Path: nmsu.edu!lynx!umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!csus.edu!netcom.com!payner
   From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
   Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 23:42:07 GMT
   Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
   References: <AWERLING.92Sep3144419@dante.nmsu.edu> <x7lndzp.payner@netcom.com> <AWERLING.92Sep7162249@dante.nmsu.edu>
   Lines: 78

   In article <AWERLING.92Sep7162249@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
   >
   >Forgive me for not using >'s...I have to do them by hand (unless I'm
   >missing some special command) and I don't have the time right now to
   >go through the entire article and add them.

   From vi try 
   :1,$s/^/>/

   >In article <x7lndzp.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
   >
   >   In article <AWERLING.92Sep3144419@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
   >   >In article <xqkn+8p.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
   >   >
   >   >>  In article <AWERLING.92Sep1232252@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
   >   >> >
   >   >> >Women's Studies in and of itself is *not* sexist.  It is a study that
   >   >> >focuses on a particular group of people.  
   >   >
   >   >> No, you are playing games with words, it focuses on a particular
   >   >> -sex-. 
   >   >
   >   >Yes, and meteorology focuses on a particular aspect of natural
   >   >phenomena.  I don't understand your point.
   >
   >   Sexism requires differentiation by sex. Womens studies is based upon 
   >   differentiation by sex. Generalizing "sex" to "a particular group of people"
   >   can only have the effect of hiding that this group of people is exactly the
   >   group required by sexism. 
   >
   >Sexism does require differentiation by sex.  

   Without this differentiation, there can be no sexism. It -is- a necessary
   condition as well as a sufficient condition.

   >                                              But it requires something
   >more.  It requires an uneducated bias against a particular gender...or
   >at least an unfair one.  It requires prejudice of some sort.  It
   >requires assumption.

   So you assume. None of these need be present. Note that a bias -for-
   a certain sex is sexism as well. Think affirmative action.

   BTW, why the "uneducated"? I do not think it belongs there.

   >Women's studies is the close examination of the lives and
   >accomplishments (and failures I assume) of women.  It is not sexism.

   Of women, -not- men. Men are excluded. One sex (out of two mind you) is
   excluded. This meets the requirement for sexism. And the reason for this
   is not (as you have claimed) prejudice or bias.

   I'm beginning to see that the common perception (at least the perception
   here) is the women are not (all the mean nasty things men are, like
   sexist). And it seems to be by definition. There has been a discussion 
   about language. I think that the feminist label of "male chauvanist pig"
   has indeed colored peoples perceptions. Despite this, I have yet to see
   a (human) male with a snout. Giving something an evil label does not
   -make- that something evil. And giving women a "caring" label does not
   make them caring. I suspect you will find women as prejudiced as men,
   and many men are caring. 

   BTW, I have checked several dictionay definitions, some mention prejudice
   and bias, some do not. I would tend to say that they may or may not
   be present for there to be sexism. But it is not absolutely paty of the
   definition.

   I do not want to get into a dictionary war, perhaps we can agree upon some
   definition?

   >Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@rever.nmsu.edu


   Rich

   payner@netcom.com


--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@rever.nmsu.edu
"Jesus is coming, look busy."
          --from a button I bought in an Albuquerque bookstore.