saquigley@watdaisy.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (01/18/84)
Although I defended the right for men to participate in net.women because I think it is very important to include them in any kind of feminist movement so that they realise that they have more to gain then loose from feminism, I too, feel very strongly the need for my "womanspace". I cannot quantify why that is so and what it is about a women environment that makes me feel so good, but it does. I have lived in three different communities. I spent the ages of 8 to 17 in a girl school, then I did my undergraduate at McGill in math in a setting which I would call "coed" and I am now in Waterloo in a mostly male environment. Comparing the three different experiences, I do have to admit that of the three environments I greatly prefered the girls-only one. I had many problems most of the time which were not related to the fact that I was in a girl-only environment but when I finally overcame them, at around the age of 15, I really started enjoying my environment and the female company and I was somewhat sorry to leave it to go to a more "mixed" environ- ment. I did enjoy my undergraduate years as things felt "natural". I had both women and men friends and didn't feel stiffled at all. Here, on the other hand, I feel very frustrated to be in such a male environment. There are women around, but as they are very scarce, I do not meet them naturally, and I don't believe that the fact that they are women is sufficient for us to become friends, so I will not approach them just because they are women. It is also very hard to get to know them because, when we do meet, it is usually in men's company and men do have a way to steal the limelight. It is hard to define what I miss when there are no women around, but I do feel as though half of me is sleeping away. I am getting more and more sensitive to sexism around me to the point where I get nearly paranoid and notice every little detail that shows that I as a woman am not really here. I do things such as refering to the user as "she" in technical discussions to try to counter balance the flow of "he"s around me. The worst part about it is that most of the men around me are not what I would consider sexist in that they will not take me seriously; for the most part, men around here are very happy to have women around them and are more than willing to take them seriously and deal with them as equals on a professional basis, but it is just that I feel that their acceptance of me makes me one of them, and emotionnally I do feel very different, and I feel that this difference is not recognised. On the other hand, I wouldn't like them to treat me differently just because I am a woman. I don't know if any of this makes sense to anybody. It doesn't really make "sense" to me, but this is the way I feel in this environment and I am still trying to sort my feelings out about all of this.
edhall@randvax.UUCP (01/21/84)
-------------------------------------------- I think I can understand some of what Sophie is talking about (albeit as a bit of an outsider). As a (male) feminist, I've noticed that a lot of people seem to have the mistaken impression that many women want to be *like* men, rather than to have the same rights and opportunities as men. In a way this is silly, because a lot of women are in a good position to see just how stifled and miserable many men are in their own traditional role. Why would women want to turn themselves into emotional cripples just to feel `equal'? Furthermore, whether inborn or socially caused, there are differences in the ways most women experience their lives than the ways most men experience theirs. So it makes perfect sense to me that a women might prefer the company of other women. I can nod sympathetically when a female friend talks about being discriminated against (or even shake my fist in anger at the injustice), and I can try to be knowledgable about those things peculiar to the female experience, but I'll never really understand the way another woman can. Just because the female perspective is different doesn't make it one bit less valid than the male viewpoint --that is what I understand `equality' to mean. I can understand how considering people to be `genderless' makes the equality of the sexes simpler to consider. The more differences allowed for the more tolerance required--and tolerance is, alas, pretty difficult to come by. But it is the only path to lasting liberation of *all* people. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/29/84)
Ed Hall says: As a (male) feminist, I've noticed that a lot of people seem to have the mistaken impression that many women want to be *like* men, rather than to have the same rights and opportunities as men. This is not a mistaken impression. There are lots of women out there who either want to be "like men" or who find that the distinction between being "like a man" and "like a woman" is either meaningless, or harmful. Clearly there are some women who think that "men are like X" and who don't want to be like X, but they are going to have to present a pretty good case for "men are like X" before they are going to be listened to. "All women want to be like men" would be a mistaken impression, but "Many women want to be like men" is not. If there really *is* something that makes all women like Y and all men like X then it may be a fit thing to form the basis of discrimination. If this something does not exist, then statements like this only encourage people to discriminate because of a mythical difference that they believe exists. In a way this is silly, because a lot of women are in a good position to see just how stifled and miserable many men are in their own traditional role. Why would women want to turn themselves into emotional cripples just to feel `equal'? This is the "men are cripples" arguemnt. Alas, it does not wash. Some men are cripples. They haven't exactly cornered the market, though, there are a lot of women cripples as well. And there are a lot of men who *aren't* cripples. It is one thing to say that "nobody wants to be a cripple" -- this is debatable, but at least it makes sense. What you appear to be saying is that "no sane woman would want to be like a man because they are cripples" and you link being a cripple with being a man. This is unfair to the men who are not cripples, the women who are trying to be like them, and all people who find the particular role that you mean as crippling not-crippling. Furthermore, whether inborn or socially caused, there are differences in the ways most women experience their lives than the ways most men experience theirs. This statement could do with some references, could it not? I personally see very little evidence for this now that women are working. So it makes perfect sense to me that a women might prefer the company of other women. I can nod sympathetically when a female friend talks about being discriminated against (or even shake my fist in anger at the injustice), and I can try to be knowledgable about those things peculiar to the female experience, but I'll never really understand the way another woman can. I gather that you really believe this, so it isn't a cop-out, but I really don't believe this at all. There is one level where "nobody can ever understand anybody else" (unless you have got the telepathy trick down pat, in which case go collect from Randi), but to suppose another level where "only women can understand women" and by analogy "only men can understand men" seems terrible to me. The implications of this are rather staggering. All of you people out there who aren't homosexual and are looking for a significant other who can really understand you, had better give up, because it isn't possible. I'm sure not willing to buy this! I am reasonably certain that I Ed Hall and I are never going to "really understand" each other, given that we are starting from such extremes in position, but I think that I would have a better chance of getting him to understand me than some random woman on the street. You have to know a fair bit about computers before you can understand me "really well" (among other things) and Ed Hall at least knows that, while it is likely that some random woman would not. Just because the female perspective is different doesn't make it one bit less valid than the male viewpoint --that is what I understand `equality' to mean. Hmm. If the viewpoints *are* different, then while one may not be better than the other, one may indeed be better than the other! Or perhaps a synthesis of the better aspects of both is what is best for us all. Let us drag out the perspectives and itimise the differences and then we can all decide for ourselves. I can understand how considering people to be `genderless' makes the equality of the sexes simpler to consider. The more differences allowed for the more tolerance required--and tolerance is, alas, pretty difficult to come by. But it is the only path to lasting liberation of *all* people. This depends upon how much tolerance is a good thing. Presumably you would not want to be tolerant to the people who want to get women out of the workplace and back into the homes. But if you oppose them then you are being intolerant. It is very easy to be tolerant when you feel like it -- what is tough is being tolerant when you don't feel like it. Do you have a moral obligation to stop wrongs when you come across them, or do you have to tolerate the people who are doing the wrongs? Maybe sometimes you have to do one, and other times the other. Howe do decide when you must be intolerant? Different people have different answers. What do you do with the people who have answers that are different than yours? i think that this is a more serious problem than 'lack of tolerance' -- Laura Creighton (NOTE NEW ADDRESS) utzoo!laura
saquigley@watdaisy.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (01/29/84)
Thank you Ed, you have expressed and explained my feelings very well, better than I did in my original article. Sophie Quigley.
heretyk@abnjh.UUCP (S. Heretyk) (01/30/84)
There needs to be some specifics cited about "women wanting to be like men" - I think the statement is absurd. Another profound one is "now that women are working" - I suppose that women have been sitting around playing tiddly winks for centuries. It really bugs me that a woman would post a statement on the net like "at least [some man] knows something about computers while the random woman doesn't". The random man doesn't know anything about computers either. Being a woman certainly does not make one a feminist. Shelley Heretyk
edhall@randvax.ARPA (Ed Hall) (01/31/84)
-------
My response to Laura's response. (And I hope some new ideas, too--
pure rebuttal gets boring fast!)
I tried to use such words as `many' and `some' in my article to
indicate that I was making generalizations. (I submitted an article on
generalizations and the dangers thereof a while back, but a near site
had been eating all of randvax's submissions for a couple of months,
so you may never have seen it. I'll re-post, but only if there is
interest.) Far be it from me to say that `women are X and men are Y'.
Here is my first point, as plain and as terse as I can make it:
In our attempts to develop equal opportunity, respect, and freedom
for women and men, let us not commit the falacy of trying to make
women and men the same.
In the rest of my article I was speaking more in terms of the
traditional roles than trying to define `how men are' or `how women
are'. One point was that it has been part of the traditional male
role to be what I'd call an emotional cripple. Now, many men `fall
short' of this `ideal'--and some of these actually feel guilty for it!
This is a generalization, of course, but I consider it a useful one in
viewing the problem of sexism, especially its social origins.
Part of my article requires a direct defense. I'll use indentation,
with my original words indented 8 spaces, Laura's 4.
Furthermore, whether inborn or socially caused,
there are differences in the ways most women experience their lives
than the ways most men experience theirs.
This statement could do with some references, could it not?
I personally see very little evidence for this now that women are working.
Actually, I consider it pretty obvious. I've never menstuated, nor
can I give birth to children. Last time I checked, just about all
women did the first and the majority have done or will want to do the
latter. Now, I *don't* think women should be discriminated against on
the basis of these differences, but I have noticed that these two
things create concerns in women that men only can peripherally share
in. These are blatently obvious examples of inborn differences; I'm
sure most people can think of many others, for both women and men.
Just because differences between the sexes have been used to justify
discrimination is no reason to deny the differences--it is reason to
attack the discrimination!
Social differences are there, too. I've really never felt
discriminated against on the basis of sex, except for the `traditional
male role' which, truth to tell, is usually easier for men to shed
than women can shed their roles. Many (probably most) women have been
discriminated against because of their sex. This is an example of a
social difference, a difference of environment. I'm pretty much an
outsider; I can understand, but not as a matter of shared experience.
So it makes perfect sense to me that a women might prefer the company
of other women. I can nod sympathetically when a female friend talks
about being discriminated against (or even shake my fist in anger at
the injustice), and I can try to be knowledgable about those things
peculiar to the female experience, but I'll never really understand
the way another woman can.
I gather that you really believe this, so it isn't a cop-out, but I really
don't believe this at all. There is one level where "nobody can ever
understand anybody else" (unless you have got the telepathy trick down
pat, in which case go collect from Randi), but to suppose another level
where "only women can understand women" and by analogy "only men can
understand men" seems terrible to me.
I agree 100%, Laura. But I feel that there is a difference between
understanding through shared experience, and understanding through
perception of an experience one has not shared. Some times this
distinction is important, some times it isn't.
And there are definitely times when I prefer to try to understand
a person who is different from me; it is what I'd call a `growing
experience'. In fact, I suspect that most people (another general-
ization, folks!) seek such experiences, and the more secure they are
in themselves, the more such adventure feels pleasurable and
comfortable. (And the more they indulge in it, to mutual benifit.)
Which brings me back to my original point. This is, after all, about
`womanspace', and my original article was defending the idea of
womanspace against those who say it is somehow divisive or discrimin-
atory. Some women, at some points in their lives, feel the need to
share the experience of being female in an environment of females.
There are times when the male-dominated world (an admitted
generalization) feels hostile, and where it feels like men cannot
understand some of the very personal hurts (and occasionally joys) of
being a woman in our society. It can be a stage a woman goes through,
or a place she finds comfort in from time to time for her entire life.
Should men organize into `support groups' to help themselves become
more comfortable with themselves and their experiences, and less
attached to ill-fitting sex roles? Positively, if they wish to!!
-Ed Hall
decvax!randvax!edhall
P.S. As to the `being intolerant about intolerance' argument: I'll
pass. This has been beaten into the ground in net.philosophy and
net.religion. Someday I may take you up on it, but not today.pc@hplabsb.UUCP (Patricia Collins) (02/03/84)
I am in an environment where there are very few women with whom I have close contact. There are few other women nearby at work and I know few women outside of work who take time for "themselves" (as different from time for family, housework, and careers) to be with kindred spirits. I miss my time with other women very much and feel it is the one area in my life I must attend to. I wonder if the desire for womanspace on the net isn't born of a similar sense of something missing, something enriching and nurturing. I would not claim that everyone recognizes the need for such a place in their lives, nor would I try to convert anyone. I only ask that my feelings be respected, not attacked. I do wish that I could understand the defensiveness (offensiveness) of those who seem so hell-bent on discrediting the feelings of those who express a desire for communication and understanding with others about matters very close to their hearts. Nineteen months ago, I drove to San Francisco with a woman friend. I was two weeks pregnant and felt so wonderfully FULL of womanhood that I truly radiated. We were going to a concert to mark the last day of the last ERA effort. It was drizzling in San Francisco and there were all kinds of women and men at the outdoor assemblage. We sang, with Holly Near and Meg Christian, filling that damp night with a harmonic expression of frustration and hope and sisterhood. It was not a night of intimacy with other women, but it was a place to share my feelings with others in mutual support-- people of all colors, both sexes, and assorted sexual persuasions. At other times in my life, I have lived closer to women with whom I experienced an ongoing synergism. Except for the relationship I have with my sisters and mother, these relationships have been difficult to maintain over distance. I imagine that many women who spend their days at a computer terminal have had the same experience. We are, indeed, fortunate to have a national network at our fingertips. If we feel free to use this facility to exchange recipes and jokes, why not use it in a way that may clearly enrich the lives of those who wish only to lend mutual support? Patricia Collins hplabs
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (02/12/84)
#R:hplabsb:-205800:uokvax:6500005:000:498 uokvax!emjej Feb 9 13:06:00 1984 /***** uokvax:net.women / hplabsb!pc / 9:25 am Feb 6, 1984 */ Nineteen months ago, I drove to San Francisco with a woman friend. I was two weeks pregnant and felt so wonderfully FULL of womanhood that I truly radiated. /* ---------- */ I'd appreciate greatly hearing what is meant by that. Perhaps it's my problem, but I must admit to never having felt "brotherhood" in the sense women seem to use "sisterhood," or "manhood" in the sense that women seem to use "womanhood." James Jones