just for something different
Okay, not different after all. Nothing to post, so guess we'll return to my endless rambling about gender issues.
On another blog, a commenter said "...the idea that it is a woman’s job to take care of husband and children has got to go. That is a cornerstone of patriarchy, and it is patriarchy that could cause the demise of the human race with its focus on domination."
it's true that women-as-nurturers/homemakers has been a cornerstone of "patriarchy", and in general people shouldn't be forced to do what they don't want to do.
but i think it's important to acknowledge that patriarchy is NOT an evil construct devised to subjugate women. (not sure that was actually said here, but i've heard it enough to now hear its echo even when it's not being said.)
anyway, the "patriarchal" pattern of traditional roles is a natural development, stemming from
a) the tremendous effectiveness of biology-based role specialization, and
b) the connection between leadership roles and relative physical strength / tendency toward aggression.
as for destroying the world, that might be right -- but that's a recent development; up till now, male competitiveness/aggression is one of the things that has kept the human race from disappearing, because
a) weeding out weak men aids natural selection for survivability,
b) aggressive men push for sex, increasing the birth rate, and
c) aggressive men fight off the wild giraffes or frogs or whatever it is that threatens the tribe.
IOW, we may be ready to leave patriarchy behind, but that idea is like Disneyland; it will only be around as long as we can maintain our current standard of living/civilization -- when life becomes physically difficult/dangerous (like it was thru most of human history), we're back to traditional "patriarchal" roles before you can spit...