[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Womyn and the L (fwd)

I've been holding back on this thread also; I actually started a similar 
thread on IE-L, but it didn't seem to generate as much passion as I'd 
hoped (those IE folks seem a bit less argumentative).  Anyway, while I 
agree with what I think is the main point of your post, but there are 
a few sub-points which I did not want to let go.

> 
> majority of women debators couldn't say that.  My personal favorite was the
> ballot that indicated we would have won if we had shown more leg.  I don't
-- obviously a clear instance of sexist treatment; the judge should have 
been chastised by the entire community.

>         Most of this discrimination seems to be more subtle, however.  It
> involves expectations and assumptions about the way people can/will behave
> based exclusively on the presence of an xtra x chromosome.  It takes a
---snip--
> points in the round.  Sometimes it manifests itself in a judge who only
> converses with the other team, who happens to be two males, and ignores my
> partner and I (two females) both before the round and during the oral
> critique.

--  OK, this is the one that bothers me.  I acknowledge that I do not 
know the particulars of the instance, so I will not try to pass judgement 
on whether or not this was sexist-motivated.  However, I must point out 
that from what you've written here, there is no indication to me that the 
judge's actions were sexist.  While it is _possible_ that the judge was 
acting in a sexist fashion, to give this example is to imply that merely 
by not speaking as much to your team (who _happened_ to be two women), 
the judge proved his/her sexism.  I am bothered by a conclusion so 
hastily reached.

>  Even recently I saw a male debator on the circuit tell everyone
> in the round that there was nothing sexist about the cards he was using
> that round, though they only used the terms mankind and men, because we all
> know what the author means.  I think in its very worst form, it comes

-- Again, to accept this (and therefore any other instance of similar 
behavior) as a clear indication of sexual _discrimination_ (which I do feel 
is different from merely being "sexist"), I think would be an error.  I 
myself know several educated women who believe that the usage of "man" 
and "mankind" to indicate humankind is not sexist.  Even if we allow that 
presumption, what makes the actions of the debater involved 
"discrimination".  I assume that he would have made the same arguments 
against anyone, male or female, who argued that his cards were sexist.  
Therefore the proposed sexism of the cards is not an act of 
discrimination in and of itself, because the issue becomes a focus of 
debate.  The key thing is that there is no indication that the actins of 
the debater were motivated by a desire to discriminate against women, nor 
is there an indication that your opportunity to argue the matter was 
hindered.


> across as simply a general sort of feeling that hangs in the air, telling
> women that they can't expect to do as well because they are female or that
> they shouldn't expect to be taken as seriously as males because they are
> female or that they cannot employ a "male" style of debate.  To me, this is
> worse than the overt comments because it is much more difficult to
> recognize, to ennunciate, or to combat.

-- For anyone to experience such a feeling is definitely unfortunate, and 
something which should be eliminated if at all possible.  The thing about 
this post which bothers me is that if we accept your examples as given, 
it sets a precedence (in the minds of the readers) for what should be 
considered sexual discrimination.  From my reading of this, the examples 
given are a little too broad, and can lead to innocent acts being 
perceived as discrimination.  I feel that this is almost as bad as actual 
discrimination, because it involves assumptions being made about the 
alleged discriminator.

>         I know that each woman's experience with sexism in the debate forum
> is different, but I also think it is strategically necessary for women to
> acknowledge each others experiences with sexism, even if they personally do
--snip--
>         Participation in the effort against discrimination means being
> opposed to all forms of discrimination, however, because all prejudice is
> equally unfair.  That means keeping an open mind about people reagrdless of
> sex (no male-bashing either), race, ethnicity, region, division,
> school-affiliation, etc.

-- This part of the post reminds me of the movie Malcolm X.  When a young 
white woman approaches Malcolm on the street and asks him what she can 
do to help his people, and he says "NOTHING".  I'm probably misreading 
this, Debby, but it seems to me that by specificying that women should 
acknowledge others' experiences, you imply that men wuold be incapable of 
such acknowledgement.  As you point out further down, being opposed to 
one type of discrim. or prejudice requires being opposed to all of it.  
As an intelligent individual, I can sympathize with your experiences, and 
I can do my best to oppose discrimination when I encounter it, no matter 
who the victim.  

-- As I said earlier, I agree with the point that discrimination should 
be opposed, and I call upon all of us to be conscious of what we do and 
say; to honestly appraise whether or not we are treating all individuals 
as equals, and to speak against those who do discriminate.


--AlexJB
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page