From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: what is sexist? (was Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 13 Nov 92 20:32:39 GMT
	<1992Nov13.032143.25567@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Nov13101700@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Nov13.194733.28195@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu's message of 13 Nov 92 19:47:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.194733.28195@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes:
> In article <MUFFY.92Nov13101700@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov13.032143.25567@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes:
> >>In article <MUFFY.92Nov12152904@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> >>>In article <38MD03ktbajB00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:
> >>>> [...] My dictionary [...]
> >>>> Similarly, "sexism" is defined as:
> >>>> "Discrimination by members of one sex against the other, especially by
> >>>> men agains women, based on the assumption that one sex is superior."
> >>>> Notice that it clearly says *especially* by men against women, not
> >>>> exclusively.>And again, no qualifiers about the "non-dominant group".
> >>>Well, that's very interesting.  If we accept your dictionary's
> >>>definition of sexism, it would follow that a woman who discriminated
> >>>against men, but did not assume that women were superior to men, would
> >>>not be sexist, since the discrimination has to be based on the
> >>>assumption that one sex is superior.  In that case, something like
> >>>affirmative action would not be sexist, since it is based on the
> >>>assumption that neither sex is superior.

> >1. If it is a necessary condition of sexism that the discriminatory
> >action is based on an assumption that one sex is superior and

> You tried to question statement 1., right ?

Nope, not at all.  I'm not sure where you got this from.  This is
explicitly stated in the definition above, and I was discussing the
implications of accepting this.  Therefore, for the purposes of this
discussion, I have assumed that statement 1. is true.

> >2. If it is the basic assumption of affirmative action that the two
> >sexes are equal in ability
> This statement ( 2.) was made as obviously correct. My point is that 
> it is perfectly illogical. Equal abilities assume equal opportunities,
> not affirmative actions.

I'm not sure what you mean by "equal abilities assume equal
opportunities."  The two certainly do not necessarily go together.  I do
not see why you think that it is illogical that affirmative action
assumes equal abilities.  All the definitions of affirmative action that
I have ever heard *do* assume that people's abilities are not related to
their gender.  They further assume that people's opportunities *are*
related to their gender (i.e. people are discriminated against on the
basis of gender in hiring decisions).

What is your definition of affirmative action?  An assumption that women
are inferior, but should have the same opportunities as men anyway?
*That* is illogical.

> >3. Then affirmative action is not sexist.
> >Your discussion of whether or not affirmative action is *necessary* if
> >both sexes are equal is, perhaps, an interesting topic, but it is
> >totally irrelvant to the question of whether or not affirmative action
> >is SEXIST under the above definition.

> Let's consider the statement "if (assumption1) and (assumption2) are true, 
> then (assumption3) is true". If any of assumt.1 or 2 is false, than 
> the whole statement is ALWAYS true. ( Example of true statement : 
> "If 2=1 than moon is made of green cheese" ) Therefore your statement 
> (1. and 2. => 3.) has nothing to do with the question whether or not
> affirmative action is sexist under (..) definition. 

Well, I see you could use a grammar and spelling workbook as well.
However, let's just look at your "logic."

First, the statement I made was that "under the above definition, AA is
not sexist."  This is the statement which I am asserting the truth of.
The argument is:

1. A
2. B
3. A & B => C
therefore: C

You are apparently asserting that B (AA assumes equal abilities) is
false.  Now, if B is false, then A & B is false.  If this is the case,
we CANNOT DETERMINE (using this argument) whether C is true or false:

A & B => C 
C v ~(A & B)
C v ~A v ~B

You claim "~B."  Certainly, this makes the statement C v ~A v ~B true, 
but it does not say anything about whether or not C is true.  However,
if A and B are true (my assertion), then C is true, and what I say has
everything to do with whether or not AA is sexist under the above
definition.  On the other hand, what you say is irrelevant to the
question, since it cannot determine the truth or falsity of C (AA is not
sexist under the above definition).

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men