Women of Color and the Women's Movement

PAGE 3 OF 5

Daphne,

Two points strike me in particular here--
a) acknowledging a flaw/error is not useless blame
b) the notion that a call for accurate representations and appropriate
inclusion is equal to an implicit demand for overrepresentation of
"minorities" is QUITE problematic to me...

Maybe I am missing your point?

Lisa
LBurke2  @  njcu.edu

-----Original Message-----

(snip)
What I conclude from all this is that whichever story one tells,  the moral
remains the same: white women are to be blamed.  A basic conflict evidently
exists-and is reflected in the stories in this volume--between claiming, or
implying the claim, that discrimination marginalized black women from
women's studies, and the simple recognition of numerical realities in this
country.  There seems to be an implicit demand  that minorities (whether of
race or sexual orientation)  be greatly overrepresented in women's studies
if accusations of racism, homophobia, etc., are not constantly to be cast.

[In response to Adam Jones]:

Good article about this written by Leslie G. Roman _White is a Color! White
Defensivevess, Postmodernism, and Anti-Racist Pedagogy_ in Race, Identity
 and Representation in Education, eds. Cameron McCarthy and Warren Crichlow,
Routledge 1993.

Richard Dyer 1997 also discusses about the term Women of Color in his famous
book _White_. He prefers the term non-whites.

I have little problem with this non-white term. It is a negative term and I
prefer Women of Color, even if I realize that white is also a color. Also
I have come to think that Women of Color themselves prefer this term.
But what do you, Women of Color, think and prefer?

Jonna Roos
jonna.roos  @  helsinki.fi

----------------------------------------------------------------------- I
think the world is and has been far too complex to be sorted out along
race lines. But such sorting--indeed usually engaged in to score points--
leads to a very inaccurate and oversimplified view of the world, such as
that voiced by a colleague some years ago, who said, "Let's face it. There
are two kinds of people in the world, oppressors and oppressed. And these
correspond to white and non-white."  Lots of people in the room knew this
was nonsense, but no one dared contradict her.  Now *that* is a form of
differential treatment based on race that I find extremely objectionable.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you mean no one dared contradict her?  Did she have a gun?

In terms of standing up for one's intellectual principles without
endangering your life, your job, your children, etc.. faculty have it
about as good as it gets.  You do not get shot at a faculty meeting for
disagreeing with a colleague.  Similarly, there are no federal prison
terms (as far as I know) for refusing to include anything at all in your
syllabus.  So, let's cut out this talk about coercion right now.

If someone says something you disagree with and you choose not to speak,
who is to blame?  Deal with their intellectual arguments or go hide, but
don't do something you disagree with and then whine.  A teacher who
includes something in her syllabus in order to "pacify" or to "score
points", or to deter charges of racism, etc..  or because she knows there
is "supposed to be something about minorities" is doing no one any favors.
Do it because you believe it, or don't do it at all.

If you want to work on race, you're working on the front lines.  You will
take shit you deserve and shit you don't deserve.  Racism is not abstract,
but a day to day, life or death issue.  People are going to get angry,
people are going to disagree.  You might get called racist, you might get
called a sell-out.  You have to know your own soul and be able to deal.
If hearing that you have oppressed someone frightens you to the point that
you cannot speak and you cannot learn, you may very well be in the wrong
field.

There are any number of interesting endings to the meeting described
above.  Everyone had multiple options for how they might respond to this
woman and her claim.  Collectively, however, you chose to chicken out.
She didn't end the conversation, she started it;  don't blame her for your
silences.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Kane                suekane  @  u.washington.edu
Reference/WS Librarian            Box 353080
University of Washington        Seattle, WA 98195
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Susan D. Kane wrote:
>
> There are any number of interesting endings to the meeting described
> above.  Everyone had multiple options for how they might respond to this
> woman and her claim.  Collectively, however, you chose to chicken out.
> She didn't end the conversation, she started it;  don't blame her for your
> silences.

Thanks for the great segue, Susan.  I've been distracted by teaching and
administrative duties, as no doubt many are this time of year.  Still, I'm
wondering what happened to THIS conversation, the one we've started here
about women of color, syllabus content, racism in the women's movement
(and here, I have to say, is probably not the time to debate what THAT is,
but just make an assumption that it's a conscious movement to raise the
living conditions of females in a patriarchal culture).  It suddenly just
sort of ... petered out.  It *is* a scary topic.  But that doesn't mean
people must choke up when things get tense.

I didn't respond to Daphne's last post mostly because I saw little point,
but perhaps I was wrong.  This part of her last message frustrated me to
the point of throwing up my hands and saying, "What else do I need to
say?"  I think other people on this list felt that way too.  And yet, that
is exactly why it is worth while to press on rather than let this thing
slide.  Daphne wrote,

<<<<<<
I have a query.  My understanding is that many of the people on this list
are teachers of women's studies.  So, are the white women teachers of
women's studies on this list saying that indeed they ignore women of color
in their WoSt courses?  And if they do not, then where is all this
ignoring and rendering invisible taking place?
>>>>>>>

No, I don't think white women on this list who make that honest scrutiny
of themselves, and make this very public effort to work toward a better
method of resolving their own learned biases, are "ignoring" women of
color in Women's Studies courses.  To ignore means to know something is
there and actively refuse to attend to it.  Some women on this list have
said that they can do a better job than they have done in the past.  I
hope I can be that brave when I need to be, and carry that much integrity.

<<<And if they do not [ignore women of color], then where is all this
ignoring and rendering invisible taking place?>>>

Are you intimating that "all this ignoring and rendering invisible" is
taking place nowhere but in the paranoid psyches of women of color?  I
have to say, Daphne, that your belittling tone and choice of words convey
a real bitterness toward women of color.  Are women of color on trial
here, that we must provide specifics of what we, as professional
colleagues, have already told you?  Why are our experiences and testimony
challenged as if we are all compulsive liars or schemers?

<<<<<
At our women's studies program here at UMass, courses on women of color
are required and have been for years.  Not much else is required, at least
in terms of "identity."  And even before this requirement, I don't
remember a single faculty member who was teaching "white women."
>>>>>

Come on!  This is the whole point of calling it "the dominant culture."
The dominant culture doesn't have to teach a course called "white women"
precisely because white women are at the center of academic women's
studies.  You don't have to label the center the center.  It just is the
center.  For example, one quarter here at UW I
took a seminar called "Women's Love Poetry and Erotics."  To my surprise,
a) I was the only woman of color in the class (or person of color), and b)
there were no women of color on the syllabus.  Now, the professor did not
have to title the class "white women's love poetry and erotics," but she
might as well have, because as far as she was concerned while putting
together her syllabus, white women were at the center of women's poetry.
She did not even *see* her narrow focus until it was pointed out to her,
and her response was to bring in, next day, a list of "alternative" poets
we "might want to read on our own."  We did not ever read any of these
poets in class.  I have no way of knowing if any of the white students
wanted to, bothered to, or tried to.

This, Daphne, is not just *my* reality.  Why do we require coursework (if
we're lucky,  it's required) on women of color, and not white women?  You
can figure this out.  Why have courses on women writers or scholars at
all?  Because they have been traditionally marginalized *and* are worth
knowing, yet without conscious decisions to construct courses around them,
are not only overlooked, but are unavailable and inaccessible to the women
*and* men students who need that knowledge.

Same goes for teaching women of color, and for making it a "requirement."
It's not just that women of color students deserve role models of our own
background or hue; it is because white students need as much information
about the world as possible in order to learn whatever it is they are in
the academy to learn--and because they are less whole, less human/humane,
and lesser beings when they are isolated, uniformed, and unprepared
because their educations are inadequate.

I am a native woman, but I would never raise my children on exclusively
native literature or rhetoric, and I cannot construct a syllabus that is
exclusively native-based, even when the course is about native literature
(because so much of the work in this field has been done, and well done,
by non-natives, and I want that work to be available to my students).  To
do so would not be doing the best job of educating my children or students
to become compassionate, resourceful, complex human beings.

Why don't we have "white women" courses?  The reality is, we do, we just
don't call them that.  And the rest of reality is this:  in a culture that
is predominantly white, such as women's studies, whiteness is so pervasive
that a special class is not needed to "learn" it.

Let me wrap this up with a question that might take us back to more
constructive conversation.  Why have women on this listserve dropped out
of this conversation?  Or, alternatively, if you have been reading and not
commenting, what are your reasons for not commenting (aside from the
obvious--we're all overworked and underpaid and exhausted--sorry, you
can't say any of those things!)?

I'm trying to look at the silences that we learn to avoid conflict.  I'd
like to know what the white women (and again, *sorry* for the poor
terminology) on this list think about this conversation, and the obvious
tensions it has brought to the surface.

Sincerely,
Deborah Miranda

Greetings:

One item in this discussion on racism in the women's movement has
been overlooked:  the culture's tendency to ignore and trivialize
feminists who aren't white, middle/upper class and north American.
When the mass media wants a feminist perspective, it calls NOW, not
the Indigenous Women's Network.  When the networks want to interview a
feminist, they'll call on Patricia Ireland, not bell hooks (although I'll
take hooks over Ireland any day).  We're dealing with deeply rooted social
systems here, folks.

I'd like to take this thread to another level and discuss how feminists of
all races deal with racism&sexism in the larger society.  For example, how
do African-American WS teachers deal
with students' stereotypes about feminists being white and "privileged"?
How do feminist activists of all races deal with Congressmen and women who
listen more intently to a European-American lobbyist than, say, an
Asian-American one?  How do white male feminists challenge the men of color
who lambast African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American feminists?  How
do non-white male feminists challenge the sexism in civil rights groups?  How
successful have racial reconciliation groups been in getting people
to take their fair share of responsibility for the system?  How do
feminist organizations address issues of "accidental racism?"  And so on.

The public wants to believe that all feminists are "privileged" so that it
can trivialize the women's movement.  The mass media gave very little space
to the feminists who protested welfare reform.  However, it was quite eager
to write another boring article about glass ceiling issues.

A few years ago, the NWSA showed an excellent film about racism:
The Way Home.  Check it out and show it to your students.

Also, the "Wisdom from Womanism" section of my article, "Those
Martian Women!" addresses some of the the complexities of racism in
American feminism and the larger culture:

http://web2.airmail.net/ktrig246/out_of_cave/martian.html

Best,
Kathleen Trigiani
ktrig246  @  airmail.net

*********************************************
"Out of the Cave:  Exploring Gray's Anatomy"
http://web2.airmail.net/ktrig246/out_of_cave/
You Don't Have to Settle For Mars&Venus!

Despite the heated tone of this discussion, this is indeed a very very old
and much focused on aspect of women's studies.  The world has changed in
significant ways; black women graduate from college at higher rates than
black men; a larger black middle class exists than at any time in the
history of the U.S, etc.  Women's studies programs all over the country made
race a high priority years and years ago.  Many women's studies professors
testify to the importance of race in their courses from the time they
started teaching in 1970 or so (when some key works by black scholars were
published--i.e., from the beginning of women's studies)
     Yet somehow on this list the same accusations are made over and over
again, and the same pretense that there are no orthodoxies in women's
studies, that dissenting women have no grounds for feeling shut up or shut
out (unless they belong to the correct oppressed group).  These are the
"points" and "blame" I mentioned.  To pretend it doesn't happen strikes me
as utterly fantastic.  People on this list have no trouble disagreeing with
viewpoints such as mine. The fact that I am a *woman* (I'll leave out some
other markers here) doesn't make people on this list automatically believe
or confirm everything I say (nor should it). Why should any other woman get
different treatment?  Are we really supposed to abstain from using reason
and judgment because somebody plays the identity card?  I and others have
been objecting to this for years, yet it seems not to change. Same games,
same players, same charges.  Is this really what women's studies is supposed
to be about??
      All the wonderful ways just suggested for challenging other speakers
ought to be practiced everywhere, I agree.  Why then do women's studies
professors often insist on needing "safe spaces" for their women students?
Evidently there's an assumption that with men present in class some women
might shut up and not express themselves. Does this really happen?  If so,
why, then, is it hard to believe this also happens within groups of women?
  Group dynamics have their own force.  There are domineering personalities
and fearful ones - and people often switch roles depending on the setting
and the issues.  It's not simply a matter of race, or of sex.
Daphne
--------------------------------.
daphne.patai  @  spanport.umass.edu

Chi Hyun Park <janepark  @  MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU> wrote:

> i've been following the thread on "contributions of women of color" with
> great interest, and am wondering if some of you who have pointed out the
> need to stop thinking/teaching texts by women of color as supplements (and
> not in the derridean sense!) to the (white) feminist canon -- could offer
> some concrete pedagogical strategies for teaching them otherwise.

One excellent book that has helped me in my thinking about
this is Johnella Butler and John Walter's _Transforming the
Curriculum:  Ethnic Studies and Women's Studies_.  I particularly
recommend Butler's "The Difficult Dialogue of Curriculum
Transformation" in this collection.

On a more personal note, I did a presentation a couple of
years ago on trying to create a queer studies course that
was specifically anti-racist and multicultural.  I'd be happy
to share this and would love to hear ideas about
developing anti-racist and multicultural courses; please
contact me privately at janathanson  @  yahoo.com.

Jessica Nathanson
Doctoral Candidate, American Studies
Women's Studies Concentration
State University of New York at Buffalo

It seems to me that with a few exceptions this discussion has been
mostly among white women commenting on the exclusion or inclusion of
writings by women of color, of their feelings about this past history
of connection to women's studies, etc.  I think this speaks for itself
about our continued tendency to speak for others, as well as the lack
of other voices. When we start working with rather than just teaching
about the voiceless then perhaps this discussion will take a different
thread.

Benay blend
blend  @  nm.net

>The dominant culture doesn't have to teach a course called >"white women"
precisely because white women are at the center of >academic women's
studies>

Dear All,

Deborah's comments set me to spinning about not only how the members of this
list could continue to engage in productive conversation about the racism
embedded in the history of the white women's movement and its legacy of
women's studies as an accepted academic field, but how we could set about to
change it in a UNIFIED fashion.  I have no doubt that many members of this
list, as Deborah suggests, are doing their own work in this vein, while
others are perhaps not doing as much as they could be, or anything at all.
But if everyone on this list made a simple, yet cohesive effort to undertake
a step together, it could begin to set a standard of widespread change.
In my experience, many women's studies classes often feature a bowlful of
academic writings by white women and a sprinkling of
fiction/narrative/poetry/memoir by women of color.  Occasionally, an article
by bell hooks or Audre Lorde makes it into the critical/analytical content,
but what is presented as the "important" academic work is still largely
comprised of western, white women.  Additionally, it seems that the most
well-loved book for white academics to teach regarding women of color is
_This Bridge Called My Back_, a great book and seminal work, but not
necessarily reflective of many current discourses about the experiences of
women of color in the US.
My question is: what kind of message does this send?  In my opinion, it
suggests that women of color are capable only of contributing creative or
experiential "flavor" to women's studies, as opposed to being foundational
contributors of theory, historical inquiry, and analysis.  It does not
adequately situate the intellectual work of past or present female scholars
of color as part of the bedrock upon which women's studies rests.  And,
indeed, from this kind of environment students may get the idea that women
of color have not been/are not nearly as important in the intellectual realm
of the field as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, or Simone de Beauvoir, or Gloria
Steinem, etc.
What I propose is this: that every professor on this list alter at least
their intro-level women's studies class(es) syllabi (and any others they
will) so that this phenomenon is reversed.  Place women of color at the
center of the academic discourse.  Use their work to bring to full light the
racism and other issues apparent in a great deal of fiction/poetry/creative
work by past and present white female authors.  Instead of positioning the
creative works of women of color as a frustrated, angry reaction to white
women's exclusivity, or tokenizing one or two academic articles by female
scholars of color, why not swing the pendulum in the opposite direction?  I
appreciate Deborah's example that she would not use a syllabus that is
comprised entirely of Native American writers because doing so might result
in neglecting some equally important work on the topic by non-natives, but I
would also use her own question of "why teach women's studies?" as a
response to that. In order to (hopefully) encourage "mainstream" historians,
literary scholars, psychologists, etc. to locate women's contributions in
their respective disciplines, there have to be courses, even entire
programs, in women's history, women's literature, psychology of women, etc.
To the same tune, in order to create a truly inclusive and unified field of
WOMEN'S Studies in OUR lifetime, there need to be extreme measures taken to
force that to happen.  If there were, say, three or four semesters where ALL
new scholars to women's studies were taught this way, this would alter the
way they pursued their ensuing study in the field, and ultimately alter the
next generation of teachers, professors,etc.
I know that what I suggest implies a risk of skipping over large chunks of
what we have been taught is "important" or "seminal" to feminist studies.  I
also think that what is "important" is highly subjective, and what is
"seminal" has also been the biggest part of the problem.  If everyone here
would adjust their syllabi to de-centralize white scholarship (and I know
some of you already do this) this way, and then post those syllabi to a
website designed for that purpose, we could lead by example and provoke a
new "women's movement" (at least in academic circles) that has, as its goal,
equality within.  Because I truly believe, and you can call me an idealist
for this if you want, that a movement united within will stand stronger
against oppression from without. And maybe this isn't THE solution, but it's
_A_ solution that could have a tangible, positive effect on the discipline
many of us are working to the bone for.

-Jessica Matthews
jmdiva  @  juno.com

On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Deborah Miranda wrote:

>Let me wrap this up with a question that might take us back to more
>constructive conversation.  Why have women on this listserve dropped out
>of this conversation?  Or, alternatively, if you have been reading and not
>commenting, what are your reasons for not commenting (aside from the
>obvious--we're all overworked and underpaid and exhausted--sorry, you
>can't say any of those things!)?
>
>I'm trying to look at the silences that we learn to avoid conflict.  I'd
>like to know what the white women (and again, *sorry* for the poor
>terminology) on this list think about this conversation, and the obvious
>tensions it has brought to the surface.

OK, this is a really fair question to ask, and I am going to respond to it.

In response to a recent post that asks us to think about how we white women
might in fact be speaking for others, rather than listening to others, I
want to say that I have no intent of speaking for anyone except myself.  I
am a white feminist teacher who works against racism both in my classes and
in my daily life, in feminisms and in mainstream society.  But I strongly
suspect that I'm not the only one out here who has chosen not to
participate in this conversation for these reasons.

First, I do believe that racism exists in feminist thought, activism,
theory, and courses.  I also believe that I am a racist, I was raised to be
a racist, and I benefit from racism in my daily life.  I have been working
really hard to unlearn the effects of racism and skin-color privilege in my
life for about ten years now.  Sometimes I do OK; sometimes I really mess
up.  When I mess up, I hope I get called out for it, and I try to learn
from my mistakes.  I try not to blame others (no "she's overreacting to
what I said" stuff).

I try to teach my students that feminisms are as much the products of the
cultures within which they develop as they are responses to the cultures
within which they develop.  That means that, in the midst of all the
wonderful, important work of gaining more freedom for some
exploited/oppressed peoples in the world, feminists have also
exploited/oppressed others--in the U.S., especially (but not only) women of
colors, poor women, lesbians and gay men, bisexual women, transgendered and
intersexed peoples, etc., etc.  In other words, U.S. feminisms both fight
against _and_ reflect the biases that characterize U.S. cultures.  It may
be that this pattern is not repeated in other cultures, but I suspect it
may be, mostly from what I've learned from the non-U.S. participants on
this list.  (One of my own academic/intellectual limitations is that I am
in American Studies.)

I believe that, as a white feminist with a relatively high degree of
privilege (racial, class, sexual, health, etc.) I have a responsibility to
do all I can to address issues of racism (and classism and heterosexism and
ableism, etc.), especially (but not only) with other white people.  It is
my job to speak to white privilege because, frankly, many of my white
students, my family members, my white acquaintances, would not be able to
"hear" the message of white privilege from a person of color.  I believe
that, as a white feminist, I have a primary responsibility to fight racism,
sexism, heterosexism, classism, ableism, etc., because I can and because
any time I choose not to fight these things, I am simply resting on my
privilege.

Maybe I am naive, but I also believe that most white feminists feel
similarly.  Maybe we aren't always successful in acting on those feelings,
or in handling our own mistakes when we make them, and maybe we don't
always see our own privileges, but I think (as Deborah has pointed out)
that most of us are trying.


I have not commented to this thread before this because, to be honest, I
make it a point not to participate in what I have come to think of as
highly individualized arguments on this list.  Here's what I mean by this:
a really important issue comes up (like racism within feminist movements);
some insightful points are made by people on "all" sides of the issue; then
someone makes a point (or set of points) that seems to divert the focus
away from the issue at hand.  After that, the discussion seems to me to be
more about the people involved in it than about the issue at hand.

I'm sorry to say this, Daphne, but it seems to me that this happens quite
often when you enter into these discussions.  (It doesn't happen _only_ to
you, and it certainly doesn't happen every time you enter a discussion, but
it does seem to me that this happens with you a good bit of the time.)  I
know that there has been a history on this list (pre- my first subscription
in the early 1990s) of conflict with some of your ideas, and sometimes it
seems that the discussion becomes more about "conflict with Daphne" rather
than about the issue at hand.

At this point, I tend to tune out, not because I don't like conflict but
because (I'm sorry Deborah, but I need to say this) I simply don't have
time to participate in such a diverted discussion.

As I write this, I see that the decision not to participate is another
manifestation of my relative privilege--I can choose to ignore "conflicts
with Daphne" (even those about something as important racism) when I want
to.  Perhaps for others (I'm only guessing here), that choice is not
available.

I'm sorry I chose to tune out.

Take care, everyone,
Jeannie

+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x

Dr. Jeannie Ludlow            jludlow  @  bgnet.bgsu.edu
American Culture Stds            (419)372-0176
101 East Hall                fall 2000 office hours:
Bowling Green State U               MWF 10:30-noon; 2:30-4:30
Bowling Green OH 43403                 others by appointment

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Daphne Patai wrote:

> Despite the heated tone of this discussion, this is indeed a very very old
> and much focused on aspect of women's studies.

translation:  women of color discussing racism in feminism is old hat.
Been there, done that.  Grow up and move on, ladies.

 The world has changed in
> significant ways; black women graduate from college at higher rates than
> black men; a larger black middle class exists than at any time in the
> history of the U.S, etc.

And American Indian and Black men still have by far the highest
incarceration and suicide rates.  But let's ignore that because it's
unpleasant and doesn't fit your agenda.

> Women's studies programs all over the country made
> race a high priority years and years ago.

Untrue, or totally naive.  You pick.

Many women's studies professors
> testify to the importance of race in their courses from the time they
> started teaching in 1970 or so (when some key works by black scholars were
> published--i.e., from the beginning of women's studies)

Give us names, articles, frequency of testimony, as to importance of race
as it is spoken of by "many women's studies professors," please.

>      Yet somehow on this list the same accusations are made over and over
> again,

THIS IS A BIG CLUE.

and the same pretense that there are no orthodoxies in women's
> studies, that dissenting women have no grounds for feeling shut up or shut
> out (unless they belong to the correct oppressed group).

If it's okay to express dissatisfaction as a (privileged, white, academic)
feminist, why is it not okay to express dissatisfaction as a
(non-privileged, non-white, low-economic-origin) feminist?

These are the
> "points" and "blame" I mentioned.  To pretend it doesn't happen strikes me
> as utterly fantastic.

On the contrary, I deal with white women who feel oppressed by non-white
women every single day.  I don't pretend it doesn't happen at all.  What I
question is not the white women's authentic feelings of oppression, but
their accompanying blindess in not realizing there may be others with much
different situations requiring different solutions.  Playing Oppression
Olympics has no point.

People on this list have no trouble disagreeing with
> viewpoints such as mine. The fact that I am a *woman* (I'll leave out some
> other markers here) doesn't make people on this list automatically believe
> or confirm everything I say (nor should it). Why should any other woman get
> different treatment?

Good for you!  You shouldn't "automatically believe" anything from anyone.
However, if you choose to ignore information from highly qualified sources
*without* attempting to verify or explore the context of that information,
you are a poor scholar indeed.

Are we really supposed to abstain from using reason
> and judgment because somebody plays the identity card?  I and others have
> been objecting to this for years, yet it seems not to change. Same games,
> same players, same charges.  Is this really what women's studies is supposed
> to be about??

Nope.  But if there is a problem that cannot be resolved by repression or
insults, perhaps the mere fact of constant reoccurence should be a clue
that your solutions or strategies for dealing with it are not useful or
working.  In other words, don't ask why we don't learn to behave; ask why
your technique for "teaching" us isn't working.

>       All the wonderful ways just suggested for challenging other speakers
> ought to be practiced everywhere, I agree.  Why then do women's studies
> professors often insist on needing "safe spaces" for their women students?
> Evidently there's an assumption that with men present in class some women
> might shut up and not express themselves. Does this really happen?

Yes.  There are studies which conclude that girls participate more in
classrooms that are gender-segregated, and score higher on tests when
taught in a sustained girls-only context.  I don't know of any studies
done in university settings for gender-segregation, but anecdotal evidence
(which is often the basis for planning such studies) indicates it is well
worth researching (and someone probably is, anyone know?).  --  don't tell
me that in your entire life you have never heard of women students
requesting safe spaces for precisely the reasons you cite?

If so,
> why, then, is it hard to believe this also happens within groups of women?

As I said:  I do believe it happens.  I look at the occurence as a need
for work on both sides, not retreat by the so-called dominant women of
color.


>   Group dynamics have their own force.  There are domineering personalities
> and fearful ones - and people often switch roles depending on the setting
> and the issues.  It's not simply a matter of race, or of sex.
> Daphne
> --------------------------------.
> daphne.patai  @  spanport.umass.edu

Never said it was.  However, group dynamics, as you call them, are very
often "groups" according to race or gender.

Daphne, I would appreciate responses to my questions rather than more
offense.  Do you answer questions directly, or am I wasting my time?

Deborah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Deborah A. Miranda
English Department
Director, EOP Writing Program
University of Washington
Box 354330   Seattle, WA  98195
vm: 206-685-2461
email: <dmiranda  @  u.washington.edu>