From: bgoodric@nyx.cs.du.edu (Bill Goodrich)
Subject: Re: Aphrodite -- a mailing list for women witches.
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 94 21:27:05 GMT

A slightly different perspective on the value of women-only and
men-only groups:

One of the most common "trade secrets" in the technology training
industry is an observation about one way people sort their
experiences: context vs process. Specifically, the observation that
(absent a cultural override) women tend to sort for context
(relationships, setting, etc) before process (actions, events, etc.),
while men tend to sort for process before context. For example, when
teaching the use of a complex package (such as word processor or
spread-sheet) women from most cultures will tend to learn more easily
and thoroughly when given an extensive background explanation before
being shown how to do any of the functions while men from most
cultures will tend to learn more easily and thoroughly when
alternating small doses of background with large portions of "how to."
In cultures such as the Bedou and the Inuit (for whom a misguided
action can mean quick, painful death), the context- first learning
style is more effective for men as well as women.

While there are several more differences in the ways any two people
may sort and process experiences, this is the only one which seems to
be consistantly gender-specific.

This is consistant with the two meanings of "status". The two most
common definitions of status are (1) Who I am relative to whom; and
(2) What I can do (to/with) whom, and who can do what (to/with)
me. When polled about which one is the most personally true (as
opposed to what it "should be"), most women have chosen (1) and most
men have chosen (2).

This is also consistant with management styles. The style most
commonly seen as "female" creates the proper environment for
completion of the necessary tasks, while the most "male" approach
assigns specific tasks to specific individuals or groups. When women
do use a more "masculine" style, it seems to be firmly limited to
certain contexts in most cases.  People used to the masculine style
tend to perceive the feminine style as "unfocused", while those used
to the feminine style tend to perceive the masculine style as
"mechanistic" and/or "cold".

What does this have to do with discussion groups or spiritual groups?
For one thing, it means that it is easier for members of one-sex
groups to be "in synch" with each other. For another, it means that
women-only groups will tend to focus on creating an environment and
maintaining relationships, while men-only groups will tend to focus on
processes and actions.

Does this mean that mixed groups are inferior? ABSOLUTELY NOT! The
different perspectives and orientations can help the group grow and
live. Such groups will have a different nature than same-sex groups,
but BOTH kinds do the job.

 -- Bill Goodrich
=== 

From: bgoodric@nyx.cs.du.edu (Bill Goodrich)
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 94 08:58:12 GMT

pchapin@night.vtc.vsc.edu (Peter Chapin) writes:
>Can you point me at the academic research that supports this conclusion? 

Not much. Most of the research has been industrial and (as mentioned)
has been treated as a trade secret. The few times I know of that
someone proposed such a study in an academic setting, it was shot down
on the grounds that it sounded too much like NLP and other such
"unscientific nonsense" and was therefore a waste of time. Try
floating the idea around VTC and see what reaction you get.

Perhaps Dave Weinstein (dweinste@solaris.carl.org) can find some
entries on the CARL databases.

> While this may be true in our culture, I dispute that it is
> generally true.

While it isn't practical to list all the cultures that have been
screened for this (and some of the specifics would violate
confidentiality agreements), I can say that they include: "Native" and
"Imported" cultures of North, Central, and South America, Asian
Cultures of the Pacific Rim, Native and Imported cultures of Australia
and New Zealand, Native and Imported cultures of the Pacific Islands
and the Caribbean Islands, Cultures and subcultures of Europe and the
Mediterranean, and most Native and Imported cultures in Africa. While
there have been examples of partial cultural overrides (such as those
I mentioned), the overall pattern holds.

In addition, it is consistant with stereotypes and archetypes as far
back in recorded history and in as many cultures as I have looked at
(China, Japan, Greece, pre-empire Rome, and Brittain for example). It
is also consistant with transformational religions (such as Zen), in
that they fairly clearly indicate what they are transforming From.

Can you give me a counter-example, current or historical? Take your
time, I would be more than glad to view and review your data. I would
dearly love to learn of a full counter-example, as opposed to a
cultural override (such as the two I mentioned). I'm in an
uncomfortable position - I can reveal certain conclusions but I can't
reveal much of the data they are drawn from (trade secrets, again).

Bill Goodrich