PHIL: Domination and Equality

E. Shaun Russell (
Fri, 21 Feb 1997 17:39:43 -0800 (PST)

Sorry to bring back an old ghost, but I fear it has not yet been
quelled on this list. This post is about the mentality of gender
differentiation (or the lack thereof) and the multitudes of gender related
taboos. I believe that it is an extropian topic in that it deals with
various aspects of human thought...something that is detrimental to a
posthuman existance.

One can take all the feminist and misogynist movements (give or take
a few short lived movements in particular) and roll them into two seperate
piles: domination or equality. A common feminist argument I hear is one of
female persecution through the centuries. It is true. Until Mary Shelley
and Emily Dickinson came around in the nineteenth century, there had been
virtually no female notability (I'm excluding "nobility") since Joan of Arc,
and prior to her, Sappho. It is quite unfortunate that women were shunned
for so many centuries --I'm sure that there were just as many potentially
powerful women as there were kinetically powerful men;
but for *some* reason, women were not encouraged to be great...they were not
taught that they were equal to men in mental ability. Instead, women were
taught to be 'perfect little housewives' and convinced that they were doing
*men* a service by bearing children. Perhaps this was partially due
to the devotionary diatribe of the Bible --which stated that men are
dominant-- though the true answer will probably never be found.

This is a compelling argument for feminists, and a very true one
*but* I seriously wonder how this affects the present. Sure, the past has
been male-dominated, but what is the current aim of feminism? Do feminist
movements want females to dominate males to make up for the past antithesis
between the genders? Or do feminist movements want to bring the whole
concept of "gender" up to a plateau? Is there a desire for domination or
equality? I, of course, prefer the latter. I find domination to be
entropic, to say the least. Mankind can learn from the
past and use it to extrope toward the future.

Currently, there seems to be a gender imbalance; this "imbalance" is
more mental than physical. The idea of 'women's rights' is the same as
saying 'people with red moustaches' rights': it boils down to an ideal of
the elevation of one portion of mankind over another. Why should there be
women's rights? What gives women an advantage over men? Why should there
be male rights? What gives men an advantage over women? Why should there
be gay rights? What gives gays an advantage over non-gays? To me, it
simply does not make sense. To me, the concept of "rights" is an irrational
belief that one person has power over another, and that inevitably *causes*
sexism, racism and people-with-red-moustachism rather
than illeviating it. It invokes the other "non-rights" group(s) to gain an
advantage over the "rights" group(s). *That* is what creates an imbalance.

I cannot understand a need for a moral imbalance of any sort. I
open my eyes and see *people* thinking and *people* acting, not particularly
*women* or *men* doing such. Just as I conveyed in the "Genius" thread
about a month ago, there are *no* boundaries except those which we
create...either as mankind or as individuals. If someone wishes to become
something, that one generally can do so if he or she has strong enough of a
will to kineticize his potential. There is no rift between the sexes, just
as there is no rift between the races. We create rifts
by saying that there *are* rifts because there aren't. Women think the same
way that men do (generally); one race thinks the same way as another race
(generally). I don't see the rift. Why create one?

Ingredi Externus!

-E. Shaun Russell

~~~:~~~> E. ternity E. Shaun Russell
:~~> E. xpansion
:~~~> E. xtropy Extropic Artist,
Transhumanities editor for
All life is art, --kineticize your potential. Homo Excelsior Magazine