Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!ora!daemon
From: stabler@athena.cs.uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: All I ask for is consistency
Message-ID: <1991Jan6.001824.16009@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Date: 14 Jan 91 20:24:27 GMT
References: <X19VZCH@cs.swarthmore.edu>
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 30
Approved: ambar@ora.com

In article <X19VZCH@cs.swarthmore.edu> sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu writes:

>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.

I'd like to know what your rationale is for opposing *any* groups that
admit only members of one sex under the following conditions:

1.  The group receives no money and nothing of value from any government
    agency; and

2.  The group makes no contacts regarding any business.  No business
    information is exchanged during the meetings, and no networking takes
    place which would put members of the excluded sex at a disadvantage
    in their company or profession.
    
After all, if a group, say, of disgruntled male chauvinist executives
from different fields wants to get together on a regular basis and
moan that women are taking jobs from the good ol' boys, why would a
woman want to be there anyway?  If I may be so bold as to assume that
you would support a group of feminist women discussing ways of
alleviating sexism in the workplace, why do the feminists possess a
freedom of association that the chauvinists don't?

-- 
Sexism is a social disease.

Kathi Mills - stabler@athena.cs.uga.edu