[All these points apply to sex and to gender, so for ease of reading, I’ll just discuss gender]
Gender-exclusive groups are common in many societies, such as men-only and women-only social clubs and casual activity groups like a men’s bowling group or a women’s reading circle.
Sometimes this is de-facto, but sometimes this is enforced by rules or expectations, treating the club as a safe space for airing issues people have with other genders, or avoiding perceived problems with other genders.
I came across this old comment in a garbage subreddit by accident when researching. The topic is Men’s Sheds:
“Here’s the thing. No reasonable person has an issue with women having their own women’s activity groups. The annoying part is that whenever men try to do something similar, that’s a problem. Women either want them banished or demand entry, EVERY time.”
I think their claim is nonsense, grossly exaggerated at best. I also know of many counterexamples of men trying to get into women-only groups (as an extreme case, the Ladies Lounge of the Mona art gallery in Australia was taken to court for sex discrimination, with the creator claiming they would circumvent the ruling by installing a toilet). But nonetheless, I can understand why they feel this way, patriarchal social relations change how most people see men-exclusive spaces vs. women-exclusive spaces.
But my response to their claim is that, I am reasonable and I do have an issue with any group setting up places which discriminate based on gender. These safe places can form as a legitimate rudimentary form of protection, yes, but they maintain and often even promote sexism, and should all be challenged and turned into something better which serves the same purpose.
Of course, I’m limited by my own experiences and perspective, so I’d love to hear your opinions on the topic.
Bonus video: “Why Do Conservative Shows All Look the Same? | Renegade Cut” - a discussion about fake man-caves and sexism.
By most measures, I’m a pretty stereotypically “manly” guy, and you can say pretty much the same thing about most of my male friends.
I’ve never really felt as though a woman being present in any way impeded anything we were doing. If anything it improved things in a “the more the merrier” kind of way. As long as they’re ok with the cigar smoke, fart jokes, having to pee outside, etc. anyone is welcome to participate in our bullshit.
But I do feel like we can get in the way of women bonding and venting it the ways they need and want to. The old “it’s not about the nail” kind of thing.
And of course, there’s a whole lot of guys who are just dangerous toxic assholes who probably shouldn’t be allowed to be around women in general, but trying to figure out which ones can and can’t be trusted is a tall order and it’s a lot easier to just say “women only.”
So I don’t really see much point in men-only spaces, but I do see it for women-only spaces.
There’s some exceptions, sure, like men who have certain kinds of trauma that involve women may need some safe places to work that out. And it’s not that women can’t also be dangerous, toxic assholes, but in terms of numbers, severity, and actual risk, things are kind of on a different level than with men, so it’s easier to deal with that on a case-by-case basis.
What does it’s not about the nail refer to?
I know it as a reference to this video.
In my marriage this is often reversed. I find myself telling my wife, sometimes, “It’s not about the nail!”
Can you help me understand what the video means?
It seems like the guy is right that the nail is causing her the problems, but the woman is right that the guy keeps interrupting her?
I don’t always pick up on social things like this.
Frequently when someone complains about something they are looking not for a solution, but for commiseration. They want the other person to connect with and empathize with them.
This isn’t inherently gendered, but the stereotype is that men always try to fix a woman’s problem without really hearing her.
The video makes the cause extremely obvious on purpose, both because it’s funny and also because in practice it often does seem obvious to the person listening. But learning to empathize before offering solutions is a really important step in learning to communicate, because humans are emotional beings and can feel like our problems are being minimized if the response to them is a solution.
Thank you <3
No problem! Before my wife and I got married our counselor showed us this video and explained it the same way, and it’s been very useful for both of us to be able to gently correct the other by saying, “it’s not about the nail.”
Lol for me personally this mental image would be counterproductive because if someone really did have a nail in their head, I’m calling 911 first and listening to them 2nd while 911 is on the way. We are literally trained to do this for any emergency. (The patient can always decline EMS but we don’t want them to arrive too late.)
But I agree for non-emergencies its good to let people speak uninterrupted and not push solutions, while recognizing your own boundaries and frustrations (if the other person is not trying an obvious solution).
As a woman, I don’t tend to care too much about gendered groups. I’m of the opinion that if somebody doesn’t want me there, I don’t want to be there.
Depending on the context of the group, there’s a valid reason for their existence, for example pregnancy groups (probably sex-exclusive though?) as I don’t really see what a male/man would get out of it.
I’m sure similarly valid groups exist for men, but I can’t think of any right now.
I tend to be more okay with women’s only spaces just because they feel safe – due to certain men displaying overtly and unwanted sexual desires and seemingly just unable to control themselves, which can be uncomfortable or trigger traumas – so naturally I believe men should be entitled to their own spaces as well.
My personal preference is mixed groups, but if someone wants a gender-exclusive safe space that’s their business and I don’t think that should be denied to them. If the purpose of the group is that they’re sexiest, I honestly don’t know why the opposite gender would want to hang around them anyway.
But my response to their claim is that, I am reasonable and I do have an issue with any group setting up places which discriminate based on gender. These safe places can form as a legitimate rudimentary form of protection, yes, but they maintain and often even promote sexism, and should all be challenged and turned into something better which serves the same purpose.
I’m curious whether you think you think this applies to, for example, a spa or locker room where people are in various states of undress and are separated into exclusive spaces based on gender?
Those are different things, and I think it important to say that because your question reads like you’re conflating them, when you aren’t; you’re asking how far it does stretch, not saying that locker rooms are the same as a social club.
Which isn’t directed at you, but any passersby that didn’t catch it
As far as that goes, I’m actually okay with shared lockers/showers/bathrooms, so long as you can find privacy as an individual. Stalls with good isolation for them what care in other words. I don’t, however, think it would be okay to enforce that at this point in time
sorry by spa I was implying not a social club but a place like baths or an onsen where women might be naked in baths together; typically these spaces are sex / gender separated
I think the assumption in my question is that in the baths and locker rooms we assume the spaces are open and people do not have total privacy when in states of undress.
I would hope that in 25-50 years from now, gendered locker rooms and bathrooms will be a thing of the past, and slowly replaced with individual unisex stalls. Maybe for high volume places (like a stadium or airport) there will still be bathrooms with a wall of urinals, but those will probably not be labeled “men’s” and will just be urinals.
The public pool locker room is the last place in american society where you can exist legitimately naked in public.
Moving to a place where everyone is expected to go into a private stall seems :(
I live in Denmark and that’s at least how bathrooms are basically everywhere here. It’s nice.
That’s a good question. In fact, I think just yesterday on reddit the front page had a photo of a sign at a public bath in China saying something along the lines of “No homosexual men allowed”, with top comments hypothesizing it was probably more about banning unwanted or public sex acts than homophobia itself.
I assert that this kind of gender segregation is usually about deterring sexualization (and even sexual violence). This is the case for spas, locker rooms, toilets, or even more general places like gyms. My basic position is that being able to deter unwanted sexualization is a useful goal for many reasons, but that’s a rudimentary attempt to solve it. At best, I’d say it’s a coping mechanism which should be understood as such. So I don’t believe they must immediately be abolished, that might be utopian, we need to begin mainstreaming a culture that would enable these sexist institutions to be abolished.
But ultimately:
- They’re a product of heteronormativity. Obviously there are plenty of people attracted to the same gender who won’t be deterred by this.
- They’re a product of normalized sexual abuse in culture. There’s a “common sense” that if you put men and women in the same room in a state of undress, then abuse will happen. But we know that’s not some ultimate “human nature”! It’s a result of culture and social structure. Consider nudist groups and nudist society as a direct counterpoint to the cultural sexualization of nudity.
Link to that reddit post
I think people often don’t seem to realize that sex-segregated bathrooms were a relatively recent invention, going back only a few hundred years: https://time.com/4337761/history-sex-segregated-bathrooms/
I do think the assumption that women will be attacked or sexually assaulted underlies at least some motivation (the TIME article above claims it is a view of women as weak and the public as dangerous - which generally fits that view). The fact that this reasoning was used to justify segregation in every aspect of public life, to the point of having separate train cars, and yet we saw that segregation go away nearly everywhere but bathrooms, it makes it seem like the claims about safety could have been overblown (or maybe more accurately: that segregation doesn’t necessarily protect as much as it claims). The TIME article argues that the only reason bathrooms are still segregated has more to do with the difficulty with changing codes and standards than anything like actual safety reasons.
OK, here’s another question: in the Middle East / Western Asia misogyny is quite a significant problem (that might be an understatement), and in northern Syria there was a women-only militia formed called the YPJ. The YPJ was formed as a group based on egalitarian, feminist ideology and has been praised for having improved the power and situation of women in that region.
It seems to me that segregation is sometimes used to oppress women, but sometimes segregation is also how women are able to carve out independence and push back against their oppression.
What do you make of this example of women who under extreme oppression were able to form a women-only militia which then increased the power of women in the region?
Gender exclusive groups are OK when there is a legitimate reason. Unfortunately it just so happens that women-exclusive groups have a legitimate reason very often, which is usually “I don’t want to be hit on in every activity I do”.
Why are there women only career events? Because many women experience going to “normal” career events, have nice conversations, thinking they made a good business connection just to be asked out on a date and ghosted when they decline. They don’t get the same benefits out of “normal” events as men do.
Why are there women only gyms? Because women want to do sports without being hit on regularly.
Now you could say “Well, but that’s a problem of some men not sticking to the rules. Just enforce the rules.” But the problem is, the rules aren’t being enforced, women aren’t taken seriously or just told to suck it up, that’s part of life. You’re in a public space so it’s OK for a man to ask you out. To which the women’s reaction is: “Well, then I’d rather do X in a private space where there aren’t any men who could hit on me.”
As long as there are struggles that men face exclusively it’s totally ok to have men only groups. The problem:
-
men do not face the problem of being put in uncomfortable situations by women almost anywhere they go, so they have less topics or activities where they feel like they need a men’s only group. For most topics/activities men can go to a mixed-gender group and have the same experience as they would in a male-only group. Women can’t.
-
a lot of men’s groups do not form around “we want to address a typical male problem” but “we have prejudices about women being bad at x” or “we just hate women”.
And lastly historically the reason why women wanted to join male-only groups was because those groups were often used to make decisions and policies. Business is being made in golf clubs and was made in “gentlemen’s clubs”. Women wanting to join those wasn’t about playing golf. Sure, we can have a women’s club to play golf. It was about being left out of the informal decision making process, the deal making. In my personal experience women are more likely to discuss work matters at work with everybody and at any “women only” outing with colleagues work was hardly a topic. Whereas when it happened that men went drinking with “just the boys” the next day important decisions had been made and suddenly Mark was in charge of the new project. Just my personal experience and I’m not saying it can’t happen the other way around in female dominated fields.
Gender exclusive groups are OK when there is a legitimate reason.
What is a legitimate reason though? Consider…
- men do not face the problem of being put in uncomfortable situations by women almost anywhere they go, so they have less topics or activities where they feel like they need a men’s only group. For most topics/activities men can go to a mixed-gender group and have the same experience as they would in a male-only group. Women can’t.
You seem to be saying that a legitimate reason would be a need to escape from people hitting on you or the equivalent. How about if you just want to hang out with people of your own gender? Is that not OK? Men do not have the “same experience” in mixed gender groups. Socializing in a single gender group is different from in a mixed gender group and both are important. You are dismissing the need for men to socialize among themselves on the basis that they might make an important decision that should have included people outside that group. Now I understand that this has historically been (and in some cases continues to be) an issue with work-based men’s-only clubs/outings etc, and it should be addressed in that context. But it’s not a valid reason to reject the existence of male only groups or spaces in their entirety, is it?
Case in point: I sing in a male voice choir. I enjoy it not just on a musical level, but also for the fact that it is a male space. It’s not about hating women, or having prejudices about women. It’s not actually about women at all, which is kind of my point. I have enough women in my life, what I need is to be around men sometimes. Nor is it about “we want to address a typical male problem” either, unless you consider difficulty with socializing to be a typical male problem, which, yeah, arguably it is in some cases. But guys just like doing things with guys sometimes. It’s a different dynamic and it’s good for us.
I’m not talking about friend groups, just groups that are open to the public. Friend groups are OK in whatever constellation you wish.
Your choir has a good reason to be men only, since that creates a certain sound.
It gets tricky when the point of the group or club is something not related to gender. I don’t think an all-female board game club that is open to the public but only lets women join would be OK. Personally I think you can have your meetings for only people of your gender when you organize them only for yourself. But as soon as you do something publicly, you don’t get to say “everybody can come except group X” without a good reason.
That goes for men and women, I’m also not a fan of “xy only for girls” clubs without a good reason.
Your choir has a good reason to be men only, since that creates a certain sound.
That’s true. Which is why I pointed out that my reasons for joining the choir are not just about the sound. I want a male space, and I don’t think I’m wrong to want that.
I don’t think an all-female board game club that is open to the public but only lets women join would be OK.
Personally I don’t see what’s wrong with an all female board game club, especially if it’s the kind of board games that tend to mostly attract male players. It may encourage female participation where they would otherwise feel uncomfortable, and male players would probably have their own club anyway in that case. But then in the absence of a thriving all female club, an all male board game club would be a problematic thing, since it would specifically exclude a female minority. Context matters and it’s important to be inclusive, but inclusivity doesn’t always mean putting everyone in a single group.
But as soon as you do something publicly, you don’t get to say “everybody can come except group X” without a good reason.
OK, but what’s a good reason? We often have groups for limited age ranges, for usually good reasons. You’ve mentioned some good reasons why men should be excluded from some women’s groups. So it’s not like nobody ever gets excluded from anything. And while men may have less compelling reasons to exclude women, in general single sex groups are a valuable social thing for both men and women. One of the reasons you don’t see many strictly single gender clubs is because there are de facto single gender clubs which don’t need to apply a rule. People socialize in a single gender category without having to formally exclude anyone. Which is fine, and avoids unnecessary polemics.
I’m just saying that we should recognize the value in this. It’s a shame that male only spaces tend to be associated with patriarchy or toxic masculinity, when they also fulfill a real social need.
I would enjoy some male-only spaces. I used to play an MMO game and we all got on great in our guild, right up until a woman joined. Suddenly the banter started having edges to it, people were putting eachother down to try and gain status to/for the woman.
Not in any way her fault, she wasnt playing favourites or flirting or teasing anyone, she was just playing the game like everyone else, but the vibes starting turning.i didnt enjoy that.
I’m not gonna have an opinion, but I’d like to say that it sounds harsh to exclude someone based on other people being weird, no?
I don’t know if you need a male-only space or a normal-person space (probably the latter).
That being said, I could maybe see how people may not want to make certain jokes in front of certain people, but if youre just having fun and youre not racist or something um idk
It is harsh, but its incredibly similar to the OP issue. Just in my day-dreamed space it would be women getting excluded because some men cant behave, rather than men being excluded because some men cant behave.
-
I do have an issue with any group setting up places which discriminate based on gender.
That is your problem. Let people create the groups they want.
Username checks out
This post has clearly brought up a lot of interesting discussion. I just want to add my thoughts…
I never thought of myself as someone who would benefit from male-only spaces as I tend to not like men, but in my mid 20s I started going to bars and clubs oriented towards gay men because I was exploring my sexuality.
I found that often these places have a strong sense of community and camaraderie that I have grown to see as quite sacred. Part of this sense of community is rooted in a shared experience of our gender identity and sexual identity.
Sometimes having women in these spaces could ruin the vibe and sometimes having women in these spaces had no negative effect or was even positive. It really depends on the attitude of women coming into those spaces. Are they there to gawk? Are they there to seek community?
If you made a blanket rule banning women I think it would be very detrimental. For example there are trans men who havent come to terms with this yet, and cutting them out of a space like this is bad.
It would also be disingenuous to claim only women were the ones ruining the vibe. Some men are creeps, controlling, judgmental etc.
To me the important thing isn’t that we ban non-men from entering into the space and say it’s a men-only place. That excludes people who would be good to have there and doesn’t guarantee you remove all of the bad people from coming. But I do think it’s important to have spaces that we say are for men. This is a place for men that caters to men and if are not a man don’t expect it to cater to your needs.
It’s like if you have a Mexican restaurant in the United States oriented towards serving Mexican customers. You can go there even there even if you’re not Mexican, but it’s disrespectful to get angry if people don’t speak English well.
There are always both men and women, who, upon finding out that a space exists that isn’t for them decide to try and enter those spaces out of protest. I think in most cases it’s probably best to let these people in. Either they will acclimate to the culture or they will get bored and stop going eventually. I know that this will make the space less safe or comfortable feeling for some people, but there’s literally no way to have community without also having people be part of that community that are sometimes unsafe or uncomfortable to have around.
I’ve had this discussion before.
Symptom v disease
As someone else said, speaking generally, women exclude men and men exclude women, both due to a large, problematic subset of men who believe women are inferior. Sex-/Gender- exclusive spaces sort of solve the problems of sexism, but in the same way a sandwich solves food insecurity, which is to say ‘unsustainably, and in a very limited location.’ However, creating sex-/gender- exclusive spaces is really only focusing on the secondary effects in a way that has no effect on the primary issue, and may in some cases make the issue worse.
Nothing about a sex-/gender- exclusive space inherently creates a positive effect. Arguing against this truth is definitionally sex essentialism, a.k.a. sexism, because if you think something can only happen culturally because of sexual biology of the participants, you’re there. It can be argued that an exclusive space may be a temporary necessary evil, but I’m leery of people saying ‘let me do this bad thing now because I promise it will lead to better things someday.’
A <class>-only space innately encourages/enhances otherization. If you spend your time in a group that frames their definition of the world around some arbitrary distinction, which can be anything from sex to race to religion to job title to grooming habits, it encourages people to think of the division as meaningful. To a racist, your skin color tells them something significant about you. To a sexist, your sex does. And so on, and so on. To my knowledge, there are no current societies that view, say, toenail length as significant, so you won’t see anyone making any clipper-only groups. However, you would know if you saw such a group, even if no one specifically told you, the organizers/members of that group believe the distinction is significant enough to warrant the separation. They would be, whether they knew or wanted to be or not, toenail-lengthists, or at the very least, participating willingly in toenail-lengthism.
Class analysis and racism are the same, folks. I too am shocked, but you can’t lie on the Internet, so here we are.
You are aware the word ‘class’ is commonly used to talk about ‘classes of things,’ and not just working/capitalist class, right? Bicycles are a class of transport. Heavyweight is a class of boxer. Verbs are a class of word. Workers are a class of person because the people can be classed by their economic method of participation, not because working class is a preceding concept from which we pull ‘class’ and tack it onto other things like the ‘-gate’ from Watergate. I specifically used the bracketed ‘<word>’ style of notation to denote a place in which one could insert any classifier. If you don’t know the word ‘class’ has more than one use, maybe you should return to your classes on the English language.
Pathetic trolling.
No, you.
This is a question we’ve faced in the queer community forever. As LGBTQ people there’s a lot of blur between sex/gender. Bars have gotten into hot water with the community over the years for being sex/gender exclusive.
However, in the instance of a sexual environment, like a bath house or fetish club, is such segregation legitimate? For example, I am solely gay and only interested in biologically male genitalia. I completely support trans men politically but if I am in a sexual situation I am only interested in men with penises. However, my husband loves trans men sexually and finds men with vaginas hot af. So IDK. I guess that if I went to a gay sex club and there were trans men there that’s simply not my particular jam, like there are gonna be other cis gender guys there that aren’t going to be my thing either. But ultimately sexual environments would be the only acceptable segregation I can think of off the top of my head.
Also, note that there used to be an incredibly important annual lesbian music event, the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival, that ran from 1976 to 2015 that arguably died because of their exclusion of trans women. From 1991 forward the festival, which was on private land, had a trans exclusionary policy that divided the attendees.
But ultimately sexual environments would be the only acceptable segregation I can think of off the top of my head.
the clubs i frequent are more sexually charged than bath houses and the straight women who show up have the unfortunate tendency to treat it like a petting zoo.
it got so bad that one of the places instituted a fetish gear requirement for entry and it was VERY effective at keeping straight women out, but it had the unfortunate side effect of push the straight women to the other establishments and it significantly reduced the levels of sexual charge in all of them.
Yeah I’ve seen groups of straight women on hen parties frequenting gay bars and I’m not sure how to feel about it. A lot of the time it feels like they’re simply there to gawk and treat it like a tourist spot - they definitely wouldn’t come by themselves. And it makes it feel like less of a safe space for LGBTQ+ people
And it makes it feel like less of a safe space for LGBTQ+ people
definitely so, queers have very few public safe spaces while straight women have plenty and it’s the height of privilege that it’s okay to “slum it” w us like rich people “slum it” in poor neighborhoods and end up gentrifying it.
Sure, of course they are.
I’ll even go so far as to say that even more fine grained groups are okay. What becomes a problem is when every group excludes people that really shouldn’t be.
You get a chess club, why the fuck can’t a woman join? Right? Calling it a men’s club is just exclusionary for no purpose. Even the girl/boy Scout divide was pointless in any real sense, and was a missed opportunity for those scouts to have guidance on how a scout is supposed to treat others.
Hell, when it comes right down to it, even a specific cis organization is fine, just the way trans specific ones are. The problem, again, is when a club is exclusionary just for the sake of it.
We all have aspects of our lives that aren’t shared by people with other genders and/or types of genitals. There’s struggles and discrete experiences that a trans man can have that I never will, and vice versa.
But, again, once it ceases to be about that kind of specificity, it starts being bigotry in disguise and needs to fuck right off. Ain’t no good reason women shouldn’t be allowed into things like community action groups. A gender division there is just pointless and stupid. If they also exclude trans men, it’s as bad (maybe even worse).
Hell, the masons are full of shit in that regard. Fraternal orders are hypothetically okay, but since when have the masons actually been about men sharing the unique aspects of life that men share? It’s just exclusionary bullshit (and I’ve seen it from the inside, so I know it’s utter bullshit). They’re the best example of how not to be a gender based organization.
I’m not saying that men shouldn’t be able to gather and just hang out. We should, as should women. There really is a different vibe, and there’s no way around that. But once you start organizing that on a bigger scale, you have a different threshold to meet.
Since, historically, most of the men’s organizations not only excluded women, but actively served to continue oppression of women, being a de facto patriarchal enforcement group, those groups get the worst attention. They weren’t really men’s groups, they were power control groups that men only could use to gain, maintain, and exploit control. That’s why there’s pushback on them, not the fact that they were/are gendered.
Any group can be empowering for its members. If it’s a group that already has an incommensurate amount of power, exclusive meetings will tend to exacerbate the inequality. But if it’s a relatively powerless group, it can counter the imbalance.
I don’t see the point in having women in the micropenis support group, and vice versa for the stinky vagina group. So, at least one valid case comes to mind, and I’m sure we can make small generalisations from there, right?
You know trans people exist right?
Oh, it’s “gender”. Okay, read my comment but assume I meant sex, my bad. Basically, some “genital-segregated” groups can have their uses, at the very least.
If the groups are based on gender as written by OP, I wouldn’t see any issue for trans people to participate in these groups.
Women face inequality across society.
Men only groups foster and grow that inequality.
Women only groups give women a chance to get away from the bullshit at least sometimes.
If and when we solve inequality, then we can come back and talk about whether gendered groups still have a place.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the Women’s Center at my university, reading this thread. I don’t remember if they had any women-only events, but whenever I visited it was so clearly a woman-centered space run by women for women, and anybody who could abide by that was welcome. It was a different vibe from the rest of the campus for sure.
The entirety of campus was male dominated in the subtle or not so subtle way that society in general is. To want to take away the women’s centers’ ability to self-direct would seem like punching down in the worst way.
Everyone deserves a safe space. And for a lot of women, that space shouldn’t have men. I’m a middle class, cis, white guy, almost everything is a safe space for me. It’s crazy people get offended when they are like me and someone won’t let them into their club.
As long as the discrimination isn’t used to hurt people but protect the interests of the group I think it’s fine.
The issue isn’t safe spaces. I mean, in the context you used, you are entirely correct - society in general is largely a safe space for white men.
The issue here is actually men’s-only spaces. And it is in that context that the anti-male bigotry comes boiling out of the societal woodwork under the weaponized mantra of “misogyny”.
As in, women can have all the women’s-only spaces they want or need, because to force them open to both genders is “misogyny”. And honestly, I am willing to let them have that olive branch.
However, they then turn around and demand that all men’s-only spaces be opened up to women, because to keep them men’s-only is also, somehow, “misogyny”.
Sorry, but that’s not how that works. That isn’t how any of that works.
The single most effective tool for determining if bigotry exists is to change the terms in contention, and see if things read identically to before, or oppositely to before.
If the two examples read wildly differently from each other, then congrats - you found a bigoted pattern.
So when you hear about men’s only gyms being cracked open for women to attend, consider how wildly different it would read if it was a women’s only gym being forced to admit men. That sure reads wildly differently, doesn’t it? That’s because there is deep bigotry in having the former being forced through while the latter is being defended against.
And honestly… if true equality in treating everyone with the exact same rules is “misogynistic”, why call it equality in the first place? Just call it for what it truly is: anti-male gender bigotry.
I don’t really know where I stand on this issue to be honest as I can see pros and cons for both.
But even if equality did exist (gender, sex, race, religion etc), equality doesn’t necessarily mean that equity is achieved.
I think the entire equity debate is confusing many of the inputs for outputs - which they are not. They are inputs, and are therefore equality-based, not equity based.
Take, for example, the old meme:
This meme is actually entirely wrong.
In the above meme, the left panel is an example of inequality. because the opportunity provided - the ability to see the game - is unequally provided across the three spectators. There is no equality of opportunity here, no equal ability to see the game due to the differing heights of the viewers despite the addition of boxes for all three.
It is the right panel which is the ideal example of equality - the ability to see the game. Here all three spectators have anny individual deficiencies that they cannot control and cannot overcome without outside help - their heights - made irrelevant by the equalizing effect of the boxes. All three heads are brought to equal and sufficient height for them to achieve equal opportunities to view the game.
Equity doesn’t even factor in here, because the enjoyment of the game is impossible to force across all spectators. To force equal outcomes - equal enjoyment of the game - would be monstrously inhuman and downright evil.
Weasel words. Equity and equality are used as cudgels by liberals against the left. End heirarchy and gendered organizations.
Funding is a core concern for organizations like Boy Scouts of America (BSA) and Girl Scouts (GS). GS is funded by cookie sales. BSA was funded by donors.
Intersectionality does come into play with regard to GS versus BSA. I contend gender is only one issue. Class is also playing a role.
We can move beyond gendered clubs. Why not have free associations?
And honestly… if true equality in treating everyone with the exact same rules is “misogynistic”, why call it equality in the first place? Just call it for what it truly is: anti-male gender bigotry.
this only works under the assumption that men and women are on an equal playing field, which isn’t even remotely true as patriarchy ensures women remain a disadvantaged group.
you fundamentally do not understand why women’s spaces even exist. the vast majority of men’s only spaces never needed to be men’s only in the first place, and only are because of bigotry toward women. women-only spaces, on the other hand, exist for two reasons: for women’s safety, and for women’s representation.
men are not actively threatened by violence, nor are men a disadvantaged and underrepresented group in multiple fields that have historically discouraged them the way women are. as long as men maintain the dominant role in society, men entering women’s spaces designed to lift women up only serves to prevent progress toward equality.
I would argue that in private spaces, absolutely. The owner of a private space has the exclusive right to admit anyone they choose and bar anyone they choose, based on any criteria they wish. [To preempt the obvious objection, I’m talking about e.g. a private residence, not a business.]
I’d argue this is doubly true for support group style groups. If there’s a support group for a topic that is exclusively experienced by one sex, I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to make that group exclusively for that sex. (Examples might be testicular or ovarian cancer sufferers.)
So I can put this up on my shop/bar/whatever ?
[To preempt the obvious objection, I’m talking about e.g. a private residence, not a business.]
No, clearly not, as I already addressed. Fuck off.
If the group is for ovarian cancer sufferers and they require a diagnosis to participate, discriminating on sex is just needless complexity. Why open up ambiguity (e.g. for intersex cancer sufferers) when it’s already determined by the diagnosis?
Downvoted you for this stunning example of cultivated ignorance:
I think their claim is nonsense, grossly exaggerated at best.
One only needs to look at the scouts of America to see this in play.
Boy Scouts were sued to open their ranks to girls. That suit won, forcing them to open their org to girls.
Girl Scouts were then sued for the flip example - to open their ranks to boys. The suit was almost immediately thrown out for “misogyny”.
After that “victory”, the then-head of the Girl Scouts admitted in private and off the record that she would rather destroy the org before admitting a single boy.
Now, because they have both boys and girls, the Boy Scouts are trying to drop “boy” from the name, to be called only “Scouts”. This has precipitated another lawsuit from the Girl Scouts in that dropping that part of the name will only accelerate their own membership decline.
You literally cannot make this sh*t up.
Men’s-only spaces across the country, like private gyms, are being attacked from all sides on the claim that their very existence is “misogynistic”, and yet service-identical women’s spaces in the same city are immune from those same “rules” under the claim that any attempt to apply those same rules is also “misogynistic”.
One of the best ways to uncover bigotry is to flip the term in contention and see if it reads any different after that from before. If it does, you’ve found a bigoted pattern in play.
True equality reads identically regardless of how the term in contention is flipped.
liberals trying to understand equality: “what do you mean we need to give only to the poor? it’s only equal if we give the same amount to the rich!”
you need only ask yourself for what reason men-only groups exclude women and for what reason women-only groups exclude men to understand why protecting and elevating women’s groups and dismantling misogynistic institutions are both valid
Wow I’ve never seen anyone actually argue their own hypocrisy with hypocrisy.
Motivations are irrelevant. Equality is equality, you can’t give rights to one demographic and deny to another because you think the other is ‘icky’. That is discrimination. Kinda the very thing we’re trying to argue against, and yet you used it as part of your reasoning.
you can’t give rights to one demographic and deny to another because you think the other is ‘icky’.
Literally nobody said this. My whole point is that equality isn’t achieved by “applying the same rules equally” (as the person I responded to said) to people who aren’t on an equal playing field.
You don’t solve inequality by giving both those who have less and those who have more the same amount. That just maintains the status quo.
liberals trying to understand equality: “what do you mean we need to give only to the poor? it’s only equal if we give the same amount to the rich!”
That comes from a fatal and corrupted understanding of what equality is.
Equality represents equal opportunity:
- A young adult who is wealthy has the intergenerational resources to pay for university, pay for their own housing, pay for essentially everything without having to work a single job.
- A young adult who is poor and has no resources should, in order to apply true equality, be provided with said education, housing, food and other resources as deemed necessary to put them into the same level of opportunity as the wealthy one.
See how that equality of opportunity works? It’s not opening up a spot at that university for the poor, but ensuring that they have just as equal of an opportunity to apply, learn, and succeed as the wealthy. And without constantly worrying about things the wealthy - by virtue of their wealth - don’t have to worry about.
And honestly, this equality doesn’t end at application acceptance. It should really go all the way way back to birth, with the disadvantaged family getting UBI, psychological parent’s counselling, parental guidance, healthy school district funding, affordable housing, and a lot more. Because systemic inequality is generations in the making, anything applied to only the current generation is a band-aid approach to a broken leg problem.
But I digress.
you need only ask yourself for what reason men-only groups exclude women and for what reason women-only groups exclude men to understand why protecting and elevating women’s groups and dismantling misogynistic institutions are both valid
Yes, that’s called anti-male gender bigotry, and there is just no other way to spin that.
Why do men want men’s only gyms? Not to oppress women, that’s for sure. Because, to beg the question: WHAT WOMEN?? There are no women at that gym to be oppressed.
There are far more women’s only gyms than men’s only gyms - women should go there. That’s what those gyms are there for - to allow women a place to exercise without men.
And conversely, men want to go to a men’s only gym to get away from the distraction of women.
Seriously - stand in front of a men’s only gym, and interview the men going there. A significant number will cite a variation of this as their primary reason for switching.
They want the camaraderie of men in a place without distractions. They don’t want the gym thots doing thirst traps on Instagram. They don’t want to be interrupted in the middle of a set by some woman fondling their buttocks (I’ve actually seen this happen, with zero repercussion only because it was a guy who was the “victim”). They don’t want to deal with unjustified accusations of harassment and other assumed slights. They just want to work out in peace.
And if they cannot work out in peace, why should women?
As in, why call it “equality”, when it is most clearly nothing of the sort?
