We think that it is a bad mistake for women to pursue deliberately the puppets, tinsel, and formulae already worn out by men. If, in the same context, some women are senators, graduates from prestigious technological institutes, corporation presidents, bankers, and creators, and if they perform their tasks in the same manner as the men do, these women will only be adding to the monuments of incompetence, to the lust for power, to the craving for notoriety, to the lures and to the constraints that already exist. We find such a rat race uninteresting and totally without benefit for women.
We think that women must offer other forms of social systems, other forms of creation, other goals, other directions, and by "other" we mean "better": we mean those that stress the value of human beings as a whole, that truly liberate them; that is to say, those that put them directly in front of themselves, instead of in front of a double, a shadow, an image, a golem.
Why, you will ask, would women succeed where men have failed? Why not? Let us try, it is well worth the effort.
We must not follow in the footsteps men have imprinted on this earth. Why repeat the same errors with the same too obviously catastrophic results? We do not believe in social revolutions that aim at "changing man." Such jolts shift problems without ever solving them in depth. They provide only temporary answers, as religions do.
We believe in conscious evolution, consciously conducted by human beings who want to realize the full range of their possibilities, who want to live at last and not be contented with merely surviving.
We are aware of the degree to which such remarks are utopian, but it is exactly this dose of utopia to which we ordinarily refer when we measure what might be truly revolutionary in an idea. We do not enjoy believing that the moon is made of green cheese and we do not like
From La création étouffée [Smothered creativity] ( Horay, 1974).