They’re mostly getting dunked on, but they’re wriggling around all over the thread raging about science being made “political.”
They’re mostly getting dunked on, but they’re wriggling around all over the thread raging about science being made “political.”
In Braiding Sweetgrass the author mentions this Native American tribe where hunting is predominantly done by men but is only taught to boys by grandmothers. They de-masculinise it so that it doesn’t become a toxic competition for male virtues. Instead it’s taught as doing a hard but necessary thing in the context of stewardship and reciprocity for the land. They’re also learning the plants from the predominantly female gatherers since that’s necessary information when you’re away from camp. Segregating information based on sex only makes sense if one side is so disproportionately powerful that they think they can completely subjugate the other. That’s stupid when you have a limited number of hands and a set number of tasks required to survive.
Fragments
Unto Others has a section in it that has always stuck with me about division of labor in large groups vs small ones. Members of small groups tend towards being jacks of all trades, and their roles and duties look very similar to one another, and few functional distinctions can be made between them because anyone might have to do anything at any time. Large groups have a lot more specialization of labor within their structure.
It’s not specifically a book about humans, more of a dry text about the evolutionary theories surrounding altruism. Humans demonstrate it well, but it’s a dynamic that other social animals like ants demonstrate too.
Pretty much this. When you’re in a small band or tribe it’s “all hands on deck” all the time. There might be lowered expectations of the young and the old but everyone does something to benefit the group.