To try and illustrate the point jsroberts is making, let me ask you these questions.
Most cultures use a base 10 number system (there are probably some exceptions). We agree on the fact that any culture could come up with arbitrary numeric systems, e.g., base 43. Would you say that the traditional choice of a number system is purely cultural / coincidental?
Most languages have a recursive grammar. There may be some exceptions (e.g., the language of the piraha or whatever they’re called). Would say that recursion in language is purely cultural / coincidental?
Most cultures organize in family units according to kinship relations. There have been some exception (e.g., to some extent a Kibbutz). Would you say the fact that we organize in this way is purely cultural / coincidental?
Most sufficiently large cultures develop some basic form market economy. Would you say that the this is purely cultural / coincidental?
In most cultures, women tend to take on a stronger role in childcare and warriors tend to be men. Do you think this is purely cultural / coincidental? Clearly one can imagine a culture where positions are reversed.
I’m sure you understand that I’m not making value judgements here.
I can imagine a culture in which women have traditionally been warriors, and in which men have taken over all childcare obligations. I can imagine a city-dwelling culture where distribution of goods is based purely on making gifts. I can imagine a culture that uses language only for poetry, and exchanges factual information by hand gestures. I can imagine a culture in which every single person on the planet gets up at precisely 6am and dances the macarena.
Just because you can tell a story doesn’t mean what you’re saying is very likely. Just because there is a possible world in which a state of affairs exists doesn’t mean that our current situation is an accident of history. I don’t consider an accident that we’re not daily macarena dancers, and I don’t think this fact is the result of some active agent or conscious force that MADE things the way they are. The desire to find an active, conscious force behind major human developments is natural but - on its own - simplistic and misguided.
Just I feel I can explain the status quo and how it came about as a more likely alternative to other systems, doesn’t mean I am justifying it. I understand that we have a base 10 system because we have ten fingers. This doesn’t mean I’m justifying it, far from it, I think base 2 is much better for many purposes. Again, I’m with you in your political beliefs. I just think the justifications for your beliefs are confused.
So we agree that women’s situation in today’s workplace is not justified. Do you think there is an explanation though, or do you think it is a complete accident of history that things turned roughly the way they did? If the latter, how certain are you and how do you justify this belief? How do you explain that many cultures independently developed towards patriarchal structures? Do you think it is purely based on “unjust” factors, such as male aggression and physical superiority used as an instrument against women? If so, where does this belief come from?
I understand that explanations can sometimes be too convenient and provide tempting justifications for horrible things. I understand that we can’t look at the world except through our own filters and biases. I understand that there is historically a pro-male bias. I don’t think that - as a consequence - we are better off avoiding rational analysis and judgements of cost and likelihood altogether. What’s the alternative? Wild guessing? Story telling?
