![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A thought experiment
Mar. 17th, 2005 06:01 pmIt's pretty well accepted that on average, men are better at spatial or "left-brain" skills and women are better at verbal or "right-brain" skills. What would human history have been like if this were reversed?
Would women have been the hunters and leaders, men the gatherers and childrearers? If so, would the matriarchy be any more peaceful than the patriarchy has been? On the one hand, women would still be the childbearers and would care for infants, so they might be more inclined to avoid violence than male leaders are. On the other hand, more limited verbal skills and a history of hunting may hinder nonviolent conflict resolution irrespective of gender.
And what would all this mean for the environment? Would we call it "Father Earth" instead of "Mother Earth?" The Ancient Egyptians actually had a male earth god, but what if more cultures had been like them? It would be nicer to posit that the childbearing role would still lead to the "Mother Earth" association, linking nature to the gender in power and perhaps making environmentalism a constant throughout history. But all that is wishful thinking.
On the other hand, given that sexual roles would remain the same, patriarchy might still become prevalent, though in a form that might be more amenable to environmentalism. If the gatherers rather than the hunters were in charge, the concept of a battle between humanity and nature would be less likely to shape the policies of those leaders.
Would women have been the hunters and leaders, men the gatherers and childrearers? If so, would the matriarchy be any more peaceful than the patriarchy has been? On the one hand, women would still be the childbearers and would care for infants, so they might be more inclined to avoid violence than male leaders are. On the other hand, more limited verbal skills and a history of hunting may hinder nonviolent conflict resolution irrespective of gender.
And what would all this mean for the environment? Would we call it "Father Earth" instead of "Mother Earth?" The Ancient Egyptians actually had a male earth god, but what if more cultures had been like them? It would be nicer to posit that the childbearing role would still lead to the "Mother Earth" association, linking nature to the gender in power and perhaps making environmentalism a constant throughout history. But all that is wishful thinking.
On the other hand, given that sexual roles would remain the same, patriarchy might still become prevalent, though in a form that might be more amenable to environmentalism. If the gatherers rather than the hunters were in charge, the concept of a battle between humanity and nature would be less likely to shape the policies of those leaders.
