london@oddjob.UUCP (David London) (08/20/85)
<> A couple months ago I posted an article asking people to suggest what sorts of qualities they imagined a non-sexist society to have. (I used the phrase "the (philosophical) goals of feminism"). My thinking about this was spawned by some articles posted by me, and responded to by a number of Jeffs, among others, about individualism in today's society. I started thinking about the more subtle changed in society which would occur with the realization of the goals of feminism. I asked about individualism, socialism, and other isms which I now forget. Needless to say (perhaps), there were no replies. Either the article was unclear (although, upon re-reading, it seems pretty obvious to me what I was getting at), or people are not really interested in thinking and intellectual argument/discussion, preferring to rant and rave about silly topics like PMS and TP (be it testosterone poisoning or toilet paper). Nevertheless, undaunted, I'll try again. This time one of Sunny's comments caught my eye - she suggested <paraphrase> : that men are horrible people because (among other things), they will comment about a woman's "fuckability". It is obvious that this sort of thing takes place and it is clear that this sort of behaviour is a reflection of men's attitudes towards women. Furthermore, this is a bad attitude, one which must be changed. However, in our "utopian" non-sexist society, it seems to me that this sort of thing would still take place. There would be differences - 1. It would be completely non-intrusive. 2. It could just as likely be in mixed company as in the company of men or women only. My idea is that part of this is a sort of "sexual play", and that this would remain in a non-sexist society. I.e. there is nothing wrong with treating someone as a sex object as long as that's not the way you treat them at all times. This is part of what I'm getting at in my question. In a non-sexist society, certain behaviour which is considered sexist now (because of the inequality of men and women in society) would *not* be sexist; in fact it would be acceptable. There are other things: I think that, of necessity, a non-sexist society must be a socialist society, at least to some extent - certainly socialized medicine and socialized education are necessary. The reason for this is that equality can only come in a society in which people think of the society first, and the individual second. (I talked about this at great length in some earlier postings). On second thought, I guess that there are two questions that I'm asking: 1. What are the necessary conditions for a non-sexist society to evolve? 2. What would be some of the more subtle changes which would take place in a non-sexist society? David London ..!ihnp4!oddjob!london P.S. Unfortunately, I'm only going to be on the net for another week and a half, after which I'm moving to Vancouver, where I have a position in the physics department of U.B.C. Perhaps some kind soul can supply me access to the net there?
amc@whuts.UUCP (Andy Cohill) (08/20/85)
> A couple months ago I posted an article asking people to suggest what > sorts of qualities they imagined a non-sexist society to have. BORING!!!! Unless the gene-splicers come up with a way of making us androgynous, the idea is flatly impossible. Equal rights for women (and men) is not the same as trying to erase all differences between the sexes. I think that many people are confused about this. I am not. I support equal *rights* whole-heartedly. The idea of a non-sexist society is absurd. The most interesting women I know are those that are not trying to deny their femininity, yet refuse to take any sh*t from men. Someone will probably point out that I find them interesting because they meet my expectations about women--there, I've saved you the trouble of posting it. Best regards, Andy Cohill {allegra|ihnp4}houxm!whuxl!whuts!amc
features@ihuxf.UUCP (aMAZon) (08/21/85)
> > A couple months ago I posted an article asking people to suggest what > > sorts of qualities they imagined a non-sexist society to have. > > BORING!!!! > > Unless the gene-splicers come up with a way of making us > androgynous, the idea is flatly impossible. Equal rights for women > (and men) is not the same as trying to erase all differences between > the sexes. I think that many people are confused about this. I am > not. I support equal *rights* whole-heartedly. The idea of a > non-sexist society is absurd. The most interesting women I know are > those that are not trying to deny their femininity, yet refuse to > take any sh*t from men. > > Someone will probably point out that I find them interesting because > they meet my expectations about women--there, I've saved you the > trouble of posting it. > > Best regards, > Andy Cohill > {allegra|ihnp4}houxm!whuxl!whuts!amc I couldn't fairly edit this, so left it whole. Someone (sorry, forgot who) posted an article recently which asked if net.women == feminism, 101. I would have thought such reiterations would be unnecessary, but the above shows it. Since when has non-sexist been equal to androgynous? In a non-sexist society, people can delight in their own special talents, whatever they be, without having adverse effects on career, personal life, etc., because of some pre-determined gender classification. That does not mean that women cease to be women. It does not mean that women become lesbian. It does not mean that women hate men. What it does mean is that women are given a fair shake in the job market and other areas, and that men are given the same fair shake. Seems to me that we have to be less concerned with yuppiedom and more concerned with getting communications channels cleared out (again). I cannot believe that anyone would think that "non-sexist" means "no sexual differences of any sort allowed". Sometimes the simplest lessons are the hardest to learn. *SIGH* -- aMAZon @ AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL; ihnp4!ihuxf!features
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (08/22/85)
> > A couple months ago I posted an article asking people to suggest what > > sorts of qualities they imagined a non-sexist society to have. > > BORING!!!! > > Unless the gene-splicers come up with a way of making us > androgynous, the idea is flatly impossible. Equal rights for women > (and men) is not the same as trying to erase all differences between > the sexes. I think that many people are confused about this. I am > not. I support equal *rights* whole-heartedly. The idea of a > non-sexist society is absurd. You're extremely confused about one thing. The meaning of the word "sexist". "Sexist" does not mean, "having sexual differences". It means "prejudiced against someone because of their sex". Look it up. Do you still think a non-sexist society would be absurd? or boring? I think it would be wonderful. And fascinating. Jeff Winslow
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (08/22/85)
ifiable FACT,
(though I can't give you a reference other than my shrink, who IS an
expert in the field of trans-gender psychology, Dr. Lin Fraser
(415)922-9240), and that is, that there are NO(none, zero) cases of a
psychologist EVER successfully changing a person's gender identity
(something which forms in the child at the age of 1.5 to 2 years),
though there are THREE cases of successful transsexual surgery each DAY
in the U.S.A.
What this goes to say, is, that humans are so inhumane in their
treatment of other humans that their intolerance of a mismatch between
assigned role and genitals is sufficiently strong that for those of us
who find this conflict, we have to change our bodies to match what
society says our genitals*must* be to match our behavior. And, as I have
pointed out before, the association between behavior and sex is
dependent upon the context of WHICH society we're observing. In other
words, my problems are entirely a result of your intolerance. That's
what you really don't want to hear. That's why you protest me so
much. Because my mere existance makes you see your own ugliness.
Like, gee, folks, I'm really truly sorry I was born with male
genitals. I can't help it, you see, 'cause that's the way mom made
me. And she also made me with genes which make me act more "like a
woman" than"like a man". Sure, mom and dad tried real hard (can you
say,"psychological trauma"?) to make me "act like a man". But you
see, that's just not me. So I guess I'll just have to get my sex
changed in order to get any peace, quiet, tolerance, happiness from
y'all. And this in the most tolerant, benevolent, wonderful,
freedom for all, persuit of happiness,
from sea to polluted sea,
over amber waves of cancerous insecticide polluted grain,
with liberty and due process for all,
country in the world.
Seig Heil
Jawohl, I shall conform.
Care to contribute as many dollars for my surgery
as you do hatred and contempt for my not getting it?
Oh, hey, I KNOW I'm not talking about all us enlightened hackers,
it's only those other people without USENET addresses who discriminate
against people based on their differences in race, religion, or gender.
Sunny
p.s. (as I got in some private mail.... YES, I am bitter)
wouldn't you be if your mere existance was intolerable to society
at large? I'm sorry, but the dozens of supporting letters from
enlightened netters I've received in my /usr/spool/mail/sunny file,
and the dozens of friends I've found via the net just don't make
up for the hassles I get from everyone else... being ignored, or
jeered at, laughed at. It's so much easier to laugh at me, than
it is to seriously look at who I am and why I am. I am how I am
because Goddess saw fit to make me that way (in her image). If I'm
good enough for her, why am I so intolerable to you? Oh, that's
right, your intolerance was molded in her image too, and since
you're in the majority against me, I guess I'd better change to
conform to your ideals, your roles. Goddess must have made a
mistake making me. Or is this just karmic punishment for having
been too much of a dominant male asshole in a past life? Probably.
They say that what you put out comes back threefold unto you.
don't mind me, I'm just living a nightmare...
pretty soon I'll wake up now... won't I?
(yes, I will... and I'll finally be off the net,
out of the computer industry, and persuing
psychic healing as my new profession)
oh, hey, there goes my credibility again...
everyone knows psychic phenomena only
exist in the minds of some people.
--
{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)amc@whuts.UUCP (Andy Cohill) (08/22/85)
> Someone (sorry, forgot who) posted an article recently which > asked if net.women == feminism, 101. I would have thought such > reiterations would be unnecessary, but the above shows it. ^ | (my original posting) > aMAZon @ AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL; ihnp4!ihuxf!features Okay, somebody help me out here; I am confused, to say nothing of being a "macho asshole" (Sunny's description). Question: Do women want to change the world, or what? The women on the net have an opportunity to educate us males a little bit, but you *seem* to be saying that you can't be bothered. Is that correct? As usual, I am sure that I have somehow mis-interpreted what someone else said, and what I am posting be will also be mis-interpreted, and I will will respond with mis-mis-interpretation, with mis-mis-mis-interpretation ad nauseam. The electronic medium, methinks, stinks like a week-old fish. I have tried to post my thoughts clearly and directly, without resorting to name-calling. I never expected that everyone would agree with me, but I did not anticipate some of the vitriol that I have received. It is, somehow, much easier to hurt when the object of our anger is an electronic analogue. Karla, I still disagree absolutely with most of the ideas in your original posting, but I now understand entirely why you said you and many other women have stopped posting to net.women; it is depressing, and destroys your faith in humanity. (Long pause here, mulling over what to say next...) "Love is, I think, an instant's fusing of shadow and substance." James Branch Cabell Best regards, Andy Cohill {allegra|ihnp4}houxm!whuxl!whuts!amc
dkbrink@ihnet.UUCP (d. k. brinkman) (08/22/85)
> > A couple months ago I posted an article asking people to suggest what > > sorts of qualities they imagined a non-sexist society to have. > > BORING!!!! > > Unless the gene-splicers come up with a way of making us > androgynous, the idea is flatly impossible. Equal rights for women > (and men) is not the same as trying to erase all differences between > the sexes. I think that many people are confused about this. I am > not. I support equal *rights* whole-heartedly. The idea of a > non-sexist society is absurd. The most interesting women I know are > those that are not trying to deny their femininity, yet refuse to > take any sh*t from men. > > Best regards, > Andy Cohill > {allegra|ihnp4}houxm!whuxl!whuts!amc The non-sexist society you imagine is non-sexual. Boring, I agree. Webster defines sexism as prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially discrimination against women. The non-sexist society I imagine is sexual, but without prejudice. Diane Brinkman
amc@whuts.UUCP (Andy Cohill) (08/23/85)
> "Sexist" does not mean, "having sexual differences". > > It means "prejudiced against someone because of their sex". Look it up. > > Do you still think a non-sexist society would be absurd? or boring? > I think it would be wonderful. And fascinating. > > Jeff Winslow In spite of being crushed by the weight of the dictionaries thrown at me, I stand by my original posting. I think life would be boring. Or oppressive. I don't think that the feminists really advocate a non-sexist society--I think that they want a non-sexual society. Why do I think this? Could be testosterone poisoning. Could be I'm a macho asshole. Could be some feminists ask for reverse discrimination. Could be some feminists insist that there are no intrinsic differences between men and women. Could be some feminists insist that I am guilty for the sins of my forefathers. Could be I'm tired of being told that I am contemptible *just* because I am male. Fact is, women are doing to men what men have been doing to women for years. And we men don't like it one little bit. 'Course, in my view, that just brings the ladies down in the gutter where they say we men have been all this time. You know, Ross, this is fun! Best regards, Andy Cohill {allegra|ihnp4}houxm!whuxl!whuts!amc
fek@wuphys.UUCP (Frank Kramer) (08/23/85)
This is in response to the person who thinks that a non-sexist society is absdurd due to the fact that men and women are different. This person implies that in a non-sexist society, each androgenous entity would be completely equal to all others in every regard. PLEASE !!!!!! Don not make the same assumptions about equal rights that the Shafleys (sp?) of the world make. The whole idea of equal rights is that each person be considered equal *under the law*. It does not mean that we will become a unisex society. It does not mean that women will have to learn how to use urinals. It does not mean that a man will have to become a house-husband. It means what its says; all people must be treated equally with respect to the law. I am a sexist if I think that one sex should receive preferential treatment simply because one is a member of that sex. I am not necessarily a sexist if I think that the woman sitting next to me in the office would be good to have sex with. But I am a jerk and an asshole if I harrass her to obtain it. That's all, Frank ihnp4!wuphys!fek
norman@lasspvax.UUCP (Norman Ramsey) (08/25/85)
In article <235@whuts.UUCP> amc@whuts.UUCP (Andy Cohill) writes: >> A couple months ago I posted an article asking people to suggest what >> sorts of qualities they imagined a non-sexist society to have. > >BORING!!!! > >Unless the gene-splicers come up with a way of making us >androgynous, the idea is flatly impossible. Equal rights for women >(and men) is not the same as trying to erase all differences between >the sexes. I think that many people are confused about this. I am >not. I support equal *rights* whole-heartedly. The idea of a >non-sexist society is absurd. The most interesting women I know are >those that are not trying to deny their femininity, yet refuse to >take any sh*t from men. > >Someone will probably point out that I find them interesting because >they meet my expectations about women--there, I've saved you the >trouble of posting it. > >Best regards, >Andy Cohill >{allegra|ihnp4}houxm!whuxl!whuts!amc Andy, I think you miss the boat. Sexual equality is not the same as sexual uniformity. Speaking to thoughts on nonsexist societies, I think the reason David's not received any replies is that it takes an awful lot of work to come up with a reasonably self-consistent society different from our own. I haven't any ideas of my own worth mentioning, but I've rerad a number of novels set in nonsexist societies (all science fiction, which is the only genre I know of which lends itself to societies not our own). I'll try to cobble together a short bibliography, if anyone is interested. If you're dying to try something right away I would suggest _Startide_Rising_, by David Brin. -- Norman Ramsey ARPA: norman@lasspvax -- or -- norman%lasspvax@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu UUCP: {ihnp4,allegra,...}!cornell!lasspvax!norman BITNET: (in desperation only) ZSYJARTJ at CORNELLA US Mail: Dept Physics, Clark Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853 Telephone: (607)-256-3944 (work) (607)-272-7750 (home)
features@ihuxf.UUCP (aMAZon) (08/26/85)
> Fact is, women are doing to men what men have been doing to women > for years. And we men don't like it one little bit. 'Course, in my > view, that just brings the ladies down in the gutter where they say > we men have been all this time. > > Andy Cohill > {allegra|ihnp4}houxm!whuxl!whuts!amc Jeezus! I suppose women *like* being harrassed and verbally abused because of one half of a chromosome pair? Give me a break! Now it looks like Andy is asking women to be better than men... you know, taking it (with a smile, of course) and being so sweet and forgiving that they never dish it out in return. Yeah. Sure. -- aMAZon @ AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL; ihnp4!ihuxf!features
chabot@amber.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) (08/28/85)
> Question: > Do women want to change the world, or what? A lot of people want to change the world. > The women on the net have an opportunity to educate us males a > little bit, but you *seem* to be saying that you can't be bothered. > Is that correct? It's not that people can't be bothered--it's just that sometimes it gets tiring for anyone here to have to answer the same questions (from different people) over again. Also, it's not the responsibility of women to educate men or of men to educate women. We can be here to share. A lot of us are self-educated and share-educated in this topic anyway. "You see, I never liked Felix Kennaston." L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (08/28/85)
In article <2675@ihuxf.UUCP> features@ihuxf.UUCP (aMAZon) writes: >Now it looks like Andy is asking women to be better than men... >you know, taking it (with a smile, of course) and being so >sweet and forgiving that they never dish it out in return. >Yeah. Sure. >aMAZon @ AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL; ihnp4!ihuxf!features Doesn't sound that extraordinary -- isn't this what the scriptures teach is expected of Christians? Not that it is likely in reality, but if it is supposed to be the behavior of one large group, why not of another? Remember the old "Love your enemies -- it'll drive them crazy" slogan. Personally, though, I guess I subscribe to the older tradition -- "do it to them first, before they get a chance to do it to you" :-). Will
todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (08/29/85)
> > In spite of being crushed by the weight of the dictionaries thrown > at me, I stand by my original posting. I think life would be boring. > Or oppressive. I don't think that the feminists really advocate a > non-sexist society--I think that they want a non-sexual society. > > Why do I think this? Could be I'm a macho asshole. Sounds as if you feel threatened by the concept. My concept of a non-sexist society (caveat: I'm Male) is one in which every individual could choose a lifestyle and would not be hindered in pursuing that lifestyle on the basis of gender. What is so boring or oppressive or non-sexual about that? ||||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | ~ | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/29/85)
> > A couple months ago I posted an article asking people to suggest what > > sorts of qualities they imagined a non-sexist society to have. > > BORING!!!! > > Unless the gene-splicers come up with a way of making us > androgynous.................... I personally do not think that non-sexist or less-sexist society is necesserily a bad idea. There is a lot of sex separation in America which is not as natural as it seems. Scouting provides an example. I was a scout, but not a boy scout. In my country, scouting is usually coed. My girl classmate was a troop leader. It was a nice example of an enviroment where sex was not taken into account. (On the summer camps we had separate tents.) I do not expect ever to see parental leaves being shared equally, so some pay inequalities are bound to persist. Also, women tend (statistically) to have smaller quantitative skills, so I expect less female programmers than male ones. Truck driving will persist as a male dominated profession. But I think that under pressure, many of rabid inequalities will vanish. I do not think that it requires gene-splitting to achieve result like: equal percentage of woman between workers and formen (forpersons?), now we can read about factories with 90% female workers and 90% male administration; proportional share of female doctors (the same qualities which make women good nurses should make them good doctors) etc. Unlike the author of the original posting, I do not think the way shall be socialist (unless Canada is socialist, then yes). Soviet block countries reversed many anti-female biases, only to freeze in rigid, male dominated power structure. A way appropriate for America seem to be based on continuing pressure and coalition building. Education seem to be very important, thus my scout example. Let the boys know from the very beginning that girls are not a different species, that in mixed groups girls may be leader as frequently as boys etc. Then infamious TV. Refuse to buy detergents with sexists ads! Do not watch soap-operas with their stupid stereotypes! Make some reasonable postulates concerning cartoons for kids! Experiece shows that TV may change under pressure. As a male, I see feminist movement as a promissing force of change. Sometimes funny (sorry), but what I hope for in the era of wimpy liberals? The best I can think of is the bunch of gutsy woman. Piotr Berman
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (08/30/85)
aMAZon: >>Now it looks like Andy is asking women to be better than men... >>you know, taking it (with a smile, of course) and being so >>sweet and forgiving that they never dish it out in return. ^^^^^^^^^ >>Yeah. Sure. Will Martin: >Doesn't sound that extraordinary -- isn't this what the scriptures teach >is expected of Christians? Not that it is likely in reality, but if it >is supposed to be the behavior of one large group, why not of another? I doubt that they say that only *some* people in the group are supposed to be good. (Flame deleted.) -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146 "A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality."