Gender Equality a Historical Inevitability?

[Junghalli]

I once heard a theory somewhere that gender equality was the result of economics, not politics, when you really boil it down. Basically the theory (as I remember) is that the traditional organization of the household (with the female basically staying home) made sense in an agrarian society where most households were basically subsistence and the economy consisting of them handing over surplus food to a relatively small class of laborers and lords. But in an industrial society the household as an economic unit breaks down and economic input becomes a factor of individuals. Each person has to work, and a traditional arrangement with the female staying home essentially amounts to an unsustainable massive welfare state where the females are supported but don't economically contribute.
I'm curious as to whether you think this has any truth to it. It does seem to be born out by observations to a certain extent, in that increasingly both parents have to work to support the family in modern society.

[Darth Wong]

I once heard a theory somewhere that gender equality was the result of economics, not politics, when you really boil it down. Basically the theory (as I remember) is that the traditional organization of the household (with the female basically staying home) made sense in an agrarian society where most households were basically subsistence and the economy consisting of them handing over surplus food to a relatively small class of laborers and lords. But in an industrial society the household as an economic unit breaks down and economic input becomes a factor of individuals. Each person has to work, and a traditional arrangement with the female staying home essentially amounts to an unsustainable massive welfare state where the females are supported but don't economically contribute.

That argument starts out OK and then goes completely off the rails with that "massive welfare state" bullshit. Leaving aside social issues, women could work outside the home when labour-saving devices inside the home allowed them to do so. The idea that childrearing (or even homemaking, for that matter) is an economically worthless activity is incredibly stupid. Someone has to do it, and in fact, rich people often pay others to do it for them.

I'm curious as to whether you think this has any truth to it. It does seem to be born out by observations to a certain extent, in that increasingly both parents have to work to support the family in modern society.

There is no reason why this has to be true. It tends to be true for the sole reason that labour-saving devices in the home would make a homemaker's life quite boring if there were no kids to take care of. But women will always be better-suited to childrearing than men, and will always be more likely to take extended leave from work in order to do it. As long as that is the case (which is throughout the foreseeable future since it's part of our biological evolutionary makeup), a certain amount of gender inequality will persist in the workplace and in the economy. It just doesn't have to be as severe as it was in the primitive past.

[The Guid]

I don't want to put my nose in too far because I am uncertain as to the truth in this but I think we over estimate the distance between male and female roles within smaller communities in the past. To take England as an example its easily true to say that men held the majority of the power & still do but in these farming communities everybody would help with the harvest and the planting and the other jobs that needed doing. Whether there was as large a gender speration as there was in the 19th Century I would need to check further on.

[Avalon616]

Looking at it anthropologically, egalitarian societies exist in political and economic structures of bands and tribes- anything with a centralized form of government and an economic system not based on reciprocity becomes unequal, with males dominating. However, with new technology, and economic forms changing, perhaps a widespread egalitarian technologically advanced society is plausible.

Personally, whether it's viable or not, I'm still a hardcore feminist that will fight for equality. Oh, and my definition of feminist, and the one of most feminists I know, is that women should be treated and thought of equally as the gender of men, not that women are better, more capable, or superior. I may say, "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!" but I'm aware I'm throwing rocks in my own glass house.

Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that just because a form of society based on equality doesn't exist yet in a widespread form, doesn't mean it can't exist. How, of course, is another story.

Oh, and note: the idea of Division of Labor meaning inequality is bunk! It makes sense that you split up activities, give those who are more capable at one thing those jobs. However, saying that someone cannot do a job of the other gender based solely on the qualifications of their gender, versus capabilities- that is inequality. And of course, with technology in today's society, labor saving devices often makes division of labor a moot point, so there's no reason why a woman would stay home. But it seems most egalitarian societies rely on division of labor.

[irishmick79]

I voted 'no'. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for women's rights. I think that women are definitely given the shaft in society, in terms of job pay and respect. Considering the long social history of male domination in human development, I'd say that the burden of proof is on gender equality to show that it's a movement that will stick around and take root.

[Enforcer Talen]

Im agreeing with mick. women's rights are occuring after 200 years of arguing, and thats after 2,000 yrs of repression. even in the modern 3rd world, women's rights are not forced by the economy.

[SyntaxVorlon]

The reason, I would argue, women have rights now in the West, is because 400 years ago political thinkers such as Hobbes were thinking, let's make everyone equal. They found themselves wondering why women were not considered peers to men. Hobbes himself said it was a construct of a society built and founded by men, who in doing so made women submissive by tradition and civil law, not for any inate submissive property of women. But he didn't follow through on that topic, at least not in Leviathan.
If the government we lived in was expressly heirarchical, then it could simply be taken for granted that women were inferior to men, or vice versa, and be part of how people are socialized. People in centuries past were indoctrinated with the idea that women were sensual, emoting, eyecandy without the ability to perform rational thought. If the idea of heirarchy under some uber being, be it a diety or an emperor or lord, is socialized into people, then they can work at whatever they like, they're still slaves. And if this is how they view themselves with regard to the rest of the world, then they're probably going to want someone under them too.