It all started with a single cell.i Life, I mean. And then, after a long time,ii we reached our (sub) species – Homo sapiens (sapiens).
The earliest cells were sexless. They were all pretty much the same. But as the cells divided so did the species, and ultimately there developed a system of reproduction based upon two different “types” within each species – a “male” and a “female.” Usually in the animal kingdom, but certainly not invariably, the two types occurred in different individuals. That's the way it is in humans, and weiii are grateful for it. Men are different from women. Oh! You noticed. Anyway, vive la différence!
Along the way patterns developed. The females bore the young and cared for them.iv The males, who begot those young, generally hunted and provided sustenance for all. They usually retained the ability to father longer than the females retained their fertility, but the females typically outlived the males. And that's the way it is now. It's generally accepted, and “the way things are” among most species. It's the unquestioned pattern among lions, elephants, mice, and sheep, and many others. Only among humans is there a questioning of these roles. We're the only species that denigrates that differencev and in which significant numbers of our members seek to possess the attributes of the other type. And in many waysvi that's difficult or impossible. Because of evolution.
Men and women are different in terms of visible anatomy, and it's becoming clearer and clearer that we're wired differently. We have different hormonal systems, temperaments, emotions, and interests. Because we're wired differently, we think and act differently. Clearly, whatever the contribution of nurture and culture, there is a major component of difference that can be attributed to nature.vii
But evolution occurs in many ways. While it's not completely clear how we got to this point, women now get more undergraduate and graduate degrees than men, they have higher salaries in someviii age categories, they control most of consumer spending, and they've changed the nature of education. The classroom used to be faulted for teaching boys at the expense of girls, but it seems to be the other way now. And there's been a change in the language.ix “He” used to be the default pronoun, but nowadays “they,”x and often “she,” are finding their way into print and speech more and more often.xi And, for a variety of reasons, distinctions between the sexesxii are being played down or eliminated. Among others, unisex clothing, toilets, and hair-care establishments are common, and many schools and jobs that formerly were identified with one sex or the other are now “personed” equally, or now have more members of the group that once either shunned the positions or were shunned by them. Unisex has replaced unicell (with a long stop for two sexes along the way). In part this may be attributed to a changing of qualifications for membership which may or may not be appropriate. However other causes can be assumed as well. Some kind of evolution seems to be responsible for many of the changes. If that evolution is social or political, it is evolution nonetheless. Perhaps it represents the victory of brains over brawn, though to characterize the possessors of either of those qualities would be frowned upon in our current society.xiii
Not that the changes are bad. There's no denying that males have used physical means to maintain their position in society and that females have been limited by their role as the bearers of children. But there are many, both men and women, who favor this situation – this division of responsibilities. Many men are flustered by competition for jobs by women, and many women resent the pressure to be childless or to have their husbands or other surrogates rear their children. To a great degree, evolution has conditioned us to be like our ancestors in this regard, whether we are speaking of humans or of humanity's predecessors.
One feature of the change cannot be explained adequately by evolution, however. That is the apparent increase in identification with a gender other than that determined biologically. It's not clear if this is a real change or reflects the greater visibility of those who would have been unknown in the past. The emergence of preferences for relationships between members of the same sex should not be discouraged, but it is obvious that such “matings” will not be reproductive ones.xiv They will not contribute to survival of the species. xv
And language is an issue here as well as it is in other contexts. I used to view “marriage” in a particular way, and I think it's useful to retain the term with its traditional meaning. I'd rather use “union” or some other term for the coupling of individuals of the same sex. Perhaps a term can be invented to suit that purpose and make it unnecessary to blur the distinctions between the different forms of pairing. But I suspect that blurring is the aim, and my suggestion will not be acceptable to many. Moreover I can understand the need for “partner” when dealing with same-sex unions,xvi but I am unable to comprehend the trend for its use between married couples of opposite sexes. In the past “husband” and “wife” served this function pretty well. Anyway, language evolves, and its changes, as well as the behavioral ones, are realities.
In any event, from my perspective, a few guidelines for the new society are in order. First of all, opportunities and rewards for men and womenxvii should be equal, but they should not be made to be equal. If there are valid reasons for particular requirements – such as anatomic or physiological reasons – they should not be changed, simply because a change is possible. If, for example, a certain amount of strength or intelligence is needed for a particular job, that requirement should not be eased in the service of “equality.”xviii It is obvious that the setting of requirements will be a problem, and the choice of the those who set the rules will be a difficult issue. But that should not deter us from trying.
Choice should be available to all, in the form of contraceptives for those who want, and in the acceptance of “life-styles” of every conceivablexix kind – choice is certainly preferable to pressure – however
People should not be forced into associations with those with whom they may feel uncomfortable, nor should they be belittled for their feelings.xx
Individuals and families should be able to choose a “traditional” life or any other form without worrying about pressure from those who criticize their choice.xxi A single “acceptable” option – with any other considered betrayal – removes any possibility of free will. One choice is no choice.
In order to increase the likelihood of equality, boys and girls should be taught separately, in settings and with techniques fitted to their style of learning. Neither should be held back because the methods are not suitable.
These guidelines would be a start. Women will still live longer than men and they will be healthier (and should have pension benefits and insurance costs which recognize these differences) but the changes required by a limiting society would be minimized. People want different things and the choice should be theirs, with no society norms that must be followed – assuming there is no harm to others.xxii
But being equal is not the same as being identical. It's nicexxiii to have men and women. The system seems to work, and it's a lot of fun.
Next episode “Sez Who?” – It's not what you say, it's how you say it.
i At least for those who accept the idea of evolution. If you believe otherwise you will probably not agree, but that dispute is for another time.
ii I won't involve myself in arguments about the precise number of years, but it's been a while.
iii At least most of us.
iv That's not true of the entire animal kingdom, but it's the rule among mammals.
v It's interesting that we deny the differences of men and women while glorying in “multiculturalism” and magnifying the differences among other groups – sometimes inventing characteristics and distinctions for them which improve their image in comparison to our own.
vi But not all.
vii According to the (“feminist”) dogma, the differences between the sexes are primarily based on what we are taught – nurture – as opposed to nature. After all, more than 98% of the genes of the two sexes are the same. Of course more than 98% of a woman's genes are the same as those of a female chimpanzee, but that is a distraction from the “truth” of the nurture hypothesis.
viii A minority to be sure.
ix At least in English. I don't know what changes, if any, have occurred in other tongues.
x My favorite example is the new expression, “To each their own.”
xi One of my favorite expressions is “To each, their own.”
xii We now call them “genders,” which is, itself, a change in the language.
xiii Indeed, the carriers of culture, movies, television, and the like, make a point of putting women in roles intended to demonstrate their power – physical and professional.
xiv Adoption is an option for these couples, but the reproduction is usually done by others. Even artificial insemination requires people of opposite sexes.
xv The argument can be made that childless unions are preferable to world overpopulation and abortion, and that as such they have evolutionary value. The existence of homosexuality prior to such overpopulation weakens this argument.
xvi And in situations where unmarried people are living together.
xvii Whatever their sexual orientation.
xviii I recall one production of “On The Town” in which a Japanese man had the role of guard at an American naval port during World War II. It was a victory of equal opportunity, race-blind casting and equality over reality.
xix That's probably a bad word to choose.
xx “Hate speech” is just as deplorable when aimed at those who are accused of using it. Sadly, we live in an age when freedom of speech is subject to political review and approval given only to those who say the “right” things and use the right euphemisms.
xxi See previous note. Because freedom of speech allows people to say almost anything, it is inevitable that one group will fault the ways of another. There's no stopping that. But we must all realize that we can and should pursue our own way of life irrespective of those criticisms. Those who feel and express them are the ones with the problem.
xxii Obviously some rules are necessary. Every society must set limits on the actions of its members. Murder and molestation, for example, must be addressed.
xxiii In my view.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.