as equal pay for equal work or the legal and politicalnemancipation of women. But the underlying assumption ofnall the feminist legislation of this century — women’s suffrage;nliberalized divorce laws; equal, comparable, andnaffirmative worth; etc. — has been the essential interchangeabilitynof the sexes. We do not, after all, insist on treatingndogs and cats the same or on using a screwdriver in place ofna hammer. Why should woman equal man or man woman?nWhat a terrible analogy, you will say. Men and, womennare members of the same species. But so are babies andnteenagers and your eighty-five-year-old grandfather, and youndon’t expect them to do the work of a forty-year-old fathernof three. Nothing in the experience of our human racenwould indicate that males and females were equipped bynnature to perform the same tasks — so differently distributednare our strengths and weaknesses. History and physiologynteach the same cynical lesson: men are built to inflict pain,nwomen to endure it.nFeminists are fond of repeating the cliche that womennhave always worked and always will. If work is defined asnproductive labor, then, of course, women have alwaysnworked by cooking, cleaning, gardening, weaving, sewing —nall the tasks required for running a home and rearingnchildren. In some societies, women even earned income bynworking either at home or outside, but such work was notnsupposed to interfere with the primary responsibilities of anwife and mother. Working-class New England girls of thenlast century took jobs in factories, while farm girls on thenprairie often took a turn as schoolmarm, Such activitiesnhelped their families make ends meet; they also contributedntoward something like a dowry. After marriage, however, itnwas rare for women to continue to work outside the home.nA glance at the range of activities in which women havenengaged reveals that they have not typically gone in for bigngame hunting or heavy physical labor. They have also notnbeen in direct competition with men for high statusnpositions — political, military, religious, economic, or artisticn— within the community. Even in the most egalitariannsocieties (e.g.. Pygmies, Eskimos, the Bushmen of thenKalahari), which no one in his right mind would wish tonemulate, there are clearly defined spheres of man’s work andnwoman’s work, and there is no known society — includingnthe United States of 1989 — in which men do not hold anmonopoly on power and prestige.nThere are examples of simple societies in which mothersnclub together with older women and younger sisters whoncollectively share some of the childrearing responsibilities.nThese arrangements allow the women, including mothers,nto engage in more sustained periods of work outside thenhome. But even in these cases, the mothers are never verynfar away from their children, who are — in any event—innthe care of family and friends. Blood will tell.nThe central facts of human life are biological. The neednto reproduce enjoins peculiarities upon every species,nand man shares with his primate relatives the need fornprolonged child care. Human babies are bom even lessnmature than chimpanzees and take even longer to gonthrough all the stages of development. The hardest part ofngrowing up is not physical, but emotional, intellectual, andnsocial. A fully mature man or woman is the noblest work ofnart produced on earth, and women — who take a large partnof the credit — must also bear a disproportionate part of thenburden. Paradoxically, it is because human animals arenbound to the facts of life less than any other creature that thenfemales of the species have had to specialize their socialnfunctions as wives and mothers.nI do not propose to enter into the day-care dispute. Allnthe evidence, and I mean all the evidence, points to a neednfor maternal care both in the early years and the teen years.nBut it should not take a team of sociologists and physiciansnto tell American women what they already know: neglectnyour children or pay somebody to neglect them and you putnyour sons and daughters at risk. Some will turn out all right;nsome won’t, but if they go bad, you will not be able to fallnNothing in the experience of our humannrace would indicate that males and femalesnwere equipped by nature to perform thensame tasks. History and physiology teach thensame cynical lesson: men are built to inflictnpain, women to endure it.nback on the excuse you did your best. Day-care is not evennsecond best. We all know tbat, but it is inconvenient.nThere is no point to getting hysterical; many childrennhave grown up in orphanages or on the streets and turnednout splendidly. It’s only a question of the odds. It’s probablynsafe to drink the water and eat fruit sold on the street innCosta Rica. Still, you never know. What we do know is thatnwe have so heavily invested into the concept of the workingnwoman that it is highly unlikely that we shall see a retreat tonVictorian sex roles in the foreseeable future. It will takensome sort of economic and political crash, and the rise ofnsome terrifying Savonarola who will make a bonfire ofnVolvos, CD players, and self-help books. Fortunately for us,nour Savonarola won’t have to burn any works of art andnliterature, because, for the most part, we don’t produce any,nand those of us who do are already outsiders in thisncivilization.nFriends tell me I am too fond of these apocalyptic visions.nIt’s one thing, they say, to like Walker Percy’s Love in thenRuins, but quite another to see Blade Runner and MadnMax more than once. (Why else did I get a VCR?) Mynalmost ten-year-old daughter, who has been subjected tonsome of the milder after-the-end-of-the-world films, sometimesnasks if the future will really be that terrible. I resist thenimpulse of saying, “I don’t know, but I sure hope so,”nbecause no matter how rotten a civilization becomes — andnours is a great deal more rotten than the civilization thatnsputtered out in the sixth century — it probably beats mostnof the alternatives.nStill, there are signs of rapid dissolution, for those whonhave closed their ears to the siren songs of progress andntechnology and who do not see divorce, suicide, dmg abuse,nand sexual violence through the rose-colored glasses of BennWattenberg. The worst conditions of social dissolution cannbe seen on some Indian reservations or in urban housingnnnOCTOBER 1989/9n