Ideas of Utopian Assimilationism

Sexual difference has its roots in the past, where it may have been a result of woman being at the mercy of the elements (and under protection of the males) during pregnancy, which is now no longer necessary (thanks in part to technology). Yet, what if we treated sex as analogous to eye color? It would then be just as strange to say that “a woman’s place is in the home” as it is to say that “a blue-eye’s place is in the home”. How do we get to that point? What if we had artificial in utero periods (test-tube babies, if you will)? Would that take the restrictive burden of childbirth off of the woman and into the utopian ‘sex-as-eye-color’ world? Shulamith Firestone advocates a radical change in how the two sexes are perceived. She argues that the act of reproduction should fall upon technology to help alleviate the role of women in the rearing of children. Richard Wasserstrom argues for assimilation in a less radical, yet equally utopian form. In this paper I will use the authors of these theories to better analyze the assimilationist or androgynous theory (called, for simplicity, in this essay the assimilationist ideal), and hopefully reach the conclusion that Wasserstrom’s assimilation through eye color is more favorable than Firestone’s assimilation. In order to do this I will look at Firestone’s radical argument for the raising of children in this assimilationist society and compare it with the less controversial (but no less radical) theory of Wasserstrom, which argues for a social disapproval of the sexual division.

First off, I will discuss Firestone’s radical argument for assimilation of the sexes. In her book ‘The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution’, she argues with the help of Marxism for a society where women do not have to bear the burden of child rearing alone (or a very large part of it, alone). Her qualms with the system as it is lies in the fact that women were (in the past) beholden to men due to the long time it took to produce a child. In this stage, a woman would be at the mercy of the elements, animals, other humans, and even the child itself (in the case of the very act of childbirth leading to death, or sickness). The fact that this burden lies solely with women is disconcerting, and tends to take a lot of control over their bodies away from women. This has led to the feeling that women are treated as a slave class, as she puts it: “the husband was the owner, the wife the means of production, the children the labor; and that reproduction of the human species was an important economic system distinct from the means of production.”
In order to remedy the modern malaise of sexual differentiation, she calls for four “Revolutionary Demands”: “(1) The freeing of women from the tyranny of reproduction by every means possible, and the diffusion of the child-rearing role to the society as a whole, men as well as women”; “(2) The political autonomy, based on economic independence, of both women and children”; “(3) The complete integration of women and children into society”; and “(4) The sexual freedom of all women and children” . At first glance, these demands do not sound unreasonable; indeed men have enjoyed these for years. The more interesting is number one, which I shall discuss, and provide my problems with later on. Number two advocates for a greater influx of women into the workplace, and number three calls for the destruction of the social institutions that separate men from women. Both of these are interesting points (and I have some contention with number three), but I believe the bulk of her statements (and most controversial) lie in number one.

Before I go on to my objections of Firestone I’d like to present Wasserstrom’s argument for assimilation. In his paper ‘Sex Roles and the Ideal Society’ he paints a utopian picture of a world where the difference between the sexes is no more important than the difference between eye color. In his world it is just as foolish to claim that women aren’t as strong as men, as it is to claim that blue-eyed people are mentally inferior to brown-eyed people, today. He claims that the division between the sexes is limiting, and stunts human freedoms and development, “One strong, affirmative moral argument on behalf of the assimilationist ideal is that it does provide for a kind of individual autonomy that a substantially nonassimilationist society cannot provide.” A nonassimilationist society, he claims, is one in which institutions tend to socialize people in a way that women are servants to men . This creates a sort of human slavery, and is the antithesis of a just society. Wasserstrom believes that the division of labor as it is today leaves women with work that both sexes find unsatisfactory, and unfulfilling (housework, and raising of children), and that in his society the workload would be distributed equally between the sexes . He even refutes the claim that the division of the sexes is natural. There are many things that humans do that are against nature, such as accommodating the handicapped, and disabled, and even such mundane activities as eating with utensils, all of which are not found in the realm of wild animals .

Herein lies my objections to firestone, and why I think that Wasserstrom’s argument is a better one. Number one of Firestone’s demands deals with the women’s role as a means of production. In this demand Firestone states that technology can help alleviate the burden of childbirth from the woman, and thus have her be open to the many potentials that men are open to. This is done in two ways: First, with technology; where the in utero portion of childbirth is done with a machine (a test-tube baby) . This will free women for the nine-month period where she would normally be pregnant, and thus not hamper her ambitions. Secondly, she argues that after the child is born, it is still the woman’s role to care for it, while it is the male’s role to provide for the family. She claims that this stunts the mental growth in both women and men . A solution to this problem would be to have a community raise a child, have not just one mother and one father, but any number of any combination of the two. This would equally divide the duty and time of care between the two sexes, and promise emotional growth for all.
My qualms lie with the second proposal, wherein a community raises a child. I may just be arguing from my time, and my society (which is a patriarchic opposite to Firestone’s utopia), but I don’t believe that in many cases it’s optimal for a community to have as hands-on an approach to a child’s development as more identifiable less numerous set of parents (be they of the same sex or different sex). This is not to exclude single parents either, simply to say that too many parents may form a detachment within them for the child. What’s holding you to your position as caretaker for this child if he/she is not your offspring? More so, people are so varied, even within a community that the question arises of where does the child form his/her identity? Is it an identity to the community? This could lead into the dangerous realm of blind patriotism, where the child would be more vulnerable to a sort of mob mentality. Paranoia about community controlled children aside, a much better way would be to keep single or couple parent families and have adoption (or a sort of baby distribution) of the test-tube babies. The problem with this is that it doesn’t give equality to children, which is a part of her demands. For that I have no rebuttal that would fit in this paper, suffice it to say that I think she may be confusing the discrimination of children with a fostering of an undeveloped mind, or emotional state.
Wasserstrom’s argument is more appealing because it’s less abrasive to our values, yet still calls those values into question. Whereas Firestone seems to take many, if not all, of our values to be wrong; Wasserstrom leaves us with some, and advocates that we change the big ones, namely socialized attitude. For example, Wasserstrom doesn’t argue against the one or two parent families (he simply states that the nuclear family is not necessary), or even the biological prenatal state of a woman. This makes his world seem more reachable and indeed more appealing.

Imagining a world where there are no sexual differences seems both favorable, and frightening, if only because it’s such a departure from our world today. Yet it is hard to admit that there is equality between the sexes, or even anything close to equality. It almost seems as though it’s a faux-equality, an equality where on paper women can do anything that men can (attain the same jobs, own a business, write, vote, speak their mind, etc.), yet one only has to look at a beer commercial, or a music video to see that it’s an illusion. In the world of assimilationist theories Wasserstrom’s seems more favorable than Firestone’s because of it’s less revolutionary claims. Its goals seem more attainable, and utopian. Yet that is also a downfall of it; in that, unlike Firestone’s argument, it doesn’t explain how to attain that utopia, simply that we should. For all of Firestone’s abrasiveness, at least she can provide us with some sort of guideline for her ideology. Ironically, unlike Marx and Engels, the communists who inspired her.