[LMB] OT: Gender Roles

Matija Grabnar lmb at matija.com
Sun Sep 26 22:37:17 BST 2021


On 26/09/2021 21:04, Pouncer via Lois-Bujold wrote:
> Matija Grabnar
>> The truth is that there are bigger differences >between people than the difference of the >averages of the sexes.
> That's true, but individual differences affectall sorts of things.
>> Other than gestation and breastfeeding, there >is no profession that either sex couldn't do, >if they put their mind to it.
> Would that be true if the language changed?
Ummm, yes?
>   Ifwe were to propose that there is no JOB that either sex couldn't do, if they put theirBACKS to it?
Why, yes. Historically, women "put their backs" into many things that 
are now considered un-ladylike. And Soviet Union famously employed women 
in many hard, menial jobs. And the women did those "only suitable for 
men" jobs because they needed work, they weren't in them "for show".
> It seems to me in the old style usage a professionrepresented sort of a gentlemanly (excuse the useof old-fashioned, gendered, language) activity,done sitting down, often indoors, with relativelysmall tools or devices, requiring thoughtful contemplation. Ditto lady-like occupations orwhat Darcy might refer to as "accomplishments." Hewing wood, drawing water, busting sod, maintaining steady cooking temperatures over a wood fired hearth or spending every spare minute with a drop spindle were jobs rather than professions.

So far you haven't named any jobs that women did not do, at some point 
or other. You think a woman alone on a farm didn't chop wood? Or drive a 
plow behind a horse or two? (A very difficult job, especially if the 
soil is sticky). They did all that and more in "Women's land army" in 
WW2 England.

Historically, they also worked in mines, another job you missed listing.

>   Jobs, then andnow, tend to match themselves to workers by thesheer physical size and strength and power necessary to lift mass in a gravity field at speed for sustainedperiods.
Yup, people who had to do those jobs developed some mean musculature. 
I've known some farmers of the old style (from before tractors were 
affordable in Slovenia). They looked like a strong wind would blow them 
away, but if you tried to armwrestle with them, they'd rip your arm out, 
then shake it in your face and tell you you are a bad boy.
>   A healthy individual human person approachingtwo meters tall and of 100 kilos mass has earning options unavailable to a similarly healthy individual of a half-meter less height and proportionately less reach and lift and mass. And however unfairly and inequitably nature has distributed height and massin extraordinarily close correlation with "Y" chromosomes.

Hm - the first description brings to mind an acquaintance of mine. The 
height and mass sounds about right, and the muscle tone (played 
volleyball in college, I understand). She has a Ph.D. in computer science.

I also know several guys who would fit the "half-meter less height and 
less reach and lift and mass" specification.

It's not as correlated with genitalia as you seem to think. Has more to 
do with nutrition and types of exercise when they were growing up.



More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list