From: oispeggy@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Gender Differences (was Re: masonic morals & dogma)
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:58:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr16.164906.2681@PA.dec.com>, dantonio@flashy.tay2.dec.com writes...
> 
>In article <1992Apr16.011736.23559@acsu.buffalo.edu>, oispeggy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown) writes:
>|>>>PS:  I'm not entirely against all male organizations.  Didn't choke when
>|>>>     the rationale was "so men can concentrate rather than being sexually
>|>>>     distracted," though I still have doubts about this too.
> 
>And how do you feel about all-women organisations?

Same way.  Note entirely against them.  Don't belong to any.

>|>Personally, I do not feel like I'm missing out on anything.  Wouldn't join 
>|>even if I could.  Just don't care for sexist organizations.  Can't imagine 
>|>joining the OES (womans' branch) where a man is charged with advising them.
> 
>And if a woman was charged with advising them?

I would find that less patronising.

>|>>And I do think the real
>|>>reason for all-male lodges goes back to the desire for social solidarity
>|>>among hunters.  
>|>
>|>"Social solidarity among hunter" sounds like getting away from the women to 
>|>me.  As mentioned in my PS: (above) I'm not really against this.  But do 
>|>believe that those who put a premium on "social solidarity among hunters" are 
>|>too hung-up on sex-roles and body types.  If they paid less attention to 
>|>gender it wouldn't bother them if women were present.   (Women can hunt too.)
> 
>I'm currently reading "You Just Don't Understand" by Dr. Tannen (I
>forget the first name). She points out that there are MAJOR
>differences in how men and women communicate and how they see
>relationships. Failure to understand these differences usually leads
>to arguments and frustration when trying to do "cross-cultural
>communication" (as she puts it). My personal guess for the tendency
>toward single-gender groups has more to do with ease of communication
>and comfort than hunting and inability to have babies.
>

I've heard about this theory.  There's an amusing essay, "He Said She Said," 
that gets into this too.  Maybe its a valid theory, maybe not.  Not my area 
of expertise and I don't care how it works anyway.  For what its worth, my 
personal experience does not support this theory.  For me, "ease of 
communication," does not correlate with gender at all.  Maybe because people I
usually choose to communicate with can do so on more than one level.

>|>Ideally mixed groups should be as effective as single-sex groups.  But human 
>|>nature being what it is, things often don't work out that way.  A group of 
>|>integrated masons would probably end up like my summer mixed softball team - 
>|>lots of little romances, affairs, squabbles, break-ups, jealousy, hurt 
>|>feelings, taking sides, people quitting, etc...  This is not that bad, for a 
>|>team that's interested in fun not winning.  Doesn't bother the Bacchannals
>|>since we have a long and proud history of coming in last in the league.  
>|>Might bother the Masons.
> 
>I think this has more to do with how our culture views sex and
>relationships that might lead to sex, than anything else. If I want a
>social club, thats one thing. If I want a group I have (mostly :-)
>total trust in for magickal work, then the ease of communication and
>shared experiences is paramount. The Masons may deal with this by
>having single-gender groups (but, as Shava has pointed out, this
>probably isn't the real reason). I deal with it by learning how to
>communicate and finding folks I trust. Regardless of gender.

I suspect the ideal does not always hold up here.

>|>>And perhaps to compensate for their inability to bear
>|>>children.
> 
>Yea, right...And why do women get together?

Wait a minute.  *John* posted the "inability to bear children comment," not 
me.  Ask him why women get together.

I don't think men (in general) are the least bit concerned about their 
inability to bear children.  Of course, you could open the can of worms about 
bearing children is the ultimate creative act and men can't do it so they did 
away with matriarchal societies and created patriarchies and then turned 
themselves into priest so they could *give birth* at a higher level - the 
spiritual not the physical, so they outdid women anyway...and this change is 
depicted in the treatment of the females goddesses from as Macha, through 
Brigit and Mary....blah blah blah....But I think this is a lot of 
oversimplified nonsense (so don't start misquoting me) so you'll have 
to beat this dead horse with someone else's help. 

 >|>>John A. Johnson
>|>>[breaking an implicit alt.magick rule by cross-posting to alt.pagan]
>|>- Peggy -
> 
>DDA
>[deleting the cross-posting to alt.pagan]
>--
>dantonio@magick.tay2.dec.com -or- dantonio@sword1.enet.dec.com
>  I've tried to dance with what life had to hand me
>    My partner's been pleasure, my partner's been pain
>				-Stevie Nicks

- Peggy -

                Get some National Geographic films on baboons.  They will
                teach you everything you wanted to know about human
                interactions.   
                                  - Josh