, the added responsibility of a woman bearing a child should greaten her status as a female. Shouldn’t her body be considered strong for being able to carry another human being? However a woman’s body is also softer and weaker than a mans physically in terms or muscle. I guess you can say that her strength is not about the muscle but a different kind of strength. I think that the shift to agriculture definitely moved the woman predominantly into the home and therefore eased the way into her subjugation. Because the society no longer needed the women outside, she became bound to the home and seemingly “weaker” duties. Also as time goes on we see things coming up like chivalry, where women are made into soft, gentle, weak objects that need the protection of man. That is entirely fueled by the society. A mans capability of accomplishing is not more that a woman’s. It’s years upon years of flawed thinking in society that has led us to where we are today.
I agree with Brewers theory that switching to a lifestyle of agriculture led to the woman’s role in bringing in income being diminished, therefore causing the subjugation of women. I don’t disagree that women are biologically predisposed toward child care and men to protection. However, I don’t think that either of them are predisposed to housekeeping or providing, rather those tasks come along with child care and protecting, respectively. The switch to an agricultural society simply defined their roles as such because, for the most part, only the men were capable of the backbreaking farm labor, automatically leaving the housekeeping the woman, if he division of labor was to be fair. This wouldn’t necessarily be a problem if not for the fact that the breadwinner gets more acclaim because of nutrition being an immediate survival requirement, which puts the woman in a “lesser” positions and so opens the door for subjugation.
Women in general are weaker than men biologically in terms of strength and muscle, therefore during the agriculture period women would stay home and bear children and take care of them while men do the labor outside. Due to this Brewers theory is correct because agriculture lowered women from bringing in income slowly diminished. However is doesn’t mean child care couldn’t be done by men and women couldn’t do labor outside such as farm labor which can me excruciating. Since the importance are given to the men for providing food as the main component for survival lead society to believe that the men are more dominant and would lead the women. This is the thinking that has been conditioned since that time and still leads today.
I agree with Mohammed. I believe that the men should be the one that protects and supports the family while the women should stay at home taking care of the children and family. By saying this, doesn’t mean that the women’s job is easy. Just because they’re not getting paid doesn’t make it any less hard! Also, another thing I wanted to say. There are other ways of payment other than money. It could be for personal benefit!
Brewer`s theory makes a lot of sense to me. At the same time, I don`t look at women as inferior to men. Men and women took on roles that felt natural to them. It makes sense the way the roles were divided. Looking at modern women, I wouldn`t say they lack power. The ones who choose to stay at home and take care of the family, do so. The ones who choose to have a career, go for it and are very successful. In my opinion, in both cases women have just as much influence and power within family and society as men do. As mentioned in the article, woman is more of a nurturer, who keeps the family in a social and emotional balance, but I don`t think that she feels inferior or unhappy because she was “forced” to take on this role.
I agree with Brewer’s theory regarding women having a more diminished role in society, thus leading to the subjugation of women. I believe that social/economic determinants are a huge reason why women have gone through this. As the agricultural society began to rise, the women had to become more responsible for the nurturing and developing of their children. If the male was the “hunter-gatherer”, women had no choice but to raise their families. I do believe though, biologically some women are just as fit to contribute for a family as much as the dominant male. Engels research did show that women were just as good, if not better in hunter-gatherer situations. They were able to provide the same if not more labor than some of the dominant males in society. In the end, I believe the males wanted to be the ones looked upon as the provider, thus forcing women to nurturing and raising their children which became the domino effect in society during those times.
Women did play their part in hunter-gathered societies and then this new way of producing food and breeding animals is invented. According to Brewer this “invention” hindered women causing subjugation.
I feel however that it did hinder women in the work field but gave them a new “job” that many don’t realize how-hard it can be. Not only must their bear children and maintain the house hold. But I think biology plays its part.
I feel biology is the cause of division of labor. Women can have children as to were a mans body is not capable of breeding. I feel that even in hunter gathered society this hindered them as I can picture a women hunting while pregnant. Men role is to provide.
I’m glad that in today’s time women are gaining the same status quo in the work force as challenging as it may be this biological factor slows women down.
I agree with Brewer’s theory that the shift to agriculture caused a separation between the jobs a woman is seen fit doing versus a man. It’s followed around for a while but at the same time looking at the modern world now we have steered out of that road quite a bit. I do think however, even though agriculture was a reason that secured different gender positions, men and women are biologically separate. That isn’t to say a woman can’t do a “man’s job” and vice versa but that naturally woman and men are better at different things. While one may lack in the physical department the other lacks in the emotional department.
One thing that made me uncomfortable reading this article though was that women’s jobs are seen as inferior to men’s jobs. Staying at home, taking care of a family, raising kids, etc. is just as, if not harder than going out to work everyday. Both roles are important regardless of who takes the role. One role shouldn’t be seen as less than the other. Nowadays there are definitely places that enforce these gender barriers but both a woman’s role and a man’s role are easily interchangeable.
I think the division of labor is determined by both biology and social/economic factors. Biologically speaking, there are differences between the two genders. Biologically, men are better at some things, while women are better at other things.
The society that we are in also plays a role. different societies have different tasks that need to be done. A hunter gatherer society has equally important roles for men and women. Men would hunt for meat, while women cared for the young and foraged for other types of food, like fruit, berries, and vegetables. The agricultural society caused the roles of men and women to start changing. As Brewer mentioned, women’s roles changed and started to become more meaningless. I think it was that that cause women’s oppression to come about.
I believe that women oppression and labor division was primitively determined by biology but the social of economic factors strengthen it and nurtured it to elongate the gap of those discrepancies between gender roles. The previous theories we discussed in this course already proved physical characteristics and other factors play a major role in oppression and discrimination. But i do not agree that agriculture led to women’s exclusion from food production and their subjugation. Before agriculture was created, women were already oppressed. Just analyzing the process of reproduction, we see that Men are genetically superior to women. As Barash points out that “men produce millions of sperm while women produce only one egg at a time and about 400 in a lifetime. Therefore men have an interest in impregnating as many women as possible to maximise their genes in the next generation, while women go for quality, looking for the most genetically suitable male partners. That itself proves that women were oppressed before the birth of agriculture.
In my opinion, I believe women were born to do both roles, work and take care of a family. This is the reason why in modern society women are doing both roles. There are several reasons why women are working and taking care of a family. One of the reasons is the cost of living. Before, a home could be maintained with one income because things were not as expensive as they are now. Nowadays, in order to support a family and live a comfortable life, two incomes are needed. Technology is a second reason why women are performing roles as both a provider and a caretaker. Previously, women’s lack of physical strength made it harder for women to work in agriculture and fabrics environment. Now days, the development of new machineries and equipment have made it easier for women to work in those environments. Another reason is that there are more opportunities available for women. More women are graduating from college and becoming more self-sufficient providing a large chunk of the family income.
On the other hand, I disagree with the men being biologically predisposed to providing and protecting, and assert social/economic factors instead because in most regions of the world women are the provider and head of household. Many times when men get divorce, they do not want to continue with their responsibility of supporting the family. In many cases women have to take them to family court for child support in order to receive financial support. Therefore, I strongly agree that women are a major source of family income and protecting their family.
i believe woman are biologically predisposed to childcare, just even by the simple fact that women are the ones who get pregnant and give birth. they naturally know how to nurture , and even have a natural motherly instinct. i dont believe that for this reason, women shouldve been subjugated nor be looked at as if their role is inferior to a man’s role. i agree with brewer that agriculture started the subjugation of women,but it shouldn’t have been that way. if women were able to bear children and still have a role in the hunter gather society, they also couldve helped with the agriculture. Men underestimated women and simply made them stay indoors and raise children and do housekeeping, which men are most certainly capable of doing as well. i am glad that today women have the opportunity to get a career and also know how to be providers for their families, because they have the same capacity as a man to do so.
I Agree with Brewer and his argument about the shift of agriculture leading to women’s subjugation. However, I don’t believe that it was social factors alone that pushed woman. I believe that women are biologically predisposed to childcare because woman alone carry children and men do not. In addition, men are predisposed to providing and protecting because men are built with more muscle power than woman. Women are also more emotionally vulnerable than men. Little can affect a man’s emotions like a woman’s and dealing with children, it can only be with emotions that woman have naturally. So to make my claim, I believe that biology plays a big role in the exclusion of woman from food production. In addition, I believe that social and economic factors led to women being subjugated as well. After the Hunter-Gatherer Civilization, agriculture became a more resourceful means of making money. Agriculture is more physically draining than hunting and gathering. Women were excluded due to their biological makeup being weaker than men. They couldn’t undertake a lot of the physical stress that came with agriculture, which kept them at home with their children. Therefore, I believe that without the biological predisposition of both men and women, the social factors the subjugated woman would have never been able to stand.
I actually believe that the division of labor is determined by social/economic factors but those factors may have came about due to biological factors. Biologically men and women are built different and their bodies adjust to certain things that different from one another. I think that since the beginning of time, as stated in the article, yes women and men did share some of the same roles. When time passed, I believe that their knowledge and social/economic factors made them aware of their biological abilities and they were able to separate their strengths and weaknesses. Women of course were the only ones that can bear children which would limit their abilities at times but I do believe that women can do just as much work as men can. I think that since men were seen as more dominant and women were the ones who were seen as more emotional, they were the ones to take on things like cooking, cleaning, and looking afer the children, while men went out and worked to put food on the table. This mindset came from social/economic factors and was what we were taught. It was drilld in our minds.This is more of a team work situation, in my opinion though, not a state of who can do this better than the other. I believe that if women were chosen to work like men and the men chosen to do the things women did, it would work just the same. It’s the way that we were trained to think that would hinder our minds from thinking otherwise. the only setback of course would be women when they are pregnant.
Biological factor has some impact on the roles between females and males. Females are smaller, weaker, and are child bearers for a prolonged period of time. This makes their male partner to become the stronger part of the family. Males hunt for food, and are the “breadwinners, who compete in an achievement-oriented society that leads to stress and anxiety” and they need “women to restore the balance”. However, social and economic factors have a much greater impact on women’s subjugation than biological factors because although the males performed more labor intensive work, females provide more for the families and were usually in charge of caring for the animals which were domestically owned for food supply along with reproducing and raising children. During the shift to plough agriculture, women were excluded from agriculture for several reasons. Plough agriculture was more labor intensive thus the males took control of agriculture and herding and females cooked, raised children, took care of craft production of hides, and cared for the meats. Women were also excluded even from food production because of their biological role of reproduction and in this role they become incapable of working for certain period of time. Men wanted more children in order to obtain more workers for the field thus the females were stuck reproducing more children and raising them. Skills of plough agriculture were then passed down to the boys of the household meanwhile the females were left inside to cater to their part of the process. Females were seen as weaker and only child bearers to males which led to the males deciding to take over the household. This view became very “normal” and “natural” over time to the extent that women themselves started to believe that they are inferior to men. This explains that even though biology has a place in the exclusion of females from plough agriculture, females’ social status in the household/village overpowered the biological factor.
I think that division of labor is determined more by biological factors rather than social/economic because the fact that physically men stronger than women is still valid today the same way as it was many hundreds years ago. This factor alone determines what tasks/responsibilities males and females can carry in order to survive and develop throughout the evolution process and, as a result to form social unit (family). It is proven by many researchers that women are more emotional than men and more responsive on help request, hence naturally predisposed for caregiver role. It doesn’t mean that man cannot care for a child, but due to maternal instinct females usually do that better. I do agree with Brewer partially because we cannot fully disregard social/economic aspects because they influenced on division of the labor.But I do think that main factor is in difference of biological nature between female and male species.
I strongly agree with Eden and the fact that women are, indeed, predisposed to child care, and in addition, housekeeping, simply because those are things that come naturally to a woman, especially when they carry a child. For nine months they have a tiny human growing inside of them, and only women know the feeling they get from it. A woman finds herself emotionally attached to their child, and with this comes, protection and care. They soon start to develop what we know as maternal instincts. Men are predisposed to providing and higher levels of protection, because they are, in fact, stronger than women. However, this does not mean that neither, men nor women are entitled to only take on such roles. For a long time coming, both men and women have become providers of the household they build. As Lana says, some women decide to stay home; others decide to build their own future. I find myself agreeing with Brewer, because it is true that, biologically, the agricultural shift has been a very big influence in the subjugation of women, and the predisposition of men.
Women have been oppressed by society simply because we live in the male’s world. It’s a great argument, and a very interesting article. I do believe that oppression started with growth of agriculture, and never stopped, because ever since then there was little opportunity for women to stand out; most of the spots under the sun are already taken by male rival, who doesn’t need to take maternity leave or doesn’t perform well enough because of cramps of some sort. However, I know couples where men stay home, and women are breadwinners; Or husbands that are better cooks and housekeepers than wives; or dads that take better care of kids than their moms; and those families are happy! Makes me wonder, maybe the shift is finally happening, and females are getting equal rights, slowly but surely?
I do agree with brewer that the shift to plow agriculture has played a part in in the oppression of women. But i don’t think that this is the only reason for their women’s oppression. The roles of male and females in society are more biologically based. Women when impregnated release certain hormones or pheromones(cant remember which but probably both) that make them more attractive to the opposite sex. The evolutionary purpose of this is to keep men around to protect and provide for Women while they have children. This is enough proof for me to think that biology plays a role in this. On top of this Women are more predisposed to childcare which is why they have kids and not men. Women are more emotional and better suited to provide emotional comfort to an infant. Men on the other hand are a different story. Some can definetly provide emotional support for a child but i think on the whole women are better at it. They have natural motherly instinct which men dont. Women come with a built in nursing system and can feed a child when hungry. Men cant do that.