Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: sexist space
Message-ID: <1991Jan11.035518.25880@informix.com>
Date: 14 Jan 91 15:45:30 GMT
References: <9012052032.AA02898@decpa.pa.dec.com> <1990Dec10.023210.8120@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Lines: 47
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: blanche.ics.uci.edu

[The attributes are slightly mangled.  In the quoted section, the
first sentence is by Kathi Mills.  The second is by Jim Baranski.  The
last is by stabler.  --CLT]

In article <1990Dec10.023210.8120@athena.cs.uga.edu> stabler@rolf.stat.uga.edu writes:
>Posted by a friend - send replies to Kathi Mills at stabler@rolf.stat.uga.edu
>
>>"many women's groups exist for the purpose of inclusion, not exclusion"
>
>>How is that???  They exclude men, right?  Or don't they count?
>
>If you were not angry about groups which until recently routinely
>excluded women, I think it hypocritical to take a stand now.

	Funny. I would have said that if you *were* angry about groups
that until recently routinely excluded women, that it would be
hypocritical *not* to take a stand now.

[stabler:]
>Aside from that, there is a necessity for women-only social groups
>(note that I do not include business clubs, political groups, etc.),
>since women have been socialized to defer to men unconsciously (speech
>patterns, personal space, and internalized stereotypical views about
>sex roles are just a few examples of this).  Only in the absence of
>what many women characterize as the "aggressor" can many women learn
>assertiveness, divulge problems in relating with one or more men,
>identify and try to change stereotypical sex-role expectations, etc.

	Oh, this is grotesque. A woman who characterizes all men as
"aggressors" shouldn't be encouraged by society tacitly agreeing by
allowing the discrimination. The last thing we should do is "legalize"
generalizations.

	There are plenty of men who unconsciously defer to *anyone*;
the classic "Milquetoast" type does exist. If *anyone* who appears to
be capable of forwarding their views "graduates" immediately from the
organization, all that will be left are *people* (not "gender-types")
who need help. And then we don't have to extend privileges to those
who don't need it, and we don't have to deny help to those that do.

	And we don't have to extend gender-based generalizations.

Robert C.
--
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.