Conference turris::womannotes-v3

I am absolutely sure we have extensive discussions on the use of FWO in
wommanotes. If Jody (or anyone else) can point to them, we could avoid a lot of
redundant ground.

Those discussions probably only marginally cover FWO parties or groups though.
	Mez

    Since these discussion groups are held in private homes, during
    non-working hours, and the books and snacks :-) are purchased with our
    own money, I don't see what difference it makes.  There is no law
    saying that people can't hold one sex only functions in their own homes
    is there?
    
    Lorna
    

    Of course, maybe eventually these book discussion groups will evolve
    into a FWO network where women plot to, and eventually do, take over
    all the most powerful management positions at DEC (and men won't have
    had a chance at the jobs because they weren't at the meetings!!!) :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    These are not, I am sure, all the topics that are pertinent to why/how
    women want to be with FWO groups/thoughts and what the reaction to the
    FWO situation can be, or FMO - for that matter.  But it's an 
    admirable attempt:
    
    womannotes-v1
    21 - from women only?
    362 - poll for women only please
    673 - fwo: women: what do WE want to do?
    848 - policy question:  fwo notes
    
    womannotes-v2
    349 - for <insert_segretation_key_here> only
    796 - safe space
    
    mennotes
    123 - a "space" for [wo]men only?
    212 - exclusive clubs
    
    
    -Jody
    

    
    If a meeting is restricted to, say, blacks only, is that racist?
    
    D.

SEXIST - Discrimination by members of one sex against the other, esp. by males
  against females, based on the assumption that one sex is superior.

For my money, I'd toss out the qualifying 'esp. by males ...' phrase.

Discrimination is one of those words which leads a double life.  I'd allow
as FWO events fall into this catagory if the meaning agreed to is as in 'taste
and discrimination' -- everyone discriminates with each and every choice they
make.

The FWO gathering as sexist fails, for me, on the assumption that one sex is
superior.  I indeed know women who believe in the superiority of women, and I 
have encountered them at FWO events [and work, and the market, and ...]; 
however, I do not believe that to be the underlying reason for single sex
gatherings.  One may prefer the company of women without attributing 
superiority to them.

Finally, and not mentioned in the definition, I believe intent is important.
In gathering to discuss a series of books, or to eat dinner, or canoe it is
unlikely that the intent is to de-bar men from participating in the same
activites.  Is the underlying intent to diminish or handicap men?  For some,
perhaps, for others -- like myself -- no.

  Annie

	Yesterday I received a notice for a DEC course entitled
	"Career Design for Men".  As long as something similar is
	available to women, I see nothing amiss with FMO / FWO - 
	especially if the course involves visualization or other
	techniques which might make a person feel uncomfortable in
	a mixed environment.

					clb
 

    
    I don't mind all Irish clubs, to celebrate heritage. I don't mind black
    clubs, I don't mind women's clubs. When the purpose becomes political,
    I start to mind.

    
    
    Having read all the previous replies it seems that most of the replies
    tried to define the gray areas of this issue and some have even fallen
    back on the tried and true "Well it isn't illegal is it?"
    If by sexism you mean the discrimination against human beings
    solely on the basis of sex then FWO events are sexist.
    
    My personal opinion is that events which exclude males or females
    on the basis of gender are sexist.
    
    My personal opinion is also that events which exclude males or females
    on the basis of racial heritage are racist.
    
    This issue does not seem gray at all to me.
    
          
    

    Harry,
    
    If they are sexist are they also wrong? Should women be prohibited
    from gathering with other women with no men present? Should men
    be prohibited from gathering with other men with no women present?
    How about blacks or asians or native americans? Is it okay to
    hold church services for only those who believe in that particular
    denomination?
    
    Bonnie

    I believe the Supreme Court's ruling on ""For Men Only" clubs said that
    if the gathering place was used for career advancements (ie. making
    contacts, establishing business ties) then it had to be open for both
    sexes.  So any single sex gathering is not necessarily descriminatory
    althuogh it may still be sexist.
    
    I'd say you have to be careful to not start drawing lines and say "this
    is sexist" "this is not"  If the court's ruling means anything, it
    doesn't really start to become detrimental until it becomes a way to
    exclude certain people from advancement based upon their sex/race/etc. 
    Arguably, exclusive country clubs can fall under that category because
    people make contacts there all the time.
    
    Women gathering on their own without inviting any men along is hardly
    sexist.  Even founding a women only club is not necessarily sexist. 
    People shouldn't be *that* paranoid about it!
    
    a few cents,
    
    daniel

	I would call single-sex gatherings sexist, because they do
	exclude people of the other gender.

	I would not necessarily say that such gatherings are "wrong."
	Wrong-ness comes in when the groups use these gatherings for
	advancement over the other sex.


	Personally, I think they're stupid, though, and I wouldn't attend
	one.  I value a man's opinion just as much as I value a woman's
	opinion.  And I don't think either opinions should be excluded.
	It's sort of the same reason I try to not write in the FWO notes
	in this conference, I'd rather carry on my discussions in the FGD
	ones....it feels more balanced.


	kathy

    re .14, Kathy, I've attended a few of the FWO book discussion groups
    and I take exception to your calling them "stupid."  I have enjoyed all
    of them tremendously, and think they were a great idea.  I often wonder
    why more women who read the conference haven't bothered to attend, but
    I assume most of them are just too busy with other activities.
    
    One thing I have noticed about these book discussion groups is that
    every woman who is present has expressed her viewpoints and opinions. 
    We have disagreed but we have never gotten angry over our
    disagreements, and no one has tried to convince others that their view
    is obviously wrong and that everyone should see it their way.  I have
    often imagined that if men, or a man, were present that that man would
    tell all of us what the book really meant, and try to convince those of
    us who disagreed that we were idiots and should see it his way, and
    then some of the women would stop speaking up at all, and would just
    sit there and blend into the wall, and nobody would ever know what they
    thought of the book.  I think it's nice, for a change, to find out what
    other women think without having a man speak up and take over the
    proceedings.  And, of course, it is fun to read the same book and
    discuss it with other women and find out what they thought of it.
    
    I wouldn't want to always be in the company of only women, but it
    does make a nice change on occasion, and I don't think it does any
    harm.  
    
    Lorna
    

    I'm with Lorna and Mark.
    
    Psychological studies have shown that men interrupt women, that men
    talk more than women, and that men think women talk more than they
    (the women) should.  What it boils down to (for me) is this:
    
    Having both genders discussing something IS going to result in the
    demonstration of the above patterns, all of which are Sexist in
    the pernicious sense.  Well, mostly, this is what we do have, and
    we accept it with better or worse grace.  But do we have to do
    this 100% of the time with 100% of the people?  Isn't this allowing
    or even (shock, horror) promoting sexism by leaving it unchecked
    and even un-commented upon?
    
    So, sometimes some women withdraw from this sexism.  Is is fair to
    call this withdrawal from sexism "sexism"?  Whether it's fair or
    not, is it *correct* to call this withdrawal "sexism"?
    
    Is there a third alternative?  I don't see one that doesn't involve
    two-by-fours.  (You know:  Bonk!  "Hey!  What was that for?"  "You
    interrupted."  "I hadn't noticed."  Bonk!  "Hey!  What was that
    for?"  "You've talked longer than any of the women."  "I hadn't
    noticed."  [Repeat as needed.])
    
    I'm serious about asking for that third alternative.  We might find
    something good.
    
    						Ann B.

    re .17 Blunt instruments, Ann ? I always figured you for blades:-)
    
    "Off with his tongue!"

    FWIW I enjoy certain times and places that are male-only and see
    no problem with that. I can understand how women might enjoy the 
    same type of setting. The total *lack* of sexual interaction makes
    for simplicity, which facilitates communication sometimes.

    
>    If they are sexist are they also wrong? Should women be prohibited
>    from gathering with other women with no men present? Should men
>    be prohibited from gathering with other men with no women present?
>    How about blacks or asians or native americans? Is it okay to
>    hold church services for only those who believe in that particular
>    denomination?
 
    
    Re .12
    
    Well bonnie the question of wrong is more tricky than the question
    of discrimination by sex.  The constitution says that we have
    the right of free association so the actual gathering together
    of a group of people to the exculsion of others is not inherently
    wrong.  What makes it wrong is either the intention and action of
    the gathering or the exclusion of individuals from paticpation in
    the action or intention of the gathering.
    
    Prevention of such gatherings must come under the heading of 
    what is illegal versus what I precieve as being wrong.  Although
    there are things that I believe are wrong I do not think that they
    should all be illegal.
    
    What is wrong about all female gatherings is that they deny men
    the particular experience that occurs at that time and place
    simply because they are men.  This is, in my opinion, sexist.
    However I do not think that they should be illegal because I
    believe in the right of free association.
    
    The right of free association becomes illegal when it is used
    to discrimate in matters of commerce or politics as defined
    by the supreme court.
    

    
    Re .19 (Harry)
    >What is wrong about all female gatherings is that they deny men
    >the particular experience that occurs at that time and place
    >simply because they are men.  This is, in my opinion, sexist.
    >However I do not think that they should be illegal because I
    >believe in the right of free association.
    
    But, Harry, when men participate in an event with women, their
    presence changes the event, so men can never really experience
    an all-woman gathering.  And if men are there, women can't experience
    it either.  I'm not trying to be flip; it really feels different, for
    example, to hear a woman speak about something like "The imposter
    syndrome" when there are men present than when men aren't there.
    Does that mean this issue never applies to men or that they shouldn't
    hear about it, too?  No, but the type of discussion that takes place
    in all-women settings is different from the discussion that happens
    between men and between men and women (I think we even get a glimpse of
    that here with FWO notes (when men don't write in them)). 
    I really value the time I spend in the company of just other 
    women, and I hope that men value the time they spend with just other men.
    
    I addressed this note especially to you, Harry, because I gathered from
    your reference to your belief in the right to free association that you
    kind of tolerate the existence of woman-only events but don't really
    like or understand them (forgive me if I've misinterpreted).  I wish
    that folks could see the value that single-sex space has for some men
    and women and really appreciate it not just tolerate it.  This is, of
    course, just a wish not a suggestion or a request -- we're all free to
    like, disapprove of, or feel indifferent toward whatever we want; I've
    just found this to be such a positive thing for me that I can't help
    but want others to see that, too.
    
    Justine

    Harry,
    
    You wrote, "What is wrong about all female gatherings is that
    they deny men the particular experience that occurs at that time
    and place..."
    
    But what happens when men are present, is that "the particular
    experience" doesn't occur *because* of the presence of the men.
    
    
    Heisenberg loved this sort of thing; most people don't.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    re .19, Harry:
    
    Are female-only bridal showers are "wrong" then?
    
    By the same token I guess that stag parties are "wrong" too?
    Have you ever been to one?
    
    If I want to organize a group of women friends (perhaps women
    from womannotes) to go out to dinner and see a feminist play,
    am I "wrong" to not invite any of the men too?
    
    And I don't care if men want to organize men's only gatherings
    where women are excluded.  I just can't get hysterical over that.
    
    I don't mean to be flip, but that sounds ridiculous.
    

What is this book group you (pl.) keep referring too? Am I missing something?

D!

D!,

Yeah, you must have missed being put on the FWO dis list or something.  There
are two groups that I know of: one meets in Nashua one Friday/month, one meets
in Maynard one Tuesday/month.

Liz MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE is the contact for the Tuesday group.  I think you'd need
to contact Bonnie or Mez for the Friday group.

I've really enjoyed the two meetings I've been to.  I've read and enjoyed books
that I otherwise would not have picked up, and the company is great.  Yes, there
*is* a different atmosphere when only women are present.

Sue

The announcement of the FWO list is in 16.1. You're on the list D!. The
original announcment about the group[s] went out about 3 or 4 months ago; each
meeting is only announced to the women who replied to that announcment.

I'll be leaving my duties with FWO as well as =wn=. 
	Mez

I don't think same-sex, specifically women-only events are wrong.   I
hope that the need for them is minimized some day however.  The
question I keep coming back to is:  what is the end goal?  How should
it be ideally?  Not to hope for this ideal but to guide my present
behavior and view.   

People have said that studies have shown men interupt women, etc.  OK,
but I hope this doesn't create a image in the mind of how men are and
will always be.  Likewise for stereotypical behavior.  I'm sure women
also don't want to be branded for their stereotypical behavior (which,
statisically may have validity and I'm sure we all experienced these
phenomenon occuring).

Dana, you say that there is no sexual element in same sex gatherings.
Aren't you making some assumptions here?

I think there a some tricky spots in same sex gatherings.  For
example, I have seen a tendancy to complain about women in men-only
them, etc in an easy and offhand kind of way.   I don't know but I
guess that the same thing can happen in women's only gathering too.
Isolation can be the breeding ground of prejudice.

In some ways, I think we are going over the same question over and
over again.  What kind of society do we want to have?

1)  Status Quo.  Some people (I think a shrinking number) are  content
with traditional sex roles and don't want to see them changed.

2)  We are going to have separate but equal.  Women will go off and
find their own roots again, create their own space, and recreate their
heritage.  Women and men will always have different cultures and
different context and conditioning.  Ultimately, their will be an
appreciation of the diversity of men's, women's and other cultures.
But fundamentally, we accept the fact that men and women will in a
sense be alien to each other at some kind of basic level.

3)  We are going to throw away all conditioning and try and form new
values that encompass all human beings, a global culture.
Conditioning will be seen as relative.  Conditioning based on
orientation, religion, gender, class, race, and age will all be
discarded.  It will be interesting to see what is leftover.  

Now, I drew some sharp lines more as a thought exercise.  Always,
something is lost in the classification.  Myself, I struggle with 2
and 3.  3 appeals to me on a gut level but then I wonder, is it
necessary to throw everything out?  Can't we just appreciate our
cultural diversity?  

On the other hand, if I look and see how many problems are caused
(both inside and outside my self) with identification with different
groups and labels, it does seem like indeed radical steps are needed.

2 can seem too relative.  Is in acceptable to value diversity that is
destructive to life (for example, fascism)?  Don't  ideas about
ourselves and others always limit the freedom to look at things
completley openly without preconcieved ideas?  Doesn't one group
identify automatically create a division between someone in my group
and someone in another group?  Maybe an indenty is built up and
gradually transcended.  On the other hand, I can really see the need
for people who have been oppressed by the in-power group to go and
rediscover their own trampled heritage.  But a fundamental question in
my mind needs to be asked,  what is need for human beings build up
static ideas of who and what they are and what role does it play in
how we treat ourselves and each other?



john

>    <<< Note 276.15 by WRKSYS::STHILAIRE "Later, I realized it was weird" >>>

>    re .14, Kathy, I've attended a few of the FWO book discussion groups
>    and I take exception to your calling them "stupid."


	I didn't "call them" stupid.  I said, that in my opinion, I think
	they are stupid.

	You're most welcome to take exception to what I said...it doesn't
	change my perception of them, though.

	kathy

    re .28, no, I didn't think it would.
    
    Lorna
    

    I'm sure that there are some events when it's right, proper and wholly
    appropriate to declare them exclusive to a certain sex.
    
    There are other events declared to be for a single sex; often solely
    for women these days, which seem rather odd. Three such events in the
    UK come to mind. In the past few months I've seen advertisments for
    women only carpentry classes - windsurfing - vehicle maintenance.
    Men only activities have been going on for centuries though.
    
    As long as the organisers continue to hold such restricted events some
    people will continue to feel emotions ranging from outraged to
    ambivalent. As long as these events continue when there is no real need
    to maintain sexual segregation then those supporting them and attending
    them will be perpetuating an unnecessary differentiation between the
    sexes. 
    
    An event that could reasonably be open to either sex but is declared to
    be for one specific sex must surely patronize that sex.
    
    You wouldn't catch me a a 'women-only' carpentry class!
    
    Bucko...
    

    Bucko -
    
    In the examples you cited, the classes are for activities which are not
    traditionally within a woman's domain.  For some women, they need to
    learn the skill, but fear looking like an idiot in front of men.  If
    the class is mixed, they assume that a base-level of knowledge which
    they do not possess will be required.  A women-only class in that case
    would be a comfort because of two assumptions.  First, they can admit
    they don't know the difference between a saw and a hammer and a nail. 
    Second, they can make mistakes and they won't be judged for it.
    
    I can visualize 'for men only' courses in cooking or knitting or
    baby-care that would provide a similar 'safe space' for men to learn
    skills in what are traditionally women's domain.  And both would be
    fine.  (I'd also expect that non-beginner level classes for *both*
    sexes would go back to being co-ed.  The need would be gone.)
    
    Alison 

    RE.31
    
    To maintain the carpentry analogy I think you've 'hit-the-nail-on-
    the-head' Alison!
    
    The ladies only for carpentry and the men only for embroidery do give
    the sexes an easier time. Talking about books in an all female group so
    that those 'wicked men' don't continually interrupt is perfectly
    understandable but...
    
    While either sex feel the need to explore something that hitherto has
    been traditionally thought to be the domain of the other; to feel the
    need to explore it in an unthreatening single-sex environment then the
    result will be the maintenance of an unnecessary differentiation rather
    than the rmoval of it.
    
    The interrupting men will never change - may never feel the need to
    change. Those interrupted women will not learn to cope with being
    interrupted - we men get interrupted too you know. I grant you it's
    mostly by men but when a woman does it, boy do we know we've been
    interrupted.
    
    If I really wanted to learn embroidery I would look for a group with
    the most to offer. Not a bunch of ham-fisted men incapable of threading
    a needle. Similarly a woman desirous of woodworking skills will learn
    much better in a proper class rather than one where the chisels have
    been blunted to protect them from unkind cuts. "Don't worry ladies we
    shall be learning at a slower rate than the men". Is kind of
    patronizing don't you think?
    
    To summarise: if we keep looking for the easy option then the rate of
    change must be slower. (you can quote me on that)
    
    Bucko...
    

>    While either sex feel the need to explore something that hitherto has
>    been traditionally thought to be the domain of the other; to feel the
>    need to explore it in an unthreatening single-sex environment then the
>    result will be the maintenance of an unnecessary differentiation rather
>    than the rmoval of it.

I've heard this logic before - that it is the responsibility of each and
every individual to do everything they can to make the world a better place
even if it is very difficult for them personally.  I take exception.

If I want to learn carpentry, and I would feel uncomfortable learning it
in the presence of men, why should I *have* to deal with my discomfort
for the sake of getting ride of "unnecesary differentiation".  You are
asking me, the potential learner to take on a task that is irrelevent
to carpentry - that of doing my bit to rid the world of "unnecessary
differentiation".

It seems to me that women (and men) should sometimes be allowed to so
things for their own sakes (like learn carpentry in an enviroment that
doesn't make them uncomfortable) without having to set aside their own
preferences for the good of humanity.  You may be right that overall
same-sex courses add to this so-called "unnecesary differentiation"
but why should I, a woman who simply wnts to build a bookshelf, have
to do it?  And if it makes me *so* uncomfortable that I wouldn't even
take the course if it were co-ed?  What value gained then?
    
>Similarly a woman desirous of woodworking skills will learn
>    much better in a proper class rather than one where the chisels have
>    been blunted to protect them from unkind cuts. "Don't worry ladies we
>    shall be learning at a slower rate than the men". Is kind of
>    patronizing don't you think?
 
Now *you* are the one being patronizing!!  Where on earth did you 
get this idea that women-only carpentry classes dull the chisels?  Or
that FWO classes in general are easier or less potentially harmful or
whatever?  Where did you get this idea that women's classes are slower
than men's?

And if they *aren't* slower, then what is patronizing about them?

I am offended that you are contrasting a "woman's class" with a
"proper class".  Who says women's classes aren't proper???

There are some things I would never learn if I were forced to learn
in a co-ed environment, because I would feel uncomfortable not having
the expected skills the men have.  Auto mechanics for instance.  What
you are suggesting is that I subject myself to a great deal of
emotional discomfort and maybe even pain so that the world can be
rid of "unnecessary differentiation".  Why should I have to?  Why
is it my responsibility?  If it weren't for sexism in the first place
I wouldn't *need* the FWO class!

D!

    I don't think that was what was meant by "single sex classes".  It
    doesn't mean an easier class - or that you get fewer skills, or are
    protected from your own mistakes.  It means you may well feel more
    COMFORTABLE with your mistakes, and less mortified by them, because you
    are in a single-sex space where people understand what you are going
    through.
    
    When I lifted weights in a certain gym which was mostly male, I always
    felt scrutinized, and I always felt foolish when I had to ask a
    question.  Lifting with women was different.  I felt a certain kindred
    form of spirit with them, they were very generous with the help, and I
    never felt dumb.  
    
    Single-sex classes simply make the learning curve more comfortable for
    some people in some areas.  If I was learning about birth control or
    auto mechanics or even how to shoot a gun..... these are some of the
    areas where a women-only or women-mostly group would be great!  In
    addition, having a female instructor also puts me at ease in certain
    areas.  This is not to say that females teach better than males - every
    teacher is different and sex does not matter.  What matters is the
    methodical transfer of information and bestowal of knowledge - and the
    student's degree of confidence and comfort with it.
    
    The goal of a single-sex class is not to offer a lesser course, or make
    it easier, it's to help women (in my case) who feel that society labels
    them and judges them in certain ways in certain areas feel more
    comfortable in gaining competence in certain skills.  If I had gone
    rock-climbing for the first time without another woman there, I think I
    would have felt overwhelmed, frustrated, weak, foolish.....any number
    of things - but we cheered each other (and the rest of the men there)
    on - and I was VERY glad to have the female company when working
    through a great deal of fear, and coming to grips with gravity.....
    
    -Jody
    

    and lots of encouraging noises to the other, recent notes in this
    string.
    
    And as for the idea that men are too ham-fisted to do embroidery:
    Well, really!
    
    						Ann B.

    I suspect co-ed classes are more likely to be patronizing. I can 
    see the other men in the class 'helping' the woman.
    
    manisha 

    Recently NPR had a segment on a black-women-only college whose
    president is a graduate whom the students call "Sister President."  
    An aim of the college is to create a space in which these young women
    can just _be_ for once, i.e., without a defensive posture about being
    black and/or female.  The students had a great feeling of community, 
    pride, and enthusiasm.
    

    <--(.32)
    
�    The ladies only for carpentry and the men only for embroidery do give
    
    Bucko, why did you contrast "ladies" and "men"?  This is a non-trivial
    question.
    
    						=maggie

    Different issue, Herb.  
    
    (I generally do much as you do, in the situations you describe)

    in re women only classes.
    
    I (like Pam Smith) went to Mount Holyoke college which was then
    and still is an all female college.
    
    To my mind it was *harder* and more challenging to go there
    than either my coed highschool where I did very well academically
    or my coed gradschool where I did very well academically. 
    
    I was pushed *much* harder at an all women's school than I ever
    was in a coed environment.
    
    It definitely isn't easier... you have to get out of behind
    all your culturally conditioned ways of 'making nice' and actually
    work your tail off on your own abilities.
    
    Bonnie

	The thing I take exception to in this string is the assumption that 
when a gathering is all-female that some mystic, magical *something* is 
guaranteed to happen.  And that if a male is there, it is a forgone conclusion
that he will be interrupting, dominating the conversation, and is *guarenteed*
to change the flavor of the get-together.

	Well, that's just not accurate.  I don't deny that something  
special *can* happen. I've seen it.  (Rarely.)  I've also seen seen that same 
let your hair down, relax, be yourself, support one another atmosphere happen
with a male in the room.  My husband is very easygoing, non-critical, soft-
spoken and introverted.  He could be at an (otherwise) all-female gathering and 
not change it's "tone".  I am almost his complete opposite.  I dominate 
conversations, interrupt when excited, don't hestitate to tell someone I think 
they are wrong, and I'm very critical (of myself especially, but of others too.)
My presence has prevented that "magical thing" from happening on occasion.  

	Tracey  

    I have found that, 9 times out of 10 (in my experience, of course), the
    *magic* does happen - the connectedness - the wonder - the support -
    the empowerment - when it is all women.
    
    I have found that something cool also happens when men are there
    sometimes as well - but it is something different.  It is not the same.  
    
    -Jody
    

    Maybe it's not 'men' as such but 'male' communication style
    that inhibits the 'magic' ? Regardless of the source.

Sometime I think it's odd ideas and inhibitions we women have about men (you
know, cultural conditioning).
	Mez

    re .44, okay, your husband is welcome at the FWO book discussions. 
    You're not.  :-)
    
    I agree there are the rare exceptions for whatever reason.  I can think
    of men that wouldn't ruin the atmosphere of a FWO book discussion, and
    I can think of women who would or might.  But, in general, FWO
    creates a different atmosphere that I sometimes might want, and other
    times might not.
    
    Lorna
    

    Yes, I can also think of men who wouldn't ruin a FWO book discussion.
    But the problem is that the moment I see that man, my subconscious
    (sp?) is gonna say "here's a man, now you better behave yourself".
    Then I have to make conscious efforts to overcome this socialization.
    And there are times when I just want to have a discussion without 
    having to deal with this.
    
    manisha

	I have to deal with explaining why men are not invited to x,
	ALL THE TIME.  It boils down to the fact that I can not be
	sure that the presents of a man (any man) will not be a
	hindrence to a woman (any woman) who wishes to take part in
	the activity.  To me at this time it is much more important
	to "educate" women than it is to "educate" men.  It is also
	true that some women will not attend events that are women
	only because they are women only.  This is an issue that I
	have been thinking about and trying to figure out what to do,
	instead of my initial reaction of "well then they don't need
	x" if they can already deal with men so well.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
				The group met today.

    I agree with Jody (re: .45).  
    While I don't often have the opportunity to attend/participate
    in FWO events the exception is women's road races.  Every year I
    run in the Lowell "Great Legs" Road Race.  (Great legs refers to 
    the fact that runners tend to have well toned legs - it doesn't 
    refer to the fact that it is a women-only event - FWIW).
    There is a certain kind of energy to be found in a women-only race -
    I really can't compare it to a coed road race.  
    In general women don't run as fast as men so it tends to be more
    competitive to the extent that there is not so great a variation in
    the clocked times as in a coed race.  
    This year one of the freebees was a poster of a statue which looked
    amazingly like the figures in the Womannotes t-shirts.  ;^)
    Also a local cosmetics company, Lady Finelle co-sponsored the race.
    Besides having cruelty-free products, Lady Finelle is a predominantly
    women run business.  The original founder was a victim of breast
    cancer so L.F. donates a great deal of money for cancer research.
    (I thought I would point this out to the intelligent Womannotes
    consumers...)  ;^)
    
    Do I endorce FWO events?  I suppose I do - in terms of physical 
    ability women and men are not the same so the competition seems
    fairer when women compete with women and men compete with men.
    
    Nancy 
                             

    
    
    eeeee!
    
    I spent last evening, today's lunch hour, and two hours this afternoon
    in the company of women.
    
    It was most energizing.  Most enlightening.  Most envigorating.
    
    -Jody
    

    Re: .52
    
    When not alone, I spend most of my working hours, lunch hours,
    recreational hours, and sleeping hours in the company of women.
    
    It is most energizing.  Most enlightening.   Most envigorating.
    
    What is your point?
    
    Bruce

    I enjoyed it.  A great deal.  Hence the "eeeee" precursing the actual
    putting forth of the events in chronological order.
    
    Oh, you didn't realize I meant in the company of women only?  I thought
    this topic was about FWO space, etc.  Shall I clarify that next time?
    
    -Jody
    

    *sigh*
    
    I said nothing about men in that note.  Just about women.  Why is it
    that everytime a woman delights in the company of women, men come along
    and say, "what about us"?
    
    This is not a personal pick at you, Mike, you, in fact, have
    illustrated the point beautifully though.
    
    WHY must I prefer one over the other - WHY must it be a competition? 
    WHY is it that if I say NOTHING, people assume the negative?  Isn't no
    news good news?
    
    And why the #uck am I running around reassuring men that yes, I still
    like the ones I liked before for the reasons I have enumerated to them
    since time immemorial in WOMANNOTES for (#rissakes!
    
    -Jody
    

    I should probable clarify myself a little here.

    I enjoy women-only spaces when it's just fun, entertainment, etc.
    But when it's educational, sharing of opinions, etc, I think they're
    silly, because I value women's opinions as much as men's.

    I've gotten so mych teasing in the last week, I thought I should
    clarify that.

    kath    

    kath
    
    women-only spaces are also good to share common experiences
    and to laugh and cry together...
    
    bonnie

    
>    women-only spaces are also good to share common experiences
>    and to laugh and cry together...

	Of course they are.

	I have a VERY time talking about my rape in mixed company.

	But when I talk about purely educational, non-gender specific
	topics (like book readings, reviews, etc) the gender of the
	commenter has nothing to do with the comments.....so, I find them
	silly (stupid was probably a bad word the other day, but I was
	in a bad mood).


	Can you se the difference I see between the two types of gatherings?

	kath

    
    	After reading my copy of the new incarnation of Ms. magazine -
    	I know for certain that I don't spend enough time in women-only
    	space.
    
    	Holding and reading a magazine designed to be women space is
    	an incredible experience for me - enough to surprise me, even
    	though I've been aware of the magic of women space for some
    	time.
    
    	It's definitely something remarkable (and it has nothing 
    	whatsoever to do with whose opinions I value or don't value
    	about anything.)
    
    	It's just something I know I need in my life (at times.)
    

    
    
    	More and more I seek
    	the company of women,
    	where I feel at home.
    
    	D.

    re .62, so why don't you come to a FWO book discussion group?
    
    (They're so *silly*....they're FUN!) :-)
    
    Lorna