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: 28 Dec 92 00:49:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.120834.2638@panix.com>, mara@panix.COM (Mara Chibnik) writes:
>The issue is how it can be that women-only groups might be okay but
>men-only groups aren't.

The boy scouts are a male-only group. Are they acceptible or are they
unacceptible?

>mfterman@phoenix.princeton.EDU (Mutant for Hire) writes:
> >You forgot the Boy Scouts. :)

>No, I didn't forget them.  I was talking about institutions of
>unquestionable established power.  That is the whole issue.  And
>that is why your comments are vacuous:

Um. I was trying to make a joke there. That's generally why I put
smileys behind such comments. But since its been dragged in....

Since you haven't objected to this male-only group, it becomes a
little more clear that you object to groups where the members
wield power and are only men. Since teenaged males don't apparently
wield all that much power, having a group exclusively for them is
fine. Any restrictive group is fine so long as all the members are
harmless.

I take the more general view that any restrictive group that wields
the powers of its membership to the detriment of non-members is a
bad thing. What I am uncertain about is proving it in any given case
and what can be done about it in any case, as I explain below. By
getting rid of these social clubs, the problem won't go away, or
even be damaged in the least.

I am extremely certain that as long as a double standard is applied
to exclusive gender groups, that male-only groups are looked at as
wrong while female-only groups are looked at as good, there will be
a lot of resentment on the male half of the species which is going
to be damaging in the long run.

> >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?

>It happens, and it is acceptable when it looks to most of the world
>as though the group in question isn't likely to become a back-stage
>power base.

Okay, I'll bite the bullet and ask the million dollar question: How do
you judge when a group has become a back-stage power base? By all of
its members being rich or having influential positions? Would it be
better to state that all rich and powerful people be banned from
joining social groups that place any restrictions on their membership?

Additionally, destroying the clubs is not going to destroy such
networking, all its going to do is drive it to the unofficial groups.
There have been invite lists circulating in various circles that
people have killed to get on. So you break up a male-only club that
has been networking to the detriment of women. Now those guys go off
to a cabin every now and then and party and continue to make deals
just like they used to. How has the situation improved?


--
    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.