Women’s Work, Men’s Property: The Origins of Gender and Class Edited by Stephanie Coontz and Peta Henderson2 analysis, the growth of socioeconomicstrtfication may exaee Bidar coktoiciory meres, even though women 9.430% lay femain infenor t men. For iv early clase societies, they gue, aristocrat women may exercise sigalicant power Over tBSraen and women ofthe tower dass, even if hey eran Permanent junior in relation to make members of the ait Pay Upper and lower cass women may therefore be divided in thei Interest and thei consciousness, the same tine that SSxualoppresion may disguise some the common interests ‘ren and women with the lower cass or Cheviard and Leconte, onthe other hand, the contsa- lation ie between some men and al women as a socal group, ‘There ar no contrcictory terest among women in eter kin Tnrpoiate ov arstoraic cine society. Aistocatie women 40 8at Shake the sosioeonomic status of anatoratie men, a8 they do ou'have independent access tothe means of production and [yeven be reduced to slave or lower cass tats they ofend pain male presopatves, The interests of upper clus women seitot anal tapi 1 those offower ase menor women, cello confit ditecty with those of upper dass men. Like igh Foriing servant, aristocratic women sre atficalyatached to {he class oftheir husband or father, while in fact hey belong 0 the dominated classes ofsocety even fthey arenot conscious of his “Again, this is probably nota difference thatcan be sete Ris a giaation of arate emphasis Cleary the diference has Implications forthe analysis the role of upper dass women In} femimict or clas struggle, but since upper ces women eDketute enly_e minority of the female. population, both ‘Inalyss stl affirm the interconnections between the Guestion’ and the class struggle. In the Beginning . . . : The Origins of the Sexual Division of Labour and the Development of the First Human Societies Lila Leibowitz In current anthropological discussions the sexual division of labour is viewed in two ways: simply ae division of productive activities by sex, of, more comprehensively, as the totality of {socal relations between men and women joined together by production, Thie paper approaches the origins of the sexual Livision of Inbour fom the later perspective, Tt touches on factors a varied as production and productivity, population profiles, subsistence technologie, intergroup exchange, incest Tiles, alliances and sex role socialization, Consequently, though the paper focuses onthe origins of the sexual division of labour itis in effects holistic analysis ofthe development of the Gist human societies and thei socal formations. “The common sense explanation of the origin ofthe division of labour by sex is that it is related to size and strength aifeences ‘between early hominid males and females and othe lengthened ‘iological dependency ofthe young. This smplies that he sexo division I protocultral, and therefore ‘natura. This notion ‘doesnot, however, bear up under close inspection. Inthis paper il ey to show that ealy hominids of both sexes, despite ett differences in size afer reaching sexual maturity, engagedin the “sme kinds of productive activities. Adult femaies simply com bined these productive activities with bearing and nursing the ‘young, The sexual division of labour developed in conjunction ‘with conan specifi cultural innovations ‘The explanation ofthe seal division oflabour offered heres 8Property Forms, Political Power, and Female Labour in the Origins of Class and State Societies Stephanie Coontz and Peta Henderson Introduction ‘The introduction ofthis Book ieputes the assertion that males have always dominated women and cites some of the many Instances of egalitarian relationships In simple foraging and Foricltuel seceties Indeed, a growing body of evidence sup- port the brond evolationary perspective Bist suggested by Engels selationsbetwrcen the sexes seem foe most epalltanan fe simpiest foraging societies and womansposiion worsens withthe emengence ofsocial stratifiation, private property, and thestate i ‘Despite its broad accuracy, however, this formulation leaves ig umber of probleme unresolved. Fast male dominance has FE been shown to exist in some pre-class, pre-state societies lacking, fue private propery. Second, some of the evidence cited for igh female States in the nclent world comes, aot fom com Inanal foraging societies, bat fom complex West African ingdoms (ohich were mre likely to be matelineal than their politically more simple neighbours), the royal ity states of Encent Sumer, or the prosperous trading centres of archaic Crete These two facts Have ed atleast one author to conche thatthe emergence of hierarchy may increase gender eq? in problem i presented by the atteibution ofmaledomin- SOS DRE Galata cultinn tanies mA spd Wlachend esl ecange Peal Concho of endo 108 Property Fors, Potsat ewerand Female Labour 19 ance to dass society, private property, andthe sate Since hese sss separate (ough uetcoete) phenemens sg ite fle in ovaries yea luck analytical city in sttibuting male dominance fo thece Ie wenains unclear whethec female subordination was Produced by something daereatons, nthe nature cf private Property, ia the states codifiation of class rule, or nly ithe Fombinstion ofthe above The precise contribution of eahtothe process snot spelled out South provlem les in understanding wi, if we do not ssdume innate bislogial erences temperament 7 party ‘ween men and women, it was men who became dominant ‘ver women once the processes of aca stratification were stn ‘motion Montconerelgstdies theses oferta, Palate propery and sate formation on male/female relations Efe edn hat we might cal secondary’ case, where an egal an ee cee ee aa er ere Nee Yok WINK: Hanne, to Gls Erol ete Aa tg Cece Caton re nic Enea ie Ser. "New York Fen Seta ‘toning Ere conn ay png en seperper gre tase wig ete 3 wound an Antropol of Women, New York 1975. Reiter, ipmsearior Bi re pa alin ae hac SBE CREE patie eceseramiren re mime sie hearse oe Fee ar ep, Sane efor ‘heDuaonae