Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!2flmlife
From: 2flmlife@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: A Moral Question
Message-ID: <26082.2714c3d1@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: 12 Oct 90 00:11:13 GMT
References: <16098@s.ms.uky.edu>
Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services
Lines: 57
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org

> 
> Again, if I were a life insurance company, and I charged white men
> more for life insurance than white women, I'd be doing what every
> other insurance companyy does.
> 
> Something is inconsistent here.  That seems obvious.  But I cannot
> figure out how it ought to be.  So my questions are,
> 
> "How do you think this inconsistency should be resolved in an ideal
> world?"
> 
> "How do you think this inconsistency should be resolved in the current
> world?"
> 

Well this of course is the question of reverse descrimination.  What I find
particularly interesting is that Insurance companies are predominantly owned
and controlled men, (white men at that.)  So the decision to charge men more,
was mostly a decision of white men.

Solving the inconsistency, in an ideal world, no one would have to pay for
insurance!  So no discrepancy.  

Solving it in the current world?  Does it need a solution?  To what extent has
it become a tool of oppression?  Think of this also, men in general get paid
more, I suppose they should be able to afford slightly higher insurance.  But
that really isn't fair either.
	The Current world is an unfair world, until it becomes a fair world, we
will have to deal with unfair compensations, like affirmative action for
instance.  Or giving breaks to employers who hire sight or hearing impaired
people, or other handicapped people.  If education, employment, and life in
general would be undiscriminating our laws would not have to be.

Dealing with laws to counter discrimination, is an approach we must continue,
but for changes to really take place, we must also start rocking the
foundations of oppression.  We need a diagnosis, we need to start working on a
cure. 

This deals with your thought number two.  Feminism is not about fighting for
women's rights to become men.  It is an attempt to put an end to oppression. 
And if that means addressing our concepts about war, or the environment, or
government, then those things must also come.  Certainly you are not FOR
nuclear armament.  You would have to be pretty sick, or a defense contractor I
suppose, to want that.  What we all want is too feel safe, to not be under the
threat of war, or global destruction.  Some feel this means we need to arm
ourselves, others feel we need to withdraw from conflict completely.  The
middle ground recognise that nuclear weapons are ultimately self destructive,
and want a unilateral disarmament.  We need to find in which direction our
freedom lies, our safety.  Can we feel safe under the threat of a nuclear
war?  I know I cannot, and I worry for my nieces, my friends, this world.  Are
we so arrogant to think this is within our right?  But that is a different
topic altogether, perhaps we could carry it elsewhere.  

The time has come to dream a new world.

Stephen R. Figgins
University of Kansas
2flmlife@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu