In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

A Modest Proposal: The Hoe Diet

A team of economics and business professors have found a link between farming methods and gender inequality. Societies that historically relied on ploughs for farming now have lower rates of gender equality; societies that historically relied on traditional farming methods like hoe and stick digging now have a more consistent rate of women’s participation in the public sphere. Plough farming requires a good deal of upper-body strength that women often don’t have, eliminates the need for weeding (a task often performed by women), and isn’t suitable for ersatz on-site childcare, relegating women to domesticity.

The study examined societies that rely on “plough-positive crops”—including wheat, barley, and rye—with societies that make better use of “plough-negative crops,” such as millet, sorghum, and root and tree crops. The authors determined that “societies that traditionally practiced plough agriculture…developed a specialization of production along gender lines. Men tended to work outside of the home in the fields, while women specialized in activities within the home. This division of labor then generated norms about the appropriate role of women in society.”

These findings are wildly appealing to me—it satisfies my itch to proclaim “Look, this stuff is ancient!” without resorting to evolutionary psychology (which is frequently fascinating, and often misogynist bullshit). It offers an insight into human geography; it reflects the ways in which cultural developments wear the mask of progress can divide along gender lines just as it creates and divides class.

It also offers an insight into feminist possibilities of our contemporary food choices. Much of the gender rhetoric surrounding food has been ecofeminist dialogue clustered around veganism and the sexual politics of meat: Worthy stuff, mind you, but since I do happen to believe that humans are higher beings, I don’t have problems eating meat; in fact, I do so with relish (and onions). We’ve also given thought to supporting agricultural collectives run by women, examined the ways the art of homemaking can transform our national dinner plates, and the gender politics of food rationing in times of war.

But I ask you, fellow feminists, to go beyond the meat, beyond the private sphere, beyond the Ghanaian agricultural collectives. I ask you, fellow feminists, to ask yourselves: But what about the grain? I ask you, fellow feminists, to join me in The Hoe Diet.

When we eat our wheat-laden breads, crackers, and Ding-Dongs, we are swallowing centuries of systemic oppression thrust upon the women of the weeds by their plough-bearing husbands. When we drink our barley in the form of beer, we quench our thirst with the sweat of men who have kept down our foremothers.

What would happen if we switched our diet from crops of oppression to crops of liberation? What would happen if we replaced our rice with woman-friendly millet? What would happen if we reclaimed the tree crops that were originally ours? What would happen if we rejected the yang wheat of The Man for the yin root vegetables of The Woman? What would happen if we capped off our SlutWalks with HoePotlucks?

We are what we eat, my sisters of sorghum, and to help you join me in the path to liberation, I’ve compiled recipes with gynocentric ingredients sure to start off your Hoe Diet with gusto:

Kate Millett Pilaf
1 cup millet
6 cups water
1 teaspoon salt
2 tablespoons hen broth
1 medium onion, finely chopped
1 cup chopped fresh parsley
2 medium tomatoes, chopped

Place millet, water, and salt in large saucepan. Bring to boil, reduce heat to medium-low. Simmer until tender, about 30 minutes. Drain. Heat broth in large skillet over medium heat. Add onion and cook until softened, 3 to 4 minutes. Add parsley and tomatoes; cook 1 minute more. Stir in cooked millet and toss gently to combine. Serve immediately while reciting from Sexual Politics.

GynGreen Smoothie
1 ½ cups chopped kale
⅓ cup coconut water or fruit juice
¼ self-pollinating avocado
1 cup unisex melon, chopped
½ mango
¼ teaspoon stevia
4 ice cubes
1 tablespoon Vermont maple syrup
1 tablespoon menstrual blood
¼ teaspoon cinnamon
Pinch salt

Add all ingredients to blender and puree in a spiral dance.

Womangia!


39 thoughts on A Modest Proposal: The Hoe Diet

  1. What would happen: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/06/03/gluten-free-dishes-that-sound-ok/

    Gluten is only found in things like Wheat, Barley and similar crop and as you can see Gluten free is already been labeled the “fad” diet and women on it attacked by folks who think that protecting women who might have an ED is worth judging and upsetting those of us with a medical need for a special gluten free diet.

    So yeah, thanks for the recipe but you’re going to have to tackle disablism in feminist circles before hoe diets catch on.

  2. What’s this about rice? I thought rice was a very individually intensive crop, both the rices of Asia and America grow in shallow ponds and not tilled/plough fields…

    1. Steven, that’s what I’d thought too! The study authors specified “wet rice” as a plough-positive food, though. (As opposed to…dry rice? I dunno.) I’m wondering if broad-scale industrial rice farming is a different beast?

  3. Down with the patriarchy of wheat! I am going to my local grocery store to campaign against bread RIGHT NOW.

  4. When we drink our barley in the form of beer, we quench our thirst with the sweat of men who have kept down our foremothers.

    Give up beer?

    Please tell me that grapes, potatoes, and blue agave are plough-friendly????

  5. Autumn Whitefield-Madrano:
    Steven, that’s what I’d thought too! The study authors specified “wet rice” as a plough-positive food, though. (As opposed to…dry rice? I dunno.) I’m wondering if broad-scale industrial rice farming is a different beast?

    Perhaps they are referring to something like this? Also, there is a good post over at Discover Magazine where they show a map of the world between plough/hoe cultures and actually provide the regression results for you. The link to the direct study was going to cost $5 🙂 But I really like the segue into the recipes, very creative.

  6. Lettuce:
    Satire, or Poe’s-Law-Proof-In-The-Making?

    Well, since Poe’s Law is about how some poor souls inevitably mistake satire for extremist arguments, Lettuce, you tell us.

  7. Jess: Well, since Poe’s Law is about how some poor souls inevitably mistake satire for extremist arguments, Lettuce, you tell us.

    Um…. tell you what, exactly?

  8. The title is “A Modest Proposal,” and it’s tagged with “silliness.” I’d say it’s satire. In which case, it’s hilarious.

  9. Okay, as much as I won’t give up wheat until it’s pried directly from between my teeth, I have to go try and brew millet beer now.

  10. Autumn, you write:
    “when we eat our wheat-laden breads, crackers, and Ding-Dongs, we are swallowing centuries of systemic oppression thrust upon the women of the weeds by their plough-bearing husbands. When we drink our barley in the form of beer, we quench our thirst with the sweat of men who have kept down our foremothers.”

    You are misrepresenting the findings. If the correlation does imply a causal link between farming methods and gender equality, then the lesson is that, at least in the beginning, unequal gender roles were not the result of “systemic oppression” or a conscious, collective power play on the part of men. Those things may well come later, but this study implies the opposite of what you (jokingly, I know) read into it: gender inequality as the unintended consequence of an expedient division of labor. I don’t see any evidence in the Economist article and paper you cite that the adoption of the plough was originally either just or unjust, only that it was expedient.
    I do understand that your post is satire (I like satire, and also millet), but satire is more successful if you don’t misconstrue the motivations/mechanisms of the people/systems you are satirizing. You are also clearly trying to make a serious point here, given the tags “economics,” “food” and “gender” (heavy topics all) and the jab at evolutionary psychology. The serious objective merits a more careful interpretation of the findings you’re talking about.

  11. @Robert: I hate commenting on why/how I wrote something, especially when it’s satire, but here goes: I think it’s clear at what point I shifted from representing the study straight-up to representing it as a satirical call for radical feminist action. After that satirical shift, I lapsed into the idea that the plough was somehow a conspiracy, thus lampooning the idea that ancient developments were an action against women that called for us to take action of our own. Until that satirical shift, I represented it in a straightforward manner. Perhaps it was unsuccessful; I’ll leave that to readers to judge. Certainly you don’t think it’s successful, and that’s fine. But your mansplaining here really isn’t necessary.

  12. This was hilarious, and the teaspoon of menstrual blood in the second recipe was just that perfect cherry on the top.

    @Robert: Do you really have nothing better to do?

  13. @Autumn: Robert’s comment reads to me like constructive criticism. The misrepresentation of results from academic research is disturbing and commonplace. The post may switch into satire but there are serious ideas we can consider from the research. The idea of labor-division causing gender inequality is hardly a new one; but I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer as to *why* dividing labor would result in gender inequality. It becoming the norm for women to do the domestic work does not explain why women were devalued.

    And I sure hope you’ve seen Robert ID as a man; otherwise the use of the word “mansplain” to describe their words is careless and disturbing in it’s implication [of you].

  14. @Lasciel: It is constructive criticism, and I agree that misrepresenting the results of academic research is indeed disturbing. (In my own work at The Beheld I take this down time and time again.) I just don’t think that anyone who recognizes this as satire could possibly think that I’m saying that the plough was a plot against women! Criminy, I linked to “Chick Beer” in my description of how it was a plot, you know? His points have merits, and perhaps I’m just embarrassed because my attempt at satire didn’t go over well, but the tone was condescending. (Also, if you’re genuinely interested in the ideas about why dividing labor would result in gender inequality, you may wish to read the paper. It posits some theories, some of which I gloss over here–childcare issues, for example.)

    And I don’t think it’s “careless” or “disturbing” of me to assume that someone who uses the handle “Robert” identifies at least online as a man.

  15. Why does my comment count as “mansplaining” and not a legitimate entry into the discussion?

    As for whether I have better things to do, I read the article linked to and the post here and was interested, so I made a comment – like everyone else here. I’m not interested in the ancient use of ploughs for its own sake, and I doubt many readers of Economist or Feministe are. The study interests me because of what it tells us about the origins of gender inequality today, and that connection is what I found misrepresented in the post (in both the joking part and in the serious part, where you write about “wear[ing] a mask of progress,” again as if the creation of gender inequality by the use of the plough was a conscious decision on the part of the oppressors). Surely it’s worth getting that connection right, before and during joking about it.

  16. Satire aside, finding an interesting basis for the specializing of roles in this way is always a nice riposte to the “it’s innate”. Overturning the idea of cavewomen or early farming women sitting on their asses all day dandling babies while men hunted/gathered/farms is actually very useful. It shuts down the whole “we hunted the mammoth to feed you, ungrateful bitchez” and “men invented civilization” arguments, which are used with astonishing sincerity by certain types. And it shows that female passivity is a myth.

    Lasciel – probably the devaluing comes as a byproduct. Once one group is better able to make the food that the group wants to make in that area (actually early farming was probably less efficient than hunting/gathering), that group may stake a claim to land, hence wealth, hence power and value. Also once you have land ownership you start worrying about inheritance, ie paternity, hence control of women. Crucially seasonal farming of this type leaves the workers who do it with leisure and surplus, while home labor does not. Leisure and surplus equal time and resources both to innovate and make war, which each confer further wealth and power. Rinse and repeat for 10,000 years and a massive divide can open up. Something like that anyway?

  17. Hi Autumn! Full disclosure: Robert is my boyfriend, a feminist, and a regular Feministe reader (he thinks you all will think he wrote this, but I assure you he didn’t, and he doesn’t want me to write this, but I’m going to anyway). He and I disagreed about the interpretation of your post (generally I agreed with your response), but I have a request: Please don’t use the word “mansplaining,” especially when responding to a thoughtful (even if a bit over-wrought) comment from a guy on this very blog. It’s a name-caller and a dialogue killer, it discourages well-meaning guys from engaging with female feminists, and it ends up vilifying people who are, in general, on your side and want to be involved in the conversation in a respectful way. You may disagree, but invoking “mansplaining” doesn’t add to anyone’s understanding. Also, you had no evidence (aside from his name) that he was even a man, cis or not, so it’s presumptuous on top of it.

    Love the blog in general, but wished that you had been a little more thoughtful on that last comment.

  18. i think your audacity to claim public funding for a non-general issue is disturbing.
    here’s an analogy: staying without protection in the sun too long will increase your chances for burnt skin, just like going out semi/naked (male or female) on the streen will increase your chances of something bad happening to you.

    you are only entitled to the same medical service that non-sluts (male or female) receive and should NOT, under any circumstances, receive anything extra on the taxpayer’s expense.

  19. @Robert: I used the term “mansplaining” because I found the tone condescending. This isn’t a graduate writing seminar; it’s a blog. You were critiquing my admittedly wobbly use of satire and telling me I didn’t know what satire was. I had assumed that readers here would understand that I wasn’t actually saying that ancient agricultural developments were some machination of the patriarchy and that my segue into refusing to drink barley-based beverages was a rejection of that machination. I think that your critique is valid, but I disagree that I was misrepresenting the findings, and by telling me that I was, you entered the realm of condescension. That said: It is indeed a valid point, and I do want there to be discourse around it, and perhaps I was hasty in assuming that readers would take enough interest in the study to understand that I wasn’t trying to paint it as being the inverse of its actual findings. My writing may be at fault, and I probably got defensive about that, and it probably showed. I’m glad to have your contributions to the discussion, and I apologize for being dismissive of your points.

    @Miriam: You raise an excellent point about “mansplaining,” and I won’t use it again. I only discovered it pretty recently and found it funny, simply because this happens so often that I was glad to see a clever terminology that so accurately described the phenomenon. I feel very strongly about men being an essential part of feminism, and in fact have received critique from other feminists for bending over backward to make sure men’s voices are heard. And in using the term “mansplain” I did exactly what I work against, and I’m glad to have you call me out on it.

  20. Thanks for being responsive, Autumn! We really appreciate the smart dialogue here – it’s one of the things that makes this blog stand out. — Robert & Miriam

  21. Robert:
    where you write about “wear[ing] a mask of progress,” again as if the creation of gender inequality by the use of the plough was a conscious decision on the part of the oppressors).

    I read that as meaning that the appearance of the plough undoubtedly wore the mask of progress to the people who adopted it, but it had the side effect of strengthening gender equality, whether or not the original progenitors of the plough intended for it to do so. It’s a rejoinder to the notion that progress can be defined purely on materialistic terms, without examining their structural effects on human societies.

    Ironically though, if you look at the actual regression model contained in the study (which I linked to above), historical plough use is correlated positively with female labor force participation at the highest level of significance, and also the at the highest absolute coefficient in the table shown. It’s only when absolute latitude, domesticated animals, political hierarchies and economic complexity variables are incorporated into the model do they get a negative correlation with the highest level of significance. In other words, contrary to what some MRA sites I’ve seen take from this connection, higher female labor force participation remains highly correlated with higher levels of ‘civilizational achievement’ even at the purely materialistic level, and the gender inequality effects of the plough did set back these societies’ gender relations development away from their long term trend.

  22. Thank you for reminding me of *Precious Bane* and Prue Sarn, who could plough with the best of them and acquired literacy into the bargain. I must listen to it again soon.

  23. I honestly don’t think I can grasp where exactly this satirical shift begins.
    Are you implying that Ester Boserup’s hypothesis in itself is ridiculous? Because as a sociology major, I know way too many people who think studies like the one given in the article are as silly as all those which are based on evolutionary psychology and the like – and I don’t really get why that is.

  24. @Tony: Yes, that’s how I meant it, and thank you for articulating that better than I was able. I also found the Discovery link interesting–it (and your breakdown of it) shows that it’s not a cut-and-dried issue but rather a starting point for discussion of traditional labor’s contemporary role.

    @Raya: No, I’m not implying that the hypothesis is ridiculous. I think it’s fascinating! I just saw it as an opportunity to try (and, as some have pointed out, to fail) to have some fun. Alas! Alas. Alas.

  25. I have to admit I was being a bit snarky about the original study. I just find so much about social science “studies” to amount to “here’s a bias or idea I’ve always had, let me try to find some tangentially related statistical correlation to “prove” it.” It’s the reason for, for example, homosexuality being in the DSM until so recently, and about 85% of BS evopsych.

    But that’s just my bias (no pun intended) against social science being taken as capital-S science – without control groups, null hypothesis, etc. (what would that even be here?) you’ll always have jerks say stuff like “Here’s PROOF that African Americans are inherently violent because of rap music/women are bad at math because of cooking/etc.”

  26. Being involved in the physical sciences, I see a lot of this too. (I kind of just was guilty of it a second ago in my last comment.) I think a lot of that comes from the huge huge gulf in methodology between social sciences and “harder” sciences – namely, you spend a ton of time in the latter trying to disprove something you are trying to prove, trying to see if there’s any way possible [phenomena A] could be caused by some other factor not accounted for. Whereas with social sciences, this is kind of impossible (in the case of, for example, economics) or at the very least, horrifyingly unethical (in psychology.)

    raya: Are you implying that Ester Boserup’s hypothesis in itself is ridiculous? Because as a sociology major, I know way too many people who think studies like the one given in the article are as silly as all those which are based on evolutionary psychology and the like – and I don’t really get why that is.

  27. Things that don’t use the scientific method aren’t science. Social science, by definition, is science. Studies on social issues that fail to employ science, therefore, are not social science.

    The existence of possible alternative explanations for results is a feature of all sciences, not just social sciences. Critique individual studies for flawed methods or conclusions, not entire fields for studying the wrong topics.

    Lettuce, “trying to see if there’s any way possible [phenomena A] could be caused by some other factor not accounted for” sounds like a pretty good description of a lot of modern work in social psychology.

    This is a serious issue for me, because my entire scientific field is sometimes disregarded because of wholesale assertions that social science isn’t real science. The outcome is that meaningful findings about important issues like intergroup prejudice or media violence get ignored. See this post: http://seburke.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/psychology-science/

    Sorry for the derail.

  28. [It is worth noting that news media misinterpret social science studies as much or even more than they misinterpret biology or physics studies, which seems self-evident, but I’m often surprised at how many so-called “hard science” people get their ideas about what social science is from popular media.]

  29. Feel free to delete this if you want, because I’m kind of continuing a derail – this is just stuff I’m passionate about. Sorry in advance.

    I agree with you sort of, but also disagree.

    The thing you quoted me with, that you said is in much of social psychology, is the crux of the issue, I feel.

    The difference in how alternate possibilities are addressed between fields of science is really a big deal, as you know. That’s why many people in the various social science fields don’t consider themselves scientists (I believe there was someone on this blog who made a comment or two to that effect, but I don’t remember, so I’m not sure. And yea I just outed myself as a lurker.)

    Psychology is fascinating to me because it’s such a huge umbrella. For example, would you consider neurobiology to be a pat of psychology? Or vice versa? Or are the two completely unrelated besides body geography?

    I very much doubt that anyone in the scientific community would disagree with calling, for example, neural network studies “science.” But there are other areas that are far into the “social” side of social science, and that’s what I was referring to. I don’t think it’s people misunderstanding it – it’s that, from a “hard science” perspective, how could it ever be possible to make a conclusion of “[x] behavioral trait is caused by [y] societal influence” without having both a control-group person and a control-group society? Surely you see the difference in something like that than, say, the molar masses or speed of lights you mention in your linked article. And, I’m realizing now I might be coming off kinda jerky so let me add: I don’t think physical sciences are inherently “better” at all than social sciences – their rigor and methodology mentioned above is the very thing that makes them useless in studying social phenomenon.

    Thank you for your time. You may now return to you regularly scheduled comments.

    Sara:
    Things that don’t use the scientific method aren’t science. Social science, by definition, is science. Studies on social issues that fail to employ science, therefore, are not social science.

    The existence of possible alternative explanations for results is a feature of all sciences, not just social sciences. Critique individual studies for flawed methods or conclusions, not entire fields for studying the wrong topics.

    Lettuce, “trying to see if there’s any way possible [phenomena A] could be caused by some other factor not accounted for” sounds like a pretty good description of a lot of modern work in social psychology.

    This is a serious issue for me, because my entire scientific field is sometimes disregarded because of wholesale assertions that social science isn’t real science. The outcome is that meaningful findings about important issues like intergroup prejudice or media violence get ignored. See this post: http://seburke.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/psychology-science/

    Sorry for the derail.

  30. Uh, that was longer than it was supposed to be so, in brief:

    I think most of the people who say social science isn’t “real” science are simply using a different definition of science related to (specific) methodology; I doubt (hope) no one intelligent questions the merit and importance of what people actually do in those fields, semantic disputes aside.

  31. In brief:

    1. Neurobiology is part of psychology, yes.

    2. “[x] behavioral trait is caused by [y] societal influence”
    It is possible to randomly assign people to be exposed to particular types of social influence, with a control group. It’s not possible to do this for an entire lifetime, just as it’s not possible to do experiments on redshift by controlling for the location of the astronomical body in question, but that’s why we isolate smaller cases to study first before trying to draw conclusions about the whole phenomenon.

    3. My definition is also based on methodology. If you think there’s a methodological issue I’ve overlooked that’s important enough to justify the traditional disciplinary distinction, please specify what it is.

    4. The ease of access to the “black box” being studied is a quantitative rather than a qualitative difference.

Comments are currently closed.