Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site oddjob.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!gargoyle!oddjob!london From: london@oddjob.UUCP (David London) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Imagine a non-sexist society... Message-ID: <931@oddjob.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 18:05:38 EDT Article-I.D.: oddjob.931 Posted: Mon Aug 19 18:05:38 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 07:08:57 EDT Distribution: net Organization: U. Chicago, Astronomy & Astrophysics Lines: 52 <> 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: 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?