Talk:Division of labour
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Division of labour, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Anthropology.
This project provides a central approach to Anthropology-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
More on Durkheim views on division of labour can be found in his article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] List of divisions
Sorry if I'm doing this wrong, this is my first time posting anything on wikipedia. In this article there used to be a list of estimates for the division of labor in a developed country. I found it very useful and illustrative of the concepts here, but it seems to have been removed. I can't find any mention of its removal anywhere and am wondering why it is gone.
[edit] Article's Neutrality
Durkheim, von Mises, Smith, et al. are not also controvertial, theoretically?
This article is not neutral enuff (surprise). And since I've seen almost completely neutral articles on other touchy subjects, there's no need to assume that neutrality can be achieved: we KNOW it can be.
Just consider this a statement of intent to contest this article's present objectivity.
Pazouzou 07:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Congratulations
I created the stub for this article in late 2001. It was one of my first Wikipedia articles. I haven't looked at it since -- until today. I am very impressed at the content everyone has added to it since my initial paragraph. Please give yourselves a collective pat on the back! -- Cheers, Derek Ross | Talk 05:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Durkheim's views
Someone posted the following against Durkheim's section
- SURELY THE 1600s DATE IS INCORRECT - IT IS GENERALLY AGREED THAT THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION TOOK PLACE IN THE LATE 18TH - 19TH CENTURIES ?
It is a valid point, but does not belong in the body of the article. Obviously the Industrial Revolution is dated 1760 or possibly 1700 but never 1600. But since I don't know what Durkheim actually said I don't want to change it.
--GwydionM 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Oh no! The liberals have gotten to this article also!
- "Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation", even there there are far more American than British users. Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[3]. Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words." [1]
You just can't make this stuff up. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The fact that most users of the English language version of Wikipedia are Americans is an accident of the availability of technology, and of GDP. It is not at its heart an intellectually or culturally American resource, if either notion makes any sense at all.
I'd also like to introduce the following list (proudly cut and pasted from Wikipedia's article on the English language) of countries in which English is spoken natively by a majority. I do this by way of illustration of the fact that most native speakers of English are not American.
English as exclusive official language: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei, Dominica, Gambia, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Liberia, The Bahamas, United Kingdom (de facto), Australia (de facto), USA (de facto)
As non-exclusive: Cameroon, Canada, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Kenya, Kiribati, Kosovo, Lesotho, Malta, New Zealand (de facto), Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Zimbabwe.
Does this list appear to be North-Americo-centric? How absurd: if it seems to centre anywhere, then it is surely Africa in terms of population and proportion of nation states in which English is spoken as lingua franca. This is an accident of history and of the influence of The British Empire that should be acknowledged rather than solipsistically brushed aside.
P.s Conservapedia is a shockingly misconceived and ill-founded resource, and also seems to attract non-sequitur and embarrassment to cite fact like no other document I have ever come across.
Kingshalmaneser 12:09, 07 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Not to mention that a British academic first termed the Divison of Labour. Arawn 03:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This is CLEAR? I'd hate to see unclear!
In the section titled Sexual division of labour it says:
The clearest exposition of the principles of sexual division of labour across the full range of human societies can be summarised by a large number of logically complementary implicational constraints of the following form: if women of childbearing ages in a given community tend to do X (e.g., preparing soil for planting) they will also do Y (e.g., the planting) while for men the logical reversal in this example would be that if men plant they will prepare the soil. The 'Cross Cultural Analysis of the Sexual Division of Labor ' by White, Brudner and Burton (1977, public domain), using statistical entailment analysis, shows that tasks more frequently chosen by women in these order relations are those more convenient in relation to childrearing. This type of finding has been replicated in a variety of studies, including modern industrial economies. These entailments do not restrict how much work for any given task could be done by men (e.g., in cooking) or by women (e.g., in clearing forests) but are only least-effort or role-consistent tendencies. To the extent that women clear forests for agriculture, for example, they tend to do the entire agricultural sequence of tasks on those clearings. In theory, these types of constraints could be removed by provisions of child care, but ethnographic examples are lacking.
Is there some reason the guy couldn't say:
There are many examples across several cultures of women's jobs being dictated or at least influenced by a need to raise and care for dhildren, but that men don't seem to have the same restrictions. If for example women are expected to prepare the soil for planting, they often are also expected to actually plant, but if men are usually expected to plant, then they also tend to prepare for planting (at least this is my best guess on what the guy is trying to say) White Brudner and Burton (look up if you want the whole reference) compiled statistics that they believe support the idea that the clusters of types of jobs chosen by, or perhaps for, women are in some way related by the almost universally female task of child raising. This might change if men provided child care, but we couldn't find anyone actually doing that.
Did I leave something out? did I get it wrong? Would it make more sense if I used 30 percent more words? sheesh. Oh and could the guy have chosen a less coherent example? If women prepare they also plant but with men its if they plant they also prepare? While I understand he's trying to give examples of 'logically complimentary implicational constraints' (or 'related limits' if you don't have a dictionary handy) but why not give an example where the sets of related limits are actually different for women than for men, especially since that seems to be the point of what he's (not) explaining
How in fact does this whole section say anything other than:
'Women do different jobs than men because they have babies'
oh and
'some guys got money from the government to prove it too'
???
Dburson 18:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
