'Women only' groups

Trog

Hi guys, I started this thread in AH and was advised to start it again here to get a real discssion about it:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056078550

I'll just copy and paste my original post for those of you who don't want to read 5 pages of sexist jokes and sparse discussion:

Right, from the off, I don't want to start a battle of the sexes here. But this is an issue where I'm honestly divided, the lines here seem to be blurry at best.

I'm a man, and I'm hearing about more and more women-only groups in the media. There's women only gyms, women only book clubs, and today I heard about a women only marijuana advocate group in California.
Surely there's something amiss here? I understand that in certain circumstances it makes sense to have this- the gym is somewhere a woman might feel intimidated by men perving on them, for example, fair enough. I only wish there was a 'no d**khead gym for me to go to.

The thing is, say I was to start a men only book club, for example. I'd be chastised for it and there'd be outrage. I wouldn't be able to go on Sean Moncrieff's radio show (where I heard the California thing) saying things like "Well, a lot of men don't like the image associated with book clubs, so I'm starting one where there's a safe environment for them" etc. I'd be abused off the airwaves. And proper order it would be too.

This kind of behavior draws attention to distinctions which we should be moving on from. Yes, women and men are different, but the more attention we draw to these differences, the more people are going to treat women and men as different.

Obviously this applies to all kinds of distinctions, but this one is the most prevalent in my opinion. You're far less likely to come across a 'Japanese people only' group, for example.

Wolfe Tone

Its ok, they still cant join the freemasons, were the REAL power is!!


I think some golf groups are male only?

Kooli

I think an important question is - do you want to start a 'men-only book club'? Does anyone? If so, and if there were valid reasons for it, I really don't think there would be the outrage you are imagining.

I think when women start women-only groups, they do so for genuine reasons of feeling more comfortable in women-only settings.

Are there occassions where men want to have a 'men only' group but can't? If so, what are they?

Or is this more a case of arguing theoretically that they should be allowed to?

If men want to start 'men only' groups for a genuine reason, then fine, go for it! But if they want to do it just because of a perceived discrimination, or just to put two fingers up to the equivalent 'women only' group, then I don't think that's particularly valid.

Trog

I didn't get a chance to respond to this point: (the poster quotes some sexist jokes)

Comments like this are why there are women's only groups. We realize that for 90% of men these are just jokes and you don't honestly believe that women can't be soldiers and are only sex objects. But when these sorts of comment come up over and over again it gets tiresome. So sometimes you just want to have a discussion that does not devolve into being asked either your cup size or to go make someone a sandwich

Now I see the point here. Men can be very insensitive, but does segregating us not just add to the problem? Most men who are sexist are so because they feel a huge division between themselves and women, and they cannot identify with them. Surely having groups aimed at separating and excluding them can only make them feel more separated and breed more bad blood so to speak, promoting this casual sexism.

Speaking from personal experience, I felt like women were an entirely different and incomprehensible species until I went to college and started socializing with them more on a neutral level, where the boundaries had dissipated.

I'd be interested to hear people's views.

Denerick

Men only groups are a bit gay. I recently told a mate of mine who's dad is a member of a male only golf club that his dad is probably a homosexual.

Kooli

Trog wrote: »

I didn't get a chance to respond to this point: (the poster quotes some sexist jokes)

Comments like this are why there are women's only groups. We realize that for 90% of men these are just jokes and you don't honestly believe that women can't be soldiers and are only sex objects. But when these sorts of comment come up over and over again it gets tiresome. So sometimes you just want to have a discussion that does not devolve into being asked either your cup size or to go make someone a sandwich

Now I see the point here. Men can be very insensitive, but does segregating us not just add to the problem? Most men who are sexist are so because they feel a huge division between themselves and women, and they cannot identify with them. Surely having groups aimed at separating and excluding them can only make them feel more separated and breed more bad blood so to speak, promoting this casual sexism.

Speaking from personal experience, I felt like women were an entirely different and incomprehensible species until I went to college and started socializing with them more on a neutral level, where the boundaries had dissipated.

I'd be interested to hear people's views.

That's an interesting point, but the fact is that if I want to go to a gym it's because I want to go to a gym. If I want to join a book club it's to discuss books. There should be no onus on me to use this platform to try and eradicate casual sexism or to try and teach men what it is like to interact with women on an equal level. I just want to talk about books.

Ickle Magoo

I'm not sure what the issue is tbh.

Surely pretty much any private group is allowed to set up and dictate their own rules of membership? What's the alternative? Banning single-sex clubs because too many of them are now appearing for women?

I'm not sure why you think there would be outrage or you'd be chastised for a male only book-club. I seem to be hearing a lot of this supposed outrage and chastisement men could expect for doing similar but rather unsurprisingly, I haven't actually witnessed any - unless you include the RCC & their priesthood.

I'm with Bigweld when it comes to setting up niches...for instance, my husband got so fed up with the lack of literature aimed at men, he's writing a book himself - which I think is great. Men and women ARE different and some men and women prefer to be in clubs and societies made up of their own sex only & I think that's okay too. As long as there is no monopoly & the option to have an opposing club for the other sex & maybe even one for both then I don't see the problem.

Trog

Kooli wrote: »

I think an important question is - do you want to start a 'men-only book club'? Does anyone? If so, and if there were valid reasons for it, I really don't think there would be the outrage you are imagining.

I think when women start women-only groups, they do so for genuine reasons of feeling more comfortable in women-only settings.

Are there occassions where men want to have a 'men only' group but can't? If so, what are they?

Or is this more a case of arguing theoretically that they should be allowed to?

If men want to start 'men only' groups for a genuine reason, then fine, go for it! But if they want to do it just because of a perceived discrimination, or just to put two fingers up to the equivalent 'women only' group, then I don't think that's particularly valid.

It's more of a theoretical argument, but not that men should be allowed to do it, more that it shouldn't be acceptable at all:

No, I don't want to start a men only group, because I feel that that is an incredibly unjust thing to do. It can only do damage to society, and separate people on unfair grounds. My point is that this kind of separation shouldn't be deemed appropriate at all, where there is no REAL reason to separate.

There are a few men only societies and groups like golf clubs and the free masons, but they've all come under considerable attention for their sexist attitudes. The same is to be said for jobs where women aren't made welcome. And rightly so.

Kooli

Trog wrote: »

No, I don't want to start a men only group, because I feel that that is an incredibly unjust thing to do. .

Sorry to be a stickler, but is it that you would like to have a men-only group, but you wouldn't do it because it's 'unjust'? Or is it that it's not something you particularly want, and you also wouldn't agree with the practice cos it's unjust?

It's an important distinction.

Women who choose to set up or attend women-only groups do so because this is how they want to conduct whatever activity it is. If it was a mixed group, they would not attend, or they would not enjoy it as much. They are not doing it to spite men, or to create a division.

If men don't feel that need, then I don't see what the problem is. If there are areas they do feel that need, then they should sort it out and set up a group for themselves.

No one has a problem with men-only weight watchers groups. They were set up to allow men to feel more comfortable, and not a jot of 'outrage' have I seen!

Trog

Kooli wrote: »

That's an interesting point, but the fact is that if I want to go to a gym it's because I want to go to a gym. If I want to join a book club it's to discuss books. There should be no onus on me to use this platform to try and eradicate casual sexism or to try and teach men what it is like to interact with women on an equal level. I just want to talk about books.

Exactly, the point is that it shouldn't be an effort to 'cross the gap' between women and men, because the gap shouldn't even be an issue in the first place. It should just be about talking about books, not MEN talking about books, or WOMEN talking about books.

The gym is another story, there is a legitimate reason to have an all-female gym, because body image is an issue when going to the gym, one which people can be particularly sensitive about. But there are a lot of groups which highlight a big divide between men and women for trivial reasons.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Surely pretty much any private group is allowed to set up and dictate their own rules of membership? What's the alternative? Banning single-sex clubs because too many of them are now appearing for women?

I don't think this kind of thing should be banned, as that's just plain infringing on people's rights, but on a societal level, we draw attention to sexism in a very unfair way.

I agree that women and men are different. But when these differences are trivial, then surely drawing attention to this can only bring bad results. The issue is that men tend to be excluded from many groups where there is no evident reason for men specifically to be excluded.

LenaClaire

Trog wrote: »

I didn't get a chance to respond to this point: (the poster quotes some sexist jokes)

Comments like this are why there are women's only groups. We realize that for 90% of men these are just jokes and you don't honestly believe that women can't be soldiers and are only sex objects. But when these sorts of comment come up over and over again it gets tiresome. So sometimes you just want to have a discussion that does not devolve into being asked either your cup size or to go make someone a sandwich

Now I see the point here. Men can be very insensitive, but does segregating us not just add to the problem? Most men who are sexist are so because they feel a huge division between themselves and women, and they cannot identify with them. Surely having groups aimed at separating and excluding them can only make them feel more separated and breed more bad blood so to speak, promoting this casual sexism.

Speaking from personal experience, I felt like women were an entirely different and incomprehensible species until I went to college and started socializing with them more on a neutral level, where the boundaries had dissipated.

I'd be interested to hear people's views.

Hi Trog,

I am glad you re-opened this thread in a new forum. I did not mean to imply that we always want events that are women only. I am happily married and love spending time with my husband and other male friends at co-ed events. I just meant that sometimes it is nice to be able to totally relax and discuss things from a female point of view with out having to worry about being mocked for being a "feminazi" or whatever. It just gets exhausting putting up with the jokes and the comments on your looks.

I think there should be men only events where men can talk about issues germane to them. Some of my guy friends go on retreats in the woods with big fires and stuff to talk about guy things. I think that is good for them.

Dades

Denerick wrote: »

Men only groups are a bit gay. I recently told a mate of mine who's dad is a member of a male only golf club that his dad is probably a homosexual.

Inbetweeners fan? :pac:

There are no male only golf clubs, only clubs that only allow men full "membership rights". Woman can and do play there too.

Trog

Kooli wrote: »

Sorry to be a stickler, but is it that you would like to have a men-only group, but you wouldn't do it because it's 'unjust'? Or is it that it's not something you particularly want, and you also wouldn't agree with the practice cos it's unjust?

It's an important distinction.

Women who choose to set up or attend women-only groups do so because this is how they want to conduct whatever activity it is. If it was a mixed group, they would not attend, or they would not enjoy it as much. They are not doing it to spite men, or to create a division.

If men don't feel that need, then I don't see what the problem is. If there are areas they do feel that need, then they should sort it out and set up a group for themselves.

No one has a problem with men-only weight watchers groups. They were set up to allow men to feel more comfortable, and not a jot of 'outrage' have I seen!

I don't particularly want to set up a men only group, but if I did, I would only do it where there was a solid and definable reason to do so. The weight watchers thing is another body-image issue, and the body-image issue is one where the differences between the sexes plays a major factor. So that's fine.

I understand that they don't do it in spit of men, I am merely suggesting that a better solution to the problem is to stop creating unnecessary boundaries so that both women and men can realize which are the important differences and which are trivial.

It's not about whether men should be allowed do this, it's about what effect this kind of behavior ultimately has on our attitudes towards each other as a society, and I think this effect is negative, and so this behavior isn't something I support.

Kooli

Trog wrote: »

Exactly, the point is that it shouldn't be an effort to 'cross the gap' between women and men, because the gap shouldn't even be an issue in the first place. It should just be about talking about books, not MEN talking about books, or WOMEN talking about books.

The gym is another story, there is a legitimate reason to have an all-female gym, because body image is an issue when going to the gym, one which people can be particularly sensitive about. But there are a lot of groups which highlight a big divide between men and women for trivial reasons.



I don't think this kind of thing should be banned, as that's just plain infringing on people's rights, but on a societal level, we draw attention to sexism in a very unfair way.

I agree that women and men are different. But when these differences are trivial, then surely drawing attention to this can only bring bad results. The issue is that men tend to be excluded from many groups where there is no evident reason for men specifically to be excluded.

So am I right in saying that your issue is actually that women don't have valid or genuine reasons for wanting 'women-only' groups? The gym one is 'valid' but other groups (like book clubs) are not 'valid' because the differences are trivial and shouldn't be made a big deal of?

Well I disagree!!

When I am in a discussion with a group of women, it usually takes a very different tone and course than a discussion with a mixed group. The difference does not have to be about good and bad, better and worse, it's just different - better in some ways, worse in others. So if I want the type of discussion that is more typical with a group of women, I will join a women's only group for it.

Ickle Magoo

Trog wrote: »

I don't think this kind of thing should be banned, as that's just plain infringing on people's rights, but on a societal level, we draw attention to sexism in a very unfair way.

I agree that women and men are different. But when these differences are trivial, then surely drawing attention to this can only bring bad results. The issue is that men tend to be excluded from many groups where there is no evident reason for men specifically to be excluded.

Surely there is nothing stopping men from setting up their own club, either for their own gender or, indeed, both? We, thankfully, live in a democracy which means that if someone sees a market for single-sex clubs/groups/classes then they have the right to set one up and we all have the right to choose whether to attend the respective group, or not.

If we can legally segregate children in classrooms according to religion or gender then I'm not sure why a book-club has you making proclamations of doom.

Trog

jujibee wrote: »

Hi Trog,

I am glad you re-opened this thread in a new forum. I did not mean to imply that we always want events that are women only. I am happily married and love spending time with my husband and other male friends at co-ed events. I just meant that sometimes it is nice to be able to totally relax and discuss things from a female point of view with out having to worry about being mocked for being a "feminazi" or whatever. It just gets exhausting putting up with the jokes and the comments on your looks.

I think there should be men only events where men can talk about issues germane to them. Some of my guy friends go on retreats in the woods with big fires and stuff to talk about guy things. I think that is good for them.

This is a good point, and I agree that it can be nice to spend time with people of your own sex. Even to organise specific events like retreats. I went to an all boys school and I got a lot from it that I wouldn't have if girls had been there.
But surely this can be done without setting up large, public societies with explicit rules banning the other sex for very trivial reasons. Instead of joining the women only book club where women talk about books in a way that excludes men, why not just spend some time with your female friends? This doesn't draw attention to a division unnecessarily, and therefore doesn't contribute to a problem.

I understand that you don't always want to be away from men, and that it can be frustrating dealing with immature people (and trust me, as a man with mostly female friends, it can be equally frustrating for men at times- although perhaps less frequently). But surely the solution to this is still not to draw barriers?

Kooli

Trog wrote: »

But surely this can be done without setting up large, public societies with explicit rules banning the other sex for very trivial reasons. Instead of joining the women only book club where women talk about books in a way that excludes men, why not just spend some time with your female friends?

OK now I'm getting confused - what are these large, public societies with explicit rules? A book club couldn't be described as that, so what are these other discriminatory organisations you are talking about?

And I don't understand your suggestion that we should just spend more time with our friends rather than joining a women's only book club - that makes no sense to me. The purpose of the book club is to talk about books - spending time with friends is a separate activity that doesn't replace it. The book club isn't necessarily just a way to spend more time with friends?

I'm baffled to be honest!

Trog

Kooli wrote: »

So am I right in saying that your issue is actually that women don't have valid or genuine reasons for wanting 'women-only' groups? The gym one is 'valid' but other groups (like book clubs) are not 'valid' because the differences are trivial and shouldn't be made a big deal of?

Well I disagree!!

When I am in a discussion with a group of women, it usually takes a very different tone and course than a discussion with a mixed group. The difference does not have to be about good and bad, better and worse, it's just different - better in some ways, worse in others. So if I want the type of discussion that is more typical with a group of women, I will join a women's only group for it.

As I said above, you can have a women's discussion without drawing attention to barriers.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Surely there is nothing stopping men from setting up their own club, either for their own gender or, indeed, both? We, thankfully, live in a democracy which means that if someone sees a market for single-sex clubs/groups/classes then they have the right to set one up and we all have the right to choose whether to attend the respective group, or not.

If we can legally segregate children in classrooms according to religion or gender then I'm not sure why a book-club has you making proclamations of doom.

There is nothing stopping us, and that's fine, I don't think this kind of thing should be illegal, but I just think that there is a problem in our attitude- we accept and even celebrate some groups without batting an eyelid, even though little thought has been put into the connotations for such ideas. I'm not saying that it'll cause terrible things to happen, I'm just trying to highlight an issue that people don't seem to recognize easily.

And classroom separation involves children who are at best struggling with their sexual identity. There is a valid reason to separate them- for most of my school years girls confused the hell out of me and distracted me too. If there were girls in my class you could probably have knocked 50-100 points from my leaving cert based on this alone.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

When I am in a discussion with a group of women, it usually takes a very different tone and course than a discussion with a mixed group. The difference does not have to be about good and bad, better and worse, it's just different - better in some ways, worse in others. So if I want the type of discussion that is more typical with a group of women, I will join a women's only group for it.

If its not a case of better or worse, or good or bad, then why bother?
I can kinda see where Trog is coming from in questioning all these different varieties of womens clubs, it gets to the point of questioning if women truely believed all was equal between men and women, why do women keep wanting to segregate themselves from men?
Sure in certain circumstances, women may be uncomfortable with men around (gyms etc), but how will that ever change if people dont stop bringing in this culture that women are something that should be kept from men?

Nevyn

Trog wrote: »

I understand that they don't do it in spit of men, I am merely suggesting that a better solution to the problem is to stop creating unnecessary boundaries so that both women and men can realize which are the important differences and which are trivial.

It's not about whether men should be allowed do this, it's about what effect this kind of behavior ultimately has on our attitudes towards each other as a society, and I think this effect is negative, and so this behavior isn't something I support.

Hang on are you saying women who prefer women only groups are to blame for the sexist attitudes in society cos they are not breaking down those barriers and educating men to not be sexist?

WTF!

How about you set up a mens' group and have other men tell men what sexism is and to change thier attitudes cos honestly when women to it they get abused and torn down.

LenaClaire

Trog wrote: »

This is a good point, and I agree that it can be nice to spend time with people of your own sex. Even to organise specific events like retreats. I went to an all boys school and I got a lot from it that I wouldn't have if girls had been there.
But surely this can be done without setting up large, public societies with explicit rules banning the other sex for very trivial reasons. Instead of joining the women only book club where women talk about books in a way that excludes men, why not just spend some time with your female friends? This doesn't draw attention to a division unnecessarily, and therefore doesn't contribute to a problem.

I understand that you don't always want to be away from men, and that it can be frustrating dealing with immature people (and trust me, as a man with mostly female friends, it can be equally frustrating for men at times- although perhaps less frequently). But surely the solution to this is still not to draw barriers?

As for the book club issue, many of my female friends are either not interested in book clubs or do not read the same sorts of books as me. So being able to look for a group of women who want to discuss the same sort of books is nice. Also, when I moved I was able to find groups of women with similar interests and make new female friends.

I would say out of my entire year I spend one day in an all female environment. I don't think by taking this one day (hours wise) out to be in women groups only I am in any way alienating my male friends which I actually have more of than female friends.

Trog

Kooli wrote: »

OK now I'm getting confused - what are these large, public societies with explicit rules? A book club couldn't be described as that, so what are these other discriminatory organisations you are talking about?

And I don't understand your suggestion that we should just spend more time with our friends rather than joining a women's only book club - that makes no sense to me. The purpose of the book club is to talk about books - spending time with friends is a separate activity that doesn't replace it. The book club isn't necessarily just a way to spend more time with friends?

I'm baffled to be honest!

Fair enough, large is probably not the best word, but it's still an explicit public rule that draws attention to a trivial distinction, and excludes men based on a trivial distinction.

And fair enough, you want to go to a book club to discuss books with women, and you are entitled to do so. I don't want you to not be allowed do this, I just would prefer if people didn't have such segregationist attitudes. What's more, when a similar attitude is presented in the opposite way, to favor men, I don't think it is accepted as easily it is for women.

Another example of where men are excluded in a perfectly legal, but ethically questionable way is the businesswoman of the year awards. Now, can people not see that giving a woman an award based not just on merit, but on merit of her achievements as a woman specifically, just draws attention specifically to the sex differences in a largely trivial way.
Now I don't say this should be illegal, I just think people should think about and understand what is happening here. Boundaries which are drawn in a positive light are still boundaries.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LenaClaire

Trog wrote: »

Another example of where men are excluded in a perfectly legal, but ethically questionable way is the businesswoman of the year awards. Now, can people not see that giving a woman an award based not just on merit, but on merit of her achievements as a woman specifically, just draws attention specifically to the sex differences in a largely trivial way.
Now I don't say this should be illegal, I just think people should think about and understand what is happening here. Boundaries which are drawn in a positive light are still boundaries.

Business women of the year type things were originated during the times when women were fighting for the right to work at all in management positions. There is still as very large discrepancy in the number of male vs female corporate level employees (CEO, CFO, CTO etc.). I know that is partly due to the generation that is currently holding those positions but the point of these awards is to get young women motivated to aim high for these positions and not just to accept the status quo.

Nevyn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Maybe some time in the future more people will be gender blind and just see people as they are and not make assumptions based on gender but many, many people are just not there yet.

maggy_thatcher

If, instead of men only or women only, somebody picked a different arbitrary genetic marker and said 'blacks only' or 'whites only' would that be any more or less acceptable?

I don't see the difference myself...if we shun one type of group segregation (especially where the person involved has no choice in which group they are in), we should shun them all.

Trog

Thaedydal wrote: »

Hang on are you saying women who prefer women only groups are to blame for the sexist attitudes in society cos they are not breaking down those barriers and educating men to not be sexist?

WTF!

How about you set up a mens' group and have other men tell men what sexism is and to change thier attitudes cos honestly when women to it they get abused and torn down.

This isn't what I mean to say at all. It's not a matter of who is to blame, it's a matter of what we tend to accept as good for society without consideration. I simply mean to highlight that people don't tend to consider the negative effects of a women-only group as much as a men-only group, and that as a society we should consider this.

I don't mean to be offensive, but I still don't think what I'm saying here is unreasonable. As for your second paragraph, I think that it's not just about telling people what's sexist and what isn't, it's more about people getting used to what kinds of distinctions beween the sexes are important and what aren't.

jujibee wrote: »

As for the book club issue, many of my female friends are either not interested in book clubs or do not read the same sorts of books as me. So being able to look for a group of women who want to discuss the same sort of books is nice. Also, when I moved I was able to find groups of women with similar interests and make new female friends.

I would say out of my entire year I spend one day in an all female environment. I don't think by taking this one day (hours wise) out to be in women groups only I am in any way alienating my male friends which I actually have more of than female friends.

And this is reasonable, I wouldn't want to deny you it. Even if you wanted to spend all year with women I wouldn't deny you it. I still feel I have a point though.

Silverfish

They did have a male-only gym in Ireland, I don't think it's around any more.

There is male-only weightwatchers meetings (and no equivalent female only ones) which I don't think anyone would see an issue with, I certainly wouldn't.

Mark Hamill

Thaedydal wrote: »

Maybe some time in the future more people will be gender blind and just see people as they are and not make assumptions based on gender but many, many people are just not there yet.

Do you think bringing in more and more "women only" versions of groups and services will help or hinder people becoming gender blind?

Trog

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

If, instead of men only or women only, somebody picked a different arbitrary genetic marker and said 'blacks only' or 'whites only' would that be any more or less acceptable?

I don't see the difference myself...if we shun one type of group segregation (especially where the person involved has no choice in which group they are in), we should shun them all.

In my OP I mentioned that I'm focussing on women as this is the most prevalent issue right now in my opinion, but no, any other generic marker is no more acceptable to me, as long as a trivial distinction is used as a grounds for separation then I don't think it should be supported.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is how I feel too. I was merely raising the issue in hopes of a good debate, (Which I got.) and to see if anyone could raise any points to make me reconsider my opinion.

jujibee wrote: »

Business women of the year type things were originated during the times when women were fighting for the right to work at all in management positions. There is still as very large discrepancy in the number of male vs female corporate level employees (CEO, CFO, CTO etc.). I know that is partly due to the generation that is currently holding those positions but the point of these awards is to get young women motivated to aim high for these positions and not just to accept the status quo.

Fair enough, and right now there is probably a place for it, on reflection. Although I still feel that once the generation issue is resolved that this type of award can be a negative thing.

Nevyn

Trog wrote: »

I don't mean to be offensive, but I still don't think what I'm saying here is unreasonable. As for your second paragraph, I think that it's not just about telling people what's sexist and what isn't, it's more about people getting used to what kinds of distinctions beween the sexes are important and what aren't.

Did you go to boys only schools growing up?

Trog

Silverfish wrote: »

They did have a male-only gym in Ireland, I don't think it's around any more.

There is male-only weightwatchers meetings (and no equivalent female only ones) which I don't think anyone would see an issue with, I certainly wouldn't.

Yes, but in issues involving body image then the oposite sexes do actually play a significant role so I wouldn't see any harm. My issue is where distinctions are drawn trivially. Eg, womens book club, womens car insurance etc...

Trog

Thaedydal wrote: »

Did you go to boys only schools growing up?

Yes, and as I said, because I was an adolescent and at that age girls distracted and confused me, I would consider this acceptable.

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If its not a case of better or worse, or good or bad, then why bother?
I can kinda see where Trog is coming from in questioning all these different varieties of womens clubs, it gets to the point of questioning if women truely believed all was equal between men and women, why do women keep wanting to segregate themselves from men?

I actually dont know how to answer your first question apart from being blindingly obvious - if they are different, and I am looking for those particular differences in a particular context, then that's why I'd bother?

OK let's stick with the book club example: let's just say I wanted a boisterous, loud, argumentative discussion with lots of laughs, I believe I would be more likely to get that in a mixed setting with both sexes present. But if I wanted a quieter discussion, where I don't have to shout or compete to be heard, and I won't be interrupted, but I might not laugh as much, then I would be more likely to get this in a female only book club. YES these are generalisations and YES there are exceptions, before I get all the inevitable responses of 'me and my mates laugh more than any guys I know' or 'Lots of guys are capable of a thoughtful discussion'. I realise there are exceptions, but generally there are differences between how groups of men and groups of women talk.

And on your second point - equal does not mean the same. Not for me anyway. I have never been of the opinion that there is no difference between the sexes, and I don't think you have to see things that way to believe in equality.

I see that you're questioning why women want to segregate themselves from men - do you have a theory about why? You seem to be saying that it implies something about their beliefs about equality?

Nevyn

Trog wrote: »

Yes, and as I said, because I was an adolescent and at that age girls distracted and confused me, I would consider this acceptable.

I think it's part of the problem and not everyone goes on to college or to environments where they can learn women are people too and not lesser
and not be be made a mockery of or a stereotype out of.

Ickle Magoo

Trog wrote: »

Yes, but in issues involving body image then the oposite sexes do actually play a significant role so I wouldn't see any harm. My issue is where distinctions are drawn trivially. Eg, womens book club, womens car insurance etc...

Women's car insurance is there because of the disparity between claims in terms of men and women drivers - not because women specifically WANT to be in an exclusive insurance group that only has other women in it regardless of the premiums on offer.

I still don't see an issue, if people want to be in groups for men or women, then what is the actual problem?

First of all you say;

then surely drawing attention to this can only bring bad results

then;

I'm not saying that it'll cause terrible things to happen,

Which is it? What "terrible things"?

There are different dynamics in same-sex groups than there are in mixed. I can understand why people of either gender would want to have a single-sex club or group. As long as it's a book club and not a government or official decision making process then I don't know why it would be a big deal?

Trog

Kooli wrote: »

I actually dont know how to answer your first question apart from being blindingly obvious - if they are different, and I am looking for those particular differences in a particular context, then that's why I'd bother?

OK let's stick with the book club example: let's just say I wanted a boisterous, loud, argumentative discussion with lots of laughs, I believe I would be more likely to get that in a mixed setting with both sexes present. But if I wanted a quieter discussion, where I don't have to shout or compete to be heard, and I won't be interrupted, but I might not laugh as much, then I would be more likely to get this in a female only book club. YES these are generalisations and YES there are exceptions, before I get all the inevitable responses of 'me and my mates laugh more than any guys I know' or 'Lots of guys are capable of a thoughtful discussion'. I realise there are exceptions, but generally there are differences between how groups of men and groups of women talk.

And on your second point - equal does not mean the same. Not for me anyway. I have never been of the opinion that there is no difference between the sexes, and I don't think you have to see things that way to believe in equality.

I see that you're questioning why women want to segregate themselves from men - do you have a theory about why? You seem to be saying that it implies something about their beliefs about equality?

Ok, I understand your reasons for wanting a women only book club, but perhaps you're just looking for a book club with a particular code of etiquette. As you said, you're basing your distinction on generalization, which I think is unfair, while it's hardly an outrage or discrimination.

And equal definitely doesn't mean the same. however where the differences between men and women are not involved, we shouldn't treat them as important. If you were looking for your above book club, wouldn't it be fairer to have one where everyone's allowed in, but if they don't respect the wishes of others via the rules of etiquette you outlined above, THEN they're excluded? Instead of picking out a characteristic based on a generalization and attributing it to every man, how about you just exclude people with that characteristic?

Now, I don't think that wanting a women only group implies anything about anyones beliefs on equality explicitly, I do think that such groups tend to contain exclusions that people would otherwise claim to be unfair. I think people don't consider this enough, hence the discussion.

I'd like to add- I don't want to put a stop to women only groups, I just want to draw attention to the way in which we tend not to consider the issue at all.

Trog

Thaedydal wrote: »

I think it's part of the problem and not everyone goes on to college or to environments where they can learn women are people too and not lesser
and not be be made a mockery of or a stereotype out of.

Agreed. But such environments are hard to come by when divisions are so widely accepted. Again, not saying there's any responsibility on women for setting up these groups, merely pointing it out for consideration.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

First of all you say;





then;



Which is it? What "terrible things"?

What I mean is, the effects are hardly to be disastrous, but they still harm the cause if we consider ourselves to be aiming for gender blindness. (Never heard that term before, it's very accurate.)

Edit:
I haven't done ANY study today. I'm an idiot for posting this. Very interesting discussion, thanks to all involved, but I gots ta go read some sh1t.

Ickle Magoo

Trog wrote: »

What I mean is, the effects are hardly to be disastrous, but they still harm the cause if we consider ourselves to be aiming for gender blindness. (Never heard that term before, it's very accurate.)

The cause? What cause does a women's only gym harm? If there is a clear demand for single-sex clubs then we clearly don't consider ourselves aiming for gender blindness in all aspects of life.

While I can see why equality in terms of paying the same for the same work regardless of gender, or giving equal parental leave is hugely beneficial across the board, I'm not sure why having the choice between mixed and single-sex book reading groups or gyms is an issue.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

I actually dont know how to answer your first question apart from being blindingly obvious - if they are different, and I am looking for those particular differences in a particular context, then that's why I'd bother?

I thought it would be blindingly obvious that if the differences were not about better or worse, then they are simply arbitrary, and therefore dont really matter.

Kooli wrote: »

OK let's stick with the book club example: let's just say I wanted a boisterous, loud, argumentative discussion with lots of laughs, I believe I would be more likely to get that in a mixed setting with both sexes present. But if I wanted a quieter discussion, where I don't have to shout or compete to be heard, and I won't be interrupted, but I might not laugh as much, then I would be more likely to get this in a female only book club. YES these are generalisations and YES there are exceptions, before I get all the inevitable responses of 'me and my mates laugh more than any guys I know' or 'Lots of guys are capable of a thoughtful discussion'. I realise there are exceptions, but generally there are differences between how groups of men and groups of women talk.

That just sounds stupid-men cant discuss things without being loud? Ever seen or heard an argument between a teenage girl and her father. Also, for somone cliaming its not about better or worse, you seem to be implying that its is about being better, women book clubs are better because they, apparently, are quieter (unless you are claiming that men like to shout to be heard?).

Kooli wrote: »

And on your second point - equal does not mean the same. Not for me anyway. I have never been of the opinion that there is no difference between the sexes, and I don't think you have to see things that way to believe in equality.

No two people in the world are equal, regardless of what sex they are. I, obviously dont think everything is completely equal between men and women, I just dont see any immediate difference between a man and a women (bar the biological) than I would see between two men or two women. I thought that was the point of equality?

Kooli wrote: »

I see that you're questioning why women want to segregate themselves from men - do you have a theory about why? You seem to be saying that it implies something about their beliefs about equality?

It seems to be a step backwards in terms of equality, imo. Women are being brought up to think that men will bother them if they mix in certain circumstances and that its up to the women to make their own groups and services so they have to deal with men as little as possible, rather than actually deal with the problem and demand equality from the men bothering them. It reminds me of muslims arguing the burka is there to protect women from mens uncontrollable lust, while everyone else with a brain sees how ridiculous it is for the women themselves to be convinced that its their fault for how men might react and that its up to them to do something about it.

Nevyn

Trog wrote: »

Agreed. But such environments are hard to come by when divisions are so widely accepted.

No those environments are not hard to come by they start in the home.

Mark Hamill

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The cause? What cause does a women's only gym harm? If there is a clear demand for single-sex clubs then we clearly don't consider ourselves aiming for gender blindness in all aspects of life.

While I can see why equality in terms of paying the same for the same work regardless of gender, or giving equal parental leave is hugely beneficial across the board, I'm not sure why having the choice between mixed and single-sex book reading groups or gyms is an issue.

I cant help but take what you are saying and replace "sex" or "gender" with "race" and wonder if you would see things the same way.

Why shouldn't we be aiming for gender blindness in all aspects of life where we can? Why accept that there is some fundamental difference between men and women in terms of, say, book clubs when there isn't, the difference is personality based, not gender based and group ettiquette rules will eliminate the undesired behavour which can exist in either gender.

I just dont see how we can ignore the less obvious inequalities while trying to claim that the big ones dont exist. If men and women should have equal parenting rights and equal pay, then why shouldn't they too have equal gyms, equal book clubs or equal protest groups? It begs the question of why these needs that drive the formation of "women only" services are ignored in terms of parenting and pay and just works against the gender equality cause (imo).

Mark Hamill

Thaedydal wrote: »

No those environments are not hard to come by they start in the home.

Only to a point. You see the women biologically related to you as being different to the women not biologically related to you (hormones, sexual partner viability and all that). While I never thought of women in any way less than men when I entered college (from an all boy primary/secondary education) it certainly took me a while to learn to speak to them as comfortably as I can speak to other guys.

CDfm

Take Portmarnock Golf Club which is men only members but women can play etc -well the court ruling there by a female judge was very balanced and wise.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1103/breaking34.html

Take Curves gyms -women only - private clubs - http://www.curves.ie/

If a woman goes to a gym and wants to put her bits back where she would prefer them to be without guys looking -well she should be able to and we alll have sensitivities.

Not a problem there for me and I think they are a good thing btw.

I would not want to join a golf club etc without female members but thats just me as I imagine it would be a bit stuffy for me and a lot of my friends are women. God only knows why as I am fairly un p.c. and unreconstructed at times.

Some people see gender stereotyping or single gender stuff as empowering but I have my doubts if such a group would be for me.

That said, I would feel odd saying in front of women " my nuts are sore" ( I have a woman GP & no concerns about medical professionals )and so on.

Some militant womens groups get up my nose and I try to stay away from that kind of stuff these days. A militant mens group would do the same as it is against my instincts. I am a Dad and would have liked to have been treated equally as a parent but c'est la vie. Tempus Fugit.

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That just sounds stupid-men cant discuss things without being loud? Ever seen or heard an argument between a teenage girl and her father. Also, for somone cliaming its not about better or worse, you seem to be implying that its is about being better, women book clubs are better because they, apparently, are quieter (unless you are claiming that men like to shout to be heard?).


.

No both have aspects that are 'better'. If I want to prioritise a thoughtful discussion with no interruptions than the women's one would be better. If I want to prioritise a more lively discussion with a lot more laughter, the mixed one would be better. Again it's generalisations, but I can't be persuaded that there are no differences between men and women!!

I'm also not saying men can't discuss things without being loud, but that men's discussions do tend to be louder, and loud is not actually a bad thing! Louder and quieter do not imply a judgement - it just depends what you're looking for.

I don't necessarily think it's important for men to learn to be quieter - why should they? Nor do I think women should learn to speak up more and louder and interrupt - why should they?

I'm actually someone who values the differences between men and women, and I don't think we should aim for everyone being the same.

Trog

CDfm wrote: »

Take Portmarnock Golf Club which is men only members but women can play etc -well the court ruling there by a female judge was very balanced and wise.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1103/breaking34.html

Take Curves gyms -women only - private clubs - http://www.curves.ie/

If a woman goes to a gym and wants to put her bits back where she would prefer them to be without guys looking -well she should be able to and we alll have sensitivities.

Not a problem there for me and I think they are a good thing btw.

Well, I don't think Portmarnock Golf Club should be legally forced to accept women. I'm talking about our attitudes to these things, not the law.

And the gym thing, as I said already, pertains to an issue which is specifically influenced by gender issues- body image.

Kooli wrote: »

No both have aspects that are 'better'. If I want to prioritise a thoughtful discussion with no interruptions than the women's one would be better. If I want to prioritise a more lively discussion with a lot more laughter, the mixed one would be better. Again it's generalisations, but I can't be persuaded that there are no differences between men and women!!

I'm also not saying men can't discuss things without being loud, but that men's discussions do tend to be louder, and loud is not actually a bad thing! Louder and quieter do not imply a judgement - it just depends what you're looking for.

I don't necessarily think it's important for men to learn to be quieter - why should they? Nor do I think women should learn to speak up more and louder and interrupt - why should they?

But you're still making a generalization and assuming all men to have a characteristic that they don't necessarily have. Here you shouldn't be avoiding men, you should avoid people who are loud. If a lot of men happen to fit that profile, so be it, but don't tar everyone with the same brush.

Consider if I was to say (hypothetically) I don't like to talk to women because in my opinion most of them are shallow. I know it's a generalization but it's true in my opinion. Now this is a view that I'm legally entitled to have. But would you honestly accept and support it as an opinion appropriate for our ideal societal values? No, of course not, because it's an unfair assumption.


Edit:
AGH! I can't leave this. Must... do... work... Or I could watch mad men... (A woman copywriter? Now THERE's equality )

Nevyn

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Only to a point. You see the women biologically related to you as being different to the women not biologically related to you (hormones, sexual partner viability and all that). While I never thought of women in any way less than men when I entered college (from an all boy primary/secondary education) it certainly took me a while to learn to speak to them as comfortably as I can speak to other guys.

The limitations placed on people due to gender start in the home with house work seen as women's work ect.

If you never had contact with women other then family and then when you went to college I would ask why did you segregate yourself? There are plenty of youth groups, hobbies and voluntary groups you could have been a member of and worked with and along side women.

Shame your parented didn't ensure that you had the socail skills and experience to talk to people.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ickle Magoo

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I cant help but take what you are saying and replace "sex" or "gender" with "race" and wonder if you would see things the same way.

Why shouldn't we be aiming for gender blindness in all aspects of life where we can? Why accept that there is some fundamental difference between men and women in terms of, say, book clubs when there isn't, the difference is personality based, not gender based and group ettiquette rules will eliminate the undesired behavour which can exist in either gender.

I just dont see how we can ignore the less obvious inequalities while trying to claim that the big ones dont exist. If men and women should have equal parenting rights and equal pay, then why shouldn't they too have equal gyms, equal book clubs or equal protest groups? It begs the question of why these needs that drive the formation of "women only" services are ignored in terms of parenting and pay and just works against the gender equality cause (imo).

I can't help but take what you are saying and think if you could take on my class of women who have suffered domestic violence and wonder if you'd see things the same way.

The fact is people have all variety of experiences in life,whether it's a teenager uncomfortable with the lewd comments and wolf whistles in the uni-sex gym or an older women who wants to explore erotic literature with her peers. I don't see why gender specific clubs that cater for such people should be viewed negatively as long as there is alternatives for everyone else.

I can understand why a group that wants to discriminate based on hatred would not be desirable & I agree - however, many women only-groups were set up because of men's treatment of women in same sex groups. Now, while I can understand the injustice of not tarring all men with the same brush I still wouldn't invite my very non-violent, gentle husband to my battered women's class. If you want to view that as akin to hating black people, be my guest.

CDfm

Trog wrote: »

Consider if I was to say (hypothetically) I don't like to talk to women because in my opinion most of them are shallow. I know it's a generalization but it's true in my opinion. Now this is a view that I'm legally entitled to have. But would you honestly accept and support it as an opinion appropriate for our ideal societal values? No, of course not, because it's an unfair assumption.

Well - I have been to more treatments than my female partner in the past year. I haven't told her yet but we have been invited to a lesbian birthday party -we missed another as we were on holiday.

Now that elections are being talked about -if I was canvassed by a politician I would ask them straight out where they stood on particular "gender issues" and values. Not least because I would hate to see my son go thru what I did in a divorce. Women should want equal treatment for their children irrespective of gender too.

Trog

Thaedydal wrote: »

The limitations placed on people due to gender start in the home with house work seen as women's work ect.

In this I wholeheartedly and categorically agree with you. And it's not right to place responsibilities on women unfairly in the home. (I'm still useless at housework though.:P)

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Exactly. And what's more, there is little to suggest that this would ever be the case non-accidentally.