mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (08/30/85)
<DANGER..DANGER..I detect a line-eater..DANGER..DANGER>
Someone asked about what a non-sexist society would look like. I thought I
would pitch in with a few thoughts.
1) No-one would snarl at Sunny for being "different".
(Sound of grinding axes)
2) Women would be paid a dollar per dollar. (Up from about $.59)
3) Advertisements would be a lot more tolerable. (i.e.-not based on the
"buy this _____ and you'll get laid" or "see the woman, see the _____,
associate woman with _____" philosophies.)
4) Women have equal opportunity to progress to positions of importance in
society. (Female Presidents, Senators, Bankers, Stockbrokers, etc.)
5) Girls are not pressured to seem "less smart" than boys in grade school.
6) In any endeavor, just about half of the people involved are female.
And no-one thinks much about it. It's just "the way things are."
7) Victims of violent crimes are split evenly between male and female.
So men are raped as often as women.
etc.
Note that a non-sexist society can still be pretty terrible. There is
a more rigorous model, the "humanist" society. This involves the elimination
of force, domination, and violence from society. A few points are:
1) Wars are rare, are conducted only against violent aggressors, and are
considered a regrettable prelude to friendly relations with much less
enlightened societies.
2) Crime, domestic violence, corruption, and class-distinction/class-
exclusion are unheard of.
3) Domination of one group by another group is impossible.
4) The concept of "ownership" is radically different from that at present.
5) National boundaries play a much less drastic role than at present.
6) The systems and structures of governments and economies are starkly
different from most such organizations at present.
etc.
I have seen no assurance that the first will necessarily lead to the second.
While the first, a non-sexist society, would be a marked improvement, the
second would be a lot better. Needless to say, a humanist society is non-
sexist, but the converse may not be true.
A dim view of a humanist society was given in the book "Ecotopia", but I have
some reservations about that particular model. Also, as portrayed, the
Ecotopian society seemed somewhat sexist, because the author was. I've heard
that a better view exists in another book, but I haven't read it.
A feminist society is not necessarily non-sexist or humanist, although
those suggested have usually been both, for other reasons. It is a
society run by women and/or structured around womens' views. I see this
as no threat to men, since most of the women seriously thinking about true
feminist societies are either very moral and considerate, or outright
secessionists who would exclude, not oppress, men. It is possible for
a feminist society to be as bad as the current masculist society in an
ethical sense, but such a society would be less likely to develop, and
less physically destructive when it developed, or so I believe.
A secessionist society is a society of only women, which raises the
interesting question of how it would relate to a paired all male
society for procreation. My interest in such a (gyno-whatever) society
is purely academic, because it's not likely I'd find myself in one.
It would obviously be feminist, but also not non-sexist, since it's
basis for inclusion in the society is sexist. But since the members
of the society are all of one sex, this may not be a realistic argument.
It may be humanist, but it is possible to construct one that isn't.
Just another attempt to dominate the net...
--fini--
Eric McColm
UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless
UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm
ARPA: mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
Quotes on the Nature of Existence:
"To be, or not to be..." -Hamlet (Wm. Shakespeare)
"I think, therefore I am." -R. Descartes
"<Gleep!>" -Gleep (Robt. Asprin)mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (09/09/85)
In article <2680@randvax.UUCP> edhall@rand-unix.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes: > Eric McColm has given his description of a ``humanist'' society. > As a humanist, I'd like to state for the record that this is his > own concept of a humanistic society and not necessarily anyone > elses. In fact, there are humanists that would blanch at some > of the totalitarian implications of: > > >3) Domination of one group by another group is impossible. > > > >4) The concept of "ownership" is radically different from that at present. > > > >6) The systems and structures of governments and economies are starkly > > different from most such organizations at present. Yes, Ed, this is my own pet definition of a "humanist" society. Someone already mentioned that I should have used a different name to avoid the collision. So call it "sentiist" if it makes any difference. BUT, the three points mentioned are an integral part of the societal view. And, I should point out, not because of any institution that prevents domination or possessiveness. My implied thought included the idea that the society has these traits because the *people* in the society wanted them. They evolved, instead of being inflicted. Follow it thusly: our society is a far cry from even being non-sexist. By the time enough social change had occurred to bring about a non-sexist society with the remaining points of "sentiism" (i.e., all those in the original list, except for these three) popular consensus would swing to the belief that our current economic and political structures were unfair, and that there was room for improvement. And the systems would *slowly* adapt to the will of their customers. In the end, the current structures for decision-making and the mobilization of resources would have to conform to the newly-developed but socially home-grown ethics of the people of the time. It would be painfully slow, but that is historically safer. The three points would be true, not because some agency decided to enforce them, but because the general public sees them as desirable. I make no claim about how our society can attain the state in question. DISCLAIMER: I claim not to be humanist, sentiist, feminist, masculist, animalist, vegetist, fungist, or Enlightened by the Goddess. I am who I am, and if I have to wear a label, I'd rather that it was my name. And there is no way in Cleveland this college agrees with me. --fini-- Eric McColm UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm ARPA: mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Quotes on the Nature of Existence: "To be, or not to be..." -Hamlet (Wm. Shakespeare) "I think, therefore I am." -R. Descartes "<Gleep!>" -Gleep (Robt. Asprin)