From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:07:38 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>>>What I'm saying is that it may not be very meaningful to compare
>>>>a bikini calendar of women to a Chippendale's calendar of men.  
 
>Because one is sexist and one is not? I do not buy into this nonsense.
>Talk about double standards, this is a great example.

Right.  Sexism is all about double standards.  That's the nature of
the beast. 

>>>Is that not what feminists here claim is the problem with society?
>>
>>That it's sexist?  That it works in different way for different people?
>>Yep.  That's *exactly* what feminists think the problem is.
>
>So feminists then claim that a bikini calendar is sexist, but that a
>Chippendales calendar is not. Is this not a double standard?

Yep.  It is.  Again, sexism *is* double standards.  

(I think the argument would go something like this: It is okay and 
normal and commonplace to feature women as sex objects.  It is not okay 
and normal and commonplace to feature men as sex objects.  Therefore, 
sexism is there.  

We can do this again, now, for practice.  It is okay and normal and
commonplace to expect men to provide sufficient economic support
for their entire family.  It is not okay and normal and commonplace
to expect women to provide sufficient economic support for their
entire famly.  Therefore, sexism is there.)

>>>>If the world was as full of Chippendale's calendars as it is full 
>>>>of calendars of scantily clad women, I think it'd be silly to conclude
>>>>that the sexism has now simply doubled.  
>>>
>>>Too bad, because it would indeed follow.
>>
>>How so, Rich?  That men and women are *both* held up to standards of 
>>beauty in the same way?  
>
>This is not the topic. The calendars are. If bikini calendars are sexist,
>and suddenly there was an equal number of Chippendale's calendars, then the
>amount of sexism here is not changed. I get it, since the Chippendale's
>calendars are not sexist, the amount of sexism remains constant. Guess I
>missed that, sorry.

Eh?  How's that Rich?  If I say the proponderance of male CEO's is a 
sign of sexism, would not the appearance of an equal number of female
CEO's be a sure indicator that sexism is gone?  If I point to the
proponderance of female nurses and say it's a sexist world, would not
an equal number of male nurses indicate that sexism is gone?   If I
point to the proponderance of boys in fairy tales and say it's a 
sexist world, would not an equal number of girls in fiary tales
indicate that sexism is gone?

Indeed, I though most people agreed that parity is a sure-fire
(but certainly not the only) indicator that sexism is gone.

>So you feel that you are forced to try to look like a supermodel. 

What??  Where do you get that??????  Rich -- you are delusional.

>Do you think fat guys get dates easily? Or easier than fat gals?

I hope you will be kind enough to tell us all how in the world
this fits in with our conversation.  But, anyway, yes, it is a
weightist society as well.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism