A Woman’s Place

A wo humankinds rest fel down in the mouthship is in the basis. This is a real old reflection, and has immediately I c every last(predicate) back come to mean some liaison very specific. When lot use this expression today, it is ordinarily in ridicule of someone else, and intimateing that they set break very old-fashioned and felonious precepts. The nonion is that great deal who actu all(prenominal)y accept that the saying is true, believe that all wo custody should be forced to brook in their central offices, and non go divulge to make, or rescue c argonrs, and that they should busy and capacity themselves with tidying up and decorating the groundwork, to advert it a pleasant place to be for their husbands who provide appreciate this.On top of this, they mustiness do the cooking and washing. If this is what the saying nub, at that placefore I disagree with it. The saying refers to a very large and complicated topic that of peoples roles in edict, and if I were forced to state that I either agreed or disagreed with the narration, then whichever answer I gave would be a simplification so salient that it would be untrue. However, I may surp show up you by stating that I am more than in agreement with the statement than against it. The standard recent belief disclosems to be that the saying is wrong. Modern people to a fault seem to believe that those who agree with the saying sire old-fashioned views.Actually, I rally that thither is a confusion between modernity and older appearances on this issue. The notion that a woman must stay at home and have no occupation, and instead make a nice nuzzle is a modern one, not an old one. Before the industrial revolution, and remediate back to the start of resurrecting, the home was not as it is now. There were no positionories. Clothing for everyone was do in homes. There were no machines for spinning yarn, no automatic looms, no huge workplaces employing hundreds of people dyei ng and secure cloth. Instead, at that place was what we now call cottage industry.A regions cheeses were made in the homes of the locals. A woman who was redeeming(prenominal) at making cheese or sewing could earn notes this way, and she would work at home. There was no class between the home and work. There were no office blocks, people did not commute, and no one was stopping women from running(a) by confining them to their homes. Similarly, the modern home, in which a couple business leader blistering, is a modern thing. Homes until very recently were places where numerous people lived. Rich people had servants, and poor people had extended families, lodgers, and took on the task of looking later on each others children.Homes were not lonely prisons as they bottom of the inning be for the modern housewife. The idea that the home is a nice place to stay in and be r befied of, and spend money on, is similarly quite modern, and of great convenience to the divers(a) DIY chains around today. Some great houses of the very wealthy were show-pieces, and use for entertaining, exactly for the common man, the house was a place where the roof kept his bed and belongings dry, and the floor was made of earth, and one room was a pig pen, and another was for weaving. My feeling is that people should act in any(prenominal) way is most wish wellly to make them beaming.Coercion tends to prevent happiness, and free peopledom tends to elevate it. I do not think that a womans place should be forced on her, I think that women should be free. I also think that if they were truly free to pick the path that would for them lead to the sterling(prenominal) contentment, that many more of them would end up not going forth to work. The housing situation in modern Britain strikes me as inconvenient for the procreation of happiness. Whereas once a man could with a simple job obligate himself-importance and his wife and family in a home, today most couples find that ii of them have to work full time to afford a aright house.How groundwork this be a broad(a) thing? Do women go out to work at the check-out counter of a supermarket because they love it? No, I suggest that they do this because they think that they need the money. Would it not be go against that they did not have to do this? If they were free, would they not prefer something else? House prices rise and fall dramatically. In recent times in Britain, they have go up very sharply. They have been subject to a inflationary force crotchety to themselves.In a given atomic number 18a, there argon only so many houses. If everyone buys a house there for ?10,000, and each home is paid for by one persons wages, then perhaps thissituation could remain stable, or righteous follow the general pattern for inflation. But if later a couple, both of whom are working, buys one house for ?12,000, then the next person in the area selling his house testament know that it is possible to numerat e ?12,000 for it, and so will instruct his estate agent to dismount this beat for him. Soon, all the houses become worth ?12,000, and the cycle repeats, with the prices going ever upwards until after a while the only way to afford a house there is to fall in for it with the wages of two jobs, and all the women have to work. Are the people of that area now richer? Are they happier?Some of them might be, but for most the situation is that they do not have often or any more spending money, but instead money tied up in the same homes as before that today cost more, and now the women are all working, which makes everything difficult. Very few of the women will work at home, so the house will be quash most of the time. The thing itself that all this is for the house take a craps enjoyed less not more. childcare becomes a huge problem.Many women will find themselves chasing their tails, trying to earn more so that they can afford to put up for child carers that they need because they are at work trying to get seemlymoney to pay for childcare. People who argue against a womans place macrocosm in the home are often well-educated people who take great vex in their careers. It should be remembered though that most women are not exceedingly career-oriented, educated and intelligent. Working the till at a supermarket is not a career, it is a job. Whereas an educated woman might get great result from working as a doctor in a hospital, I do doubt that this is why many women choose to scan in tins of baked beans for a living. Half of births are male. This is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.There are areas in Britain where the traditional male jobs have disappeared. Mines and leaf blade works have closed, the army is now very small, and machines have taken over the jobs of many men in what few shipyards and car factories are left. Nevertheless, men still seek these sorts of job. Most new jobs are taken up by women. In many places, this leads to a great amount of male unemployment, and a discontented underclass of unemployed males is not good for a stable and peaceful society. Would it not be relegate to have those men doing something useful that gave them self-respect and purpose? custody have evolved instincts that make them do things for women. They may not always realise that what they do is for women. quite often, they may feel that the reverse is true. Men drive recklessly. This is not good for society. Evolution has favoured men who take risks and show off, however, because in the past these men passed on the most genes. Today, selfish men drive too lush and endanger us all, but the drive in them that makes them do this comes from the fact that women of the distant past were impressed by skill and daring. Today, men get a kick out of being able to support women.They also get a hefty kick in the confidence and self respect if they cannot do this. It is commonly remarked that men do not like to marry women who earn more than they do. Society at large does not respect the kept-man. Given that this stems from deeprooted instinct, it is incredibly unlikely that this will change in the near future. We could try and educate people to respect kept-men, and kept-men to be happy being kept, but this would be going against the grain of human nature. sure complete it is much better to go with the grain of human nature.This way, rather than having a people that can tolerate the situation, you will have a people that will be happy. This may strike you as a slopped opinion, and an entirely subjective conclusion, but I must point out that there is a fundamental difference between the two states of being. In one, you have people who know that they ought to believe a certain thing because they have been told to, and who perhaps (though probably imperfectly) go along with this. With the other, you have a population that gets an endorphin rush from what it does.In our ancestral past, people did not have to hire in forms. They did have to copulate in order to pass on genes. Consequently, we did not evolve to get a natural mental last from form-filling, but we did evolve to get something of a pleasant sensation from copulation. Today, we have to fill in forms, but no amount of education can make formfilling fun, because our brains simply do not have a tool for releasing pleasure chemicals for form-filling. Our brains do, however, have very strongly hard-wired mechanism for honor sex.By the same logic you cannot educate men to be happy about(predicate) being kept or women to be happy working in an office while a stranger looks after her kids. You can, of course, find exceptions. Somewhere, there is a happy kept-man, and a woman for whom photocopying forms is a continuous stemma of joy. I am writing about the great mass of people. whizz thing about the saying a womans place is in the home is that people find it belittling. To them it suggests that women are lesser things, not cleve r enough to do anything more than dust and cook. There is goose egg in the statement that says this.If another saying were a mans place is in the army, or a mans place is in the factory, would people similarly think this an insult to the intelligence of men? I think not. There is nothing innate to the saying a womans place is in the home that means that women are stupid. That association comes from the history of ideas from old arguments that have been used to suggest that women are inferior. Let us forget them. An awful lot of work has been done on human intelligence, and one consistent result is that the amount man and average woman are of equal overall intelligence.Success these long time is rated in male terms, it seems. To become high rank in an giving medication is high status and good, and to be applauded. To earn lots of money is noble too. To be high-profile, assertive, and otherwise masculine receives praise and to be domestic and content is seen to be contrary to th is. It is a great shame that women seem to see success in the same terms. To be self-respecting, they now are made to feel that they have to succeed as men. That they usually find that they are not as good as men at being male they often put down to prejudice and unfairness in society.If the only way they can succeed is at being male, and they are competing against men, then they will always lose. Similarly, men competing in a effeminate world will always lose. Indeed, society is biased that way too, as any man who has tried to get custody of his children after a divorce will tell you. If women will always lose, then they are likely to end up discontent. Surely it would be better to go with the grain of human nature, and offer them a feminine form of success. We live in a money-driven frugality. To eat, most people have to buy pabulum from shops. Mothers need money to raise children.For the typical woman, there are two ways of getting it from a man, or by earning it herself. Clea rly the better of the two is from a man. You may be shocked to read this, but I really do mean it. If a woman can delegate the task of getting money to someone else, and by this method end up with the money she needs, then this is surely easier and better for her than having to annihilate the simultaneous tasks of bringing up children and working. People may admire working mothers, and say, how ever do you manage it? but I do not believe that these women chose their way of animateness for its ease and convenience.So, it is better for the mother and her children to get the money from a man. Men might prefer to spend all their money on themselves, but this does not mean that it is better that they do. Men do get a reward in self-esteem from supporting their own children, and surely it is good for a society that they do. It seems that it is better for women, for children, for men, and for society that women get financial support from men. This is all very well, but unfortunately, life is enormously more complicated than this may suggest. Marriages break down very often.One major reason that divorce is on the increase, is that women are more financially independent, and can afford to divorce. In a modern rich world, their children will not starve. After divorce, the typical woman is considerably poorer, and the typical man richer, but still women divorce their husbands. A society that forces women to stay in marriages they hate would be sub-optimal, but so too surely is a society in which marriage is close to meaningless. It could be that we have fall into a post-industrial trap. The invention of farming was a bit like a trap.Before farming, people did not own land, and wandered around hunting and gathering. The population was low and scattered and free. Once farming started, people had to stay put to farm their land, and to guard it from pests and thieves. They had to regard the land they farmed as their own. Farming increases the number of people who can li ve in a given area of land, and after not many generations, it was impossible to go back to hunting and gathering, because the population was then too large to support that way, and the rest of the land was beingfarmed by people who didnt take kindly to poachers. The result was that people who were once free were now trapped in the backbreaking world of farming. Perhaps our economy will make it impossible for houses to be affordable for typical genius wage earners. If enough people stay together for long enough to pay enough joint mortgages, then house prices can stay inflated. Governments could not simply intervene and lower the price of housing. Attempts to force people to sell things for less than they could get for them always fail one way or another.Something is only ever worth what someone else is prepared to pay for it. It could be that men have ended up in a world where male virtues are criticised in all but the sure-fire few, and in which their male instincts cause them t o pursue lives that will bring them slight pleasure. Meanwhile women cannot feel respected without independence, but cannot get enough money without dependence on a man who might be bygone tomorrow, and so still they have to go out and get jobs.