Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!ora!ambar From: jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: sexist space Message-ID: <1991Feb20.161635.5584@ora.com> Date: 20 Feb 91 16:16:35 GMT References: <9012052040.AA03835@decpa.pa.dec.com> <1991Jan5.044751.19198@ora.com> <11119@helios.TAMU.EDU> Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz) Organization: Barbie's Dream Dungeon Lines: 112 Approved: ambar@ora.com In article <11119@helios.TAMU.EDU> willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti) writes: >In article <1991Jan5.044751.19198@ora.com> jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes: >And you make some interesting points but I wonder if you see the implications >of consistency. Well, I could say the same for you, but I'll get to that later. >So exclusive groups are OK if some other group thinks they are "2d >class citizens" or otherwise handicapped? Two points here: (1) I have >a problem with the argument that one must be 'disadvantaged' to get >some desired result; (2) Here the group being helped is *distinct >from* the group making the decision to help -- decidely not what you >propose. No, you're taking the example too far as fact and not as an example [which is much different from an actual case study]. I said, if there is a group A which feels it is unable to mature and develop completely in an environment with its peers, X [which includes all other random groups such as As, Bs, Cs, and Ds] then I find that it is not only reasonable, but probably necessary for that group A to have a small amount of time set aside in which members of this group can meet and discuss problems which are holding them back from fully interacting as peers with the society, X. I did not in any way say that meant this group was handicapped [at least not permanently] or think they are 2nd class citizens. There is no "problem" with considering oneself "disadvantaged" in order to wish to not be. I don't understand your reasoning that someone who thinks they are underdeveloped in some area should feel that it is wrong for them to consider themselves so before seeking help. I would not consider going to see a psychiatrist unless I thought I had a problem - unless I considered myself disadvantaged and unable to fully make use of my capabilities. Also, while the example of the child involved an outside group [the parents, etc] making the decision to allow the child to go to a special school, that is often [at the moment] not the case for adults [obviously]. However, I would like to point out to you that this may not always be the case. After all, what are you arguing about right here? You're even now arguing about whether or not these adults should be allowed to decided to have same-whatever groups are you not? >>Needs, like people, vary, and cannot be firmly agreed upon. >This last part of your comment is very well stated *and* something >that I very much agree with. You shouldn't need to make the argument >that women feel disadvantaged in order to argue for the value of women >only groups. BUT, you (the generic everybody) cannot then argue >against men-only groups just because you disagree with their politics. Ahhhh. Here we go. The disadvantaged deal is my final argument against people who can't see the point of *any* exclusive groups. But I am much more liberal personally than that. However when arguing, you must admit, it is nice to be able to get someone who seems counter to you to agree to at least *some* of your points. I have never said that I was against all-male groups. I think they're a fine idea. I think the Boy Scouts are great, I love to watch pro-football, and I groove on the concept of all-same sex therapy groups. BUT, I have never said that I was against SOCIAL gender-based groups either. I'm not. When I hear women whine to me about this or that club or whatever wouldn't let them in because they're a woman I say, "Well, either do something about it and *make* them want to let you in or go find something else just as good!!!" I see no reason for taking any of it to courts or through the law. I see gender-exclusiveness as something that will eventually work itself out -- and much faster WITHOUT the help of the law. This isn't a matter of making the law agree that this or that club shouldn't exist, but a matter of making the PEOPLE who form the club decide that they really aren't getting nearly as much out of a gender-exclusive club as they would if it wasn't so exclusive. Laws just take time, eat up tons of money and publicity and make the defending group all the more stubborn. Yes, the law has been good to women and other minorities. It's done a lot to put us back on our feet and that's all I ask. I want to be able to look back some day and see how I was able to WALK like the proud, wonderful *person* that I am -- not be carried through life because of my labels. >People either have privacy or they don't. I can think of many groups >that make decisions that affect me or that I would be interested in >that I cannot join for reasons beyond my control. {I can't join >Burning Tree Country Club either. 8-) } It is OK to say "I think >you're a slimeball politician {redundancy?} for being part of this >group that discriminates for no good reason against this or that >group." Fine. Don't vote for people that don't reflect your views. >And don't pressure for laws to eliminate that group because you don't >like them. Exactly. I don't particularly see why you had to bother following up, but it was good to hear your comments as well. >Reading over my comments, I realize I may have missed one point. It >is OK (IMHO) to identify disadvantaged groups and provide special, >direct assistance. I don't believe women as a group (or men or blacks >or browns or...) qualify. And I never said they did, did I? I've always been trying to prove to people who want *no* exclusiveness at all that there are groups of whatevers that NEED their own space in order to develop -- but I never ever tried to say that was an entire group [say women] who needed special direct assisstance. There are tons of women out there that are doing just fine and dandy in my humble opinion and I for one would certainly not go up to them and demand that they let me put them in a therapy group because I think they've got problems. BUT, if they want it [and I happen to think that women *are* a group that tends to want/need this right now] they should be allowed to have. j- -- #*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#* "Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."