[UA] What? Me sexist?

[Patrick O'Duffy]

Timothy Ferguson wrote:

> To state that the other gender are of monolithic, singular opinion is
> sexism, surely?

Probably.  My female flatmates keep criticising me for making generalizations
about gender differences.

> Sorry, but I can't help it.  In this debate on how not to be sexist, you are
> dividing the race into two groups and attributing dimorphic mindsets to each
> half.

Guilty.  Mea culpa.  It's a very bad habit of mine.

>  That's clearly sexism, because it indicates that people think how
> they think not because they choose to do so, but because they have genitals
> of a certain shape.

Hmmm... maybe.  I think gender is _relevant_; I think it's a major factor in our
psychological makeup.  That doesn't mean we can't ignore or overcome
gender-related psychology, but I still think it's there.

Yes, my attitude could be interpreted as being sexist.  I accept that.  But it's
still egailtarian; I think _both_ genders are influenced by their genitals (or
at least by social conditions directed towards them due to their genitalia).
A better trained feminist could probably destory my arguments with ease; but I
persist in thinking that it's worthy of discussion.

> Thus paradox.

Well, _that_ implies a school of magick!  Gendermancy?

> If I were to, stating this solely for the sake of discussion and not as a
> real excercise, go about an online community of which you were a member and
> say "Patrick may be a rapist." would you consider that a reasonable
> statement?

Given a lack of full information, and given an appropriate context for the
comment - yes, I'd consider that a reasonable statement. And one that could be
debated, and disproved on some levels.

>  How many qualifers does it need to have before it becomes
> reasonable?  "Patrick may subconciously desire to be a rapist"?

Fine with that too.  I disagree with the statement, but nothing about it is
unreasonable.  It's very amenable to reasoned discussion.

>  No number
> of words between the subject and object make it a reasonable (meaning
> objectively provable or disprovable) statement.

Given that definition of reasonable... agreed.  But there are other definitions
of 'reasonable', one such being synonymous with calm and measured discussion.
That's the sense in which I've been using the word today; if that's been
unclear, I apologize for the confusion.

>  Semantically, of course,
> it's true for that set of people who do not know you, Patrick (for whom you,
> like the cat, may or may not be), and in that sense it is reasonable, but is
> it, anyway, at the level of highest scientific method, a reasonable thesis?

Can it be discussed reasonably?  If so, then yes, it is a reasonable thesis.

--
Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia

Sumo is the most perfect of sports.  It has elegance, ceremony, danger,
art, speed, and, most important, two fat bastards smacking the shit out
of each other.

 - Spider Jerusalem, TRANSMETROPOLITAN #26



_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua