baranski@meridn.enet.dec.COM (Vote For NoneOfTheAbove Write In Candidate 05-Dec-1990 1535) (12/07/90)
From: feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) Date: 16 Nov 90 02:41:15 GMT "Because while women want to be without men in order to do healing, the fear is that men want to be without women in order to do women-bashing." That's bullshit. What makes you think that the KoC spends it's meetings bashing women? "I think as more radical anti-sexist men (yippee!!! I love you!) develop men's space (as opposed to, say, the Bohemian Club which disallows women, while making policy decisions for the far-right), it will become more ok." Why must an organization agree with *your* philosophy to be 'ok'? Sounds oppressive to me... Jim Baranski
baranski@meridn.enet.dec.COM (Vote For NoneOfTheAbove Write In Candidate) (12/07/90)
From: austern@ux5.lbl.GOV (Matt Austern) Date: 17 Nov 90 19:30:33 GMT "many women's groups exist for the purpose of inclusion, not exclusion" How is that??? They exclude men, right? Or don't they count? Jim Baranski
feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) (01/02/91)
In article <9012052108.AA06756@decpa.pa.dec.com> baranski@meridn.enet.dec.COM writes: >From: feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) >"Because while women want to be without men in order to do healing, >the fear is that men want to be without women in order to do >women-bashing." >That's bullshit. What makes you think that the KoC spends it's >meetings bashing women? The KoC? The Knights of Columbus? First off, didn't I already answer a similar letter (or did it somehow not get past the moderators? (and what happened to it?) In my last answer I pointed out that I am *reporting*: I didn't say : "men want to be without women in order to do women-bashing" I said: "the fear is that men want to be without women in order to do women-bashing" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I didn't even say "MY fear is that..." But let me explain... The fear comes from the fact that men HAVE had power over women in certain realms in the past, and decision making by men MIGHT mean loss of power for women. Also, in cases where there is a limit of resources, the ommission of women would be disagreeable due to women not getting a fair share. And I gave an example (the Bohemian Club) which IS disagreeable to me: a far-right organization who are policy-makers, the implication being that policy does thereby not take women into account. >"I think as more radical anti-sexist men (yippee!!! I love you!) >develop men's space (as opposed to, say, the Bohemian Club which >disallows women, while making policy decisions for the far-right), it >will become more ok." >Why must an organization agree with *your* philosophy to be 'ok'? >Sounds oppressive to me... Since, as I said I am reporting, 'ok' means: is more acceptable to others. But this seems like a frivolous question. Do you expect me to *endorse* groups with whom I disagree violently? I would rather throw a bomb at the Boheminas than anything else... as would many people... men and women... that's why they have armed guards and dogs circling their (electric?) barbed-wire fences. And why are you making ME out to be the final arbitor of what's "ok" ? By defn. "ok" is subjective. If you are trying to define some larger objective "ok", most groups ARE ok. Why should I interfere? My objection to the Bohemians is due to the fact that THEY interfere with MY personal freedoms. Due to their status in the running of the country, they had a bit to do with the savings and loan debacle, for example. That costs ME and fellow Americans $148,000,000 per day. I call THAT interference. Elissa Feit (feit@cs.buffalo.edu // {rutgers,uunet}!cs.buffalo.edu!feit) Dawn comes soon enough for the working class. It keeps getting sooner or later. This is the game that moves as you play - X
stabler@athena.cs.uga.edu (David Stabler) (01/02/91)
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. 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. As a humanist, I do not advocate sexism of any kind. However, as an oppressed group, many women feel they cannot try to change their victimization in the presence of the person they view as their oppressor.
baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (01/02/91)
From: greg@uts.amdahl.COM (Greg Bullough) Date: 16 Nov 90 22:16:30 GMT "There is a not-so-subtle form of sexism here which says "what women do in their space is virtuous and good, but what men do in their space is conspiratorial and evil." It is precisely this sort of sexism which as so polarized the forces on either side of the women-space/ men-space issue." Women were excluded from men's activities, and felt that they were missing out, and demanded to be included. No Problem. Now, we have women only activities from which men are excluded. Well, there are some things going on in women only activites which I find *very* interesting, and *I* feel *I* am missing out. Yet, feminists proclaim their *right* to keep me out??? I can understand that women might want to be free of any harrassment. Yet, I mean no harrassment. I merely want to be there, perhaps to spectate, perhaps to participate as I feel moved to, as any woman would be able to, yet I can't. The reason that these women gather, and exclude men, is not because of what men who might be interested in participating in them might be like, but because of the fear in the women. Is this supposedly a Good Thing??? Is this a valid reason for discrimination? I certainly don't think so. And if this principle were applied against women, I'm *sure* that feminists would be incensed! "We really have a choice: either we can acknowledge that part of human nature is sexual tribalism, and that humans don't draw lines between what they do in the environment of "we" versus "we and not-we." Or, we can refuse to acknowledge that, and suffer the pain that comes from realizing that NONE of us are therefore entitled to gender-specific bonding spaces, except under the scrutiny of the opposite gender." I think that there is a third alternative. State the agenda of any event up front, without discrimination. Let any and all who wish to participate within that agenda participate without discrimination. Of course, it will force people to be up front with what their agendas *really* are, or they might end up with some 'undesirables'. There will be many events which I will certainly not be interested in because of their extremism, and they can have that space to themselves, 'cause I sure won't want it! But there will be some which will be a common ground, and I believe that is where our hope lies. Jim Baranski
rshapiro@arris.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/03/91)
In article <9012052040.AA03835@decpa.pa.dec.com> baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com writes: >Now, we have women only activities from which men are excluded. Well, >there are some things going on in women only activites which I find >*very* interesting, and *I* feel *I* am missing out. Yet, feminists >proclaim their *right* to keep me out??? >... >The reason that these women gather, and exclude men, is not because of >what men who might be interested in participating in them might be >like, but because of the fear in the women. Is this supposedly a Good >Thing??? Is this a valid reason for discrimination? I certainly >don't think so. And if this principle were applied against women, I'm >*sure* that feminists would be incensed! >.. etc etc This pseudo-egalitarian argument assumes a kind of identity that simply isn't there. That is, that the exclusion of women by men is identical to the exclusion of men by women (for instance). But is it identical? Only if they're working on the imaginary "level playing field". But this is only true if men and women are *already* equal. So the argument simply assumes the very equality it claims to be creating. In the real world, men and women are not operating on a level playing field, and the meaning of the "same" action is different, depending on who's doing the acting. rs
mara@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (Mara Chibnik) (01/03/91)
In article <9012052040.AA03835@decpa.pa.dec.com> baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com writes: >Women were excluded from men's activities, and felt that they were >missing out, and demanded to be included. No Problem. Here we are, a generation and a half later, lawsuits and lawsuits gone by, and someone dismisses all the resources, all the pressures, all the strain of trying to make it happen (I read recently that Mr. Quayle has decided his men-only golf club is not discriminatory; has it *really* happened yet?) with No Problem. So, what do you define as a "problem" then? -- mara@dorsai.com cmcl2!panix!mara Mara Chibnik Life is too important to be taken seriously.
jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) (01/05/91)
Hi Jim! Wow, two in a row, ah well ... you make interesting comments that I like to bounce ideas off of. In article <9012052040.AA03835@decpa.pa.dec.com> you wrote: >Now, we have women only activities from which men are excluded. Well, >there are some things going on in women only activites which I find >*very* interesting, and *I* feel *I* am missing out. Yet, feminists >proclaim their *right* to keep me out??? >I can understand that women might want to be free of any harrassment. >Yet, I mean no harrassment. I merely want to be there, perhaps to >spectate, perhaps to participate as I feel moved to, as any woman >would be able to, yet I can't. I'd like to give you a counter-example and see where it goes. Imagine if you will a child who has not had the benefit of being exposed to most of the common social surivial skills that most people learn, i.e. unable to communicate effectively, extreme recluse/shyness, inability to take an agressive part in school and to use the opportunities there to their fullest extent. Now suppose the school decides to allow the parents to take this child out of school and put him/her in a class for socially traumatized children. Would you complain to the school saying they had no right to allow this child to be in a space where your children were not allowed? (This is a class that's for socially traumatized children *only*). If your complaints suceed, and the child is returned, and the class is abolished, then will you claim responsibility for the child's lost opportunity to be in an environment which could have helped his/her undernourished psyche to develop to a point where the child might have been able to return to the public school? Do you have a *right* to deny this based on the fact that your children would be missing out on all of that extra attention that might also be interesting and beneficial to them too? Many women (not all) lack the social adjustment that men have. There are countless studies on how women are trained to a certain social mould and men to another -- and that in general this "female mould" is a lot less effective in allowing the woman to interact on an equal level with men. Now, the question is, do women with these problems, or do they not, have the right to form groups where they can attempt (by themselves or with qualified professionals) to overcome these barriers? Does the fact that these people are grown adult women give you the right to possibly inhibit their own recoveries just because it might be interesting? I think that a lot of "women space" is protected for just this reason. Not all of course, but quite a bit if the meetings I've attended are any indication. >The reason that these women gather, and exclude men, is not because of >what men who might be interested in participating in them might be >like, but because of the fear in the women. Is this supposedly a Good >Thing??? I think the fear is the fear in the women of falling back into that same old social reflexive behavior around men that they are trying to get rid of. If a person is trying to recover from alcoholism, you don't take them to a bar every night do you? If a man or a woman decides to divorce their spouse, you don't force them to live next to that ex-spouse do you? >will be many events which I will certainly not be interested in >because of their extremism, and they can have that space to >themselves, 'cause I sure won't want it! But there will be some which ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Is it right that a person's wants should define what other people are allowed to have or, in some cases, need very desperately? >will be a common ground, and I believe that is where our hope lies. I think hope lies in respecting individual needs, and groups which attempt to support that. I am firmly convinced in the validity of both "women space" and "men space" -- both of which do as a matter of fact exist. I think that, at this time, our society is in no way ready to deal with equality on a realistic scale and that achieving that does not require any "let's all agree to toe the line of equality and eliminate privacy simply because it's sexist." Needs, like people, vary, and cannot be firmly agreed upon. j- -- #*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#* "Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."
baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (Jim Baranski) (01/08/91)
In article <49932@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) writes...
"But let me explain... The fear comes from the fact that men HAVE had
power over women in certain realms in the past, and decision making by
men MIGHT mean loss of power for women. Also, in cases where there is
a limit of resources, the ommission of women would be disagreeable due
to women not getting a fair share."
Allowing fear to determine our actions (for men or women) only
perpetuates the cycle. women have fears so they do things which they
wouldn't ordinarily do... men have fears so they do things they
wouldn't ordinarily do... where does it end? only when people face
their fears.
Jim Baranskibaranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (Jim Baranski) (01/08/91)
In article <1990Dec10.023210.8120@athena.cs.uga.edu>, stabler@athena.cs.uga.edu (David Stabler) writes...
"If you were not angry about groups which until recently routinely
excluded women, I think it hypocritical to take a stand now. Aside
from that, there is a necessity for women-only social groups (note
that I do not include business clubs, political groups, etc.)"
I don't support the right of any group to exclude anyone because of
prejudice. I find it hypocritical that women complain about being
excluded, then go on to form groups which exclude men.
Women have always had women-only social groups: ladies clubs, tea
parties and what not. While these groups seemed too trivial to
attract men in the past, they fullfilled their social purpose. Now
there are frequently women only groups with substance and purpose
which some men might want some involvement in, but they are denied
because of prejudice.
"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."
So, you what you are saying is the reason for the prejudice is not a
problem in the men, but a problem in the women? Such is always the
case in prejudice. How ironic! :-}
Jim Baranskirobert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) (01/14/91)
[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.
baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (Jim Baranski) (01/14/91)
In article <9012052040.AA03835@decpa.pa.dec.com> baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com writes: "Women were excluded from men's activities, and felt that they were missing out, and demanded to be included. No Problem." In article <1991Jan2.221435.13907@panix.uucp>, panix!mara@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (Mara Chibnik) writes... "Here we are, a generation and a half later, lawsuits and lawsuits gone by, and someone dismisses all the resources, all the pressures, all the strain of trying to make it happen with No Problem. So, what do you define as a "problem" then?" I think that you misunderstand too easily, and protest too much. I was saying that I do not have a problem with women being included in any group, excepting that I don't like women sports writers barging into men's locker rooms. Jim Baranski
jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) (01/15/91)
In article <9101141528.AA28839@easynet.crl.dec.com> baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (Jim Baranski) responds:
&I think that you misunderstand too easily, and protest too much. I
&was saying that I do not have a problem with women being included in
&any group, excepting that I don't like women sports writers barging
&into men's locker rooms.
But doesn't a locker room count as "any group"? Are you making
blanket statements and then making up exceptions?
Didn't you just state in your last post that you were against *all*
male-only groups [non-theraputic of course] as well as women-only?
Yet here you are saying you fully support keeping male-only locker
rooms. Here was this poor woman, trying to be true to what you said
you believe in and now you knock her down for "barging into" a space
which you said shouldn't exist to begin with.
[See? I *do* read all of your articles!!!!] :)
j-
--
#*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#*
"Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."willis@cs.tamu.edu (Willis Marti) (01/15/91)
In article <1991Jan5.044751.19198@ora.com> jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes: >Wow, two in a row, ah well ... you make interesting comments that I like >to bounce ideas off of. And you make some interesting points but I wonder if you see the implications of consistency. [much quoted stuff deleted] >I'd like to give you a counter-example and see where it goes. >Imagine if you will a child who has not had the benefit of being >exposed to most of the common social surivial skills that most people >learn, i.e. unable to communicate effectively, extreme >recluse/shyness, inability to take an agressive part in school and to >use the opportunities there to their fullest extent. > [...] >I think that a lot of "women space" is protected for just this reason. >Not all of course, but quite a bit if the meetings I've attended are >any indication. 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. [most other comments from Jeanette deleted as expanding on her example.] >Is it right that a person's wants should define what other people are >allowed to have or, in some cases, need very desperately? >I am firmly convinced in the validity of both "women space" and "men >space" -- both of which do as a matter of fact exist. I think that, >at this time, our society is in no way ready to deal with equality on >a realistic scale and that achieving that does not require any "let's >all agree to toe the line of equality and eliminate privacy simply >because it's sexist." >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. 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. 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.
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (01/15/91)
In article <9101081911.AA27940@rutgers.edu> jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes: >Y'know .. REAL equality, REAL paybacks to women for being turned into >what they are by society would involve switching places and making men >the 2nd class citizens for the next 3000 years or so. Thank you so much for giving us one more example of what a feminist mean when she says "REAL equality".
dan@seti.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Daniel Joseph Burns) (01/15/91)
The argument that exclusive groups practice reverse prejudice is a very one-sided look at the issue. The bottom line is a feeling of belonging, being with your own kind, and never having to explain why. As a queer, there are times when I need to be with only queers. I can get support and understanding that my straight sisters and brothers cannot give me. It's not their fault; it's just the way things are. -- Dan Burns dan@seti.jpl.nasa.gov
stabler@athena.cs.uga.edu (Kathi Mills) (01/15/91)
In article <9101072032.AA28202@easynet.crl.dec.com> baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (Jim Baranski) writes: >I don't support the right of any group to exclude anyone because of >prejudice. I find it hypocritical that women complain about being >excluded, then go on to form groups which exclude men. Do NOT stereotype women, feminists, or anyone else, if you please. Now that that's out of the way, if a woman *did* complain about being excluded from male SOCIAL groups, and then formed a social group of her own which excluded men, that would be hypocritical, true. Same would apply to blacks/whites, Jews/gentiles, atheists/theists, gays/straights, or any other dichotomy. Such generalizations are counterproductive. There is a difference, believe it or not, between social groups, business groups, and therapy groups. The difference between the two former groups has been delineated by no less than the Supreme Court. Although I cannot remember the name of the case (hopefully someone else here will remember it), it went something like this: a woman sued for membership in a men-only social club on the grounds that most powerful members of her profession were members of that club. She successfully proved that business deals and other vital professional information was exchanged at that club which would severely limit her career in that field since she lacked access to it. The Court backed her, basically on the grounds that the club had superseded any social status and had become a business-related organization. That woman, and all women in that profession, were severely and concretely damaged by their lack of access to that group. To illustrate why women-only therapy groups need exist, let me use an alcoholic recovery group as an analogy. Suppose a group of alcoholics meet once a week to talk about their problems getting off the bottle and support each other. A group of non-alcoholics joins the group and harasses the alcoholics, telling them they are stupid to continue drinking when they are risking their jobs, their marriages, and their lives. It would be natural for the alcoholics to say, "What do you know about it? You've never been an alcoholic. I'm doing the best I can," and wish for the non-alcoholics to leave the group since the alcoholics feel the two groups have nothing in common, and the presence of the non-alcoholics is intimidating and counterproductive to the purpose of the group. Similarly, women who feel oppressed often form support groups. While many allow and even encourage sympathetic men to join them, it is understandable that some do not because they feel that their oppression stems from men in the first place. To them, the mere presence of men in the group is intimidating and prevents the group from speaking openly and thus supporting each other emotionally. Thus, the group cannot accomplish the purpose for which it was formed. Although you may feel that women who are intimidated by the mere presence of men are ridiculous, you should support such a group if it is the only way for women to rid themselves of such attitudes. >Women have always had women-only social groups: ladies clubs, tea >parties and what not. While these groups seemed too trivial to >attract men in the past, they fullfilled their social purpose. Now >there are frequently women only groups with substance and purpose >which some men might want some involvement in, but they are denied >because of prejudice. The point of the above is that you need to describe precisely what groups you are talking about. Sure, there were "ladies' clubs," tea parties, etc. That was because the men got up and went to men-only clubs every morning (work), leaving housewives with nothing but drudgery. I suspect the ones who had the leisure to go to tea parties had maids and thus, did not even have that. (Betty Friedan's infamous _The Feminine Mystique_ discusses exactly this problem with upper- middle-class white women in the 1950's: The Problem That Has No Name.) If you wish to claim that men are damaged by not being allowed in these "women only groups with substance and purpose which some men might want some involvement in," define the damage. Also define what you mean by "substance and purpose." I find the implication that only as limited number of "women only groups" have "substance and purpose" quite insulting, actually. And finally, describe exactly how the damage inflicted on men by not being allowed in these groups outweighs the rights of freedom of assembly and association that these women possess. Speaking of "freedoms of assembly and association," I wish to correct an erroneous stereotype you seem to subscribe to. As a woman, a feminist, and a secular humanist, I believe everyone has the right to exercise the above freedoms, but, like most (if not all) freedoms, they are not absolute. If a person can prove that s/he is put at a serious disadvantage which outweighs the right of an organized group to the above freedoms, then the freedoms of the group must be limited. Basically, your freedom of association ends where my career begins is what I'm saying. I also don't believe that most feminists wish to eliminate ALL men-only groups while women-only groups flourish. They (and I) only wish to eliminate men-only groups which exist TO THE CONCRETE DETRIMENT OF women. These consist primarily (if not only) of business groups. >So, you what you are saying is the reason for the prejudice is not a >problem in the men, but a problem in the women? Such is always the >case in prejudice. How ironic! :-} I think the prejudice is a problem with both sexes. While men have done much to make enlightened women despise them, but enlightened women do not believe that all men commit such acts. -- Sexism is a social disease. Kathi Mills - stabler@athena.cs.uga.edu
baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (Jim Baranski) (01/15/91)
In article <9101081911.AA27940@rutgers.edu>, jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes...
"Ok. How about need then? What do you say about the right of a group
to exclude certain other people because it *needs* the space for the
development of it's members?"
I would probably lean toward the 'need' of an individual to be
included over the 'need' of the group to exclude them in any case.
Groups get too power hungry as it is.
Do you suppose that for each interest that we need three groups, one
for each sex and one for both sexes to provide equal and shared access
to all. I consider intercommunication to be vital to any progress.
"Gee, so I guess the groups you're talking about wanting to be in on
are *not* ladies clubs and tea parties. Guess they still don't have
any substance or purpose, so we'll just ignore them."
They are of no substance *to me*, that is, I am not interested in such
groups. Obviously they are of substance to others as other people
still find them of interest.
"So why don't you just come right out and *tell* us all just what
groups you feel you're being excluded from based on your sex ... mind
you, women-counseling groups don't count by a necessity"
Hard to say exactly, but basically I'm interested in politics,
spirituality, music, etc.....
"So it's prejudice for women to need to try to recover -- yes, RECOVER
-- from the effects of living with men all their lives? Is that what
you're saying?"
You are saying that the need justifies the crime. I disagree.
"Y'know .. REAL equality, REAL paybacks to women for being turned into
what they are by society would involve switching places and making men
the 2nd class citizens for the next 3000 years or so. As it is, I
personally think society [as a male dominated organism] is getting off
pretty easy."
*SIGH*
You certainly don't like to make life easy for anyone, do you. Don't
you see that this is exactly what a lot of conservative people ARE
afraid of? Why do you have to help justify their fears?
"So big deal. I've seen a whole lot of shouting about the "prejudice"
of women against men."
That seems to be the common attitude...
"I've seen the attempts to make all women/feminists conform to your
definition of feminism, regardless of what the people in question
might think -- all of this guaranteed to upset people, and for what?
I've also seen a very obvious *lack* of any concrete or constructive
criticism here."
You haven't seen *me* trying to make anyone conform. What I've been
doing is reacting to somethings that I've seen that I definitely
didn't like, and attempting to communicate about that. First you
complain that I'm attempting to make people conform, and then you
complain that I haven't make any concrete suggestions??? You can't
have it both ways.
"Can you do better than just try to cling to the status quo?"
I'm certainly not for the status quo. I think it rips everyone off.
I wish that the feminists amoung other people would realize that.
Jim.gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (01/16/91)
In article <1991Jan13.052322.9783@athena.cs.uga.edu> stabler@athena.cs.uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes: >they are not absolute. If a person can prove that s/he is put at a >serious disadvantage which outweighs the right of an organized group ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >to the above freedoms, then the freedoms of the group must be limited. >Basically, your freedom of association ends where my career begins is >what I'm saying. Please define "serious disadvantage". E.g. if a man can't be admitted to Mills College, is he in serious disadvantage? If a woman can't be admitted to a men's only college, is she in serious disadvantage?
jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) (01/16/91)
In article <1991Jan14.202723.18128@ora.com> baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (Jim Baranski) writes: >In article <9101081911.AA27940@rutgers.edu>, jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes... > >"Ok. How about need then? What do you say about the right of a group >to exclude certain other people because it *needs* the space for the >development of it's members?" >I would probably lean toward the 'need' of an individual to be >included over the 'need' of the group to exclude them in any case. >Groups get too power hungry as it is. The individual members of the group don't count? When a group is organzied purely for the development of individuals with problems utilizing their idividual potential I think that far outweighs your need to augment an already well-utilized potential. Besides, these groups are hard to view as distinct entities since anyone who has been in a counseling group of any kind can tell you the membership is constantly in flux. It's hard for a group to get power hungry if there's never any of the same people around. >Do you suppose that for each interest that we need three groups, one >for each sex and one for both sexes to provide equal and shared access >to all. I consider intercommunication to be vital to any progress. No. I dont' care to judge the worthiness of any group. Let them set it their way, and see if it flies or fails on its own. >"So why don't you just come right out and *tell* us all just what >groups you feel you're being excluded from based on your sex ... mind >you, women-counseling groups don't count by a necessity" > >Hard to say exactly, but basically I'm interested in politics, >spirituality, music, etc..... Well? I don't know of any groups off hand formed for those purposes that exclude men. I was asking for specific examples. Even the NOW and NARAL meetings have their share of women. >"So it's prejudice for women to need to try to recover -- yes, RECOVER >-- from the effects of living with men all their lives? Is that what >you're saying?" >You are saying that the need justifies the crime. I disagree. I'm saying there's no crime. And yes, I'm saying that NEED, real honest NEED is a MUCH better reason for participation in a group than mere interest -- particularly when there are plenty of other opportunities for the satisfaction of that interest elsewhere. Well, here you go -- here's a group I just saw advertised as forming in a local newspaper here .... It's a group for Non-Orgasmic Women. Now tell me. Do you see any reason why there should be men in this group? Do see *anything* that's going to help these women talk about the very personal problem they're having in the presence of men? [Please, before you answer this, please, please, please do some reading on the nature of group dynamics and group therapy! Thanks.] >"Y'know .. REAL equality, REAL paybacks to women for being turned into >what they are by society would involve switching places and making men >the 2nd class citizens for the next 3000 years or so. As it is, I >personally think society [as a male dominated organism] is getting off >pretty easy." > >*SIGH* >You certainly don't like to make life easy for anyone, do you. Don't >you see that this is exactly what a lot of conservative people ARE >afraid of? Why do you have to help justify their fears? I don't think it will EVER happen. I think it's totally ludicrous and impossible and intended the statement to exploit this and, if anything, show just how totally unreasonable such a thing is. If anyone believes it, I feel sorry for them. >"So big deal. I've seen a whole lot of shouting about the "prejudice" >of women against men." > >That seems to be the common attitude... Yup. It's a two way street and we gotta walk it together. >"I've seen the attempts to make all women/feminists conform to your >definition of feminism, regardless of what the people in question >might think -- all of this guaranteed to upset people, and for what? >I've also seen a very obvious *lack* of any concrete or constructive >criticism here." > >You haven't seen *me* trying to make anyone conform. What I've been >doing is reacting to somethings that I've seen that I definitely >didn't like, and attempting to communicate about that. First you >complain that I'm attempting to make people conform, and then you >complain that I haven't make any concrete suggestions??? You can't >have it both ways. First, I resent your attempts to label me as a "feminist". I'm not. I dont' in any way attempt to identify with that group. You've called me one several times and I've asked you not to. It's too tricky a word for me and has too many latent connotations which I would just rather not deal with -- the thread that's currently attempting to define feminism is a good case in point. As for concrete suggestions -- where's the problem? I want to know what exclusive groups have got you so mad about their aggregation of power to themselves [current examples], and what women-only groups you've been unable to participate in that have gotten you so mad about that -- and I want to know how you think this can be alleviated without discriminating against those <whatever>-only groups which seem to have a real reason and purpose for their existence. I think you have a lot of interesting things to say and some good points as well -- but I'd really like to hear some definite real solutions to these problems if you have any -- rather than just "reactions" as you called them. I don't know about you, but I'm kind of getting tired of throwing ideals around. I want to see some suggestions on what I can do right *now* to make life better for *both* genders. j- -- #*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#* "Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."
ag1v+@andrew.cmu.EDU ("Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz") (01/17/91)
Willis Marti (willis@cs.tamu.edu) in the article
<11119@helios.TAMU.EDU> writes:
=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.
What leads you to the conclusion that these groups that you mention
are not underprivledged.
From my own personal experience in women's groups, I understand now
what people say about women not speaking up in front of men, or not
being able to participate in a conversation. One of the things we
worked on was assertiveness. How to react to eachother in a positive,
assertive way. And just being able to learn the skill allows one to
practice it outside of the small community of women where it was
learned.
It used to be if I was in a group of men, I almost never said a word.
Now I am much more able to speak my mind. I attribute this directly
to the work I've done with a woman's group.
My mother used to work with underprivledged children in high school
where she works. Most of those children were black and hispanic.
They are disadvantaged, as a group in a number of ways. A poor home
life that doesn't emphasize getting an education, non-use of drugs, or
realistic goals. The school systems are not designed to give these
students an equal chance of learning with white students. The
standardized tests are aimed at middle class white U.S.A. without
taking into consideration that a different community will know no less
than another, but rather have a different set of knowledge being given
to the children.
A couple years ago a black man redid the standard IQ test in such a
way that it centered on a black community's knowledge. The results
were that blacks scored above average while whites/other minorities
did not score as well. I haven't heard anything about this in a
couple years and have since lost the man's name.
In a similar vein, parents have double standards between their boys
and girls. Men will take thier sons out to play baseball while
leaving the girl home, regardless of the interest either express in
the game. This is the subtle conditioning that goes on every day from
the time the parents ask, "Is it a girl/boy?"
This is getting too long so I'll stop now. All constructive comments
are appreciated.
agjdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) (02/21/91)
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."
jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) (02/21/91)
I just wanted to say that I thought this was a wonderful response, Kathi. I agree with almost everything you said and only wish I had written it! In article <1991Jan13.052322.9783@athena.cs.uga.edu> stabler@athena.cs.uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes: >I think the prejudice is a problem with both sexes. While men have >done much to make enlightened women despise them, but enlightened >women do not believe that all men commit such acts. True. But to be fair, there's been much that enlightened women have done to make men despise and fear them. As well there are enlightened men who do not believe that all enlightened women despise them or are despicable. j- -- #*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#* "Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."
jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) (02/21/91)
In article <663379036@grad17.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >In article <9101081911.AA27940@rutgers.edu> jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes: >>Y'know .. REAL equality, REAL paybacks to women for being turned into >>what they are by society would involve switching places and making men >>the 2nd class citizens for the next 3000 years or so. >Thank you so much for giving us one more example of what a feminist >mean when she says "REAL equality". Sorry, I have not ever and do not intend to ever consider myself a "feminist". I loathe the entire concept that seems to reside in the word. I do however have a sense of humor. What are you? j- -- #*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#* "Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."
dank@tybalt.caltech.edu (Daniel R. Kegel) (02/21/91)
stabler@athena.cs.uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes: >Speaking of "freedoms of assembly and association, ... >I believe everyone has the right to exercise the above freedoms, but, >like most (if not all) freedoms, they are not absolute. >If a person can prove that s/he is put at a >serious disadvantage which outweighs the right of an organized group >to the above freedoms, then the freedoms of the group must be limited. >Basically, your freedom of association ends where my career begins is >what I'm saying. Well said. I wonder, where do sexist colleges fit in here? On the one hand, old-boy networks get formed starting in college, so they are business related, and can damage the excluded sex. On the other hand, it has been said that male students tend to dominate class discussion at mixed-sex colleges, so mixed-sex colleges could be said to cause female students damage. Ack! - Dan Kegel (dank@moc.jpl.nasa.gov)
jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) (02/21/91)
In article <663891996@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >Please define "serious disadvantage". >E.g. if a man can't be admitted to Mills College, is he in serious >disadvantage? If a woman can't be admitted to a men's only college, >is she in serious disadvantage? I have to admit, it's getting harder and harder to understand the point of male/female - only colleges -- as far as I know, most of them allow male students from other colleges to cross-register and attend their classes...so where's the value of the college being woman-only? [Yah, this is coming from one who never attended such a school --sigh! So if there's any out there who have and can answer this, speak up!] j- -- #*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#* "Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."
erm2@midway.uchicago.EDU (elizabeth r morgan) (03/06/91)
I used to be vehemently opposed to single sex schools, but found myself forced to change my mind during my senior year of high school.I went to a high school associated with Hunter College in New York, and their education department occasionally used us as a subject of research. My senior year, they seperated the AP Calculus classes into an all-male class, an all female class, and two co-ed classes, and studied patterns of class participation by sex. I was in the all-female class, and it was shocking. For the first six weeks to two months, the classroom sounded like a graveyard. No hands were raised, no suggestions were offered, participation occurred only when the teacher called on someone by name. Then, around the end of October, everyone woke up, realized there were no men around, and began to participate. This was in a very self- consciously "PC" school; women spoke freely in most classes, and anyone saying anything blatantly sexist would have been laughed at, but women still did not feel free to compete in a "male" subject like math. In February, the men's teacher left the school for medical reasons, and the classes were recombined. Two weeks after the recombination, all the women had shut up again. The value of a single-sex environment (and I suppose a racially segregated environment, as in black colleges like Howard, although I'm less sure of the benefits there) is that it allows women a time during which they are treated as completely equal to those they are competing with, and allows them to build habits expecting non-sexist treatment. Involuntary, nonmalicious, habitual sexism is a much stronger, more pervasive force than I had thought, and the only way to counteract it is to first become able to see it. If you had told me what results I was going to see from the calculus experiment before it happened, I wouldn't have believed you. I 'knew' that my high school was a thoroughly non-sexist environment. On this basis, I'd believe there may be some analagous value to single sex education for men as well, although, as a woman, I've obviously nexer experienced an all-male environment. I also support the existence of single sex social groups; non-business related of course. Elizabeth
pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) (03/08/91)
In article <1991Mar4.150345.7223@midway.uchicago.edu> erm2@midway.uchicago.EDU (elizabeth r morgan) writes: >In February, the men's teacher left the school for medical reasons, >and the classes were recombined. Two weeks after the recombination, >all the women had shut up again. That's a good reason to assume that it was a failure. There are two basic views on the pragmatic value of single-whatever environments. One is that they give normally disadvantaged people a chance to hone their skills which they can then apply to open environments. The other is that they train people to rely on the isolation of an environment maintained by others and therefore prevent them from learning the skills which they would be able to apply to open environments. Your story certainly does not support the former view. -EMP
jls@igor.rational.com (Jim Showalter) (03/08/91)
>I was in the all-female class, and it was shocking. For the first six >weeks to two months, the classroom sounded like a graveyard. No hands >were raised, no suggestions were offered, participation occurred only >when the teacher called on someone by name. >Then, around the end of >October, everyone woke up, realized there were no men around, and >began to participate. This was in a very self- consciously "PC" >school; women spoke freely in most classes, and anyone saying anything >blatantly sexist would have been laughed at, but women still did not >feel free to compete in a "male" subject like math. I'm very confused by this post. It sounds like what you are saying is that women are inherently less aggressive/assertive than men. After all, there were no men around to "oppress" the women, and the still acted shy and retiring. How can this be blamed on male aggression?--there weren't any "aggressors" in the room. >In February, the men's teacher left the school for medical reasons, >and the classes were recombined. Two weeks after the recombination, >all the women had shut up again. Why? What did the men in the combined class do to make this happen? Did they threaten to kick the shit out of the women if they spoke up? I somehow doubt it. So what DID happen? WHY did the women clam up? Could this have more to do with the women themselves than any external cause? >Involuntary, nonmalicious, habitual sexism is a much stronger, more >pervasive force than I had thought, and the only way to counteract it >is to first become able to see it. What, exactly, is "involuntary, nonmalicious, habitual sexism"? Is it the mere existence of men in the classroom? What precisely did the men do to keep the women down? Could it be that the women kept THEMSELVES down, and that the men actually are blameless? I have been following the news about Mills College and how triumphant the students there were when men were kept out. Hooray--another great day for equality!--an entire gender was prohibited admission, and nobody claimed it was discriminatory. Women will not achieve true equality until they can do so without crutches. My wife put herself through Stanford on an academic scholarship. She didn't need any help from AA, and she didn't need to hide out for four years away from the taint of male competition. THIS counts for something: it was a battle honestly won. -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with opinions like mine. -- "When I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you."
ecl@mtgzy.att.com (Evelyn C Leeper) (03/08/91)
In article <1991Mar4.150345.7223@midway.uchicago.edu> erm2@midway.uchicago.EDU (elizabeth r morgan) writes: > I was in the all-female class, and it was shocking. For the first six > weeks to two months, the classroom sounded like a graveyard. No hands > were raised, no suggestions were offered, participation occurred only > when the teacher called on someone by name. Then, around the end of > October, everyone woke up, realized there were no men around, and > began to participate. [...] > In February, the men's teacher left the school for medical reasons, > and the classes were recombined. Two weeks after the recombination, > all the women had shut up again. I fail to see how this proves that single-sex (all-female) environments help women to cope with the real world. If anything, it disproves it--in spite of learning to participate more in class, as soon as these women went back to a sexually integrated class, they stopped participating. Far better to learn how to deal with the real world than an artificially restricted one. Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or ecl@mtgzy.att.com -- "Why can't they have gay people in the army? Personally, I think they are just afraid of a thousand gay guys with M16s going, "Who'd you call a faggot?" --John Stewart
mara@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (Mara Chibnik) (03/08/91)
In article <9103062330.aa03738@orion.oac.uci.edu> schoi@teri.bio.uci.edu (Sam "Lord Byron" Choi) considers the issue of single sex schools. I'm going to leave aside the general dispute, which has been debated here and elsewhere a number of times, and head right for a paragraph that made me jump in my chair: >The problem probably lies somewhere in the socialization of young girls (not >so much the boys I would imagine since there is no real evidence of the >(males actively telling the females to shutup). What are we telling our >daughters that later on makes them so timid in the presence of males? In other words--and this is really, really important to think about--the way boys are socialized is just fine, it's the girls who are broken and need to be fixed. We socialize boys and girls (and whoever else you can think of) to believe that there are two modes of being--masculine and feminine--and that when you belong to a gender class you need to conform to the appropriate standards of that gender class, and woe betide the individual who does not. Part of what this means is that boys are socialized to compete effectively. It's part of being masculine. Girls are also taught that the successful male competes effectively. So both boys and girls are apt to believe that there's some serious disgrace for a boy whose efforts can be surpassed by a girl, especially in a "masculine" environment like math, athletics, driving, construction... What's more, the teachers conducting the classes also believe this stuff and are apt to steer things (sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly) so that the dichotomy is maintained and even emphasized. Though the boys may be restrained enough in class to refrain from actual interruptions, their disapproval can be shown within limits that the teacher (and other students, etc.) permit (titters, scowls, whispered exchanges are all common). And outside of class, well, the kid who doesn't conform to the gender-defined norms of behavior is apt to be ostracized. Still, what especially bothered me in the paragraph I quoted is the idea that the boys somehow have it right. And that we, as a society, ought to believe that the masculine thing, as we've defined it, is the standard to which all people, male, female and whatever else, should aspire. Not everyone believes that. -- cmcl2!panix!mara mara@dorsai.com marob!panix!mara Mara Chibnik Life is too important to be taken seriously.
schoi@teri.bio.uci.edu (Sam "Lord Byron" Choi) (03/10/91)
panix!mara@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (Mara Chibnik) writes: >In article <9103062330.aa03738@orion.oac.uci.edu> >schoi@teri.bio.uci.edu (Sam "Lord Byron" Choi) considers the issue >of single sex schools. >I'm going to leave aside the general dispute, which has been debated >here and elsewhere a number of times, and head right for a paragraph >that made me jump in my chair: >>The problem probably lies somewhere in the socialization of young girls (not >>so much the boys I would imagine since there is no real evidence of the >>(males actively telling the females to shutup). What are we telling our >In other words--and this is really, really important to think >about--the way boys are socialized is just fine, it's the girls who >are broken and need to be fixed. I suppose that is an implication that I didn't really consider too carefully, however, given the context how would you interpret it? Given the premises: 1) We want children to speak up in class. 2) Boys willingly speak up in class. 3) Girls only speak up in class when boys are not present. 4) Boys do nothing to prevent girls from speaking up in class. I don't see how else to intepret this situation other than by saying that there's something wrong with the way girls behave. What is bothering you in all likelihood is that you read this as a general statement about all male and female behaviors. Although I didn't state it explicitly, the assumption was that the context of this statement is confined to this particular case. In other words, I am completely confortable with the statement that the way that we teach our children to behave is not at all uniform and that at least in one way we must be giving our daughters the wrong message. This says nothing about the way we teach them to behave in different circumstances, which I will admit right now, are often better than the ways that we teach boys to behave. >Still, what especially bothered me in the paragraph I quoted is the >idea that the boys somehow have it right. And that we, as a society, >ought to believe that the masculine thing, as we've defined it, is the >standard to which all people, male, female and whatever else, should >aspire. >Not everyone believes that. As I argued, you're taking my statement about a particular circumstance and interpreting it as applying to all circumstances which is not at all what I intended to imply. Now there is one big issue that we are completely forgetting by continuing along this line of discussion. Namely, the soundness of premise #4. (Boys do nothing to prevent girls from speaking up in class). >From my perspective this seem reasonable. But then again, I'mnot in the best position to evaluate this since I only have access to my own intentions. The fact is that I could be giving implicit signals which others are picking up on that I don't really realize consciously. Let's try to pursue this discussion without being so defensive. Neither men nor women, or any individual man or individual woman has had the perfect socialization. What we have to do is look at what we are probably doing wrong and try to fix that. In some cases it will mean modifying men's behaviors and beliefs. At other times it will mean modifying those of women. In some cases, both I imagine. Sam Choi schoi@teri.bio.uci.edu (don't be a bozo, my organization doesn't even know my opinions let alone endorse them!)
fester@cs.washington.edu (Lea Fester) (03/12/91)
In article <9103091235.aa25111@orion.oac.uci.edu> schoi@teri.bio.uci.edu (Sam "Lord Byron" Choi) writes: >Given the premises: > >1) We want children to speak up in class. >2) Boys willingly speak up in class. >3) Girls only speak up in class when boys are not present. >4) Boys do nothing to prevent girls from speaking up in class. > >I don't see how else to intepret this situation other than by saying that >there's something wrong with the way girls behave. What is bothering Subtlety is in the eye of the beholder. Boys CAN prevent girls from speaking up in class. Leaving aside Mara's excellent point about negative reinforcement (the "permissible" ways in which children enforce cultural standards, from whispering in class to assorted mockery, e.g.,) there is still the issue of loudmouths. Since boys are not taught restraint as well as girls, they can sometimes hog the resources (teacher's attention, class discussion time, etc. In the dojo they'll hog the punching bags, grrr.) If every time the teacher asks something, one of a group of eager bright young things jumps in to answer, nobody else gets to participate. Or if in a college classroom someone spends ten minutes of a discussion droning on about something, everyone else's participation is limited. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to reflect on both their own previous experience *and* on the question of whether a subgroup socialized to have to incessantly prove their prowess is more likely to monopolize various classroom (or other) resources, or not. Lea F "Now if you believe in magic (Hi chiclet!!!) Don't be afraid, afraid to use it baby"
dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips) (03/13/91)
In article <1991Mar7.181157.11340@cbnewsj.att.com>, ecl@mtgzy.att.com (Evelyn C Leeper) writes: > I fail to see how this proves that single-sex (all-female) > environments help women to cope with the real world. If anything, it > disproves it--in spite of learning to participate more in class, as > soon as these women went back to a sexually integrated class, they > stopped participating. Far better to learn how to deal with the real > world than an artificially restricted one. Sigh. Come on, how can you reasonably expect that two months (or so) of practice at participation and assertiveness is equal to the near life time experience of males? Indeed far better to deal with the real world? Tell me, do two months of karate training enable you to deal with the real world? And is that training most effective only when against the best (gee, why aren't hardened criminals commisioned to teach karate?)? Best to use an artificially restricted world to illuminate the problems with the real world and to help those working against unfair advantage. Of course, you'd have to really give the alternative system a chance to work? How better to undermine the whole idea than by depriving it of the necessary resources then claiming the concept failed? -Doug
erm2@midway.uchicago.edu (elizabeth r morgan) (03/13/91)
On reading the responses to the account of the single-sex calculus class I was in during High School, I think I must not have made clear what I found interesting about the situation. I'm going to try again, first listing my observations in the class, and then trying to explain what I thought they meant. 1. Women were reluctant to participate in a co-ed math class; I had not noticed this beforehand, perceiving lack of participation as "normal" behavior for women, or, rather, not perceiving it at all. 2. This lack of participation was related to the presence of men in the class; despite the time-lag necessary to internalize the realization that there were no men in the class, it disappeared when the men were removed, and reappeared when they were reintroduced. Now, although I had been seeing women not participate in math classes for years, I had always accepted it without thinking as normal behavior for women. Until I saw that behavior in a woman-only environment, I hadn't realized that it might be normal beavior for women, but it was very strange behavior for math students. The single-sex class acted as a valuable diagnostic tool for me, and for other women in the class. Also, this behavior was not simply shyness or lack of assertiveness. These women demonstrated appropriately assertive and aggressive behavior toward other women in the segregated class, and toward men in classes not in stereotypically masculine subjects like math and science. It was also not an academic dislike of the material; they performed well both in class tests and on the Calculus AP at the end of the year. It was a response to the presence of men in a math class. I referred to "habitual, unconscious, nonmalicious sexism" because I don't believe that the women were kept from speaking by any intentional actions on the part of the men in the class. I believe that children, male and female alike, in our society are trained through such things as patterns of classroom reinforcement, the presence or absence of role models, and observation of adult society to believe that math is a masculine pursuit, and that a woman who excels, or makes herself visible excelling at it is therefore less feminine. Such training, if I am correct and it does exist, is subtle and predominantly unintentional; I believe it would be impossible to simply decide to stop this indoctrination. The virtue I see in single sex education is that women in a single-sex environment will not feel uncomfortable in "gender-inappropriate" classes, either through their own fears of appearing masculine, or through the assumption of male classmates that they will be allowed to dominate. Women who have never been discomfited by the presence of men will be better, not worse, able to cope with men in the real, co-ed, world, because they will not expect or accept sexism, and certainly won't submit to it without noticing it. I may be wrong in believing this, but it makes sense to me. I'm sorry that I didn't address specific comments; I'm still learning how to use net-news, and I accidentally erased the responses my first post got after reading them. I think I answered everything I could remember, but if I missed anything interesting plaese e-mail me. Thanks, Elizabeth.
mara@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (Mara Chibnik) (03/13/91)
>From before: >>>The problem probably lies somewhere in the socialization of young girls (not >>>so much the boys I would imagine since there is no real evidence of the >>>(males actively telling the females to shutup). What are we telling our And my response: >>In other words--and this is really, really important to think >>about--the way boys are socialized is just fine, it's the girls who >>are broken and need to be fixed. In article <9103091235.aa25111@orion.oac.uci.edu> schoi@teri.bio.uci.edu (Sam "Lord Byron" Choi) follows up: >I suppose that is an implication that I didn't really consider too carefully, >however, given the context how would you interpret it? > >Given the premises: > >1) We want children to speak up in class. >2) Boys willingly speak up in class. >3) Girls only speak up in class when boys are not present. >4) Boys do nothing to prevent girls from speaking up in class. >I don't see how else to intepret this situation other than by saying that >there's something wrong with the way girls behave. What is bothering >you in all likelihood is that you read this as a general statement about >all male and female behaviors. Although I didn't state it explicitly, the >assumption was that the context of this statement is confined to this >particular case. Well, no, not exactly. As you point out yourself, the fourth point is not a certainty. I have also seen studies (we've discussed them here and elsewhere) that suggest that teachers, too, need to change their behavior, because they tend, in co-ed situations, to pay more attention to boys. Now this may eventually result in the girls' learning not to speak up, so this is one of the kinds of things "we" need to do to give more desirable signals to our daughters. However, I want to open the issue in quite another direction. You are taking it as a given that the participation of boys in class is a good thing, and that the non-participation of girls in class is a bad thing. (I don't mean you personally; the notion is inherent to this discussion in the various guises in which I've seen it here and elsewhere.) It may be that the kind of participation girls have to offer is not the same as what boys offer. This was the suggestion of one of the researchers who discussed findings on this topic last year. I don't have the reference handy; I caught a writeup in the New York Times. The study was done at one of the big Eastern formerly women's colleges, I don't remember which. The researchers said they were surprised to find that even there, where the long tradition of women's scholarship was a given, professors recognized and called on male students more often than they did on female students, and that a number of other measures (sorry to be so vague about this; I didn't keep the clipping) suggested that teachers' behavior was very variable according to the student's sex. But a secondary suggestion was made that this was due, at least in part, to a difference between the nature of the answers the women and the men had to offer, and in the kinds of questions that each found appealing. In particular, the men tended to be quick with brief and relatively simple responses, while the women seemed to spend longer formulating more complex, less "to the point" answers. If (and it is a very big if) there is some truth to this, it behooves us to consider the nature of classroom reinforcement. Unless we do this, we are skewing our definition of participation and of learning to favor a particular model. (I think this is happening anyhow, and I'm not sure that it's gender based. If there is a gender component to it, it's worth exploring.) Away back when, in the days before I discovered them, I caught a television show on computers as teaching tools. One educator had a caveat that impressed me: "Computers are very good at helping kids to learn certain kinds of things, and very useful in getting them to learn how to approach certain kinds of problems. But there are problems at which computer techniques do badly. If we lean to hard on the computers, we'll also be teaching the kids that the only problems that really count are the ones that computers can solve" [paraphrase, of course, but I can't put a name to it anyhow]. It's the same kind of thing, I think. -- cmcl2!panix!mara mara@dorsai.com marob!panix!mara Mara Chibnik Life is too important to be taken seriously.
Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) (03/14/91)
panix!mara@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (Mara Chibnik) writes: > But a secondary suggestion was made >that this was due, at least in part, to a difference between the >nature of the answers the women and the men had to offer, and in the >kinds of questions that each found appealing. In particular, the men >tended to be quick with brief and relatively simple responses, while >the women seemed to spend longer formulating more complex, less "to >the point" answers. >If (and it is a very big if) there is some truth to this, it behooves >us to consider the nature of classroom reinforcement. Unless we do >this, we are skewing our definition of participation and of learning >to favor a particular model. Consider the nature of the net, and the kinds of answers that are positively and negatively reinforced here. We could be brewing up a whole new level of problems (especially since different kinds of newsgroups tend to have different styles, and so reinforce the stereotypical behaviour within the various disciplines. Do you prefer sci.econ or alt.callahans? :-) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "A peace I hope with honour." - Disraeli 1878
schoi@teri.bio.UCI.EDU (Sam Lord Byron Choi) (03/14/91)
I received this response that I received a little while. I asked her to post it on the net because she described an interesting experience which I think really characterizes what we have to do to combat some of the sexism and and attitudes of this society. All I would like to say in preface is that I think a good portion of the people whom we take as sexist or chauvinistic are actually just unaware, and in my book that's not a sin. I think too often I run into people who reify society as an "other," saying things like "Society makes us do it" without really recognizing that they too are a part of this big entity they call society. Society is a whole bunch of individuals. The way to change society is to change those individuals, one individual at a time. So here's Natalie's (nriley@bootes.unm.edu) message reprinted with her permission. >"Lord Byron" : > >Man, I couldn't have said it better. I am in total agreement with your >statements in your recent posting to Elizabeth about segregating schools. >This type of attitude towards the problems regarding gender and women's >ability (or disability as it seems) to overcome inherent inhibitions >in the classrooms is merely covering up the eminent problems. >And once the female student hits the real world.....boy has she got >another thing coming! As for myself, I had a very interesting experience >in high school. I, too, was to the belief that my school encouraged a >totally non-sexist environment, but saw otherwise when taking an honors >math course my junior year. Being used to actively vocalizing my views >and asking questions in class, I did so for the first few months. >But the teacher (and I don't hesitate to put the blame on him) saw this >as an opportunity to "entertain the class" and often blew me, or any >other young woman off. Needless to say, I became less and less vocal in >that class, and consequently my grades were slipping. Well, finally, >this situation came to a climax of sorts when I went in to see the teacher >privately and told him exactly how I felt (and how the other handful >of female students felt in his class; intimidated and inhibited by his >playful mode of communication. He was unaware that we we took his joking >so seriously) And wouldn't you know, the guy made a conscious effort to >change, and we no longer felt inhibited to speak up once we were assured >of his respect. So, my conclusion from all this is that the inherent problem >is in the system. Simply segregating the classrooms does not solve anything. > >Peace, >Nat > >** Natalie Riley Osorio > nriley@bootes.unm.edu Sam Choi schoi@teri.bio.uci.edu (just try and pin my opinions to the university, I dare you) p.s. I don't really go by "Lord Byron," it's sortavan inside joke.
etbe_cif@uhura.cc.rochester.EDU (elisa) (03/16/91)
I haven't read the entire thread, so I may
be a little off base with my commments, however
from what I have read so far they seem to apply.
I am a little puzzled as to what the
women only class as supposed to prove. If it
were a college class, then male/female behavior
patterns had already been ground into everyone
in the class. And just becase it was a quiet
class doesn't really say anything either. I have
been in several "normal" (in this case normal
means that there are more males then females) college
classes that were quiet and unresponsive. There
could been several reasons for the class to be
"quiet." The first one that comes to mind is
that the person teaching the class doesn't
"inspire" the class. Some people, no matter
how good their intentions, are lousy teachers.
There seems to be a misconception
associating quiet with female. In the studies
that I have read, it isn't -the males- in the
class who are the most active. -A small group-
of males (meaning between two and four) are in
control of the class participation. The rest of
the males in the class are just as quiet as "the
females." It seems to be a well established
pattern.
Also from the reports that I have read,
or helped gather data in, there is a difference
in the amount of time the teachers spend with
males and with female, but a much more
interesting fact is that teachers spend more
time -looking- at the males in the class. It
seems that the idea males are more active classroom
participants then females has become so ingrained
in our society that teachers don't expect the
females to participate, and don't notice when
they try to. A female who raises her hand to answer
a question is much less likely to be noticed and called
on. After a while, the females stop trying to participate
because they are often ignored.
And just because the males in the class
are not threatening to beat up all the females
if they say anything, doesn't mean that they don't
exert any influence. What can happen in discussions
is this... A group discussion is going on, a person
(doesn't actually have to be female) contributes an
idea, the group pauses for a moment, and then goes
back to the discussion as if the person hadn't spoken,
the idea was ignored.
Another important in-class factor is
social life out of class, which exerts a great
pressure on public, in-class behavior. Anything
you say in class can be held against you after
class.
elisa bergslien
--
etbe_cif@uhura.cc.rochester.edu |\ |\ | / _____ |\ _ |\ | | ____
| | / \ | || | | || | | || | |
_o | | | | | || | |/ |-| | || | |
O/O_____________ |/ \ / | \| | | | | | \| | |___schoi@teri.bio.uci.edu (SamLord Byron Choi) (03/28/91)
etbe_cif@uhura.cc.rochester.EDU (elisa) writes: >There >could been several reasons for the class to be >"quiet." The first one that comes to mind is >that the person teaching the class doesn't >"inspire" the class. Some people, no matter >how good their intentions, are lousy teachers. > There seems to be a misconception >associating quiet with female. In the studies >that I have read, it isn't -the males- in the >class who are the most active. -A small group- >of males (meaning between two and four) are in >control of the class participation. The rest of >the males in the class are just as quiet as "the >females." It seems to be a well established >pattern. This is consistent with my experiences too. I can usually guess how much class discussion there is going to be in a class after the first hour or so of class. I think students "read" the instructor and try to get a feel of how receptive he/she is going to be to comments, particularly those that might be "dumb" comments. I think that the way students will react to another student's comments is, well not determined by, but greatly influenced by the way they think the instructor will react. > And just because the males in the class >are not threatening to beat up all the females >if they say anything, doesn't mean that they don't >exert any influence. What can happen in discussions >is this... A group discussion is going on, a person >(doesn't actually have to be female) contributes an >idea, the group pauses for a moment, and then goes >back to the discussion as if the person hadn't spoken, >the idea was ignored. Again, very true. The main problem as I see is that people tend to see classroom discussion as a sort of competition. I am sure every student would like to say something absolutely brilliant to dazzle the instructor and the entire class, but just can't think of anything. Or actually, doesn't think that what he/she has to say is all that interesting. You certainly can't look dumb in front of your peers, so the old adage kicks in and everyone shuts up. So I guess the problem then lies not so much in anyone intimidating the others, but more in the self-consciousness of the quiet ones. Of course if there is someone rather aggresive in the class, then that certainly compounds the problem. My question now is, so how does this new version of this scenario present itself as a gender-based problem? Sam Choi schoi@teri.bio.uci.edu (No need for a disclaimer. Yes I am the mouth of the university ;)
mjm@intelhf.intel.com (03/28/91)
[someone else commented on an experience of a temporarily all female class and how the women did not speak up even when men were not present--at least, at first] jim> I'm very confused by this post. It sounds like what you are saying is jim> that women are inherently less aggressive/assertive than men. After jim> all, there were no men around to "oppress" the women, and they still jim> acted shy and retiring. How can this be blamed on male jim> aggression?--there weren't any "aggressors" in the room. [edited...] jim> Could this have more to do with the women themselves than any external jim> cause? My opinion on this situation is that it is probably a form of learned helplessness, which is not unique to women. Consider the experiment where a dog is in a cage with a plexiglass divider. The floor is wired so that someone can give the dog a shock. The dog tries to escape when the shock comes, but after a while learns that she cannot. Then the divider is removed so that she can go to the other side of the cage and avoid the shock. But the dog does not even try, because she never succeeded in escaping the shock before. She has given up. This is commonly called (I think) "learned helplessness" in psychology. In a similar fashion, people can be conditioned to stop trying after awhile. If girls/young women are routinely discouraged from speaking up, many of them will stop trying, even if one or more of those obstacles is removed. There are several studies that show the ways this can happen--if I remember correctly it was teachers, male and female, that did more of the discouraging than the male peers. The teachers are usually not aware of their subconscious bias in favor of boys. It takes an independent observer to count the # boys called on versus # girls called on, to notice that boys are often coached to arrive at the right answer whereas girls are just told they are wrong with no coaching, etc. A similar example, not specifically related to women, is something I have observed at work during my career. It can happen over a much shorter span of time. When an organization has thwarted every attempt at change in the past, most people stop trying to solve any problems they see with the process and just learn to live with it (possibly complaining to each other). It gets so bad that even when new management comes in that geniuinely wants input on what and how to change, the people don't bother trying. They have "learned" that anything they do will not make a difference. For those of us who have not fallen into learned helplessness, it is very frustrating to try to work with those who have given up trying. So, in some sense, it is the "women themselves" that are the cause. But if they have been conditioned to stop trying (after beating your head against a wall, it starts to hurt), it isn't very productive to simply blame them. It makes more sense to help them learn new ways of behaving, which often takes a lot of time and effort if the new behavior is contrary to what they have learned in the past. My head is harder than a lot of others :-), so I tend to go on beating it against the wall, but even I am not immune to the learned helplessness feeling at times, so I can relate to this situation. Sometimes you just don't even realize that you can do something different if you never got a chance to do it, or got punished for doing it, in the past. [After I wrote this, I read Mara's article on the differences that may be there in how people respond, and I agree that it may go deeper than speaking up is "good" and being quiet is "bad", but I don't think that changes the main point of this article.] -- Marjorie Panditji mjm@ahimsa.intel.com -or- uunet!intelhf!ahimsa!mjm An accommodating attitude is often more helpful than cold logic.
hans@uunet.uu.net (Hans Johnsen) (03/28/91)
In article <9103091235.aa25111@orion.oac.uci.edu> schoi@teri.bio.uci.edu (Sam "Lord Byron" Choi) writes: >panix!mara@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (Mara Chibnik) writes: >>In other words--and this is really, really important to think >>about--the way boys are socialized is just fine, it's the girls who >>are broken and need to be fixed. >I suppose that is an implication that I didn't really consider too carefully, >however, given the context how would you interpret it? >Given the premises: >1) We want children to speak up in class. >2) Boys willingly speak up in class. >3) Girls only speak up in class when boys are not present. >4) Boys do nothing to prevent girls from speaking up in class. I won't argue with the rest of your posting, because I believe you are more or less right. I will comment on your premise number 4. It is incorrect. I was involved (in a supervisory capacity) in several discussions among high school students this summer, and I can tell you that the men *were* subtly preventing the womyn from speaking. A man would inevitably interrupt before someone was finished speaking or start speaking just as the last person was finishing. It was a moderated discussion, so the more blatant cases were stopped by the moderator, but the men adjusted by taking the more subtle approach of starting immediately after someone finished and managed to thoroughly dominate the conversation. And I'll tell you that there were womyn willing to speak, as there were female hands raised throughout the room. The moderator, however was not an 'iron-fist' type (and slightly sexist as well), so the men who were butting in were allowed mostly free rein. And remember that, even if the students do nothing, the teacher will have subconcious biases as well. S/he may be more likely to call on a male student than a female. If womyn live through twelve years of schooling where the men are being called on more often, can we blame them for feeling that their opinions are not wanted or appreciated? I would also like to address the point (made by someone else) that this experiment was a failure because the girls failed to speak up when re-integrated. How can we expect a 6 month (or was it only 2?) exposure to an alternative setting to seriously reverse 11 1/2 years of a sexist setting? I can tell you that it has taken me 7 years of part-time (I still had sexist friends) exposure to feminism to progress as far as I have. I am encouraged by the simple fact that the womyn in the class *did* speak up for the first two weeks in the re-integrated class (although I attribute that mostly to their familiarity with the teacher, and the men's unfamiliarity). Hans
mara@cmcl2.NYU.EDU (Mara Chibnik) (04/03/91)
In article <m0jGikh-00007wC@intelhf.hf.intel.com> ahimsa!mjm@intelhf.intel.com writes about how women needed to learn to speak up in a (segregated) classroom: >My opinion on this situation is that it is probably a form of learned >helplessness, which is not unique to women. Nor, by the example (dog in a cage trained not to be able to avoid a shock) to humans. I note that the dog is referred to as "she," but I'm not sure how specifically it was intended. > [ ... ] The dog tries to escape when the shock comes, but >after a while learns that she cannot. [ ... ] While the phenomenon isn't limited to men, it's worth noticing whether men and women are affected differently by it. Does it apply more to one sex than the other, say, in different environments? It might also be worth considering the reactions of people around when they observe someone who has learned such behavior. I have a friend who enjoys provoking me by maintaining a staunch position of "equal rights for women" at the same time he disparages one woman or another-- usually his wife, who is a highly successful professional of whom he is *very* proud-- for behaving "the way women always do." I was with him one day when his wife called to announce with relief that she'd had no trouble reporting damaged merchandise to the store where she bought it. She'd been prepared for trouble because the merchandise had been delivered some months before, but hadn't been opened until a remodeling job got done, and she thought it likely that the store would claim it had been damaged while in storage. They were willing to stand behind the quality of their product. My friend was pleased for his wife, and told her so, got off the phone and said to me, "Women always think they're going to have trouble with these things. But you see, all you have to do is ask." I pointed out that his wife is an extremely intelligent woman, and a quick learner. I'm sure that she (like me!) has had the experience of *not* being taken seriously at all. It doesn't take too many such experiences to get people either to lose heart, and not complain at all, or to approach a complaint with belligerence, since any courteous request for service is understood in advance to be unlikely to work. I thought the article was an interesting and provocative one. I think it's an interesting area for further thought. -- cmcl2!panix!mara Mara Chibnik mara@dorsai.com "It can hardly be coincidence that no language on earth has ever produced the expression "As pretty as an airport." --Douglas Adams