THE CADRE,MARCH 27,1973, PAGE. 10 '

the dialectic d’ 0f liberatian/

PURPOSE

What I intend to do is to reveal the cdnditions which gave rise to the inequalgty of the sexes; the form which it takes; and show briefly how this will be overcome.

THE PROBLEM

Early,unenlightened man was for the most part, subject to his environment; that is, he had little or no control over it, was afraid of it, and was awestruck by it. When li— ghtening created fire he could not ascribe meaning for the event, and, in subjection to mysterious forces, ascribed the act tonmgic, divinity, etc. He was not able to scien- tifically articulate the for— ces of nature as we can today. The latter capacity enables man to rise above the forces which hitherto rendered him subordinate. What this means simply is that knowledge and the understanding that it gi— ves rise to, liberates.

Lacking in knowledge early man was shortsighted, that is, when lightening created fire he drew the hasty conclusion that fire was created by ligh— tening, only. He had a tend— ency to generalize on the bas- is of one observation. This is characteristic of the child. In other words, he was subject to his observations as they revealed themselves. It is be- cause of this I believe that man noticed a biological diff— erence between one sex and the other and drew the conclusion that they were in fact, diff— erent. This conclusion became integrated and articulated wi- thin all social and cultural epochs throughout history. In the establishment of all cul— tures, the "difference" of the sexes determined the roles the sexes were to play thereby maintaining and perpetuating the "difference" between the sexes. Man consists of both male and female — both necess- ary for the propagation of the species. Propagation has alw— ays been extremely important

in every society in history, and consequently, the role— differentiation was seen to be vital. Male and female were ascribed different though spe— cific roles which articulated every aspect of that partic— ular individuals existence, from birth to death. The fact that these "men" and "women" were individuals was either unheard of, not important, or unnecessary to worry about.

A division occured bet- ween "men" and "women" which remains with us today - un— fortunately it still takes essentially the same form.

There is of course a very important difference between the male and female — for pro— creative purposes.‘ However, due to contemporary enlight—

enment, we are no longer sub— ject to these "differences"; we may be cognizant of them, but we can (and must) rise above these "differences" (which are only biological — physiological) to that level of apprehension which recog- nizes neither "male" nor "fe— male" but rather, persons as persons, "Selves", individuals. You will notice that these terms are not sexual, that is they denote neither "male" nor "female".

THE PRESENT SITUATION

Due to contemporary enli— ghtenment - technological and scientific advance specifically a culture has come into being the nature of which no longer requires "men" and "women" to strictly adhere to their his— torically defined roles. That is to say, it is no longer necessary for "men" to be dem- onstrably virile, dominant, or protective and possessive. Likewise it is no longer nec— essary for "women" to be "bare- foot and pregnant, cleaning house, washing, sewing and so on. Although some of this is still to some degree a possi— bility for each Sex, but it is no longer the exclusive func-

~tion for a particular sex.

Our present culture has extended the range of possi— bilities for each individual. No longer is it necessary for "women" to be tied to the res- trictive function of household chores; nor is it the exclusive function for the "male" to be‘ a breadwinner. “

iThe old roles break down. In so doing, males cease to be "men" as that role defines them. Likewise, females cease to be "women". The possibility exsits now for the individuals who hitherto were subject to their roles, to "break out" and re— alize their ownmost p0ssibil- ity — that of Being their "SELF"

THE DIALECTIC

It has been said of old, "money is the root of all evil", This is only partly true, for money in itself is indifferent to good or evil. What might be said is,"ignorance is the root of all evil." This is to say that at the root or V all man's problems lies mis— understanding - due to his necessary ignorance of himself and the world. Necessary, bec- ause man cannot know all there is to know due to his changing world - which, if he did, would render him omniscient and, hence, omnipotent; if this were to be the case, the bum- an task would be superfluous.

Society consists not of individuals, but rather of roles. True, it is individuals

I

/

’by: STAN DALTON"

play these roles, but not as individuals, rather, as roles- and what they designate. Con— sequently the role—playing inn dividual is alienated from him- self thereby creating a tension between his"Self" (which con- stantly seeks its "Self") and the role. _ '

At birth, when the sex of the individual is discovered, there is an immediate placement of the individual into a role either male or female.“ From that moment the individual is cultivated as, and expected to conform to, whatever the defin— ition of that role (male or female) indicates. Males are "taught" to be males, and fe—. males-are "taught" to be fema— les.

Their childhood is spent as a preparation far the adult version of their roles. Con— sequently, "man" and "women " are "different", and are tre- ated as such. Social, moral, and legal commotations are conferred upon these roles th— ereby rendering the differen— ces more definite.

Contemporary enlightened society has made it possible for both sexes to become aware of the differences. Most not— ably it has been "women" who have noticed that these roles are not definative. "women" have, consequently, felt the yoke of oppression in a male-

dominated society moreso than "men" because it is they, in their awareness of other poss— ibilities for existence, who are to suffer most. Before, they were not so aware that th- ey were oppressed and, theref- ore, were not oppressed. One

‘;must be aware of oppression

before one can be oppressed ot- herwise it is accepted as the "natural state of affairs." The contemporary Women's Liberation movement is a man— ifestation of oppression. However, it is destined to fail — indeed it must. ‘Consi- der my argument now. If "women" persist in having equality with "men" they may indeed succeed, but they will not be liberated. The reason is, simply, that so long aS‘ "women" insist on being "women" the differences 4 and hence the inequality — will persist. We cannot have "women" equal to "men" and at the same time maintain sexual differ- entiation. For, so long as there is a difference between "men" and "women" they will be seen'as different and, hence, unequal. If equality should come about, these roles("men"- "women") will be dissolved (biologically the difference will remain; but we will not' be psychologically "subject" to these differences as we were

con't page 11