saquigley@watdaisy.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (01/29/84)
(Gosh I feel like I've got myself entangled in this issue more than I actually
care about it.)
I basically aggree with what everybody has been saying on this topic, which has
caused me to change my mind much too often. Anyway, I think that the important
points of what kind of net group we (I mean me here) want are:
1 - A group which doesn't restrict its membership to anybody, based on any
criteria whatsoever.
2 - A group that doesn't foster hate,
3 - A group where feminism can be discussed from a level somewhat higher (that
sounds bad already) than some of the current "is .. worse for a man or
for woman?" (i.e "our lot is worse than yours") level
4 - But a group where feminism can still be discussed at a level low enough so
that people can remark "gee, I've been ripped off by society" once in
a while when it hits them that something is wrong with their traditional
role in society.
May I suggest some guidelines for such a group:
1 - Sherry Mann's suggestion that: "thou shall respect other people's
experiences."
2 - Feminist Fundamental Philosophy: there are different sex roles assigned
to people. They are not necessarily natural or beneficial to either
sex.
3 - Sophie Quigley Fundamental Philosophy: both sexes have it pretty bad, but
in different ways, so "thou shall not try to prove that thy sex is the
one that is the worst off."
4 - Rule of amiability 1: we are not responsible for the actions of our
foreparents, so lets us not put the historical blame on "men" or
"women", but rather on "society" or "patriarchy" (organisational rules
of our society (<- this of course, is debatable))
5 - Rule of amiability 2: we are however responsible for our current behaviour,
both as individuals and as a member of a group (sex group, whatever)
so we should take responsibility for it. (hum hum, whatever that means)
(this includes apologising for our own sexist remarks ((mea culpa)))
6 - Rule of amiability 3: nobody's perfect and even the most ardent feminist
will still sometime follow some of the stupidest sexist "traditions",
so most non-feminists will probably follow them even more so. Therefore,
it is still pretty accurate to say that "men do this" or "women do that"
however, as the group will probably be constituted of many members of
those groups who do not act that way, it is very offensive to generalise
to such an extent, so
"though shall refer to {some, a few, many, a lot of, ...} {men, women}
(choose one element from each set) when trying to make generalisations
about thou own sex or the opposite one"
Any comments?
cdanderson@watarts.UUCP (01/30/84)
This is really a further note of support for the introduction of
something like net.men(.changing?).
I would like to see such a group formed; not to debate the points of
feminism but, instead, as a way for men (would we allow women to write?)
to exchange info. about creating a non-sexist and heirarchical (for starters)
society and the problems we are having in doing so. No, I am not in
favour of having to defend my actions against men or testosterone-poisoned
women |-) but, instead, would like to consider the need (to change) as a
given.
At this point, I would like to see input from women as it is they
who have the best handle on the ways that a male-dominated world hurts
them. However, I also think that some men know what it is that must be
changed (at least in part) to aid women and to break out of the chains
which we have trapped ourselves in. For example, I hate always having to
be a paragon of strength (something even demanded by some feminists I have
been involved with).
********************************
About net.women.only, it is not true that all men will or should be
bored by talk of dysmenorrhea, tampons vs. pads etc. I for one have been
able to pass on info. gained by talking with women and reading (eg. Our
Bodies, Our Selves) about useful message techniques for dysmenhorrea,
debate about Rely tampons, PMT, etc. If the women around me are happy,
I will tend to be happy!
Besides, should we "ghettoize" info. or make it the exclusive domain of
one group. For example, should we leave all military decisions to the
military?
Hoping that one day we will all be net.people,
C.D. Anderson