From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: sex is sexist? (was Re: Dworkin...)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 17:02:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <MUFFY.92Aug29084105@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>Well, that's part of the problem.  That was what I was referring to in
>the other post about women/men-only groups.  As Albert says, I do not
>define differentiating on the basis of sex to be the same as
>discriminating (which does, by itself, have a negative (i.e. someone is
>getting screwed over) connotation).  For example, I do not think that
>gynecologists or obstetricians *discriminate*, since women are the only
>people who have the equipment they are working on.  If men had it too,
>they would serve men, but it's sort of pointless the way things
>currently are.
>
>>>>For my usage (and what I meant) by "sexist", is simply
>>>>to differentiate based upon sex only. Most of the peoples of the world
>>>>see one sex as sutiable as a sex partner, and the other sex unsuitable.
>
>Most people do, but as Albert pointed out, some people don't.  I don't

And as I pointed out, my point is that it is -acceptable- to discriminate
when choosing a partner upon these grounds, I did not say that it was
required.

>choose my partners based on their gender.  However, even if I did, it's
>not clear to me that it would be sexist, since I don't think I am
>injuring anyone by not choosing them as a partner.  Nonetheless, your
>original statment implied that you didn't believe it was at all possible
>for sex to not be sexist, and I would disagree with that even if I
>agreed that monosexuals (that is, people who are attracted only to
>people of one gender) were sexist (which I'm still not convinced of).

I think we have communication problem cause in part by poor word choice.
That is, I do not want to say what you seem to think that I said.
 
>>My point is more that it is absolutely acceptable to make choices 
>>in this area based upon sex, not that it is absolutely -required-.
>
>It is also acceptable to make choices based on hair color, body odor,
>height, weight, degree of intelligence, etc.  

Absolutely!

>                                             I think you are using the 
>term "sexism" in a ridiculous way by applying it to matters of personal
>taste.  

Well, I used the word 'sexist', and that seems to be the word that is
causing all the problem. Let me withdraw the word "sexist" as it
is causing everyone to get the wrong message.

>The danger of sexism is in the oppression of people on the basis
>of their gender; do you think men (sorry, I'm assuming you're
>heterosexual here, but I think that's a fair guess given what you've
>said so far - if you're gay, please change that to "women") are
>*oppressed* because you do not choose them as sexual partners?


This is so far out in left field that I see no point in responding to it.
It has nothing to do with what I was trying to say.

There has obviously been a serious miscommunication here. Let me
restate what I had said as "It is acceptable and correct to discriminate
in the choice of sexual partners". That is -all- that I was attempting to
say, all else that has been mentioned is unreleated.

And for the record, if it matters, I am quite straight. And when I
"screw" a woman, it has nothing to do with work, and we both want to
do it.
 
>Muffy
>Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us

Rich

payner@netcom.com	(not getting across clearly for some reason <sigh>)