[Peace-discuss] driving away members

[meghan krausch]

"Although this lawyer agrees with our politics, will work cheap, and is
competent, we don't want him because he seems to think it appropriate to
use language that implies opinions we find sexist -- opinions that I think
he would reject, were we to ask him."

As I think Ricky pointed out, and as I think all the women who have spoken 
up understand as part of our experience of being women, once you employ 
sexist language seriously and direct it at women, you no longer have the 
luxury of denying that you are a sexist. It does not matter what your end is 
in employing this language (for example, being anti-war, or getting a woman 
acquitted). It does not matter that the lawyer in question would probably 
back-pedal when asked if he subscribed to sexist notions. Most people would, 
but that doesn't mean that most people don't hold sexist opinions.

Just as AWARE would find it reprehensible if one of the many white members 
of the group employed terms like "camel jockey" in defending Iraqis, the 
quoted behavior IS sexist. Period.

And Carl, if you don't agree with the idea that white people in general and 
white men in specific recieve more than their share of political space, 
credibility, and time to share their opinions, why are you a member of AWARE 
in the first place? Undoing the social privileges given to whites and males 
in our society seems to be a core goal of this group. If you are not willing 
to give up some of your privilege, or, indeed, admit that you even have this 
privilege, perhaps AWARE is not the group for you. (That questions is 
rhetorical--I don't need you to repeat the arguments you've already made.)

-Meghan Krausch

_________________________________________________________________
Test your ‘Travel Quotient’ and get the chance to win your dream trip! 
http://travel.msn.com