The Universality of Roles and Responsibilities - Essay Example

The Universality of Roles and Responsibilities The present paper aims to analyze the universality of roles and responsibilities associated with both the gender groups in the light of the arguments made by Clark, and Schlafly (2003) on the one hand, and Wasserstrom, Midgley & Hughes, Okin and Bartky on the other. The main objective behind making an in-depth investigation into the premises includes whether men and women naturally tend to perform some specific tasks and obligations, or it is a social establishment that determines and decides the same according to the needs and challenges the large majority of it appears to be responsible for addressing and fulfilling the same by mutual understanding and co-operation. The study will also seek support from the views contradictory to the ones presented by Clark in order to make a comparative examination of the entire scenario under consideration in order to draw out convincing conclusion subsequently. Since the contemporary era has introduced new division of labor in the wake of the growing responsibilities in almost all cultures of the globe, the critics and analysts also look into various matters by assigning extra obligations to both the genders in order to tackle with the challenges modern life offers to man. Stephen Clark, in the light of the anthropological studies, elucidates the concepts of various types of family set ups, including patriarchic, matriarchic, neo-local, polygamous, polyandrous and monogamous etc (35-36), which seeks their roots in different traditional and conventional cultures of the world at large. Consequently, some cultural traits submit to male dominance in political, social, economic and domestic affairs, while the same supremacy is attributed to females in some societies of ancient, medieval and modern eras at large. Hence, division of labor has always been established divergently in various zones and regions of the world (36). Though in some primitive societies, women appear to be responsible for the fulfillment of the economic needs of the entire family, while males were supposed to nourish and look after the young ones (Ember & Ember 2011); nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of human cultures assigned political, economic and social obligations to their male stratum, while females were responsible for all domestic chores including cleansing of house, washing and child rearing etc (Schlafly 2003). As a result, history is replete with the far active and dynamic participation of males in state affairs on the one hand, and their exclusive involvement in the activities related to hunting and gathering, and trade and commerce in general (Bartky 2003). Similarly, Midgley & Hughes (2003) allude to the nature-nurture debate while elaborating the differences in gender roles, where they regard male-female differences as an outcome of genetic constitution on the one hand, and due to the socialization process of the individuals on the other (222). Bartky (2003) analyzes the male-female division of labor in the light of Marxist perspective, where male play the role of producer/owner, while females serve as workers and laborers i.e. proletariat, who pay time and services to the products i.e. children and home, which actually belong to men (223-24). Hence, they undergo exploitation by receiving just eye-wash against their contributions for home, but the lion’s share goes to the producer i.e. males, who offer least share of the profit to the proletariat, leaving them at the state of uncertainty and disappointment subsequently (226). On the one side, Bartky condemns unequal distribution of status between the genders; and on the other side, Okin (2003) declares the institution of marriage as the source of complete exploitation of women both inside and outside the home as wives and professionals respectively (238-39). Hence, she presents a scenario that presents an entire feminist perspective in it, where the women appear to be the target of humiliation, hatred, domestic violence and male hatred during their sticking to the marital-knot, as well as in case of separation and divorce at the hands of spouses and society respectively. Not only this that they bear the burdensome load of financial responsibilities after the break of marriage, but are also considered to be responsible for the nourishment and education of the children at large (241). Thus, family and domestic life, after marriage, turns out to be a nightmare for the woman folk. Nevertheless, Clark does not agree with the entire scenario; on the contrary, he explores variance in duties on the basis of their biological divergences with men, which clearly indicate and determine the responsibilities in their wake. The differences, between men and women, he asserts, are not only in role performing and duties associated with the individuals of both the genders, but also finds divergence in attire and costumes, mobilization and penetration in society and work routines, which could be divided in the light of the physical strength, biological characteristics and religious cults as well (37). Hence, Clark declares women as the subordinates of men in all societies without discrimination because of their position at domestic level as well as their role in social fabric. It is therefore some domestic tasks accomplished by men as the complementary ones, while the socio-economic obligations executed by women have also been just complementary in nature before the excessive inclusion of females in professional life in the business environment by the end of 19th century onward. It has not only created imbalance in life, but also adversely tells upon the domestic life of the individuals at universal scale (Macionis 2007). On the contrary, Wasserstrom (2003) disapproves the possibility of any margin of allocation of tasks and obligations to the individuals, by keeping their gender in view. He compares gender inequality to ethno-racial and regional discrimination had been in vogue in the USA and Europe, which ultimately observed its termination with the passage of time, which is less important than the eye colors of the individuals even (53-54). As a result, the people belonging to divergent ethno-racial backgrounds and both the genders as well are rendering services in all fields and areas of life. In such an age of fast advancement, Wasserstrom pleads, applying restrictions on women and creating impediments on their professional activities, would keep the society observing restrictions, to be backward and under-developed. Consequently, even the sexual orientation, has been an extremely controversial issue in past, maintains no meanings altogether. Thus, social norms will experience a significant fall in modern life, and roles and responsibilities would be determined on the basis of the talent the people possess, without taking their gender into account at all (55). The contemporary era, according to Clark, has witnessed establishment and promotion of new patterns division of sex roles, which appear to be contradictory to the ones performed by men and women in traditional Russian, Chinese and Jewish societies in past, putting the trends and traits of conventional standards of collective life into grave jeopardy (38). On the other hand, Wasserstrom seeks the status of women in male-dominated societies just of attendants and servers, which are meant to serve their male members only (56-57). Schlafly (2003), on the other hand, looks determined to support the cause of traditional roles elaborated by Clark. She seeks the survival and happiness of women in their unconditional dedication to their domestic responsibilities, instead of their working outside their homes, and assisting their spouses in financial matters (246). Clark, in his article, condemns the notion bio-determinism, which refutes to submit to the very reality that biological differences between the genders are too considerable to determine their roles at social and domestic scales at large (39). Consequently, the critics of assigning some specific roles and duties to women appear to be confining the physical differences between men and women to sexual needs and reproduction process only, which do not restrict them to get involved into various tasks and opportunities life offers to humans in this era of technological advancement and perfect competition in all fields of life (40-41). As a result, the flexible human nature just has been being regulated by the concrete social norms and cultural values without making a detailed exploration of the human will, aptitude and available opportunities for exercising their abilities and proficiencies in one way or the other, in the aftermath of feminist movement, putting the conventional role both the genders play at domestic and social scales (42). However, uncontrollable participation of women in professional activities has caused the weakening of domestic life, particularly in the western societies, which has led modern societies towards high divorce rates, single parenthood, high crimes rate, incestuous attacks made by the fathers on stepdaughters and other socio-cultural problems. To conclude, it becomes crystal clear that violation of age-old traditional domestic life and unrestricted participation of women in professional life has created imbalances in domestic and social life of the individuals. There was a time, during the Elizabethan, Classical, Victorian and later eras, when people used to lead a contented and happy life in limited income levels and resources, where fathers and husbands used to work in fields, factories, mills, offices and other jobs, businesses and trades, while women used to perform their domestic obligations by educating and training their children. It is therefore no rapes of stepdaughters or the children of single parents occurred at such a massive scale as it has become a shameful tradition in modern era. Moreover, divorce ratio was also very low, and even negligible, and people used to spend the entire life with one single partner without making too much complains about unpleasant states of affairs. Thus, Clark and Schlafly appear to be justified in their claim that nature has assigned different duties to both the genders, violation from which certainly creates disturbances in the individual and collective life of the masses at large. Works Cited Bartky, Sandra “Feeding Egos and Tending Wounds: Deference and Disaffection in Women’s Emotional Labor” 2003 222-227 Clark, Stephen B. “The Universality of Sex Roles” 2003 35-53 Ember, Carol R. & Ember, Melvin R. “Anthropology” 13th Edition Pearson 2010 Print Macionis, John J. “Sociology” Eleventh Edition Pearson Prentice Hall 2007 Print Midgley, Mary & Hughes, Judith “Biology, Mere and Otherwise” 2003 58 Okin, Susan Moller “Justice, Gender and the Family” 2003 238-245 Schlafly, Phyllis “The Power of the Positive Woman” 2003 246-250 Waserstrom, Richard “Sex Roles and the Ideal Society” 2003 53-58 Read More