From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Sexist Statement
Date: 9 Sep 92 04:23:03 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <6216@transfer.stratus.com> fms@sw.stratus.com (Faith Senie) writes:
>I was going to stay out of this -- I really was.  For the most part, I could
>care less about the "guys" stuff -- I use the phrase for mixed groups, myself. 
>But this last one, well, I just couldn't ignore it.

Hmmm. I was going to stay out of this too, but I can't resist. 

>I've gone to college alumni gatherings where other (male) alumni from classes
>10-20 years before mine will come up, introduce themselves to my husband and
>start up a conversation.  When my husband introduces me as class of '85, they
>look at me, say "oh, hi" and carry on the conversation with my husband as if
>I wasn't even present.  My college was 80% male when I was there -- the ratio
>was much worse when these fellows were there, so they automatically assume that
>anybody female at an alumni gathering is automatically spouse of alumnus, never
>thinking about the fact that the woman might just be an alumna.

It's more likely that they just don't know how to *talk* to a woman. That
may be why they chose a nearly all male school to begin with. Many men
are uncomfortable relating to women in non-sexual situations. That's a
fact, changing the language isn't going to help. Only changing *sex* is
going to make a difference, and that's unlikely for physical reasons.

>I've gone on interviews where (male) receptionists have called the (male)
>interview contact to say "there's a lovely young lady here to talk to you".
>I've never heard any of them say "there's a handsome young gentleman here
>to see you" when the men come to interview.

You also probably never hear them say that there is an extremely ugly
old woman there to talk to them. Women are traditionally referred to
as young and pretty, even when they are neither, as a form of polite
flattery.  Is that sexist, you bet, and most women would be insulted
if they were referred to accurately. If the (male) receptionist and
interviewer were homosexual, you might hear references to "handsome
young gentlemen" in their introductions.

>But if replacing male/female with white/black makes it racist, then chances
>are pretty good that at least one of the genders in question would be offended.
>You wouldn't make racial distinctions in your actions -- why make gender
>distinctions?

Racial relations have not fundamentally changed due to forced changes in 
language. Nor have man/woman relationships fundamentally altered due to 
language modification. Sexual differences are deeper than racial differences.
Everyone uses stereotypical abstractions when dealing with others. That's 
*necessary* to handle the complexities of life. Stereotypes are established
by experience and cultural conditioning. Changing them is generally a
multi-generational process. In the case of stereotypes based on physical
characteristics so critical to genetic survival as sex, fundamental 
change is nearly impossible. Elaborate courting rituals underlie nearly
all man/woman interactions, even when sexual intercourse is not the immediate
object of the interaction. These rituals are the result of miliena of
social conditioning. It's unrealistic to expect a schizophrenic separation
of social behavior depending on sexual situation. The sexual revolution
of the 1960s is over. The deviant behavior failed to be viable.

That's not to say that externalities like equal pay for equal work,
equal rights under law, and the like should be swept under the rug.
These are legitimate *human* rights concerns. But at the more primal
level of individual man/woman interaction, the distinctions cannot
be swept under the rug by language changes or laws. They're real,
and must be accepted.

Gary KE4ZV