From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sexism: Defined
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 14:41:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep5.132431.22836@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.133941.15637@news.nd.edu> s
> larsen@beethoven.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>>I've been seeing here various incidents involving various 
>>characters, said incidents and characters being described 
>>as "sexist".
>>
>>I am curious as to how people define the term "sexist", as 
>>it is used both as a noun and adjective.  What I am looking
>>for here is not a dictionary definition but what folks 
>>believe sexism to be.
>
>Sexism - Prejudicial treatment of or bias against people with respect
>to their sex.  More broadly, the social ideas, roles and institutions
>which permote this and assign different status to men and women.
>
>In our society this takes the form of an implicit assumption that
>men are "normal" and women are inferior and "abnormal".
>
><Soapbox on>
>IMHO, it is possible for men to be the targets of sexism. At the same time,
>I would not charge every example of women "turning the tables" on male
>sexism with being "sexist".  

It's not "turning the tables", it's doing the same thing. 

>                             For example, I would not call the exclusion
>of men from the Michigan Wom*n's Music Festival sexist; because: it has
>so little social support; it is a response to social sexism/heterosexism,
>it is a private volentary association which does not damage those not
>participating.

Now if it were the "Michigan Mens Music Festival" excluding women, then
it -would- be considered sexist. Why is that?

Parallel situations, just swap the words men and women, and you claim that
one situation is not sexist, while I claim the other would be considered
sexist.

And why? For reasons invented by feminists. What exactly does "because: it has
so little social support; it is a response to social sexism/heterosexism,
it is a private volentary association which does not damage those not
participating" mean? I guess it means sexism is OK if you can make excuses
with the proper buzzwords.

It's bad when men do it, but it is -not- bad when women do it, because
of higher socio-political truths.

Personally, I do not buy this. It's contradictory on the very surface.
The very definition of sexist by many feminists is "something men do".
Which is blatantly sexist as well. 

Sexism will always exist if women fail to own up to their own sexism.

You can say the same thing about men, but that is another topic.
 
>On the other hand I would suggest that not granting men and women
>equal access to parental leave for childcare is sexist (and is a 
>manifestation of the social ideology of sexism.)
>
>This parallels the debate about racism -- where some parties suggest
>that the extent of social power one has is an important variable.
>
>(I think this is important, but it is a manner of degree, not an absolute.)

Do you mean it's important to define things in such a way that the other
guy is always at fault? Except that rather than 'other guy' you now have
just 'white guy'.  

><Soapbox off>
>
>-- 
> Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
> alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism