From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: The word "sexist" (WAS: Sexist studies...) 
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 21:30:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <AWERLING.92Sep13122318@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>In article <nnvn6-=.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>   In article <AWERLING.92Sep10230919@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>   >- I have yet to make any value judgements here, despite several posters
>   >- assumptions to the contrary.
>   >
>   >I assume you are partially (fully?) referring to me.  I've been
>   >conscious of your evading 
>
>   Bogosity alert - I have "evaded" nothing, especially value judgements.
>   I simply see no need to make them here.
>
>You came out of nowhere and called Women's Studies sexist.  Surely you
>knew what loaded language you were using.

I suppose the fact that I have constantly addressed this issue did not
clue you in? And -after- I clarified what I was saying, you said
that I was either dishonest or neglectful, and you accuse -me- of using
loaded language? Why is it OK for you to use loaded language?
 
>
>   >                         of value judgments, or at least your lack of
>   >including or inferring them.  What I have tried to point out is that
>   >the *word* sexist is negative in our language (via our culture).  To
>   >say that Women's Studies is sexist is to call it negative, without
>   >providing a disclaimer.  
>
>   Since this usage is consistant with the primary dictionary definition,
>   I do not see the requirement for a disclaimer. If the word sexist
>   does not refer to the actions of both sexes, than it is sexist as well, 
>   and I do mean with the negative bias.
>
>   Think about it, if language does color though (as claimed in another
>   thread), then defining sexism as men doing bad things to women (as it
>   is often used) defines the problem as strictly a male problem. A non-
>   sexist (and valid) usage is the non-biased version, just 'discrimination
>   by members of one sex against the other'. 
>
>I would use your latter definition, with the word "negative" added
>before it. 
 
And I do not. How much repetition does it take for you to get this idea?
 
>   >                                  Your lack of a disclaimer is either
>   >neglectful on your part or dishonest.  
>
>   Far from it, your use of ad-hominum is distastefull, and completely
>   unecessary. By what means do you judge "dishonest"y in others?
>
>I said *either* neglectful or dishonest.  Either you neglected to
>state that you meant "sexist" neutrally, or you were withholding them
>for some reason.  One or the other, yes? Again, by what measure do
you guage my dishonesty? Why is it even there?
 
Since I have addressed this issue in almost every post, neglect cannot
be a factor. That leaves dishonesty. They are both wrong.
 
>   >If you wanted to merely say that you find Women's Studies to be
>   >exclusionary, you might have considered using less-loaded words than
>   >"sexist."
>
>   And you might have chosen other words than "dishonest" and "neglectful".
>   But you did not.
>
>If you weren't being dishonest or neglectful, what were you being?

You make false accusations, then after failing to back them, you ask
-me- to give you better charges? Get real. I have been honest and direct,
you just do not like it. Possibly because I do not say whatever it is
you seem to want me to say.
 
>--
>Andrew Werling    awerling@nmsu.edu    yip@acca.nmsu.edu
>Transmitting from Planet Yip--where everyone you meet 
>			      is already dead.


Rich

payner@netcom.com