Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Of course it is, and there would be howls of outrage if someone
    now tried to put on a "batchelorette auction" for men only.  Though
    men have made (or have been properly forced to make) great advances
    in learning how to treat women like people and not objects, women
    seem to have decided that now it's ok for them to treat men as
    objects.  Is this progress?
    
    This double standard sometimes makes it very hard to take seriously
    some of the more vocal proponents of egalitarianism, no matter how much I
    am in favor of the concept.
    
    			Steve

    
    	RE: .1  Steve Lionel
    
    	Excuse me - is the basenote talking about the Special Olympics
    	that holds athletic games for handicapped children?
    
    	How is this group representative of "women" (as a group) and/or
    	"some of the more vocal proponents of egalitarianism"?
    
    	Why would you find it hard to take women's rights groups seriously
    	because of a charity auction to benefit handicapped kids?
    
    	Is this event really worth howling with outrage about how it fits
    	in with what a political group is doing for women's rights?
    

    The proceeds of the Auction did go to benefit the Special Olympics.
    

    I don't think anyone will argue that the Special Olympics is *not* a 
    worthy cause, but this particular fundraising activity - autioning off 
    men at a women-only event - is definitely sexist (imo).

    Does anyone know how successful it was?  

    Cheers,
    Deb

       	RE: .4  Deb

    	>I don't think anyone will argue that the Special Olympics is *not* a 
    	>worthy cause, but this particular fundraising activity - autioning off 
    	>men at a women-only event - is definitely sexist (imo).

    	The point is - there *is* no point in howling with outrage at the
    	women's movement for this event, though (since the Special Olympics
    	is not a women's rights group.)

    	> Does anyone know how successful it was?  

    	People should write to the Special Olympics to complain if they
    	disapprove of it.

    	Meanwhile, when it comes to the idea of someone's "time and company"
    	being SOLD FOR MONEY, the closest thing I can compare it to is
    	prostitution.  Selling time with men for charity (and let's face
    	it, no one's entire LIFE was bought or sold at this event) is no
    	more sexist than prostitution.  It's also legal.

    	Isn't it true that some women's rights group have worked to help
    	make female prostitution legal?

    	Aside from the fact that this event was not sponsored by a women's
    	rights group, it wouldn't be a "double standard" even if it *had*
    	been sponsored by such a group.  It would be consistent with the
    	idea of making prostitution legal.

    Wow, if I were doing an auction like that (which probably wouldn't be
    the first way I'd go about trying to raise money) I'd do a
    bachelor/bachelorette auction - attract (theoretically) twice as many
    people....
    
    -Jody
    

    Sexist? Are you kidding? Can you imagine a group of men trying to do
    something like this with women being "auctioned off".  The group would
    be lucky to get away without charges being filed.  We seem to go from
    extreme to extreme. From a society which was sexist to an extreme to
    a society which doesn't condone any sexism regardless of potential
    benefits. I don't mind a 'moderate' amount of sexism as long as it
    works two ways.  Jeff

 >I don't understand why they didn't do both

 I think that the point which Steve attempted to make addresses this question.

 Women's groups have long argued (and successfully, I might add) that the
objectification of women is dehumanizing. Due to the political and economic
power of these groups (along with a certain degree of guilt, I presume) the
behavior of men has been modified. Certainly not completely, certainly not
all men, but the climate for objectification has definitely been chilled. It
is rather likely that an auction of women, even at the same event, would be
considered to be offensive by some. Given the fact that few groups care to
invite vocal protest, the idea of auctioning women is probably considered to
be taboo. Since men's groups do alot less protesting AND have less credibility
when they do, the idea of auctioning off men would encounter considerably less
resistance. (It's ok to do if no one protests or complains). When we have
reached a more egalitarian state, such auctions will indeed include both sexes
and will raise nary an eyebrow.

 As for the base note, of course it's sexist. Nobody said life was going to 
be fair. Considering that women have gotten the short end of the stick for so
long, I can't get excited by it. 

 The Doctah

    	RE: .7  Jeff

    	> Sexist? Are you kidding? Can you imagine a group of men trying to do
   	> something like this with women being "auctioned off". The group would
    	> be lucky to get away without charges being filed. 

    	Actually, it's very easy to imagine women being auctioned off in this
    	way (since it's part of a cultural tradition in America - at county
    	fairs, etc.)  A group of young women would prepare lunch baskets,
    	then men would bid for the right to have the young woman's company
    	while he dined on the lunch she prepared.  The proceeds were given
    	to some sort of charity or community fund. 

    	The people who auctioned women off in this manner were not brought
    	up on charges for it.

    	The event described in the basenote is a modern variation of this
    	tradition (made possible by the fact that women have more money as
    	a group now, which makes us a market for charity fund-raising.)

No, the event described in .0 is not sexist, in my opinion.  It
doesn't advance a male stereotype, it doesn't state that one sex
is "better" than another, and the participants were volunteers.

However, I do think that it was in "bad taste."  I agree with the 
people who have stated that "turning the tables" on sexual objectification 
is not the answer to better understanding among the genders.


							--Gerry

Well, at least Mark read my note, which is more than I can say for Suzanne.

Suzanne, nowhere in my note do I make reference to "women's movement"
or "women's rights groups".  The words I used, and I picked them VERY
carefully, were "some of the more vocal proponents of egalitarianism".
If you somehow interpreted that as a condemnation of the "women's movement"
(an ill-defined term) or "women's rights groups" (you mean like NOW, of which
I am a member?), you are gravely mistaken.  But it wouldn't be the first time.

I am puzzled at your insistence that it makes a difference that this was
a charity event.  Could you please elaborate on this?  Is it ok to be sexist
for charity?  What if the Special Olympics held a "wet T-shirt contest"?
Is that ok too?  Why or why not?

I agree with Gerry's second paragraph, (though not his first), in which he
says that the event was just in bad taste.  Charity fundraisers do seem
a magnet for notions of poor taste; in a nearby town, someone had the bright
idea to allow you to "have someone arrested" by making a donation to a
charity.  The police would come find this person and take them to the
police station unless they "bailed" themselves out with another donation.  I
didn't hear if it actually happened, but I'd love to be a lawyer in that
town if it did...

Mark pretty well understood the theme of my comment, though he didn't touch
on the aspect which bothers me more, which is the hypocrisy that I see
in many places.  There should be one set of rules for both men and women;
it's not right for women to be allowed to engage in behavior that they would
object to in men.

					Steve

    	RE: .11  Steve Lionel

    	> Well, at least Mark read my note, which is more than I can say 
    	> for Suzanne.

    	At least you're honest enough to come out swinging, Steve, I'll
    	give you that.

    	>Suzanne, nowhere in my note do I make reference to "women's movement"
	>or "women's rights groups".  The words I used, and I picked them VERY
	>carefully, were "some of the more vocal proponents of egalitarianism".

    	You didn't pick your words carefully enough, though.

    	Prior to that, you also wrote, "...WOMEN seem to have decided that now 
    	it's ok for them [WOMEN] to treat men as objects."  [Emphasis mine.]

    	You then wrote "THIS double standard [referring back to what you
    	claimed "WOMEN seem to have decided"] sometimes makes it very hard
    	to take seriously SOME OF THE MORE VOCAL PROPONENTS OF EGALITARIAN-
    	ISM..."

    	If you weren't talking about women's rights advocates, then you need 
    	some serious remedial instruction on how the English language works.

    	> I am puzzled at your insistence that it makes a difference that 
    	> this was a charity event.  Could you please elaborate on this?  

    	Why, Steve!  I'm shocked and appalled that you didn't read MY
    	note!

    	The point I was making was that you howled with outrage at the
    	Special Olympics for this "double standard" (as if the SAME
    	PEOPLE were involved with protesting the objectification of
    	women *and* holding this fund-raising event.)  Surely you
    	see the folly in blaming "the more vocal proponents of
    	egalitarianism" for this event to raise money for handicapped
    	children.

    	However, if you do have a problem with the symbolism of this
    	event, take it up with the Special Olympics.  Howling with
    	outrage at "the more vocal proponents of egalitarianism"
    	isn't going to do much good if they aren't the ones responsible
    	for this event, is it?

    	> Is it ok to be sexist for charity?  What if the Special Olympics 
    	> held a "wet T-shirt contest"? Is that ok too?  Why or why not?

    	Take it up with the Special Olympics, why don't you?  Don't ask
    	women to take the heat for what the Special Olympics does to raise 
    	money.

    	> Mark pretty well understood the theme of my comment, though he 
    	> didn't touch on the aspect which bothers me more, which is the 
    	> hypocrisy that I see in many places.  

    	Do you know for a fact that the 600 women who attended this event
    	would "object" to the same sort of auction being held to sell dates
    	with women?  If not, then no hypocrisy took place in this event.

    	> There should be one set of rules for both men and women; it's not 
    	> right for women to be allowed to engage in behavior that they would 
    	> object to in men.

    	As I mentioned in an earlier note, auctioning off lunch dates with
    	women has been a tradition at county fairs for a long time.  Have
    	these been outlawed now?

    	If not, then why isn't it right to "ALLOW" women to do what men can
    	do legally (on the basis that you think some women object to it
    	when men do it)?  

    	Surely you don't advocate this sort of double standard.

>someone had the bright
>idea to allow you to "have someone arrested" by making a donation to a
>charity.  The police would come find this person and take them to the
>police station unless they "bailed" themselves out with another donation.  I
>didn't hear if it actually happened, but I'd love to be a lawyer in that
>town if it did...

 Yes, it did happen. It wasn't the real police though, it was volunteers wearing
keystone cops uniforms. It was all in good fun, and the arrestees did not have
to come up with the money themselves. They were put before a "judge" who 
listened to the charges "failing to excuse onesself after burping" among others,
and 'sentenced' the person to raising perhaps $50 to $100. The arrestee was
then placed in "jail" and given a phone and a phone book and they had to
"bail" themselves out by calling people and getting donations. I thought it
was cute; we got my dad arrested. :-)

 The Doctah

    	My guess (about why the people of the Special Olympics decided 
    	to raise money in this particular way) is that they thought it
    	would be "cute" to have a reversal of the usual "auctioning off
    	of lunches prepared by young women at county fairs, etc."

    	Why "women only" at the event?  It sounds very much like an
    	imitation of male stripper shows (Chippendale, etc.)

    	The Special Olympics organizers probably thought the idea was
    	cute enough to catch on (and make a lot of money for handicapped
    	children.)

    	I seriously doubt they intended to do grave injury to males, but
    	if some people feel that males have indeed received serious injury
    	from it, I urge them to contact the Special Olympics about it.

    	How can we equate this with PROSTITUTION?  Or do we assume that
    	sex is a part of the date with the guy...  Am I being naive?
    	Isn't the woman bidding on a date package?  Or is all of that
    	superfluous?
    
    	Bad taste?  No way.  All are willing participants.  All are
    	spending ALOT of money to do it.  Charity is the big winner.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

       I must be nuts for getting in this;
    
    Of course it's sexist. It's in bad taste. It's a double standard.
    Obviously. But it's nothing to get all upset about. It's part of the 
    transition period that has been going on for a number of years in the 
    power exchange between men and women. I can make allowances for it,
    given the charitable cause, but...the the hypocracy of objectifying men
    is detrimental to the feminist movement and I personally am against
    anything that has that effect. It will be more effective to chart a
    new, superior course, than to follow in the well-worn trail of
    objectification and call it something even. Show me something better. 
          I'm a runner. There are no races (in years) that are men only
    no matter how far the distance, but there are races that I can't run in
    this town just because I'm a male. I can tolerate the sexist "get even"
    attitude, but I have trouble tolerating the damage to feminism. It
    won't help even though it will satisfy certain human drives born of
    anger. I measure feminists by how far they have gotten beyond the first 
    phase of liberation: anger. There are more effective ways to get the
    job done. It'll take sooooo long anyway, why slow it down?  
    
                                                               M...

    	RE: .17  M...

    	> I can make allowances for it, given the charitable cause, but...
    	> the the hypocracy of objectifying men is detrimental to the feminist 
    	> movement and I personally am against anything that has that effect. 

    	The problem you aren't seeing here is that groups (other than
    	feminists) evidently have the power to damage feminism by actions
    	that have no direct connection with women's rights groups.

    	Someone might as well have said, "Look at this event!  Those damn
    	Republicans!  Hypocritical and bigoted again!  How dare they!"

    	What a charity does to raise money does not reflect directly on
    	any political group that does not specifically endorse the
    	specific actions they are taking to raise money.

    	There isn't a reason in the world why feminism should be set back
    	(e.g., BLAMED) by what someone else does.

    	> It will be more effective to chart a new, superior course, than to 
    	> follow in the well-worn trail of objectification and call it 
    	> something even. Show me something better. 
          
    	When a women's rights group holds an auction to sell off dates with
    	men, THEN let's talk about it.  Until then, there's no point in
    	preaching to a group of people who aren't the ones who held this
    	auction.  It makes no sense.

    	> I'm a runner. There are no races (in years) that are men only
    	> no matter how far the distance, but there are races that I can't 
    	> run in this town just because I'm a male. I can tolerate the sexist 
    	> "get even" attitude, but I have trouble tolerating the damage to 
    	> feminism. 

    	First off, do you really see it as a way to get even?  (I don't!)
    	I see it as a way to encourage women to enter competitive athletics
    	(since the percentage of women who do so now is comparatively LOW.)
    	
    	Aside from that - WHO is sponsoring these women-only races?  If it
    	isn't women's rights groups, then there isn't a reason on Earth
    	why feminism should be damaged by what other groups do.

    	> It won't help even though it will satisfy certain human drives born 
    	> of anger. I measure feminists by how far they have gotten beyond the 
    	> first phase of liberation: anger. There are more effective ways to 
    	> get the job done. It'll take sooooo long anyway, why slow it down?  
    
    	Do you also measure feminists by what other groups do?  Why?

    	You can't expect women's rights groups to police the whole world for 
    	possible actions done by OTHER groups that men could interpret as 
    	"getting even" with men.

    I've said it before, I'll say it again...
    
    Men generally are not the ones trying to defend a position...or make a
    statement...or achieve a status. 
    
    So, frankly, I don't care!
    
    tony

    
    If anyone happens to know, would someone please post here the
    address of the Special Olympics office that hosted this event
    so I can write to them?  Also the date, time, and location of
    this "auction"?
    
    Thanks

    RE: .9
    
    Do you mean to say (at this late date) that when I was the
    high bidder on that picnic lunch held by the pretty woman at
    the county fair, that I was supposed to git more than the lunch?
    
    Dad blast it!    She just handed me that lunch basket.
    And I was wearing my new overalls too...   Had to talk
    to a crow while I ate that lunch...  
    
    Shucks.              Good lunch, though...

    	RE: .22

    	> Do you mean to say (at this late date) that when I was the
    	> high bidder on that picnic lunch held by the pretty woman at
    	> the county fair, that I was supposed to git more than the lunch?
    
    	Well, at some of these events, the woman keeps the purchaser
    	company during the lunch.  I guess it doesn't always happen, tho.	
    
    	> Dad blast it!    She just handed me that lunch basket.
    	> And I was wearing my new overalls too...   Had to talk
    	> to a crow while I ate that lunch...  
    
    	> Shucks.              Good lunch, though...

    	Did you feel like a sexist for bidding on this lunch?
    
    	I don't consider you one, but I suspect that some others here
    	will get on your case about it.  ;^)
    
    	You have my sympathies.  (Honestly!)

    Now now..... suzy..... that entry was deleted before anyone even saw
    it... how did you happen to get a hold of a copy????
    
    For your info lady, I felt that it might not have been in the best
    interest of this discussion, so I deleted it.....
    
    so, in case youre looking for a spacific person to "war" with, I
    suggest you look somewhere else... and make sure that you know what you
    are doing before you go a flappin with the gums..
    
    Forever yours, Honey buns

    	RE: .24  Alan 

    	> Now now..... suzy..... that entry was deleted before anyone even saw
    	> it... how did you happen to get a hold of a copy????
    
    	It wasn't deleted before I saw it, obviously.  It was alive and well 
    	in my buffer when I wrote my note, Alan.

    	> so, in case youre looking for a spacific person to "war" with, I
    	> suggest you look somewhere else...
    
    	No, I'm not "looking" for any such thing.  You addressed me first,
    	if you recall.  If you've changed your mind about it now - that's
 	fine.

    	I've deleted my response to your deleted note now.  No problem.

    let me reiterate in requards to response .19 and the general topic:
    
    I don't think the basenote scenario is any big deal. My point is simply
    that it is in the best interest of any feminist group to speak out
    against such things. I feel I have a responsibility to speak out
    against sexist acts against women BECAUSE I am a man. It's in men's best
    interest to do so. The reverse is true. I'm sure it was basically a
    harmless "fun" thing for those involved. I support any attempt in the
    name of the Special Olympics. (I spent 9 years teaching
    Developementally Disabled and 4 years as a Special Olympics coach)
    If we can discuss the terminology for MANhole covers we can be 
    sensitive to this issue. It's in everyone's best interest. Sexism
    against women is a man's issue. Sexism against men is a woman's issue.
                                                                         
                                                                     M...

    A few years ago a male friend of mine was auctioned off as a
    "prize" in an auction sponsored by a local radio station.  The
    proceeds of the auction were to benefit charity.
    At the time, I asked him when women would be auctioned off.  I
    assumed that because men were the primary wage-earners that by
    auctioning off women they might be able to get higher dollar
    contributions.  
    My friend replied that women would *not* be auctioned because it
    would seem too much like prostitution.  (This was the comment of
    the organization sponsoring the event).  
                                           

    	RE: .26  M...

    	> I don't think the basenote scenario is any big deal. 

    	Neither do I.  Neither would I think it was a big deal if they'd
    	been selling lunches or dinners with women (the way they do at
    	county fairs) either.

    	I don't think women or men are "objectified" by selling meals
    	or outings for charity.

    	> My point is simply that it is in the best interest of any feminist 
    	> group to speak out against such things. 

    	What if we don't think it's especially objectionable - would you
    	like women to lie about it (saying that we *do* object even if
    	we don't) as a way to make people think better of us?

    	What would probably happen is that others would be mad at feminists
    	for interfering with a charity that helps children.  (Can't please
    	everyone!)

    	> I feel I have a responsibility to speak out against sexist acts 
    	> against women BECAUSE I am a man. It's in men's best interest to 
    	> do so. The reverse is true. 

    	Well, even if women's rights groups felt that events like the one
    	mentioned in the basenote were sexist towards men, they don't have
    	an obligation to address such things simply because you think they
    	should.  As political groups, they have a right to define their
    	own priorities (and to make use of their time the way they see fit.)

    	> I'm sure it was basically a harmless "fun" thing for those involved.
    	> I support any attempt in the name of the Special Olympics. (I spent 
    	> 9 years teaching Developementally Disabled and 4 years as a Special 
    	> Olympics coach)
    
    	That's very commendable.  It's a wonderful cause.

    	> If we can discuss the terminology for MANhole covers we can be 
    	> sensitive to this issue. It's in everyone's best interest. Sexism
    	> against women is a man's issue. Sexism against men is a woman's issue.
    
    	Well, I do agree that sexism against anyone is an issue that affects
    	us all (and something with which we should all be concerned.)

    	The thing is ... Women's rights groups have to make their own decisions
    	when it comes to the issues they address.

    	Just as these groups don't demand that all men take vocal political
    	stands on issues of sexism against women, no one can demand that
    	women's rights groups take vocal political stands on various issues
    	that the groups haven't chosen for themselves.

    	RE: .27

    	> -< TWO SETS OF RULES >-

    	Your note didn't name anything that amounts to a "rule," though.

    	> My friend replied that women would *not* be auctioned because it
    	> would seem too much like prostitution.  (This was the comment of
    	> the organization sponsoring the event).  
    
    	This is an opinion of the charity involved - not a societal rule.

    	If it were my charity, I wouldn't want to do something that sounded
    	similar to an illegal activity, would you?  (Prostitution *is*
    	illegal, after all.)

    	They probably wouldn't go for the idea of selling extremely young
    	men to other men or to older women, either, for the same reason
    	- (most male prostitutes are young.)

       	RE: .30  Mike Z.

    	> Suzanne, it's amusing to watch you gyrate so, defending what
    	> could be referred to as mock male slavery.

    	Amusing to see you twist the event this way.

    	From the basenote:

    		"What was "auctioned at the event" was 18 bachelors.
    		These screened volunteers dreamt up date packages to 
    		be auctioned.  Each bachelor was responsible for the 
    		date start to finish.  One package included a weekend
    		cruise complete with gourmet meal cooked by him."

    	Slaves aren't usually allowed to dream up (and/or be responsible
    	for) their own captivity.

    	Master:  Ok, slave, you belong to me now!  Thanks for volunteering.
    		 So, how do you intend to live out your captivity?  It's
    		 completely up to you!

    	Slave:  I'll take a cruise to the Bahamas with a kitchen stocked 
    		well enough so that I can cook a gourmet meal.

    	Sounds like a pretty rough deal, alright.

    re: .31 (Mike Z.)
    
    � From whence does this definition of "sexist" come?
    
    For me, that question goes to the heart of the matter.  Words 
    and concepts like "sexist" and "racist" are relatively new to 
    the language, and while dictionaries may carry one definition 
    or another, it seems to me that what various people understand 
    and mean when using these words isn't always accurately reflected 
    in the book definition.
    
    A narrow definition of "sexism" would be "making a distinction
    or choice solely on the base of sex".  Under this definition
    lots of things would be "sexist", including separate bathrooms.
    However, I find such a narrow definition to be too limiting and
    it seems to me that not only is that what Gerry's getting at
    in .10, but a wider definition is also commonly accepted, partic-
    ularly in the area of law.  The concept missing from the narrow
    definition is that of harm.
    
    Sex and race discrimination suits are based on the idea of a 
    choice made solely on the basis of sex or race *and* that such
    a choice has done harm.  Granting loans to only those of a 
    certain race or sex is harmful to those who are excluded from
    such loans and so we embrace the legal philosophy that "red lining"
    is illegal.  On the other hand, there is no similar widespread 
    belief that separate womens' and mens' rooms are harmful and so
    they are not seen, from a legal standpoint, as "sexist".  
    
    The words "sexist" and "racist" carry very negative connotations
    and the reason is that the underlying the words is the concept of
    not just any choice-making, but choice-making that is harmful.
    
    I personally prefer a wider definition of various "isms" because
    I think it's pragmatically more useful.  If someone were to say
    that separate bathrooms are sexist in the strictest sense, my 
    reply would be, "Ok, but so what?"  Of what practical use is it 
    to insist on using the term in this way?  I don't think people
    are particularly concerned with separate bathrooms as compared
    to, say, discrimination in housing.  Ultimately, I prefer to
    use sexism and racism to describe harmful practices, else I
    might, for example, have to describe things in terms of "good
    or neutral" sexism (bathrooms) and "bad" sexism (unfair hiring
    practices).
    
    So, in this case, I don't find the auction to be "sexist" in
    the broader sense of the term.  I fail to see that there was
    harm done.  The way I define the word (and, I think that this
    is the definition most people embrace), the auction was no
    more "sexist" than The Dating Game.  Obnoxious or bad taste,
    perhaps (that's just a personal preference call), but not 
    "sexist".
    
    Steve
    

    re: .24 (Alan)
    
    � Now now..... suzy..... 
    � 
    �     Forever yours, Honey buns

    I find your patronizing attitude to be more than a little
    insulting.  If that's the best you can offer by way of reasonable
    discussion, you've convinced me that you have no rational arguments
    to offer.
    
    Steve

    well, well pal.. arent we the tough one.....
    
    It was a severe case of tongue firmly in cheek.  Ms Conlon figured it
    out, why can't you?
    
    Suzanne and I have known each other for a few years now, and we tend to
    have out monthly go round in this particular manor...
    if you find my tactics "patronizing", ignore them.  
    
    Oh, and Suzy, if you are going to continue using my full name, at least
    spell it correctly will you?  :-)
    
    

    	RE: .35  Alan

    	> Oh, and Suzy, if you are going to continue using my full name, 
    	> at least spell it correctly will you?  :-)
    
    	Alan, you don't have permission to alter my name any way you see
    	fit - yet, you do it anyway.
    
    	As long as this practice continues, I have license to call you
    	anything I like (spelled any way I like.)
    

    Please, Suzanne and Al (Martin).
    
    If you are going to continue calling each other pet names, I'd
    appreciate that "Alan" not be used. 
    
    People might get confused with me - the REAL ALAN. :-)
    
      Alan

    RE: SuZANNE;
    
    Correct, fair IS fair...... remember that....
    
    RE: Alan
    THPTH!  :-)

    The following is the Base Note Complete as it was published
    in the June 1990 issue of Bits & Bytes. 
    " A Northwest/Oregon/Intermountain Employee Newsletter"
    
    Making Dreams Come True
    
    On May 2nd, "name deleted" saw six months of careful planning finally
    come to life the Special Olympics Dream Auction.  Held at "hotel
    name deleted", the auction drew in over six hundred women (the event
    was for women only).  "name deleted", CS Account Support Base Manager
    by day, co-chaired the fund-raising event for the Special Olympics.
    
    Bits & Bytes spoke to "name deleted" about this unusual auction
    where bids were made on donated items and... bachelors.
    
    Three years ago when "name deleted" was asked to co-chair the first
    Special Olympics Dream Auction she never considered that it would
    become a regular event for her.  But every year (and most likely
    next year, too) she "makes time."  The Dream Auction committee of
    fifteen (several DEC employees included) works on its own time to
    put together the event which helps sponsor "state name deleted"
    state Special Olympic athletes.  All told, it takes a good six months
    to put the program together.  Most of the work is involved in getting
    businesses and individuals to donate their products or services.
    A sampling of this year's contributions include: the use of the
    three grand ballrooms from the hotel, decorations, favors for the
    quests, dinners to be auctioned off, white water rafting trips and
    weekend getaways.  Says "name deleted"  "We have gotten very generous
    donations...It's amazing what people will donate if you ask them."
    
    Perhaps the most amazing donations came from the eighteen bachelors
    who were "auctioned" at the event.  These screened volunteers dreamt
    up date packages to be auctioned.  Each bachelor is responsible
    fot the date start to finish.  What did they come up with?  One
    bachelor's package is a weekend yacht cruise from Santa Barbara,
    complete wiht a gourmet meal cooked by him.  "My favorite date
    package," laughs "named deleted", was billed as 'twenty four hours
    in the sun.'  So they're going to Alaska on June 21st - when the
    sun's out for twenty-four hours!"
    
    With packages such as the Alaska date going for around $900, it's
    easy to see how the Dream Auction collected $45,000 in a single
    night.  The nice thing is that, because  of the generous donations,
    very little of the collected money goes for expenses.  Instead,
    the money goes directly to Special Olympics athletes in the state.
    The athletes are awarded scholarships to allow them to participate
    in regional,state,national and international Special Olympic events.
    
    What's in it for the committee members?  Well, rumour has is it
    that the bachelors are coordination a party for the committee...
    
    
                                                     

    
    Why is this "for women only?"

    re: .35
    
    � well, well pal.. arent we the tough one.....
    
    I hear your sarcasm and to be honest it comes across feeling
    like an insult.  Is that your intention?  My objection in
    the first place was that patronizing and/or insulting remarks
    strike me as a poor substitute for honest, straightforward
    discussion.  If you disagree with something I've said, I'd 
    prefer that you simply stated what that disagreement is without
    the sarcasm.
    
    � It was a severe case of tongue firmly in cheek.  Ms Conlon figured
    � it out, why can't you?
    
    Why should I figure out what's in your mind when you choose not
    to express it in an unmistakeably clear manner?
    
    Steve

    re: .40 I would assume its women only because probably none of the
    volunteer bachelors is gay.
    
    Just a guess.
    
    Debbie

    
    Re: .42 Debbie
    
    Hi. If it were only the bachelors I could understand, I suppose.
    But note .39 also mentions rafting, the use of grand ballrooms,
    decorations, dinners, etc.
    
    I'm quite curious as to why "women only".
    
    							Hank

    re: .43
             Why women only?
    Because it's the latest fad bigotry, perpetuation of the "pedestal
    approach" to women, and tolerated by men because of guilt. An attempt
    in society to QUICKLY correct an ancient imbalance. 
        To me, a logical step in the process, but one that has no
    business being used in a forum attempting to dispel bigotry against 
    the Developementally Disabled. 
    
                                                      M...           

    	RE: .44  M...

    	> Why women only?
    	> Because it's the latest fad bigotry, perpetuation of the "pedestal
    	> approach" to women, and tolerated by men because of guilt. An attempt
    	> in society to QUICKLY correct an ancient imbalance. 
      
    	Are we still talking about the Fundraiser for the Special Olympics?
    	
    	Do you think the whole idea of raising money for these kids was just
    	a pretext (to cover the underlying agenda of STABBING at men?)  

    	> To me, a logical step in the process, but one that has no
   	> business being used in a forum attempting to dispel bigotry against 
    	> the Developementally Disabled. 
    
    	The people organizing the event guessed that the women would end up
    	contributing more money if the festivities were designed for them
    	specifically.  (It appears that they were right.)

    	This wasn't their only method of raising money for the kids involved
    	in the Special Olympics, I'm sure.

    	I'm very puzzled at your attitude.

    	RE: .46  Mike Z.

    	> You're going to throw your back out bending the truth like that.

    	Well, I take it that you were unable to refute it when I pointed
    	out the problems with considering the bachelors "slaves" in this
    	event.  Just as I thought.

    	RE: .48  Mike Z.

    	You can stop twisting things any time you like now.

    	> Here, you provide a cause and effect relationship for M_LEWIS

    	M... attempted to explain why the event was "women only" (and it
    	had nothing whatever to do with fundraising strategies for the 
    	Special Olympics.)  So I began to wonder if he felt that the whole
    	event was some sort of "pretext" to cover the underlying agenda
    	he suggested in his note.

    	It was just a question, Mike.  Don't let it upset you.

    re: .47 (Mike Z.)
    
    � That's all very nice, Steve.
    �
    � But, your definition and Gerry's do no (sic) match.
    
    Perhaps I was unclear.  What I was trying to say is that I 
    think Gerry's definition embraces a wider definition of "sexism"
    than a simple "choice based soley on sex".  And I think the salient
    factor is that of harm done to the discriminated party.  As he
    said, the event in question does not promote one sex as "better"
    than the other, a belief usually espoused by those making unfair
    (in the legal sense) choices against a particular sex.  
    
    But, yes, I'll grant what feels to me to be a small point that
    Gerry's and my definitions do not match.  I'm curious to learn
    how you view the rest of my reply (i.e. does it match with how
    you define "sexism"?  If not, why?  etc.)
    
    Steve

    I like your definition, Steve. This is a domain where I *do* strive to
    be "politically correct" -- I try to monitor myself and my environs for
    instances of prejudicial "isms." I find it infuriating when people are
    charged with serious breaches because they mention something which
    CORRELATES with sex or race. For example, recently in a meeting a male
    observed that "You can't get a little bit pregnant" and a female sung
    out "Sexist!" I think the charge was entirely inappropriate; the male
    was making no statement whatsoever about men or women -- I think the
    subject was about implementing whole or pieces of a network utility!
    Yesterday Rita May Grovner (sp?), an All Things Considered commentator
    and a black female. discussed her thoughts about watermelon -- how it's
    historically been part of the black stereotype, so some U.S. blacks now
    avoid it. I'd be hesitant to offer watermelon to a black friend, for
    fear of being labelled "racist."
    
    Certainly there are plenty of occasions to cry "[rac|sex|age]ist," 
    but the cries should be used sparingly, esp. when someone has implied a
    "therefore" -- "You are ______ and therefore you _______" Otherwise it
    devalues the currency.
    
    - Hoyt

     Why is this event sexist?
    
     To answer this we must ask ourselves why it was decided that this
    would be a charity event that was for women only, and why the objects
    of this event were men only. The men that donated their time, skills,
    and money to this event obviously were relatively well off. They were
    providing things like boat rides, plane trips to other states, and
    other relatively expensive things in addition to their own time and
    effort. So it is easy to see why men were auctioned off; they had
    something that was worth bidding for. A more interesting question is
    why were not women also auctioned off? Did they have nothing worth
    bidding for? I have a tough time swallowing that; men have paid for
    nothing more than women's company for years. Besides, I am virtually
    certain that a suitably large number of talented and exciting women
    could have been found that could have provided comparable packages for
    bidders. The real reason that women were not allowed to donate their
    time and energy to the cause was because of appearances. The organizers
    were afraid of the likely backlash due to vocal protestors. 
    
     *Denying women the opportunity to donate their time and energy to the
    cause in the same way as men were allowed is a result of sexism and fear
    of reprisal.* While it could be argued that denying someone the
    opportunity to donate to a charity in a certain way is not exactly
    harmful in the way that denying them a job would be, the fact remains
    that gender was the sole determinant of the ability to engage in a
    certain activity- that's sexism, folks!
    
     I certainly understand the charity's reluctance to engage in a
    potentially controversial situation, but are we going to allow fear to
    dominate us? Are we going to allow fringe groups to dictate the course
    of our actions?
    
     In my mind, it would have been far better to have a "people" auction.
    Allow both men and women to participate. And to make the whole thing
    less heterocentric, they could also state the preference of the person
    donating their time and effort for who they'd like to be auctioned to.
    eg One could say "date for a woman," "date for a man," "no preference."
    
     The Doctah

    
>     To answer this we must ask ourselves why it was decided that this
>    would be a charity event that was for women only, ...

I wonder about this, too.  I don't see why dates with both men and 
women couldn't have been auctioned off.  The only reason I can see for 
eliminating the auctioning off of women is fear that people will 
attack the event as being sexist. 

If I take 50 steps way, way back from this whole situation, I think to 
myself, "Wouldn't it be nice if we could auction off dates with 
willing men and women, hetero and homo, and have it be fun and 
playful?"  

Someday, it really could be that way, I think.  I don't think there is 
harm in seeing that people are sexual objects.  I think that the harm 
is done when we only (or "primarily") see them as sexual objects.


							--Ger

    	
    	These events are novelties. In the past, handsome young men
    were offered to wealthy widows and matrons in a charitable function
    for dancing and company for a small fee. Recently, young women with
    disposable income get excitement in an "auction" for the right to
    accompany a male who they take a fancy to. These latest "packages"
    are the ones for weekends, trips, gliding, etc. 
    
    	In these events, women are stereotyped as proper and it's generally
    a given, that women would *never* expect sexual performance or permit
    it from the man they just *bought*. Men on the other hand, would
    immediately be stereotyped, if a woman was "purchased. Men would
    be expected to say, "Hey, I paid for it, I expect it."
    
    	Women offering their escort for money have been called by other
    names throughout history and even a charity event could scare them
    into believing that the same label could be applied. That's why
    I believe that women are rarely, if ever offered at these types
    of auctions.
    
    Ken  

    Nobody mentioned this part yet, but I saw one very interesting word 
    in the article describing the auction.  It conjures up all kinds 
    of thoughts one wishes weren't necessary, but one that certainly
    explains to me why date packages with men can be auctioned off, 
    but not with women.  The word is "screened".  The bachelors to be 
    auctioned as escorts were 'screened'.
    
    Tell me, those of you shouting 'sexist'; if you were an independent
    woman, financially capable of setting up one of these dates, and
    interested in donating the effort to a worthwhile cause...(presumably
    all of these are attributes shared by the bachelors in the original
    situation)...would you feel comfortable spending a long evening or an
    extended weekend with 'the highest bidder'?  Think carefully; the
    question I'm asking relates to PERSONAL SECURITY.  Any guy with a big
    wallet can buy your time, alone, for an extended period.  And the buyer
    isn't screened.  Risky?
    
    Is it just possible that many men wouldn't fear taking that risk, and
    that many women would?  And if the answer is yes...then perhaps the
    people who think that this is a sexist event should think again.  If
    it is indeed treating the sexes differently, then it is due to the
    inherent unsafety of this society for women (due to something a hell of
    a lot more serious than sexism; we're talking misogyny, folks) and not 
    the fault of the organizers.
    
    DougO

    Good point, DougO!
    
    Yes of course it's sexist.  So are most bachelor parties and bridal 
    showers.  So are dressing rooms in department stores.  Let's not
    confuse sexism with bad.  (I can hear the groans now).  Sexism CAN be
    bad, but it isn't bad by default.
    
    In this case, I was prepared to say that women weren't auctioned off
    simply because it was too close to home.  Women have always been sold
    and still are in many different ways.  There's a big difference between
    "Battle of the Network Stars" and "Battle of the VietNam Vets" and that
    difference is the proximity to reality.  Both are battles just as
    both kinds of auctions are sexist, but one is a lot more innocuous
    than the other.
    
    But then there was DougO with an angle I hadn't thought of.  And no
    way would I sell my time alone with the highest bidder.  That's
    dangerous while the reverse is not.  Is THAT sexist?  You bet!  But is
    it bad?  No, it's wise!  Still, I would neither host nor participate in
    such an event simply because it's obvious some men will only look at
    the surface of the situation and say "A-HA!  See, you bimbs can be just
    as sexist!", and use that as a reason for writing us off.  The idea is
    too marginal for me to support.  Although on 'Who's the Boss' they
    auctioned off Tony once, (ok, just his housecleaning services but for a
    whole weekend!).  I would have taken a partime job to be the highest
    bidder on that one!  (Ooh, where's my defibrillator!)

>    Tell me, those of you shouting 'sexist'; if you were an independent
>    woman, financially capable of setting up one of these dates, and
>    interested in donating the effort to a worthwhile cause...(presumably
>    all of these are attributes shared by the bachelors in the original
>    situation)...would you feel comfortable spending a long evening or an
>    extended weekend with 'the highest bidder'?
    
      Maybe, maybe not. It all depends. If they said "We'll have a people
    auction" and no women were willing, that would be one thing. But women
    weren't even allowed, and it was hardly a case of personal safety
    (though that would be a valid concern and might require some additional
    safeguards).
    
     If, as you posit, the _real_ reason behind this is that the organizers
    were concerned for the women's safety, why did they say things like "it
    would look too much like prostitution."? I'll tell you why- because the
    women's safety wasn't even a consideration. It was fear of reprisals by
    radical, professional offendees. I say damn 'em. Let them be shown for
    the morons they really are. 
    
     The Doctah

    > If, as you posit, the _real_ reason behind this is that the organizers
    > were concerned for the women's safety, why did they say things like "it
    > would look too much like prostitution."? I'll tell you why- because the
    > women's safety wasn't even a consideration. It was fear of reprisals by
    > radical, professional offendees. I say damn 'em. Let them be shown for
    > the morons they really are. 
    
    Mark, your antecedents are unclear.  Which are you castigating as
    morons here, the organizers or your postulated radical offendees?
    
    DougO

     Sorry 'bout that. The morons in question are the postulated
    professional offendees. :-)
    
     The Doctah

    OK, then your question about why the organizers are defending
    themselves by saying that auctioning date-packages with women would
    look like prostitution, is a good one...I agree, that is a curious
    defense.  But perhaps if, as my earlier note suggests, safety for
    the escorts is so obviously a sexually-identified difference, its
    understandable that after months of planning the auction, they might
    have forgotten that aspect.  I mean, it only took us over 50 replies 
    to dredge up the concept.
    
    And actually, is that defense one from the organizers, or was it 
    brought forward in speculation here in this topic?  Just asking.
    
    DougO

    
    	RE: .62  Mike Z.
    
    	> I gave up talking to people with their thumbs in their ears long ago.
    
    	It's probably only a coincidence that you had nothing worth saying
    	in response to the points I raised, I suppose.
   
    	Fine.  My comments stand as written.
    

    RE: .58  The Doctah

    > If they said "We'll have a people auction" and no women were willing, 
    > that would be one thing. But women weren't even allowed, and it was 
    > hardly a case of personal safety (though that would be a valid concern 
    > and might require some additional safeguards).

    If you regard personal safety as being a valid concern, why are you so
    convinced that the organizers didn't feel the same way?  

    > If, as you posit, the _real_ reason behind this is that the organizers
    > were concerned for the women's safety, why did they say things like "it
    > would look too much like prostitution."? 

    Well, they weren't on the witness stand being badgered by a hostile,
    accusatory prosecuting attorney, so they probably didn't realize that
    they needed to defend themselves to you more thoroughly than they have
    already.

    >I'll tell you why- because the women's safety wasn't even a consideration.

    ...not EVEN a consideration, Doctah?  Can you prove this?

    > It was fear of reprisals by radical, professional offendees. 

    So far, the radical male backlash against the women's movement is
    providing us with the most profound demonstrations of being
    offended.  Seems to me that the Special Olympics should worry
    more about the emotional violence that some men will use against
    them now (as a vent for their own general rage about how things
    are slowly changing for women.)

    > I say damn 'em. Let them be shown for the morons they really are. 
    
    The radical backlash against the women's movement shows itself to
    be more moronic every day.  They don't need any more help!

>    And actually, is that defense one from the organizers, or was it 
>    brought forward in speculation here in this topic?  Just asking.
    
     Actually, there has been no explanation as to why the Special Olympics
    had this affair the way they did. I juxtaposed the explanation from
    another event of a substantially similar nature as related in .27 which
    made the statement that avoiding the appearance of prostitution was the
    reason that only men were auctioned. Thus my cross examination of your
    "safety" point stands in rather shallow water. :-)
    
     In any case, I believe that few people would claim that an exactly
    parallel situation in which only women were auctioned was not sexist.
    Since I believe that a consensus could be reached that the parallel
    situation would be sexist, and I don't believe that substantial
    differences exist which mandate a sex exclusion, I believe this
    situation to be sexist. Feel free to agree or disagree. This subject
    has been beaten to death.
    
     The Doctah

    Hey, people auctions are good ways to raise money.  At my alma mater
    one of the service fraternities (co-ed) had a "slave auction" where
    willing people would contribute their time to people who needed their
    houses cleaned, laundry done, silly chores done, shopping done, and
    whatever else needed doing that the slave felt comfortable doing (some
    people just wanted to make the slave do something humorous, like wear a
    bathrobe all over campus that day).  It raised lots of money, was done
    in the name of good cheer and charity spirit.....
    
    that's the kind of thing I might advocate as an alternative....
    
    -Jody
    

    
    Well, Having read .0 and .39 I just don't see any compelling
    reason to exclude men from attending a charity fundraising.
    Men could have been included in all but the "auctioning"
    of the bachelors.
    
    Regarding the screeing and safety...They could have also screened
    any female dates to be auctioned and any men who would have
    bid on them.
    
    I don't know why the auction was restricted and I don't know if
    an acceptable reason exists. Considering the fact that it was a most
    worthy cause, no one should have been prevented from attending and
    contributing. 

    > Regarding the screeing and safety...They could have also screened
    > any female dates to be auctioned and any men who would have
    > bid on them.
    
    C'mon Hank, you really mean this?  "Please come and bid on these 
    date packages, oh, and, by the way, if you actually offer the top 
    bid, please expect a delay in the performance of your date while 
    we investigate your past, talk to your friends and co-workers, and
    check your finances."  Who'd bid?  Promising an investigation is 
    not the way to increase charity donations!
    
    And...think of the legal exposure, if you investigated everyone, but
    a rape happened anyway.  I just don't think this society is ready for
    those kinds of risks.
         
    DougO

                                                            
    Well Doug, all I figured was verifying the bidders identities.
    I doubt that someone with questionable motives would register
    who they are, where they live, etc. and then commit a crime
    with the female date that they offered a bid on at a public
    charity fundraising event.
    
    And I also think men would tolerate a slight
    delay if it were explained that they wanted to insure the safety
    of the women. 
    
    							Hank
    
    

Oh Boy! Here we go again!

The fanatics would put a stop ASAP to an auction with the roles reversed
sooner if the audience were MEN ONLY.
It fits right in with the "ladies night drink specials" and "ladies free
men $5.00 admissions". The standard is indeed "double" and enforced only
when it fits the desired outcome.


this the sum and total of what I have to say regarding the issue so please
save the hate mail and phone calls for someone that might actually give a 
$#!&.

-j

    	RE: .71  Jerry

    	> The fanatics would put a stop ASAP to an auction with the roles 
    	> reversed sooner if the audience were MEN ONLY.

    	In my opinion, the "fanatics" are the ones who are screaming about
    	the fact that this charity auction for handicapped kids was "women
    	only."

    	No matter how loud anyone here shouts about what other groups might
    	have done if the auction had been "men only," it's all speculation.
    	Shouting won't make it fact.

    	> It fits right in with the "ladies night drink specials" and 
    	> "ladies free men $5.00 admissions". The standard is indeed "double" 
    	> and enforced only when it fits the desired outcome.

    	Who are you blaming for this, though?  These sorts of specials
    	have been going on for at least 20 years, and probably a lot
    	longer.  

    	> this the sum and total of what I have to say regarding the issue

    	Too bad.  I guess you won't be answering my question.

    	Oh well.

    	By the narrow definition of sexism we're seeing in some of these
    	notes, most public restrooms are sexist, along with department
    	store dressing rooms (not to mention "Men's" and "Women's" clothing
    	departments or entire stores.)

    	By this same definition, even "Ladies' Choices" at dances qualify
    	as being sexist.

    
    
    
    Re: Suzanne
    You've made references to howling, screaming and shouting
    repeatedly. I don't seem to see it when I re-read the notes.
    Could you explain your use of these terms?
    
    I ask because I'm constantly trying to improve my notes
    etiquette, and because I'd like to know how to express
    disagreement, perhaps even heated disagreement without risking the
    possibility of coming across as screaming/shouting etc.
    
    
    						Thank you.
    
    							Hank
    
    
    
    Ps. I realize this is a tangent but seeing as we've no
    general throw-away topics in mennotes I'm asking here where the terms
    are being used. 

    
    	RE: .74  Hank
    
    	> You've made references to howling, screaming and shouting
   	> repeatedly. I don't seem to see it when I re-read the notes.
    	> Could you explain your use of these terms?
    
    	I'm using the more common (accepted) definitions of those words.
    

    
    	Sorry, I really don't understand. Could you elaborate?

    To state the issue more generally, maybe, is there ever a legitimate
    basis for "gender x ONLY" occasions / associations?
    
    I think gender-exclusion is sometimes appropriate. Regardless of what
    "should" be, it's presently true that there are lots of differences
    between the genders. People of gender X may frequently feel more
    comfortable if they exclude gender Y.
    
    For example, there's a widespread perception that women's colleges are
    beneficial because they allow/encourage women to take on roles which
    may be relegated to males in a co-educational setting. For example, men
    like to gather in males-only social clubs where they can get drunk and
    act like adolescents (<-- slightly tongue-in-cheek). Conceivably, each
    of these situations could cause harm to the excluded gender, e.g. if
    the women's college has the leading authority in a field that a male
    wishes to master, or if the men's club happens to be a place where
    professionally-advantageous networking occurs. A balance is needed, but
    I don't like a principle that gender-exclusion is wrong or illegal.
    
    I suppose similar statements could be made about "race X" or "sexual
    orientation X."
    
    In all these situations, white male hets (of which I'm one) are most
    liable to attack. A "white mail het ONLY" club would offend everyone
    (though there are plenty of these, I bet - Boards of Directors, ...).
    People do NOT consider the Black Congressional Caucus a racist group.
    Nobody would argue that I should have the right to join a Lesbian
    organization. The "double standard" is real, certainly. I'm not sure
    that it's not legitimate. Most organizations I can think of are, by
    default, white-male-het-based. I don't NEED a more supportive group;
    the general society is kind to me. The less kindly treated group DO
    need a place of their own, to be comfortable and supported.
    
    The "one rule applies to everybody" has a taste of fairness about it,
    but we live in a world chock full of unfairnesses, and compensating
    rules are necessary.
    
    IMHO - Hoyt

    	RE: .76  Hank

    	As an example, Steve Lionel wrote in .1 that "there would be
    	howls of outrage if someone now tried to put on a 'batchelorette
    	auction' for men only."

    	In another note, someone described women "screaming discrimination"
    	- somewhere else, a person told of seeing a woman "sing out" the
    	word sexist in response to something someone said at a meeting (I 
    	guess their group meets at Carnegie Hall.)

    	The behavior of the people being described as howling, screaming,
    	etc. is almost never worse than what we've seen in many of the notes 
    	in this topic, so these words must apply to what's being said here 
    	as well.

>    To state the issue more generally, maybe, is there ever a legitimate
>    basis for "gender x ONLY" occasions / associations?
    
>    I think gender-exclusion is sometimes appropriate. Regardless of what
>    "should" be, it's presently true that there are lots of differences
>    between the genders. People of gender X may frequently feel more
>    comfortable if they exclude gender Y.
    
>    The "double standard" is real, certainly. I'm not sure
>    that it's not legitimate. Most organizations I can think of are, by
>    default, white-male-het-based. I don't NEED a more supportive group;
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    the general society is kind to me. The less kindly treated group DO
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    need a place of their own, to be comfortable and supported.
    
>    The "one rule applies to everybody" has a taste of fairness about it,
>    but we live in a world chock full of unfairnesses, and compensating
>    rules are necessary.
    
>    IMHO - Hoyt
    
    Sorry, I MUST disagree with some of what you said. RE social groupings
    maybe, but in other areas, especially government, and inforcement of
    standards, ABSOLUTELY NOT! If you do not treat all people as
    individuals and not as part of xxxx group, you are being yyyist.
    
    	A number of years ago, myself and another employee had a dispute
    with our employer about salary and working assignments. When push came
    to shove, we went to the US Dept of Labor. They listened to us and said
    we had a good case except for one little problem; we were white adult
    males.... sorry, if you were: a woman, xxx religious,...etc (you can
    figure out the rest of the  list) we would take your employer to task.
    Is this xxxist... You bet!
    
    Steve

    re: .80 (Mike Z.)
    
    I don't understand something here.  As best I can tell, Mike,
    you've said that sexism is and should be defined as choices
    made soley on the basis of sex.  More specifically, you
    reject the notion that to be sexist, an act must contain
    an element of harm.
    
    If that's the case, aren't you then saying that most public 
    restrooms, department store dressing rooms and the like are
    in fact, by your definition, sexist?  And if not, why (in
    terms of your definition)?
    
    Steve

    	RE: .80  Mike Z.

    	.73> By the narrow definition of sexism we're seeing in some of these
	.73> notes, most public restrooms are sexist, along with department
	.73> store dressing rooms (not to mention "Men's" and "Women's" clothing
	.73> departments or entire stores.)

	> This is false.

    	This is easy for you to say, but I can prove my claim (using quoted
    	text from someone else in this topic.)

	> But, if you enjoy it as much as you seem to, you might as well
   	> continue putting words in people's mouths for them.

    	I haven't put words in anyone's mouth.  

    	Here is a definition of sexism as written in this topic:

    		"While it could be argued that denying someone the opportunity 
    		to donate to a charity in a certain way is not exactly harmful 
    		in the way that denying them a job would be, the fact remains
    		that gender was the sole determinant of the ability to engage 
    		in a certain activity- that's sexism, folks!"
    
    	While it could be argued that denying someone the opportunity to
    	use a restroom that has the wrong gender depicted in a word or drawing
    	on the door is not exactly harmful, the fact remains that gender was
    	the sole determinant of the ability to engage in a certain activity
    	(eg, using certain restrooms) - that's sexism, according to the author
    	above (The Doctah), Mike!

    	It could also be argued that denying someone the opportunity to try
    	on clothes in a dressing room marked for women or men is not exactly
    	harmful either, but the fact remains (again) that gender was the sole
    	determinant of the ability to engage in a certain activity (eg, using
    	certain dressing rooms) - that's sexism again, by the Doctah's own
    	definition of it, Mike!

    	The definition fits, whether anyone likes it or not.  Perhaps it's
    	time to re-evaluate the definition.

    	RE: .84  Mike Z.

    	> Perhaps had you made reference to the note, or the author, I would
    	> have known you did not mean me.

    	Well, actually, I wasn't thinking of anyone specifically when I
    	wrote my note.  I've seen a number of people here define sexism
    	in ways that would include public restrooms.

    	> My apologies.

    	Live and learn, I guess.

    How 'bout this one?  (Heard on CNN)

    The NIH (National Institute of Health) recently completed a study
    of obesity in women.  All of the subjects in the study were men.

    Also, the NIH concluded that small daily doses of aspirin could
    reduce men's chance of heart problems.  No women were included in
    this study either, so it is unknown if aspirin has any effect on
    women.

    %-\  deb

    	RE: .83  Mike Z.

    	> Steve, I feel an action is sexist if a division is arbitrarily
    	> or needlessly drawn along gender lines.

    	Who defines what constitutes "arbitrary" or "needless," though?

    	> If a gender division is called for, say due to public mores
    	> such as modesty, then it is not arbitrary or needless.

    	How about the feeling that certain situations might be in bad
    	taste under some circumstances?

    	> If a gender division is arbitrarily established, for no real
   	> reason, then we have sexism.

    	It's already been established that men were not harmed by the
    	event in question, so what it all comes down to is whether or
    	not their "reason for wanting a women-only audience for the
    	auctioning of dates with males" is valid.

    	Again, who gets to decide?  (...especially in the case where no
    	harm is being done...!)

    in re .89
    
    Mike Z
    
    Women are almost never subjects of scientific research. Almost
    all biological/physiological evidence gathered on the human species has
    been gathered on men. (A major exception being the menstrual cycle and
    pregnancy.)
    
    Bonnie

re .88  -mike z
    
>	If this was the whole study (not just a corroboration of earlier
>    data, with men as the new subjects), then it seems to be both sexist
>    and an example of bad science.

Yup.  As reported, that was *the* study.  

re .90  Bonnie
    
You're absolutely right.  Sigh...
    
deb  :-\

    re: .83 (Mike Z.)
    
    �	If a gender division is called for, say due to public mores
    � such as modesty, then it is not arbitrary or needless.
    
    I guess then I'd ask what the "need" is for such mores and if they
    aren't in fact, arbitrary.  For example, in many places in Germany
    I encountered unisex public restrooms.  That suggests to me that
    separate restrooms are therefore an arbitrary decision thus "sexist"
    (using your definition).
    
    � 	If a gender division is arbitrarily established, for no real
    � reason, then we have sexism.
    
    What would be the reason for such "arbitrary" divisions?
    
    �	sexism n., discrimination or prejudice based on a person's sex;
    �	 sexual prejudice, especially against women, as in business or
    �	 politics. [ usage examples omitted /mz ]
    �
    �	Note: there is no mention of harm.
     
    I note that the word "harm" isn't used.  I also note that the phrase
    "especially against women" is and I suggest that that alludes strongly
    to the idea of harm.  In addition, I believe it's commonly accepted
    that the words "discrimination" and "prejudice" carry with them
    strong negative connotations based on their usual usage.  How many
    times do we use these words as neutral or positive terms?  How often
    have you heard people use "racism" or "sexism" and mean something
    positive or neutral by these words?
    
    Steve

    I assume that because of the context of the use of the word sexist,
    that the use of the word implies inappropriate negative sexual
    discrimination.  Where is the line between appropriate discrimination
    and inappropriate discrimination?  For example, is the separation
    of mens' and womens' bathrooms appropriate, or is that still another
    example of inappropriate discrimination?  How about the Boy and Girl
    Scouts? Is that inappropriate separation of the sexes?  How about
    mens' and womens' clubs?  How about Boys' and Girls' Clubs?  Is ALL
    deliberate separation of the sexes negative, or is it appropriate 
    to keep SOME functions reserved exclusively by sex?  I wonder if
    the attempt to minimize negative discrimination hasn't virtually
    eliminated the positive examples of sex separation.