Re: No goals, selective memory, be nice, red nose day
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 08:23, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-08-22 20:33:50 +0100 Jenn Vesperman
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > If you need advice on how to create a men-only group [...]
> > But expecting me to fund, sysadmin and provide resources [...]
> > weird to me. Can you explain it?
> I don't expect you to. It's simply a reason why the "toilet block"
> analogue doesn't work as an excuse for segregation.
> About "men-only", please see my previous post
> ...and we're back to the "if sexism offends you, why don't you
> be sexist too?" retort.
Ok, I'm completely confused.
Women (in general) object to closed men's clubs where such a club blocks
women from advancing in a major part of a community. That is sexist.
A golf club which is the place where major business deals are made, and
which prohibits female CEOs from joining. A parliamentary building which
has no women's toilets, only men's. A lawyers' association which
prohibits women. Such societies did exist, in my grandmother's lifetime
and in my mothers', and similar opportunities were simply not available
to women at that time.
Women (in general) do not object to closed men's clubs where the club is
nothing to do with social and professional advancement. That's just men
being social among themselves, and none of our business.
Linuxchix' grrls-only list does not provide social and professional
advancement. It can enable women to meet mentors, and does provide
advice, which can cause some minor advantage - but at present, that
advantage is counterbalanced by significant disadvantage outside the
lists. I accept a small charge of sexism in the mentoring opportunity
that grrls-only provides, but do not see that as significant since
almost all those mentors are equally available outside the list.
I hope this clarifies the situation.
"Do you ever wonder if there's a whole section of geek culture
you miss out on by being a geek?" - Dancer.
My book 'Essential CVS': published by O'Reilly in June 2003.