home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.feminism
- Path: sparky!uunet!walter!qualcom.qualcomm.com!network.ucsd.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uchinews!quads!mec6
- From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
- Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
- Message-ID: <1992Nov16.170738.18262@midway.uchicago.edu>
- Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
- Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
- Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
- References: <1992Nov10.184649.24682@netcom.com> <1992Nov10.205935.17915@midway.uchicago.edu> <1992Nov16.002113.17034@netcom.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:07:38 GMT
- Lines: 73
-
- payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
- >mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
- >>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
- >>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
-
- >>>>What I'm saying is that it may not be very meaningful to compare
- >>>>a bikini calendar of women to a Chippendale's calendar of men.
-
- >Because one is sexist and one is not? I do not buy into this nonsense.
- >Talk about double standards, this is a great example.
-
- Right. Sexism is all about double standards. That's the nature of
- the beast.
-
- >>>Is that not what feminists here claim is the problem with society?
- >>
- >>That it's sexist? That it works in different way for different people?
- >>Yep. That's *exactly* what feminists think the problem is.
- >
- >So feminists then claim that a bikini calendar is sexist, but that a
- >Chippendales calendar is not. Is this not a double standard?
-
- Yep. It is. Again, sexism *is* double standards.
-
- (I think the argument would go something like this: It is okay and
- normal and commonplace to feature women as sex objects. It is not okay
- and normal and commonplace to feature men as sex objects. Therefore,
- sexism is there.
-
- We can do this again, now, for practice. It is okay and normal and
- commonplace to expect men to provide sufficient economic support
- for their entire family. It is not okay and normal and commonplace
- to expect women to provide sufficient economic support for their
- entire famly. Therefore, sexism is there.)
-
- >>>>If the world was as full of Chippendale's calendars as it is full
- >>>>of calendars of scantily clad women, I think it'd be silly to conclude
- >>>>that the sexism has now simply doubled.
- >>>
- >>>Too bad, because it would indeed follow.
- >>
- >>How so, Rich? That men and women are *both* held up to standards of
- >>beauty in the same way?
- >
- >This is not the topic. The calendars are. If bikini calendars are sexist,
- >and suddenly there was an equal number of Chippendale's calendars, then the
- >amount of sexism here is not changed. I get it, since the Chippendale's
- >calendars are not sexist, the amount of sexism remains constant. Guess I
- >missed that, sorry.
-
- Eh? How's that Rich? If I say the proponderance of male CEO's is a
- sign of sexism, would not the appearance of an equal number of female
- CEO's be a sure indicator that sexism is gone? If I point to the
- proponderance of female nurses and say it's a sexist world, would not
- an equal number of male nurses indicate that sexism is gone? If I
- point to the proponderance of boys in fairy tales and say it's a
- sexist world, would not an equal number of girls in fiary tales
- indicate that sexism is gone?
-
- Indeed, I though most people agreed that parity is a sure-fire
- (but certainly not the only) indicator that sexism is gone.
-
- >So you feel that you are forced to try to look like a supermodel.
-
- What?? Where do you get that?????? Rich -- you are delusional.
-
- >Do you think fat guys get dates easily? Or easier than fat gals?
-
- I hope you will be kind enough to tell us all how in the world
- this fits in with our conversation. But, anyway, yes, it is a
- weightist society as well.
-
- rini
-