I have greatly enjoyed this art of blogging –though I DO wish the name were different, it conotates a less mature effort than I think it is–that has allowed me to explore, connect and think about so many more issues in so many more ways than I otherwise would have.
How could people even as recently as 1995 been able to stay abreast of the current issues of the day like we do now? Amazing.
Anyway, as is the nature of this thing we do, I was reading a post over at Poison Your Mind and the conversation turned in a very unexpected way/. The post had to do with the fact that the current crop of Republican governors are far more conservative than the constituency that elected them. All this while the current Democrat governors were much more closely aligned. Fascinating stuff. Go read the whole thing.
However, we began discussing whether the current GOP governors were more fiscally conservative or socially. I suspect that its the former, PYM felt otherwise. And a quick discussion over some social issues took place with a comment that made me stop:
That’s because the pro-life movement is interested in preventing abortions, it’s about government mandating of traditional gender roles.
I don’t think so, but, to be fair – I’m not on the inside. However, I do talk a ton of politics and I’ve never heard anyone claim that women are uppity or out of place or should be back at home in kitchen. In fact, most of my friends and peers, albeit we are white collar, have wives that are faster, smarter and stronger than we are. For example, while I have a fantastic career my wife is the primary bread winner in the family. And I don’t think anything could be further from the truth.
I’m against the abortions I’m against because I think it violates the Liberty of the child. It has nothing to do with the role of women. But….speaking of the role of women, do you know what MIGHT have to do with the role of women?
FERNAND BRAUDEL, a renowned French historian, once described a remarkable transformation in the society of ancient Mesopotamia. Sometime before the end of the fifth millennium BC, he wrote, the fertile region between the Tigris and the Euphrates went from being one that worshipped “all-powerful mother goddesses” to one where it was “the male gods and priests who were predominant in Sumer and Babylon.” The cause of this move from matriarchy, Mr Braudel argued, was neither a change in law nor a wholesale reorganisation of politics. Rather, it was a fundamental change in the technology the Mesopotamians used to produce food: the adoption of the plough.
The plough was heavier than the tools formerly used by farmers. By demanding significantly more upper-body strength than hoes did, it gave men an advantage over women. According to Mr Braudel, women in ancient Mesopotamia had previously been in charge of the fields and gardens where cereals were grown. With the advent of the plough, however, farming became the work of men. A new paper* by Alberto Alesina and Nathan Nunn of Harvard University and Paola Giuliano of the University of California, Los Angeles, finds striking evidence that ancient agricultural techniques have very long-lasting effects.
Long after most people have stopped tilling the land for a living, the economists find, their views about the economic role of women seem to line up with whether their ancestors ploughed or whether they hoed. Women descended from plough-users are less likely to work outside the home, to be elected to parliament or to run businesses than their counterparts in countries at similar levels of development who happen to be descended from hoe-users. The research reinforces the ideas of Ester Boserup, an economist who argued in the 1970s that cultural norms about the economic roles of the sexes can be traced back to traditional farming practices.
Because a plow can better be handled by a man, the agriculture shifted from female dominated to male dominated. As such, the gods of the day shifted and the society changed from a matriarch to a patriarch.
Maybe I’m just a Democrat in a Republican’s body?