jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) (01/08/91)
In article <#}W^KZ&@rpi.edu> mittmann@ral.rpi.EDU (Michael Mittmann) writes: &In article <X19VZCH@cs.swarthmore.edu> sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu writes: &>I don't say that all all-male groups should be illegal. What I'm &>trying to say is that I don't think people should participate in or &>support single-sex organizations whose object is to maintain a sexist &>status quo. If that involves passing a law against all-male corporate &>dining clubs, so be it. & I don't believe in outlawing groups because of the ideas &that they support or advocate. So if you ask me, only moral way to &do this is to make all all-male groups illegal, unfortunatly that's &discrimination unless we do the same for females. Ya know, there *are* all-male groups that already exist purely on a social basis .. one that comes to mind off-hand is the Boy Scouts of America... Do we really want to outlaw this? On one hand, I (as a former Girl Scout from long ago) would say "YES!" since I always hated how the Boy Scouts always got to go on hikes and learn neat skilled crafts while all we ever did were make yarn doilies and sleep in cabins while our troop matrons cooked us dinner.... Bleah. But on the other hand, there are a lot of real problems with having mixed scout troops after say, the age of 10. But all in all, what is the purpose of outlawing same sex groups? It was a good idea 20-30 years ago, when women had no real power in the social structure other than the power to vote, but now that's no longer the case. Take for instance, an example I read of in the paper this morning. It was the story of a (Federal Court?) judge who happened to be a woman and wished to join a social club in Erie. Now this group had originally been founded 120 years ago as a German men's choir, and has since grown to include 3000 male members of the political/social/business scene in Erie. In order to conform (and stay legal I guess) they adopted a clause in their charter some time ago that allowed full membership to be bestowed upon women. However, membership is decided upon via a vote (by the board of directors of the club I think) ... and so far, no woman has ever been voted in. There has been little effort to hide the fact apparently that the reason for this is that they simply don't want any women in their club and feel that they have every right to be discriminatory about whom they accept as a member. Well, of course you can imagine the judge was not happy at all about this. The article stated that she intended to re-apply this spring for membership in the hope that this little fracas has stirred up the traditional thinking of the men. So should this club be outlawed? I think not. Why resort to laws that can be gotten around and take time and money to pursue when the means of making the "female membership" clause a reality already exists? It exists because women today have something that women of thirty years ago did not have to such an extent: economic power. Clubs have expenses to pay, bills to met and members to keep happy in order for them to continue to exist. Among other things, this club hires it's building out for weddings, bingo games and other community affairs. Not to mention the fact that women are not by *any* means excluded from entering the club with a member, i.e. a man. So now what would happen if all of a sudden the wives, girl friends, and other female relatives of club members refused to enter that building? What if women refused to be married there? What if women refused to attend dances and bingo games there? You get the idea. Not only would there be an incredible loss of income for the club, but there would also be the unhappiness of the members who can no longer go out to dinner their with their wife/girlfriend and chat with their buddies. There would now be members would be unhappy and who may very well cancel their memberships and go somewhere else. And all of this without any laws, or court battles. Women now have the power to affect the status quo and the power structure of society. We have to power to do it just as any other man until this day has done it ... via the golden rule (i.e. "those with the gold, make the rules"). 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) (01/14/91)
-Message-Text-Follows-
In article <9101072114.AA06178@rutgers.edu>, jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes...
"But all in all, what is the purpose of outlawing same sex groups? It
was a good idea 20-30 years ago, when women had no real power in the
social structure other than the power to vote, but now that's no
longer the case."
"Now this group had originally been founded 120 years ago as a German
men's choir, and has since grown to include 3000 male members of the
political/social/business scene in Erie... <no women> ... Why resort
to laws that can be gotten around and take time and money to pursue
when the means of making the "female membership" clause a reality
already exists? It exists because women today have something that
women of thirty years ago did not have to such an extent: economic
power. Clubs have expenses to pay, bills to met and members to keep
happy in order for them to continue to exist. Among other things,
this club hires it's building out for weddings, bingo games and other
community affairs. Not to mention the fact that women are not by
*any* means excluded from entering the club with a member, i.e. a man.
So now what would happen if all of a sudden the wives, girl friends,
and other female relatives of club members refused to enter that
building? What if women refused to be married there? What if women
refused to attend dances and bingo games there?"
All these courses of action were available 120 years ago. What makes
the difference is not that women have the almighty dollar, but that
they have the gumption to take a stand. How many of these activities
do you think the women attending are actually shelling out the green
stuff? Not the majority.
Jim.mittmann@ral.rpi.edu (Michael Mittmann) (01/15/91)
In article <9101072114.AA06178@rutgers.edu> jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes: >But all in all, what is the purpose of outlawing same sex groups? It >was a good idea 20-30 years ago, when women had no real power in the >social structure other than the power to vote, but now that's no >longer the case. >So should this club be outlawed? I think not. Why resort to laws >that can be gotten around and take time and money to pursue when the >means of making the "female membership" clause a reality already >exists? I think I agree with you. All I realy care about is that the laws are unbiased. I proposed outlawing all single sex groups because sdk91@swarthmore wanted to outlaw all-male dining clubs because of the values they might hold. I just pointed out that if these clubs had to be made illegal, then the only moral (IMHO) way to do it was to make all single sex corporate dining clubs illegal. Just as long as neither gender has an legally instatutionalized advantage I'm happy. >And all of this without any laws, or court battles. Probably even better. -mike
bloch@thor.UCSD.EDU (Steve Bloch) (01/15/91)
jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes: >Ya know, there *are* all-male groups that already exist purely on a >social basis .. one that comes to mind off-hand is the Boy Scouts of >America... I don't think the Boy Scouts is male-only any more. In fact, I THINK I saw a female friend of mine wearing a Boy Scout uniform as long ago as 1980 -- not sure, it might have been Explorer -- but I'm pretty sure I heard a report on NPR in the last three months on the Boy Scouts's acceptance of girls. >I always >hated how the Boy Scouts always got to go on hikes and learn neat >skilled crafts while all we ever did were make yarn doilies and sleep >in cabins while our troop matrons cooked us dinner.... Odd, when I picked up a Girl Scout manual (at a garage sale for $.25; I was about seven) I thought all the stuff it said they got to do looked pretty nifty. Nobody in the Boy Scouts ever taught me how to sew; my mother just said that if I wanted to wear patches and merit badges I'd have to put them on myself. And they never teach you to cook anything that hasn't been in a backpack for at least four hours. -- "I'm nobody's savior, and nobody's mine either..." -- Ferron Steve Bloch bloch@cs.ucsd.edu
jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) (01/15/91)
In article <9101141526.AA28821@easynet.crl.dec.com> baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (Jim Baranski) writes: >In article <9101072114.AA06178@rutgers.edu>, jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes... >>"Now this group had originally been founded 120 years ago as a German >>men's choir, and has since grown to include 3000 male members of the >>political/social/business scene in Erie... <no women>> ... Why resort >>to laws that can be gotten around and take time and money to pursue >>when the means of making the "female membership" clause a reality >>already exists? It exists because women today have something that >>women of thirty years ago did not have to such an extent: economic >>power. Clubs have expenses to pay, bills to met and members to keep >>happy in order for them to continue to exist. Among other things, >>this club hires it's building out for weddings, bingo games and other >>community affairs. Not to mention the fact that women are not by >>*any* means excluded from entering the club with a member, i.e. a man. >>So now what would happen if all of a sudden the wives, girl friends, >>and other female relatives of club members refused to enter that >>building? What if women refused to be married there? What if women >>refused to attend dances and bingo games there?" >All these courses of action were available 120 years ago. What makes >the difference is not that women have the almighty dollar, but that >they have the gumption to take a stand. How many of these activities >do you think the women attending are actually shelling out the green >stuff? Not the majority. Hmm... let's see ... Most community centers I would estimate probably (but I'm not sure) can't be hosting more than about say ... 2 wedding receptions a month [on average that is] ... in which case the rental fee of X dollars is given to the club and the catering fee of Y dollars is probably given to an outside caterer -- probably the X amount is a flat rental fee for use of the space. So let's mark up 2X dollars a month from weddings [paid for by whatever arrangement -- I can't say, since it's an individual decision that's been going through a lot of change lately ...] What else? Bingo -- bingo [in my humble experience] is usually a regular thing [i.e. 4 times a week] so we'll give that the 4X amount. Meals. Yes, these are probably paid for by members -- obviously. I certainly wouldn't want to pay for dinner at a club/restaurant that wouldn't let me in as a member. I can't put a price on that relative to the X amount already mentioned, so for the sake of keeping apples and oranges separate, I'm ignoring it. And finally, dances. Here again, there's a flat fee... I'd say there's usually a dance maybe once a month so give it X too. Now, I know for a *fact* that bingo meets are almost *exclusively* women and I'm sure they're the ones paying for it... unless you want to tell me that the majority of women who attend bingo games are using money from "allowances" they get from men... so there's quite a bit of money the club gets *directly* from women's pockets... at 4 times a month no less! Weddings and meals I've already noted -- I think I agree that it's the majority of men who pay for meals there -- and as for weddings, well, that's something a parental team usually takes care of -- i.e. split down the middle for a 50/50 deal. Finally, dances. Now here is something interesting. I have absolutely no idea what the deal is between teen-aged men and women who go to dances. I know that I almost *always* paid for the tickets when I took a guy... and I also bought dinner half the time as well! From what I've heard from my younger sister this trend is still going on, but I'm sure it's different everywhere. So I think if you go back and look, you'll see that women are putting a very sizable chunk of money into this club.... about (.90)(4)(X) = $3.6X/month from women playing bingo about (.50)(2)(X) = $X/month from women whose children are getting married and womn paying for meals [tentative] about (.40)(2)(X) = $.8X/month from women going to dance. for a grand total of about 5.4 times the rental fee for the club per month. I recognize that behavior patterns have also changed a lot, and that that is another reason why this sort of boycott wouldn't have worked 30 years ago but I still contend that this club also has a substantal monetary interest in keeping women coming to the club. Substantial enough that the loss of it would seriously damage the club's finances.... Which was my whole point. 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) (01/16/91)
In article <15415@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> bloch@thor.UCSD.EDU (Steve Bloch) writes: >I don't think the Boy Scouts is male-only any more. In fact, I THINK >I saw a female friend of mine wearing a Boy Scout uniform as long ago >as 1980 -- not sure, it might have been Explorer -- but I'm pretty >sure I heard a report on NPR in the last three months on the Boy >Scouts's acceptance of girls. Wonderful!!! If it's true, I think that's great! j- -- #*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#* "Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."
pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.EDU (Eric Pepke) (01/16/91)
In article <15415@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> bloch@thor.UCSD.EDU (Steve Bloch) writes: >I don't think the Boy Scouts is male-only any more. In fact, I THINK >I saw a female friend of mine wearing a Boy Scout uniform as long ago >as 1980 -- not sure, it might have been Explorer -- but I'm pretty >sure I heard a report on NPR in the last three months on the Boy >Scouts's acceptance of girls. No information on the Boy Scouts, but as far as I know the Explorers have always been co-ed. The Medical Explorer group to which I belonged in the mid seventies certainly was. The fact that we were co-ed and the rest of the scouts were not gave us a pleasantly smug feeling of superiority. There is (or was) a Georgia-based group called the Environmental Scouts. They were similar to the boy scouts with the exception of not restricting membership to boys and having a somewhat more focused approach to environmental responsibility. They were also small. The last thing I heard, the BSA was sending hordes of lawyers to chop them to bits for having the audacity to use the name "Scouts." -EMP
jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) (01/18/91)
In article <1920@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.EDU (Eric Pepke) writes: >No information on the Boy Scouts, but as far as I know the Explorers >have always been co-ed. The Medical Explorer group to which I >belonged in the mid seventies certainly was. The fact that we were >co-ed and the rest of the scouts were not gave us a pleasantly smug >feeling of superiority. Hmmm. This came up in some private mail as well as I believe I mentioned it in another post ... so, what exactly do these groups do to avoid any problems with the respective gender's newly forming sexual identities in a mixed group. That is to say, do they have any problems with co-eds and sexuality? It seems that there is a general understanding [as in, opinion, rather than knowledge] among the general US public that boys and girls can't exist platonically side by side -- althougth co-ed siblings do it all the time. But then again, they do have incest taboos so perhaps that's part of it. Why this should be so, I'm not sure, but I would like to know how these co-ed groups deal with that aspect, if at all. >There is (or was) a Georgia-based group called the Environmental >Scouts. They were similar to the boy scouts with the exception of not >restricting membership to boys and having a somewhat more focused >approach to environmental responsibility. They were also small. The >last thing I heard, the BSA was sending hordes of lawyers to chop them >to bits for having the audacity to use the name "Scouts." Yuck! j- -- #*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#* "Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."
pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.EDU (Eric Pepke) (01/18/91)
In article <9101172247.AA22320@rutgers.edu> jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes: >In article <1920@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.EDU (Eric Pepke) writes: >>No information on the Boy Scouts, but as far as I know the Explorers >>have always been co-ed. The Medical Explorer group to which I >>belonged in the mid seventies certainly was. The fact that we were >>co-ed and the rest of the scouts were not gave us a pleasantly smug >>feeling of superiority. > >Hmmm. This came up in some private mail as well as I believe I >mentioned it in another post ... so, what exactly do these groups do >to avoid any problems with the respective gender's newly forming >sexual identities in a mixed group. What is this supposed to mean? We all got together and had meetings in the hospital and talked about medical things and invited speakers and stuff like that. We didn't spend a whole hell of a lot of time worrying about "sexual identities" and "the respective gender" and things like that. So sue us. Perhaps had we had the misfortune of being led by a psychologist or a polemicist we would have had to worry about these things, but we managed to escape that, so we did not bother. We had fun instead. >That is to say, do they have any >problems with co-eds and sexuality? No. What's the point? Honestly, until I saw your response, the idea of having "problems" with such a thing did not even enter my head. >that's part of it. Why this should be so, I'm not sure, but I would >like to know how these co-ed groups deal with that aspect, if at all. Maybe it's like taking a Moslem perspective to a group and asking, "How do you deal with the Great Flaming Sword of Allah?" Perhaps it is not an issue for them until you bring it up. -EMP