From: johnh@geovision.gvc.com (John Hayman)
Subject: Re: Is feminism a quest for revenge? was (Re: Winning by Violation) 
Organization: GeoVision Systems Incorporated
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:51:37 GMT

In article <!_an8a.payner@netcom.com> Rich Payne (payner@netcom.com) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.230721.21346@colorado.edu> devin@frodo.Colorado.EDU (Sonja Orlavski) writes:
>>Rich Payne (payner@netcom.com) wrote:
>RP>: And I also observe that many women
>RP>: consider an all male club/whatever a personal affront to all females
>RP>: everywhere, but see nothing at all wrong with female only orginizations.
>RP>
>SO>Again, I find this extremely hard to believe.  Heresay is not valid
>SO>evidence in a court of law, and outside that is only as credible as the
>SO>witness.

For the record, I have found very no women who find all male clubs an
affront to all females.  I have however found males who are offended by
all-female clubs.

>RP>: A recent meetings of anthropologists was -closed- to men. In the chairwomans
>RP>: response printed in _Science_, she avoided the issue that this was sexist
>RP>: and unnecessary completely, instead giving her reasons.

I am going out on a limb here (hopefully I won't regret this!!).  I have no
idea what was being discussed at this meeting, other than the fact that the
discussion probably had something to do with Anthropology.  There are many
reasons to have a discussion group made of people with a given perspective.
Would you be as offended by "Macintosh owners discussing office technology?"
While it may be politically incorrect to say this, often women have a unique
viewpoint to men, based on the environment they were brought up in.  To
include men could (<- notice could) skew the discussion to a different
level.  Perhaps the discussions were more relaxed with one sex
participating.  I am assuming that co-ed discussions happen often enough to
keep true sexism from occuring (read: ultimately segregation is discouraged).

Man that was a big limb I climbed onto.

>>Um, stating reasons is addressing the issue that it's unnecessary. It's 
>>possible that stating her reasons also addressed the issue of the sexism.  
>>I don't know. I didn't see them.
>
>Considering that this was -all- I was looking for when reading her response,

Two thoughts.  One: Devin/Sonja seems to be in the same position as me,
drawing an opinion upon we know nothing about.  Two: the newspaper and
yourself seemed to require an explicit explanation.  I sense that some bias
has creeped in between the focus of the meeting, and the reporting of the
event to the Net type people.  Details are missing, that we could only get
by being at, or knowing the people at the meeting.  

The moderator thought it was a non-issue, why was that?

>I am pretty sure that I would have found it. Rereading several times did
>not provide clarification. But if you can provide -any- reason why a
>scientific symposium should be closed to one sex, I suspect you will also
>have shown why the claimed bias toward females in CS and the physics
>fields is correct and acceptable. 

Here's the trap you set, that I am now willingly falling into.  
Facts:
a)  Women (in general) are discriminated against in the environment they
grow up in, to avoid mathematical type fields.  I think most people will
reluctantly agree that this is the case.
b)  Theory is, that women who can survive that discrimination must
necessarily be better than a man with equivalent experience who had no
bias to overcome.  Obviously, I am being a little blunt here, and
over-generalizing a teensy bit.  
c)  A *big* deterrent to women in male-dominated fields (I *HATE* that term,
because it reinforces the concept male-job/female-job...oh well) is that they
have no role models.  If you don't see female garbagemen, you never think
that that is a role you could take.  Theory is that by giving a little
preference to females, people will see that women are more than capable of
participating in those jobs.  Voila, anti-female bias ends forever :-).

Those are the reasons, and while they may have *some* flaws, the underlying
rationale is reasonably sound.

>                                   If the symposium has been closed to
>females, there would have been lawyers and reporters swarming around
>the place, and a legal battle afterward.

No, I disagree.  You are being petty here.  Legal battles would only ensue
if the reason for excluding females was offensive.  I am going on the
presumption that there was a valid reason for having an all- female discussion
group or an all-male discussion group.  

[oops, deleted stuff about drafting gender specific harassment laws]
>These were the laws which were found unconstitutional as I recall. I will
>see if I can find a reference. But the very fact that such laws were 
>drafted by those who claim to be feminist lawyers is scary, and points
>to a certain direction by some segments of the feminist movement at least
>as bad as what they supposedly protest against. 

True, up until your last point.  There is nothing in this world as demeaning
or dehumanizing as sexual harassment.  I am not amazingly worried that the
laws were originally "sexist" I'll assume it was simply an oversight.  Good
to see our law making system has checks and balances!!!  I might even forgive 
the oversight (if I am in a good mood), because they were trying to be 
over-zealous in protecting an obviously disadvantaged group.  Fact of the
matter is, most reported sexual harrassment charges are against men.  This
may change in the future.

>>: If sexism is the problem, then it cannot also be the answer.

No truer words spoken (or in this case written).

>SO>Because in my experience, while most women are pissed off about the raging
>SO>sexism in our culture, and most would like to see men tolerate even a small
>SO>fraction of what women have to put up with, most of what I've heard has
>SO>been much more fair in practice.  Again, heresay, and as (un-)credible as
>SO>your statements.  But, you asked.
>
>My point exactly, the problem is -culture-, not men. But most women attack
>men in this issue. And I have been attacked for being passerby and as a
>guest by those why called themselves feminists.

Makes you appreciate in some small way what women have had to put up with
from a minority of men for a long time.  Women have been attacked by a
small segment of -soceity- simply because they are female.  Now, an even
smaller segment of -soceity- is attacking men simply because they are men.
My suggestion: do what women have done for years, grin and bear it, and 
work for change.  Don't misinterpret me here, two wrongs don't make a right.
Just acknowledge that the anti-male conspiracy isn't as big as you claim it
is.

Be thankful that attacks on you (by virtue of being male) are not violent,

>>: As for beliefs, what makes you think that your personal flavor of 
>>: reality is any more objective than mine or anyone elses? After all, if
>>: it's just what you believe, why bother discussing it? It seems that
>>: this is your response to my post.
>>
>>Never claimed that my personal flavor of reality is more objective than yours.
>>Only you stated something of the sort.  

Dammit, my flavour of reality is more objective than all of yours combined
:-).  I realize I've left myself open for attack here, so be gentle.

Happy new year everyone,
--John
    *
-- 
John P. Hayman                  |
jhayman@geovision.gvc.com       | *** My Canada includes New Brunswick ***
jphyaman@descartes.waterloo.edu |

-- 
John P. Hayman                  |
jhayman@geovision.gvc.com       | *** My Canada includes New Brunswick ***
jphyaman@descartes.waterloo.edu |