Put one bull into a field full of cows; come back a year later and you’ll find a field full of calves (and one very happy bull).
Put one cow into a field full of bulls and a year later you’ve only got one calf (and one very unhappy cow).
This seems to me a very good illustration of the differences between how the male and female of our own and other species came to be valued and treated: Eggs are costly; sperm is cheap. Women are valuable commodities; men are expendable utilities. This is the deepest and most fundamental reason we all - women and men - innately care for women more than we do men.
As a man, it certainly would be nice if women cared for and sought to protect every man they see more than other women - heavenly, in fact - but reality is what it is. And we are what we are. Men and women aren’t ‘equal’ because the sexes are - by definition - different. Those differences are necessarily strongest the closer we get to any matter related to reproduction (and hence sexual behaviour, experiences and expectations), but also when it comes to anything related to the survival and protection of the offspring such coupling begets: to protect the children, one has to also protect the women from which the children are borne, to put their safety and survival first, too.
And so this is why there is not now, nor has there ever been, any human society which sends its women down the mines and out to hunt and into war while the men stay at home and play with the children. If, hypothetically, there ever was a society that tried to exist that way, then clearly they died out (or were wiped out) without leaving a single trace of their existence anywhere (and for pretty obvious reasons).
This is not ‘patriarchy’ or ‘male privilege’ or any other ideological entry in the feminist lexicon: the universal division of labor between the sexes is something we evolved over millions of years because that’s how we best survived in a hostile natural world. As civilizations sprung up and cities appeared, the hunter/gatherer roles of man and woman rapidly became more abstract, complex and sophisticated: the man went out to work in an office instead of going out to hunt, and the woman kept house and cooked food in increasingly comfortable kitchens instead of tending the campfire in the rain.
It was only in the 20th century, with the rise of industrialization and the safety and simplicity of factory and office work - along with the introduction of the pill in the 1960s - that women could actually begin to enter the modern workforce on something like an equal footing to the men already there working to provide for their wives and families at home. But because of simple biology (men can’t bear children, so every human being must be carried and nursed by a woman) men are still going to have to work more hours and provide more resources than the women (which, of course, goes a long way to explaining much of the purported ‘pay gap’ in men and women’s lifetime earnings).
Anyhow, the point is: we didn’t invent our fundamental gender roles, any more than the birds or the bees or the zebras or the aardvarks or the cows or the bulls did theirs. Hence, human beings today gravitating towards these roles is no evidence of a secret conspiracy to keep the women down - indeed, the universally-practiced division of labor was introduced by society - and mother nature - only to put the needs and safety of women first.
And that, class, is the main reason the fundamental tenets of all feminist theory are so perplexingly wrong. I know you've been wondering.
And so this is why there is not now, nor has there ever been, any human society which sends its women down the mines and out to hunt and into war while the men stay at home and play with the children. If, hypothetically, there ever was a society that tried to exist that way, then clearly they died out (or were wiped out) without leaving a single trace of their existence anywhere (and for pretty obvious reasons).
This is not ‘patriarchy’ or ‘male privilege’ or any other ideological entry in the feminist lexicon: the universal division of labor between the sexes is something we evolved over millions of years because that’s how we best survived in a hostile natural world. As civilizations sprung up and cities appeared, the hunter/gatherer roles of man and woman rapidly became more abstract, complex and sophisticated: the man went out to work in an office instead of going out to hunt, and the woman kept house and cooked food in increasingly comfortable kitchens instead of tending the campfire in the rain.
It was only in the 20th century, with the rise of industrialization and the safety and simplicity of factory and office work - along with the introduction of the pill in the 1960s - that women could actually begin to enter the modern workforce on something like an equal footing to the men already there working to provide for their wives and families at home. But because of simple biology (men can’t bear children, so every human being must be carried and nursed by a woman) men are still going to have to work more hours and provide more resources than the women (which, of course, goes a long way to explaining much of the purported ‘pay gap’ in men and women’s lifetime earnings).
Anyhow, the point is: we didn’t invent our fundamental gender roles, any more than the birds or the bees or the zebras or the aardvarks or the cows or the bulls did theirs. Hence, human beings today gravitating towards these roles is no evidence of a secret conspiracy to keep the women down - indeed, the universally-practiced division of labor was introduced by society - and mother nature - only to put the needs and safety of women first.
And that, class, is the main reason the fundamental tenets of all feminist theory are so perplexingly wrong. I know you've been wondering.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment