🚀 go-pugleaf

On 30 Jul 91 06:38:07 GMT, david@wubios.wustl.edu (David J. Camp) said:
> In Reply to this Note From: <carlton@husc.harvard.edu>
>>>>   From: david@wubios.wustl.EDU (David J. Camp)
>>>>
>>>>   Bright-eyes and pretty Nina Lytton of the "Open Systems Advisor" says:
>>> I insist that my remark was in no way sexist.

>>Really.

> Yes.

>>> I in no way indicated
>>> that this woman should be dominated by a man or men.

>>So?

> The definition of sexist that I am familiar with is "The intention for
> one sex to dominate another."

How about

sex.ism \'sek-,siz-<e>m\ n (1970)
 [1 sex + -ism (as in racism)]
    1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; esp: discrimination against
    women
    2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social
    roles based on sex-- sex.ist \'sek-s<e>st\ adj or n

You are certainly doing number two; I maintain that you are doing
number 1 as well, and will get to that later.

>>> I have known
>>> women who lose understanding due to their dependance on their vanity.
>>
>>Again, so?  This has nothing to do with anything else you are saying.

> Perhaps I need to be disputed on this point.  Do women place a higher
> priority on vanity than men?

>>> Her comment showed incredible lack of insight into the market, saying
>>> that a vaporware product of a shrinking proprietary systems market
>>> would make the burgeoning open systems market obsolete by a minor
>>> and greatly over-reported negotiation by two vendors who are losing
>>> market share.
>>
>>See above.

> See what above?  All I saw were some terse denials without any
> demonstration of intelligence.

Ooh.  Well, then I shall spell things out for you.  Your above comment
in no way justifies your "bright-eyed and pretty comment".  It may
justify your substantial attacks on her original post, but that is not
the issue here.

>>> Please look up the word sexism in a reasonably un-contemporized
>>> dictionary before you practice libel about another individuals
>>> conduct.  -David-

See above.  Of course, since it doesn't agree with your definition,
you might call it overly "contemporized".

>>Libel?  Get a clue, man.  Are you seriously claiming that men are as
>>likely to be addressed in terms such as "bright-eyes and pretty"?
>>That, underlying that, isn't a culture which tries to reduce women to
>>objects of attraction instead of thinking people?  You seemed to be
>>implying that attractive people were somehow less intelligent,
>>certainly.

> The statement that I made a sexist remark was what I considered
> erroneous.

> Do you know of any women that are offended with a comment like
> "bright-eyed and pretty?"

Many.

> Is it an attempt to dominate the recipient?

See below.

> Was it based on her gender?

Only you can tell us that, though your sentence a few sentences below
would make one believe that that is the case.

> Was it incorrect?

I have no idea.  Do you?

> I find women very attractive.  That I express it gives me no shame.

All right.  Let me get this straight.  You find women very attractive.
You call people "pretty" when you are making denigrating remarks about
their intelligence.  But you see this as perfectly equal treatment of
the sexes?  This would lose even under your restrictive definition of
"sexist" - denigrating women's intelligence strikes me is an attempt
to (intellectually) dominate them.  You characterize all women as
vain.  I might agree that vanity is bad; but I would attack people
because they are vain instead of because they are female, and at any
rate woudln't talk about such things in situations where they are
completely irrelevant, such as discussions about computers.  Ad
hominem attacks do little to advance your points.

david carlton
carlton@husc9.harvard.edu

        Homosexuality was invented by a straight world dealing with
        its own bisexuality.
                                    - Kate Millett, _Flying_