From: julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright)
Subject: Re: Sexist studies... was(Re: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Organization: Center for Biomolecular Simulation, Department of Chemistry,
	Columbia University
	<JULIE.92Sep8235053@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu>
	<!rsn!kb.payner@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:51:30 GMT

In article <!rsn!kb.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
(the double arrows are me -- sorry, deleted that by mistake)

[much deleted from previous posts, btw]
[argument about whether Women's Studies is sexist]

{awerling}: Sexism does require differentiation by sex.  

{rich}: 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. 

<sigh> No, I didn't mean it's sexist that I have a uterus and you don't.
I meant that my gynecologist, for example, only treats female patients,
therefore excluding men from her treatment and differentiating by sex.
This seems to meet *your* definition for sexism.  It does not meet mine,
and I don't believe it meets most people's.  If you want to use that 
definition, change all statements of mine and other people's about "sexism"
to "sexism stemming from prejudice or bias".  OK?
Then at least we're talking about the same thing.

>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.

See above.  This argument is going nowhere because you're arguing that
W.S. is sexist by your definition, and therefore we're being inconsistent
in not attacking it the way we would other sexism, while we're telling
you that we don't think it's sexist, not because it's "only women oppressing
men", but because (as you say) there is not inherent prejudice or bias.
Apples and oranges...  

>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".

Consider yourself corrected :).  I am notorious in my personal life for
being quite happy to debate with people who disagree with me (well, within
limits -- I wouldn't be friendly with David Duke).  I still have hope
you'll come around to my point of view :).

>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>

I completely disagree (for the record).  Some people are sexist, others
have sexism thrust upon them.  People reading a group like this are more 
likely to fall into the latter category, so it's not surprising that all
of us (male and female) feel we have more often been the victims of sexism
than the perpetrators.  Just because I argue men are often sexist doesn't
mean I discount the idea that women can be sexist too.

>>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.

	You are quite right; I was assuming you were saying "sexism is bad,
and it's bad in these cases as well as in more commonly described ones".
In fact, you seem to be arguing no such thing; you seem to be saying that
sexism is differentiation by sex, and we cannot argue against all sexism
if we are not going to argue against Women's Studies.  I maintain that I
(and others) have never meant to argue against *all* differentiation by
sex, so this is expecting us to defend a point we never made.  Similarly,
I do not agree that a course on white men's literature, or black Americans'
literature, is racist, in the way that I (and my dictionary) define
racism.  

>Rich

Julie


-- 
I wonder why it is that when I plan a route too carefully it goes to pieces,
whereas if I blunder along in blissful ignorance aimed in a fancied direction
I get through with no trouble.
				--- John Steinbeck (Travels with Charley)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism