Originally posted by Cuervo
First of all, this is not true of every culture in history. Second of all, do you really want to model our society on what cavemen used to do in the paleolithic era? Is that our template for family structure?
I'm not sure, perhaps we do. From what we are discovering, they had a far better division of labour between men and women, and were far less stuck to 'roles', everyone pulled together and helped out. The women joined the hunting groups, the men helped gather as and when such joining together was needed. In fact, right up until the 19th century, that is how most working people did things. It was only with the increase in class divisions, and the social aspirational model of the sedentary, stay at home female became widespread that women were seen as being in charge of the child raising and household maintentance that this began to change and men were seen solely of 'providing'.
There is, in reality, no such thing as a traditional family. Just families. And what works for one family, doesn't necessarily work for others. Let's face it, up until fairly recently, a huge number of women didn't even survive childbirth...so who raised those children?
I'm all about choices. And I love that more men are exercising their nurturing abilities and staying at home to raise the kids while the mother goes out to work. Why should men have to be 'leaders' all the time? Women can be great leaders, and men can be great nurturers, and fortunately, we are moving into a time when we understand that biology does not predispose us to such roles, it is about who we are and what skills we bring to the table. About making choices and not having to answer to anyone else when we exercise them.
Great posts in this thread by the way Thank you for seeing women as the multi-dimensional beings that we have strove so hard to be recognised as.
edit on 18-1-2013 by KilgoreTrout because: extra words