From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist studies... was(Re: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:27:39 GMT
	<AWERLING.92Sep7162249@dante.nmsu.edu> <16qn_h+.payner@netcom.com>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

In article <16qn_h+.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

-   In article <AWERLING.92Sep7162249@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:

- >                                              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.

Affirmative action is arguably sexist, arguably racist, perhaps
someday heterophobic (HA!).  Note, "arguably."

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

Yeah, that's why I changed it to "unfair."  "Uneducated" does not fit.

- >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.

Seems to me that the connotation of the word "sexism" is a negative
one.  This means that "at the exclusion of" is not a sufficient
criterion to be sexism.

- 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). 

I don't know about the "common perception" (if there really is one),
but I fully believe that women have equal capacity for sexism.  I've
NOT said otherwise.  All I have said is that women's studies is not
sexism.  You study chemistry, and in so doing, you have to look at
physics, biology, geology.  You study women's lives, you by default
have to look at men as well.  I don't know where you got your concept
of women's studies.  And I don't know why you insist that "at the
exclusion of" automatically equals sexism.  If direct study of men's
lives are excluded, how is that negative?  

- 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. 

As do all labels, like "nagging bitch."

- Despite this, I have yet to see
- a (human) male with a snout. 

Or a human female giving birth to puppies?

- 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. 

Of course.  I've never said anything otherwise.  I am, after all,
male.  

- 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.

Look at how the word is used.  It is used negatively.  It is used to
suggest someone is being unfairly treated.  Are men REALLY unfairly
treated by the existence of Women's studies?  If the course is taught
responsibly, nothing about it should be unfair.

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

Using a dictionary is dishonest.  How do we as humans *use* the word?

-   Rich

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