It can be true that the aristocrats believe that physical labour is ignoble drudgery, and also true that the commoners believe that toiling in the fields is "real work" that requires you to get your hands dirty, unlike "women's work" that involves sitting at a desk all day. Both of these things can be true simultaneously, but because commoners are far greater in number than the aristocracy, the latter belief will be held by a far greater share of the human populace than the former.
Where to start...
No, this has nothing in common with "traditional society". No, America seen in 1950's sitcoms was not "traditional society".
Toiling in the fields was, in traditional societies, fate of 90+% men and 90+% women (may differ due to urbanization rate). Labor of peasant woman was lighter than one of peasant men, but still hard enough it would crush any modern man, no matter how tough he imagines himself to be.
Sitting at a desk - work of scribe - was extremely prestigious and desirable work, and it was for (elite) men only.
I don't understand your comment. It sounds like we're in agreement on all the facts of the matter but you still act like you're disagreeing with me about something.
What we agree on:
For most of human history, most men earned a living through physical labour
Until very recently, the only men who did not have to earn a living through physical labour were the elites
Elite men have always thought that physical labour was beneath them.
The "great men" of history includes a mix of men who are noteworthy because of physical activities such as warfare, conquest and exploration, and also men who are noteworthy for other reasons
What, exactly, are you arguing with me about? I don't understand your bone of contention at all.
What, exactly, are you arguing with me about? I don't understand your bone of contention at all.
As you phrase it, by singling out men, it might look you imagine that women were not supposed to earn a living by hard labor, that ancient women were sitting on sofas and painting their nails while their husbands and sons toiled.
Let aside "earning a living", very modern term that implies wage labor, something not common to "most men" before modern time.
Okay. Perhaps I should have said something like "historically, most men in most cultures were expected to earn a living or otherwise ensure their own survival through physical labour, much of which was highly demanding and dangerous. By contrast, most women in most cultures were expected to carry out tasks which, while no less time-consuming or exhausting, were notably less physically demanding and dangerous than those which men were expected to carry out."
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Where to start...
No, this has nothing in common with "traditional society". No, America seen in 1950's sitcoms was not "traditional society".
Toiling in the fields was, in traditional societies, fate of 90+% men and 90+% women (may differ due to urbanization rate). Labor of peasant woman was lighter than one of peasant men, but still hard enough it would crush any modern man, no matter how tough he imagines himself to be.
Sitting at a desk - work of scribe - was extremely prestigious and desirable work, and it was for (elite) men only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satire_of_the_Trades
https://web.archive.org/web/20190308063715/http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/instructions_of_kheti.htm
I don't understand your comment. It sounds like we're in agreement on all the facts of the matter but you still act like you're disagreeing with me about something.
What we agree on:
For most of human history, most men earned a living through physical labour
Until very recently, the only men who did not have to earn a living through physical labour were the elites
Elite men have always thought that physical labour was beneath them.
The "great men" of history includes a mix of men who are noteworthy because of physical activities such as warfare, conquest and exploration, and also men who are noteworthy for other reasons
What, exactly, are you arguing with me about? I don't understand your bone of contention at all.
As you phrase it, by singling out men, it might look you imagine that women were not supposed to earn a living by hard labor, that ancient women were sitting on sofas and painting their nails while their husbands and sons toiled.
Let aside "earning a living", very modern term that implies wage labor, something not common to "most men" before modern time.
Okay. Perhaps I should have said something like "historically, most men in most cultures were expected to earn a living or otherwise ensure their own survival through physical labour, much of which was highly demanding and dangerous. By contrast, most women in most cultures were expected to carry out tasks which, while no less time-consuming or exhausting, were notably less physically demanding and dangerous than those which men were expected to carry out."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link