NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/women/19854

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-18 | 4.4 KB

Xref: sparky soc.women:19854 alt.feminism:4668 soc.men:19522
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!amdahl!jsp
From: [e-mail] (James Preston)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: what is sexist? (was Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:24:35 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 68

[e-mail] (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

}In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Preston) writes:
}>}I think the dictionary definition I just typed in is slightly more in
}>}line with how I define the word.  However, there may be a dictionary
}>}definition that I agree with even more.  Understand?

}>I understand perfectly, Dear.  Given that my point in posting was to
}>refute the nonsense that sexism, racism, and discrimination can only
}>be practiced by the majority toward a minority, and that you explicitly
}>state above that you also don't agree with that, then your purpose in
}>posting was only to nit-pick about slightly differing dictionary
}>definitions of the word "sexism", rather than to add anything relevant
}>to the discussion at hand.

}Ahh, Moose, I'm afraid that you do not understand at all.  No, I was
}actually trying to start a new discussion about whether or not that
}particular section of the definition that you gave was really how it was
}used in practice, and whether or not that was a useful component.
}Notice how I even carefully changed the subject line to reflect this new
}area of discussion?

I see. So in your efforts to further this discussion, you decided to ignore
my questions about the differences between the two definitions at hand?

Make up your mind.  Do you want a discussion, or do you just want to be
rude and insulting?  Or we could do both if you want, but you left out
the discussion part.

So the question is whether or not the "based on the assumption that one
sex is superior" part of the definition I cited is used in practice and/or
is useful?  Clearly, I think, you'll find two major reasons why people are
sexist.  One reason, certainly, is the belief that one sex is superior: the
the guy at the firestation who doesn't want to hire women firefighters
because he "knows" that women cannot handle the job (not strong enough, or
brave enough, or whatever).  But then there's the guy at the private men's
club who doesn't want women to join, not out of a belief that men are better,
but just because he doesn't want to associate with them when he's at "his"
club.  Both men are being sexist, but for different reasons.  Then, of
course, there's also the guy who doesn't want to see women in combat, not
because he doesn't think they can handle it, nor even because he doesn't
want to associate with them on the battlefield, but because he somehow
thinks that women should be "protected" from such things.  That's pretty
sexist, too.  Ok, so there are three major reasons.

And I don't think that any of these are restricted to men being sexist
against women.  You can find women who don't want men to be, say, nurses
because they don't think that men can be as compassionate as women; women
who don't want men in their currently all-women organizations; and women
who . . . Hmmm, is there a good analog for that last one?  Are there
women who would want to "protect" men from some job or task because the
woman sees the job as somehow threatening his manhood, or maleness, or
somesuch?  For example, are there women -- or maybe I should say "were"
there women -- who wouldn't want their husbands to do housework because
the women saw it as "woman's work"?

Anyway, I would have to say that I agree that that part of the definition
I cited is overly restrictive; it's not wrong, it's just incomplete.  But
then, what do you expect from an electronic American Heritage?  They have
to cut some corners to fit it in 2 megs.

--James Preston

P.S. "Moose"; I like that!  First time in my . . . well, let's just say
"many" years that I've been called that!  I'm afraid, though, that with
my build it has no chance of sticking.  But feel free to continue using
it yourself, Muf, that way I'll always know who's insulting me.