Archaeology of Domestic Architecture and the Human Use of Space by Steadman Sharon R.;

Author:Steadman, Sharon R.; [Sharon R. Steadman]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 4558933
Publisher: Routledge

The Sexual Division of Labor: Gendered Work Spaces

Tracking the sexual division of labor spatially would seem to be one of the most straightforward of endeavors, since the vast majority of nonindustrial (and industrial) settled cultures possess a sexual division of labor, and tasks are often spatially differentiated. In fact, it is generally the case that space is the facilitator and reinforcement of the sexual division of tasks; it serves to dictate who should work where, and do what. However, though space and gendered tasks are intricately tied, rarely is it the architecture itself that offers the clues to the identity of gendered persons and their work. In fact, some argue that identifying gendered spaces in societies such as hunter-gatherer camps is well-nigh impossible (Isaac 1989; Kent 1998a; but see, e.g., Brumbach and Jarvenpa 1997; Jarvenpa and Brumbach 1999). In general, it is actually the artifacts associated with the tasks and their performers that not only serve as the clues to present day archaeologists but that also imbue the ancient spaces with their gendered functions. This does not mean that spaces are not constructed in ancient villages without gendered labor in mind (Lawrence and Low 1990); naturally they are, but those spaces often cannot speak to the archaeologist of their gendered nature without the contextual artifacts in place. It is therefore the case that most discussions of gendered spaces and the sexual division of labor rely on activity area research and household archaeology methodology (e.g., Allison 1999c; Ault and Nevett 1999; Hegmon, Ortman, and Mobley-Tanaka 2000; Hendon 2006, 2010; Lawrence 1999; Nelson, Glowacki, and Smith 2002).

The assignment of gender to activity areas and architectural or open spaces requires a first step of allocating certain tasks to specific sexes or genders, the two not always being equal. A great deal of work on this subject (see citations above, and Arnold and Wicker 2001; Crown 2000; Hamilton, Whitehouse, and Wright 2007; Nelson 2004,2007, 2014; Nelson and Rosen-Ayalon 2002) has identified certain tasks as belonging overwhelmingly to one Sex or the other, leaving aside here societies that recognize persons of third and multi-genders, as well as tasks that are variable depending on the culture. A significant amount of cross-cultural ethnographic research (Lowell 1990; Martin and Voorhies 1975; Murdock and Provost 1973; Spain 1992) links food production with women's work, and activities such as hunting and warfare with males. By the same token, activities such as textile, jewelry, and pottery production can be considered "flexible" in that they fall to women in some cultures and to men in others (e.g., Barber 1994).

The arguments for some of these more "universal" sexual divisions of labor are diverse and enduring, and a brief review of some models is useful to the extent that arguments involve spatial assignments. Some of the earliest explanations for what appeared to be a more-or-less universal sexual division of labor rested on biological grounds. The two major biological factors regularly cited were that men possessed greater strength and aerobic ability, and that women were, of course, the bearers of children.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.