Until recently, it was probably impractical for egalitarian ideologies to be effected in most societies. Take for example the issue of equality of women. In the days of feudalism, a society where a woman was treated equal to a man (and thereby being made to do things like engage in warfare) would probably result in the society being whittled down and destroyed in an environment of total war. After all, keeping the population up is the name of the game in ancient feudal warfare, and that is something egalitarian societies may not be proficient at.
Later on, the advent of more advanced societies may have had the potential for increasing egalitarianism. This was not to be, unfortunately, given the relative efficiency of division of labour. Men specializing in "men's work" (whatever that is) and vice versa would probably have resulted in a society where people knew what they were meant to do, and could do it regularly, predictably and with minimal fuss. All this came before mass media, however, and doctrine was still a good way to ensure that things worked.
Today, we have the mass media. We have women being perfectly capable of performing men's work and vice versa. Why? The advent of machines should have taken the burden of physical labour from people in industrialized societies. With machines doing the work of dozens of men, there is no excuse for physical strength determining efficacy. With most work (and warfare) being done at the touch of a button(s), there is actually an advantage women have over men: superior fine manual dexterity and greater stamina. With the advent of formula milk, men can even take over some (if not all) nursing duties. So...with all of this, is it not intellectual laziness that women not learn to be competitive, and men not learn to be nurturing?
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment