I didn't claim that the attitudes of elites (and scribes, poets etc.) proved that they thought that earning a living through physical labour was considered undesirable by everyone. It does provide some evidence.
Now, what's the evidence that earning a living through physical labour was seen as a general gender norm for men in the past?
Wikipedia has a brief article on sexual division of labour, to start with. In numerous ancient societies, it was expected that men hunted and women stayed at home preparing food and raising children.
To be precise, you're referring to hunter gatherer societies. In such societies, women also do physical labour (foraging) and what tends to be esteemed for men is a particular type of physical labour, hunting. However, that's not evidence that earning a living through physical labour was historically the norm for men. (Note: "norm" and "normal" are not the same. It's normal to have an appendix, but it's not a norm.)
Physical labour in such societies is not so much a norm as a necessity for almost everyone, with hunting mainly esteemed not because it's physical labour, but because it's a difficult task that produces something that men and women both enjoy: the meats of the hunted animals.
It's true that hunting for a living is not longer a general norm for men (you don't look down on a particular man or disparage yourself for not being a professional hunter) but that's also been true in most civilizations. I don't think that the Ancient Romans were confused about their masculinity because almost no men made their living as hunters. Hunting for leisure has often been an esteemed activity, but that's a different thing.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I didn't claim that the attitudes of elites (and scribes, poets etc.) proved that they thought that earning a living through physical labour was considered undesirable by everyone. It does provide some evidence.
Now, what's the evidence that earning a living through physical labour was seen as a general gender norm for men in the past?
Wikipedia has a brief article on sexual division of labour, to start with. In numerous ancient societies, it was expected that men hunted and women stayed at home preparing food and raising children.
To be precise, you're referring to hunter gatherer societies. In such societies, women also do physical labour (foraging) and what tends to be esteemed for men is a particular type of physical labour, hunting. However, that's not evidence that earning a living through physical labour was historically the norm for men. (Note: "norm" and "normal" are not the same. It's normal to have an appendix, but it's not a norm.)
Physical labour in such societies is not so much a norm as a necessity for almost everyone, with hunting mainly esteemed not because it's physical labour, but because it's a difficult task that produces something that men and women both enjoy: the meats of the hunted animals.
It's true that hunting for a living is not longer a general norm for men (you don't look down on a particular man or disparage yourself for not being a professional hunter) but that's also been true in most civilizations. I don't think that the Ancient Romans were confused about their masculinity because almost no men made their living as hunters. Hunting for leisure has often been an esteemed activity, but that's a different thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link