From: rdh@veritas.COM (Robert Hartman)
Subject: Single-gender groups and alienation (was: gender differences)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: VERITAS Software
Date: 20 Aug 92 04:04:02 GMT

In article <2436@cronos.metaphor.com> falcao@felix.metaphor.COM (Ronnie Falcao) writes:
> <@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>> . . . . In every person's life perhaps especially at adolesence, but
>> also at other critical times, we need to be exclusively for some
>> short period, with those of our gender -- people who can "truly
>> understand" where we are and have been. Hence the need for safe
>> space to be a woman among women or a man among men.
>>
>> I do not think this will ever change.  . . .
>> Dano
>
>I disagree strongly with three notions put forth above:
>
>1) A person's most important characteristic is their gender.
>
>2) All people of the same gender "truly understand" each other.
>
>3) Anyone of your same gender is more sympathetic and safer
>	than anyone of another gender.
>
>Although this may be true in a culture where children are
>indoctrinated in distinct gender tracks and are incapable of
>original thought, it is hardly a universal truth.
>
>Even in my life, where most of my contemporaries were raised
>to conform to strong gender roles, I would be making a serious
>mistake to assume these things.

I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with both sides.
The fact is that we grow up in a culture that does have pronounced
gender roles, and one that, dispite its lionization of "success
stories," often proves hostile to original thought.

These things should not be so, but they are.  Coming together
at any level to discuss how to cope with these realities, let
alone change them, can be helpful.

On the other hand, it can definitely be a mistake to assume that
another person will understand my perspective because of a common
gender.  Nevertheless, within a single-gender group there is often a
commonality of shared experience that makes differences of opinion or
perspective easier to acknowlege and accept.  These are often
differences more of degree or reaction, than of fundamental
experience.

I've often thought that the "ritual" aspect of the men's movement is a
misguided attempt at a panacea for the emotional maladies besetting
men (that men would otherwise take out on women).  However, after
having participated in some men's activities, I must say that it can
be quite helpful not to have to explain how I feel, because most have
been able to relate from a basis of similar experience.  The reduced
overhead and potential for misunderstandings can make such gatherings
much more productive at bringing out issues that I'd previously felt
isolated over.  There's also much less impetus for the discussion to
degenerate into wranglings over whether or not something is a "valid"
issue or not.

>I can hardly imagine what it means to be a "woman among
>women" or a "man among men".  What is it like if there's
>no consensus about what it means to be a man or woman or
>if everyone else agrees that it means something that
>doesn't apply at all to you?

Something like this has happened in many a group I've been in,
especially in political groups.  Generally, there is so much
alienation that we've all internalized from a culture that conditions
our acceptance upon "performance," that unless this is spoken about
and acknowledged explicitly, it ends up getting projected onto some
unfortunate person within the group.  I see this in political
organizations all the time.  And it used to baffle me no end,
especially when I was cast in that terribly painful role.

Typically, the person targeted (by an unconscious selection process
that differs between groups but can be tracked if you watch for it),
is the person who is most inured to feeling alienated.  Thus, the
person who is in the greatest need of the group's support to break
free of internalized oppression can often be the one who takes up the
"odd person out" position, and who's internalized oppression is
therefore reinforced by their having been "selected" as the scapegoat.

Whenever I participate in a group, I try to identify and talk about
the ways in which alienation gets projected onto an individual who
feels differently or thinks differently.  I try to stand with the
person who registers dissatisfaction or dissent within a group.  We
can all learn from each other, and we all must if things are ever
going to get better.  (It is often amazing to see just how hard a
group works casting about another person to fill the "shadow" role
after the initial scapegoat receives this kind of support.  Try the
experiment yourself some time!)

We can advocate whatever political changes we like, but until we deal
honestly and forthrightly with the issue of alienation and
internalized oppression, anything we do can only alter the form that
it takes.  In a political group with a specific agenda, expressions of
dissent or dissatisfaction can appear to interfere with acheiving the
stated goals.  However, IMHO, in order for a group to be truly
progressive, rather than becoming just another reactionary front, it
must value its membership and attend to their emotional growth.  It
must help to free its own members from their internalized oppression,
rather than providing a mask or convenient scapegoat for it.
Otherwise, IMHO, the group exploits some or all of its members for the
convenience of others in the name of it's agenda.

I believe that issues of dealing with the universal sense of
alienation within our culture is a dynamic that must be resolved in
any group before genuine progress can be made on any other political
issues.

>People are amazingly unique.  Why keep trying to squeeze
>them into such narrow definitions?
>
>	- Ronnie

I don't quite see it like that.  The way I see it, people affiliate
based on common needs, views, or experiences.  There is nothing wrong
with that.

To me, what goes wrong with "single gender" or "single issue" groups
is when they fail to acknowledge the level of alienation that each
member brings into the group, and when they then manage to run off all
internal dissent, they lose their sense of balance.  Once that
happens, when there's no one in the group who will carry the
internalized alienation, that alienation is then projected outward,
onto some real or imagined "adversary." With little or no internal
feedback to the contrary, this projected shadow can loom large enough
to obscure the truth that those not sharing the common experience or
agenda are human beings after all, and can still be related to on that
basis.

To me, this has been the danger of gender-exclusivity within feminism,
and is reflected in the extremism of those like Dworkin on the
feminist side, as well as the extremism of those like Ferrell within
the men's movement.

-r

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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.