From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Wed Dec 29 1999 - 03:52:00 MST
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Kathryn Aegis wrote:
... offering some important points regarding the cultural legacy
we have in determining gender roles....
> Those who insist on following
> their own individuality can look forward to relentless pressure
> to conform and negative reactions from those imbued with
> responsibility for enforcing social norms.
I think we modify this over time and build enclaves of individuals
(or even in some cases "generations") who have similar
"social norms". It seems to depend a lot on simple density
effects. Gays for example have a great deal of power in some major
cities, while in other parts of the country they are still vilified.
> To bring it into a futurist context: In planning
> their own future, humans must come to realize that they have
> placed far too much emphasis on gender differences. Rather
> than focus on the 90% that men and women have in common, we
> have instead, through relentless indoctrination from birth,
> created two different human subcultures that are in
> continual opposition.
I think this is "hardwired" into the mind. Similarity is "safe".
Differences are potentially "unsafe". So the requirements of
the survival game are going to dictate an underplaying of the
similarities and an overemphasis on the differences. Reversing
that requires conscious intervention (as Kathryn does).
> In other words, the so-called 'battle of
> the sexes' is a manufactured entity, and we are just as capable
> of discarding it as we were of building it. Transhumanists
> focus on the future of 'humanity', ane so we may provide a
> context within which to begin to move beyond these constructs.
>
The "battle" will probably get hotter before it cools down.
Cloning is the start. It will get even more interesting when
we have the biomodifications that allows men to undergo pregnancy
and give birth. Then we will be in the swamp of how genetic
enginering is creating "unnatural" humans (please no email
flood discussing what I mean by "natural" -- I mean something
significantly different from our common-day experience up to
current times).
At the risk of provoking a firestorm, I'll poke the ashes of
the gender differences discussion by asking the men of the
list -- "How many men would actually want the ability to
become pregnant and give birth if it were a relatively
inexpensive and safe medical therapy?" If you don't want
to avail yourself of that "enhancement", then doesn't that to
some degree imply an inherent bias in how you view women?
Contrast it in your mind with say the enhancement of increased
height, stronger/faster muscles, etc.
Since Natasha may have thought about it, if she reads this, she
might comment on what possible "enhancements" she has considered
but discarded as "undesirable".
In the process of going transhuman will the majority go more
towards uni-sex, hyper-male/female or bi-sex(switchable)???
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:13 MST