kenm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (...Jose) (11/13/89)
There has been much discussion of late concerning the
necessity of gender-specific words/classes/societal roles. While
it is all fine and good to say that women and men should have
all the same opportunities, I don't believe society should over-rule
biology. Unless some spectacular medical advances are made, the fact
remains that only women have babies, only men can cause the fertilization
of the ova.... ie, there is a good reason for being able to tell male
from female, young from old, etc. Moving towards an equitable society
does not have to imply a *uniform* society. Perhaps an ideal social
system would be independant of age, sex, race, height and shoe size,
but can you imagine living in a world where we were all members of
a "default" set (whatever that is)? So long as people are the
mammalian creatures they are, we will have differences in appearance
and behavior becasue of culture, age or sex... we can learn to ignore
those differences when they don't matter, but we can't deny nature
and pretend that we know better.... take a look around the world, and
see how much damage that attitude has done.
....Jose
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
".sig quotes are dippy"|Kenneth C. Moyle kenm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
- Kenneth C. Moyle |Department of Biochemistry MOYLEK@MCMASTER.BITNET
|McMaster University ...!uunet!mnetor!maccs!kenm flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) (11/15/89)
kenm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (...Jose) writes: >Unless some spectacular medical advances are made, the fact remains that only >women have babies, only men can cause the fertilization of the ova.... ie, >there is a good reason for being able to tell male from female, young from >old, etc. I am always mystified by statements such as this. Do you really fertilize the ova of everyone you meet on the street? Not merely have sex with everyone you meet, but in fact impregnate them? If not, then why do you need to know if they are female or male? ajr
era1987@violet.Berkeley.EDU (11/28/89)
More than anything else, fascists and racists want to maintain racial purity and the traditional roles of the sexes. War hawks worry when a capitalist country introduces a social welfare program, or a Communist country introduces democratic reforms. If you blur the distinctions between idologies and nations, people begin to recognize each other as human, as having similar problems, and are much less willing to destroy each other. We'll probably always have those who are violently opposed to peace, progress, and equality. In some ways (nuclear weapons, for example), I'd like to turn the clock back myself. We cannot change nature. Whenever it is necessary for nondiscriminatory reasons to know a person's sex, that person will be happy to make their sex known or it will be obvious. If two people are compatible and attracted to each other, I'm sure they'll reveal their biological status to each other so as to find out if intercourse might involve reproductive possibilities. If a person is in need of medical help, the physician can simply examine them. Some people are going to hate it when the wall comes down. Most of us will weep with joy. We should pity those who fear equality, because they will not share in our happiness when the wall of sexism finally falls. The Jews have a curtain called a mehitzah that the Orthodox use in their synagogues to separate the men from the women, the clean from the unclean, those who have a personal Covenant with God from those who are mere chattels and have no right to hold the Torah. When women pray at the Wailing Wall in Israel, Orthodox Jewish men attack them violently. So far, unlike the German border guards prior to the recent events, there have been no shootings. But some people never want to see the walls of discrimination come down. It is for them we must pray, for those who value rocks and bricks more than people. The curtains will fall, the walls will come down, and someday, whether I live to see it or not, reason, justice and equality will prevail. And all the King's horses and all the King's men, will never put Humpty Dumpty together again. --Mark
turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) (11/30/89)
In article <1989Nov25.080406.19293@agate.berkeley.edu>, era1987@violet.Berkeley.EDU writes: > ... If two people > are compatible and attracted to each other, I'm sure they'll reveal > their biological status to each other so as to find out if intercourse > might involve reproductive possibilities. ... I find the above statement somewhat murky. Is Mark implying that unless one is interested in procreation, other people's sex (not gender) shouldn't matter in personal relationships? If so, how far is this from relegating the (legitimate) function of sex to only procreation? Let me turn these questions around. Very few of us are bisexual. Most people have greater erotic desire for one sex than the other. While some of this preference may have to do with gender roles, some of it clearly does not. Does the fact that other people's sex influences one's attraction conflict with abandoning gender-roles? Russell
jason@SSD.HARRIS.COM (Jason Baietto) (11/30/89)
>From article <1989Nov25.080406.19293@agate.berkeley.edu>, by era1987@violet.Berkeley.EDU: > But some people never > want to see the walls of discrimination come down. It is for them we > must pray, for those who value rocks and bricks more than people. I'm not sure the violent aspect of humanity is the major culprit. The culprit is the need to control (although this may entail violence, it isn't violence). When the wall comes down, those who feel inadequate will no longer have a socially accepted reason to control others (women) to make themselves feel more important, more adequate. You call them "Warmongers", and I do agree that these people exist, but they are far outnumbered by the "Inadequates". |===================================|===================================| | Jason "Jasper" Baietto | otteiaB "repsaJ" nosaJ | | Harris Computer Systems Division | noisiviD smetsyS retupmoC sirraH | | Fort Lauderdale, Florida | adirolF ,eladreduaL troF | | jason@ssd.csd.harris.com (usenet) | (tenesu) moc.sirrah.dsc.dss@nosaj | |===================================|===================================|
rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) (11/30/89)
In article <7256@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) writes: >Let me turn these questions around. Very few of us are bisexual. >Most people have greater erotic desire for one sex than the other. >While some of this preference may have to do with gender roles, some >of it clearly does not. Does the fact that other people's sex >influences one's attraction conflict with abandoning gender-roles? Two responses. First, the notion of "abandoning" gender altogether seems quite impossible (as Russell may well agree). Furthermore, I can't think of any reason whatsoever why we should work for such a goal. The problem is not gender per se; the problem is the particular arrangement of gender which discriminates in significant ways against, say, women. A secondary problem might be the naturalization of gender, the idea that it's a fixed, biological construct rather than a fluid, social one. However, none of this suggests to me that "difference" itself needs to disappear; only the ways in which we live with it and understand it. Second response: Despite Andrea Dworkin, I don't see any logic to the notion that heterosexuality is intrinsically anti-feminist. Which is to say, "the fact that other people's sex influences one's attraction" does not seem to me to be an impediment to or in conflict with the goals of feminism. If you're a man and you find yourself attracted only to "feminine" women (in the traditional Western sense) or vice versa, *that* might indicate a problem vis-a-vis feminism. But I have no difficulty imagining a social context in which straight relationships are truly as equal and reciprocal as the most egalitarian gay relationships are today. Of course, I don't suggest for a moment that most of us live that way now, however much we may pat ourselves on the back for being enlightened about such things. A close, honest look at our own sexual relationships would be fairly depressing for most of us "enlightened" folks.