From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Is feminism a quest for revenge? was (Re: Winning by Violation)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 02:51:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na

In article <1992Aug25.145137.19028@geovision.gvc.com> johnh@geovision.gvc.com (John Hayman) writes:
>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.

I can accept that. Can you accept that both attitudes exist?
 
>>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).

Consider carefully what you say. By similiar logic, one could claim (with
as much evidence), that since men have a unique perspective, that a
symposium of (pick any branch of math) could reasonable be closed to men.
Note that presence or lack of a "unique perspective" has naught to do with
the charge of sexism. 
 
>Man that was a big limb I climbed onto.

Keep in mind also that any attempt to justify fe(male) -only- sexism
applies equally to sexism of the other stripe. There is no non-sexist
was to justift male only or female only sexism.
 
>>>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 report and the reply were both printed in _Science_, the journal of
the AAAS, to which I suscribe. As it is published weekly, I cannot keep
all the back issues.
 
>The moderator thought it was a non-issue, why was that?

No tha Chairman of the meeting avoided the issue. Is this not a politically
expediant was to handle problems? Give an answer, but do not address the
issue. 
 
>>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.

If it were true that women only were discriminated against, and men were 
not, this might be worth noting. Our present situation is a matter of
custom. Our customs need to be changed, -not- our laws.

>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.  

I do not know is this is necessarily true, perhaps yelling loudly and
threatining lawsuits is sufficient. I do believe it must be true -some-
of the time, I just have a problem with accepting that this is always
the case.

>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 :-).

If this is done by generating an anti-male bias, then we have exchanged
one wrong for another. And it is absolutely, positively uneccessary, and
just as wrong. It also would violate -all- discrimination laws, so it
would be illegal as well. Fixing this in law is not an answer, IMHO, it
will be the start of a war of the sexes.
 
>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.  

In your opinion, I do not agree with your assessment.

>                                           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.  

Again I will accept that this is your opinion, and I do not agree. 
 
>[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.

The problem here is that the feminist lawyers have more or less defined
"sexual harrasment" as anything which would bother any woman. There are
-no- objective standards of any sort, all standards are preceptual, and
the males preceptions do not count.
 
>>>: If sexism is the problem, then it cannot also be the answer.
>
>No truer words spoken (or in this case written).

Well, at least everyone has agreed to this. :^)
 
>>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.

I am working for a change, but I do not want the change to be a reversal
of sexism drafted into law. 
 
>Be thankful that attacks on you (by virtue of being male) are not violent,

Oddly enough, you are making assumptions here.
 
>>>: 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
>jphyaman@descartes.waterloo.edu |

Rich

payner@netcom.com




Newsgroups: alt.feminism