From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: Sexism: Defined
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 04:09:17 GMT

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. I'm trying to state a view of sexism that
is not all black and white; but which takes the social context and
consequences (or lack thereof) into account.  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.)

- Women can be sexist; men can be the targets of sexism; and this in not
as likely as the reverse, in our culture.

- Differential treatment may place no one at a real disadvantage (if
seperate but equal *really* obtains.)

- Sexism exists in a social context which can make it more powerful.

- A history of prior discrimination can justify an unequal response.

- 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.

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.)

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. Women in business
have pointed out how this excludes them. Now some women might then,
in response, form women-only groups for business networking.

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

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 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.

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
Newsgroups: alt.feminism