From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sexism: Defined
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 19:35:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep7.040917.19643@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>In article <zqnn-jr.payner@netcom.com> 
> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep5.132431.22836@news.acns.nwu.edu> 
> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>>>Sexism - Prejudicial treatment of or bias against people with respect
>>>to their sex.  More broadly, the social ideas, roles and institutions
>>>which permote this and assign different status to men and women.
>>>
>>>In our society this takes the form of an implicit assumption that
>>>men are "normal" and women are inferior and "abnormal".
>>>
>>><Soapbox on>
>>>IMHO, it is possible for men to be the targets of sexism. At the same time,
>>>I would not charge every example of women "turning the tables" on male
>>>sexism with being "sexist".  
>>
>>It's not "turning the tables", it's doing the same thing. 
>>
>>>                             For example, I would not call the exclusion
>>>of men from the Michigan Wom*n's Music Festival sexist; because: it has
>>>so little social support; it is a response to social sexism/heterosexism,
>>>it is a private volentary association which does not damage those not
>>>participating.
>>
>>Now if it were the "Michigan Mens Music Festival" excluding women, then
>>it -would- be considered sexist. Why is that?
>>
>>Parallel situations, just swap the words men and women, and you claim that
>>one situation is not sexist, while I claim the other would be considered
>>sexist.
>>
>>And why? For reasons invented by feminists. What exactly does "because: it has
>>so little social support; it is a response to social sexism/heterosexism,
>>it is a private volentary association which does not damage those not
>>participating" mean? I guess it means sexism is OK if you can make excuses
>>with the proper buzzwords.
>>
>>It's bad when men do it, but it is -not- bad when women do it, because
>>of higher socio-political truths.
>>
>>Personally, I do not buy this. It's contradictory on the very surface.
>>The very definition of sexist by many feminists is "something men do".
>>Which is blatantly sexist as well. 
>
>Well, that's not my definition. You seem to be suggesting I'm being
>inconsistent or dishonest. 

What gives you the suggestion of dishonesty? As for inconsistant, I find
the attitude that it's wrong when men do it to women but not wrong when women 
do it to men not only inconsistant, but childish. 

>                                I'm trying to state a view of sexism that
>is not all black and white; 

You mean colored in such a way to allow selective sexism to not be
considered as sexism. Why?

>                              but which takes the social context and
>consequences (or lack thereof) into account.  

Said contexts have nothing to do with the sexism itself, and therefore
irrelevant.

>                                              I set these comments 
>off with a <Soapbox>, since I know they does not meet with universal
>agreement.
> 
>What I'm saying, roughly, is that all differential treatment of the
>sexes is not always equally important, for several reasons, and that
>these distinctions are matters of degree. (I might add, about which 
>rational people differ.)

I suggest this "degree" is something so subjective as to be meaningless in a
"social context". :^)
 
>- Women can be sexist; men can be the targets of sexism; and this in not
>as likely as the reverse, in our culture.

That women can be sexist at all is denied by prominent feminists like
Dworkin, who confuse social context for sexism. And why do you say
"this in not as likely as the reverse, in our culture"? This is not
a given, as many feminists, including Dworkin claim. Can you back this
up in some way? I might buy it if you claim that women might tend to
express their sexism differently than men. But again, this seems like
confusing self-defined "social contexts" for sexism, then blaming the
males regardless.
 
>- Differential treatment may place no one at a real disadvantage (if
>seperate but equal *really* obtains.)

And yet,  most females that I have asked have not qualms in putting
-all- males at this same disadvantage, by LAW.
 
>- Sexism exists in a social context which can make it more powerful.

But no less or more sexist. If this is a problem, it needs to be
solved. Creating a counter problem (IMHO) can bever be a solution to
a social problem. You will end up with 2 opposing social problems, both
needing resolution. This may prove a workable way of tearing what is
left of our society apart however. 
 
>- A history of prior discrimination can justify an unequal response.

What? Did you just make this up? Oh yes, it was made up during the 60's
by the civil rights people. If it solves sexism as well as it solved
racism, I'd say that the idea is totally unworkable, and always was.

Like the vaudeville gag of hitting yourself on the toe with a hammer
to solve a headache, it might seem like it would work. But if you actually 
try it, you will find yourself hopping on one foot with the same headache.
 
>- Being discriminated against in a subculture (i.e. the music fest) does 
>not have the same impact on the rest of my life and choices as being
>discriminated against in the mainstream would.

But would not the leglislation you propose cover both? Why make the
distinction here, when the proposed laws make no such distinction?

>The nearest parallel example I can think of for actual men-only events 
>would be Robert Bly or the radical faries.  I wouldn't call either of these
>events being men-only, "sexist"; though I have other disagrements with Bly.
>(These are almost equally marginal to the cluture at large.)

Since I do not know what these things are, their significance escapes me.
 
>I have more sympathy, I think, than Rich with seperatism as a tactic,
>though I'm not in a postion to want to practice it personally.
>- -
>A more pointed example, (where the public and private blur), is the question
>of men-only clubs where business is discussed. 

But women only gyms are not sexist or in any way wrong. Do they have an
enforced prohibition against talking business in these establishments?
This is a case where you step into personal lives and make value judgements.
The same sort of things take place everywhere people working the same
palce meet, for both male and female employees. You have made a distinction
where there is no real difference.

>                                                Women in business
>have pointed out how this excludes them. 

I have never been as excluded as when the women in the floor where I used
to work were talking. Why you have such a sexist bias here is beyond me.
BTW, I assume you agree with "Women in business", since you are using their
argument to back yours.

>                                             Now some women might then,
>in response, form women-only groups for business networking.

Let them, what they do on their own time is their business. But since these
women are complaining that this is wrong, again would we not have 2 wrongs?
Except since they are women, that are not "likely" to be sexist. I keep
forgetting.
 
>Without this history and context, this would be more questionable as
>"sexist", but I think in this context it is a rational tactic
>of self-defense (and an alternative to trying to force one's way
>into the men's club.)

Said context being -invented- for the sole puropse of justifying 
anti-male laws, I'd hardly call it "rational". It may well be properly
labeled as a rationilization.

>Striking out in another direction, I would agree that those ideologies
>that suggest that women or men are *essentially* superior, are sexist.

No shades of grey here? A pity, you were doing so well up to now. :^)
 
>For example, there was Sally Miller Gearheart's essay suggesting that 
>world peace could be obtained by reducing men to 10% of the population
>(by non-violent means!?). (See "Reweaving the Web of Life" -- a low point
>for me in a generally good anthology.)

I'm glad women are "caring", else I guess she would have suggested
euthenasia, or perhaps a machine gun. It's a good thing she ain't sexist. :^)
 
>I would, however, distingush this from a position that says than men's
>socialization is so messed up that it may take generations to change,
>but that an egalitarian society is possible and worth working for.

Show me an "egalitarian society", anywhere, anytime. I suggest it is far 
less possible that you suggest. There are so many subjectives involved 
that any definition must suffer from a sexist bias.
 
>-- 
> Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
> alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................


Rich

payner@netcom.com



Newsgroups: alt.feminism