From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: sex is sexist? (was Re: Dworkin...)
Date: 29 Aug 92 02:17:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <MUFFY.92Aug28154731@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <01dny7+.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Aug28122800@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>In article <4rdnmhc.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>> I wonder if she would find that amusing? :^)  Actually, sex is essentially
>>>> sexist, and (IMHO) must always be. 
>>>
>>>Can you explain this further and give your reasons why you think so?  I
>>>was completely unconvinced by Andrea Dworkin...*smile*.
>
>>Well, I do not find Dworkin convincing either, but it seems that since
>>the issue is PC, she -is- being listened to.
>
>Well, I won't go on too much about the silliness of the term "PC," but

I have learned not to ignore acquired meanings. The modern usage for
the work "hacker", silly or not, is very very different from the original
usage. But to ignore either is to block communication. Clarification *is*
required however.

>please note that almost all interactions between human beings *can* come
>under the definition of "politics," and that there is always going to be
>one side which is currently popular among the "out" group.  I don't
>think, however, that this is at all why Andrea Dworkin is being
>"listened to."  As I pointed out to a reporter in Canada who was
>astonished that alt.sex was the most-read group on the net and that the
>top 10 most-read groups contained four "sex" groups - sex is one of the
>few things that almost everyone has in common, and most of us have
>done it, thought about doing it, and/or wanted to do it.  It's a big
>issue for people, and it's a big deal in our society.

And it's a big issue with Andrea Dworkin, I would assume from her
writings. She would see *much* less of it, and control what does happen
so that it would conform to her socio-political ideologies. Said ideologies
are far more sexist than the problems that are designed to solve (IMHO).
 
>>I am not entirely sure what reasons you are asking for. If you take the
>>sex outta "sex", ya ain't got nothing, and biology cares little for 
>>political idealisms. Then again, I am not sure that the text quoted
>>above is unambiguous, how did you read it?
>
>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. 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.
Obviously, there is more than that, but it is a prime consideration for
most.

It may be wrong to make job decisions based upon the sex of the applicant,
but it is -not- wrong use such criteria in choosing a lover. Imagine an
"equal opportunity" law for choosing lovers. 
 
>Muffy
 
>Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us

Rich

payner@netcom.com