Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: feit@acsu.buffalo.EDU (Elissa Feit) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: womyn-only space vs. men-only space? Message-ID: <47348@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> Date: 26 Nov 90 17:24:08 GMT References: <89803@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <10153@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> <1990Oct31.185009.701@athena.mit.edu> <46160@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo/Comp Sci Lines: 111 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu [This may have already been posted. My apologies if you see it twice. --CLT] In article Greg Bullough writes: .>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 said "the fear is that..." Are you saying that the underlying sentiment which I *reported* is sexist? I agree. >...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. I object to men-bashing. I always interrupt it and try to offer some reality to the basher. >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. Again, I said this as reporter. By "ok" I mean it will become more acceptable to those to whom it is not already. >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. Precisely. > 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." I'm not quite understanding what you're saying. Re: the Bohemian Grove, I disapprove PRECISELY on basis of the politics - NOT on the basis of men's space. And what's behind those politics, and behind the fact that it IS mens-only-space, is male-supremacy. But not SIMPLY that it's male-supremicist, but that these men have the POWER behind them - that's wherein my objection lies. >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'). Why do you think I wouldn't enjoy the shenanigans? blowing off steam? hey, some of my best friends are "overgrown boys". 8-) >>Hey, we just don't wanna be left out 8-( >>;-) Of the policy decisions that affect us all ! >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. If I destroyed the space, they'd just buy another large tract of redwood forest and post armed guard around the perimeter. Gee, if EVERYONE had full participation on policy in this country - I don't think I'd object... >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." could you elaborate on this? > 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. Could it possibly be that women's space is PERMITTED simply because the authorities (e.g, the gentlemen at the grove) trust that the women won't be making decisions that affect THEM? (after all, the Michigan Women's Music fest. is NOT threatening - hey, it's above all a capitalist venture!) Elissa Feit (feit@cs.buffalo.edu // {rutgers,uunet}!cs.buffalo.edu!feit) We're on the road and we're gunning for the Buddha. We know his name and he mustn't get away -- Shriekback