From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist studies... was(Re: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:31:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <JULIE.92Sep9145130@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu> julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
>In article <!rsn!kb.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>(the double arrows are me -- sorry, deleted that by mistake)
>
>[much deleted from previous posts, btw]
>[argument about whether Women's Studies is sexist]
>
>{awerling}: Sexism does require differentiation by sex.  
>
>{rich}: Without this differentiation, there can be no sexism. It -is- a 
>necessary condition as well as a sufficient condition.
>>>
>>>Hang on... are you serious?  Differentiation by sex is a *sufficient* 
>>>condition for sexism?  I'll have to tell my gynecologist.  Surely there
>>>must be some implication that the differentiation is question is 
>>>inappropriate?  But that's starting to sound like awerling's definition...
>>>Could you clarify your definition of sexism?
>
>>I did not realize that "sexism" is a biological condition. But I do realize
>>that whatever you are talking about has nothing to do with "Sexism". Or
>>are you implying that |sex==sexism|? One is biological, one is not. 
>
><sigh> No, I didn't mean it's sexist that I have a uterus and you don't.
>I meant that my gynecologist, for example, only treats female patients,
>therefore excluding men from her treatment and differentiating by sex.
>This seems to meet *your* definition for sexism.  

Right. But I have not said that either is wrong, or right for that matter.
I have yet to make any value judgements here, despite several posters
assumptions to the contrary.

>                                                   It does not meet mine,
>and I don't believe it meets most people's.  If you want to use that 
>definition, change all statements of mine and other people's about "sexism"
>to "sexism stemming from prejudice or bias".  OK?
>Then at least we're talking about the same thing.

I believe my usage is consistant with the primary definition in most
dictionaries. I just refuse to tack on the negative sexist bias. We are
mostly talking about the same thing, but you keep assigning value judgments
to my post. When I want to make a value judgment, I will put up huge
warning flags so that you cannot miss it, OK?
 
>>Communication failures seem more common here than actual communication.
>>The point is simple, and follows from deleted text. The claim was made that
>>sexism required prejudice and/or bias. Woman's Studies is sexist, but is
>>not a result of prejudice and/or bias. Ergo, these are not required or
>>necessary. If you still do not get it, strike 2.
>
>See above.  This argument is going nowhere because you're arguing that
>W.S. is sexist by your definition, and therefore we're being inconsistent
>in not attacking it the way we would other sexism, while we're telling
>you that we don't think it's sexist, not because it's "only women oppressing
>men", but because (as you say) there is not inherent prejudice or bias.
>Apples and oranges...  

No, I have not attacked sexism, I have attacked inconsistant and sexist
labeling of what is sexist and what is not. And wherever did you get that
quote of "only women oppressing men"? It ain't mine.
 
>>BTW, you (correct me if I assume to much) would limit and direct what I
>>might say or do because of your perceptions, i.e. "you see them as sexist".
>
>Consider yourself corrected :).  I am notorious in my personal life for
>being quite happy to debate with people who disagree with me (well, within
>limits -- I wouldn't be friendly with David Duke).  I still have hope
>you'll come around to my point of view :).

At this point, I suspect we both are unclear on each others point of view.
Basically, my beef is that ->sexism<- is being touted as the cause of all
womens problems (and the worlds as well), and what I see touted as solutions
are just as sexist as the evil problem that is to be eliminated. 
 
>>But it seems you have a problem if I attempt to even make a distinction
>>along those same lines. Do women feel that mens preception of what is 
>>sexist and what is not are so unimportant that noone could actually take 
>>them seriously? But I keep forgetting, sexism is what men do, women are
>>incapable of sexist actions. <sigh>
>
>I completely disagree (for the record).  Some people are sexist, others
>have sexism thrust upon them.  

This is either a pun of awesome proportions :^), or an accidental
juxtaposition of words. But I like it.

>                                People reading a group like this are more 
>likely to fall into the latter category, so it's not surprising that all
>of us (male and female) feel we have more often been the victims of sexism
>than the perpetrators.  Just because I argue men are often sexist doesn't
>mean I discount the idea that women can be sexist too.

Then must not both be eliminated (male and female sexism that is). And it
is also true that while I argue that women are sexist, I state it that
women are as sexist as men, not more, not less. Contrary to the way some
feminist -define- sexism.
 
>>>Does
>>>this mean every class must avoid distinguishing between categories of humans?
>>This means that you read too much between the lines.
>>>Is it "timist" to study only literature from the 18th century in a class?
>>No, you assume some more.
>
>	You are quite right; I was assuming you were saying "sexism is bad,
>and it's bad in these cases as well as in more commonly described ones".
>In fact, you seem to be arguing no such thing; you seem to be saying that
>sexism is differentiation by sex, and we cannot argue against all sexism
>if we are not going to argue against Women's Studies.  

Not exactly, we cannot argue -against- sexism if we define it in a sexually
biased manner. If, by definition, women cannot be sexist, any anti-sexist
leglislation must necessarily be anti-male leglislation.

Also, I have not said anything against Women's Studies, only that is is
sexist. I do not see all sexist divisions of labor as wrong or evil. If
so, the entire human race, all cultures that I have ever heard of, are
wrong and evil.

>                                                      I maintain that I
>(and others) have never meant to argue against *all* differentiation by
>sex, so this is expecting us to defend a point we never made.  Similarly,
>I do not agree that a course on white men's literature, or black Americans'
>literature, is racist, in the way that I (and my dictionary) define
>racism.  

OK, I'll go with that. 
 
>>Rich
>
>Julie
>
>
>-- 
>I wonder why it is that when I plan a route too carefully it goes to pieces,
>whereas if I blunder along in blissful ignorance aimed in a fancied direction
>I get through with no trouble.
>				--- John Steinbeck (Travels with Charley)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women