Someone on a lesser part of the Internet claimed that women have been oppressed for “40,000 years.” I have no idea how they came up with that number.
I know gender studies people have noodled over this sort of thing a lot, but I have not really considered it. Were women repressed in much earlier times? I would have guessed that dirt-poor neoliths didn’t have enough of a margin to keep women from producing all they could. Men and women would have lived equal, but not identical, lives. (nasty, brutal and short.)
I could imagine a rich king oppressing his womenfolk. But oppressing them sort of takes them out of the active life of a household or community. The Victorians were rich enough to not allow women to open bank accounts or buy a house on their own. I suppose.
OK, so were Neolithic women oppressed? American Indians were Neoliths. Did their women live free of oppression? How about those remote jungle tribes we sometimes bump into?
Going off of memory of some of the things I’ve read over the years, but IIRC, some societies or tribes are actually matriarchal and have been for ages, though the majority are either egalitarian or patriarchal. Modern patriarchy seems to have begun around 9,000-12,000 years ago as people became sedentary and stored large quantities of seeds and grains that, in turn, required manpower to defend. Men generally evolved to do the hunting and to engage in violent warfare, though I am sure that women throughout history have played roles in armies.
Let’s see, 40,000 years ago is about when Neanderthals went extinct. Could they be referring to that? The Toba near-extinction was about 70,000 years ago and the agricultural revolution was about 10,000. Not sure what else really changed anywhere close to that. I’m sure I’m forgetting something.
Note that pre-agricultural peoples were only poor when in poor environments. There were some locations that had plenty of surplus, where high status individuals would not have needed to work.
Also note that cultures with highly regimented gender roles restricted men as much as women. Men had to fill male roles, women had to fill female roles, and where they had other gender roles, the other genders had to fill those.
I would not be surprised if the number was chosen at random.
I am sort of wondering if primitive, tribal societies oppressed women. Having thought on it for about three minutes I suspect not. I suppose a certain level of prosperity is required to keep any group down.
But I am quite willing to be corrected. I am no expert.
I’m sorry, but "I am just as oppressed as you are-society forces me to have full control over you and treat you as property, and have final authority on all familial decisions. Do you think I want to force myself on you whenever I feel that urge? " doesn’t quite ring true to me.
Firstly - Neolithic isn’t appropriate for the Americas - the equivalent would be Archaic to Formative.
Secondly - no, they did not. At least, some of them clearly did not. Non-oppressive societies don’t develop Morning Star ceremonies or virgin sacrifices (I’m being rhetorical, I don’t know those poor young women’s sexual histories)
If you want to get some insight into hunter-gathers, I suggest you watch these two movies.
Both have a lot to say about the role of women. You may find the reality is a bit different from guesses - and more complex.
Ten Canoes (2006)
Told and acted by Australian Aborigines - the story takes place in the distant past.
Tanna (2015)
Based on a real story that happened among indigenous people barely exposed to modern culture, in Vanuatu in the 20th century, and entirely acted by the same tribes.
That is purely a hypothesis , not backed by any hard facts.
Before 2600 BC, everything is prehistory and altho certain things can be known from bones, burials, cave painting and artifacts, etc, whether a society was matriarchal, patriarchal or egalitarian cant really be known.
I mean, we can know they made potter or brewed bear or grew grains, but not much about their society.
But the hunter-gatherer and neolithic cultures that we know around the world have many characteristics in common. We can look at the range of cultures we know, and if we want to argue that societies in the distant past were significantly different, we need good evidence.
There is some crossover between these verbs—and suppress often covers all three words’ uses—but oppress usually applies to the mistreatment of a person or group by a more powerful one, repress usually applies to emotions or urges or refers to the violent quelling of political movements, and suppress usually applies to information.
When I read that someone is “repressed” I tend to think that they are holding back anger, don’t feel comfortable expressing themselves sexually, or are otherwise keeping themselves in check.
