From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Sexist and 50/50 (Was: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 21:11:11 GMT

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

>I addressed the question, 'is -feminism- about double standards' in response
>to your claim that -sexism- is about double standards. It would seem this
>is a distinction which you can't figure out how to flame or denigrate, so
>you edit it out and use ad-hominum. 

I saw it as totally tangential.  (As were many of the other comments that I 
deleted.)

You seemed to argue "some feminists seem to think feminism is about
double-standards, while others don't."  So?  What's the point?  Is there
something relevant or contentious there?


[on 50/50 representation....]

>>Why is the body count metric "inherently sexist"?  
 
>Because it in no way addresses the issue of sexism, it presumes that
>if there is no 50/50 ratio, that this could only be a result of sexism.

Not IMO.  I think it the presumption is that if there IS a 50/50 ratio,
there clearly isn't sexism.

>Back to the old, men and women would make identical choices in the
>absence of socialization (and it's role models) idea. In other words, it
>is a sexist metric because it is based upon sexist assumptions. Or can
>you show that this is not an assumption. 

What is the sexist assumption?  I must be missing it. 

>Counting the number of males and the number of females is not a measure
>of sexism. 

Why not?  Can you show me a case where it clearly is not?

>>To the point, are there situations you can think of that exist today
>>where men and women participate in something equally and where the very 
>>fact of 50/50 participation is evidence of sexism?  (For clarity, let's set
>>aside the whole idea of "forced quotas" etc.)  I must admit that I'm
>>having a hard time coming up with examples to prove your point.
>
>Since you so narrowly defined the circumstances is it any surprise?

What have I written out?  Forced quotas?

>Lets try this, show me a situation (with no quotas/etc..) where a 50/50
>split would always happen? If you cannot BTW, your question is moot.
>And yes, a mixed doubles bowling league would be a quota situation.

In the absence of sexism, I have no reason to believe that higher
education, voting, driving, business ownership, child-custody, housework,
grocery shopping, tax filing, airplane flying, drug use, and a 
bizillion other things would not tend to be something in the
neighborhood of 50/50....

>>Is the answer to this at all related to your idea that an equal
>>reprentation of scantily clothed males and females in media would imply
>>double-the-sexism?
 
>The above is really wierd. You are claiming that bikini calendars are
>inherently sexist, but if there are enough Chippendales calendars, then
>they are no longer sexist (or so it seems). 

"Inherently sexist"?  I don't think I understand what you mean.  I'm sure
I never used that terminology, in any case.

What I argued was this:  Women and men are held up to different ideals.
(To crudely sum it up, women are beauty/sex objects, and men are wallets.)
That is sexism for ya.  Different social expectations for different sexes,
right?

Now, if it were the case that *both* men and women were expected to be
beauty/sex objects... (in which case, we would probably see comparable
numbers of men and women in nudey calendars).... where's the sexism?

>>What would a totally non-sexist USA look like to you Rich?
>
>I don't know rini, what would it look like to you? Exact 50/50 man/woman 
>ratios everywhere? Or would you allow a few tenths of a percent of drift?

It would be a world where people weren't expected to things (or not do
things) because of their sex.  I would certainly expect a more equal
representation in most things.  

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism