Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: greg@uts.amdahl.COM (Greg Bullough) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: womyn-only space vs. men-only space? Message-ID: Date: 16 Nov 90 22:16:30 GMT References: <89803@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <10153@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> <1990Oct31.185009.701@athena.mit.edu> <46160@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> Reply-To: Greg Bullough Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA Lines: 75 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: liege.ics.uci.edu In article <46160@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) writes: >In article <1990Oct31.185009.701@athena.mit.edu> szady@athena.mit.edu (Does it really matter?) writes: >>I have a question..... > >>Why are womyn only events such as Michigan perfectly all right (i *DO* support >>womyn-space) but men-only events such as sharpening the stone (a radical >>faeries gathering) sexist and exclusionary? > >Because while women want to be without men in order to do healing, the >fear is that men want to be without women in order to do >women-bashing. There is a not-so-subtle form of sexism here which says "what women do in their space is virtuous and good, but what men do in their space is conspiratorial and evil." It is precisely this sort of sexism which as so polarized the forces on either side of the women-space/ men-space issue. I believe it is dangerous to make value judgements on the validity of male-only or female-only spaces, based on whether the excluded gender approves of the activity which takes place therein. If men are permitted to approve (or disapprove) of what takes place in women-space, then that space is no longer truly women-space. The same is true of man-space. If we are willing to say that women must understand, condone, and approve of the activities which take place in man-space, in order for that space to be given any kind of standing, we must make the complementary statement about women-space. And I suspect that the latter would get very little support from the proponents of women-space. For it is understood that anything which men might consider men-bashing could not be permitted. Neither gender can preserve its gender-specific-spaces while the opposite gender has the right to examine and approve what takes place there. It is not only logisically impossible, it is spiritually impossible. >I think as more radical anti-sexist men (yippee!!! I love you!) >develop men's space (as opposed to, say, the Bohemian Club which >disallows women, while making policy decisions for the far-right), it >will become more ok. This is exactly what I'm talking about. I get the distinct impression that the Bohemian club is mentioned here, not because it is man-space, but because most of its members have political agendas which are not compatible with the author's. What the author misses is that the exclusion is not just by gender--- ---it's also by political affiliation. The author is never going to be permitted, whatever space she's in, to make "policy decisions for the far-right." Notwithstanding that she probably wouldn't enjoy or participate in the Bohemian grove shenanigans, but would instead try and enforce her particular standards on what amounts to a bunch of overgrown boys blowing off steam (which is a form of 'healing'). >Hey, we just don't wanna be left out 8-( >;-) On the contrary, I believe that you DO want to be left out. I believe that, given the choice between full participation in the Bohemian Grove festivities, and ending them entirely, you would probably choose the latter. In fact, you don't have a choice; if you destroy the space, you destroy the event. We really have a choice: either we can acknowledge that part of human nature is sexual tribalism, and that humans don't draw lines between what they do in the environment of "we" versus "we and not-we." Or, we can refuse to acknowledge that, and suffer the pain that comes from realizing that NONE of us are therefore entitled to gender-specific bonding spaces, except under the scrutiny of the opposite gender. Either one is a hard alternative. With no easy middle-ground. Greg