A Brief Reading of 'The Theory of Cost' Part Four: 'Gender Equality'

This article is the fourth in a series of brief readings of 'The Theory of Cost'. Initially, I intended to write it all in one article, but I found the author's language to be very concise. Omitting too much would harm the essence, while omitting too little would make it overly lengthy, so I decided to split it into multiple articles. The author of 'The Theory of Cost' is Professor Zheng Yefu, and the book was first published in 1997. It truly feels like a case of meeting too late. Douban Book Link

To discuss 'gender equality', we must first address 'gender inequality'. Throughout the history of human civilization, regardless of region, ethnicity, or culture, gender inequality has been the norm. Understanding the reasons behind gender inequality will help us in our subsequent discussion of gender equality.

In primitive times, conflicts between tribes needed to be resolved through force, meaning that those with superior strength could gain an advantage over outsiders. Those who were strong against outsiders often found it difficult to not be strong within their own tribe. Since those with superior strength were often men, gender inequality arose. It has existed for such a long time that even today, many countries in the world struggle to eliminate its shadow.

Knowing that the cause of this inequality is strength, we can also understand why it has persisted for so long. For most of human history, labor and work required significant physical strength. Even after the Industrial Revolution, operating machinery was still a physically demanding job. It was only in modern times, with the increasing number of jobs that do not require physical strength, that the status of women began to gradually improve.

Next, I will discuss a few misconceptions about 'gender equality'.

Our country once implemented 'equal pay for equal work' to eliminate gender inequality, which is a very misguided policy. For certain positions, there is indeed no difference between men and women, but there is a difference in strength. Moreover, due to our traditional culture's long-standing preference for males, statistically, men often receive more resources and have higher educational attainment than women. The consumer market has not yet aligned with developed countries, yet there has been excessive effort to 'eliminate gender inequality' by enforcing 'equal pay for equal work', leading the strong to believe they are not strong and the weak to believe they are not weak. This undermines the stability within families.

Another erroneous view of 'gender equality' is the belief that 'women's work should be exactly the same as men's', such as encouraging women to become female miners, female construction workers, or female laborers. There are physiological differences between men and women; gender equality does not mean that women should be exactly like men, engaging in the same types of work, but rather that women's choices should be respected. The physiological differences between genders also manifest in menstruation and maternity leave, leading many employers to choose not to hire female employees for these reasons. Accusing these employers of 'discriminating against women' is not objective; they are simply making decisions based on economic interests, rather than 'not hiring you because you are a woman'. As human civilization progresses, there are increasingly more jobs that rely purely on knowledge. The more a job relies on knowledge, the smaller the differences between genders. With the development of communication technology, the possibility of remote work is also increasing. This means that women can work from home during their maternity period, and housewives can utilize their time to work from home. The new era of women, along with a correct understanding of gender equality, will bring new possibilities to the social production model of humanity.

The historical preference for males has existed for such a long time that it has become a deeply rooted tradition that is difficult to eradicate. From the perspective of cost, its positive significance lies in providing a fixed model based on strength, maintaining the stability of families and communities. Its negative significance, however, is that it deprives outstanding women of the opportunity to showcase their talents in society.