Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod!usc!ucla-cs!ucivax!gateway From: jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: sexist space Message-ID: <9101151807.AA11580@rutgers.edu> Date: 15 Jan 91 19:13:41 GMT References: <1991Jan14.202723.18128@ora.com> Organization: Barbie's Dream Dungeon Lines: 128 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: blanche.ics.uci.edu In article <1991Jan14.202723.18128@ora.com> baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (Jim Baranski) writes: >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. The individual members of the group don't count? When a group is organzied purely for the development of individuals with problems utilizing their idividual potential I think that far outweighs your need to augment an already well-utilized potential. Besides, these groups are hard to view as distinct entities since anyone who has been in a counseling group of any kind can tell you the membership is constantly in flux. It's hard for a group to get power hungry if there's never any of the same people around. >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. No. I dont' care to judge the worthiness of any group. Let them set it their way, and see if it flies or fails on its own. >"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..... Well? I don't know of any groups off hand formed for those purposes that exclude men. I was asking for specific examples. Even the NOW and NARAL meetings have their share of women. >"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. I'm saying there's no crime. And yes, I'm saying that NEED, real honest NEED is a MUCH better reason for participation in a group than mere interest -- particularly when there are plenty of other opportunities for the satisfaction of that interest elsewhere. Well, here you go -- here's a group I just saw advertised as forming in a local newspaper here .... It's a group for Non-Orgasmic Women. Now tell me. Do you see any reason why there should be men in this group? Do see *anything* that's going to help these women talk about the very personal problem they're having in the presence of men? [Please, before you answer this, please, please, please do some reading on the nature of group dynamics and group therapy! Thanks.] >"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? I don't think it will EVER happen. I think it's totally ludicrous and impossible and intended the statement to exploit this and, if anything, show just how totally unreasonable such a thing is. If anyone believes it, I feel sorry for them. >"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... Yup. It's a two way street and we gotta walk it together. >"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. First, I resent your attempts to label me as a "feminist". I'm not. I dont' in any way attempt to identify with that group. You've called me one several times and I've asked you not to. It's too tricky a word for me and has too many latent connotations which I would just rather not deal with -- the thread that's currently attempting to define feminism is a good case in point. As for concrete suggestions -- where's the problem? I want to know what exclusive groups have got you so mad about their aggregation of power to themselves [current examples], and what women-only groups you've been unable to participate in that have gotten you so mad about that -- and I want to know how you think this can be alleviated without discriminating against those -only groups which seem to have a real reason and purpose for their existence. I think you have a lot of interesting things to say and some good points as well -- but I'd really like to hear some definite real solutions to these problems if you have any -- rather than just "reactions" as you called them. I don't know about you, but I'm kind of getting tired of throwing ideals around. I want to see some suggestions on what I can do right *now* to make life better for *both* genders. j- -- #*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#* "Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."