NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/feminism/4639

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 3.7 KB | 97 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!garrot.DMI.USherb.CA!uxa.ecn.bgu.edu!news.ils.nwu.edu!lynch
From: [e-mail] (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Mr. usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:45:39 GMT
Lines: 84

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>No it isn't.
>>>>
>>>>Apparently, you tried very hard to read something into what I wrote
>>>>that was clearly not there.
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Why or why not.
>>>
>>>>Maybe it would be *more* useful to compare a bikini calendar
>>>>of women to a calendar of bachelor men which listed their
>>>>incomes, assets, and number of credit cards.
>>>
>>>Maybe it would be more useful to compare a bikini calender to a can
>>>of motor oil, but I doubt it.
>>>
>>>>*That's* what I mean when I say that sexism is a two-way street, but
>>>>it necessarily doesn't operate in the same way to the different people.
>>>
>>>Is that not what feminists here claim is the problem with society?
>>>
>>>>Indeed, the very existence of "sexism" implies that there are double-
>>>>standards.
>>>
>>>So you defend the ones which might be to your advantage, even with
>>>similar to identical situations.
>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>Ah, but only if you accepted the premise that the calendars were directly
>>linked with sexism.  :-)
>
>Was that not the basis for this thread? More to the point is the subject line,
>"Elle MacPherson causes rape". I do not accept this premise, but it seems
>that many women do.
>
>>Seriously, there are all sorts of other conclusions about sexism that would be
>>equally valid.
>
>But due to double standards are not considered so?

I have no idea why you do not consider them valid.  If you think it's because
you have double standards, you are probably correct.

>>>>                                            Instead, this would be a
>>>>convincing indicator to suggest that isn't a sexist world anymore at
>>>>all.
>>>
>>>Or that neither one was ever sexist. (you know, the sexism is in the eye
>>>of the beholder)
>>>
>>>>rini
>>>Rich
>>>[e-mail]
>>"TANSTAAFL"     [e-mail]
>
>Rich again
>
>


--
"TANSTAAFL"     Rich [e-mail]