←back to thread

430 points mhb | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
PeterHolzwarth ◴[] No.46179223[source]
"A woman's work is never done."

In our agrarian past, the cultural division of labor at the time said that men worked the field, women ran the home. And that later job was brutal, never-ending, and consumed all waking hours until the day she died.

Men broke their backs in the field, women consumed their lives doing the ceaseless work that never ended, every waking moment. (And occasionally helped out in the field, too).

Running a family was a brutal two-person job -- and the kids had to dive in to help out the second they could lift something heavier than a couple pounds.

We forget so easily that for the entire history of our species - up until just recently - simply staying alive and somewhat warm and minimally fed was a hundred-hour-a-week job for mom and dad.

There are important downsides, but the Green Revolution - and dare I say it, the industrial revolution - was truly transformative for our species.

replies(26): >>46179343 #>>46179376 #>>46179422 #>>46179481 #>>46179798 #>>46179855 #>>46179919 #>>46180233 #>>46180355 #>>46180599 #>>46180969 #>>46181092 #>>46181124 #>>46181414 #>>46181875 #>>46181896 #>>46181937 #>>46181950 #>>46182147 #>>46182207 #>>46182381 #>>46183157 #>>46183746 #>>46184169 #>>46184908 #>>46186251 #
Etheryte ◴[] No.46180355[source]
A small nitpick that doesn't take away from the rest of your comment: staying alive and fed was not necessarily a laborious activity for hunter-gatherers living in good climates [0]. It's our expansion into less hospitable environments that made it so.

> Woodburn offers this “very rough approximation” of subsistence-labor requirements: “Over the year as a whole, probably an average of less than two hours a day is spent obtaining food.”

> Reports on hunters and gatherers of the ethnological present--specifically on those in marginal environments--suggest a mean of three to five hours per adult worker per day in food production.

[0] https://fifthestate.anarchistlibraries.net/library/370-fall-...

replies(4): >>46180566 #>>46180937 #>>46181040 #>>46181048 #
logicprog ◴[] No.46181040[source]
The "original affluent society" theory is based on several false premises and is fundamentally outdated, but people keep it alive because it fits certain Rousseauean assumptions we have. I recommend reading this:

https://kk.org/mt-files/reCCearch-mt/kaplan-darker.pdf

There are so many things wrong with those time estimates.

replies(2): >>46181841 #>>46182048 #
1. BDPW ◴[] No.46182048{3}[source]
I just read the 'original affluent society' and (most of) your linked essay, I kind of agree with you. That said, the conclusions of Kaplan lead to estimates or 35-60 hours a week (excluding some depending on the group) and that surprised me a lot. That's very different from the image I got from some other comments in this thread talking about extremely long days with constant back-breaking work. Would you agree?
replies(1): >>46182752 #
2. logicprog ◴[] No.46182752[source]
Constant, backbreaking work was not a feature of hunter-gatherer societies in the way it was of early agricultural societies, yes; at the same time, they still worked equal to or longer hours than we did, at things we would likely consider quite grueling and boring (mostly food processing), and what they got out of it was a level of nutrition even they regularly considered inadequate; moreover, a lot of the reason the average per day work estimate is so low, as the paper covers briefly, is that there were very often times, especially during the winter, where food simply wasn't accessible, or during the summer, where it was so hot it was dangerous to work, so there was enforced idleness, but that's not the same thing as leisure.