Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!ora!daemon
From: baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (Jim Baranski)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: sexist space
Message-ID: <1991Jan14.202723.18128@ora.com>
Date: 14 Jan 91 20:27:23 GMT
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 70
Approved: ambar@ora.com

In article <9101081911.AA27940@rutgers.edu>, jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes...

"Ok.  How about need then?  What do you say about the right of a group
to exclude certain other people because it *needs* the space for the
development of it's members?"

I would probably lean toward the 'need' of an individual to be
included over the 'need' of the group to exclude them in any case.
Groups get too power hungry as it is.

Do you suppose that for each interest that we need three groups, one
for each sex and one for both sexes to provide equal and shared access
to all.  I consider intercommunication to be vital to any progress.

"Gee, so I guess the groups you're talking about wanting to be in on
are *not* ladies clubs and tea parties.  Guess they still don't have
any substance or purpose, so we'll just ignore them."

They are of no substance *to me*, that is, I am not interested in such
groups.  Obviously they are of substance to others as other people
still find them of interest.

"So why don't you just come right out and *tell* us all just what
groups you feel you're being excluded from based on your sex ... mind
you, women-counseling groups don't count by a necessity"

Hard to say exactly, but basically I'm interested in politics,
spirituality, music, etc.....

"So it's prejudice for women to need to try to recover -- yes, RECOVER
-- from the effects of living with men all their lives?  Is that what
you're saying?"

You are saying that the need justifies the crime.  I disagree.

"Y'know .. REAL equality, REAL paybacks to women for being turned into
what they are by society would involve switching places and making men
the 2nd class citizens for the next 3000 years or so.  As it is, I
personally think society [as a male dominated organism] is getting off
pretty easy."

*SIGH*

You certainly don't like to make life easy for anyone, do you.  Don't
you see that this is exactly what a lot of conservative people ARE
afraid of?  Why do you have to help justify their fears?

"So big deal.  I've seen a whole lot of shouting about the "prejudice"
of women against men."

That seems to be the common attitude...

"I've seen the attempts to make all women/feminists conform to your
definition of feminism, regardless of what the people in question
might think -- all of this guaranteed to upset people, and for what?
I've also seen a very obvious *lack* of any concrete or constructive
criticism here."

You haven't seen *me* trying to make anyone conform.  What I've been
doing is reacting to somethings that I've seen that I definitely
didn't like, and attempting to communicate about that.  First you
complain that I'm attempting to make people conform, and then you
complain that I haven't make any concrete suggestions???  You can't
have it both ways.

"Can you do better than just try to cling to the status quo?"

I'm certainly not for the status quo.  I think it rips everyone off.
I wish that the feminists amoung other people would realize that.

Jim.