3 ms·

> According to Galen, food “is probably the most important of all medical subjects,” Just remember that in medieval times growing food was the job of the major

by bluGill 2mo ago

> According to Galen, food “is probably the most important of all medical subjects,” Just remember that in medieval times growing food was the job of the majority of men. Men also were the people most likely to be educated and actually write and talk about things and so food would be something on their mind. They would be growing it and thus writing about it. contrary to modern ideas men actually appeared to have done a lot of cooking: women were not common in the army (different cultures had different perspectives on women with the army. Some would have more than others, but in any case, you would have men as the vast majority) so men would have had to do at least some cooking. Even your common peasant farmer man would likely spend a significant amount of time out in the field at lunchtime where the women are not around and so would have to fend for themselves for their lunch. I bring the book up to point out that no one has ever asked what women were doing and what was important. This is something historians are looking at now when trying to piece together what must have been happening. As a general rule, you can say that every woman was spending the vast majority of their working hours making thread so they could have clothes, but since women were rarely the ones who were writing, we have almost no historical record of clothing. What we do have is often from tailors who would be a male and thus something that occasionally a man would write about.

snapcaster 2mo ago
you would probably like the book Invisible Women. Touches a lot on this subject and how there is so much "missing data" when we talk about these things and it carries through to the modern day
- fc417fc802 2mo ago
  To the best of my knowledge a vanishingly small proportion of historical society was literate and it was an even smaller subset that authored anything of note. It isn't historical women that are invisible it's >90% of everyone. The written accounts are whatever the elite of the elite deigned to write down which those that came after chose to bother preserving.
  - bluGill 2mo ago
    True, but farming was still somewhat visible to many of the elite. The bible (old testament) has a number of farmers who were also elite.
    - bcjdjsndon 2mo ago
      The whole point of the elite is that they don't have to do the hard work.... It's like Jefferson being out in the fields picking cotton whilst paying for a bunch of slaves.. a highly dubious proposition
      - bluGill 2mo ago
        That is ONE elite. There have been many elites over history with different levels of wealth and different things they did. Those who could afford a lot of slaves were not out in the field, but not all elite were that wealthy. I'm sure Jefferson wasn't picking cotton, but that doesn't mean no elite were out in the fields.
  - snapcaster 2mo ago
    Yeah you should check out this book, would enhance the best of your knowledge. While you're right, even within that cohort there is a massive gender difference and it impacts how we view society in a big way
cjs_ac 2mo ago
Outside of monasteries, the intersection of men who were literate and men who were directly involved in food production was tiny. Farming men weren’t cooking their midday meal out in the fields; they took some bread and maybe some protein out with them at the start of their working day.
- bluGill 2mo ago
  > Outside of monasteries, the intersection of men who were literate and men who were directly involved in food production was tiny Higher than that. While the educated men likely did not do much farm labor (depending on the local details they may have been out there during harvest when all hands were needed), they had to ensure there were enough slaves to do that. Most of them were also well aware that they were one bad harvest from starvation and so paid attention to food production. > Farming men weren’t cooking their midday meal out in the fields; they took some bread and maybe some protein out with them at the start of their working day. That depends on the culture. The famous Spanish dish Paella was men cooking in the fields.
watwut 2mo ago
> Even your common peasant farmer man would likely spend a significant amount of time out in the field at lunchtime where the women are not around and so would have to fend for themselves for their lunch. Womem were in the fields. And kids too. Generally men were doing physically most demanding work, but not all of it is like that. And people working in the fields would also take the food that does not necessitate cooking with them. And kids were tasked to bring food to people working in fields when necessary. You cant "fend for yourself" in the fields and also do the fields work.
- Tangurena2 2mo ago
  Until the Industrial Revolution, there was nothing even close to what we nowadays call "childhood". As children became old enough to walk by themselves, they'd accompany their parents and help with weeding & cultivation.
  - watwut 2mo ago
    Apparently we are in the scenario where one parent is on the field and other at home. At home parent could and would tell their 5-11 years old to take the food to the other parent and other field workers. Yes they worked and had chores. They were fully suitable for taking food from place a to place b. They also herded animals by themselves or took care of younger siblings. > Until the Industrial Revolution, there was nothing even close to what we nowadays call "childhood". That has nothing to do with what I wrote. The 5-11 years old people existed.
- bluGill 2mo ago
  A real historian has written on this. https://acoup.blog/2021/03/19/collections-clothing-how-did-they-make-it-part-iii-spin-me-right-round/ https://acoup.blog/2021/03/19/collections-clothing-how-did-t... > And textile production was a major activity (indeed, the major activity) for probably around 40% of the population in most pre-modern societies – not merely almost all adult women, but girls too would start spinning and weaving (spinning in particular, again, we’ll get there) at very early ages. Consequently, spinning thread may have been the single most frequently performed work-task in the ancient world Sure women did get to the fields at times. How much did vary by culture. However there is very good reason (pregnancy and nursing) that most cultures had men's and women's work as separate things. That separation often resulted in men and women being separated by long enough that men would really want to cook their own meals instead of eating a packed meal. > You cant "fend for yourself" in the fields and also do the fields work. That depends greatly on what you mean by fend for yourself. You wouldn't be a gatherer, but you could cook a quick meal over a fire, maybe throw some fresh herbs in the pot if you happened to see any.

by bluGill 2mo ago

snapcaster 2mo ago

you would probably like the book Invisible Women. Touches a lot on this subject and how there is so much "missing data" when we talk about these things and it carries through to the modern day

fc417fc802 2mo ago
To the best of my knowledge a vanishingly small proportion of historical society was literate and it was an even smaller subset that authored anything of note. It isn't historical women that are invisible it's >90% of everyone. The written accounts are whatever the elite of the elite deigned to write down which those that came after chose to bother preserving.
- bluGill 2mo ago
  True, but farming was still somewhat visible to many of the elite. The bible (old testament) has a number of farmers who were also elite.
  - bcjdjsndon 2mo ago
    The whole point of the elite is that they don't have to do the hard work.... It's like Jefferson being out in the fields picking cotton whilst paying for a bunch of slaves.. a highly dubious proposition
    - bluGill 2mo ago
      That is ONE elite. There have been many elites over history with different levels of wealth and different things they did. Those who could afford a lot of slaves were not out in the field, but not all elite were that wealthy. I'm sure Jefferson wasn't picking cotton, but that doesn't mean no elite were out in the fields.
- snapcaster 2mo ago
  Yeah you should check out this book, would enhance the best of your knowledge. While you're right, even within that cohort there is a massive gender difference and it impacts how we view society in a big way

cjs_ac 2mo ago

Outside of monasteries, the intersection of men who were literate and men who were directly involved in food production was tiny. Farming men weren’t cooking their midday meal out in the fields; they took some bread and maybe some protein out with them at the start of their working day.

bluGill 2mo ago
> Outside of monasteries, the intersection of men who were literate and men who were directly involved in food production was tiny Higher than that. While the educated men likely did not do much farm labor (depending on the local details they may have been out there during harvest when all hands were needed), they had to ensure there were enough slaves to do that. Most of them were also well aware that they were one bad harvest from starvation and so paid attention to food production. > Farming men weren’t cooking their midday meal out in the fields; they took some bread and maybe some protein out with them at the start of their working day. That depends on the culture. The famous Spanish dish Paella was men cooking in the fields.

watwut 2mo ago

> Even your common peasant farmer man would likely spend a significant amount of time out in the field at lunchtime where the women are not around and so would have to fend for themselves for their lunch. Womem were in the fields. And kids too. Generally men were doing physically most demanding work, but not all of it is like that. And people working in the fields would also take the food that does not necessitate cooking with them. And kids were tasked to bring food to people working in fields when necessary. You cant "fend for yourself" in the fields and also do the fields work.

Tangurena2 2mo ago
Until the Industrial Revolution, there was nothing even close to what we nowadays call "childhood". As children became old enough to walk by themselves, they'd accompany their parents and help with weeding & cultivation.
- watwut 2mo ago
  Apparently we are in the scenario where one parent is on the field and other at home. At home parent could and would tell their 5-11 years old to take the food to the other parent and other field workers. Yes they worked and had chores. They were fully suitable for taking food from place a to place b. They also herded animals by themselves or took care of younger siblings. > Until the Industrial Revolution, there was nothing even close to what we nowadays call "childhood". That has nothing to do with what I wrote. The 5-11 years old people existed.
bluGill 2mo ago
A real historian has written on this. https://acoup.blog/2021/03/19/collections-clothing-how-did-they-make-it-part-iii-spin-me-right-round/ https://acoup.blog/2021/03/19/collections-clothing-how-did-t... > And textile production was a major activity (indeed, the major activity) for probably around 40% of the population in most pre-modern societies – not merely almost all adult women, but girls too would start spinning and weaving (spinning in particular, again, we’ll get there) at very early ages. Consequently, spinning thread may have been the single most frequently performed work-task in the ancient world Sure women did get to the fields at times. How much did vary by culture. However there is very good reason (pregnancy and nursing) that most cultures had men's and women's work as separate things. That separation often resulted in men and women being separated by long enough that men would really want to cook their own meals instead of eating a packed meal. > You cant "fend for yourself" in the fields and also do the fields work. That depends greatly on what you mean by fend for yourself. You wouldn't be a gatherer, but you could cook a quick meal over a fire, maybe throw some fresh herbs in the pot if you happened to see any.