Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Woman/Man Space Message-ID: Date: 2 Jan 91 20:36:22 GMT Organization: Swarthmore College Lines: 36 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu *WARNING. I AM NOT GOING TO BE NICE.* I get tired of folks who claim that women-only groups are _necessarily_ wrong. Tell me. Would you take a bunch of emotionally vulnerable men who are survivors of abuse by their mothers and fathers and hold an open meeting to work through pain, grief, and trauma while they are in the _presence of their abusers_?!? Get real. I bet those of you involved in this debate who think women-only groups are always bad think that sexism died in the '70s, that everything would be peachy-keen if we all loved one another, and that there's no good reason that women might feel uncomfortable discussing sexism and other issues with men around. Particularly since you're all wonderful. When the purpose of a closed group is to support its members when in a larger context those members are being stomped on by the social structures in their lives, that's an inclusionary group. That is a powerful move towards disrupting a sexist, heterosexist, racist, etc. status quo. When a group is existing to reinforce that same status quo - that's _exclusionary_. Quite bluntly, the status quo is wrong and sexist. The status quo is also morally wrong. This _has_ to frame this discussion but it almost never gets talked about. I have yet to hear one person claim that women-only groups can disrupt the status quo but they still have no right to exist. Until I do, I see no reason not to assume that you who oppose women-only groups in all circumstances are just defending a sexist status quo. Dialogue is welcome now that I've blown off steam. I respect your opinion - but respect and understand why it pisses me off. -- Steve Karpf