From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:17:27 GMT

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

...[Chippendale OK, Swimsuit calendar sexist]...

...[Black jurors find black cops innocent in Reginald Swaithe III beating]...

>... I think there's an argument to made for the idea that even
>if the Orange County residents thought that a great injustice had 
>been carried out through racism, it would merely be one strange *quirk*
>in a system which otherwise, from their perspective, treats people okay
>the vast majority of the time.   

>In other words, we just don't start out on an even playing field.
>Especially not when you talk about things loaded with symbolic meaning.

>Take the bumper sticker "Die Yuppie Scum."  Lot's of folks think it's 
>funny.  Even some yuppies think it's funny.  Heck, it's even funnier
>when it's on, say, a nice new Volvo.

>Now imagine the bumper sticker "Die Ghetto Scum."  Heck, imagine it
>on a nice new Volvo.  It's just not funny anymore.  No, it's really sad.

Actually, I think it's funny, though probably not in the Bronx.

>But think about it!  It's a the same damn sticker with only the 
>*subject* changed!  Yet that *alone* changes the whole emotional meaning 
>of the verb and the adjective, and the implications are very different.

>Men and women, similarly, are not value free terms.  Think of all the
>double standards we have in this society.  If I gossip about a woman
>sleeping around, it's generally a mark against her character.  If I
>gossip about a man sleeping around, it's generally a reason to admire
>his prowess.  Same act, different name (male or female) -- totally 
>different implications can follow.  That's the very nature of the sexist
>world we live in.

>On these grounds, I think one could also argue that a Chippendale's 
>calendar also means a very different thing in our society than
>a swimsuit calendar.  I'm pretty sure they do mean different things
>to your average Joe and Jane Doe.  (Note that I'm not interested in 
>debating if one is harmful and the other is not -- it's not real clear
>cut to me.  I'm no semi-nude calendar expert!  I don't really have
>much of a clue as to what the two types of calendar "mean".)

...[ ]...

>Does that make any sense?

Yes, the old "oppressed people cannot be x-ist" argument, often stated
by racists, sexists, x-ists etc, who belong to an "oppressed minority".
The argument appears attractive at first, especially to the angry
"oppressed". After all, the playing field really isn't level. Unfortunately,
accepting the argument is tantamount to accepting several implied
assumptions which are not acceptable to most people:

For example: for any x, x-ism disappears when a person is "oppressed".

Or, people are not responsible for their own character, but rather the social
conditions in which they find themselves determine these character traits.
That argues a kind of moral relativism which I find personally offensive.

If a Chippendale calendar is OK - as a reaction and an amusing quirk - then
what happens when we have a hundred such calendars, followed by harder core
stuff, until there is a rough balance of such material? In such a progression,
at what point do Chippendale calendars become sexist, or Swimsuit calendars
cease to be so?

Regards,
       H. Biesel
Newsgroups: soc.men