LETTER: Gender roles cultural

To the editor:

When Scott Anderson’s column on women’s role came out Monday I didn’t pay it much attention until I heard several female colleagues voice objections. I found that I didn’t have as strong a reaction as the women who read the article. I was gratified to note the benefits of the feminist movement he mentioned, and I agree that “functional families” need defined and understood roles. I would, however, like to challenge some of his assumptions.

In traditional agrarian societies, as well as the hunter-gatherer societies which preceded them, women usually worked alongside the men. In many cultures infants were carried to the fields in cloth slings, harnesses, wooden cradle boards or papooses. Notice that these accessories were not used to aid the women in house work, but allowed mothers of young children to go back to work. In other cultures, and when the children got a bit older, they were often left at home with elderly or disabled relatives while the able-bodied parents worked. In cases where women needed to stay home for extended periods of times, they were often engaged in cottage industries that added to the household’s income.

The “traditional” gender roles that we see today began during the industrial revolution. Men, with superior upper-body strength, were required to work in labor-intensive factory jobs at significant distance from the family for most of the waking hours or even weeks at a time. And since many nuclear families now lived apart from older relatives, the mother was left to care for the children. This has led to many evils and inequalities which the feminist movement attempted to correct.

I agree that the roles of each family member should be understood and agreed upon, and I believe that the role of motherhood is both challenging and rewarding. I also feel that women should be given every opportunity for creative outlet and yes, even for earning money if they choose.

Jared Hardman