In a survival scenario, do you think traditional gender roles would come back?

[Brawndo]

I was reading an interesting novel called World Made by Hand, by James Knustler. The premise of the book is that peak oil, terrorist attacks, and a superbug cause worldwide economic and government collapse and people leave the cities to live an agrarian lifestyle with few modern conveniences.

What is interesting is that the author made the argument that in this simple lifestyle, men and women would revert to traditional gender roles, and what's more, women would not really complain about it. In the novel women rear children, do washing, cooking, and cleaning while the men trade, build, and fend off bandits and the such. The author basically argues the gender equality is an artificial construct only made possible by stable society. Once the thin veneer of civility and order was striped away, the basic forms of human nature came back.

Do you think this would happen?

 

[DefunctTheory]

It wouldn't be because 'civility' went away, it would happen because our great big cushion of niceness would evaporate.

Women and men enjoy relative equality in work because the pressure of survival is merely non-existent. Our traditional roles as 'provider' or 'house mother' are gone because we can afford to throw it all away.

If the pressure of survival returns, yes, the typical roles we used to have will come back (With exceptions), but I doubt our views of gender equality will simply be swept away.

We'll all still be equal as people. We'll just do different stuff.

 

[oldskoolandi]

Traditional gender roles are something the human race has been used to for the vast majority of it's existence, and they're almost universally adhered to even now in societies that still lead traditional ways of life. I think it's highly likely people would naturally return to their roles in the above scenario, yes. Gender equality is really only an invention of the last fifty or so years, at least in this context.

I'm sure that in this day and age we'd see exceptions, but generally speaking men and women are better suited to different, though equally important roles in the situation you describe. Anyone can operate a computer, or file reports etc, which is why gender equality is important in the workplace. Very few women work on building sites, and very few men are full time parents, or child minders. Stands to reason if you take away the easy office/customer service etc jobs the majority of the population have, then we'll revert to more comfortable roles for our gender.

 

[funguy2121]

What is interesting is that the author made the argument that in this simple lifestyle, men and women would revert to traditional gender roles, and what's more, (1)women would not really complain about it. In the novel (2)women rear children, do washing, cooking, and cleaning while the men trade, build, and fend off bandits and the such. The author basically argues (3) the gender equality is an artificial construct only made possible by stable society. Once the thin veneer of civility and order was striped away, (4) the basic forms of human nature came back.

Do you think this would happen?

(1) Women most certainly would protest it. You can't unopen their eyes. The only women who would be happy about it would be the women who prefer rigid gender roles.

(2) Such a division of tasks is, to some degree, inevitable, since women are the ones who give birth and are temporarily incapacitated by the pregnancy. But for it to become the norm, all advanced societies would have to be wiped out, and religion would have to run the major governments of the world, just as happened when the Roman Empire fell and ignorance ruled for 1,000 years. Even then, with the telecommunications of today and the attitudes toward independent thought, I don't think the middle ages could ever happen again.

(3) The whole point of gender equality is that gender ROLES and gender INEQUALITY are constructs made possible by a society relying on obsolete ideals.

(4) "Human nature," whether used to describe an attribute or a shortcoming, is as easy to dismiss as a misconception as "common sense." The way you used the term, it appears that you (and the author?) define human nature here as traditional gender roles. I could point you toward religious texts, such as one or two of the apostle Paul's letters (which, incidentally, were not written by Paul at all), which order strict enforcement of these gender roles in spite of being included in the same book which holds up such iconoclastic female characters as Esther. In other words, what you're defining here as "natural" is really the result of the (physically) bigger person imposing their will on the other and / or the result of outdated religious beliefs.

The book does sound interesting. Though I don't think I'd come to very many of the same conclusions as the author, I may have to pick it up some time.

 

[BrightBlackDaylight]

It depends. In a crisis at the present time people might revert to traditional gender roles simply because in a crisis it is important to know what your job is so you can do it quickly and efficiently, and traditional gender roles are still prevalent enough in society for them to be the natural fall-back.

 

[Daverson]

Maybe eventually. There are too many variable to take into account for this. It'll largely depend on how society in rebuilt, if agriculture is the cornerstone, then it's likely they'll make a return, however, if scavenging becomes the norm for finding food, then likely not.

However, I think for first few months, perhaps even years, traditional gender roles would dissolve completely - we rely heavily on modern technology to survive. An untrained man has little advantage over an untrained woman when it comes to operating a firearm. If we do end up being led by warlords, the deciding factor is going to be the number of bodies at the command of these leaders, pressing both genders into service would effectively double the size of an army under a warlord's command.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

There would probably be women who would just use their looks to leech of off weak willed men, but that's probably about the extent of it.

In today's world, women are just as educated as men, generally speaking. And humans survive due to our intelligence and creativity, not brute strength.

 

[Soviet Steve]

Traditional gender roles as we know them only came about as a result of mechanization in the countryside eliminating the bulk of the woman's tasks at the farm. Women would have just as much work to do in an agrarian society as men would, if not more so, so no, the 1870s-1950s gender roles wouldn't make a comeback.

 

[Serenegoose]

The idea that people would leave the cities to live an agrarian life flies in the face of all human history, ever. Peak oil wouldn't move people out to the countryside, since then you need a car or mode of transport to get about anyway, that'd move people into the city for sure. Terrorist attacks won't be noticeable as a factor of population movement, and a superbug? Well, uh, we had this thing in Europe called the black death. You could think of it as a superbug. We also have London, Paris, Berlin, etc... So the premise is flawed. You're also not going to see a mass reversion to traditional gender roles because they're not traditional. In fact, the more work in a society there is to do the more equal humans become. Increasing our civilisational workload by a few hundred percent and then telling half the population they've gotta stay home and pop out sproglets...

No. I do not consider it likely that traditional gender roles would make a comeback in such a scenario.

 

[Lilani]

Most of it depends on the men and women involved, and their personal beliefs.

Personally, I think it'd come back to a certain degree (I mean somebody has to look after those kids, and last I checked men can't wet nurse), but I don't think women would completely become second-class citizens again. I'm sure some sort of rotation would develop for those who are willing to hunt and those who would rather stay behind.

 

[SinisterGehe]

I think it wouldn't return to it in completely.
Long as we can keep education going amongst us we will not fall pray to the human animal that bellows under us all.
I'd guess if things to really rough, women and men would be equal and have to work towards together to survive, in harsh conditions woman can not be excluded to stay home with kids and not work at all.

What I know of history is that when humans settled down and started to farm gender roles switched towards more equal - everyone had to work, everyone worked.

In order for humans to survive there must be a form of balance amongst us.
Both genders have half of the key of life, both are needed to open the chest of life.

And what the hell is "traditional" gender roles, there been all kinds of roles, families and societies trough out the world and history, in India there are 5 genders* (If I remember right) some places have 3 or 4, so can you tell me what is the original "traditional" roles?

 

[Jonluw]

If some unnamed catastrophe returned us to a hunter-gatherer society, I believe the different genders would once again be given different tasks, yes. Not necessarily identical to the traditional gender roles, but similar at least.

I believe women - as a whole - are better suited for caring for children and gathering nuts, roots and berries than men; and men - on the whole - are better suited for hunting than women.

It's how we evolved after all.

In this day and age, we can make up for the shortcomings of both sexes with our technology, and women can for example hunt alongside men; but if we were robbed of that technology, we'd probably return to the most effective solutions in order to survive.

Hopefully, the role of an individual would be defined by the characteristics of their person rather than their sex though.

 

[Terminal Blue]

No..

Firstly, it's based on a flawed understanding of social history.

'Traditional' gender roles are an artificial construct too. Do you think women in feudal serf villages had the luxury of sitting indoors cooking and cleaning for their husbands all day? That division of labour only becomes possible when the wealth and social infrastructure exists to support it. For Europe (Britain specifically) the introduction of the family wage in the 19th century is generally seen as the major turning point in this direction, and that's only 200 years ago. Before that, it was only middle and upper class women who could afford to sit indoors doing the housework.

The author is fantasizing. It's a common masculine fantasy of getting 'back to nature' to the point where 'men were men', it's also incredibly naive, and demonstrates that some men really do need to move on. There was never a golden age when men were rugged survivors struggling against nature and women shut kept their mouths shut. Women always had to be socially controlled, and they always found ways to push the limits of the world they'd been assigned.

 

[oldskoolandi]

No..

Firstly, it's based on a flawed understanding of social history.

'Traditional' gender roles are an artificial construct too. Do you think women in feudal serf villages had the luxury of sitting indoors cooking and cleaning for their husbands all day? That division of labour only becomes possible when the wealth and social infrastructure exists to support it. For Europe (Britain specifically) the introduction of the family wage in the 19th century is generally seen as the major turning point in this direction, and that's only 200 years ago. Before that, it was only middle and upper class women who could afford to sit indoors doing the housework.

The author is fantasizing. It's a common masculine fantasy of getting 'back to nature' to the point where 'men were men', it's also incredibly naive. Societies do regress and we have historical examples, but time never runs backwards and people don't tend to forget when they lose something.

I think suggesting that cooking and cleaning is a luxury, rather than another equally important task is possibly a slightly flawed viewpoint. Also, the premise here is (I think) more of a cashless society where wages wouldn't be a factor. In the societies like that that exist today, we do see traditional roles - men are the hunters and builders, women are the cooks, the carers, etc. Some roles can be filled by either sex, tending livestock, milking etc but there is a clear division of gender roles - and personally I don't think that means one gender is viewed as inferior, it's more a question of what you're naturally suited to.

 

[Terminal Blue]

In the societies like that that exist today, we do see traditional roles - men are the hunters and builders, women are the cooks, the carers, etc. Some roles can be filled by either sex, tending livestock, milking etc but there is a clear division of gender roles - and personally I don't think that means one gender is viewed as inferior, it's more a question of what you're naturally suited to.

I'm not an anthropologist, but I've read countless examples to the contrary.

The one truth there is childrearing, which does tend to be a female role, but even then only really in breast-feeding age, and there are plenty of societies where women also do extensive manual labour while breast-feeding children.

Most 'pre-industrial' societies don't operate around nuclear families. Women don't spend vast amounts of time giving lots of attention to their children. Children are raised as part of age groups or wider social networks.

 

[Mr Somewhere]

I would hope not, and I wouldn't imagine so, in the redefined state we live in, I'd imagine people would attach themselves to the roles that best suit themselves, not based on anything but their own personal strengths or weaknesses, not gender.

 

[oldskoolandi]

In the societies like that that exist today, we do see traditional roles - men are the hunters and builders, women are the cooks, the carers, etc. Some roles can be filled by either sex, tending livestock, milking etc but there is a clear division of gender roles - and personally I don't think that means one gender is viewed as inferior, it's more a question of what you're naturally suited to.

I'm not an anthropologist, but I've read countless examples to the contrary.

The one truth there is childrearing, which does tend to be a female role, but even then only really in breast-feeding age, and there are plenty of societies where women also do extensive manual labour while breast-feeding children.

I'm not suggesting it's always the case, and I hesitate to rely on wikipedia to prove any point, but I will throw this out there -
"A vast amount of ethnographic and archaeological evidence demonstrates that the sexual division of labor in which men hunt and women gather wild fruits and vegetables is an extremely common phenomenon among hunter-gatherers worldwide, but there are a few documented exceptions to this general pattern. A study done on the Aeta people of the Philippines states: "About 85% of Philippine Aeta women hunt, and they hunt the same quarry as men. Aeta women hunt in groups and with dogs, and have a 31% success rate as opposed to 17% for men. Their rates are even better when they combine forces with men: mixed hunting groups have a full 41% success rate among the Aeta."