Topic awaiting preservation: Gender roles?

With increasing frequency, I've heard talk about the phenomenon of the "demasculinisation of the American male;" also, the "masculinization of the American female." I believe this would be called a phenomenon, as this homogenization of gender roles is nonexistent at any other point throughout human history. I would assume humans evolved these roles for a reason, and whether these reasons are antiquated or not is very relevant.

However, what I wonder is not the implications usually discussed, but why. I thought about this after reading the early paper on estranged labor by Marx and Engels published in radical German magazines. Specifically his critiques of Hegelian philosophy and the "Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844," in which he forms the basis for his critiques of capitalism.

This would be that men have traditionally been the economic center of society, whereas women the home-makers and child-bearers: this much is obvious. However if the men continually output more produce, and therefore estrange himself from himself, they become - in the existential sense - alienated from society and from themselves. The later existentialists would have theorized this. This would cause stoicism and a separation from ones inner emotional core. Women on the other hand would have little to no produce, aside from what is needed to sustain them, if children are excluded. For example, the male would provide food, and the female would prepare the food, and therein feel none of the alienation (estrangement) the male felt.

As society progressed away from factory labor, and the amount of time spent in an arduous and "mortifying" workplace decreased, the estrangement of the male would decrease, and hence he would become more in tune with his emotional core, generally associated with the female. Hence demasculinisation. Conversely for the female: the industrial revolution, WW1, and WW2 heralded the introduction of the female into the workplace, hence alienated, and therefore masculinization.

Just a spur of the moment idea which I thought I'd share. The logic seems simple enough (and probably flawed!? haha) that it's probably been vocalized before me. Which seems to be about on par with all my ideas.

Anyways, just something for discussion.

How about looking at it as the scalestarting to balance?

One could also suggest the danger of looking back at history and analayzing it from the POV of modern knowledge and mores.

But one shall not.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Well, I never stated a preference for a division or not; I personally thing homogenization is beneficial. It was just a thought. I see no reason why not to analyze if from a modern point of view: it surely won't harm. The most it can do is help create an understanding.

--------------------------------------------------------
"Abortion clinics are like expressways to heaven."

quote:

---

However if the men continually output more produce, and therefore estrange himself from himself, they become - in the existential sense - alienated from society and from themselves.

---

I guess I just don't understand.

How does "outputting more produce" cause men to estrange themselves from themselves? How does outputting more produce cause men to be alienated from society?

There is a balance between the employer (capitalist) and worker, the employer demands work, and the worker demands compensation for this work, in the form of wages. The worker must make enough wages to sustain himself in daily life, and the employer must maximize output from the worker. Therefore, the employer will try to minimize the worker's wages and maximize the worker's output.

According to Marx, as the worker produces more and more for an ever-decreasing wage, he is further alienated from his product, because he himself does not own the product; an employer owns his product. He them concludes that an alienation from the product (if his work is extended to his life) is an alienation from his life. Marx's concept of alienation is better explained by phenomenologist Hegel, or existentialists such as Heidegger or Sartre: as an estrangement from traditional society; the production of shallower relationships; a distancing of oneself from the world, society, or relationships.

So my thought was: if this alienation from work corresponds to an alienation from life, and therefore from himself (or herself), then the worker would produce ever-more vapid and distant emotions and disconnect himself from society and people surrounding him. Therefore he destroys his emotions and instead focuses on less complex issues, such as sports, work, etcetera: manly things. So this process would produce "masculinization." It creates the essence of what we would consider the "man's spirit."

I was merely reading Marx for AP Comparative Goverment class when I stumbled upon those passages; it's not my end-all theory of everything.

--------------------------------------------------------
"Abortion clinics are like expressways to heaven."

(Edited by cfb on 09-12-2005 06:25)

Actually, this is not a new phenomena - many societies have been based on models different than that which the West (meaning much of Europe, really) uses.

Many of these culters got "changed", crushed, and mutilated by contact with the West - through the Church, and other sources.

Such as?

I've never taken an Eastern/Asian History class, but Japanese culture is (was) extremely regimented with these roles, and I'd assume the majority of east-Asian nations are as well. Middle eastern and Western nations are as a result of the Abrahamic religions.

I can only think of the Greek/Roman cultures, but the actualy roles of the male/female didn't change in any way but sexually, correct?

--------------------------------------------------------
"Abortion clinics are like expressways to heaven."

Do some research on Native American Indians (like my people, the Cherokee, the Iroqois, etc) and African tribes.

My people recognized women mostly as equals, and women were allowed to own property, be Chiefs, and generally had all the same rights and powers as men did.

There are some tribes in Africa where Women ran things (a Matriach).

I'm not sure about the tribes in central and south America.

Whilst it didn't go all the way towards it, there was much the same elements in ancient Egyptian culture too... even allowing women to rule.


Justice 4 Pat Richard

The Celtic societies - which covered almost all of Europe - were also very different in their gender roles than were the later European societies. Women were a force to be reckoned with, and Romans were baffled by the strange behavior of the Celts. There was a common saying among the Romans at that point - "Beware the Celt who has his woman with him".

She was more likely to kill you than he

Okay: I've researched some of these civilizations/tribes more in depth, and I can say it's very interesting however I'm not entirely surprised. WebShaman asked about South American/Central American tribes, and I can remember seeing a program on TV about how many cities along the Amazon had developed an incredibly complex social structure which recognized aristocratic men and women as equals, and had created what appeared to be a less-than-primitive form of democracy. For the affluent, of course.

I wonder if homogenization would create more phlegmatic (from the four humors) people than previously. This is something else I read (not the source, Aristotle, but somebody's speculation on it). I would guess not, that it would merely mix the personality types, but whatever.