From: mfterman@phoenix.princeton.EDU (Mutant for Hire)
Subject: Re: my two cents about on
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Reply-To: Mutant for Hire <mfterman@phoenix.princeton.EDU>
Organization: Mutant for Hire, Inc.
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:18:14 GMT

In article <1h8ucfINN9mp@agate.berkeley.edu>, mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik) writes:
>goid@zooid.guild.ORG (Will Steeves) writes:
> >Perhaps this was true of only men's groups in the past, but with the
> >growing power base in the women's movement, it seems that the same
> >suspicions can now also be drawn about women-only groups...

>I had in mind institutions like Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.
>The Century Club.  Assorted sports clubs.  Business and
>professional organizations (like Rotary International)
>that had explicit charters restricting membership to men.

You forgot the Boy Scouts. :)

The problem is, that any group with restrictive membership allows
social events where people can form connections and make deals that
cut off people outside of that gender.

It is worth pointing out that there are Organization/Society of/for
Women <insert professional class> designed for the betterment of women
in various professions that tend to be dominated by men. One may
argue quite reasonably that these groups are designed to help
women deal with the problems of being women in a field where their
gender is a detriment, but the real question is whether there is
any legal reason why a similar organization for men could not be
allowed without disallowing ones for women in a non-gender-biased
law?

Also, women talk about all these women-only groups that make them
feel safe and free to interact socially, but I also see other women
feeling good about breaking open some male-only social organization
such as one of the Princeton eating clubs. What if men want to have
a male-only space that they feel is safe from women?

>I would be most interested to see a comparable list of powerful
>institutions on local, regional, national and international levels
>that forbid access to men.

Your whole argument is based on the fact that women are less powerful
than men, hence women-only organizations can't do any of the things
that male-only organizations can do. Remembering that one should never
confuse virtue with lack of opportunity to sin, the question is as
women improve their status will this situation always be the case?

Also, if we are to have any pretense of equality under the law,
laws about exclusionary organizations have to be written in such
a form that distinct genders aren't written, we have to have some
sort of policy on single-gender groups. Which way should the law
fall, for or against them?

--
    Martin Terman, Mutant for Hire, Mean Ol' Top, Priest of Shub-Internet
    Disclaimer: Nobody else takes me seriously, why should you be the first?
mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu mfterman@pucc.bitnet terman@pupgga.princeton.edu
"Sig quotes are like bumper stickers, only without the same sense of relevance"

--
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
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.