NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/feminism/3416

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 5.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!darwin.sura.net!bogus.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!news.service.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: [e-mail] (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Women-Only / Men-Only Groups
Nntp-Posting-Host: alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 102
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:09:20 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Will Steeves) writes:
>
>[deleted]
>
>>Needless to say, my opinion is thus - If men-only organisations should
>>be required to admit women (and I believe that they should), then
>>women-only organisations should also be required to admit men.
>
>Why do so many people persist in doing this tit-for-tat thing, as if men
>are women ARE NOW completely equal, as if there are no differences that
>exist between them that must be worked out?

No women are not completely equal with men, but why should we demand
to be "more equal" in some areas?  Being able to have a women only
group while men are not allowed to have men only groups does nothing
to change views held by society about women.  In fact, it causes
resentment and hurts progress in other areas.  There is no
justification for any sort of discrimination, even in the "reverse"
sense, when one group is trying for equality.  One wrong (women barred
from groups) does not justify another (men barred from groups).  If we
want true equality, WE MUST SET A GOOD EXAMPLE.

>WOMEN ARE MEN ARE NOT EQUAL, THAT IS THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THIS
>NEWSGROUP.  Men's clubs are also things like the Senate and the House
>of Representatives, as well as every physics lab I've ever worked in.
>Women's clubs are things like my coven, and the group I wanted to go
>on a trip with (but ran out of the money for), and NOW, which used
>and still uses it's lobbying power to get me things that I need and
>am tired of pretty-please asking for.

I've worked in physics labs and there have been plenty of women.
California just elected two women to Congress.  While there may still
be more men in these places, I don't see how they can be called
men-only club.  Women are certainly not barred from joining.

>I've heard so many men in my classes scream bloody murder over the
>Society for Women Engineers.  "Well, *I* couldn't make a Society for
>MALE Engineers."  No, you already have them.  They are called IBM,
>Rockwell, Northrup, Aerospace, Edison, et. al.

Sorry, I've worked at Aerospace.  The gender balance was pretty close
to 50-50 in my department.  Ditto for JPL.

And what would be wrong with allowing men into SWE?  It wouldn't
change it into SM(en)E.  Any man that would want to join would
undoubtably be interested in helping more women get into engineering.
Why turn away supporters?!?


>Women's groups are used for a specific purpose, trying to find our
>feet in a world not designed for us.  If there are men's only events
>that help men to find out what they are despite all the negative junk
>they have to carry, why not?  But, just saying, "WELL THE WOMEN CAN
>HAVE ONE WHY CAN'T WE?" is the kind of logic I'd expect a balked 4
>year old to use.

No it's the kind of logic people use when confronted with someone
who wants to be "more equal".

I think we have two choices.  Allow women only and men only clubs OR
do not allow gender to be a membership factor.  If you really want to
bar men from certain groups you have to be prepared to allow them to
bar women from their groups.  Wanting to be able to join any men's
club but barring men from women's groups is, to use a tired cliche,
having your cake and eating it too.  It is trying to be "more equal".

I lean towards the second choice myself.  Look, people join clubs and
support groups that interest them.  You mentioned rape support groups.
Why bar men from that?  You will bar not the rapists, but the men who
are supportive or have experienced trauma themselves.  I don't feel
you should turn anyone away on the basis of gender, they may have some
very worthwile experiences to relate.  If you turn them away, you will
be turning away your supporters amoung men, not the stereotypical
"redneck Joe Blow".

I have received plenty of discrimination, (mostly high school) for
being the sole woman in men dominated fields (like playing the
trumpet.)  I have no wish for *anyone* to go through that, even men.
I mention the discrimination part so I can also say that despite that,
I don't feel the need for "safe" places.  I join groups that I'm
interested in and don't give a damn about the gender makeup. I'm
currently in a homebrewing club which is probably 80% male.  I go and
have a great time with good friends.  No one looks down on me for
being female nor do I get "hit upon".  (Any stereotypical images you
may have of homebrewers are completely false.  Think "wine snobs" but
substitute "beer").  I'm treated like a human being who happens to
have the same interests as the rest of the club members.  Conversely,
I have a friend in what was an all-female quilting club.  A man
recently joined and everyone talks about what he has brought to the
club in terms of different experiences.  He hasn't 'diminished' the
club or even changed its focus.  He's just a new member who has the
same interests as everyone else in the group.

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to [e-mail].
Questions and comments should be sent to [e-mail].  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.