Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zaphod!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: All I ask for is consistency
Message-ID: <Y6QWK01@cs.swarthmore.edu>
Date: 15 Jan 91 18:47:28 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College
Lines: 54
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: blanche.ics.uci.edu

In article <1991Jan6.001824.16009@athena.cs.uga.edu>, stabler@athena.cs.uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes...
>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?

  Sure, fine, no problem.  People can and will get together to bitch
whenever they want, and I don't think feminism/chauvinisper se is an
issue is deciding who associates and when.  But...  If a group of
disgruntled male chauvinist executives get together to moan
collectivelyaren't they going to be networking simply through the
process of meeting? While that's their choice to meet, isn't that an
environment where friendships and linkages will naturally occur,
outside of official business structures, that can effect the position
of women in business? (Y'know, I've problems with corporate structure
in itself, so I'm not particularly fervent about this aspect of
equality:))

  The difference is that a bunch of feminists, in your example, are
meeting in order to do something to alleviate sexism in the workplace.
The men are just as likely to want to _do_ something as the women - in
this case, form unofficial structures that limit the accessibility of
women.  And that's a problem we're trying to defeat in the first
place.

    The other thing is that my opposition to such a group does not
necessarily endorse _government_ action against such groups, or laws
to be passed against such groups.  That's another issue for me
entirely - what structures to use to defeat sexism in the workplace,
and the law is useful in some ways and not in others, and it isn't the
onlyway.

--Steve Karpf