On 10/6/05, Daniel Reeves <dree= ves Æ umich.edu> wrote:

I nominate Michelle for a fuller response.

I'll just say for the non= ce that of course I've read brave new world.  In
my feminist u= topia the *only* differences between the sexes will be
biological. = The biological vs socially constructed line is pretty bright
and I don't think your slippery slope argument with government-enforced=
sterility, test-tube babies, and a drugged working class is very on the=
mark.  But I'm eager to argue this more...

-- Danny's = Grandpa Andrew's Grandson

--- \/   FROM Andrew Reeves AT 05.10.06 21:07 (Today)=    \/ ---

>    Finally I read throu= gh the comments of Dave Morris, Robert Felty,
> Vishal Soni, and of c= ourse of Bethany and Danny to Louise Story's piece
> in the NY Times. What finally set me to enter the fray is Danny's = view
> of the article as furthering an anti-feminist agenda because t= hat's not
> the way I see it at all.
>    A= ctually, I do not have a satisfactory definition of "feminism". I= f
> it means removing all historic obstacles to the legal equality of = the
> feminine gender in all aspects of public life, I'm of course fo= r it. If
> it means promoting a new concept of human society in which= traditional
> "gender roles" are abolished or suppressed, I am against= it.
>    For the foreseeable future, I don't hav= e to worry about reversing
> human biology to the point of males gett= ing pregnant and bear babies,
> although that, or perhaps some mechanism by which females could be=
> freed from that also and yet the human race to go forward, seems t= o be
> the unstated ultimate aim of the second type of feminism. Unti= l that
> distant goal is achieved, this kind of feminism just struggles aga= inst
> the secondary consequences that spring from the presently exis= ting
> biological differentiation between the sexes. That of course i= s also
> an uphill struggle and yields numerous contradictions which are ea= sy
> to see and not at all easy to circumvent. This kind of society h= as
> been foreseen in Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel, "Brave New Wor= ld", a best
> seller of its time which seemingly none of you in the "improv= etheworld"
> crowd, or at least those who share Danny's view on = the matter, have
> read. I would urge you to do so; if you did, you w= ill see the problems
> and unintended consequences that would result from that kind of so= cietal
> restructuring even assuming that it could be successfully do= ne.
>    Actually, some early versions of Communi= sm including the Israeli
> kibbutz system experimented with that kind of idea and it cannot b= e said
> that it turned out to be a resounding success. The basis of = our present
> societal structure, which our beloved President would n= o doubt call
> "the nucular family" does have some historic roots going= back a few
> hundred thousand years, and I am not totally convinced = that its origins
> were entirely dependent on our brutish and club-wi= elding male ancestors
> ramming it down the throats of their unwilling mates. The fact tha= t
> females get pregnant, give birth to babies and nurse them, while = males
> are more muscular, more aggressive, can go out and bring home= the bacon
> more successfully, does have some character-forming consequences w= hich
> did get built into the human genome over the millennia. I must= admit
> that I have a great deal of sympathy with the female type wh= ich Louise
> Story depicts in her piece and which Danny has chastised as "= anti-
> feminist". In fact, my idea of anti-feminism would be al= most precisely
> the opposite.
>    It is p= ossible that in the 21st century we are crossing a milestone
> of human evolution although I must say that I would be dreading th= e
> prospect. In such a system, females would be REQUIRED to enter th= e work
> force on totally interchangeable conditions with males, preg= nancies
> would be pharmacologically prevented except for individually appro= ved
> cases, and child rearing institutionalized. As I am sure you kn= ow,
> certain insects such as ants and bees already live in that kind= of
> societal structure where the "workers" are actually dege= nerate females
> whose sexual development was nutritionally suppresse= d during infancy.
> I would not regard anything resembling that as a = desirable future for
> Humankind and if that is your kind of "feminism" then I = am afraid that
> we have irreconcilable differences.
> &nb= sp;  Danny's Grandpa Andrew
>

--
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  googl= e://"Daniel Reeves"

I took a course in speed reading and w= as able to read War and Peace in
twenty minutes.  It's about R= ussia.
           = ;     -- Woody Allen