Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rti-sel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ncr-sd!ncrcae!ncsu!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles
Subject: Re: career vs. relationships
Message-ID: <693@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Feb-86 11:17:31 EST
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.693
Posted: Fri Feb 28 11:17:31 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Mar-86 00:16:34 EST
References: <11785@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <660@rti-sel.UUCP> <1677@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <680@rti-sel.UUCP> <551@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 18
Xref: watmath net.women:9446 net.singles:10581

In article <551@hoptoad.uucp> laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes:

>>What are sexism and racism, anyway? It seems to me they involve the
>>assumption that a person has a certain set of capabilities based on
>>h/er membership in a group. 
>
>We were discusisng this in net.politics.theory a while ago.  I still think
>that sexism and racism involve the assumption that a person is *inferior*
>based on he/r membership in a group.   ...

I think it's probably a matter of viewpoint. If a group thinks all
other groups' capabilities represent the normal range but that IT 
happens to be wildly *superior* to all other groups, does that qualify 
as racism/sexism/etc.? But then again, I guess this is claiming that
EVERYONE ELSE is inferior, so perhaps my definition of racism/sexism
is too weak to be really useful...

                                   -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly