Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ora!daemon From: sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: All I ask for is consistency Message-ID: Date: 5 Jan 91 04:47:33 GMT Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz) Organization: Swarthmore College Lines: 36 Approved: ambar@ora.com In article <}KT^Q~-@rpi.edu>, mittmann@ral.rpi.EDU (Michael Mittmann) writes... > So will you support a single sex group that believes it's >being stomped on by the changing social structure? (note that they >may be just as uncomfortble discussing sexism and other issues with >women around as your woman's group. No, I wouldn't support such a group if it is anti-change. If it's, say a group of men who work on Wall Street who are trying to understand the changes going on and change themselves in the process, sure. >Hmm, Ok. I'm worried about the leagal results of allowing all-female >groups but not all-male groups. I'm a tremendous believer in social >momnetum, and am not willing to give females a legal advantage now, >because when it comes to the time when I believe that it's no longer >needed I don't believe that it will get repealed. I don't say that all all-male groups should be illegal. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think people should participate in or support single-sex organizations whose object is to maintain a sexist status quo. If that involves passing a law against all-male corporate dining clubs, so be it. >You see oppression is (IMHO) largely subjective, and I suspect that it >is very possible to have two groups which each believe that they're >getting the worse half of the bargain. Certainly. While in a larger sense men and women will all gain by a change in gender-weighted power structures, many men will see themselves getting the raw end of the deal because they have assumed that its OK to value undeserved power. Too bad. I support men and women who want to change things and themselves (the same process). That means giving up certain old values. --Steve Karpf