Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ora!daemon
From: rshapiro@arris.com (Richard Shapiro)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: sexist space
Message-ID: <1991Jan2.152346.1324@arris.com>
Date: 2 Jan 91 17:03:11 GMT
References: <9012052040.AA03835@decpa.pa.dec.com>
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: ARRIS Pharmaceutical, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 29
Approved: ambar@ora.com

In article <9012052040.AA03835@decpa.pa.dec.com> baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com writes:
>Now, we have women only activities from which men are excluded.  Well,
>there are some things going on in women only activites which I find
>*very* interesting, and *I* feel *I* am missing out.  Yet, feminists
>proclaim their *right* to keep me out???
>...
>The reason that these women gather, and exclude men, is not because of
>what men who might be interested in participating in them might be
>like, but because of the fear in the women.  Is this supposedly a Good
>Thing???  Is this a valid reason for discrimination?  I certainly
>don't think so.  And if this principle were applied against women, I'm
>*sure* that feminists would be incensed!
>..

etc etc

This pseudo-egalitarian argument assumes a kind of identity that
simply isn't there.  That is, that the exclusion of women by men is
identical to the exclusion of men by women (for instance).  But is it
identical?  Only if they're working on the imaginary "level playing
field".  But this is only true if men and women are *already* equal.  So
the argument simply assumes the very equality it claims to be
creating.

In the real world, men and women are not operating on a level playing
field, and the meaning of the "same" action is different, depending on
who's doing the acting.

rs