Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Private clubs are perfectly reasonble. All people should have
    the right to gather together with persons of similar interests
    for social purposes. If the clubs are small, don't raise money
    by renting rooms to the the public and have a clearly definded
    gender related role, then I have no problem with them. (The
    conditions that I listed are a paraphrase of those used by the
    Supreme Court in the recent case involving private clubs.) If
    a bunch of red headed men want to get together and smoke cigars
    and do needle point and don't feel like allowing red headed
    women who do needle point and smoke cigars into their fellowship
    they have every right to do so.
    
    Bonnie

    I would even go so far as to say, with respect to this particular
    conference, that I would wholeheartedly support the idea of "For
    Women Only" notesfile. As long as this particular file is "open
    for participation" to men, I will read and contribute, but if
    it was to suddenly become allowable by the Corporation to make
    this FWO, I would not object.
    
    Mainly, I would not object because it that was to happen, one of
    at least three things would happen:
    
    (a) Rather than making *this* file FWO, another (FWO) file would
    be started up from scratch, most likely.
    
    (b) If *this* file became FWO, another file would likely be started
    that would be mixed-gender discussion of women's issues.
    
    (c) A lot of these discussions would (if they aren't already)
    probably be brought up in HUMAN_RELATIONS.
    
    --- jerry

    
    Get government out of the buisness of telling us who
    we can or can't have in our clubs. 
    
    I'm sick of liberals whining and using the judicial
    machinery to help us pick our friends.

    um, Bob,
    
    The Supreme Court decision said nothing about how we pick our
    friends, or about freedom of association. What it delt with
    was with organizations that had a business or professional
    function that excluded some business or professional individuals
    solely on the basis of gender.
    
    Take for example the JayCess. This is/was a group organzied to
    include small town busines people and town officials to improve
    the economic social etc health of the town. I fail to see that
    including female business persons or town officials gave any benefit
    to the organization. 
    
    When it come to private clubs where people gather together by
    mutual free association, people should have the right and as
    far as I know do have the right to gather with those that they
    are comfortable with to socialize.
    
    Bonnie

    In some areas of the country, local officials have taken it upon
    themselves to harass one gender only clubs by refusing to grant
    them liquor licenses based solely on their admission requirements.
    They have decided that groups of people who gather in a social setting
    must not discriminate on who they allow to join on basis of sex.
    That most of the clubs have very few prospective members of the
    opposite sex seems to be lost on these local officials. The fact
    that they are also disrupting (in some cases) 200+ years of tradition
    also seems to merit no second look by these interfering pests.
    
    It is a sad reflection on this society that members of one gender
    feel a need to mount court challenges to their ineligibility for
    membership to certain clubs. Further, it is worse that local officials
    find the need to disrupt normal, law abiding activity by one sex
    only clubs. If this file were to become by popular demand or moderator
    edict FWO, I would lament the loss, but I would not start trouble
    with personnel because I would respect the decision of the principals
    involved as well as their autonomy.  
    
    Mark

    I believe that there is nothing wrong with "men's/women's" clubs,
    and I believe that it should be up to the MEMBERS to decide if 
    someone else should be allowed in.  (And I see nothing wrong with
    an occasional "guest", once again, as long as it is ok with the
    rest of the members.)
    
    K.C.

    
    re JCs
    
    When the primary focus is "buisness networking" rather than
    merely "doing lunch", then it ought to be open to all.
    
    Perhaps the harassment of male-only clubs is an admission 
    that women cannot duplicate the same "old boy network" on their
    own terms.

    mm, Bob,
    
    When the 'old boy network' is one of contacts in a particular
    field, then why should women moving into that field *have* to
    recreate such a net work? Rather than reinvent the wheel, as it
    were, why not look to try and join those who have experience
    and expertise in your chosen area? I don't see anything wrong
    with such an 'admission', and I think that keeping qualified
    woman lawyers or doctors or business people out of such a net
    work only because they are women is pretty silly.
    
    Bonnie

    re: .8
    
    Bonnie, I agree with you again. There is no network like the old
    boy network. We deserve a piece. 
    
    Kate
    

    Moved to an existing topic....
    
    -Jody
    
           <<< RAINBO::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 1000.0                20/20 Women Only Comedienne                No replies
SALEM::KUPTON                                        19 lines  28-FEB-1990 15:00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mods please move if this has been or is being discussed somewhere
    else in the file.
    
    On 20/20 last week, a comedienne was shown doing a show for "Women
    Only" in a nightclub. Men are discouraged by an extremely high cover
    charge that is discounted for women.
    
    She does a 45-60 minute show and gets working material through
    relationships in the audience. She walks through her audience and
    gets women to speak their minds and rolls the comedy.
    
    She believes that not allowing men gives women "more freedom" to
    speak about peeves etc. Allowing men would destroy the act.
    
    Did anyone see it?? Feelings??                             
       
    Again I apologize if this has been approached.
    
    Ken

    I saw it.  I think I'd *love* to see her.  I think men might want to
    go, and (sigh) I think they should not be excluded -- but I totally
    agree that the show and the feelings and the good times would be
    impossible if men were there!  I know it's hard for me to enjoy
    something that otherwise strikes me as hilarious if my hubby is sitting
    there looking either puzzles or patronizing!  I am then caught in my
    frequent two-way pull of accepting/questionning my own feelings!

    my .02
    
    If it's illegal to exclude women, then it should be illegal to exclude
    men. PERIOD!
    
    Why doesn't it surprise me though.....
    

    The only women-only event I ever attended was set up and run by
    Bill Rotsler.  (Ian just perked up.  Yes, colonel, the photographer
    (and cartoonist and novelist).)  He explained that he had chosen
    to exclude men (except for himself and the cameraman) because they
    would change the entire temper of his talk away from what he wanted
    it to be.  He also explained that the only previous time he had given
    this seminar, it had been for men only.  So if a man can do it, why
    not a woman?
    
    Think of men, not as a gender, but as a temporary class, like drunks
    who won't be served in a bar.
    
    						Ann B.

    I'm sorry,  but  I  can't buy sex as a temporary class. I might be
    convinced  that  doing  the  show twice, once for men and once for
    women  was  acceptable,  but  seperate  but  equal makes me *very*
    nervous.  I've  heard  too  many women complaining about "old boys
    clubs" to have any sympathy for them when they want to reintroduce
    segregation.   The  arguments  about  how  men  would  change  the
    atmosphere  sound  identical  to  the  arguments against admitting
    women to clubs where business was transacted.  

--David

>    The only women-only event I ever attended was set up and run by
>    Bill Rotsler. 
    
    Is this like saying that it doesnt happen?
    
> So if a man can do it, why not a woman?
    
    Sorta like whats good for the goose?  Seems fair to me... How about
    you?
    
    
>    Think of men, not as a gender, but as a temporary class, 
    
    Ok, as long as you think of women as temporary persons also.
    
    
>    like drunks who won't be served in a bar.
    
    Nice metaphor Ann....
    
    Men as drunks... is that anything like "hookers who are excluded from
    churches"?
    
    Why is it that negative comments such as yours are always ignored when
    dirrected at males?  Yet, MY entry is sure to call upon the flames of
    the all mighty "goddesses" I am sure.
    
    
    

    I saw the TV show in question and felt very uncomfortable about the
    women only bit. After hearing part of the act I didn't find her very
    funny either.

    I went to see Lilly Tomlin's "search for sign of intelliegnt life in
    the universe". It was open to both sexes and much of it was what I
    would call woman's humor.The men may not have apreciated all the jokes
    but they were part of the standing ovation she got. They also seemed to
    laugh through most of the the show. liesl

    discrimination=discrimination against men=discrimination against
    women=discrimination against Jews=discrimination against white southern
    baptists whose grandparents came over on the Mayflower who live in
    houses with white picket fences and have two kids and a dog  right?
    
    A little bit of it is like a little bit of pregnancy.  (Sorry for the 
    corny element.)
    
    If it's just a bitch session, then it kinda makes sense to me why
    certain people would be excluded.  (Not that I condone that.)  That way
    no one will have to face the object of the bitching.
    
    If it's meant to be enlightening, to let you see things about your
    thoughts/behavior in a new way, then why would she/they not want 
    ANYONE to participate?  After all, it takes two to tango.  It also
    takes two to change the dance. 
    
    Nancy_happy_to_explore_life_with_many_types

    RE: .18
    
    What the heck does *that* mean??!?!?!?
    
    Excuse me, perhaps I'm missing something, but it sounds like "on the
    rag, dear?" to me. But it couldn't possibly be. Not here.
    
    --DE
    

    No, Al, it is "like" saying, ~Well, my experience has been very
    limited, and you may discount it if you like, but this is what
    was:~
    
    The question I meant was, ~Did Bill have the right to set up his
    seminar so that it travelled the path he envisioned?  Or should he
    have set it up, and let it get re-directed in a manner that he
    did not wish to have to deal with?  Does a performer have any
    rights in this area?  Does this change with the gender of the
    performer?~
    
    Here are some new questions:  Does it matter that Bill was not
    paid and that we did not pay to see it?  Does it matter that it was
    videotaped and sold to anyone who had the bucks?    
    
    I was trying to get away from explaining that Bill did not want
    to have to deal with multiple hecklers.  (All men are hecklers?
    No, but I think he expected the full 10% to be.  And given the
    subject matter, an ill-timed heckle could have put Bill up on
    assault charges.)  So, people, how should the problem of hecklers
    be dealt with?  Accept that you don't get to experience what you
    came for because of a few egos?  Bouncers?  Rely on peer pressure
    (in a nightclub?)?  Assume that it will *never* happen?
    
    Tell me, Al, why do you think a drunk, who pays out money, to
    commit annoying public acts, temporarily, in a bar, is the same
    as a prostitute, who receives money, to commit private acts of a
    [presumably] pleasant nature, and whose profession is (I gather)
    never considered to be temporary?
    
    						Ann B.

    Mike,
    
    No, I don't think of men as having something like PMS, only
    fatal.  I think that society has been very, very wicked in
    letting some of its members (about 5-10% of the total population)
    continue to indulge in childish behavior even after they are
    [nominal, in these cases] adults.  It increases their chances
    of getting hurt or killed and or hurting or killing others.
    It's wicked and wasteful, and I want it stopped ten thousand
    years ago!
    
    What?  I can't have that?  What a surprise.
    
    Am I happy with sexually segregated shows?  No.  Do I understand
    one cause for them?  I think so.  Would I like hecklers better
    than segregation?  Ummm, no.  (I can hear you saying "Only if
    the heckler is my witty, inimitable self."  I can hear you because
    I can hear *me* say it.)  Heckling is an accepted part of our
    society, and so heckling is a real problem.  Is the Heisenberg
    effect as big a problem?  Not to my eyes.  Is it a problem
    anyhow?  This I can't answer.
    
    						Ann B.

REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet."              31 lines   6-MAR-1990 17:00
                              -< Clarifications >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
>    The question I meant was, ~Did Bill have the right to set up his
>    seminar so that it travelled the path he envisioned?  Or should he
>    have set it up, and let it get re-directed in a manner that he
>    did not wish to have to deal with?  Does a performer have any
>    rights in this area?  Does this change with the gender of the
>    performer?~
 
    
    That exact argument can be used when arguing wether or not mens clubs
    shoud be allowed to stay all male.  Why?  Is it different due to the
    extra appendage? 
    
      
 >   Here are some new questions:  Does it matter that Bill was not
 >   paid and that we did not pay to see it?  Does it matter that it was
 >   videotaped and sold to anyone who had the bucks?    
 
    
    I don't get your meaning here Ann.  Could you please clarify? thanks.
    
       
 >   I was trying to get away from explaining that Bill did not want
 >   to have to deal with multiple hecklers.  (All men are hecklers?
 >   No, but I think he expected the full 10% to be.  And given the
 >   subject matter, an ill-timed heckle could have put Bill up on
 >   assault charges.)  So, people, how should the problem of hecklers
 >   be dealt with?  Accept that you don't get to experience what you
 >   came for because of a few egos?  Bouncers?  Rely on peer pressure
 >   (in a nightclub?)?  Assume that it will *never* happen?
  
    Again, that same argument could be used. But, alas, it would be shot
    down and labeled as sexism.
      
    
 >   Tell me, Al, why do you think a drunk, who pays out money, to
 >   commit annoying public acts, temporarily, in a bar, is the same
 >   as a prostitute, who receives money, to commit private acts of a
 >   [presumably] pleasant nature, and whose profession is (I gather)
 >   never considered to be temporary?
 
    
    I assumed that you would not see what I was trying to do.  Mike's
    following note pretty much explained it better... here, look....
    
MILKWY::ZARLENGA "Heather #1 just looked at me!!"    10 lines   6-MAR-1990 20:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	No, Ann, I was asking if chronic PMS was the reason you chose
    such a nasty analogy for the men.

	Men being stereotyped as drunks is a little like women being
    stereotyped as henpecking nags.

    
    Now, replace "henpecking nags" with Hookers.
    
    
    RE: Mike
    
    "Nice, huh?"
    
    Uhuh.  ands its legal and acceptable tah boot!

    	RE: .23  AMARTIN
    
    	> That exact argument can be used when arguing wether or not mens clubs
    	> shoud be allowed to stay all male.  Why?  Is it different due to the
    	> extra appendage? 
    
    	Let's try it in the *same* situation, rather than picking an analogy
    	that doesn't fit (since there are differences between all-male clubs
    	where business contacts are made versus a travelling nightclub act 
    	that only allows women to view the comedy performance.)
    
    	Would I object to a travelling nightclub act that only allowed men to
    	view the comedy performance?  No.  I don't consider it as harmful as a
    	permanent club where business contacts are likely to occur.
    
    	> Again, that same argument could be used. But, alas, it would be shot
    	> down and labeled as sexism.
    
    	Try it on the idea of a travelling nightclub act that features a
    	comedy performance for men, and I think the reactions between the
    	two comedy acts would be similar - some would protest and complain
    	(as is happening now with the women-only comedy act,) and some would
    	think it should be allowed.
    
    	> "Nice, huh?"
    	> Uhuh.  ands its legal and acceptable tah boot!
    
    	Legal and acceptable by whom?  The act has its share of legal hurdles
    	and difficulties with protestors.  (That's why it was featured on
    	20/20.)

    
    	By the way, the comments about chronic PMS are pretty sleazy.
    
    	I can't believe I'm seeing them in this conference.
    

    What's that clicking sound I hear?  :-)

    re: -1
    
    The sound of glass being chewed, perhaps? :-)
    
    
    re: women only nightclub acts
    
     The only problem I see with them is that it raises the issue of which
    segregation keys we can use. Personally, the idea of a women only show
    is no big deal at all. However, I wonder what would happen if somebody
    decided to have a whites only show. THAT I have a problem with. 
    
     I used to be really annoyed by the fact that having all male clubs is
    just about impossible anymore. I understand that the reason for this is
    that it makes it practically impossible for a woman to break into the
    power circle, because much "business" gets conducted at such clubs. So
    while I don't like the idea that men can't have all men clubs, I
    recognize that while the modus operandi of corporate business is to get
    business done "at the club," we will have to give up all male
    exclusivity. It kinda sucks, but so does being poor. :-)
    
     The Doctah

    Mark,
    
    I can understand you having problems with a `whites-only' nightclub.
    Do you have the same problems with a `blacks-only' nightclub?
    
    (You don't have to answer here, just to yourself.)
    
    						Ann B.

    Don't know about Mark, but I have a problem with *any*
    X-only club. I didn't join the Elks for that reason and feel 
    that such clubs are totally against my principles, not
    to mention the principles that DEC espouses.

    Dana

>    I can understand you having problems with a `whites-only' nightclub.
    
     I do not have a vested interest in preventing the formation of a white
    only club because I would be able to get in. Yet I oppose them because
    others might not be able to get in that want to.
    
>    Do you have the same problems with a `blacks-only' nightclub?
    
     I do not have a compelling reason to want to go to a blacks only club,
    but others might, so I'd have to oppose them in principle to be
    consistent.
    
    re: Dana
    
     My general feeling is that people ought to be free to associate with
    whom they want, and also free to not associate with those they don't
    want to associate with. This is not always possible, because sometimes
    rights conflict.
    
     If a group of rape survivors want to have a club (yes, I know the word
    is clumsy here) that consists entirely of rape survivors- I don't see
    why they should not be allowed to.
    
     If a group of WWII vets want to have a club for only WWII vets, I
    don't see the harm in it.
    
     If a group of smokers wants to have a smokers only group, why not?
    
     If all groups were equally economically viable, we'd all be able to
    have any exclusive groups we want. Since they aren't there will be
    conflicts with any philosophy except "no closed groups." Well,
    personally, I think that there are good reasons for some closed groups.
    
     The  Doctah

    As usual, I feel weird about the ratio of tenors to altos in this
    singalong, but art by women takes up a fairly large portion of my free
    time and access is important to me.
    
    Last week, I was all set to say that the comic was copping out,
    remembering how the performance artists and readers I've seen have
    dealt with mixed audiences and how the natural outnumbering of men by
    women cuts down on stiflement. 
        
    Even if the guys miss the point entirely, big deal.  Women sometimes
    get dragged to stuff that they don't find particularly funny by male
    SOs.  I like the idea of introducing a little parity.  Besides, seeing
    some disapproving or confused-looking men in the midst of a laughing
    audience of women can shed marvelous light on the claim that feminists
    have no sense of humor.  As for the time-wasting aspect, you wouldn't
    know it from this conference, but one doesn't _always_ have to explain
    onself just because some guy says he doesn't understand.  To grab an
    example from film, none of the women that I saw "A Question of Silence"
    with were about to stop laughing for my sake, nor were they even much
    inclined to stop to explain what was so funny.
    
    I've heard a lot of heckler horror stories but I've been fortunate
    enough not to be around for any myself.  What that suggests is
    not that 10% of the men at something like "The Well of Horniness"
    (where men make up maybe 20% of the audience) are hecklers, but that
    10% of the performances might be disrupted by groups of hecklers. 
    (Higher percentages might apply to well-publicized artists like Karen
    Finley.)
    
    Even if the hecklers are almost always male, hey, those are the breaks,
    male comics have to deal with them, too...  
    
    Then I remembered the audience participation part of this story.  In a
    dark movie theater, where there is usually only one voice, that of the
    film, there are limits to what uncomfortable members of the audience
    can do.  In performance, the performer can train herself to overcome a
    lot of hassle.  But the threat of heckling could be deadly to full
    audience participation - heaven knows that _I_ would rather leave
    dealing with hostile strangers or acquaintances to the professionals. 
    Reducing the number of "just passin' through" men might help make
    audience members comfortable in their new roles.
    
    When applied to performance, the argument sounds uncomfortably like
    some defences of obvious discrimination.  When applied to discussion
    groups - well, at least I feel confused.  (Big surprise, huh?)
    
    Ray
    

    Ray,
    
    *I* will thank you instead for your perceptivity in understanding
    the difficulties introduced by the audience interaction factor.
    
    It's a heckofa problem, isn't it?
    
    						Ann B.