NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/feminism/4851

Text File | 1992-11-21 | 8.5 KB | 194 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!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: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:44:36 GMT
Lines: 183

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:
>>[e-mail] writes:
>
>>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.
>
>I saw it as totally tangential.  (As were many of the other comments that I
>deleted.)

Some of which you refer to. How tangential can they be when you refer to
them in the response?

BTW, tangents are legal, and OK. Many good topics start this way.

>You seemed to argue "some feminists seem to think feminism is about
 ------------------- (just leave my arguments in when you discuss them)
>double-standards, while others don't."  So?  What's the point?  Is there
>something relevant or contentious there?

I said that it may be true that sexism is about double standards, but not
all feminists view sexism this way. And some feminists are for double standards
(when they are in their favor), and some are against them all. But I do
not think it would be valid to say that feminists are against double
standards, lest we be guilty of generalizing from a few examples.

BTW, the last two women I talked with on this issue fell into the camp
which allowed sexism against males. They had a realistic concern for
fixing their problems, but expressed no concern for doing the same damage
they objected too.

I suspect that the women who are against -all- double standards, even
those in their favor, are in the minority. From the text you posted,
some letters expressed concern that Naomi Wolfe had sold out (or something
similar) after her -Sleeping with the Enemy- article. That may not be
the correct title.

>[on 50/50 representation....]
>
>>>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.
>
>Not IMO.  I think it the presumption is that if there IS a 50/50 ratio,
>there clearly isn't sexism.

OK, I will retract the 'inherently sexist' claim. But the assumption that
there should be 50/50 ratios is not supported. I am not aware of any evidence
which would support this contention. Do you have any?

While the 50/50 split may not be based upon sexist assumptions, it will
be used to enforce sexist hiring/firing/promotion practices, that is, those
based upon nothing more than a male/female body count. It has already
been used for this purpose.

>>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.
>
>What is the sexist assumption?  I must be missing it.
>
>>Counting the number of males and the number of females is not a measure
>>of sexism.
>
>Why not?  Can you show me a case where it clearly is not?

One more time, since you deleted ALL the previous explanation.
Perhaps I should do as you have done, tell you to go back and re-read
the post where it was explained. Then you would have some idea of how
well this sort of explanation works.

1) It may be true that (SEXISM --> a non 50/50 split) - (sexism implies a
   non 50/50 split)

2) It is not true that (a non 50/50 split --> SEXISM) - (a non 50/50 split
   implies sexism)

You are not MEASURING SEXISM by this metric. And without looking into the
situation (as needs to be done anyway), you have no way of knowing what,
if anything, it means.

A local fire station was accused of sexist hiring practices for just this
reason several years ago. It was a false accusation, they had never had
any female applicants. I have no doubt that this will happen more often
in the future.

>>>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?
>
>What have I written out?  Forced quotas?

Alright, show me that a 50/50 split says something about the absence of sexism.
It is not clear that this follows. I cannot off the top of my head come
up with a situation to fit this bill. All sporting events of this type
are fixed by quota.

>>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.
>
>In the absence of sexism, I have no reason to believe that higher
>education, voting, driving, business ownership, child-custody, housework,
>grocery shopping, tax filing, airplane flying, drug use, and a
>bizillion other things would not tend to be something in the
>neighborhood of 50/50....

And you have no reason to belive that a 50/50 split would result either.
Can you provide some evidence to support this? I am not saying that it
would not happen so much as we have no reason to have -any- expectations
in this regard.

>>>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).
>
>"Inherently sexist"?  I don't think I understand what you mean.  I'm sure
>I never used that terminology, in any case.
>
>What I argued was this:  Women and men are held up to different ideals.
>(To crudely sum it up, women are beauty/sex objects, and men are wallets.)
>That is sexism for ya.  Different social expectations for different sexes,
>right?

Again, we have proof by stereotype. The problem with the dumb blonde
stereotype is that it is usually wrong. Are you willing to claim that
this is just -the way things are-?

BTW, if women -do- objectify men as wallet-objects in the manner you
claim men objectify women, and they right or wrong? Or just oppressed?

>Now, if it were the case that *both* men and women were expected to be
>beauty/sex objects... (in which case, we would probably see comparable
>numbers of men and women in nudey calendars).... where's the sexism?

It's in your starting assumptions. That you change them does not change
the reasons why men and women buy calendars. You define the mans situation
differently when women have swimsuit calandars (it seems that to feminists
bikinis = nudism, every time, talk about drifting. You should not complain
so loudly lest lest you also drift off topic, as you have done). It would
seem to make more sense to explain the womens situation differently, since
-that- is what has changed.

BTW, we were taking about the number of Elle claendars purchaced by men
and the number of Chippendales calendars purchaced by women. How do you
jump from there to "both men and women were expected to be sex objects"?
This looks like a paradigm shift in the women, -not- the men. Suddenly,
mens calendars become OK because of a paradigm shift in women? Sounds
like s political problem to me.

>>>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?
>
>It would be a world where people weren't expected to things (or not do
>things) because of their sex.  I would certainly expect a more equal
>representation in most things.

Would you expect -equal- representation though? What does "more equal" mean?
40/60? 55/45? 38/62?  Where would you draw the line at which you would make
accusations of sexism blindly?

>rini


Rich

[e-mail]