From: dantonio@magick.tay2.dec.com (David D'Antonio)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Gender Differences (was Re: masonic morals & dogma)
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:49:06 GMT
Reply-To: dantonio@flashy.tay2.dec.com
Organization: None to speak of...


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?

|>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?

|>>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.

|>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.

|>>And perhaps to compensate for their inability to bear
|>>children.

Yea, right...And why do women get together?

|>>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
Newsgroups: alt.magick