From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Winning by Violation (was: new group?)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 02:28:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <MUFFY.92Aug25143703@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <n7=n#8h.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Aug24152947@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>In article <h1=ngq.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>[various generalizations about women, to which I respond that I do not
>fit those generalizations.]

Sorry if you got the impression that I was extending my observations into
generalizations, that was not my intent. I have offered only my observations,
and as my personal observations.
 
>I should point out, by the way, that when I say that I don't hold those
>views, I realize that that does not mean that it is not true that many
>women hold those views.  However, *I* know many women who do *not* hold
>those views, including me, and that is what I wanted to say.  Onward...

Understood, onward ho!
 
>>[...] As I posted in another post, in general, my 
>>observation is that women are as sexist as men, not more. Not less, but
>>in general, not superior.
>
>Well, is this really a surprise?  I mean, people are people, and
>oppression does not make you any smarter, just more unhappy.  We are
>rasied in a society that tends to try to put one group above another, so
>we *all* learn to do that.

Well, it does seem that society, in it's wisdom, gives women the high
moral ground in this regard. And I have been unable on several occasions
to point out to a women when she has made a sexist comment. There seems
to be a well rooted belief that sexism is something men do, period. 

>>>Again. I do see some things wrong with all-female organizations.  I also
>>>see valid reasons for some of them.
>>If, and I stress the -if-, sexism is "WRONG", then there can be no valid
>>reason for sexist orginizations. My impression is that most "valid" reasons
>>are more a matter of convienience.
>
>Well, I agree that if sexism is wrong then any sexist organization is
>also wrong.  However, you have not shown that ALL all-female or all-male
>organizations are sexist.  You have to do this before you can claim that
>they are wrong, if your premise is that sexism is wrong.

If sexism means to differentiate based wholly upon the sex, then I do not
understand what you are saying. And really, I think that I do not. It is
a matter of definition, is it not? To admit of exclude because of the sex 
of an applicant is the complete definition of a sexist orginization
as far as I can see. Other considerations have nothing to do with this
label.
 
>As far as reasons, one that I personally find convincing is the fear of
>men that some women who have been raped have.  

I can see where this would be a valid reason. For the record, I do not
see anything inherently wrong in such orginizations. But I do perceive
a bias that male only orginizations are wrong. And there seems to be no
corresponding bias about female only orginizations.

>                                                     I think they they should
>have a place to go to be helped where there are no men.  However, I also
>think that there should be equivalent facilities for men.  

Given the current political climate, this would seem unlikely.

>                                                            Which brings
>up an interesting question, since I don't know much about rape of men
>and whether they have similar needs or fears - do men feel that they
>need a men-only rape counselling facility?  Or would that actually be a
>negative?

This I cannot answer. But I suspect that admitting such a thing would be
a problem. Another observation, please do not take these the wrong way,
is that when many women have problems with a man, they get mad at -all- men.
I have not seen a parallel situation in men when they have problems with
a woman. I am not sure that there is a parallel need.
 
>>Nice ta meet ya Muffy. Seriously.
>
>*smile*...thanks...nice to meet you, too.

I've enjoyed our conversation. :^)
>
>Muffy
>
>Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism