sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu (01/03/91)
*WARNING. I AM NOT GOING TO BE NICE.*
I get tired of folks who claim that women-only groups are
_necessarily_ wrong. Tell me. Would you take a bunch of emotionally
vulnerable men who are survivors of abuse by their mothers and fathers
and hold an open meeting to work through pain, grief, and trauma while
they are in the _presence of their abusers_?!?
Get real. I bet those of you involved in this debate who think
women-only groups are always bad think that sexism died in the '70s, that
everything would be peachy-keen if we all loved one another, and that
there's no good reason that women might feel uncomfortable discussing
sexism and other issues with men around. Particularly since you're all
wonderful.
When the purpose of a closed group is to support its members when
in a larger context those members are being stomped on by the social
structures in their lives, that's an inclusionary group. That is a
powerful move towards disrupting a sexist, heterosexist, racist, etc.
status quo. When a group is existing to reinforce that same status
quo - that's _exclusionary_.
Quite bluntly, the status quo is wrong and sexist.
The status quo is also morally wrong. This _has_ to frame this
discussion but it almost never gets talked about. I have yet to hear
one person claim that women-only groups can disrupt the status quo but
they still have no right to exist. Until I do, I see no reason not to
assume that you who oppose women-only groups in all circumstances are
just defending a sexist status quo.
Dialogue is welcome now that I've blown off steam. I respect your
opinion - but respect and understand why it pisses me off.
-- Steve Karpfgazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (01/05/91)
In article <TZ6VZ9S@cs.swarthmore.edu> sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu writes: > I get tired of folks who claim that women-only groups are >_necessarily_ wrong. And I get tired of folks who claim that men-only groups are _necessarily_ wrong, but womyn-only group are just fine...
cramer@ncar.ucar.EDU (Clayton Cramer) (01/07/91)
In article <TZ6VZ9S@cs.swarthmore.edu>, sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu writes: > > *WARNING. I AM NOT GOING TO BE NICE.* > > I get tired of folks who claim that women-only groups are > _necessarily_ wrong. Tell me. Would you take a bunch of emotionally > vulnerable men who are survivors of abuse by their mothers and fathers > and hold an open meeting to work through pain, grief, and trauma while > they are in the _presence of their abusers_?!? No. But your assumption that ANY man is an "abuser" of women is a sexist remark. Let's try your analogy with race. How about white-only groups for victims of crime? (Blacks are dispro- portionately involved in crime, therefore any black is a criminal, etc. -- the typical collectivist reasoning that you have chosen for males). -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Gun Control: The belief that the government, with its great wisdom and moral superiority, can be trusted with a monopoly on deadly force. You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) (01/08/91)
In article <5161@optilink.UUCP> uunet!optilink!cramer@ncar.ucar.EDU (Clayton Cramer) writes: &In article <TZ6VZ9S@cs.swarthmore.edu>, sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu writes: &> I get tired of folks who claim that women-only groups are &> _necessarily_ wrong. Tell me. Would you take a bunch of emotionally &> vulnerable men who are survivors of abuse by their mothers and fathers &> and hold an open meeting to work through pain, grief, and trauma while &> they are in the _presence of their abusers_?!? &No. But your assumption that ANY man is an "abuser" of women is a &sexist remark. Let's try your analogy with race. How about &white-only groups for victims of crime? (Blacks are dispro- &portionately involved in crime, therefore any black is a criminal, &etc. -- the typical collectivist reasoning that you have chosen for &males). But is it? Isn't the goal of a group trying to help women who have been abused by men the goal of enabling them to realize that all men are *not* abusers? People who have been traumatized, for whatever reason, are not reasonable or logical in the area of their trauma. The primary goals of these groups (like any therapy) is to get them to accept and like themselves again, and to understand that all people who are <insert a group here> are *not* abusive or "out ot get them". But obviously, you don't want to inhibit these people from the very beginning by allowing the very people which they have come to (misguidedly) fear -- be they men, women, blacks, fathers, etc. So let's try your idea. Why not have crisis groups for white people who suffer from being the instigators of racism? How do you propose to overcome their built up defenses and the habits/nurturing of a lifetime by having blacks/Jews whatever in the group? How do you propose to get them to relax and drop those defenses and talk honestly and freely about how they feel when in the presence of the very ideal that triggers them? You can try to force them, you can pass laws, but you can't make them *believe* unless you can elicit their own sincere support in the effort of re-training. Your assumption that people in counseling should be able to confront their fears not only in life but in therapy as well is typical of the flawed egalitarian who cannot accept the fact that all people are *not* equal in their emotions, behaviors and responses. If these people were able to confront their fears in a reasonable manner, they wouldn't be in the group to begin with. And once they *are* able to, they will no longer be in the group. j- -- #*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#* "Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."
sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu (01/08/91)
In article <662852506@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes... > >In article <TZ6VZ9S@cs.swarthmore.edu> sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu writes: >> I get tired of folks who claim that women-only groups are >>_necessarily_ wrong. > >And I get tired of folks who claim that men-only groups are >_necessarily_ wrong, but womyn-only group are just fine... I never claimed that men-only groups are always wrong. I don't think ayone has made that broad a claim in this discussion, at least that part I managed to keep up with. I see no reason why a group of men should not meet as a men-only group if its purpose is not to exclude women but to change what it means to be a man so that sexist structures are broken down. --Steve Karpf
sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu (01/08/91)
In article <5161@optilink.UUCP>, uunet!optilink!cramer@ncar.ucar.EDU (Clayton Cramer) writes... >In article <TZ6VZ9S@cs.swarthmore.edu>, sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu writes: >> >> *WARNING. I AM NOT GOING TO BE NICE.* >> >> I get tired of folks who claim that women-only groups are >> _necessarily_ wrong. Tell me. Would you take a bunch of emotionally >> vulnerable men who are survivors of abuse by their mothers and fathers >> and hold an open meeting to work through pain, grief, and trauma while >> they are in the _presence of their abusers_?!? > >No. But your assumption that ANY man is an "abuser" of women is a >sexist remark. Let's try your analogy with race. How about >white-only groups for victims of crime? (Blacks are dispro- >portionately involved in crime, therefore any black is a criminal, >etc. -- the typical collectivist reasoning that you have chosen for >males). No, I don't think a white-only group for victims of crime is appropriate in these terms on What's the iical framework for the group? Just as an all-malgroup isn't necessarily sexist, an all-white group isn't necessarily racist, _edpending_on_the_ideological_framework_ of the group. If a group of white anti-racist activists/crime victims and victims of crime met to discuss how their race effects their position in society, why blacks are disproportionately convicted and given longer sentences, etc I think that's not only fine - I think that having a person attending the group, even if a crime victim, was someone that people in the grou signified as 'black' would put an additional stress on the discussion in an already stressful topic. That doesn't mean that having a mixed-race meeting/talk session isn't critical to the overall process of understanding the connections between race and crime, because it is, it's simply that not _all_ of the processes going on have to be mixed-race _all_ of the time. Lastly, the point was not that the individual entering the meeting was automatically an "abuser" or a "crime perpetrator" (I obviously used a bad analogy) but that... A) A group of people want to connect on an ethnic or gender-related issue on the basis of having the same ethnicity or gender, thus placing them in similar social positions in particular structures B) The purpose of the discussion is to talk about sensitive and un- comfortable issues of gender or race in an environment which is more emotionally secure insofar that it lacks some of the particular tension of the problem at hand: sexism, racism, etc. C) A person who signifies the 'other' simply by entering the meetindisrupts the feeling of the meeting and re-establishes temporarily put-off tensions - not because that person is suddenly thought of as an 'abuser' or a 'perpetrator of a crime' but because that person, under the terms of the temporary environment the meeting has set up, breaks down a temporyry community. To take a less-loaded example: What if a bunch of elementary school teachers were meeting to discuss the relationship between the faculty and the administration in the decision-making process? Would it be valid for an administrator to enter the meeting, even passively? -- Steve Karpf
mittmann@ral.rpi.EDU (Michael Mittmann) (01/08/91)
In article <02DWW3W@cs.swarthmore.edu> sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu writes: > I never claimed that men-only groups are always wrong. I don't >think ayone has made that broad a claim in this discussion, at least >that part I managed to keep up with. > > I see no reason why a group of men should not meet as a men-only >group if its purpose is not to exclude women but to change what it >means to be a man so that sexist structures are broken down. This country has freedom of speach, hopefully that also means freedom of thought. I have just as much right to meet with other men to try to keep the definition of what it means to be a man the same, (or to try to define it in a way that would result in a more sexist society) as someone eelse might have to meet to do the redefining you support. Now you (and I for that matter) may think that these groups will make society worse, but they still have the right exist. -mike
baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (Jim Baranski) (01/14/91)
-Message-Text-Follows-
In article <9101072052.AA04724@rutgers.edu>, jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes...
The primary goals of these groups (like any therapy) is to get them to
accept and like themselves again, and to understand that all people
who are <insert a group here> are *not* abusive or "out ot get them"."
This reasoning does not extend to all womens-only groups. Not all
womens-only groups are of this type, what about womens-only groups
which are not of this type?
And I don't think all the groups that are men-only are power hungery
organizations bent on oppressing women either... but I still don't
support them.
"So let's try your idea. Why not have crisis groups for white people
who suffer from being the instigators of racism? How do you propose
to overcome their built up defenses and the habits/nurturing of a
lifetime by having blacks/Jews whatever in the group?"
As sarcasitic as your idea is, I think that we do need to do just
that, and at some point at least, some of the stereotyped group need
to be included to 'practice on', and to show the fearfull ones that
not all of the stereotyped group are bad.
Jim. hey! I'm being stereotyped!baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (Jim Baranski) (01/15/91)
In article <TZ6VZ9S@cs.swarthmore.edu>, sdk91@campus.swarthmore.edu writes...
"I get tired of folks who claim that women-only groups are
_necessarily_ wrong. Tell me. Would you take a bunch of emotionally
vulnerable men who are survivors of abuse by their mothers and fathers
and hold an open meeting to work through pain, grief, and trauma while
they are in the _presence of their abusers_?!?"
There is a difference between excluding one person with reason and
excluding everyone that shares a characteristic with that one person.
That being said, there are a few and far between cases were controlled
groups are helpful. Your example borders on such, but the majority of
exclusionary groups are far from your example.
Jim Baranskijdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) (01/15/91)
In article <9101141527.AA28831@easynet.crl.dec.com> baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (Jim Baranski) writes:
&-Message-Text-Follows-
&
&In article <9101072052.AA04724@rutgers.edu>, jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes...
&
&The primary goals of these groups (like any therapy) is to get them to
&accept and like themselves again, and to understand that all people
&who are <insert a group here> are *not* abusive or "out ot get them"."
&
&This reasoning does not extend to all womens-only groups. Not all
&womens-only groups are of this type, what about womens-only groups
&which are not of this type?
Hi Jim!
If you'd read my posts carefully you'd have noticed that I was careful
to state that I believe this situation was pertinent *only* to
theraputic groups ... *not* social clubs. Well, anyway, now you know
so I know you'll sleep better tonight!
&And I don't think all the groups that are men-only are power hungery
&organizations bent on oppressing women either... but I still don't
&support them.
So you don't support the Boy Scouts? Or pro
football/basketball/soccer teams? I'm sorry to hear that!
And I never said I thought all men-only groups were power-hungry
whatevers either. As a matter of fact I've said that I think they're
very necessary too! Sorry you seem to have missed all of this!! Ah
well....
&"So let's try your idea. Why not have crisis groups for white people
&who suffer from being the instigators of racism? How do you propose
&to overcome their built up defenses and the habits/nurturing of a
&lifetime by having blacks/Jews whatever in the group?"
&
&As sarcasitic as your idea is, I think that we do need to do just
&that, and at some point at least, some of the stereotyped group need
&to be included to 'practice on', and to show the fearfull ones that
¬ all of the stereotyped group are bad.
Hmmm... all this and sarcasm too! I'm glad you noticed! At least you
remembered what I said and agreed with it. Maybe I should use it more
often so parts of my posts don't get skipped over?
But anyways ...
I don't see the point of that for several reasons ... a) you're never
going to have everyone in the group at the same emotional level --
everyone will progress towards the goal at their own pace -- also,
dont' forget you'll constantly be adding/dropping members. The new
ones will be significantly further behind than the others .. my point?
You can't garantee that everyone will be at a point where they are
ready for that sort of thing.
and, b) why? The point of the <whatever>-only space is that it is a
homogenous atmosphere which normally does not happen in our society --
not only that, but it is also supposed to function as a place of
security where the members can feel "safe" and supported. By invading
that space as you propose .. even if it's "somewhere down the line"
you are erasing the illusion that this is a place where the
<whatevers> can feel they have some privacy and security ... which is
totally unnecessary since, after all, the members see these
<stereotyped group> in their normal daily lives -- having them
practise "in real life" would be much more beneficial [for both the
trauma group and the stereotyped group] than anything artifically
inserted into the group might be.
Before you start to get really serious about this, I strongly
recommend that you read some books on group dynamics and group therapy
first. If you like, I can recommend some books for you to start on ..
but probably any standard psychology refernce will do to start with.
&Jim. hey! I'm being stereotyped!
j- welcome to the club. admission is free, but it'll cost you your soul to
leave.
--
#*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#*
"Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."