Page:The Scientific Monthly vol. 3.djvu/285

 SCIENCE AND FEMINISM 279

clared as inherent in sex ? The answer of ethnology seems to be a clearly negative one. In every tribe there is indeed a division of labor between the sexes over and above what seems determined by the demands of in- fants and the differences in physical strength. But the types of activity associated with woman and man differ from tribe to tribe. Among the Hopi all the weaving was done by men, while among the Navajo, who are supposed to have learned the art from the Hopi, its practise fell to the woman's share. In North America the shaping of earthenware vessels seems to be a feminine pursuit; but in some sections of Africa men function as potters. It is not a priori obvious why the tanning of skins should be executed by women among the Redskins ; why agriculture is the work of men among the Pueblo and of women among the Iroquois Indians; why the realistic painting of Plains Indian robes should be done by men ; while the geometrical painting of rawhide bags is a pre- rogative of woman.

Without going into further detail, we may safely state that almost everywhere woman's contribution to culture is an important one. So far from being confined to the activities currently associated with the household, she often plays a most important part in the economic life, and practises indispensable tribal arts and industries. It is indeed true that these activities do not involve so sharp a separation from the house- hold work as would result in modern conditions. An African agricul- turist can ply her hoe with a child on her back; an Indian tanner may scrape and smoke hides, plait baskets and embroider quillwork in the intervals of domestic duties. But for our present purpose this fact is irrelevant. We are concerned with determining whether there are fields of work that woman should be debarred from for reasons of natural un- fitness. What we actually find is that the work assigned to woman (beyond the obvious biological duties) is a matter of social custom, due doubtless in each particular case to specific historical causes. Ethnolog- ical evidence does not permit us to say that it is natural for women to exercise political fxmctions as among the Iroquois, or to be rigidly ex- cluded from tribal activity as in Melanesia and Australia; it does not prove that women are naturally more or less fit to be potters, weavers, tanners, gardeners, artists, poets or what not. It merely indicates in different communities considerable differences in the apportionment of modes of employment between the sexes. It does not justify the theory that the apportionment that had developed in our own civilization until the most recent times represents the one natural division of labor. If that conventional restriction of feminine activity is a natural one, proof must be given on other than ethnological grounds.

Biological Status. — ^Let us then turn to a direct comparison of woman's and man's biological and psychological status. Is woman by virtue of her organization anatomically and mentally in any way an inferior being?

�� �