From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sexist studies... was(Re: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 15:08:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <JULIE.92Sep8235053@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu> julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
>In article <16qn_h+.payner@netcom.com> Rich Payne writes:
>>In article <AWERLING.92Sep7162249@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu writes:
>
>[argument about whether Women's Studies is sexist]
>
>>>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.
>
>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. 
 
>[...]
>
>>>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 not quite sure what that last sentence means -- it seems garbled
>to me]

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.

>Look, I've heard (not here) some good arguments against forming Women's Studies
>programs or departments, but you sound like you'd argue even against
>*any* classes that focused on women, because you see them as sexist.  

No, I have never said that there should be no women's studies, nor even
implied it. What I am trying to say is that we need to stop making
artificial distinctions as to what is sexist and what is not. If sexism
is not wrong for all, it is not wrong. I keep hearing and reading
arguments telling me why it is OK for women to be sexist, but a terrible
crime if one is male. This is not the first step to a solution.

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".
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>

>                                                                       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.

>Are you arguing that in fact there are no legitimate broad differences, and
>never have been, between men's and women's experiences, that would justify
>focusing on one sex in certain classes?  

But such distinctions are sexist, lets label them as they are. "Men's studies",
if such a thing ever existed, would be just as sexist, and no more right or 
wrong.

>                                                       I have no problem
>with doing the same thing for men: I read about one college where someone
>was teaching a course on white men's literature -- many places do that 
>anyway, and to me it makes sense to acknowledge the things those
>guys had in common that other people of their time did not.  

Fine, but you do realize that that is sexist, and racist as well. Too bad
there is no truth in labeling law for sexism. 

Does this mean that these classes are wrong and should not be taught? That
does not follow. And I do not argue that that is the way it should be. 
 
>>>Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@rever.nmsu.edu
>>Rich
>
>---Julie


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism