According to Wikipedia, 'Complementarianism' is a theological view that "men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, and religious leadership."
I am currently writing a research paper critiquing compartmentalization and a related doctrine called essentialism.
I recall 20+ years ago as an undergraduate having a series of private conversations with a feminist philosophy professor who was generous enough to indulge my 18 year old ignorance and exuberance.
I peppered her with questions about feminism, starting with the stereotypes and gradually moving into more advanced topics. At some point I put forward an argument that I now think of as a philosophical/biological/natural version of complementarianism: Women have less muscle mass, more fragile bones, and get pregnant. Consider a per-industrial society where women need to produce children for the society to survive. A woman will be pregnant a lot. Pregnancy puts extreme stress on a woman's body. What are the odds she can hunt or fight predators while pregnant or while nursing? A division of labor was splitting up tasks that had to be done for the survival of the family and its members. It was natural for women to do the less physically dangerous/taxing jobs given the burden being pregnant places on them, and the logistical demands of nursing. Overtime this division became codified into a custom. Customs do not handle exceptions to the rule well but this is a result of human psychology, the force of social customs, and the realities of biology and a woman's role in reproduction. Thus it is not sexist per say.
The argument was sophomoric, but I was a freshman in college. And I do not wish to suggest that I think the argument is particularly good or convincing (I can think of a powerful counter-argument). But in my current research I'm trying to find someone putting forward a similar argument since I highly doubt my ignorant exuberant 18 yr old self came up with a novel argument: someone has had this idea before and published it. But I'm having trouble finding article or books on this head. The professor has since moved on so I can't reach out to her, and after 20+ years I cannot recall what her answer was, or what readings she recommended.
Searches in Jstor, Google, and a few other databases for "philosophical complementarianism" or "biological complementarianism" have turned up nil. "Natural Complementarianism" has returned some theological hits, but I'm looking for a purely natural version. Anyone know a philosopher who has put forwards such an argument or what category/label is appropriate for such an argument?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
