Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!mccolm From: mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: A non-sexist society and so on...(more LONG puppies) Message-ID: <6733@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Thu, 29-Aug-85 18:22:27 EDT Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.6733 Posted: Thu Aug 29 18:22:27 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 1-Sep-85 06:15:28 EDT Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 89 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 (Robt. Asprin)