Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site qubix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!sun!idi!qubix!steven
From: steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Sex Roles
Message-ID: <1291@qubix.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Jul-84 18:43:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: qubix.1291
Posted: Wed Jul 25 18:43:50 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 10:49:29 EDT
Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, Saratoga, CA
Lines: 45

References:
[*****]

>>  Steve objects to my example of slavery as a recent major social
>>  change in something that was once thought of as immutable.
>>  Roles, I'll agree, are far older, and are not just a part of
>>  civilized humanity.  However, sex roles have shown a great
>>  deal of variance between societies; such flexibility suggests
>>  that they might be easier to change, not harder.

	Actually sex roles are surprisingly immutable.  The old "sexist"
    attitudes are the most common, and can be found from siberia all
    the way to the sahara.   Non "sexist" societies, like the Kung!,
    also exist but are much more rare.   A couple of social antropologists
    decided to do a study comparing the "sexism" in a society, and the
    environment in which the people lived, and found a surprising
    corrilation:  Where the overwhelming food supply is 'gathering'
    (a female dominated occupation), the power between the sexes are
    balanced; where much of the food supply is gotten from hunting
    (a solely male occupation) the society is patrarchal.


>>  Nowhere did I speak against roles as such; I'd be hypocritrical to
>>  say so after my posting on self-obsession (titled ``Re: never stop
>>  fighting'').  However, I disagree with assigning roles on the basis
>>  of sex.  I don't want to see roles destroyed, but I do want to see
>>  people liberated to take on the role or roles they feel most
>>  comfortable with.  And if that means evolving a whole new set of
>>  roles, so much the better.

	Yes, but we are talking about SEX roles.   What I am saying is
    that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to stop "assigning
    roles on the basis of sex", when *humans have been doing so for
    millions of years*.   Even if you are able to, through a passage of
    numerous laws, there is no guarantee that this is best for the
    society - the men, the women, the children - that you claim it is.
    "Liberation" is a good concept, but I don't want social experimenters
    applying laws to our psycho-social system, like 16th century surgeons
    applied leaches to the injured.   Well meaning psychological
    experimenters already do more harm than good with their misinformation
    about insanity, I certainly don't want it to spread to civilizaton
    as a whole.

    Steven Maurer