Re: debian and women? from DWN #10
On 2004-03-26, s. keeling penned:
> Incoming from Monique Y. Herman:
>>
>> I've been slowly wading through it. I honestly didn't find anything
>> offensive in the document. I guess I should re-read it after I
>> finish reading the flameage.
>
> It was mostly males who took offense at it, including me. Reverse
> discrimination is wrong, regardless of the wrong it's intended to
> right.
I agree 100% with that statement.
>
> One thing for you to note about your comment: it never occurred to you
> that sexism goes both ways and men can be just as offended by it? :-)
That's a strange assumption to make about my comment. Of course sexism
(racism, whateverism) goes both ways. Just because I didn't find
anything offensive doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge the existence
of so-called "reverse" sexism. And my statement that I should re-read
the howto was meant to indicate that I'd like to reconsider my take on
the article after having considered the posts in the thread.
>> commercial success of these programs suggests that some women believe
>> that they're better off in an all-women environment. Me, I find such
>> a
>
> What about the men who resent being relegated to a male only ghetto?
> Do you think that, since I'm male, I'll automatically be comfortable
> in the locker room with the rest of the guys? Why am I to be deprived
> of the company of women just because I'm not one?
I have made exactly this argument a number of times in other venues. In
fact, I was happy to see that Winter Park, a local ski resort, had
mens-only classes as well. I still think that gender-oriented classes
are lame (I'd much rather see classes divided by temperament than
gender), but if they're going to do it, they should do it fairly.
That being said, I hear that they're getting really lukewarm response to
the men's classes, while women's classes are still popular. Bringing it
right back to the dollars or, as I said above, commercial success.
There's a demand for female-only classes, and so they are available.
There seems to be too little demand for men-only classes, and so they're
not a financially viable venture.
Then again, the attraction of women's classes might very well be the
lack of men present. So how does one accomodate everyone? I sure don't
know. As I said above, I think that companies are out to make money on
classes, not to solve any sociological issues.
>> heterogeneous mix to be boring. (Actually, there's a point to be
>> made there somewhere: what if they don't teach the class any
>> differently, but the class is restricted to women? Some women would
>> definitely prefer such an environment.)
>
> As would some men, and it's just a little sexist for women to not
> notice that. I much prefer the company of thoughtful, industrious
> individuals to the "dick wars" I often find there instead. When I'm
> in one of those things, I'm there to learn, not to prove how L33t I
> am.
Again, I'd rather see classes divided by temperament than by gender, if
we have to divide things up at all.
--
monique
Reply to: