jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (03/14/84)
>>> I don't see anything wrong with smiling and kind words >>> in the workplace. Will you accuse me (a man) of not >>> being feminist just because I enjoy an occasional >>> smile from a woman co-worker? I take the little >>> pleasures life offers me unexpectedly, even if I can >>> relate their causes to my sexual nature. I think that >>> is not unconsistent with my view of myself as >>> feminist. > It all depends--how do you interact with your male co-workers? > If it's not the same, then you are by definition a sexist. oh, hogwash. Sexism is the belief that one sex is superior to the other in some fundamental way. Enjoying a smile from a woman more than from a man hardly qualifies. Do you think that only virgins can be truly non-sexist? (note: rhetorical question only!) Think about this: I'm going to react (or interact) differently to eating an orange than I am to an apple - but I couldn't for the life of me say which is superior. Difference *by itself* is not evidence of sexism. Those of you who like to make analogies between sexism and racism please note that the preference expressed above is a far cry from the "separate but (ha ha) equal" conditions fostered by segregation. the picky, Jeff Winslow
london@oddjob.UUCP (08/23/85)
<> (me) >>> A couple months ago I posted an article asking people to suggest what >>> sorts of qualities they imagined a non-sexist society to have. (Andy Cohill) >> BORING!!!! >> Unless the gene-splicers come up with a way of making us >> androgynous, the idea is flatly impossible. Equal rights for women >> (and men) is not the same as trying to erase all differences between >> the sexes. I think that many people are confused about this. I am >> not. I support equal *rights* whole-heartedly. The idea of a >> non-sexist society is absurd.... (aMAZon) > Since when has non-sexist been equal to androgynous? > In a non-sexist society, people can delight in their own special talents, > whatever they be, without having adverse effects on career, personal > life, etc., because of some pre-determined gender classification. > That does not mean that women cease to be women. It does not > mean that women become lesbian. It does not mean that women hate > men. What it does mean is that women are given a fair shake in > the job market and other areas, and that men are given the same > fair shake. (Diane Brinkman) > The non-sexist society you imagine is non-sexual. Boring, I agree. > Webster defines sexism as prejudice or discrimination based on sex; > especially discrimination against women. The non-sexist society > I imagine is sexual, but without prejudice. (Jeff Winslow) > You're extremely confused about one thing. The meaning of the word "sexist". > "Sexist" does not mean, "having sexual differences". > It means "prejudiced against someone because of their sex". Look it up. > Do you still think a non-sexist society would be absurd? or boring? > I think it would be wonderful. And fascinating. In spite of these replies, I think Andy raises an interesting point. Let me divide sexist behaviour into two types - "sexual" and "non-sexual". Admittedly, this is an oversimplification, but it may be useful. The "sexual" type of sexist behaviour is (e.g.) men ogling and whistling at women, Playboy magazine, etc. The "non-sexual" sexist behaviour is (e.g.) women not getting opportunities, jobs or promotions, etc. In a non-sexist society, the "non-sexual" sexism will clearly be gone. However, the "sexual" sexism will probably persist, only it won't be considered sexist anymore, but sexual. And the types of behaviour probably won't be the same for men and women. That is, as of now, it is difficult to distinguish many genetic differences between men and women, since they are swamped by socialized differences. However, it is possible (probable), that, with the socialized differences gone, there still will be genetic differences between men and women, for instance, their sexual response to various stimuli. We would have a society in which the "non-sexual" sexism is gone, but the "sexual" sexism persists, only it now would be considered "sexual play", not sexism at all. In defense of Andy, if he lumps both types of behaviour under the label of "sexism", and both are eliminated, it would be a boring world indeed. However, if you eliminate one, but not the other, then it would be a fascinating society, perhaps an *extremely* sexual one. David London ..!ihnp4!oddjob!london