Voluntary Simplicty for Sexual Social Justice

by Ann Frkovich


		"The clvilised man is a more wiser and experienced savage."
    "Clothes introduced sewing, a kind of work which you may call endless; a woman's dress is never done." ÑHenry David Thoreau

		Sexism is a leading factor in the growth of Western industrialized societies. Traditional male dominated families can be considered an institution which generates an environment that promotes industry and capital. In order to adopt a lifestyle of voluntary simplicity and self-reliance, moving away from success as defined by material wealth, we must eliminate the inherently oppressive economic dependency of industry and embrace an equal division of domestic labor among the sexes. As voluntary simplicity is a form of life chosen by people for a variety of reasons, it may be said that a lifestyle of simplicity in protest of the ramifications of industry may be achieved by rejecting social sexual stereo types and seeking a lifestyle of simplicity for social justice between the sexes. Division of labor has its roots in a period of history where "the creativeness of bearing chiltren out weighted in splendor every act that men performed" (Mead 381). In this division of labor, society assumed that bearing children was enough for women, just as society assumed that men need not have an equal part in child raising. These social stereotypes, at the time, made it possible for civilizations to become complex and industrialized. However, such stereotypes are outdated in today's overwhelmingly technological and industrial world. Humans are "the only animal species in which the female depends on the male for food, the only animal species in which the sex relation is also an economic one" (Gilman 5). This economic dependency on men has created the myth of the golden rule: "He who has the gold, makes the rules" (Leghorn 9). In most societies, men's activities are considered of a greater importance because they produce something of economic value, whereas women's activities produce nothing and deserve very little financial reward. With so much less money than men, "women have less power, and often find themselves economically dependent on men and their economic systems" (Leghorn 9). And also that, "The supremacy of the man in marriage, is the simple consequenc of his economic supremacy" (Engels 73).
     The specialization of labor in society occurs in varying degrees. Generally. those with more income and status (men) do the more highly specialized work. The work that is least specialized, no matter how tetious and continual, carries the least economic value. It is women that are generally looked to for such labor, and therefore society places women in the lowest class. Advertisements and television reflects societal ideas of women as housewives and insatiable consumers. The traditional work of the woman permits the man to do his more specialized work, thus creating a mutual dependency on both sides that enables one to take care of the work necessary for survival, and the other to provide the tools for that survival. Because women are identified with the least specialized, low-status work, they do not have the power within their families and communities that men have. "They are denied access to other work, paid less, given less property, and permitted little or no control over the resources of their families and society" (Leghorn 14). Women's positions in the family are used to prevent them from having an equal role in society. Those same persons who do the work to rear and sustain life are denied any power or prestige.
     There is a natural argument against an equal division of labor in that women are capable of a greater domestic efficiency. However, we may logically assume that the domestic incompetence of some men is clearly a result of insufficient experience. The belief in female domesticality is naturally reduced to motherhood. However, maternal instincts are not cause for women to be expected to stay in the home because of her "natural" responsibility to children. It is rudiculous to assume that "the mother-child relationship is a natural unit" (Oakley 160). Indeed, it is just as rudiculous to assume that fathers cannot be as close to their children as mothers are seen to be. A mother-child relationship is only more special in the sense that a mother and her unborn child shares a life-sustaining, physical relationship.
     Obviously, women's low-cost production is crucial to patriarchal economies. Cultures go to great lengths to ensure that women see domestic work as an expression of their love for their families. Sadly, women are forced to see men as crucial to their emotional, sexual and material livelihood and therefore their work in the home is mystified as love. Women have gone back to "work" in great numbers in today's economy. Often when these women were young they compromised their independence or educational goals to seek the securiy of marriage and mother hood.
     Women's exploitation is an intregal part of social, economic, political and religious life. Male domination in the home results in the division of work and labor which is a model for male/female power in the rest of society. In considering a reversal of power in society, Leghorn suggests that, "Economies grounded in values which would not allow women's exploitation to continue in any form are difficult to envision because there are no contemporary examples of such 'matriarchal' economies. . . A society without sexual, racial or class divisions, based on equal division of domestic labor, childcare and an integration of intelligence is unimaginable because there are no existing role models" (20). For a society aimed at cultural liberation, there are no sufficient reasons for men and women not to completely share domestic tasks. Examining both the traditional and contemporary male female roles, Elgin offers: "High earnings and high consumption have been used as evidence of masculine competence, potency, and social status. With changes in male-female roles, other criteria of sucess can begin to emergeÑcriteria that are more balanced across both masculine and feminine qualities" (97).
     The equal division of labor between the sexes can be completely conducive to a more simplistic lifestyle in that the emphasis of the marriage would not be on creating an environment of material success, but on creating an environment of mutual responsibility, thus emphasizing the importance of the family for both men and women. An equality between the sexes can allow for both males and females to seek out alternative and just ways of living and working together. Equality among the sexes has relavence far beyond women's liberation, it "is an example of cultural liberation that applies to many other limiting stereotypes of traditional western industrialized societies" (Elgin 97). Elgin also suggests that, "If we are to become whole persons in a cohesive culture, we must consciously integrate more feminine qualities into our lives. For many, a path of conscious simplicity involves the integration and balance of both masculine and feminine qualities into a coherent approach to living" (98). Consciously simplifying one's life can be done from a standpoint where men and women work together to put an end to their own self-generated stereotypes, and towards creating a lifestyle that seeks sexual social justice.

                     Works Cited 

Elgin, Duane. I. New York: Morrow, 1993. 
Engels, Frederick. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. New York 				
		International Publishers, 1942. 
Gilman, Charlotte. Women and Economics. New York. Harper, 1966.
Leghorn, Lisa. Womans Worth, Sexual Economics and the World of Women. Boston:
		Routledge, 1981. 
Mead, Margaret. Male and Female. New York: Morrow, 1949.
Oakley, Ann. The Sociology of Housework. New York: Pantheon, 1974.
Thoreau, Henry David. "Walden, or Life in the Woods." in Norton Anthology of American 
		Literature. New York: Norton, 1989.