Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!ora!daemon
From: willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: sexist space
Message-ID: <11119@helios.TAMU.EDU>
Date: 14 Jan 91 20:24:22 GMT
References: <9012052040.AA03835@decpa.pa.dec.com> <1991Jan5.044751.19198@ora.com>
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Lines: 63
Approved: ambar@ora.com

In article <1991Jan5.044751.19198@ora.com> jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes:

>Wow, two in a row, ah well ... you make interesting comments that I like
>to bounce ideas off of.

And you make some interesting points but I wonder if you see the implications
of consistency.

[much quoted stuff deleted]
>I'd like to give you a counter-example and see where it goes.

>Imagine if you will a child who has not had the benefit of being
>exposed to most of the common social surivial skills that most people
>learn, i.e.  unable to communicate effectively, extreme
>recluse/shyness, inability to take an agressive part in school and to
>use the opportunities there to their fullest extent.
> [...]
>I think that a lot of "women space" is protected for just this reason.
>Not all of course, but quite a bit if the meetings I've attended are
>any indication.

So exclusive groups are OK if some other group thinks they are "2d
class citizens" or otherwise handicapped? Two points here: (1) I have
a problem with the argument that one must be 'disadvantaged' to get
some desired result; (2) Here the group being helped is *distinct
from* the group making the decision to help -- decidely not what you
propose.

[most other comments from Jeanette deleted as expanding on her
example.]


>Is it right that a person's wants should define what other people are
>allowed to have or, in some cases, need very desperately?

>I am firmly convinced in the validity of both "women space" and "men
>space" -- both of which do as a matter of fact exist.  I think that,
>at this time, our society is in no way ready to deal with equality on
>a realistic scale and that achieving that does not require any "let's
>all agree to toe the line of equality and eliminate privacy simply
>because it's sexist."

>Needs, like people, vary, and cannot be firmly agreed upon.

This last part of your comment is very well stated *and* something
that I very much agree with.  You shouldn't need to make the argument
that women feel disadvantaged in order to argue for the value of women
only groups.  BUT, you (the generic everybody) cannot then argue
against men-only groups just because you disagree with their politics.
People either have privacy or they don't.  I can think of many groups
that make decisions that affect me or that I would be interested in
that I cannot join for reasons beyond my control. {I can't join
Burning Tree Country Club either. 8-) } It is OK to say "I think
you're a slimeball politician {redundancy?} for being part of this
group that discriminates for no good reason against this or that
group." Fine. Don't vote for people that don't reflect your views.
And don't pressure for laws to eliminate that group because you don't
like them.

Reading over my comments, I realize I may have missed one point.  It
is OK (IMHO) to identify disadvantaged groups and provide special,
direct assistance.  I don't believe women as a group (or men or blacks
or browns or...) qualify.