Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Primal Women - did cave girls really exercise as much as men?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I think it's important to understand that women have worked in one capacity or another for a long time.

    First, in "primitive" societies, it's much more "socialized" in that women do women's work (often together) and men do "men's work." What that work is depends upon where they are. But I can say that in viking eras, women and men were well into gender-determined work by the time they were 7 (as evidenced by the deaths/burials of viking-age chlidren).

    Second, when we develop into larger societies that have heirarchies, women commonly worked outside of the home. Fishmongers often had their wives managing market stalls, because they fished. So their wives sold the fish. Often the same was true of farmers. Women took in work -- such as washing, sewing, or similar.

    And then it continued on. Women became secretaries, housemaids, cooks and kitchenmaids, teachers and governesses, etc.

    As we headed into industrialization, they went into factories, and of course worked on farms, and went into science and medicine as well. Soem went into politics.

    Honestly, women have always worked in some capacity or another -- while also managing to take care of their children.

    Both of my grandmother's worked -- one as a secretary, one taking in laundry and mending as well as cooking and cleaning. All four of my great-grandmothers worked -- two of them had college degrees and worked as a professional artist (graphic arts for advertising and such) and a professional writer/editor (advertising again). The other two worked in a library (mostly assisting in shelving not the professional archiving side of things -- or library science) and as a secretary. Go back another generation -- my great-great grandmother on my mother's father's side (his father's mother) ran a string of general stores in 3 towns while managing two farms that her husbands and sons worked. It was well known that she was the "brains" of the outfit, creating a lot of wealth for her family by her particular head for business. My great-great grandmother on my father's mother's side worked in a factory in Ireland, saved up enough money to move to the US, and then was able to buy a derelict almond ranch and make it into a productive, profit-making venture before she got married to her husband -- the neighboring upstart irish land owner.

    And, from what we can tell, both of their mothers worked in factory/housekeeping work in Ireland. And I would assume that their mothers worked as well -- you know, since we're now talking about Ireland in the -- what, 1850s? prior?

    I'm not saying it to be proud. But this idea that women just stayed around the house and did the housekeeping, caring for children and cooking -- which is itself a lot of work -- is the "way it was". . .well, it's simply not factual.

    Poor women worked outside of the home. That's just what was.

    Comment


    • #32
      No doubt, I never claimed they didn't. Notice I said feminists encouraged women back into the workforce. During the 19th century, the rising Nouve Riche, followed by the emergent middle class, didn't need two-parent homes. Naturally, the women were the ones to stay at home. This trend then reversed in the 1960's and 70's, for no logical reason.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Figlio di Moros View Post
        However, even the men in here seem to be arguing women are so much more useful.
        I'm arguing neither because frankly wtf is the point? Yes, both worked in hunter-gatherer societies because starving or being killed off by your neighbors sucks. We can sit here all day and argue about whether having a certain set of genitalia makes you special. It doesn't. We can argue from personal experience but n=1 does not a society make. If every man you know is worthless well the constant in this equation is you so hmm...same goes if every woman you know is a tramp etc. (Not saying this applies to you specifically more the all encompassing 'you').

        Originally posted by Urban Forager View Post
        Figlio, I don't think you can "thank the feminists" for women having to work.... women working is just an inevitable outcome of the economic system we live in. Everyone must offer up their labor eventually, senior citizens are remaining in the workforce longer do you think they are there by choice? I know plenty of women (and men too!) who would love to opt out of the labor force. Blaming it on feminists is such a simplistic view of things.
        Yes, I think many of them are there by choice or more accurately by the choices they have made. I've been married a combined total of 12 years and my wife (of which there were two...not at the same time) has worked a total of one of those years. We have had a place to live, a car to drive (not a great one but it runs), food to eat, etc. We do not have two cars, a 3 car garage, vacations to the Caribbean or kids in private school, but those are all choices. I've also made some shitty financial decisions so will probably be saying "Welcome to Walmart" one day. Such is life. Sure my wife could work (outside of the home) and one day will but it is hardly necessary. Much depends on the lifestyle one has chosen. There are many one income families out there. It is just not as easy or as common as it once was. As for feminists, well, what can I blame them for? :P

        btw...bring back the raccoon mask!


        my apologies to the OP for having jack to add on hunter-gather women folk. I've never been one and frankly never will be.

        Comment


        • #34
          I wasn't really referencing you directly, just the idea swirling around it.

          I wouldn't necessarily characterize 'feminists' in that way per se, either.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Figlio di Moros View Post
            No doubt, I never claimed they didn't. Notice I said feminists encouraged women back into the workforce. During the 19th century, the rising Nouve Riche, followed by the emergent middle class, didn't need two-parent homes. Naturally, the women were the ones to stay at home. This trend then reversed in the 1960's and 70's, for no logical reason.
            Except that maybe, just MAYBE, some women prefer to go to school and then have careers rather than stay at home and participate in homemaker tasks that are to them less than stimulating mentally.
            Yeah... no logical reasons at all.
            Just sit in the house, wash, fold, bake, and be completely dependent on the whims of your husband.
            Awesome!
            “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
            ~Friedrich Nietzsche
            And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

            Comment


            • #36
              So, we agree we're being ridiculously off-point and pretty much in consensus about disagreeing to agree? Seems like it's gonna be a debate where we all say the same thing, but continually clarify eachother and ward of the random ad homs from passer-bys.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Figlio di Moros View Post
                So, we agree we're being ridiculously off-point and pretty much in consensus about disagreeing to agree? Seems like it's gonna be a debate where we all say the same thing, but continually clarify eachother and ward of the random ad homs from passer-bys.
                You mean like pretty much any thread that isn't about "AMG I ate wheat and now my stomach hurts. Should I call Mark?!"

                but yes, what you said.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by cori93437 View Post
                  Except that maybe, just MAYBE, some women prefer to go to school and then have careers rather than stay at home and participate in homemaker tasks that are to them less than stimulating mentally.
                  Yeah... no logical reasons at all.
                  Just sit in the house, wash, fold, bake, and be completely dependent on the whims of your husband.
                  Awesome!
                  If you think a housewife is "sitting at home all day", you have no idea what their lives are like. Yes, some housewives will just sit and watch TV(in fact, too many, without doing the laundry, cooking, or cleaning, even), but they actually have a lot of time open for any number of activities. At the very least, housewives have the full day to visit family and friends, and can do almost anything from gardening to charity work. Not to mention, spending time with your kids is far more fullfilling than being chained to a desk.

                  I should point out the number of women choosing to stay home, and who really want to, is on the rise. This probably has something to do with the fact work sucks, there's only a handful of decent, fulfilling jobs to begin with, and being a homemaker is far more satisfying across the board.

                  It's funny, the idealic "career woman" was Barbara Walters, now Mika Brzezinski, and yet the reality tends to end up being working in a call center, or waitressing. Not the best paying or most fulfilling jobs, unless you're waitressing at the resturant you own, and then you're probably spending more time with your kids, anyways.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Figlio di Moros View Post
                    So, we agree we're being ridiculously off-point and pretty much in consensus about disagreeing to agree? Seems like it's gonna be a debate where we all say the same thing, but continually clarify eachother and ward of the random ad homs from passer-bys.

                    Of course...
                    But then, in the vein of ridiculously off-point, there was also no logical reason for you to make the post that I responded to.
                    “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
                    ~Friedrich Nietzsche
                    And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Figlio di Moros View Post
                      Feminism encouraged women back into the workforce; as a result, there was more labor. Companies didn't need to increase wages as much to maintain the necessary supply of labor, so they dropped relatively overtime. As wages dropped, avg. household income dropped. Women who previously chose to work, now needed to. Women who previously chose to be housewives discovered they had to enter the workforce to help cover bills and food costs. Of course, as we shifted to two-income households, there became less time either of the parents could dedicate to children, so costs relative to that went up, too.

                      I agree with most of what you say but I think we need to look at who benefits most from women entering the labor market, it obviously isn't the average worker because we agree that the more workers there are the lower the wages will be. If you follow the money I don't think it is going to lead you to rich feminists, but that's just my opinion.
                      Life is death. We all take turns. It's sacred to eat during our turn and be eaten when our turn is over. RichMahogany.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Figlio di Moros View Post
                        No doubt, I never claimed they didn't. Notice I said feminists encouraged women back into the workforce. During the 19th century, the rising Nouve Riche, followed by the emergent middle class, didn't need two-parent homes. Naturally, the women were the ones to stay at home. This trend then reversed in the 1960's and 70's, for no logical reason.
                        Do some more reading guy. Feminism/ists didn't encourage women back into the workforce. Like other people have said, women have always worked. And it's the profit-driven corporate/capitalist economic system that tweaks wages/inflation to wring every bit of cheap labor out of people. After WW2 there was no deficit spending and black market budgets. Women had been 'drafted' into the work force to take the place of fighting men, and wanted to keep those jobs after because it was the first time they were in control of their own lives. Laws had to be changed to force women back home, into domestic servitude, freeing up jobs for men. But the post-war economy meant higher inflation thanks to the free-spending war era, and now it took 2 incomes to do what 1 used to. Women 'had' to work to maintain their household's stardard of living, so feminism was co-opted to encourage women into permanent full-time work. At 60-70% of male wages, with sexual harassment, and the full burden of child care and household duties.

                        Real feminism involved equal pay, free choice in career fields, and shared domestic duties. We still don't have that. Women working outside the home has nothing to do with feminism, and everything to do with wage slavery and consumerism.

                        As for men being useless, look at how many other social animals live. In many cases, females live cooperatively together with their offspring, sharing childcare and hunting duties. Males live in all-male groups, sparring and hunting, until it's time to show off to the females how fit & trim they are. The females choose their mate, and when 'sexy time' is over, go back to life with their female compadres, free of testosterone-crazed males. In herd critters, it's still the females that choose which male they will permit to accompany the herd. And it only takes one to service many females. Male humans seem to have gotten that mixed up to mean that one male 'owns' many females
                        Seven Trees Farm - diversified subsistence farming on 1.25 acres.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by JBailey View Post
                          As for men being useless, look at how many other social animals live. In many cases, females live cooperatively together with their offspring, sharing childcare and hunting duties. Males live in all-male groups, sparring and hunting, until it's time to show off to the females how fit & trim they are. The females choose their mate, and when 'sexy time' is over, go back to life with their female compadres, free of testosterone-crazed males. In herd critters, it's still the females that choose which male they will permit to accompany the herd. And it only takes one to service many females. Male humans seem to have gotten that mixed up to mean that one male 'owns' many females
                          This doesn't speak to anything, but as I was reading this paragraph, couldn't shake the memory of all those Lynda Carter -Wonder Woman episodes - especially those that had to do with Paradise Island itself. I always did wonder how they procreated.
                          I have a mantra that I have spouted for years... "If I eat right, I feel right. If I feel right, I exercise right. If I exercise right, I think right. If I think right, I eat right..." Phil-SC

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            [QUOTE=canio6;901014

                            Yes, I think many of them are there by choice or more accurately by the choices they have made. I've been married a combined total of 12 years and my wife (of which there were two...not at the same time) has worked a total of one of those years. We have had a place to live, a car to drive (not a great one but it runs), food to eat, etc. We do not have two cars, a 3 car garage, vacations to the Caribbean or kids in private school, but those are all choices. I've also made some shitty financial decisions so will probably be saying "Welcome to Walmart" one day. Such is life. Sure my wife could work (outside of the home) and one day will but it is hardly necessary. Much depends on the lifestyle one has chosen. There are many one income families out there. It is just not as easy or as common as it once was. As for feminists, well, what can I blame them for? :P

                            btw...bring back the raccoon mask!

                            [/QUOTE]

                            I choose not to go to work. If it were possible my husband would choose not to work either! We value are own time immensely. We'd rather have time than money, but there is a minimum one needs to survive. We have found ways to live frugally.

                            Glad you like the mask..... I may bring it back or I may surprise you with one of my many other animal masks. I don't consider my mask making "work" even though I do get money for them.
                            Life is death. We all take turns. It's sacred to eat during our turn and be eaten when our turn is over. RichMahogany.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Figlio di Moros View Post
                              If you think a housewife is "sitting at home all day", you have no idea what their lives are like. Yes, some housewives will just sit and watch TV(in fact, too many, without doing the laundry, cooking, or cleaning, even), but they actually have a lot of time open for any number of activities. At the very least, housewives have the full day to visit family and friends, and can do almost anything from gardening to charity work. Not to mention, spending time with your kids is far more fullfilling than being chained to a desk.

                              I should point out the number of women choosing to stay home, and who really want to, is on the rise. This probably has something to do with the fact work sucks, there's only a handful of decent, fulfilling jobs to begin with, and being a homemaker is far more satisfying across the board.

                              It's funny, the idealic "career woman" was Barbara Walters, now Mika Brzezinski, and yet the reality tends to end up being working in a call center, or waitressing. Not the best paying or most fulfilling jobs, unless you're waitressing at the resturant you own, and then you're probably spending more time with your kids, anyways.
                              Hey... guess what... I'm a mother.
                              I've both worked outside the home and stayed in the home.
                              I have some real experience about what happen there.
                              House hold chores are mostly mind numbing. Seriously. That's why the least educated people in our culture are paid to do those tasks.
                              Spending time with kids only at the exclusion of adult company, as many women experience much of their time at home can also be a bit mind numbing. This is particularly true if they decide to be stay home moms and lack a rich husband so that they can run about at their whims to play dates and not ever think of costs.
                              There is something to be said for having actual intelligent adult conversation. This doesn't happen with a 3 year old.

                              Whether or not being a homemaker is fulfilling, either as fulfilling as or more fulfilling than, a professional job is up to the individual to decide. Not for a third party to decide via sweeping generalizations.
                              A woman's choices about career are her own. If she finds a 'menial' job in a book store or waitressing to be enjoyable that is HER decision. If she decided to go to college and get a doctorate and work in a laboratory or hospital, that is also up to her. Those are HER decisions.

                              One of my grandmothers was a teacher. She taught and managed her own home and 4 children. She taught while they were young and continued to be active in teaching into her 80's as a volunteer.
                              She was a MUCH happier person than my other grandmother who also raised 4 children strictly as a homemaker. Once her boys grew up she kept a nice house, but it was easy to tell that she was dissatisfied. In her "well to do" family the entire reason for her to go to college was to find a husband to provide for her. She was bored to put it mildly. She puttered... and wasted away.

                              Every woman should make her own choices.
                              And realize that raising children is actually a small portion of their lives.
                              Been there done that.

                              I do not currently work due to disability.
                              But I would if I could.
                              And I was actively furthering my education and seeking employment, despite the fact that I do not NEED to work outside the home, a year ago when I was stricken by my current problem.
                              Last edited by cori93437; 07-14-2012, 09:29 PM.
                              “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
                              ~Friedrich Nietzsche
                              And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I think that most women are returning home because they find value in it.

                                I gave it a good try. I thought that I would find being a SAHM and unschooling my kid to be super fulfilling. I didn't. I found it to be tedious and then exhausting. Tedious because there wasn't enough to do (living simply/minimally means less to clean and pick up, and I'm not crafty or interested in home improvements or gardening or keeping chickens), and then exhausting because DS's social needs are very high, and going to all of those things and socializing with those other families (women, men, children) was exhausting (i'm an introvert).

                                Which means what? It meant that I would be bored out of my mind while at home, then conversely absolutely freaked out when I wasn't. And usually, the other moms were talking about their cooking/cleaning/crafting/chicken-keeping, and I was just like . . . "i'm so not into these things." Not that I don't think those things are *super-awesome* but it's not my deal. Other moms are mom-activists. . . doing a lot of things like really getting involved in mother/baby stuff (baby wearing advocacy groups, breastfeeding advocacy groups; natural parenting/free ranging advocacy groups; educational advocacy groups; groups that help moms join advocacy groups). All of that stuff is also *super* valuable, but honestly, not to my interest. I mean, I am glad that I did the things that I did as a mom, and that I had those groups to go to and get help, support, and answers when I needed. But once my boy was out of diapers, I saw no reason to head to the "potty babies" group, or once he was weaned, going to the breast feeding group. Yes, I remember how to do it and can help people do it and whatever, BUT it's definitely not a *passion* of mine, you know?

                                So, I went back to my passion: I went back to work.

                                Once I started teaching yoga again, I was excited to get up in the morning. Yes, I still kept house, took care of baby, didn't keep chickens or do crafting, and I seriously cut-back on the amount of socializing I did so that I wouldn't overwhelm myself. And, I started working. I love it.

                                And then I started this bigger business, which I love doing in the extreme. I love cultivating it. I love doing the accounting. I love cleaning the carpets. I love teaching my teachers for free (as part of our professional development to better the studio). I love every aspect of the work.

                                I still clean the house and take care of my kid (though, as I said, my husband does the majority of this labor right now).

                                i don't feel at all forced. I don't feel like I'm doing it because it's the feminist thing to do or not to do. I do it because I enjoy it, and doing so helps me be a happier, more authentic person, which in turn, teaches my son to be a happier, more authentic person.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X