Quotes are taken from a message written by Dan to Charles on 07/28/96...
DT>CB>I believe what you are saying, then, is that you believe that if we
DT>CB>put  all of the black students into one classroom by themselves
DT>CB>because of  their skin color, that's racism, but if we put all girls
DT>CB>into one class  because of their gender, that's not sexism?
DT>
DT>You are twisting my words.  If a class is single-sex because it is 
DT>believed that such an arrangement will enhance learning, that is NOT 
DT>sexism.  If we put a bunch of girls in a class and the only reason for 
DT>doing so is because they are female, that is sexism.  If it is because 
DT>learning will be enhanced, that is a different story.  I think you may 
DT>need to define sexism....I think we have a semantics problem here.   
I don't believe I AM twisting your words - sexism is any act which 
selects or segregates based on the gender of those involved.  If you 
were building this "special" class based on skill level or ability level 
in math and science, then most likely some boys and girls would both be 
in the class.  I contend that the ONLY reason for creating an all-girl 
math class is to keep the boys out - and that's sexism.  And I do 
believe that the hypothesis  that girls are intimidated by taking math 
and science with boys is based on VERY tenuous research.  After all, 
there seems to be no such hesitancy when it comes to reading, writing 
and social studies, so why math?
DT>Oh so you agree that "sexism" is ok in some settings.  Isn't that 
DT>situational ethics?
Well, yeah!   I'm willing to have co-ed shower rooms at school, but 
the females object and I don't want to make them angry.
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* "Ok, now for a quick backu...&.%#^1s."....NO CARRIER
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------