Actually, I started out talking about maleness, and affirmed the view that men bring their own virtues to child- rearing. It so happened that the matter of natural grounding versus social- constructedness came up, and I mentioned that patriarchy was pretty natural, and that technology made the widespread equality of the sexes possible to contemplate. I also, as you just noted, said that I thought there was a limitation on social equality due to the prevalence of the choice to have more traditional or quasi- traditional households, at least during the formative childraising years. So I don't see there as being a big disagreement here between the two of us, I have merely not focused on something you would like to see examined.
First, I think that marital relationships are rarely simply equal or unequal, that periodically either party may have the upper hand, and that there has usually been a rough "equality" among lovers, therefore.
However, I think that masculinity and femininity, as ways of underscoring and elaborating our sexual natures, remain strong determinants of personality, both by nature and nurture, and therefore that men will tend to operate according to different expectations than women. Men will tend to be more competitive and aggressive, will tend to be the Knights, and go forth to battle for their Ladies Fair. Woman will represent a purer, less sordid, and more nurturing side of things, and men will have recourse to them after "battle", and depend upon them to maintain the domestic order. Children will usually be nurtured by the woman, but will increasingly become their father's as they are taught the ways of the world.
Obviously, it is difficult to say how the rise of social equality will affect this paradigm. However, if is true that there is a biological component affecting inclination, a free society is likely to remain one that perpetuates sex roles to some extent......... |
