Spotlight on Students: Gender Assignment

The following post features exemplary student work from my Introduction to Cultural Anthropology students.  They were tasked with discussing a gender across cultures.  I hope you enjoy learning about gender.

Laura Redl

Anth 101: 1005: Introduction to Cultural Anthropology

Across the world all different cultures and societies practice different gender roles, norms, and identities for females and males. The Arapesh, Mundugumor, and Tchambui of the Papua New Guinea all exhibit different gender cultural norms and ideals, signifying that these are not inborn characteristics but are instead shaped through society. All three cultures differ greatly from each other and from American norms. Through the studying and reading of the ethnographic studies and different scholarly journals of anthropologists around the world I learned that gender and gender roles are extremely important to society and do not have to go by American standards to receive respect.

The Arapesh of Papua New Guinea were people who shared the same characteristics and ideals about each sex but were very different than the common ideals Americans place on males and females. The Arapesh were interested in little violence, and both sexes focused on raising the children of the village in a loving and caring environment (Yans). This culture very much appreciated child bearing and the challenges in raising children; their main focus was to be maternal individuals so that their children grew up in a loving home. The identities of each sex were very much blended and mixed to meet the same standard (Lipset). Quick sex was feared, rape unknown, and it was uncommon that men had a desire for other women outside their marriage because men did not have the aspiration to lead or boast (Lipset).

The common roles for men and women in America lie at complete opposite sides of the spectrum. Men are supposed to be aggressive and manly in a sense of not being afraid to get what they want and taking initiative. Women, on the other hand, are supposed to be fragile and nurturing. The contrast in Arapesh and America even made an impact on the two sexes studying them, Margaret Mead and Reo Fortune. Mead greatly appreciated the love and admiration for child bearing, whereas Fortune got upset with the culture and refused to agree with their maternal expectation, saying that the men were actually naturally violent (Sanday). This is an example of projecting our expectations and ideals on another culture because we want to believe the American ways are the most correct.

            The Mundugumor of Papua New Guinea were the complete opposite of the Arapesh and demonstrated an appreciation for being warlike, had many wives, and despised child bearing and the raising children (Yans). This culture was dominated by the men and men held the central role and example for what both sexes should exhibit. The men were supposed to be violent, fearless, and fierce, influencing the role for women to encourage fighting and not want to be nurturing or care for their children (Lipset). Again, we are faced with a culture that blends the two roles for men and women, whereas in America we aim for men and women to have very different gender identities and values. In Mundugumor, children were annoyances and child bearing was despised, men hated when their wives would become pregnant, and women did not want to raise them in a loving manner, causing the children to learn quickly they must be tough (Lipset). The reason that the child bearing was so despised was because the women and multiple wives of these men were their main source of labor, causing men to fight to have more wives and not wanting them to get pregnant and delay work (Lipset). This patrilineal society and use of women as workers causes maternal instincts and norms to be unappreciated and unwanted. Men were the head of the society and women wanted to please them influencing them to also resent child bearing and causing them to resent the children and being unloving. In America we have a better appreciation for child bearing because we realize we need women to have children in order to survive and therefore place more recognition on women and maternal values.

            The Tchambui of Papua New Guinea demonstrated the opposite gender norms for men and women that Americans have. The women were very businesslike, handled finances, and dressed the men and children, but the men were catty, liked shopping, and were not aggressive at all (Yans). The women held the most important jobs in the society because they took what was thought to be the main job, trading. Without the women trading the society would not succeed or survive so men had to be very appreciative and grateful for these women. The women held the real position of power in the society which meant that they were the dominate figures (Lipset). The men were always gossiping and suspicious of each other, they had no desire to be aggressive and were constantly trying to give the women what they wanted (Lipset). This is the opposite of American gender norms because the women are supposed to be the gossipy and unaggressive sex, and the males are supposed to be the breadwinners and leaders. The men are expected to get the jobs in society and the women want to please the men.

            The views of the different societies and gender roles in the Papua New Guinea were so different than the views of Americans because the men’s and women’s roles were all held at different levels of need. The women in the Arapesh were seen as dominant because they were the ones who could keep the society surviving and so their nurturing and loving roles were very much appreciated and desired. The men wanted to be like the women because they were so grateful for having them there to have children. The Mundugumor favored the men because they help the highest positions in society in their extensive trade network and leading the society. Women wanted to work for men and cause them to be successful, so they hated when they had to have children and resented raising their children. The Tchambui of the Papua New Guinea had opposite sex roles of Americans. The women were the breadwinners and would provide for the family yet the men were suspicious and catty. The women dominated and controlled daily resources, so men wanted to please the women and keep them happy.

            By taking a deeper look at the different societies views on gender roles and identities I was able to understand that females and males do not have innate norms or values for the characteristics each sex should exhibit. If so many variations were possible, then sex roles were not inborn and masculine and feminine behavior was determined by culture (Yans). The roles of men and women can be shaped by whatever their roles are in society and how valued their roles seem to those in the culture. I gained a deeper understanding that both gender roles and both characteristics of men and women can be valued and it does not have to be dependent on their sex. Women can act as Americans might think would to be manly and be highly appreciated and men can act as we might think of as girly and remain important to the society. Men and women do not need to act in a way our society deems “correct” in order to be a success and appreciated.

Works Cited

Lipset, David. "Regarding Sex and Temperament: Margaret Mead's Sepik Triptych and Its Ethnographic Critics." Anthropological Quarterly 76.4. Academic Search Main Edition, 29 Oct. 2013. Web. 2003.

Sanday, Peggy Reeves. "Margaret Mead's View of Sex Roles in Her Own and Other Societies." American Anthropological Association 82.2 (1980): 340-48. Print.

Yans-McLaughlin, Virginia." WAYF | Alexander Street Press. Alexander Street Press LLC, 1996. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.

PaleoBUST: A Critical Review of the Pitfalls of the Trendy Paleodiet

You may be hearing a lot about ways to lose weight after the holiday season, and one such  method for weight loss that you may be hearing about (if not have already heard) is the Paleodiet.  The Paleodiet is based on the idea that our Paleolithic (circa 2.5 million years ago to 10,000 years ago) hunter-gatherer ancestors were far healthier than our modern populations.  Support for this idea comes from archaeological evidence and stark differences in diets between hunter-gatherer and agricultural groups, as well as the high obesity rates associated with modern Western populations.  This supporting evidence, however, has come under heavy scrutiny recently and several scholars have come forward to speak against the Paleodiet.  This blog post is dedicated to critically analyzing the Paleodiet by discussing the realities of Paleolithic groups and the bona fide pitfalls of the modern interpretation of the Paleodiet.

The Paleodiet promotes the idea that Paleolithic hunter-gatherer groups were nutritionally better off than modern agricultural groups.  Advocates of the Paleodiet claim that Paleolithic hunter-gatherer groups subsisted on a diet principally based on large quantities of lean proteins; raw fruits and vegetables; very few refined, starchy, and sugary grains; and no legumes (e.g. peanuts, beans, peas, etc.).  Paleolithic peoples collected these items through hunting and gathering natural resources, all of which were activities that assisted them in maintaining lean and buff physiques and healthy lifestyles. 

But how valid are these ideas?  There is some archaeological evidence to support this idea.  Archaeological and physical anthropological scholars came together in the early 1980s to discuss the health differences between premodern hunter-gatherer and early agricultural groups, and the majority of these scholars came to the conclusion that the hunter-gatherer groups were indeed healthier than their agricultural counterparts.  The scholars concluded that the primary reason for the differences in health statuses between established hunter-gatherers, who had existed for several millennia, versus the early agriculturalists was the fact that agriculturalists relied primarily on very few staple foods for their diets, while hunter-gatherers had a more diversified diet.  The specialization in agricultural diets led to an increase in nutritional deficiencies as compared to the premodern hunter-gatherer groups. 

BUT the fundamental difference between the very valid conclusions reached by the scholars in the 1980s and the realities of the Paleolithic groups is the substantial time difference between the two different hunter-gather groups: the Paleolithic vs the premodern.  The premodern hunter-gatherer groups existed several millennia after the Paleolithic groups to which the Paleodiet is based.  These premodern groups had developed specialized tools that enabled them to be successful hunters and established seasonality trends where they learned to exploit different resources within a large contained area based on seasonal availability of resources.  Early Paleolithic groups had very rudimentary tools that do not support the existence of sustainable hunting practices (with some scholars debating the existence of any hunting among the groups) and most likely did not have the generations of experience and knowledge to practice seasonality.  Furthermore, studies of both premodern and modern hunter-gatherer groups have demonstrated that they are not any healthier than modern agricultural or industrial societies.  The average lifespan of premodern hunter-gatherers was mid-adolescence and the top end of the age scale was in the 40s.  As well, both premodern and modern hunter-gatherers suffer from a myriad of pathological conditions, including but not limited to parasitic infections and nutritional deficiencies. 

Furthermore, the environmental conditions between the Paleolithic Period and today were drastically different.  The Paleolithic Period was an environment full of different floral (vegetation) and faunal (animal) resources.  Paleolithic Period groups had wooly mammoths and rhinoceros, ibexes, horses, foxes, and buffalos, all of which were much larger than modern day animals, available to them, and these creatures subsisted off of the natural flora around them.  These lead to two strong criticisms against the modern interpretation of the Paleodiet: First, the archaeological evidence demonstrate that hunting came about in the later stages of the Paleolithic Period and earlier Paleolithic peoples were scavengers.  Therefore, the proportions of protein consumed by Paleolithic groups were not as high as modern Paleodiet advocates claim.  Second, the types of proteins were different not just in faunal type but also based on the composition of those faunal resources.  Paleolithic peoples would have had access to lean meats as these game animals would have only subsisted on natural resources.  Today, modern peoples most often purchase their meats from a supermarket or butcher, and these meats come from animals that are full of antibiotics and hormones.  Modern peoples who only consume organic meats get these resources from animals that are not full of antibiotics and hormones but most likely subsisted on a limited diet, which leads to fatty, not lean, meats.  This means that contemporary subscribers to the Paleodiet are not actually consuming a true Paleodiet because the proportions and types of proteins are not the same.

As well, the limitations of the Paleodiet will actually lead to further nutritional deficiencies, which leads to a poorer health status overall.  The Paleodiet requires that one eat raw fruits and veggies and abstain from legumes and dairy products because these did not exist in the past.  While overcooking of fruits and vegetables can actually leach out vitamins and minerals subsisting on only raw fruits and vegetables is problematic as well because these items in their raw state cannot be digested by humans in a way that allows for the full exploitation of all of their vitamins and minerals.  If one only subsists on raw fruits and vegetables the amount of food that would need to be consumed for nutritional sustainability is substantial, and majority of one’s day would be spent eating.  Slight cooking, such as steaming, these items will actually release many of those beneficial vitamins and minerals, which is advantageous to modern humans for several reasons.  Also, abstention from consuming legumes and dairy products causes one to be extremely nutritionally deficient and leads to several pathological conditions, including iron, vitamin D, and calcium deficiency diseases and conditions such as anemia, rickets, and osteoporosis.

Overall, the Paleodiet is problematic, but some of the ideas of the Paleodiet are valuable take away lessons: eating less processed foods, eating less, and exercising.  Cooked food is not necessarily the enemy, but how the food is cooked can be.  Steaming and baking food is better than frying food as these former methods do not leach out nutrients and do not add unnecessary and unhealthy fats.  As well, over consuming food is not beneficial as it leads the body to storing the excess food in the form of fat.  One should eat balanced and proportioned meals instead of large meals throughout the day.  Finally, exercise is a basic necessity for a healthy lifestyle.   So while the Paleodiet is largely a bust there are still some valuable lessons that can be taken from it.     

References

• Cohen & Armelagos 1984.  Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture.  Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
• Feder & Park.  Human Antiquity: An Introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archeology, McGraw-Hill.  
• Graber 2014.  Michael Pollan Explains What's Wrong With the Paleo Diet.  Mother Jones.
• Jabr 2013.  How to Really Eat Like a Hunter-Gatherer: Why the Paleo Diet Is Half-Baked. Scientific American.
• Sachs 2014. The Paleo Diet Craze: What’s Right and Wrong About Eating Like a Caveman. Time Magazine.

      

Applied Anthropology Profile: Dr. Christine Johnson, Curator of Artifacts and Education at the Nevada Historical Society

Nevada Historical Society, Reno, NV (Source: Nevada Museums)

 

Dr. Christine Johnson had it all by American societal standards-a great job, a marriage, a daughter.  What she did not have was a college degree.  For years, she was quite content with the life she was leading because it was a good and fulfilling life, but then the day came when her daughter started kindergarten and she realized that she could not in good conscience tell her daughter how important a college degree was without having one herself.  She was 12 credits short of finishing her degree-any degree-and when she asked her advisor what she was closest to earning it turned out Anthropology was the winning degree ticket.  This serendipitous situation led Johnson down a new path that she has no regrets having pursued.  As Johnson herself put it, “I'm happy it was anthropology and not, say, animal husbandry.  Not to judge THOSE people, but I can tell you this: If fate hadn't afforded me the vehicle to rediscover anthropology, what a very different life I would have today.”

After earning her Bachelor’s degree in Anthropology Johnson went on to pursue a Master’s and eventually a PhD.  She was not completely sure what she wanted to do but knew that she wanted to pursue her long held and reignited interests in peoples and cultures.  Luck continued to be on her side during her Master’s coursework as she was provided the opportunity to work on a very remote island in the Pacific Islands and to research both anthropological and geographical topics pertaining to the people and geography of the island.  This opened up several more opportunities for her and she began to focus on museum studies in addition to cultural studies.  Johnson was able to take advantage of some museum internships through her coursework, which enabled her to gain specific skills and establish contacts within the museum community.  She ultimately landed the position she currently holds as the Curator of Artifacts and Education at the Nevada Historical Society in Reno, Nevada, due to those connections and unique skill sets.  While working in a museum may not seem wholly anthropological Johnson still readily utilizes her anthropological skills in her current position:

“As the collection I supervise (artifacts) is wholly anthropological in nature, my anthropological background is essential to the understanding and interpretation of this collection.  Additionally, the education in museum studies allows me to apply those skills to bring this collection (the oldest artifact collection in the State) up to more modern standards in the field of museology.”  

Johnson notes that while anthropology is formally defined as the holistic and comparative study of human societies and cultures she is quick to point out that it is simply the study of us (humans).  There is a great deal of utility in understanding humans from both a cultural and biological perspective as it assists individuals in better understanding the social world around them.  She notes that an anthropological background is useful in many employment settings, particularly in business settings, but she also notes the personal fulfillment one can receive from taking an anthropological course: “When you leave home, you interact with other humans, in one way or another, throughout your day.  Anthropology and a basic understanding of cultural differences is a very strong tool to have in your ‘toolbox of life.’”