Gender Roles Of Kung Women

Exam 1

1.) Ernestine Friedl says that the position of women is higher the more they are involved in primary subsistence and the public distribution of the product of subsistence. Kung’s have no hierarchy or leaders; each group has individuals who opinions carry more weight than others and basically function like group leaders. Men are mainly leaders because Kung woman provide most of their families food, care for children and are lifelong wives. In order for a Kung woman to have more say in her group and to be more influential she usually is an owner or a public giver of food. The more food the woman contribute and their ownership makes them more influential. Economic contribution to the group will definitely gain the woman respect
and a voice in decision making. Some woman go out in groups of around three to five woman to gather food. At their return they sort the food and disburse it out and set some aside as gifts. (pg.11) Many Kung woman also share core leadership in a group and ownership of holes and foraging areas. These contributions make these woman’s status in the community high and their influence considerable. They are often prominent in the major family and band decisions, such as where and when to move and whom their children will marry. (pg.12) The Kung consider ownership as a right of use. The woman that own have a say in who can have access to the resources. For water and food resources, the Kung recognize ownership- the right of use. It is rare that these rights are contested or that an owner denies others short-term access to the resource; but ownership itself is an influential and desirable position. (pg.291) Nisa describes herself as being poor and owning nothing. “I am a person who owns nothing. That’s what people say I am; a poor person.” (pg.37) Ownership determines a person’s position; as in our culture we determine our status by our wealth. Also your contributions effect your influence in the culture of the Kung. Ernestine Friedl was correct when she made the points that ownership and contributions relate with the position of the woman in the group.
2.) In the Kung culture there is a sense of male dominancy and also a sense of equality between men and woman.
Men have a higher status and greater power than Kung woman. Men are more important in the Kung culture, their status and contributions are higher than of the woman. Men contribute meat while woman contribute gathered food. According to the Kung meat is more valuable than food. Gathered foods are, “Things comparable to nothing.” Meat is food and everyone celebrates when men bring meat back. (pg.218) Kung men also provide woman with their basic gathering kits. While woman provide nothing associated with hunting. Hunting is considered a taboo for woman. Men are also the healers, it is very rare for a woman to become a healer. Although the man only accounts for 20 percent of the food brought in it is because he hunts. Woman gather food which men also can do and have knowledge of plants comparable to woman. (pg.219) Men are mostly leaders and are more vocal in group discussions and learn foreign languages, attend government meetings and speak on behalf of communities.
(pg.221) There is also a great sense of equality in the Kung culture between men and woman and also amongst sex in children. The Kung children are not segregated by their sex. Kung girls and boys play together and share games and girl’s bodies are as free as boys. (pg. 98) The Kung culture has strong bonds and cooperate together in family chores. Unlike many other cultures men do participate in other duties such as helping with children and gathering and cooking. Kung fathers provide more for children than in any other society. Both parents guide children and there are no sex segregation. (pg.214) It is not unusual to see a man gather food and to have knowledge of plants comparable to woman. (pg.219) Also in the Kung culture women are not excluded from highly valued social, political and economic life of the community; they also are very influential. (pg.216) Unlike any other culture the woman have a voice and are very expressive. The woman are allowed to act out in displeasure. (pg.133) I feel that there is great equality between the Kung communities.
It seems that the men and the woman both cross rolls and are very cooperative and supportive of each other and don’t limit their duties. The men know how to do the woman’s jobs and the woman know how to do the man’s job. I also got a sense of feminism from the woman in the Kung culture. Also the woman move around just as the men and have just as many affairs. I have never heard of woman having so many affairs, it was as if they were men. The woman also were able to protest marriages; Nisa left her husband’s on numerous occasions. The woman also have a voice and handle their job and aren’t afraid to do a man’s duties also. So yes, I would say that there is a great deal of equality between the men and woman of the
Kung.
3.) The Kung culture was affected by the ongoing modernization. Many changes increased starting in 1975. The Kung still gathered and hunted food but now had gardens, were tending to goats, used donkeys for transportation and transporting food and more. (pg.310) Over the years roots and berries were also harder to find. In 1967 a store opened and Kung men began to work in gold mines and trade increased. Kung men brought back money and new sophistication and awareness. (pg.311) By 1970 the government changed and starting 1974 many programs were implemented to improve the lives and protect the Kung rights to land and culture. (pg.312) They begin to develop school curriculums and received scholarship programs for clothes and school fees. Shotask believes that hunting and gathering will not be a future viable way of life for the future generations. Over the years woman will see that they no longer need to depend on men for protection or hunting. They already live pretty freely and can do majority of the men’s jobs anyways and account for 80 percent of the food gathered.

Works Cited
Friel, Ernestine. “Women and Men: An Anthropologist’s View”.
New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston, 1975.

Shostak, Marjorie. “Nisa”, Harvard Univ. Pr.; Boston. 1981.