Sexist propadanda [was Re: Genderless societies [was Re: kathryn's comments]]

James Wetterau (
Fri, 17 Sep 1999 13:15:36 -0400

"J. R. Molloy" says:
> >Women can have sex, get pregnant, and have three months to change
> >their minds and get an abortion. Men, even those raped or tricked
> >into fatherhood, do not have a choice about responsibility for
> Here are some more extropic sites of interest:

>From that site:

     The ties among a man, a woman, and their children have always been
     fundamental, and dependent for reliable functioning on a generally
     settled division of responsibility among the parties and therefore
     between the sexes. More specifically, all societies have been
     patriarchal, with men mainly responsible for public concerns and women
     for the care of small children and domestic matters. Always and
     everywhere men have predominated in positions of formal authority,
     although exercising no general right of domination.

     The universality of these distinctions shows them to be rooted in
     biology and other permanent conditions of human life. Nonetheless, it
     is opposition to acceptance of gender as a principle of social order
     -- to what is called "sexism" -- that unifies the things called
     "feminism." Feminist goals are thus not in the least
     reformist. Feminism treats a fundamental principle of all human
     societies, sex-role differentiation, as essentially an arrangement by
     which some human beings oppress others. Its aim is thus to create a
     new kind of human being living in a new form of society based on new
     ties among men, women and children, reconstituted in accordance with
     abstract ideological demands.

     For existing sexual and family ties, based on what seems natural and
     customary, feminism would substitute contractual relations, reliance
     on the state bureaucracy, or some presently unknowable
     principle. Experience gives no guidance for how to carry out the
     substitution, or indeed any reason for supposing it can be
     done. Feminism is therefore ideological and radical to the core; there
     can be no commonsense feminism, because doing what comes naturally
     gets a feminist nowhere. Whatever harsh things can be said about
     anarchism and communism can be said with yet more force about
     feminism, since the latter seeks to eliminate something that touches
     us far more deeply than private property or the state. Like the other
     two ideologies, feminism can be presented as a lofty ideal set up in
     opposition to a long history of dreadful injustice, but its practical
     implementation, especially by force of law, can only lead to
     catastrophe. Like anarchism it calls for categorical opposition to
     authority and hierarchy, and like communism for the unending
     radical reconstruction of all aspects of life, and consequently the
     absolute bureaucratization of society. Both principles are thoroughly
     destructive; the fact they utterly contradict each other does not help

If this is extropic than I am a Hottentot. The neanderthal thread was right on.

James Wetterau