From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: sex is sexist? (was Re: Dworkin...)
Date: 29 Aug 92 08:41:05
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<6!fnl5_.payner@netcom.com> <1992Aug29.103442.5191@news.acns.nwu.edu>
	<=qfn-2.payner@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: payner@netcom.com's message of Sat, 29 Aug 92 13:51:27 GMT

In article <=qfn-2.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Aug29.103442.5191@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>>In article <6!fnl5_.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>[...](Muffy replied:)
>>>>Well, it *is* ambiguous, but I read it as "the sexual act is always
>>>>sexist (which word I define essentially as "negatively discriminatory
>>>>towards people according to their gender")."  If this is basically what
>>>>you meant, I'd like to know the reasons why you think that sex is always
>>>>sexist.  If you meant something else, I'd like to know what, and, again,
>>>>why it is that you think what you meant was true.
>>>The "negative" aspect is acquired, and has no part of the real meaning
>>>of the word sexist. Wait, I just attempted to verify that, and this may
>>>not be correct.

Well, that's part of the problem.  That was what I was referring to in
the other post about women/men-only groups.  As Albert says, I do not
define differentiating on the basis of sex to be the same as
discriminating (which does, by itself, have a negative (i.e. someone is
getting screwed over) connotation).  For example, I do not think that
gynecologists or obstetricians *discriminate*, since women are the only
people who have the equipment they are working on.  If men had it too,
they would serve men, but it's sort of pointless the way things
currently are.

>>>For my usage (and what I meant) by "sexist", is simply
>>>to differentiate based upon sex only. Most of the peoples of the world
>>>see one sex as sutiable as a sex partner, and the other sex unsuitable.

Most people do, but as Albert pointed out, some people don't.  I don't
choose my partners based on their gender.  However, even if I did, it's
not clear to me that it would be sexist, since I don't think I am
injuring anyone by not choosing them as a partner.  Nonetheless, your
original statment implied that you didn't believe it was at all possible
for sex to not be sexist, and I would disagree with that even if I
agreed that monosexuals (that is, people who are attracted only to
people of one gender) were sexist (which I'm still not convinced of).

>My point is more that it is absolutely acceptable to make choices 
>in this area based upon sex, not that it is absolutely -required-.

It is also acceptable to make choices based on hair color, body odor,
height, weight, degree of intelligence, etc.  I think you are using the 
term "sexism" in a ridiculous way by applying it to matters of personal
taste.  The danger of sexism is in the oppression of people on the basis
of their gender; do you think men (sorry, I'm assuming you're
heterosexual here, but I think that's a fair guess given what you've
said so far - if you're gay, please change that to "women") are
*oppressed* because you do not choose them as sexual partners?

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:608 soc.men:15943