Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!ora!daemon
From: feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: sexist space
Message-ID: <49932@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Date: 2 Jan 91 02:30:53 GMT
References: <9012052108.AA06756@decpa.pa.dec.com>
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo/Comp Sci
Lines: 61
Approved: ambar@ora.com

In article <9012052108.AA06756@decpa.pa.dec.com> baranski@meridn.enet.dec.COM writes:
>From: feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit)

>"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."

>That's bullshit.  What makes you think that the KoC spends it's
>meetings bashing women?

The KoC?  The Knights of Columbus?  First off, didn't I already answer
a similar letter (or did it somehow not get past the moderators? (and
what happened to it?)

In my last answer I pointed out that I am *reporting*: I didn't say :
"men want to be without women in order to do women-bashing"
I said:
"the fear is that men want to be without women in order to do women-bashing"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I didn't even say  "MY fear is that..."

But let me explain... The fear comes from the fact that men HAVE had
power over women in certain realms in the past, and decision making by
men MIGHT mean loss of power for women. Also, in cases where there is
a limit of resources, the ommission of women would be disagreeable due
to women not getting a fair share.

And I gave an example (the Bohemian Club) which IS disagreeable to me:
a far-right organization who are policy-makers, the implication being
that policy does thereby not take women into account.

>"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."

>Why must an organization agree with *your* philosophy to be 'ok'?
>Sounds oppressive to me...

Since, as I said I am reporting, 'ok' means: is more acceptable to
others.

But this seems like a frivolous question. Do you expect me to
*endorse* groups with whom I disagree violently?  I would rather throw
a bomb at the Boheminas than anything else... as would many people...
men and women...  that's why they have armed guards and dogs circling
their (electric?) barbed-wire fences.

And why are you making ME out to be the final arbitor of what's "ok" ?
By defn. "ok" is subjective. If you are trying to define some larger
objective "ok", most groups ARE ok. Why should I interfere?  My
objection to the Bohemians is due to the fact that THEY interfere with
MY personal freedoms. Due to their status in the running of the
country, they had a bit to do with the savings and loan debacle, for
example. That costs ME and fellow Americans $148,000,000 per day. I
call THAT interference.

Elissa Feit (feit@cs.buffalo.edu // {rutgers,uunet}!cs.buffalo.edu!feit)
Dawn comes soon enough for the working class.
It keeps getting sooner or later.
This is the game that moves as you play  - X