The Universality of Roles and Responsibilities Essay

The Universality of Roles and Responsibilities - Essay ExampleThe study will also seek stick off from the views contradictory to the ones presented by Clark in order to make a comparative examination of the entire scenario under consideration in order to draw out convincing conclusion subsequently. Since the contemporary era has introduced the new stratum of labor in the wake of the growing responsibilities in almost all cultures of the globe, the critics and analysts also witness into unlike matters by assigning extra obligations to both the genders in order to tackle with the challenges modern life offers to man. Stephen Clark, in the light of the anthropological studies, elucidates the concepts of various types of family setups, including patriarchic, matriarchic, neo-local, polygamous, polyandrous and monogamous etc (35-36), which seeks their roots in different traditional and conventional cultures of the world at large. Consequently, some cultural traits submit to male domi nance in political, social, scotch and domesticated personal business, while the same supremacy is attributed to females in some societies of ancient, medieval and modern eras at large. Hence, the division of labor has always been established divergently in various zones and regions of the world (36). Though in some primitive societies, women appear to be responsible for the fulfillment of the economic needs of the entire family, while males were supposed to prolong and look after the young ones (Ember & Ember 2011) nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of human cultures assigned political, economic and social obligations to their male stratum, while females were responsible for all domestic chores including cleansing of house, washing and child rearing etc (Schlafly 2003). As a result, history is replete with the far active and dynamic participation of males in state affairs on the one hand, and their exclusive involvement in the activities related to hunting and gathering, an d trade and commerce in general (Bartky 2003). Similarly, Midgley & Hughes (2003) allude to the nature-nurture debate while elaborating the differences in gender roles, where they regard male-female differences as an outcome of a genetic constitution on the one hand, and due to the socialization process of the individuals on the other (222). Bartky (2003) analyzes the male-female division of labor in the light of Marxist lieu, where male play the role of producer/owner, while females serve as workers and laborers i.e. proletariat, who pay time and services to the products i.e. children and home, which real belong to men (223-24). Hence, they undergo exploitation by receiving just eye-wash against their contributions for home, but the lions share goes to the producer i.e. males, who offer the least share of the hit to the proletariat, leaving them at the state of uncertainty and disappointment subsequently (226). On the one side, Bartky condemns unequal distribution of status betw een the genders and on the other side, Okin (2003) declares the induction of marriage as the source of complete exploitation of women both inside and outside the home as wives and professionals respectively (238-39). Hence, she presents a scenario that presents an entire feminist perspective in it, where the women appear to be the target of humiliation, hatred, domestic violence etc.