On Mon, 21 Jul 1997, Susan Marie wrote:
>> I completely applaud Piercy's attempts to portray a society that gives
>> equal opportunities to everybody, but I think that some of the strategies
>> she depicts for achieving this are questionable. And I really think you
>> need to think again about your statement - Equality in the social sense has
>> never meant erasing difference -. Never is a long time - what is the
>> history of the discourse of equality?
>
>Right then, I'll amend that. Social equality -should- never mean
>erasing differences. It's probably less objectionable when explicitly
>phrased as an opinion, which is was meant to be. And I do stand by
>it--I'm not familiar with the entire history of the theoretical
>discourse on social equality, but I do know that the practical
>struggle for social equality (at least in the US, apologies for my
>limited reference frame) has historically been about equality of
>opportunity, not about forcing sameness. Or maybe I only see it that
>way because that's the only kind of fight for equality that I could
>respect.
There is a difference between "forcing sameness" and demolishing
categorical difference. I see a disturbing trend in so-called feminism
today that seems to be linked with it's decline. I think that
just about everyone of both sexes should be seen as "essentially" the
same. Not that they must be the same in all details, but that false
categorical differences should be completely eliminated. This means that
If time off is to be given for the raising of a child it should equally be
given to all of the legal parents (be that mother, father, other mother,
whatever) If justifiable requirements of strength are established for a
particular job, those should not be confused with sex. I can think of no
valid categorical difference between the sexes other than reproductive
role and even then no valid consideration of that difference in our
circumstances. For some ungodly reason, some "feminists" have tried to
find differences between men and women. There have been books and
television shows about "the differences between men and women" that have
been given tacit approval by such feminists and their work. While I revel
in difference and diversity, and try to cherish all for their particular
gifts, I do NOT subscribe to some hogwash mystical chasm between the two
poles (sexes) of human experience. I think that the only healthy place to
entertain such notions is in the investigation of how we and are society
have erred on this issue. I fully realize that I myself and most of the
human world cannot help but fall from a state of "divine" blindness. We
cannot help but form stereotypes and act upon them. Perhaps some of us
cannot see clear to a stable equality given the current bio-economic
setup. Perhaps a bit of understandable pessimism leads us to consider the
erasure of categorical difference in one form or another, generally
through alternative means of reproduction. However, a bit of pessimistic
angst and an exploration of possible compomises made for far less than
perfect people in a less than perfect world in an attempt to move closer
to utopia is not always the same as advocation of those particular
compromises and that particular world.
I believe that false categorical difference does not allow equality.
So, any fight for equality that does not "force sameness" in the sense of
removing false categorical differences will be doomed to fail perhaps
to even foster inequality and so not be worthy of my respect and support.
-- Joel VanLaven
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:29 PDT