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: sexist space
Message-ID: <1991Jan13.052322.9783@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Date: 14 Jan 91 20:27:00 GMT
References: <9101072032.AA28202@easynet.crl.dec.com>
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 109
Approved: ambar@ora.com

In article <9101072032.AA28202@easynet.crl.dec.com> baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (Jim Baranski) writes:

>I don't support the right of any group to exclude anyone because of
>prejudice.  I find it hypocritical that women complain about being
>excluded, then go on to form groups which exclude men.

Do NOT stereotype women, feminists, or anyone else, if you please.

Now that that's out of the way, if a woman *did* complain about being
excluded from male SOCIAL groups, and then formed a social group of
her own which excluded men, that would be hypocritical, true.  Same
would apply to blacks/whites, Jews/gentiles, atheists/theists,
gays/straights, or any other dichotomy.

Such generalizations are counterproductive.

There is a difference, believe it or not, between social groups,
business groups, and therapy groups.  The difference between the two
former groups has been delineated by no less than the Supreme Court.
Although I cannot remember the name of the case (hopefully someone
else here will remember it), it went something like this: a woman sued
for membership in a men-only social club on the grounds that most
powerful members of her profession were members of that club.  She
successfully proved that business deals and other vital professional
information was exchanged at that club which would severely limit her
career in that field since she lacked access to it.  The Court backed
her, basically on the grounds that the club had superseded any social
status and had become a business-related organization.  That woman,
and all women in that profession, were severely and concretely damaged
by their lack of access to that group.

To illustrate why women-only therapy groups need exist, let me use an
alcoholic recovery group as an analogy.  Suppose a group of alcoholics
meet once a week to talk about their problems getting off the bottle
and support each other.  A group of non-alcoholics joins the group and
harasses the alcoholics, telling them they are stupid to continue
drinking when they are risking their jobs, their marriages, and their
lives.  It would be natural for the alcoholics to say, "What do you
know about it?  You've never been an alcoholic.  I'm doing the best I
can," and wish for the non-alcoholics to leave the group since the
alcoholics feel the two groups have nothing in common, and the
presence of the non-alcoholics is intimidating and counterproductive
to the purpose of the group.

Similarly, women who feel oppressed often form support groups.  While
many allow and even encourage sympathetic men to join them, it is
understandable that some do not because they feel that their
oppression stems from men in the first place.  To them, the mere
presence of men in the group is intimidating and prevents the group
from speaking openly and thus supporting each other emotionally.
Thus, the group cannot accomplish the purpose for which it was formed.
Although you may feel that women who are intimidated by the mere
presence of men are ridiculous, you should support such a group if it
is the only way for women to rid themselves of such attitudes.

>Women have always had women-only social groups: ladies clubs, tea
>parties and what not.  While these groups seemed too trivial to
>attract men in the past, they fullfilled their social purpose.  Now
>there are frequently women only groups with substance and purpose
>which some men might want some involvement in, but they are denied
>because of prejudice.

The point of the above is that you need to describe precisely what
groups you are talking about.  Sure, there were "ladies' clubs," tea
parties, etc.  That was because the men got up and went to men-only
clubs every morning (work), leaving housewives with nothing but
drudgery.  I suspect the ones who had the leisure to go to tea parties
had maids and thus, did not even have that.  (Betty Friedan's infamous
_The Feminine Mystique_ discusses exactly this problem with upper-
middle-class white women in the 1950's: The Problem That Has No Name.)

If you wish to claim that men are damaged by not being allowed in
these "women only groups with substance and purpose which some men
might want some involvement in," define the damage.  Also define what
you mean by "substance and purpose."  I find the implication that only
as limited number of "women only groups" have "substance and purpose"
quite insulting, actually.  And finally, describe exactly how the
damage inflicted on men by not being allowed in these groups outweighs
the rights of freedom of assembly and association that these women
possess.

Speaking of "freedoms of assembly and association," I wish to correct
an erroneous stereotype you seem to subscribe to.  As a woman, a
feminist, and a secular humanist, I believe everyone has the right to
exercise the above freedoms, but, like most (if not all) freedoms,
they are not absolute.  If a person can prove that s/he is put at a
serious disadvantage which outweighs the right of an organized group
to the above freedoms, then the freedoms of the group must be limited.
Basically, your freedom of association ends where my career begins is
what I'm saying.

I also don't believe that most feminists wish to eliminate ALL
men-only groups while women-only groups flourish.  They (and I) only
wish to eliminate men-only groups which exist TO THE CONCRETE
DETRIMENT OF women.  These consist primarily (if not only) of business
groups.

>So, you what you are saying is the reason for the prejudice is not a
>problem in the men, but a problem in the women?  Such is always the
>case in prejudice.  How ironic! :-}

I think the prejudice is a problem with both sexes.  While men have
done much to make enlightened women despise them, but enlightened
women do not believe that all men commit such acts.

-- 
Sexism is a social disease.

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