De Flore's Summary:
“The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence.”- Jordan Peterson
When influential figures insist on preaching to the public that there is an inevitability and logic to the gender hierarchy, in order to counter efforts to dismantle the patriarchy, it becomes ever more important to tackle the big question: why is the patriarchy such a prominent form of the social organisation across the world?
Is there any truth in the argument that female anatomy is biologically predisposed to be inferior to man? This essay tackles these questions by demonstrating that the distinctions between ‘male’ and ‘female’ lies on a spectrum rather than a strict dichotomy, even when understood through a ‘biological’ standpoint. In consequence, the notion that the patriarchy is a biologically ensured phenomenon, that somehow female biological characteristics confines her to a role of subordination, becomes senseless. This biological reasoning behind the gender hierarchy is often rooted in an understanding of our primordial history of ‘man: the hunter’. Women, while ‘burdened’ with child rearing, remained dependent on her physically stronger male counterpart for food and protection. As such there developed a differentiation in political, economic and social roles. Nevertheless, this essay argues that this narrative is founded on a number of misassumptions. Rather, evidence suggests that the gender hierarchy came to develop much later, in tandem with the agricultural revolution whence concepts such as land ownership and inheritance took on more essential cultural value.
In science, our capacity to understand often begins with a process of categorisation. We are inclined to divide and label the world so as to both enable comprehension and communication. Across the globe and throughout history there has been a tendency to differentiate humans into different social groups. Who fits into what social group depends on a set of predetermined characteristics that one would need to satisfy. For example, ‘sex’ can be defined as a tool of categorisation that refers to a dimorphism on the basis of reproductive functions (such as chromosomal sex, hormones, or gonads), recognized as male or female in humans (Muehlenhard & Peterson, 2011, p.173).
Nevertheless, this process of categorisation is artificial in the sense that it is humans that define an object, and humans are inevitably infected with biases, moulded through social experiences, and raised in a culture (Lewontin, 1991, p.3). This is not to deny the utility or veridicality of science, but rather to suggest that when the social is filtered through a template of objective universality, we omit the diversity perceptible across individuals and deny the lived experience of those who defy expectations of the norm.
This becomes more apparent in conversations associated with gender which are inevitably subjective as it is enveloped in a discourse of identity. Here ‘gender’ is defined as the social and cultural expressions of difference that correspond to perceived sexual differences. Such expressions include behaviour, roles, expectations and activities. In this sense, gender is a performative act and should be understood as a spectrum rather than a definitive dichotomy between male and female, since this emphasises that individuals express this aspect of their identity in a variety of ways. Thus the concept of ‘male’ or ‘female’ is never a universalising truth beyond sexual differences. Those that defy norms are not merely an anomaly, rather they exist as real experiences on a spectrum of what it can be to be male or female.
Social hierarchies emerge from the attribution of power between social groups on the basis of perceived salient characteristics. To clarify, ‘hierarchy’ refers to a system of stratification whereby there is at least one hegemonic group or individual with a preferential social status, and one negative reference group or individual with a subordinate social status (Sidanius, 1993, p.196). Analogous to social groups, social hierarchies have persisted universally and throughout history in multiple and various forms. Nevertheless, the hierarchy of gender appears to be a relatively universal phenomenon. According to Harari ‘almost everywhere men have got the better deal’ (2011, p.170). Why is this form of social organisation so prevalent across the world?
The answer to this question is of utmost importance. Across the globe, gender inequalities persevere: disproportionately women face sexual or physical violence, lack appropriate access to health care, are more likely to be affected by poverty, and have insufficient access to decision-making roles, resulting in particular deliberations for women being omitted. If we want to alleviate such inequalities, understanding the origin of the gender hierarchy will inform our response. As Reiter suggests: ‘If innate male agression and dominance are at the root of female oppression, then the feminist program would logically require [...] the extermination of the offending sex [...] If sexism is a by-product of capitalism's relentless appetite for profit, then sexism would wither away in the advent of a successful socialist revolution’ (Reiter, 1997, p.5). While this may be considered an aggressive illustration of the point, it is certainly effective. Discerning the source will prevent ephemeral and superficial attempts to reverse this hierarchy.
Answering such a big question is inevitably ambitious within the scope of this essay. Nevertheless, the aim of this essay isn’t to find a single concluding answer, but rather to highlight the predominant misconceptions within this debate, and to guide the discourse towards a more pragmatic potentiality. As such, the essay begins by criticising the argument that gender hierarchy is a natural phenomenon. The assumption that women and men exist as distinct biological and thus social groups is evaluated. Subsequently, the argument that gender equality is intrinsic to humans since women are impeded by their biological traits is criticised. This essay argues that much of this logic is rooted in a discourse of our primordial history with the assumption of ‘man the hunter’ that is permeated with underlying biases. Therefore, this essay concludes by suggesting the origin of the gender hierarchy could feasibly be rooted in the agricultural revolution.
The Dichotomy of Sex and Gender
There are many who argue that the gender hierarchy is attributable to the differences in gender roles on the basis of biological differences between men and women. In this sense, it is the genetic distinction unique to each sex that inevitably leads to differences in behaviour. Such a biological argument is considered objective and therefore is definitive of a natural order. In the case that societal organisation is founded on a premise that it is the normative way of life, the rational conclusion must be to accept the status quo.
An investigation undergone by Kurzban et. al. implies that the recognition of a perceptible distinction between man and woman is intrinsic to humans (2001, p.15387). They ascertained that social affiliations based on physical characteristics such as race can be diminished when cues for the formation of social coalitions are manipulated. However, there are two primordial groups inherent to humans that are considered evolutionarily essential in the process of establishing suitable reproductive partners: sex and age (Kurzban, et. al, 2001, p.15387).
Furthermore, there are numerous perceivable differences between the sexes. Typically, men tend to be stronger, weigh more, grow taller, and run faster (Rhode, 1996, p.83). There is evident variance in physical size, differences in hormones, bodily functions, and even the types of toys that are played with (Nelkin & Lindee, 2004, p.104). It is these distinctions that often correspond to inequality of opportunities and rewards.
In actuality, however, there has been a long-established understanding that individuals are not merely a product of their genetic make-up but are additionally affected by environmental conditions. The differences between the sexes can be inflated or deflated by manipulating cultural configurations. It is often asserted that there is an attributable cultural factor to any distinction between genders (Nelkin & Lindee, 2004, p.105). For example, the perception that men tend to be more aggressive than women can be contested when we realise that parents tend to be more tolerant of aggression in males (Rhode, 1996, p.82). Furthermore, if half the population is instructed to dress and act a certain way in opposition to the other half, “the children who have been wearing trousers are urged to “eat like growing boys,” while the children in skirts are warned to watch their weight and not get fat; if the half in jeans runs around in sneakers or boots, while the half in skirts totters about on spike heels” they will grow to be socially and biologically disparate from the other half (Rhode, 1996, p.85).
However, the truth remains that there is still much we don’t know about the effect of nature versus nurture on an individual. For instance, whether variation in mathematical capabilities is correlated with sex is unclear, yet there is an evident distinction in the teaching of this subject between the sexes (Rhode, 1996, p.80). Thus, until systematic and institutional prejudices are dealt with, a complete understanding of the influences of biological and external factors on individuals will remain unattainable (Ibid.).
There remains a fundamental flaw in the insistence on a gender dichotomy that misrepresents what is better described as a ‘social policy’ rather than an objective observation within a state of nature (Dupre, 2017, p.12). We tend to forget the diversity of sex across organisms. To assign sex to the majority of living entities when taking into consideration single-celled organisms would be erroneous. Furthermore, across the animal kingdom, there exists those with more than two sexes, such as hermaphrodites, or where sex is fluid. Therefore, to consider men and women to be two completely disparate entities is misleading. It would be more accurate to consider sex as ‘our total impression of the difference’ (Fausto-Sterling, 2000, p.178).
The crucial point to take from this analysis is that there exists huge variation across individuals, and the differences between males and females are a matter of degree. Sex accounts for merely 5-10% of total variation across individuals (Rhode, 1996, p.88). As Dupre notes, the more distant such differences are from the reproductive functions of individuals, the more we observe statistical overlap (Dupre, 2017, p.13). Thus, what we consider to be male and female represent ‘extreme ends of a spectrum of body types’ that are the most statistically common across all men and all women (Fausto-Sterling, 2000, p.76). To isolate biological functions and correlate it with the most frequently observed behaviours assigned to each gender is a naive representation. It neglects the way in which gender is experienced and expressed differently by various social groups in different social contexts. A black woman may face a completely different set of social stimuli from a white woman. A man may behave very differently in a locker room than in a mixed-sex networking event.
Trust in Science: Defining the Natural Order
The issue with reducing explanations for the gender hierarchy to one of solely science is that there is assumed objectivity that denies refutability. It paints behaviour as governed by biological factors that cannot be changed. Consequently, it detaches itself from ethical considerations.
While science strives for universal applicability there is a loss in the elements of particularity. To quote Scully, it ‘requires [the] agent to be reduced to their essential core’ (2006, p.356). When the entire range of women are reduced to the elements that are considered to be ‘female qualities’ based on statistical frequency it fabricates boundaries of normality justified by generalisations. When boundaries of normality exist, they create preferences (Scully, 2006, p.357). In consequence, those who challenge normative expectations are considered to be outliers.
Abnormality induces a cognitive threat that enables dehumanisation. According to Kronfeldner, dehumanisation is ‘an evaluative stance that draws a line between individuals according to an assumed concept of what it is to be human’ (2016, p. 626). However, the majority of individuals who contribute to science tend to be male (Dupre, 1989, p.108). Consequently, what science tells us about human nature, tends to be a story from the perspective of a man. The image of the average human takes the form of a man. Thus, the woman is the deviant man, ‘suffering from natural deficiencies’; she is, as postulated by Aristotle, the ‘other’ (Beauvoir, 1949, p. xxii).
The Biological Traits of Women are Inferior
As aforementioned, the argument that the gender hierarchy is a natural phenomenon begins with the assertion that men and women are distinct sexual entities. The subsequent trajectory implies that the traits specific to men and women produce differing gender roles and these divergent functions are what hinder women from being equal. Put simply, this is the argument that, ‘Mother nature is sexist’ (Rhode, 1996, p. 77).
The most obvious distinction between males and females is the capacity of women to birth children. Many believe that as a result of this potentiality, whereby women supply greater ‘biological matter’, they have a substantially higher ‘biological stake’ in their children (Nelkin & Lindee, 2004, p.107). In turn, it is argued that women have become better adapted to the role of childrearing. The implication of childbirth is that it takes time and energy, predominantly from the female (Smuts, 1995, p.5). Therefore, throughout pregnancy and breastfeeding, women had to rely on men for security and food, facilitated by fidelity (Rhode, 1996, p.76). On account of this, natural selection accommodated the formation of a gender hierarchy endowing men with attributes like ‘strength, aggression and promiscuity’, and women with nurturing capabilities and a preference for monogamy (Rhode, 1996, p.76).
This argument implies that it is masculine traits like the strength that yields control over resources and power. Nevertheless, roles that have traditionally been associated with power: politics, managerial positions, or the priesthood, do not require substantial physical labour (Harari, 2011, p.172). This argument ignores the fact that these are the types of occupations that women have generally been excluded from while neglecting to mention the physically demanding tasks undergone by women both in domestic and agricultural settings (Harari, 2011, p.172).
To elaborate it is important to recollect the wide variation we see across male and female personalities. There exist many fathers who come to be the primary caretakers of their children with comparable nurturing aptitude (Rhode, 1996, p.77). Some males aim for alpha status while others prefer to evade conflict; some females are satisfied with submissive social roles while others strive for more dominating positions (Zihlman, 2013, p.38). To say that men are stronger than women is again an argument of statistical frequency, not all men are stronger than all women. Even if women by nature lack certain capacities necessary for specific roles, it appears unwarranted to then conclude women must be excluded by law from such roles- as has often been the case (Antony, 2000, p.13).
In addition, reducing the supposedly evolutionarily advantageous attribute of strength to merely physical capacity ignores the other types of strengths affiliated with women that are also favoured by natural selection. Women, on average, tend to be more resilient to ‘hunger, disease, and fatigue’ (Harari, 2011, p.172). Moreover, in cultural settings where gender roles have been relatively equalised, the gender gap in attributes like strength has reduced significantly (Rhode, 1996, p.85). It thus becomes apparent that the way in which we evaluate gender is done in a selective and superficial manner that impedes opportunities for women (Rhode, 1996, p.86).
‘Man the Hunter’
The postulation that the gender hierarchy is a natural consequence of evolution is rooted in the presumption that gender roles have existed since the origin of the anatomically modern human; since man was the hunter, and woman the gatherer. In consideration that women have the capacity to birth up to 15 babies, it is considered that men are biologically hardwired to safeguard the tribe (Nelkin & Lindee, 2004, p.110). Women were burdened with child-rearing, therefore, their male companions assumed the primary role in obtaining food and tool making (Zihlman, 2013, p.26). In this light, men acquired meat which they would then share with their female ‘pair-bonded’ partner (Ibid.). It is considered that phenomena like male aggression, warfare, the nuclear family and the sexual division of labour were thus inevitable consequences of evolution, determining the gender hierarchy (Ibid.).
Nevertheless, some scholars maintain that hunter-gatherer societies were organised on more egalitarian principles than is often assumed (Bowdler & Balme, 2010, p.393). This supposedly provided evolutionary advantages since it facilitated more extensive social networks and cooperation between strangers while mitigating inbreeding (Devlin, 2015). Therefore, it is suggested that both men and women shared ‘breadwinning responsibilities’ (Rhode, 1996, p.77). Moreover, birth rates during this period of human history were much lower, implying that parenting was less time-consuming than previously thought (Bowdler & Balme, 2010, p.394). The communal organisation also meant it was likely that families had help from other members of the clan such as grandmothers (Ibid.). In fact, recent evidence confirms female engagement in hunting activities, demonstrating that women were also warriors and leaders (Newitz, 2021). Even in some of today’s hunter-gatherer societies, we can observe women effectively engaging in hunting without detriment to childcare roles, such as among the Agta Negrito hunter-gatherers (Zihlman, 2013, p.31).
On the other hand, there is the argument that even if there was a strict dichotomy of gender roles it is unjustified to assert that hunting was the primary ‘adaptive human activity’ that caused women to be dependent on men (Liesen, 2007, p.106). Zihlman contends that our fixation on hunting is a reflection of the western overconsumption of meat (2013, p. 33). Rather, evidence suggests that gathering evolved as the primary source of sustenance (Sterling, 2014, p.6). In addition, the consumption of meat was more scarce while gathering was generally the more reliable source of food (Milton, 2000, p.665- 667). If, as is often maintained, women were the predominant foragers and thus responsible for storage, it is arguable that they would have had more jurisdiction in determining the location of settlements (Whelan et. al., 2013, p.662-678). Accordingly, it seems unfounded that a gender hierarchy would be the natural outcome.
Some scholars maintain that the conception of man as the hunter was a product of cultural preconceptions. ‘Man the hunter’ was never to be taken literally, but rather ‘to be pithy’ (Sterling, 2014, p.3). The anthropological catchphrase wasn’t intended to exclude women, but instead was a product of unconscious bias favouring male activities, whilst women lacked influence in such fields. Put simply: there was no authority granted to female anthropologists enabling articulation of ‘human the hunter’. Through repetition in popular culture and media, narratives manifest into unconscious thought, and in turn influence hegemonic ideology (Nelkin & Lindee, 2004, p.11). We believe man was the hunter because throughout our lives we have been told that man was the hunter.
Moreover, the assumption that the gender hierarchy was rooted in hunter-gatherer societal structure fails to acknowledge numerous underlying biases. For instance, tools made from stone and animal bones are accessible to modern anthropologists (Zihlman, 2013, p.26). On the contrary, tools typically associated with feminine roles such as ‘digging sticks and skin bags’ are organic items that have been dematerialized (Ibid.). In addition, most fossil records from 1-5 million years ago are majorly fragmented (Zihlman, 2013, p.35). Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain gender roles from this period.
Accordingly, anthropologists prefer to look at present-day examples of hunter-gatherer societies in order to understand the past. Nevertheless, it is precarious to compare current communities with those that existed several million years ago. For instance, it is maintained that the effects of colonialism drastically altered the relationships between men and women in such societies (Sterling, 2014, p.9). As such we cannot assume that after years of being ‘decapitated, decimated, [and] marginalised’ we can still observe primordial mannerisms (Reiter, 1997, p.15). Expansionary missions of colonisation propagated its own systems of hierarchy across the rest of the world, including the gender hierarchy (Reiter, 1997, p.13). Male authority was encouraged, even in matriarchal societies, since colonialists presupposed patriarchal structures and dealt predominantly with men (Leacock, 1983, p.264). The influences of capitalism and concepts of individualization and the alienation of labour further promoted this form of hierarchy (Leacock, 1983, p.271). Even missionary influences and the introduction of prostitution promoted to control of female sexuality (Leacock , 983, p.273).
The Agricultural Revolution
However, colonialism disseminated a system of gender hierarchy that was already in place. As such it is essential that we examine where this framework originated from.
There is clear evidence that the longer society has engaged in practices of subsistence, the more gender inequalities arise (Hansen et. al., 2015, p.365). Approximately 12000 years ago it was discovered that planting seeds in the same location would mean a surplus of food the subsequent year, building the foundation for permanent settlement (Kurzgesagt, 2020). Remaining in the same location and increases in food production facilitated an increase in the birth rate, stimulating rapid population growth (Zihlman, 2013, p.34). Larger communities meant there was an amplified need to produce food more efficiently (Kurzgesagt, 2020). Arguably, this caused a shift in the relationship between labour and land, promoting a new type of division of labour between the sexes.
Leacock suggests that the root of the gender hierarchy is intricately intertwined with the emergence of exploitation, which begins with the lack of control over the means of sustenance, fundamentally land (Leacock, 1983, p.269). While the concept of owning land was not necessarily new, permanent settlement concentrated and certainly intensified the importance of ties to the territory (Reiter, 1997, p.8). There were typically two manners in which persons obtained control over land. Numerous societies believed that land was the property of the gods, and therefore, to whoever was the ruler as dictated by the gods (Gilman, 1985). Alternatively, territorial possession was acquired through invasion by military retinues (Muller, 1985, p.96). It may be argued that, since permanent settlement increased the value of land, it also heightened the risk of predation (Muller, 1985, p.94). In accordance, these military retinues offered protection to the community and thus gradually eclipsed clan-elders in significance (Muller, 1985, p.96). Through custom and politics, and on the basis of land ownership, hereditary elites emerged, setting the foundation for social inequalities and the gender hierarchy (Muller, 1985, p.94).
What was distinctive about these military retinues was that they were generally non-clan-based (Muller, 1985, p.96). The further back we look into the course of human history, the more we observe the individual as belonging to a ‘larger whole’ (Marx, 2000 [1846], p.380). However, as populations increased, individuals within communities became progressively more alienated (Leacock, 1983, p.269); Families became divided into independent economic units fragmented from the communal whole (Leacock, 1983, p.268). Moreover, as land became an object of private ownership, facilitated by labour tribute, it created systems of dependency and hierarchy (Muller, 1985, p.94).
Arguably, the gender hierarchy is a reflection of this system of dependency. Since individuals were no longer bound by traditional relationships of cooperation and reciprocity to the rest of the community, wealth became an issue of inheritance (Muller, 1985, p.96). Beginning among the elite, but spreading throughout the rest of society, control over female sexuality and notions of female fidelity became a guarantee of the legitimacy of heirs (Leacock, 1983, p.269). Consequently, marriage became more restrictive, and adultery a crime (Reiter, 1997, p.8). Where patrilocality became normalised, women no longer had ownership over land (Muller, 1985, p.101). Without control over the means of production, women were unable to be economically independent and therefore, unable to claim political rights. Consequently, a hierarchy of gender ensued.
Conclusion
The ensuing logic that the gender hierarchy is largely founded on a basis of women’s economic access and the control of female sexuality, appears relevant to modern-day narratives of gender rights issues. However, there is still much that is unknown about the origin of the gender hierarchy. Since we are looking so far into the past there is a lot of information that is unavailable. In part, we are still waiting for the technology that will allow us to ascertain what society was like in our primordial history. Nevertheless, the aim of this essay was never to find an absolute account of the origin of the hierarchy of gender. It was simply intended to highlight that in light of the information we have, it is erroneous to continue framing gender rights issues with the assumption that the hierarchy is a natural phenomenon.
Initially, this paper acknowledged that sexual dimorphism was a result of reproductive habits. However, what constitutes sex is not solely a product of genetics but also of the environment. The degree to which one or the other is more influential is unclear and will remain so until we alleviate systematic biases. In addition, it is maintained that there is no strict dichotomy of sex; there is variation across organisms, and the expression of sex varies across divergent social circumstances.
Scientists are people with their own unconscious biases. Since they are predominantly male, science is a male perspective of human nature. Since science is fixated on generalisations, it paints an incomplete picture of the diversity of gender while fabricating boundaries of normality. What is then constituted as abnormal is vulnerable to dehumanisation.
We often assume that biological differences between the sexes entail inevitable differences in gender roles that impede women’s access to equal rights since they are preoccupied with children. This argument is rooted in preconceptions pertaining to the primordial sexual division of labour whereby females were preoccupied with infants. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that both sexes undertook various roles.
There are cultural biases that we tend to assume were rooted in the past. For instance, we tend to overplay the importance of meat. We also neglect to remember that female influence over anthropological research was very limited. Lastly, when looking at modern-day hunter-gatherer societies, we should be very wary of how historical events, such as colonialism, may have influenced lifestyles.
To conclude, this essay suggests that the gender hierarchy was born out of the agricultural revolution. Permanent settlement and population growth created the conditions for systems of exploitation. As private ownership became more important, so did inheritance which required control over female sexuality. This resulted in an array of patriarchal values that have inhibited women up to today. The gender hierarchy is not a product of inevitable and natural inhibitions faced by women, but rather due to the configuration of a world in man’s image.
Bibliography
Antony, L. (2000) ‘Natures and Norms’. Ethics, Vol. 111 (No. 1), [online] pp. 8-36. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1086/233417.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A24b203d2a200772bba0525b0bf684598 [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Beauvoir, S. (1949) The Second Sex: Introduction. [online]. Available at: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/introduction.htm [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Boseley, S. (2013). One In Three Women Suffers Violence, Global Study Finds. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jun/20/one-in-three-women-suffers-violence [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Bowdler, S. & Balme, J. (2010) GATHERERS AND GRANNIES, Australian Feminist Studies, [online] 25:66, 391-405, DOI: 10.1080/08164649.2010.520658 Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08164649.2010.520658?casa_token=meBeC3lYIJYAAAAA:cHk7S033mLRZoepCz2dfyDtsyYQJJhMfSXHs4uMd1mO95s1Ux4jfXuwOHeOXopTHGEUMbpPVMTHb [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Devlin (2015) Early men and women were equal, say scientists, The Guardian. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Dupré, J. (1998) ‘Normal People’. Social Research, [online] Vol. 65, No. 2, pp. 221-248. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40971271.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Aa92a1ff24b32b0b27809b71fffcd49fe [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Dupré, J. (2017) ‘A Postgenomic Perspective on Sex and Gender’, in Smith, D. L. (ed.) How Biology Shapes Philosophy: New Foundations for Naturalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), [online] pp. 227-246. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/77033371.pdf [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Dupre, J. Contemporary Feminist Perspectives on Biological Science [online] pp. 107-119. Available at: file:///C:/Users/janas/Downloads/Dupr%C3%A91989_Article_ContemporaryFeministPerspectiv%20(1).pdf [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000) Sexing the Body, Basic Books [online] pp. 1-473. Available at: https://libcom.org/files/Fausto-Sterling%20-%20Sexing%20the%20Body.pdf [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Ford, L., 2020. Two-Thirds Of World's Illiterate Adults Are Women, Report Finds. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/oct/20/two-thirds-of-worlds-illiterate-adults-are-women-report-finds [Accessed 24 Jan 2021].
Gilman, R. (1984) The Idea Of Owning Land, Context Institute, [online] pp. 5. Available at: https://www.context.org/iclib/ic08/gilman1/ [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Hansen, C. et. al (2015) Modern gender roles and agricultural history: the Neolithic inheritance, Journal of Economic Growth. [online] Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 365-404. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44113711.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A9282cd1f08a692a9c0e1603e53ece0cd. [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Harari, Y., Purcell, J. & Watzman, H., (2011) Sapiens. Penguin Random House, pp.97-178
Kronfeldner, M. (2016) ‘The Politics of Human Nature’, in Tibayrenc, M. & Ayala, F. J. (eds.) On Human Nature: Evolution, Diversity, Psychology, Ethics, Politics and Religion (Elsevier), [online] pp. 625-632. Available at: https://vle.exeter.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/1862872/mod_resource/content/0/1.%20Kronfeldner%20%282016%29%20The%20Politics%20of%20Human%20Nature.pdf [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Kurzban. Et. Al. (2001) Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization, Center for Evolutionary Psychology. [online]. Vol. 98, No. 26, Pp. 15387-15392. Available at: https://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/kurzban-race.pdf. [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Kurzgesagt (2020) When Time Became History - The Human Era [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWu29PRCUvQ&t=288s&ab_channel=Kurzgesagt%E2%80%93InaNutshel l[Accessed 24 Jan 2021].
Leacock, E. (1983) Interpreting the Origins of Gender Inequality: Conceptual and Historical Problems, Dialectical Anthropology, [online] Vol. 7, No.4, pp. 263-284. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/29790079.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A2f19a4152ab4231cd8b58fd3e4f5bf16 [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Lewontin, R. C. (1991) Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA (New York: HarperCollins) [online] Ch 1, pp 3-16. Available at: https://vle.exeter.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/1862859/mod_resource/content/1/4.%20Lewontin%20%281991%29%20Biology%20as%20Ideology%20%28Ch%201%29.pdf [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Liesen, L. L (2007) Women, Behaviour, and Evolution: Understanding the Debate Between Feminists Evolutionists and Evolutionary Psychologists, Politics and the Life Sciences, [online] Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 51-70. Available at: https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.uoelibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/pdf/10.1002/%28SICI%291520-6505%281998%297%3A3%3C105%3A%3AAID-EVAN5%3E3.0.CO%3B2-M [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Marx, K. (2000[1846]) Selected Writings (Second Edition), edited by McLellan, D. (Oxford: Oxford University Press) [online] pp 180-565. Available at: https://vle.exeter.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/1862857/mod_resource/content/1/2.%20Marx%20%282000%29%20Selected%20Writings%20%28Excerpts%20on%20ideology%2C%20on%20Darwin%29.pdf [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Milton, K. (2000) Hunter-gatherer diets—a different perspective, American Society for Clinical Nutrition. [online] pp. 665-667. Available at: https://watermark.silverchair.com/665-667(11476)milton.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAq4wggKqBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKbMIIClwIBADCCApAGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMrkKIyAFETvX47Z5OAgEQgIICYXEZPN5GNIXScSMNIg5F-APgfGZeAEFDnPkJU30PU5LKYEzazZxdOpP1-zP-0TdaI3jDN7rV0QU7X-LRwo8BfuQFEqlt6YhEJYRBII03wLMGo64Qr0LYzVhPzMkTmarv2s0uQdNME9sTN0AjzOYa0t7GkmKZ8wVLfgCFeA3QFG7ukPA-MeSXUTi4s9Jf2BbLVaPqBkzhNexfcxpqtawwEk8l-jbYK7uRFGu8Wk_dK9TOZQMn3BeHaK8RUoTerUoS82WqRtYuDBN3oVFXh61HQs17GWhGKeAe9DrXZdmMCsFIELjfoYeEyjfIrZcONIevvm0l-WWnnSb_fReuKUq3Wm8fmjncf3SPhViQEd1Y8LaukaI7XzSUklpPo97IdBaTB3sqc5cSPLd04hLZQoPWk7gc19X_Iwfxw6jiGg8jJFjUZ8p__vGhGT0Ywxgma2a21bCw4ZL08Se9ldTHxiwrdlZ5Eocrlvm3Dp8NgUNa87z8HCTmlEvxPfNYsLM_FDbMy1uD-JLbgHeycFKVd1Oh4AU5JFSElZxSH180tRc0qFeS9T8x5-uI-aUm88F3jKfl9UIQrz1wx7r_6CdbJa_GppV8mJSiGuxiKIc9G4-w5IXAhNOjtZ3RmikFMCFHOWfQaNH9aYrIfh376NTqf9JI4VVBNFPqvwIJHd0cNQz_wejOPqVZ5_6o8qWJ8jajdsZq8eBQznhM3p3MgE72hzdQkmKClxB8vbiKOjnF20cRNkvpqaGCVEe6fcxBhWFgFBE6lkL5VLlBB8QKguqmLB5XJClk5OguQl_InBdzDEnUEmU0yA [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Muehlenhard, C.L., Peterson, Z.D. (2011) Distinguishing Between Sex and Gender: History, Current Conceptualizations, and Implications. [online] Sex Roles 64, pp. 791–803 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9932-5 Available at: file:///C:/Users/janas/Downloads/Muehlenhard-Peterson2011_Article_DistinguishingBetweenSexAndGen%20(1).pdf [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Muller, V. (1985) Origins of Class and Gender Hierarchy in Northwest Europe, Dialectical Anthropology, [online] Vol. 10, No.½, pp. 93-105. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/29790147.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Aaddbe17fd995541c66ccc0f10fcc8297 [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Nelkin, D. & Lindee, M. S. (2004 [1995]) The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon (University of Michigan Press) [online] Available at: https://vle.exeter.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/1862880/mod_resource/content/2/1.%20Nelkin%20%20Lindee%20%282004%20%5B1995%5D%29%20The%20DNA%20Mystique%20%28Chs%201%20%206%29.pdf [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Newitz, A. (2021) What New Science Techniques Tell Us About Ancient Women Warriors, The New York Times [online] Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/01/opinion/women-hunter-leader.html [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Reiter, R. R. (1997) Unraveling the Problem of Origins: An anthropological Search for Feminist Theory, Critique of Anthropology, [online] Vol 3, No. 9-10 pp. 5-24. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0308275X7800300901 [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Rhode, D. L. (1996) The Ideology and Biology of Gender Difference (The Southern Journal of Philosophy), [online] Vol. XXXV, pp. 73-98. Available at: https://library.pcw.gov.ph/sites/default/files/ideology%20and%20biology%20of%20gender%20difference.pdf [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Scully, J. L. (2006) ‘Nothing Like a Gene’, in Neumann-Held, E. M. & Rehmann-Sutter, C. (eds.) Genes in Development: Re-reading the Molecular Paradigm (Durham, NC: Duke University Press), [online] pp. 349-364. Available at: https://vle.exeter.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/1862887/mod_resource/content/0/3.%20Scully%20%282006%29%20Nothing%20like%20a%20gene.pdf [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Sidanius, J. (1993) The Psychology of Group Conflict and the Dynamics of Oppression: A Social Dominance Perspective, Duke University Press [online] pp.184-219. Available at: file:///C:/Users/janas/Downloads/Sidanius%201993%20Explorations%20in%20Political%20Psychology%20(1).pdf [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Smith, D. L. (2017a) ‘The Unnatural is the Political’. Philosophy Talk blog post, 26/06/2017. [online] pp. 1-5. Available at: https://vle.exeter.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/1862873/mod_resource/content/0/2.%20Smith%20%282017a%29%20The%20Unnatural%20is%20the%20Political%20%28Philosophy%20Talk%20blog%29.pdf [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Smuts, B (1995) The Evolutionary Origins of Patriarchy (Human Nature) [online] Vol. 6, No.1, pp. 1-32. Available at: https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/993196/mod_resource/content/1/Evolution%20of%20Patriarchy%20Smuts%201995.pdf [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Sterling, K. (2014) Man the Hunter, Woman the Gatherer? The Impact of Gender Studies on Hunter-Gatherer Research, The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology of Hunter-Gatherers, DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199551224.013.032.[online] pp 1-27. Available at: https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199551224.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199551224-e-032?print=pdf [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
UN (2018), Gender Equality: Why It Matters, Sustainable Development Goal 5, un.org. [online] Available at: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Goal-5.pdf [Accessed 24 Jan 2021].
UNESCO (2017), Gender Inequality Persists in Leadership Positions, Global Education Monitoring Report [online] Available at: https://gem-report-2017.unesco.org/en/chapter/gender_monitoring_leadership/ [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Whelan, C. et. al. (2013) HUNTER-GATHERER STORAGE, SETTLEMENT, AND THE OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF WOMEN'S FORAGING, American Antiquity, [online] Vol. 78, No. 4, pp. 662-678. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43184967.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A5c24a0114e06c3b91da8306ac0547cbb. [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Zihlman, A (2013) A Companion to Gender Prehistory, Engendering Human Evolution, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [online] Ch1, pp. 23- 44. Available at: https://catalogimages.wiley.com/images/db/pdf/9780470655368.excerpt.pdf [Accessed 24 Jan 2021]
Comments