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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
