From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko)
Subject: Re: what is sexist? (was Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:47:33 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Nov13101700@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.032143.25567@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Nov12152904@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>In article <38MD03ktbajB00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:
>>>> [...] My dictionary [...]
>>>> Similarly, "sexism" is defined as:
>>>> "Discrimination by members of one sex against the other, especially by
>>>> men agains women, based on the assumption that one sex is superior."
>>>> Notice that it clearly says *especially* by men against women, not
>>>> exclusively.  And again, no qualifiers about the "non-dominant group".
>>>
>>>Well, that's very interesting.  If we accept your dictionary's
>>>definition of sexism, it would follow that a woman who discriminated
>>>against men, but did not assume that women were superior to men, would
>>>not be sexist, since the discrimination has to be based on the
>>>assumption that one sex is superior.  In that case, something like
>>>affirmative action would not be sexist, since it is based on the
>>>assumption that neither sex is superior.
>
>> that author 
>>of this posting really has troubles with logical reasoning.  
>
>Indeed you do.  Let me try to help you out...
>
>>Exactly the opposite. If neither sex is superior/inferior, affirmative 
>>actions simply aren't needed. I've noticed several times, 
>
>What I said was:
>
>1. If it is a necessary condition of sexism that the discriminatory
>action is based on an assumption that one sex is superior and

You tried to question statement 1., right ?

>2. If it is the basic assumption of affirmative action that the two
>sexes are equal in ability

This statement  ( 2.) was made as obviously correct. My point is that 
it is perfectly illogical. Equal abilities assume equal opportunities,
not affirmative actions.

>3. Then affirmative action is not sexist.
>
>Your discussion of whether or not affirmative action is *necessary* if
>both sexes are equal is, perhaps, an interesting topic, but it is
>totally irrelvant to the question of whether or not affirmative action
>is SEXIST under the above definition.
>

Let's consider the statement "if (assumption1) and (assumption2) are true, 
then (assumption3) is true". If any of assumt.1 or 2 is false, than 
the whole statement is  ALWAYS true. ( Example of true statement : 
"If 2=1 than moon is made of green cheese" ) Therefore your statement 
(1. and 2. => 3.) has nothing to do  with the question whether or not
affirmative action is sexist under (..) definition. 

>If you send me your address, I can send you a good introductory logic
>text, but I'm not sure if it would really help.

May be it'd be better to re-read this text instead of sending it to me ?
                                 :-)

>
>Muffy

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men