Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!bridge2!jarthur!ucivax!gateway From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: the *isms Message-ID: Date: 10 May 91 18:19:56 GMT References: <14622@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> <9105050838.1718@mydog.UUCP> <14801@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> Organization: Natural Language Incorporated Lines: 61 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: blanche.ics.uci.edu In article <14801@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> farmerl@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu (lisa ann farmer) writes: [Who commits more crimes...] [...] You may or may not know that statistics are easily manipulated to show the side that best benefits the group using them. Yes, I'm sure most of us know this. However, people can (and do) manipulate statistics on both sides of an argument. Without getting into all the possible causes of something like a larger number of crimes being committed by some group (race, gender, social position, etc), I would imagine that if these figures were being heavily weighted, someone from the other side would spring up and point that out. In the case of black people, what I have seen and heard is that many organizations are trying to attack the causes of what they seem to agree is a problem (with crime). [...] My point is I don't know how much of what I was taught is "true". Therefore I can never say that I am _not_ racist because the power structure is racist. Do you mean that you are waiting for someone to tell you that you are or aren't racist? I take it you don't think you *can* be sexist, since you're not part of the group "in power." A good definition of sexist (in my opinion, of course) might be "valuing (positively or negatively) a person primarily on their gender, especially when it isn't relevant." (The same would work for racist, etc). Now, I don't need "society" to tell me when I'm being sexist (although friends are free to point it out if it happens). I can simply look at my actions and see if I am valuing people based on their gender, rather than their abilities. By this definition, I can be just as sexist as anyone else, even though I'm a woman. Freedom for all...*laugh*. Since I know what being sexist/racist/etc is, though, I can try not to be. Now, if you stick by your definition that you're *ist depending on whether you're in power or not, all you have to do is look at society and see who is in power, and what visible physical characteristics you share with them. In that case, again, it doesn't matter what you are taught, since your opinions/actions don't determine whether or not you are *ist. [Suspicious character at night] >> Is a defensive reaction against such a person, when one is in a >> vulnerable situation, racist or sexist? Or is it simply >> rational? Or both? (By "defensive reaction" I mean, of course, > I think it is both. It is very rational to use your previous knowledge to > protect/help yourself. But the info comes from a racist/sexist/ablist/etc > structure so what are you supposed to do? (That has been my question > for quite some time.) Are you suggesting that all these (crime) figures are made up? You don't trust the "power structure," or "scientists" (are statisticians scientists?) so how can you trust the figures on how many women are in science? Or how many women are attacked on the street at night? Maybe the men are just making up the figures about women in science so that women will be discouraged from going into science? Maybe they're making up the crime figures so that women will be afraid to go out at night? There's no telling what they might do, since there is no one around to challenge them, eh? No other sources of information. People can't think, and decide what makes sense and what doesn't. Muffy