mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM (Miriam Nadel) (12/24/87)
In article <22254@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >In article <7709@eddie.MIT.EDU> ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) writes: >> >>Is it >>all right for me (who owns my own company, thank you) to have a >>"white" party for my employees? How about a "female only" party? > >Why not? Especially regarding "female only" parties...seems to >me that this goes on ALL THE TIME. Should we chastise the SWE (*) for >not going out of their way to make men feel welcome at their >functions? Is my desire for "Christianspace" in my company any >less valid for someone else's need for "womanspace" in hers? > Note that I've removed soc.singles from this and that I've directed followups to alt.flame. There are two things I wanted to point out about the dubious analogy that James has chosen. The simple one is that it is evident from the analogy that he has never attended a SWE event if he thinks men are unwelcome at them - I have yet to attend a SWE event which did not have at least 20-25% male attendees. And that includes several events at Cal, where he is. In fact, if you look at the SWE resume books and you look at the sign up lists for the career nights and plant tours they sponsor, you see an even higher percentage of male participants. No wonder I often wished in my grad school days that Cal had the equivalent of MIT's Margaret Cheney Room (women only with living room, study rooms, kitchenette and one of the best pianos on campus :-)). The second problem with the analogy is something we've discussed here before in the context of women only vs. men only events. There is a considerable difference between the majority forcing the minority to go along with something and with the minority seeking their own space for support. My company does not have Christmas parties but they do have holiday parties which noone really objects to. We do have a women's caucus, a black caucus, a hispanic caucus and an Asian-Pacific caucus, all of which sponsor things like parties and luncheons (and some "public" events - e.g. speakers during "women's week", a concert of Mexican music, some special awards/recognition ceremonies). The difference is that a Christmas party is a way of telling non-Christians that "you don't belong" (as if it isn't bad enough seeing the visible symbols of that everywhere in our cities - and paid for by our tax dollars - and hearing nothing but Christmas carols on the radio for 6 weeks before) while a women's lunch, for example, is a way of reducing isolation. And, no, throwing in a Chanukah song or a picture of a menorah doesn't make the difference. Aside from the fact that not all non-Christians are Jews (in fact, not even the majority), many of us don't care for the cheapening of our religious traditions by imposing a few symbols, somewhat distorted in value, on the rest of the world. (Discussion of this last by e-mail only - it has no place in soc.women). Miriam Nadel -- "Marge dearest, do not marry the man with the black handlebar moustache and the eagle talons where his hands should be" - Dorothy Cannell mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM {philabs, trwrb}!cadovax!gryphon!mhnadel {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!mhnadel