sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu (01/05/91)
In article <}KT^Q~-@rpi.edu>, mittmann@ral.rpi.EDU (Michael Mittmann) writes... > So will you support a single sex group that believes it's >being stomped on by the changing social structure? (note that they >may be just as uncomfortble discussing sexism and other issues with >women around as your woman's group. No, I wouldn't support such a group if it is anti-change. If it's, say a group of men who work on Wall Street who are trying to understand the changes going on and change themselves in the process, sure. >Hmm, Ok. I'm worried about the leagal results of allowing all-female >groups but not all-male groups. I'm a tremendous believer in social >momnetum, and am not willing to give females a legal advantage now, >because when it comes to the time when I believe that it's no longer >needed I don't believe that it will get repealed. 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. >You see oppression is (IMHO) largely subjective, and I suspect that it >is very possible to have two groups which each believe that they're >getting the worse half of the bargain. Certainly. While in a larger sense men and women will all gain by a change in gender-weighted power structures, many men will see themselves getting the raw end of the deal because they have assumed that its OK to value undeserved power. Too bad. I support men and women who want to change things and themselves (the same process). That means giving up certain old values. --Steve Karpf
mittmann@ral.rpi.EDU (Michael Mittmann) (01/07/91)
In article <X19VZCH@cs.swarthmore.edu> sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu writes: >In article <}KT^Q~-@rpi.edu>, mittmann@ral.rpi.EDU (Michael Mittmann) writes... >>Hmm, Ok. I'm worried about the leagal results of allowing all-female >>groups but not all-male groups. I'm a tremendous believer in social >>momnetum, and am not willing to give females a legal advantage now, >>because when it comes to the time when I believe that it's no longer >>needed I don't believe that it will get repealed. > >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. -mike
stabler@athena.cs.uga.edu (Kathi Mills) (01/15/91)
In article <X19VZCH@cs.swarthmore.edu> sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu writes: >No, I wouldn't support such a group if it is anti-change. If it's, >say a group of men who work on Wall Street who are trying to >understand the changes going on and change themselves in the process, >sure. I'd like to know what your rationale is for opposing *any* groups that admit only members of one sex under the following conditions: 1. The group receives no money and nothing of value from any government agency; and 2. The group makes no contacts regarding any business. No business information is exchanged during the meetings, and no networking takes place which would put members of the excluded sex at a disadvantage in their company or profession. After all, if a group, say, of disgruntled male chauvinist executives from different fields wants to get together on a regular basis and moan that women are taking jobs from the good ol' boys, why would a woman want to be there anyway? If I may be so bold as to assume that you would support a group of feminist women discussing ways of alleviating sexism in the workplace, why do the feminists possess a freedom of association that the chauvinists don't? -- Sexism is a social disease. Kathi Mills - stabler@athena.cs.uga.edu
sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu (01/16/91)
In article <1991Jan6.001824.16009@athena.cs.uga.edu>, stabler@athena.cs.uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes... >In article <X19VZCH@cs.swarthmore.edu> sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu writes: > >>No, I wouldn't support such a group if it is anti-change. If it's, >>say a group of men who work on Wall Street who are trying to >>understand the changes going on and change themselves in the process, >>sure. > >I'd like to know what your rationale is for opposing *any* groups that >admit only members of one sex under the following conditions: > >1. The group receives no money and nothing of value from any government > agency; and > >2. The group makes no contacts regarding any business. No business > information is exchanged during the meetings, and no networking takes > place which would put members of the excluded sex at a disadvantage > in their company or profession. > >After all, if a group, say, of disgruntled male chauvinist executives >from different fields wants to get together on a regular basis and >moan that women are taking jobs from the good ol' boys, why would a >woman want to be there anyway? If I may be so bold as to assume that >you would support a group of feminist women discussing ways of >alleviating sexism in the workplace, why do the feminists possess a >freedom of association that the chauvinists don't? Sure, fine, no problem. People can and will get together to bitch whenever they want, and I don't think feminism/chauvinisper se is an issue is deciding who associates and when. But... If a group of disgruntled male chauvinist executives get together to moan collectivelyaren't they going to be networking simply through the process of meeting? While that's their choice to meet, isn't that an environment where friendships and linkages will naturally occur, outside of official business structures, that can effect the position of women in business? (Y'know, I've problems with corporate structure in itself, so I'm not particularly fervent about this aspect of equality:)) The difference is that a bunch of feminists, in your example, are meeting in order to do something to alleviate sexism in the workplace. The men are just as likely to want to _do_ something as the women - in this case, form unofficial structures that limit the accessibility of women. And that's a problem we're trying to defeat in the first place. The other thing is that my opposition to such a group does not necessarily endorse _government_ action against such groups, or laws to be passed against such groups. That's another issue for me entirely - what structures to use to defeat sexism in the workplace, and the law is useful in some ways and not in others, and it isn't the onlyway. --Steve Karpf