From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:30:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.170738.18262@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>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. 

Recalling a recent exchange over the meaning of the word sexism, and
that some feminist camps define sexism as something men do, and women
are not capable of doing, I suspect that this definition would not be
accepted by all.
 
While it is not clear that feminism is about double standards in general,
I think that one thing all feminists have in common is a wish to end
sexism which affects women negatively. Some feminist camps seem to
require sexism which affects men negatively, some would see an end
to both.

I agree that sexism is about double-standards. But it is not clear to
me that feminism is also about double standards (broadly speaking).
Some are, some are against some double-standards (a sexist subset).

A striking contrast here is between the recently posted text from 
Anne Shaef's "A Womens Reality", and her cliams about the White Male
System, and the text you posted from _Ms_ by Naomi Wolfe called 
"Radical Heterosexuality". Naomi Wolfe seems writes that all double
standards are a problem, even those which are in your favor, while
Anne Shaef seems to be proposing a new double standard based upon
her assesment of White Males.

>>>>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 normal and commonplace to feature -people- as objects. This is
not something exclusively applied to women. And as has been mentioned
in another thread, some feminists are responsible for the creation of
a new type of porn, where males are featured as sex objects. 

>                                                      It is not okay 
>and normal and commonplace to feature men as sex objects.  Therefore, 
>sexism is there.  

It may not be "commonplace", but it is OK.
 
>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.)

Agreed.
 
>>>>>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, 

Ah yes, sexism determinism by body count. An institution that will no doubt 
be with us for years to come.

>                 would not the appearance of an equal number of female
>CEO's be a sure indicator that sexism is gone?  

Only if you can determine the presence or absence of sexism by such a
measure. The problem is that the body count metric is inherently sexist,
and it is not a given that even with no sexism, that 50/50 male/female
ratios would result.

>                                                    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?   

No. 

>                                                              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?

Is it reasonable to extrapolate from English fairy tales to the
entire world? Would you extrapolate to the western world from Indian
legends? The results would be about as valid.

Granted, places like the middle east are extremely sexist, but for
reasons which have nothing to do with fairy tales.
 
>Indeed, I though most people agreed that parity is a sure-fire
>(but certainly not the only) indicator that sexism is gone.

Or that hiring ratios are enforced.
 
>>So you feel that you are forced to try to look like a supermodel. 
>
>What??  Where do you get that??????  Rich -- you are delusional.

Thanx rini, I'd feel abandoned without at least one obligatory insult.
 
[...]

>rini


Rich

payner@netcom.com



Newsgroups: alt.feminism