szady@athena.mit.edu (Does it really matter?) (11/01/90)
I have a question..... Why can lesbians focus their energy on womyn and ignore men, and it is ok, but when gay men focus their energy on men and ignore womyn they are sexist? Why are womyn only events such as Michigan perfectly all right (i *DO* support womyn-space) but men-only events such as sharpening the stone (a radical faeries gathering) sexist and exclusionary? It just seems to me at times that there is much hypocrisy within (some factions of) the feminist movement. I consider myself to be fairly radically anti-sexist..i am trying to learn here. drew -- Drew Lewis szady@athena.mit.edu Queers Fight BACK! I am not for Lesbigay civil rights...I am for Queer Liberation
feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) (11/16/90)
In article <1990Oct31.185009.701@athena.mit.edu> szady@athena.mit.edu (Does it really matter?) writes: >I have a question..... >Why are womyn only events such as Michigan perfectly all right (i *DO* support >womyn-space) but men-only events such as sharpening the stone (a radical >faeries gathering) sexist and exclusionary? 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. 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. Hey, we just don't wanna be left out 8-( ;-) Elissa Feit (feit@cs.buffalo.edu // {rutgers,uunet}!cs.buffalo.edu!feit) Animals are your friends -- but they won't pick you up at the airport.
greg@uts.amdahl.COM (Greg Bullough) (11/17/90)
In article <46160@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) writes: >In article <1990Oct31.185009.701@athena.mit.edu> szady@athena.mit.edu (Does it really matter?) writes: >>I have a question..... > >>Why are womyn only events such as Michigan perfectly all right (i *DO* support >>womyn-space) but men-only events such as sharpening the stone (a radical >>faeries gathering) sexist and exclusionary? > >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. 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. I believe it is dangerous to make value judgements on the validity of male-only or female-only spaces, based on whether the excluded gender approves of the activity which takes place therein. If men are permitted to approve (or disapprove) of what takes place in women-space, then that space is no longer truly women-space. The same is true of man-space. If we are willing to say that women must understand, condone, and approve of the activities which take place in man-space, in order for that space to be given any kind of standing, we must make the complementary statement about women-space. And I suspect that the latter would get very little support from the proponents of women-space. For it is understood that anything which men might consider men-bashing could not be permitted. Neither gender can preserve its gender-specific-spaces while the opposite gender has the right to examine and approve what takes place there. It is not only logisically impossible, it is spiritually impossible. >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. This is exactly what I'm talking about. I get the distinct impression that the Bohemian club is mentioned here, not because it is man-space, but because most of its members have political agendas which are not compatible with the author's. What the author misses is that the exclusion is not just by gender--- ---it's also by political affiliation. The author is never going to be permitted, whatever space she's in, to make "policy decisions for the far-right." Notwithstanding that she probably wouldn't enjoy or participate in the Bohemian grove shenanigans, but would instead try and enforce her particular standards on what amounts to a bunch of overgrown boys blowing off steam (which is a form of 'healing'). >Hey, we just don't wanna be left out 8-( >;-) On the contrary, I believe that you DO want to be left out. I believe that, given the choice between full participation in the Bohemian Grove festivities, and ending them entirely, you would probably choose the latter. In fact, you don't have a choice; if you destroy the space, you destroy the event. 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. Either one is a hard alternative. With no easy middle-ground. Greg
austern@ux5.lbl.GOV (Matt Austern) (11/18/90)
Answering an explanation of why "women's space" is often considered to be different from sexist organizations like the Bohemian Club, Greg Bullough (greg@uts) writes >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. > I think this is a slightly unfair characterization of the argument for "women's space." The point isn't that any women's organization must necessarily be good and any men's organization necessarily evil; it is just an observation that today, in the world we live in, organizations like SWE play a different role in society than do organizations like the Bohemian Club; that many women's groups exist for the purpose of inclusion, not exclusion. The social context just isn't the same; why should we pretend that it is? On the net, I often see the sentiment, usually expressed by non-feminist men, that our attitudes about male-female relations should be completely symmetrical. To parody this attitude slightly, the idea seems to be that if a statement is true, all you have to do is exchange the words "man" and "woman" and it will still be true. (Maybe that's not such an unfair characterization, since we've all seen postings that consist of nothing but such a transposition. Text editors make that kind of game easy.) In some kind of ideal society, maybe we would have that symmetry. We don't live in such a society, though, and I don't think it's sexist to notice that fact. -- Matthew Austern austern@lbl.bitnet Proverbs for paranoids, 3: If (415) 644-2618 austern@ux5.lbl.gov they can get you asking the wrong austern@lbl.gov questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
greg@uts.amdahl.COM (Greg Bullough) (11/21/90)
In article <8131@dog.ee.lbl.gov> Matt Austern <austern@ux5.lbl.GOV> writes: > >>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. > >I think this is a slightly unfair characterization of the argument for >"women's space." The point isn't that any women's organization must >necessarily be good and any men's organization necessarily evil; I believe that Matt has in fact missed my point by a wide margin. My point was, and is, that whenever the merits of an organization are discussed, a value judgement tends to ensue. That is particularly true of organizations from which the person making the judgement is excluded. I maintain that it is inappropriate for women to decide or to interfere with the way in which men define their gender-specific space. Just as many women will probably argue that it is inappropriate for me to interfere with how they organize themselves into women-only groups. > it is >just an observation that today, in the world we live in, organizations >like SWE play a different role in society than do organizations like >the Bohemian Club; This is precisely the sort of political bias which concerns me, and it makes my point better than I ever could have. > that many women's groups exist for the purpose of >inclusion, not exclusion. Perhaps. However, a women's-only group which purports to exist for the purpose of exclusion must be employing doublethink. If this model SWE is like, for example, the NAACP, admitting all who have concern for its pet cause, then it's not "women-space." If it admits only women, then it chooses to be "women space." My stand is that the choices about the composition of the group (and the consequences of those choices) belong to the group itself. With no quarter for outside interference. And yes, that means that some really horrible people can get together and form really horrible groups. Without outside interference. Otherwise what ensues is an atmophere of organizational sabotage in which the real issues disappear entirely. > The social context just isn't the same; why >should we pretend that it is? The social context is the business of the membership. >On the net, I often see the sentiment, usually expressed by >non-feminist men, Please define "non-feminist men." Please define "feminist" first. > that our attitudes about male-female relations >should be completely symmetrical. Whether I'd say that or not, it is immaterial here. Because I didn't say it here. What I said is that it's very dangerous to permit society to decide what political groups or private societies will be allowed to exist within it. The right to organize is a fundamental one, and I don't believe that political agendas ought to be met by attempting to keep organizations with which one doesn't agree from functioning as organizations. In that sense, I do believe in symmetry. Repression is repression. Regardless of who is doing it to whom. Greg
dhw@iti.org (David H. West) (11/23/90)
In article <46160@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) writes: >In article <1990Oct31.185009.701@athena.mit.edu> szady@athena.mit.edu (Does it really matter?) writes: >>Why are womyn only events such as Michigan perfectly all right(i *DO* support >>womyn-space) but men-only events such as sharpening the stone (a radical >>faeries gathering) sexist and exclusionary? >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. You don't trust us, but you want us to trust you. >as more radical anti-sexist men (yippee!!! I love you!) But will you still love us if we become radical enough to question modern stereotypes as well as "traditional" ones? 1/2 :-) >Hey, we just don't wanna be left out 8-( >;-) That cut no ice when men said it, as I recall. -David West dhw@iti.org
feit@acsu.buffalo.EDU (Elissa Feit) (11/27/90)
[This may have already been posted. My apologies if you see it twice. --CLT] In article <ccM.02y4e7GH01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> Greg Bullough <greg@amdahl.uts.amdahl.COM> writes: .>In article <46160@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) writes: .>>In article <1990Oct31.185009.701@athena.mit.edu> szady@athena.mit.edu (Does it really matter?) writes: .>>>I have a question..... .>>>Why are womyn only events such as Michigan perfectly all right (i *DO* .>>>support womyn-space) but men-only events such as sharpening the stone .>>>(a radical faeries gathering) sexist and exclusionary? .>>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. >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. I said "the fear is that..." Are you saying that the underlying sentiment which I *reported* is sexist? I agree. >...If we are willing to say that women must understand, condone, and >approve of the activities which take place in man-space, in order for >that space to be given any kind of standing, we must make the >complementary statement about women-space. And I suspect that the >latter would get very little support from the proponents of >women-space. For it is understood that anything which men might >consider men-bashing could not be permitted. I object to men-bashing. I always interrupt it and try to offer some reality to the basher. >Neither gender can preserve its gender-specific-spaces while the >opposite gender has the right to examine and approve what takes place >there. It is not only logisically impossible, it is spiritually >impossible. > >>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. Again, I said this as reporter. By "ok" I mean it will become more acceptable to those to whom it is not already. >This is exactly what I'm talking about. I get the distinct impression >that the Bohemian club is mentioned here, not because it is man-space, >but because most of its members have political agendas which are not >compatible with the author's. Precisely. > What the author misses is that the >exclusion is not just by gender--- ---it's also by political >affiliation. The author is never going to be permitted, whatever >space she's in, to make "policy decisions for the far-right." I'm not quite understanding what you're saying. Re: the Bohemian Grove, I disapprove PRECISELY on basis of the politics - NOT on the basis of men's space. And what's behind those politics, and behind the fact that it IS mens-only-space, is male-supremacy. But not SIMPLY that it's male-supremicist, but that these men have the POWER behind them - that's wherein my objection lies. >Notwithstanding that she probably wouldn't enjoy or participate in the >Bohemian grove shenanigans, but would instead try and enforce her >particular standards on what amounts to a bunch of overgrown boys >blowing off steam (which is a form of 'healing'). Why do you think I wouldn't enjoy the shenanigans? blowing off steam? hey, some of my best friends are "overgrown boys". 8-) >>Hey, we just don't wanna be left out 8-( >>;-) Of the policy decisions that affect us all ! >On the contrary, I believe that you DO want to be left out. I believe >that, given the choice between full participation in the Bohemian >Grove festivities, and ending them entirely, you would probably choose >the latter. In fact, you don't have a choice; if you destroy the >space, you destroy the event. If I destroyed the space, they'd just buy another large tract of redwood forest and post armed guard around the perimeter. Gee, if EVERYONE had full participation on policy in this country - I don't think I'd object... >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." could you elaborate on this? > 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. Could it possibly be that women's space is PERMITTED simply because the authorities (e.g, the gentlemen at the grove) trust that the women won't be making decisions that affect THEM? (after all, the Michigan Women's Music fest. is NOT threatening - hey, it's above all a capitalist venture!) Elissa Feit (feit@cs.buffalo.edu // {rutgers,uunet}!cs.buffalo.edu!feit) We're on the road and we're gunning for the Buddha. We know his name and he mustn't get away -- Shriekback
dhw@iti.org (David H. West) (11/30/90)
[The following is quoted without permission from the lead story of The
Detroit News and Free Press, Sunday Nov. 18, 1990, top of page 1; the
headline is "Black Male Classes: Step Forward or Back?". Underneath
are two equally prominent follow-ons by different writers; the first
few paragraphs of the right-hand one, by Richard Willing, are as
follows:]
BALTIMORE - The first thing Dontaye Carter noticed about his new third-
grade class was who wasn't there: girls.
The second thing was who was there: a tall black former college
basketball player named Richard Boynton, the teacher of the all-male
class.
"Mr Boynton, he makes you want to do the work, so you just do it and
you like it," said 8-year-old Dontaye.
"You do it better because there aren't no girls around to make you
act silly. It's fun to come to school now."
[The lengthy next paragraph contains the phrase "removing classroom
distractions like girls", this time explicitly attributed to
"administrators", as reported opinion, not as a verbatim quote. The
left-hand follow-on to the headline is by Ron Russell, and begins by
describing a projected Detroit school which would implement these
ideas; the first four paragraphs discuss the intended positive effect
on the self-image of young black male students (only); the 5th and 6th
paragraphs are as follows:]
Planning for the male-oriented academy, approved by the school board
in June, has continued despite concern in the state Department of
Education about a federal ban on sex-segregated schools.
Detroit officials hope to avoid a legal challenge by opening
enrollment to all students - while still designing the program primarily
for black males.
----end of quotes from The Detroit News and Free Press-----
Do those soc.feminism readers who support womanspace see the above as
a supportable instance of boyspace?
-David West dhw@iti.orggazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (11/30/90)
In article <47348@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> (Elissa Feit) writes: >Could it possibly be that women's space is PERMITTED simply because >the authorities (e.g, the gentlemen at the grove) trust that the women >won't be making decisions that affect THEM? You got half of that right. The Old-Boys realize that womyn-only space can't (in most cases) hurt *them*. They also realize that womyn-only space will give them a good excuse for discrimination against women, and it will help to create hostility between womyn and non-Old-Boys. (Have you ever heard about "Divide and Conquer"?) But there is another half. If all this womyn-only space is so unimportant then why womyn fight for it so hard? The point is that womyn-only spaces help them to create a power base for discrimination against non-Old-Boys, a preferred target by the feminists...
smann@ihlpa.att.com (Sherry Mann) (12/01/90)
In article <1990Nov26.050132.24561@iti.org>, dhw@iti.org (David H. West) writes: > > Planning for the male-oriented academy, approved by the school board > in June, has continued despite concern in the state Department of > Education about a federal ban on sex-segregated schools. > > Detroit officials hope to avoid a legal challenge by opening > enrollment to all students - while still designing the program primarily > for black males. > > ----end of quotes from The Detroit News and Free Press----- > > Do those soc.feminism readers who support womanspace see the above as > a supportable instance of boyspace? I for one, and based on the information provided and what I have heard of such plans, do. I think two things especially need to be considered, and probably tracked: The need for such segregation (i.e., a problem that would be solved by such a temporary program); and the quality of education of those in and outside of the program. In other words, where it is shown that a definable group of children have a problem not experienced by their classmates, if a program such as that described would seem to help that group of children get the same educational benefits as their classmates, then I'm all for it. I would hope that the education of neither those in or those out of the program would suffer as a result of the program. I would also hope that such a program would not become institutionalized: that as progress was made, perhaps new educational methods would be discovered, or acknowledged, which could be integrated into the classroom and reach those not being reached now. Also, that those in and out of the program would be phased back together as the students' grades improved and as the teachers learned these methods. I think most of all, these children are not failing, they are being failed. Just as schools often give girls short-shrift, minority students are also - in this case boys. To put children in environments where they can learn - as children want to do until taught otherwise, is what education is all about. I think that such a plan carries with it dangers that must be guarded against, but if it is allowed to grow and evolve with the changes it hopefully will bring about, it has a good chance of working. -- Sammy=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= The enemy of women...is not men, just as the enemy of blacks is not whites. The enemy is "the tyranny of the dull mind." Carol S. Pearson, _The Hero Within_ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
greg@uts.amdahl.com (Greg Bullough) (12/01/90)
In article <1990Nov26.050132.24561@iti.org> dhw@iti.org (David H. West) writes: > > BALTIMORE - The first thing Dontaye Carter noticed about his new third- > grade class was who wasn't there: girls. > > "You do it better because there aren't no girls around to make you > act silly. It's fun to come to school now." Unfortunately, third-graders' opinions about what constitutes an appropriate education environment are not necessarily accurate. Young Master Carter clearly has yet to understand that it isn't the girls who "make you act silly," but rather, the fact that he hasn't yet learned to function effectively in a mixed-gender environment. In my opinion, the all-male classroom will only reinforce the problem and (perhaps permanently) delay its resolution. On the other hand, a certain period of removal of distractions may permit a developing mind to direct itself away from distractions. Thus, Master Carter may return to a co-educational environment better able to cope. I would hope that such would be part of the plan. >[The lengthy next paragraph contains the phrase "removing classroom >distractions like girls", this time explicitly attributed to >"administrators", as reported opinion, not as a verbatim quote. I believe that the same statement could probably be made in complementary fashion. For all young people, the presence of the opposite gender can be a distraction. It's apparent, though, that the school system in question is focusing on the particular problem of young black males not achieving their potential--- ---perhaps because they have that particular problem. One of the good things about modern education is that there is less "Johnny and Joey don't have problem X, so why should we provide help for Jimmy who does?" and more focus on giving every child in the system what they need to achieve educational success. Thus I don't believe that the intellectual foundation behind the comment was sexist. >Do those soc.feminism readers who support womanspace see the above as >a supportable instance of boyspace? Not if it means because the boys themselves "want" it. Call me old- fashioned, but I believe that education is not a democratic process, as regards the curriculum, environment, and standards. I believe that educated people, not students, ought to make decisions about how best to turn students into educated people. Seems to me that the decision of whether to provide single-sex classrooms needs to be based on a balanced view of what will best result in, after 12 years, the achievement of goals in both effective and affective education. Greg
jan@orc.olivetti.com (Jan Parcel) (12/05/90)
In article <caiU028=efU801@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> greg@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Greg Bullough) writes: >In article <1990Nov26.050132.24561@iti.org> dhw@iti.org (David H. West) writes: >>Do those soc.feminism readers who support womanspace see the above as >>a supportable instance of boyspace? >Seems to me that the decision of whether to provide single-sex >classrooms needs to be based on a balanced view of what will best >result in, after 12 years, the achievement of goals in both >effective and affective education. > >Greg I have read some articles in soc.men about how early education has become a virtual matriarchy, and I have found my friend with sons, as well as myself with a younger daughter who is developing more like a boy re: educaion (this includes neurological stuff like large motor first or small motor first) have a lot of trouble with a system that prizes "cute", and passive, agreeable, people. I think a lot of elementary school teachers are very devoted but love kids too much, i.e. they have an investment in the kids as kids but not as individuals. More male teachers, and more Montessori-style or Piaget-oriented education, would be a good answer. If there is a shortage of such male teachers, I can see giving them to active, non-conforming boys first, but I would like to see 2 things re: this. 1. Try to get team-teaching with men and women in all classrooms some day, and 2. In the meantime, it is very important that these boy-oriented classrooms are accepting of these kids' activity levels but DON'T perpetuate the old stereotypes. In other words, it alarms me that the administration is blaming the presence of girls as a distraction for the problem -- this is a flag that they are thinking in old, sexist ways, and may create sexist boys out of this environment. The truth is that the system needs to accomodate the needs of active kids, and of kids who develop myelination (sp??) later than average (which is generally true of boys), and not require them to compete with cute little girls in a passivity contest. This is not the same as freedom from girls, it is freedom from an environment where most girls are selected for, which is not the girls' fault. ( I am coming to the conclusion that the system selects for female traits in early elementary school, and for male traits in math, science, etc. in high school. All this has to change.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ jan@orc.olivetti.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mysti@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Bookhouse Girl) (01/02/91)
In article <1990Nov30.021256.4293@cbnewsd.att.com> smann@ihlpa.att.com (Sherry Mann) writes: >In article <1990Nov26.050132.24561@iti.org>, dhw@iti.org (David H. West) writes: >> Detroit officials hope to avoid a legal challenge by opening >> enrollment to all students - while still designing the program primarily >> for black males. >> Do those soc.feminism readers who support womanspace see the above as >> a supportable instance of boyspace? >I for one, and based on the information provided and what I have heard of >such plans, do. Students with special needs in california are often given periods within the day to meet together and learn in a safe environment, but at least when I attended school it was forbidden to segregate all day long, as it were. How can women, or men, or black men, etc., discover what they are all about aside from the external qualities associated with their stereotyped label if they are kept grouped along those lines? If I think no man can bar me from any gathering in particular, as difficult as it may be, I must not bar that man from any gathering in particular. At UCSanta Cruz all groups (used to be?) required to have open admission policies. How can anything else be morally defensible? I keep seeing the argument that women "need" to have a space of their own to get power. It doesn't work that way. We (women) need to learn to change *OUR* behavior in the context of the whole world, not just a safe and unchallenging subset of it. Men's behavior will follow. I've seen it happen that way. Otherwise we are unavoidably reinforcing the barriers. And it is the barriers we should fight, not the people behind them, IMHO. Mysti
gcf@mydog.uucp (Gordon Fitch) (01/04/91)
One of the important elements of segregation which no one seems to be talking about (or which I missed; on Usenet, you never know) is the issue of power. It matters whether those who seek to gather in groups of their own kind have status and power in the society in which they live, or not. If they do not, and if their society is competitive, as ours is, and if they are likely to be judged by their membership in the group, as is the case in our society, then they are effectively under continuous attack and need some kind of space in which to breathe, as it were, and also meet others who are being subjected to the same kind of attack to consider what they might do in the way of common self-defense. If, on the other hand, they are like the people who gather at Bohemian Grove, their exclusiveness has quite another meaning. It is a way of celebrating and maintaining their success in attacking and dominating others, a way which mimics the way they actually operate in the world. The problem is not men, or women, or blacks, or Tasmanians, gathering in groups by themselves; the problem is the structure which divided them into these categories and set them against one another in the first place. -- Gordon | gcf@mydog.uucp
turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) (01/04/91)
----- In article <19910102.1@mydog.uucp> gcf@mydog.uucp (Gordon Fitch) writes: > One of the important elements of segregation which no one seems to be > talking about (or which I missed; on Usenet, you never know) is the > issue of power. It matters whether those who seek to gather in groups > of their own kind have status and power in the society in which they > live, or not. If they do not, and if their society is competitive, as > ours is, and if they are likely to be judged by their membership in > the group, as is the case in our society, then they are effectively > under continuous attack and need some kind of space in which to > breathe, as it were, and also meet others who are being subjected to > the same kind of attack to consider what they might do in the way of > common self-defense. > > If, on the other hand, they are like the people who gather at Bohemian > Grove, their exclusiveness has quite another meaning. ... As with many threads discussing the rightness or wrongness of particular acts, it has become unclear in this one whether we are discussing what we should applaud and condemn, how we should make rules in various private institutions, or what we should legislate. Hopefully, everyone can recognize the difference in purpose between the Bohemian Grove and a rape victim's support group, and the ethical import of this. Things are not so clear when one discusses what we should legislate. Currently, whether it is legal to exclude a particular class of people from a group depends in part on the group's purpose and nature. This distinction is narrow: if the group's nature and purpose make it essentially a part of a particular kind of business, financial, or educational organization for which discrimination is actionable, then the group's discrimination is also actionable. Those who think there is no danger in having the state concern itself with the purpose of a group before deciding the legality of its activities are either overly optimistic or naive. It is very prudent to keep such distinctions in law definite and narrow. Mr Fitch is certainly right that whether exclusion is good or bad can depend on whether the group's members are the powerful in society or those without power. But I would argue that this is a distinction that we never want to write into law. It is a very dangerous precedent to have one law for the powerful, and another for the less powerful. Such distinctions have always worked to the benefit of those in power, and regardless of the motives in creating such distinctions, I suspect they will always be bent toward that end. Getting rid of such distinctions in the law was a great advance for the common people. It removed -- in theory, if not in practice -- one tool that the powerful have frequently used to maintain their power. Russell
turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) (01/07/91)
[Our system crashed when I first posted this. Apologies if some of you (or all of you) see this more than once. --CLT] ----- In article <19910102.1@mydog.uucp> gcf@mydog.uucp (Gordon Fitch) writes: > One of the important elements of segregation which no one seems to be > talking about (or which I missed; on Usenet, you never know) is the > issue of power. It matters whether those who seek to gather in groups > of their own kind have status and power in the society in which they > live, or not. If they do not, and if their society is competitive, as > ours is, and if they are likely to be judged by their membership in > the group, as is the case in our society, then they are effectively > under continuous attack and need some kind of space in which to > breathe, as it were, and also meet others who are being subjected to > the same kind of attack to consider what they might do in the way of > common self-defense. > > If, on the other hand, they are like the people who gather at Bohemian > Grove, their exclusiveness has quite another meaning. ... As with many threads discussing the rightness or wrongness of particular acts, it has become unclear in this one whether we are discussing what we should applaud and condemn, how we should make rules in various private institutions, or what we should legislate. Hopefully, everyone can recognize the difference in purpose between the Bohemian Grove and a rape victim's support group, and the ethical import of this. Things are not so clear when one discusses what we should legislate. Currently, whether it is legal to exclude a particular class of people from a group depends in part on the group's purpose and nature. This distinction is narrow: if the group's nature and purpose make it essentially a part of a particular kind of business, financial, or educational organization for which discrimination is actionable, then the group's discrimination is also actionable. Those who think there is no danger in having the state concern itself with the purpose of a group before deciding the legality of its activities are either overly optimistic or naive. It is very prudent to keep such distinctions in law definite and narrow. Mr Fitch is certainly right that whether exclusion is good or bad can depend on whether the group's members are the powerful in society or those without power. But I would argue that this is a distinction that we never want to write into law. It is a very dangerous precedent to have one law for the powerful, and another for the less powerful. Such distinctions have always worked to the benefit of those in power, and regardless of the motives in creating such distinctions, I suspect they will always be bent toward that end. Getting rid of such distinctions in the law was a great advance for the common people. It removed -- in theory, if not in practice -- one tool that the powerful have frequently used to maintain their power. Russell
gcf@mydog.uucp (Gordon Fitch) (01/07/91)
----- In article <19910102.1@mydog.uucp> gcf@mydog.uucp (Gordon Fitch) writes: > One of the important elements of segregation which no one seems to be > talking about (or which I missed; on Usenet, you never know) is the > issue of power. It matters whether those who seek to gather in groups > of their own kind have status and power in the society in which they > live, or not. ... turpin@cs.ut xas.EDU (Russell Turpin): | As with many threads discussing the rightness or wrongness of | particular acts, it has become unclear in this one whether we are | discussing what we should applaud and condemn, how we should make | rules in various private institutions, or what we should legislate. | ... | Things are not so clear when one discusses what we should legislate. | Currently, whether it is legal to exclude a particular class of people | from a group depends in part on the group's purpose and nature. This | distinction is narrow: if the group's nature and purpose make it | essentially a part of a particular kind of business, financial, or | educational organization for which discrimination is actionable, then | the group's discrimination is also actionable. | | Those who think there is no danger in having the state concern itself | with the purpose of a group before deciding the legality of its | activities are either overly optimistic or naive. It is very prudent | to keep such distinctions in law definite and narrow. | ... It is a very dangerous | precedent to have one law for the powerful, and another for the less | powerful. Such distinctions have always worked to the benefit of | those in power, and regardless of the motives in creating such | distinctions, I suspect they will always be bent toward that end. | .... I was originally speaking to ethical argument ("If _they_ can have one, why can't _I_ have one?") which is how most of the argument had been cast thus far. However, gatherings like Bohemian Grove had been introduced. Another good example are certain clubs in New York where extensive business and political dealings are conducted, and which used to exclude women, and were brought under various forms of official pressure. Before we can take a position on Bohemian Grove and the like, we have to ask what our goals are. If our goal is merely to populate Bohemian Grove with a more representative sampling of manipulators and dominators, possibly legal action will work, but I have no interest in it. The coercive methods involved in inserting the desired tokens would simply be a reflection of, and submission to, the authoritarianism already implicit in the goal. [1] If, on the other hand, our goal is to get rid of authoritarian- ism -- which is a feminist issue if we believe those feminists who identify authoritarianism with patriarchy -- then the solution to the problem of such gatherings as Bohemian Grove lies not in improving the population statistics of the gatherings, but removing ourselves from the authority of the participants, at which point the statistics will become irrelevant. A development of this point, however, will go off into general political theory, and is likely get me in trouble with our moderators. -- [1] I might point out, though, that membership in organizations that discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or sex, has become political poison for those who run for office. Only freedom of speech and press is necessary to expose the identity of these individuals, and equal access to the ballot to punish them. The boycott is available to discipline private businesses.