From: WALKER@bigvax.alfred.edu
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: >slamming Women's Bookstores
Date: 28 Dec 1992 07:57:25 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Steve Seidman writes:
>I have a bone to pick with a local women's bookstore,
>and I hope that my beef will have implications toward
>certain concepts that will apply to "gender-differences
>between men and women" in books and also net.discussions.
>
>There's a somewhat famous women's bookstore in Ithaca, NY.
>Besides carrying books on women's issues they also have many
>community activities such as poetry readings.
>
I think I know the place.  Since your beef is with all
such places I won't name the specific one.

>The other day I went into that women's bookstore with a friend.
>He happened to ask for a book that might have fit their
>collection profile.  The clerk got up from behind the counter
>of healing crystals and said:
>
>        We don't have that book.  We don't carry books
>        written by men.
>
I thought they were a lesbian bookstore.  Did the book fit 
that profile?  Yeah, I now, lots of the stuff they don't 
carry doesn't fit that profile.  But it might explain their 
lack of interest in men.

>I didn't get into a disussion with her about the store policy,
>but will list every counterargument to every possible reason
>for such a horrible store policy. (can't be sure I hit every
>point...but maybe someone will help in the followup-posts ;-)
>
>I don't care whether 99.5% (or even 100%) of their books are by
>women but I think that it is awful that they won't carry books
>by men as a matter of principle.  Here's why:
>
As owners of the store they are entitled to specialize in
anything they want.  I think it's a charming place and
their specialty makes it what it is.  

I know store that exclude worthwhile items simply because
the cost isn't exactly 99 cents.  They have advertised their 
specialty and are sticking with it.  I respect that.

You, of course, are free not to shop there if you so choose.  
I find this works well for me with regard to businesses that 
I find offensive.

>1) I think that the idea that a book by a man might contain a
>   man's essence that would be poisonous, contaminating, subversive or
>   infiltrating to women, no matter what's in the book is a horrible
>   way to think about the world.  I suspect that it's ideas like
>   these that had lead people to complain about too many men
>   on soc.feminism; and how the men express themselves differently etc. etc.
>
Did they say why they don't carry books by men?  It seems
that with this argument you are refuting beliefs that they
may or may not hold.  I thought they excluding books that
don't fit their interests simply because they were a
specialty shop.

>2) The idea that this bookstore wants to support women's writers,
>   and that men writers already have an infrastructure of support
>   through the publishing industry and other mainstream bookstores
>   is ridiculous.  It will do nothing but further shut out certain
>   male authors not in the mainstream who may fit the women's boostore's
>   collection profile.
>
No, it's not ridiculous.  I went there because the
mainstream bookstores didn't have the title I wanted and I
expected they would.  Specialty shops don't exclude anything
>from the mainstream.  They are where you go to buy things
that are already excluded from the mainstream.

>3) The idea that allowing in male authors will dilute the purchases
>   of books by female authors is nothing more than a perverse insult to
>   the female writers.
>
When I was there, all the shelves appeared to be full.  To 
include a man's work would mean excluding a woman's work.  
There are plenty of other bookstores that do carry books by men.

>4) Such a store policy may promote the idea of cutting oneself off
>   from a male-dominated world.  This can be dangerous.  I believe
>   that some women may benefit from seperation from men (for various
>   reasons that I won't go into).  I would hope that most of the time
>   this would be part of a healing process, and possibly not a permanent
>   lifestyle.  The store policy may promote the idea that seperation
>   will always be permanent, that bridges to men are always impossible,
>   and that men will never (in principle!) connect to women...even in books!
>
I don't think they are cutting themselves off from men.  I'm 
a man and I felt welcome there.  They didn't ask for my 
feminist ID card.

>5) Obviously the differences between men and women are due to some
>   combination of biology and social constructionism, and right now
>   it is impossible to make easy delineations between this combination;
>   but in the name of intellectual honesty I think that standards other
>   than sex/gender of author needs to be considered when reading a book,
>   net-posting or deciding whether a women's bookstore ought to make
>   certain books available to their patrons (or matrons ;-)
>
Yes, but the only standard that needs to be considered when 
stocking a store the whim of the proprieter.  The world 
won't end if you can't get a certain item in a certain store.  
Happens to me all the time, even shopping places like 
K-mart.  That's when I turn to specialty stores and then I 
wonder why they would have anything outside their specialty.

>6)  I haven't decided wether women's-only activities are always bad.
>   It may be appropriate in certain sports, and social and educational
>   environments.  But when it comes to the print media (whether books,
>   or net-postings) anything suggesting of "women's-only" will
>   always stick in my craw.
>
The store places no restrictions on who may read or write or
shop.  They only restrict where you can get books that don't
fit their specialty.  "Anywhere but here" is not very
restrictive. Now if they restricted who could shop there,
that would be another matter. 

>Steve Seidman
>seid@ee.cornell.edu

n+1) Here's another point which is closely related you your 
point 6.  The store's policy is reverse discrimination, and 
reverse discrimination is icky.  Reverse discrimination 
creates the impression that the goal is separate-but-equal 
rather than equality.  

I haven't decided whether any separate-but-equal activity is
always bad.  But I do assume that it will never be equal so
there has to be a very good reason before insisting on
separation.  But I respect reverse discrimination as a even
when I suffer for it. The world is already unequal.  We
already have separation that excludes women.  Minorities
won't be included in the mainstream until some of their
members prove themselves, and I see reverse discrimination
as useful tempory measure that gives them the chance to do
so. 

Jim Walker
WALKER@bigvax.alfred.edu or WALKER@ALFREDU.bitnet
The world is shades of gray, but we tend to see just black and white.


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.