1. How does Sumner differentiate between the "natural' roles of men and women in society? According to Sumner, the natural role of men is to labor to achieve what is necessary from nature. Whether it be “…food, clothing, shelter, fuel…” (Foner 32), it was a man’s natural role to fight for and obtain it. Men had to bring a proper amount of energy to obtain what he needed, and if he brought more energy, he would naturally obtain more. Women (and children), on the other hand, were at a “disadvantage” when it came to dealing with nature. According to Sumner, women and children’s only real role was to depend on the head of the family—a man. Essentially, a woman’s only role was to marry and reproduce with her husband, who would be considered the
…show more content…
As a Social Darwinist, Sumner believed in the “survival of the fittest”, and therefore felt that poverty and social inequality were similar to natural selection, i.e. those who weren’t succeeding would be weeded out of society by “nature”. Sumner stated “…liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest; not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest.” (Foner 35), meaning that there had to be the existence of poverty and social inequality in order to obtain liberty and survive as a society—there had to be that natural selection. If there was total equality, we were essentially dooming our society, by protecting those who were “un-worthy” or “unfit”. In Sumner’s eyes, poverty and social inequality was nature’s way of determining who was entitled to …show more content…
I feel that, although some of the things he said are relevant, many of his points are asinine. For example, I don’t feel that women are at a disadvantage or that poverty must exist in order for society to move forward. Who is he to say that people who struggle are the worst members of our society? His attitude and ideology makes it obvious that he was rather well-off and/or privileged, and had no idea what it is like to have to struggle to make ends meet. I feel that people who started from the bottom and worked their way to the top would not have thought this way, showing that Sumner had no experience being the “unfit” he
As a Social Darwinist, Sumner believed in the “survival of the fittest”, and therefore felt that poverty and social inequality were similar to natural selection, i.e. those who weren’t succeeding would be weeded out of society by “nature”. Sumner stated “…liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest; not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest.” (Foner 35), meaning that there had to be the existence of poverty and social inequality in order to obtain liberty and survive as a society—there had to be that natural selection. If there was total equality, we were essentially dooming our society, by protecting those who were “un-worthy” or “unfit”. In Sumner’s eyes, poverty and social inequality was nature’s way of determining who was entitled to …show more content…
I feel that, although some of the things he said are relevant, many of his points are asinine. For example, I don’t feel that women are at a disadvantage or that poverty must exist in order for society to move forward. Who is he to say that people who struggle are the worst members of our society? His attitude and ideology makes it obvious that he was rather well-off and/or privileged, and had no idea what it is like to have to struggle to make ends meet. I feel that people who started from the bottom and worked their way to the top would not have thought this way, showing that Sumner had no experience being the “unfit” he