|Re: re: SF Bay Area Cohousing||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: apguirard (apguirardmmm.com)|
|Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 12:49 CST|
john ladwig writes: > I am well aware of the need for women to have a perceived safe space, > and for some of them, at some times, that means women-only space. Sure. I can go along with that, too. When it comes to someone who's recently been hurt by a man and feels a need to get away from them for a while, fine. But when we talk about cohousing, that's a more-or-less permanent situation, not a "some times" thing. I have no more sympathy for that than I would for a group that decided arbitrarily to include only WASPs in their community. I think they have the right to do so, but it's not a good idea IMNSHO. > I would not insist that each group be a perfect reflection of the diversity of > our larger society. No, that would be too much to ask. But that each group should have some diversity, if only to prevent the children growing up bigots... Ms. Findley replies: > I know a few fine people (of my own race and gender) with whom > I don't think I would voluntarily live in community, because the emotional > wear and tear would just be too exhausting. Is it legitimate to take > these questions into account in forming a cohousing group? Of course. I am only objecting to a priori exclusion. I wouldn't expect anyone to choose their members totally at random. We certainly don't. > it seems to me that if some women, for example, feel that they can't > live closely with any men, then probably everyone is better off if they > live separately as long as they feel that way. I think people are better off if they communicate rather than hide from each other. ==================================================================== ____ ____ ___ Andre Guirard / /__/ / __ 2188 Fremont St. apguirard [at] mmm.com / / \ /__/ St. Paul, MN 55119
- re: SF Bay Area Cohousing, (continued)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.