Nuts vs. meat, the lost symbiosis - by our very special good friend Arvid "ålter Swede" Guthed from Gøteborg

Ones up on a time they say that monkeys climbed out of the trees and into mankind. But as evolution took place many things remained the same, the female monkeys had the wonderful ability of giving birth to new monkeys and the male monkeys, more than having a slight part in the production of new monkeys, where the monkeys with greater physical strength. This does not say all about the early pre-human societies but it might give an explanation to why certain roles emerged. Postulate that the first generation of mankind consisted of men and women, and the most obvious difference between the two were the ability of giving birth and the size of their muscles. These early humans lived together in tribes working together in order to stay alive. This has led to the belief that men spent their time hunting and women spent theirs looking after children and collecting nuts. The efforts were equally important and the survival of the tribe depended both on nuts and meat. A later construction with the values of our time might romanticise the hunt, but it seems unlikely that people during the pre-history spent time adding values to how one survived. When food meant surviving the day it probably did not make a difference if the meal consisted of nuts or meat. One difference might be that if you spend ten days looking for nuts you will probably find nuts at least nine out of these days, while hunting for ten days is associated with higher risks and the outcome is more unsecured. This leads to a situation were nuts are taken for granted and meat is associated with risk and uncertainty, and as humans we tend to appreciate that what deviates from the everyday. We can at same time not be sure that only men were hunters, sometimes research says more about the researchers than the ones the research is being done upon. It is anyhow likely to believe that the ones with greater strength hunted, therefor a strong woman would be likely to be a member in a hunting team? The point is that the role men and women played were rational rather than value added.

Time went by and more complex societies emerged and man and woman continued to live in a symbiosis were each effort where as important for survival. What the efforts provided was a certain form of safety. Mankind has needs and the most basic needs, to eat, sleep, stay warm etc., sums up to safety. The feeling of being safe in an environment that one knows is one of the most basic traits in mankind. This combined with the fact that before written laws the individual, or the tribe, had to relay on strength to protect what was theirs, carry out heavy work etc. points to a conclusion that raw muscles was a mean of achieving physical safety. Perhaps this why any leader is trusted with power. In exchange for obedience the leader provides safety. In a sense the physical strength gave the males a “rational” role as providers of safety. A role that has become irrational as the progression of technology has made individual strength less important in most circumstances.

More important than the development of technology is the development of advanced societies. As societies evolved the civilised society gave birth to the cultivated man in opposite to the uncivilised were humans are looked upon as more naturalised. In the old agricultural societies the symbiosis between man and woman remained, the one could not live with out the other. But as the development continued to a point were the civilised society prided itself with the fact that written laws replaced brute force as a mean of safety, something occurred. Meat became more important than nuts. The paradox is that, as strength no longer was needed in order to provide safety the structure that was built with strength as fundament was reinforced by values in order to keep it alive. This is perhaps not so difficult to understand. During thousands of years and a multitude of societies a structure was built. A structure giving man a privileged position, a position he is not willing to give up. This structure did not occur through a male conspiracy. All through out history situations have arisen, situations in which each individual has done what he or she can in order to achieve what was best for him/her. In order to do so individuals have the tendency to gather in groups that resemble themselves concerning goals, believes and such. This way they can work together in order to get what they want. Often times this is done spontaneously without a deeper understanding of the consequences. For man it was natural to identify himself with other men and work together to defend what he perceived as his rights. Raised in a society that has these rights nailed to its backbones that is not so puzzling. It is perhaps not honourable, but unfortunately natural and resembles the action of any group. So as the civilised society eliminated individual physical strength as a mean to achieve power, values were added in order to keep the hierarchy alive. An example is that during WW II women kept the American war industry running, but as the war was over they had to leave the factories in order to make room for the returning soldiers. They were apparently able to handle the work in a factory but the values obviously stated that it was not suitable. One could argue that man lost the ability to use strength as a reason for being on top and in the search for another tool he found values and tradition. The need to protect what one possesses is not unique in any way and is displayed among all individuals, men as women.

If man protects his rights through values, which springs out of a structure, is it important to understand that structures and hierarchies only exist in the mind of the ones being part of them. The same moment as enough members of a structure ceases to believe in it, it crumbles. The structure we live in, and refer to as our society, is built up from men and women. It is not created through a well-planned conspiracy it has rather taken its shape based on the fact that individuals in general look after there own interests. If strength gave man a head start in the building of structures and hierarchies he took it. Not with the explicit idea of being able to oppress women in the future, but with the idea that it would suit his needs. This is in general the way any individual or group works, it is not pretty and the consequences become more alarming the more power the group has. In order to change this situation it is not enough to give women the same formal rights as men. Although they achieve the same formal rights this does not automatically mean that the male attitudes changes. In one way this can become a backlash. When women use their rights in a structure that has a “male mentality” they will still be confronted with invisible obstacles, and if they fail this will be used as an argument against them. An argument saying that although women have the same rights as men, they can not accomplish as much. The most important issue is hence to change the male attitude, or the attitude within the structure or perhaps the whole structure. For men to be willing to change they need to understand the faults that exists within the current hierarchy. These faults have to be explained so that men do not react in a defensive way, forcing them to protect what they possess. Change is difficult for humans, difficult because we do not know what will replace the present state. Men have privileges in our society that they do not want to sacrifice, and the same goes for women. Women presumably do not have as many, or as obvious, privileges, but the present state offers positive as well as negative sides. A common cry from people faced with injustice is “equality”. Often times the same ones choose to claim the rights and not the responsibilities that are associated with such a reform. If there is to be a change, a change that men understands, women have to stop viewing themselves as victims and cease to accept the benefits that the structure gives them. If men are to be believe in change, they have to see that women refuse to be a part of the system. Accepting the benefits and disagree with the downsides is far from refusing. A change means a new hierarchy with down- and upsides and no one is able to predict how that would work, and what consequences it would have. But in order to function it would have to be built from the ones being a part of it. Each one with the same right, possibility and responsibility to contribute with what he or she, as an individual, believes is necessary. Then, maybe, we can value nuts as much as meat.