In the past it perhaps became evident or otherwise society evolved such as to not allow women to work(vocationally) physically during particular stages of birthing, primitively (most likely) simply when pregnancy became evident as there was less evidence to suggest capacity to continue physical labor while pregnant…even still thought it would seem reasonable to avoid physical labor(vocational-not-inclusive of birthing itself obviously) for sureness. This alone interestingly could have lead to a reduction in relative muscular strength, specifically in those aspects in relation to typical physical labor such as plowing the field (arms legs, chest area etc…) (Whereas it may have lent to physical strength with regards to birthing)… As a result the maximum amount of time capable for a man to do physical work in a life time would have been on average higher than the maximum incurred in a woman’s life (considering that pregnancy was typical, and only those who did get pregnant would pass on the genetics of being such). As such we have that over time there would have been a reduction in musculature, assuming there was at some point more of a similarity of muscularity between the two, as is in apes… Consider it as a growing sum for the evolution of each beings strength, over generations there would have been less time spent by women doing physical labor and thus less increase in such as to then result in a higher relative physical (arm-leg specifically) strength of men over women. Over time it is ‘reasonable’ that fallacious logic would have lead to such thoughts as that because women shouldn’t work(physically) when pregnant and thus the false deduction that they shouldn’t work physically at all… which then allowed for atrophy to a degree that reduced relative strength even more perhaps to a degree less than what was of our original primordial-human state. As such the same reduction may have happened and seems to be happening in men as a result of increase in technology for which there is less need for physical labor to the degree of the past. The next unfortunate logically fallacious evolution of thought that occurred, probably after that of thinking a woman should not physically work at all, was that because women don’t physically work at all (when mental work became more prevalent) there was continuance of the behavior to think woman couldn’t work by similar association to the idea of work of the mental nature. In other words men (and possibly even to some degree women) thought that because woman haven’t then worked physically they should likewise not then be ones to work at all mentally as well. All this resolves that such logically fallacious thoughts should be dissolved and corrected to then be it understood that woman have the capacity to perform physical vocational-efforts (as I have been referring to by the word ‘work’) in so far as it is not harmful to the yet birthed child, should they take part in such as pregnancy. And then because it is simply, if not morally logical logical, then logical by evidence of efficiency. Further we then have that it is then definitely not reasonable to prohibit women from vocation or any form of study regarding metal efforts as this is also not conducive to efficiency, and typically has no bearing on pregnancy, in so far as we know. But most remarkably ignorant would be such a thought as to over look that it would definitively be best for children to be associated deeply with more intelligent bodies. In the past under the similarly fallacious logic that women should be the ones alone to grow the children in the youth, it would have even under that false assumption been logical to allow women the capacity to be intellectual as it would lend to the intellectual growth of children. But regardless now it is clearly more effective that both parents, for which there is put equal effort into upbringing, should both have the highest degree of intellectualism possible so as to contribute to the growth of the mind as well as all efforts of efficiency regarding the child. As such then leads to an overall increase in the capacity for the survival and likewise included happiness of humanity (happiness being an aspect of mood typically necessary to functional survival efforts.)
As an aside this brings to mind the idea of some that education should be for the wealthy or the upper class, or the control class; when rather it is actually evident that the higher the intelligence of the populace the better shall be the overall functioning. To allow otherwise that the majority or any for that matter are prohibited from education is to force a regression such that will lead into a state of logic (or state of illogic) wherein it is likely that rebellion will occur regardless of reason. As such reduction in reasonable education serves to increase exponentially the likely hood of incapacity of control with regards to means of reason. Where in there then leads to a necessity of increase in control by force, wherein there is an increase in necessity in effort of the higher/control class, wherein there comes to a limit wherein the capacity to support the control structure caps beyond the necessity for the growth of the control structure such as then to lead to failure which would definitively lead to catastrophe. As such it is evident that reasonable education and thus teaching of use of logic is crucial to spread efficiently and equally as such is possible among all distinctions of class, regardless of whether such distinction exists. There is of course the fallacious notice that education system might not be working and then that as a result it is evident that education is not functional or that the ‘lower class’ is not capable of such when in reality education itself is what leads to the evolution of the capacity to increase intelligence throughout generations. Education can of course be misunderstood and then attempted such as to control the particularity of the mind when rather it is necessary that freedom of thought is prevalent in so far as continued control over the populace is not possible without eventually leading to a reliance on that control that then necessitates further need such as to lead to another exponential growth that then leads to a limit wherein capacity to continue evolution of control is unlikely to continue to be capable of sustaining control, as such to lead to another catastrophe.
