NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/feminism/4839

Text File | 1992-11-21 | 4.0 KB | 98 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!payner
From: [e-mail] (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sexist and 50/50 (Was: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:13:38 GMT
Lines: 87

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:
>>[e-mail] writes:

#include <stdinsult.h>.

>  [much deletia as Rich drifts off somewhere else...]

I addressed the question, 'is -feminism- about double standards' in response
to your claim that -sexism- is about double standards. It would seem this
is a distinction which you can't figure out how to flame or denigrate, so
you edit it out and use ad-hominum.

>>>If I say the proponderance of male CEO's is a sign of sexism,
>>
>>Ah yes, sexism determinism by body count. An institution that will no doubt
>>be with us for years to come.
>>
>>>                 would not the appearance of an equal number of female
>>>CEO's be a sure indicator that sexism is gone?
>>
>>Only if you can determine the presence or absence of sexism by such a
>>measure. The problem is that the body count metric is inherently sexist,
>>and it is not a given that even with no sexism, that 50/50 male/female
>>ratios would result.
>
>Why is the body count metric "inherently sexist"?

Because it in no way addresses the issue of sexism, it presumes that
if there is no 50/50 ratio, that this could only be a result of sexism.
Back to the old, men and women would make identical choices in the
absence of socialization (and it's role models) idea. In other words, it
is a sexist metric because it is based upon sexist assumptions. Or can
you show that this is not an assumption.

Counting the number of males and the number of females is not a measure
of sexism.

I would compare this to cheap THC tests. They -will- give a positive if
you have smoked dope. But also if you use certain decongestants,
prescpiption drugs/etc. In other words, a positive result only means
that you -might- have been smoking, and you may have never tried the
stuff. The body count metric is similar, false positives are easily
possible. You are not measuring sexism!

>To the point, are there situations you can think of that exist today
>where men and women participate in something equally and where the very
>fact of 50/50 participation is evidence of sexism?  (For clarity, let's set
>aside the whole idea of "forced quotas" etc.)  I must admit that I'm
>having a hard time coming up with examples to prove your point.

Since you so narrowly defined the circumstances is it any surprise?
Lets try this, show me a situation (with no quotas/etc..) where a 50/50
split would always happen? If you cannot BTW, your question is moot.
And yes, a mixed doubles bowling league would be a quota situation.

>>>                                                    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?
>>
>>No.
>
>Why?
>
>Is the answer to this at all related to your idea that an equal
>reprentation of scantily clothed males and females in media would imply
>double-the-sexism?

The above is really wierd. You are claiming that bikini calendars are
inherently sexist, but if there are enough Chippendales calendars, then
they are no longer sexist (or so it seems). It would seem that the
sexist/non-sexist label is inherently meaningless, just a measure of
the current political climate.

>What would a totally non-sexist USA look like to you Rich?

I don't know rini, what would it look like to you? Exact 50/50 man/woman
ratios everywhere? Or would you allow a few tenths of a percent of drift?

>rini


Rich

[e-mail]