'Women only' groups

southsiderosie

Thaedydal wrote: »

I would say any group which has women leave time and time again should have a look at why. Many groups are unknowingly hostile to women and having one or two women who are accepted as one of the lads and perpetuate sexist behaviour and thinking doesn't change that.

Exactly. Hence my anecdote about the gym owner: if you see that people are flocking to an alternative, do you dismiss them as misguided, or do you reappraise what you are doing?

Thaedydal wrote: »

Do you honestly think that cos I have been to women only groups, sessions, seminars, workshops that I have given up and accepted sexism?

Or that as I go to pagan only gatherings, workshops moots and weekends that I have given up pointing out how where and when the RC church has too much power in this country?

Or that as I have been to Bisexual workshops, gatherings and conventions that I have given up and am accepting of bisexual erasure?

Hell no, each chance to reconnect with others who experience some of the same things I do, which are related to how I differ from the norm renews my spirit, lets me know I am not alone and that others get sick of the same bullshít from people.

+1000

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

liah

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Which is fair enough.

Why, then, is it, do you think that these women seek refuge from men, however rightly or wrongly? What is the cause for them to find it necessary to join a gender-segregated anything?

PhysiologyRocks

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Can I ask, is it that you don't see the point for you - or don't see a point to them full-stop, for any women?

Other than abuse groups and the like, as mentioned earlier, not really to be honest.

On another note, I have been approached in clubs by women as well as men. They were probably as persistent as the men were, albeit fewer in number. I wasn't interested, but I don't find being approached exactly offensive.

My male friends often get wolf-whistled at by women, and sometimes other men. Most find it very flattering indeed.

As much of any 'unfair treatment' I have received has come from females as it has from males. It doesn't make me dislike either gender. I just feel less than pleased with the individuals involved.

And I see more jokes about men than about women, even in the media.

Mark Hamill

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why can't they indeed. Why did it get to the stage that women's only gyms were set up - or that they proved popular enough to pop up in every town? I appreciate it's more anecdotes but certainly most women I know are blue in the face dealing with sexism or chauvinism on multiple fronts in their life.

So something is popular, therefore its good for society?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Then what has to happen to stop that? Women have to see that uni-sex activities are as much fun, as safe and as stress-free as their single-sex alternatives. It's not just women's responsibility to ensure that happens, surely?

No, its not just womens responsibilty, but it is also womens responsibility.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think women should have to avoid attending same-sex activities and argue and fight and complain and try to ignore some of the reasons that make single-sex activities so popular for the sake of some utopian ideal.

Who says they need single sex activities to avoid these reasons? If its just a case of wanting to avoid dickheads, then why didnt the women opening up these women only services open up mixed services, but with strict rules on whats allowed and what isn't? Why is it assumed that this cant be done?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But it will perhaps trigger more conversations like this to happen and that in turn may (hopefully) slowly move what is or isn't socially acceptable or deemed offensive - and that may lead to more men realising what should be what the rest of us consider matter of fact.

So you do something which will be rcognised as, at least, not helping the issue in order to get more exposure for the issue?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If it won't disappear either way, it's a completely pointless question, isn't it.

So now its a case of "(some) men will never not be obnoxious, so I'm giving up"?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think it's more like saying I have to deal with shmucks like this at work, I had to deal with them at school, I have to deal with them whenever I go out - here is one place I don't have to deal with them. Hurrah!

One place? But there is way more than one place. There are gyms and book clubs and sports clubs and protest groups. And if these are great because you dont have to deal with schmucks, then how long before someone starts questioning why you should have to deal with schmucks at work?
How long before someone steps up and says "I'm not hiring any men: womens only gyms and book clubs are more productive than mixed ones, so the same must apply to work places"?
What would you say if someone ,said "I'm not hiring any women, because they cant be trusted to be able to work in a competitive work enviroment if men are around"?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Attending a women's only gym doesn't negate any fight against sexism or chauvinism that the woman most likely has/will have in other aspects of her life.

I was supposed to say "But I do blame them both". I blame the men for being dickheads and I also blame the women for accepting it. Perhaps instead of blaming all men for getting to the extreme situation of trying to exclude all men from social activities, these women should blame the kind of guys that make women feel so uncomfortable, bullied & harassed that attending a woman's only group holds such appeal?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I've said numerous times that there are many reasons for women wanting to attend women-only activities - my women's class is certainly driven by the men's behaviour they have witnessed/experienced so I'm looking at things from that angle.

But the statistics shown earlier shown that this is not the case for most women, you cant assume it is.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

When looking at a group in society that is increasingly looking to exclude another's involvement in areas of their life - ignoring why that is or blaming those for wanting to get away is fruitless.

Apply that reasoning ot the men in the earlier part of the last century who wanted to exclude women from the workplace and see how far you get. Back then the reasoning was that a woman belonged in the kitchen, that she served her man because she was a woman, thats what they're for. Now the mentality is that men cant be trusted to not be obnoxious, because thats what men are like. One view is as stupid and as sexist as the other.

Mark Hamill

Thaedydal wrote: »

Life would be just peachy if we could but who's going to police it?

The same peopel who police these groups now? The management? I already said it, if someone sees a behavour they want to eliminate from a service, why cant they just eliminate that behavour, why do they need to exculde every man?

Thaedydal wrote: »

But life doesn't work that way, I know women how have dropped out of everything ranging from open source coding groups to hill walking to online gaming guilds/clans to the peace core as they found that sexist attitudes were ignored or were the default and when they raised the issue were shouted down, frozen out, told it was they were too sensitive or they were too reactionary. So that going to the group/actibity became stressful and they were constantly fighting that battle and it worn them out and being unable to effect change esp when the rest of the people didn't think it was needed they left.

Two things:
1. Life will never be that simple if you dont make it that simple.
2. Did you ever think, that sometimes these people are being too sensitive and reactionary? Its not a male trait to be able to to be in company and take and recieve jokes or light hearted insults, its simply a confidence issue. There is no reason why women cant learn to give as much as they get (like the men who dont leave the groups do), unless they keep going to these women only groups who keep telling them they cant.

Thaedydal wrote: »

I would say any group which has women leave time and time again should have a look at why. Many groups are unknowingly hostile to women

Are they hostile because they are hostile or because a lot of women have serious self confidence issues in mixed enviroments? Having done martial arts in college, I can tell you you will get far more women in the lighter, non contact arts than the heavier, effective ones. This is not because women are worse at these heavier arts (I've wrestled, boxed and competed against women and they were by no means worse opponents than men, some of the best people I've rolled against were women) its because women are brought thinking they shouldn't do them, that they are weaker (not really true and not massively relevent if you train properly) and that they shouldn't mix with men in these close enviroments (you get a hand ful of women in boxing in Uni, usually none in wrestling).

Thaedydal wrote: »

having one or two women who are accepted as one of the lads and perpetuate sexist behaviour and thinking doesn't change that.

Its not a case of one of the lads, its a case of one of the group. Boistorous men treat each other as boistorously as the women, the only ones telling the women they cant take it is the women only groups.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Are you concerned we will see women segregate themselves utterly for all hobbies?

Why does this concern you?

Sexism should concern a man?

Thaedydal wrote: »

But women only spaces can provide support and encouragement so that women can talk about experiencing chauvinists and sexism and not to be then told they are being too sensitive and such things don't exist.
And if more women are able to make a call on if something is out of order and shout out then hopefully change will happen.

Yeah, I keep asking this, no-one ever answers, but why the hell do you need a womens only gym or womens only book club or womens only protest group to discuss chauvinistic men? Surely you should be exercising or talking about books or protesting?

Thaedydal wrote: »

I think you will find women can only do so much and that men have a part to play in solving this issue, men need to talk to other men and say sexism isn't cool and to call each other out instead of playing along and re enforcing which thinking.

Never said they didn't.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Do you honestly think that cos I have been to women only groups, sessions, seminars, workshops that I have given up and accepted sexism?

In those subjects that you segregate yourself (because of how you think men would treat you) then yes, I do.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Or that as I go to pagan only gatherings, workshops moots and weekends that I have given up pointing out how where and when the RC church has too much power in this country?

Do you sit in these pagan only gatherings spending your whole time complaining about the RC?

Thaedydal wrote: »

Or that as I have been to Bisexual workshops, gatherings and conventions that I have given up and am accepting of bisexual erasure?

Do you sit in these bisexual only gatherings spending your whole time complaining about unisexuals?

Thaedydal wrote: »

Hell no, each chance to reconnect with others who experience some of the same things I do, which are related to how I differ from the norm renews my spirit, lets me know I am not alone and that others get sick of the same bullshít from people.

By virtue of just making these gatherings for people who hav had the same experiences (or disagree with those who inflicted them on you) you will exclude the type of people you dont want to encounter without exlcuding entire sexs or races or whatever. Who knows, you might find men showing up to the womens groups, non bisexuals to the bisexual groups and non pagans to the pagans groups who agree that what you are experiencing is wrong and want to help. (and if you dont, then nothing will have changed, except the appearance of giving in).

Ickle Magoo

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So something is popular, therefore its good for society?

Who gets to decide what's good for society? Is women feeling safe and comfortable not good for society? Is men not becoming more aware of how unsafe and uncomfortable some women are not good for society?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, its not just womens responsibilty, but it is also womens responsibility.

Of course - and I think it's fair to say most women will do more than their fair share of dealing with sexism &/or chauvinism in their life-time - that they wish one activity in life that they don't, I don't see as a huge societal issue. A far greater issue is why such segregation has ever been considered necessary.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Who says they need single sex activities to avoid these reasons? If its just a case of wanting to avoid dickheads, then why didnt the women opening up these women only services open up mixed services, but with strict rules on whats allowed and what isn't? Why is it assumed that this cant be done?

Several reasons, I imagine. For one, what constitutes being a dick-head is greatly subjective - as many a thread on this forum and others amply demonstrates and it still doesn't deal with women who wish just to enjoy a bookclub or get toned without the added stress of either trying to avoid such behaviour or having to argue or fight or complain about it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you do something which will be rcognised as, at least, not helping the issue in order to get more exposure for the issue?

Not necessarily in order to get more exposure, that can be a added bonus - but I certainly don't agree that it doesn't help the issue. The fact we are discussing an issue oft ignored, denied and swept under the carpet because of such clubs is testament to that.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So now its a case of "(some) men will never not be obnoxious, so I'm giving up"?

Giving up what, exactly? Giving up having to deal with them for the duration of a particular activity? You've made reference to giving up and I've already addressed that. Your argument appears to be to completely ignore the point I made and repeat your original comment.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

One place? But there is way more than one place. There are gyms and book clubs and sports clubs and protest groups. And if these are great because you dont have to deal with schmucks, then how long before someone starts questioning why you should have to deal with schmucks at work?
How long before someone steps up and says "I'm not hiring any men: womens only gyms and book clubs are more productive than mixed ones, so the same must apply to work places"?
What would you say if someone ,said "I'm not hiring any women, because they cant be trusted to be able to work in a competitive work enviroment if men are around"?

We are discussing what people choose to do in their free time, lets not get hysterical and blow it all out of proportion. If growing numbers of women do wish to work in female only environments then, again, why that is happening requires closer inspection rather than blindly lambasting women. I'm not sure how competitive work environments could possibly be a parallel to women being made to feel threatened, uncomfortable or vulnerable by men, because of their gender.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I was supposed to say "But I do blame them both". I blame the men for being dickheads and I also blame the women for accepting it. Perhaps instead of blaming all men for getting to the extreme situation of trying to exclude all men from social activities, these women should blame the kind of guys that make women feel so uncomfortable, bullied & harassed that attending a woman's only group holds such appeal?

I think women certainly do blame the dickheads - and get angry that all men are tarred with the same brush but I still don't see how women are accepting it by having single-sex groups. There are always a few women that seem to be anti-women and accept and almost revel in the sexist comments and treatment meted out by some men but I think they are very much in the minority. For generations women have been fighting inequality and in many aspects and for some men, nothing has changed. It gets wearing and I think single-sex groups can be a refuge from having to constantly chip away at the kind of attitudes women are subjected to regularly through-out their lives.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But the statistics shown earlier shown that this is not the case for most women, you cant assume it is.

What statistics, sorry? Are there statistics published that show why women want women only environments in which to pursue their hobbies and leisure time?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Apply that reasoning ot the men in the earlier part of the last century who wanted to exclude women from the workplace and see how far you get. Back then the reasoning was that a woman belonged in the kitchen, that she served her man because she was a woman, thats what they're for. Now the mentality is that men cant be trusted to not be obnoxious, because thats what men are like. One view is as stupid and as sexist as the other.

Again, we're back to talking about employment rather than how people choose to spend their leisure time because you have to use something like official capacity employment to make the argument more rational. I don't think it's a very good analogy & is just needless whatifery.

Nevyn

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The same peopel who police these groups now? The management?

In the majority of groups there isn't a management. It's susposed to be a group of adult but that isn't always the case.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I already said it, if someone sees a behavour they want to eliminate from a service, why cant they just eliminate that behavour, why do they need to exculde every man?

So women should have to spend time and effort re educating every asshat they encounter?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Two things:
1. Life will never be that simple if you dont make it that simple.

It is if you are young and idealistic.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

2. Did you ever think, that sometimes these people are being too sensitive and reactionary? Its not a male trait to be able to to be in company and take and recieve jokes or light hearted insults, its simply a confidence issue.

Some times people are and thats a different type of bullshít but the type of banter which certain types of peple enguage in is not to everyone taste and again many people are far to pass remarkable about other people and how they are different to themsevles they are like children who can't seem to point out differences to make themsevles seem better.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There is no reason why women cant learn to give as much as they get (like the men who dont leave the groups do), unless they keep going to these women only groups who keep telling them they cant.

No I was brought up to give as good as I got but the same comment coming from a man when coming from me to another man can have a different tone due to my gender and then you have the charming 'you were beaten by a girl' comments.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Are they hostile because they are hostile or because a lot of women have serious self confidence issues in mixed enviroments?

Yes some times both men and women have issues in mixed enviroments but
if you are in a group of people who keep making 'jokes' and comments which put down your gender/race/creed ect it is going to effect you. There can be a base level of sexism in certain groups and it's so much the wall paper they just can't see it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Having done martial arts in college, I can tell you you will get far more women in the lighter, non contact arts than the heavier, effective ones. This is not because women are worse at these heavier arts (I've wrestled, boxed and competed against women and they were by no means worse opponents than men, some of the best people I've rolled against were women) its because women are brought thinking they shouldn't do them, that they are weaker (not really true and not massively relevent if you train properly) and that they shouldn't mix with men in these close enviroments (you get a hand ful of women in boxing in Uni, usually none in wrestling).

That would be the societal attitude which is re enforced in a broad spectrum way that women should not take part in such things as they are unladylike,
that they are not capable of it, that it will make them a freak and that they will not find love/ a mate if they step outside of the proscribed gender ideals.
(yes there is the same aimed at men but it's not as restrictive or un questioned imho).

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its not a case of one of the lads, its a case of one of the group. Boistorous men treat each other as boistorously as the women, the only ones telling the women they cant take it is the women only groups.

REally? what has never been my experience of it, where have you heard such things?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Sexism should concern a man?

I am asking about why you are picking on the likes of women's groups as being such a huge factor in this, why that and not any of the other factors?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yeah, I keep asking this, no-one ever answers, but why the hell do you need a womens only gym or womens only book club or womens only protest group to discuss chauvinistic men? Surely you should be exercising or talking about books or protesting?

It is part of the dialogue not the sole dialogue.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Never said they didn't.

Good, so how are you playing your part in your life with the men in your life?
When was the last time you challenged a sexist comment or assumption which was derogatory to women in your socail circle?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In those subjects that you segregate yourself (because of how you think men would treat you) then yes, I do.

No, you deem to miss the point of grassroots movements and of empowerment.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you sit in these pagan only gatherings spending your whole time complaining about the RC?

It can happen, esp when you have a new bunch of people trying to find away to live thier life after seeing how much influence the RC has on it,
it can be left unchecked to the detriment of other dialogue, so it's part of the
dialogue not the sole dialogue but it plays it's part in creating a common bond.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you sit in these bisexual only gatherings spending your whole time complaining about unisexuals?

It can happen, esp when you have a new bunch of people trying to find away to live thier life after seeing how much influence hertronormative assumptions and rejection from gay groups has, it can be left unchecked to the detriment of other dialogue, so it's part of the dialogue not the sole dialogue but it plays it's part in creating a common bond.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By virtue of just making these gatherings for people who hav had the same experiences (or disagree with those who inflicted them on you) you will exclude the type of people you dont want to encounter without exlcuding entire sexs or races or whatever.
Who knows, you might find men showing up to the womens groups, non bisexuals to the bisexual groups and non pagans to the pagans groups who agree that what you are experiencing is wrong and want to help. (and if you dont, then nothing will have changed, except the appearance of giving in).

Many groups have supporter groups, Al anon for AA, Gay Parents groups, LGBT friends and supporters ect.

There have been Christians turn up to pagan meetings and as long as they were respectful of the dialogue and didn't try to preach or undermine or deny the experiences of those present it wasn't an issue, where that did happen and where there were evangelicals turning up and mill ant right wingers turning up and taking pictures of people coming and going then steps had to be taken to tell these people they were not welcome and to move the group with out leaving a forwarding address for them to find.

Nevyn

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Who gets to decide what's good for society? Is women feeling safe and comfortable not good for society? Is men not becoming more aware of how unsafe and uncomfortable some women are not good for society?

I think men becoming more aware of how unsafe and uncomfortable some women are is not good for men. The idea that despite the fact they are good and honourable people who respect others that society is still fúcked up due to certain gender normatives being still the standard and how the blind and unquestioning acceptance of those make life harder.


It's been said that many men don't have much issue with the world until they have a daughter and then see it with very different eyes.

Ickle Magoo

Thaedydal wrote: »

I think men becoming more aware of how unsafe and uncomfortable some women are is not good for men. The idea that despite the fact they are good and honourable people who respect others that society is still fúcked up due to certain gender normatives being still the standard and how the blind and unquestioning acceptance of those make life harder.


It's been said that many men don't have much issue with the world until they have a daughter and then see it with very different eyes.

Yeah, there could certainly be something to that...I imagine that the tired old clichés that are always rolled out in these discussions regarding women being over-sensitive or men just being really funny and silly wimminz just can't see that certainly would take on a different perspective when comforting a daughter that is dealing with sexually explicit or derogatory comments.

I went through uni with five male flat-mates, the majority of my friends would be male, I have a husband & a son; I love men - and strangely I've heard them discuss general and men's treatment of women many times. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be that unusual - that most men can see exactly why women's only activities exist and despite wishing they didn't have to, can also acknowledge the appeal. I actually think those arguing against women-only activities and blaming women for segregation in society along gender-lines would be very much in the minority.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Thaedydal

Thaedydal wrote: »

So women should have to spend time and effort re educating every asshat they encounter?

To be fair, that's true of most aspects of life. Men have to re educate women on a daily basis not to stereotype them simply because some other man has hurt them in the past or some other reason. Its not as if men are being accepted everywhere they go.

Some times people are and thats a different type of bullshít but the type of banter which certain types of peple enguage in is not to everyone taste and again many people are far to pass remarkable about other people and how they are different to themsevles they are like children who can't seem to point out differences to make themsevles seem better.

Which comes down to the people you choose to surround yourself with. I don't hang out with brickies because I know from past experience, with the vast majority I would be the butt of most jokes, and i don't like a lot of their "mannerisms". I choose to surround myself with like minded individuals who I enjoy being around. There are always some areas in life where you cannot choose who is with you, but part of being an adult is stiffening your shoulders, and getting on with it.

No I was brought up to give as good as I got but the same comment coming from a man when coming from me to another man can have a different tone due to my gender and then you have the charming 'you were beaten by a girl' comments.

Of course it will be different. Equality did not remove gender perceptions. That will only happen through living, and the constant education of interacting with other people. There is no quick easy option here. If women wish to have equality in all area's then they need to come out and play on the same terms that men have had to endure.

I'm a tall, skinny, quite weak guy, with essential tremor. I've had to live my life treated the same as every other man. If anything I have received more attention, criticism, and aggression because of the way I am physically... and yet, that is human interaction. And just to let you know, women can be far more nasty than men basing entirely on their beliefs about men.

That would be the societal attitude which is re enforced in a broad spectrum way that women should not take part in such things as they are unladylike, that they are not capable of it, that it will make them a freak and that they will not find love/ a mate if they step outside of the proscribed gender ideals. (yes there is the same aimed at men but it's not as restrictive or un questioned imho).

I'd agree with you, because for the most part, for men it is only other men doing the prescribing. Sure, some women get involved, but they're a minor influence. Whereas when it comes to womens activities they receive attention by both sexes.

Honestly, if you want to reduce sexism, you would probably be better off eliminating the need by women to be sexist to their own sex first. Considering the influence that mothers have over their children growing up, it might just be more effective.

donfers

on women only gyms like curves,my view and this is based on my best friends wife who works in one and two women I know who use one............they say that the main reason for going there is the woman's own insecurities and poor self-image in comparison with younger models.....basically the majority of women who use these places are 40+ women who feel an inferiority complex when next to younger fitter people, there is a sense of inadequacy and a lack of self-esteem when they share their environment with younger more attractive people, it's the same reason why older people don't tend to go to nightclubs or discobars full of students/twentysomethings i.e. they feel dreadfully self-conscious........not one of my acquaintances mentioned any woman saying they went to Curves because men were behaving badly in the gyms with them, leering or ogling them or displaying sexist behaviour even when I specifically asked that question.....the more interesting question to consider is why women feel more self-conscious or insecure about their body shapes as they get older (fare moreso than men) and certainly there would be more grounds for a defense of thse types of places there but the mythology being spun about the way deviant men are driving them to these places is utter bs according to the people I talked to

Zulu

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think it's a leading and fairly pointless question, tbh.

It's not pointless - it highlights the issue concisely. And it's only leading because it shines the clear light of day on the issue.

You didn't answer the question btw.

You seem determined to view it as negative discrimination against men rather than positive discrimination

Your mistaken: I see it as discrimination. Discrimination is bad.

And btw, if it's positive discrimination for women, then it's, by definition, negative discrimination against men. No matter what way you dress up discrimination it's bad, and it drags our society backwards in time.

K-9

Zulu wrote: »

Your mistaken: I see it as discrimination. Discrimination is bad.

So, say Portmarnock Golf Club would be discrimination, yes?

Zulu

Clearly!

You suspect that I wouldn't apply that logic to anyone else? Why?

Ickle Magoo

Zulu wrote: »

It's not pointless - it highlights the issue concisely. And it's only leading because it shines the clear light of day on the issue.

You didn't answer the question btw.

Of course it's pointless - and it's leading because it's designed to give the answer you want without actually examining all the points. Let's be serious now, would any alternative lead to this cohesive society utopia? No, it would just result in less choice for women. If that's your aim, then fine - but you can't argue it isn't pointless.

I don't think minority sub-groups having individuals that attend due to feeling at risk makes a jot of difference to "cohesive society" - to suggest that a woman's book club or woman's gym or the ICA or portmarnock or whatever has anything at all to do with society not being cohesive in the first place is just ridiculous.

Zulu wrote: »

Your mistaken: I see it as discrimination. Discrimination is bad.

And btw, if it's positive discrimination for women, then it's, by definition, negative discrimination against men. No matter what way you dress up discrimination it's bad, and it drags our society backwards in time.

Again, there are lots of things that prevent certain people doing something that others are able to - whether that be voting, claiming the dole, faith schools, single-sex schools, whatever. While I don't agree with discrimination based on hatred or hostility, I don't think women having the choice whether to attend a woman's only book club or gym - or attend those with men, something many, many women also choose to do judging by last time I went to my local gym - could ever be considered a bad thing.

I don't think there is anything wrong with acknowledging some women want women's only activities - for whatever reason - and accepting their right to do that. We had a discussion about this thread tonight with a group of friends (both sexes) and nobody could see what the fuss was about. The question was asked, would these guys who are all complaining actually go to any of these clubs or groups - because I'd agree with the observation that at the moment it's all coming across as distinctly dog-in-the-manger stuff.

K-9

Zulu wrote: »

Clearly!

You suspect that I wouldn't apply that logic to anyone else? Why?

Just wondering where your line is.

Male only Rugby teams? Homosexual only Male Rugby teams?

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Again, there are lots of things that prevent certain people doing something that others are able to - whether that be voting, claiming the dole, faith schools, single-sex schools, whatever. While I don't agree with discrimination based on hatred or hostility, I don't think women having the choice whether to attend a woman's only book club or gym - or attend those with men, something many, many women also choose to do judging by last time I went to my local gym - could ever be considered a bad thing.

I'm going to state this openly. I don't like single sex restrictions on any groups or activity. The reason? Because those seeking equality for women broke up all such male only clubs in the past, making previously valid points for grounds for discrimination. We had all the "Gentleman" clubs broken open and made public which made sense with this focus on equality and the removal of sexism. It was a male only activity (harmless in most cases) but considered to be a very bad thing. So it was ended.

Now, years later we have women forming their own single sex groups. Little real difference from the Gentleman clubs considering the arguments that feminists made about the Gentleman clubs in the first place. And yet, now we see that female only activities/clubs/groups are a good thing. Smacks of sexism to me.

I believe in Equality. True Equality. Not some "equality" where women moan about the lack of equality towards them while they go to female only venues.

Zulu

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Of course it's pointless

It's not pointless as it highlights the issue.

And you still haven't answered the question. Do you agree or disagree with the statement: "a sub sect labeling a whole other group as a "risk" and then segregating themselves from that group doesn't lead to a cohesive society."

Let's be serious now, would any alternative lead to this cohesive society utopia?

Yes. Banning people from groups due to sex, creed, or race is regressive. While we may never have a utopia, we should at the very least strive for an inclusive egalitarian society.

No, it would just result in less choice for women.

TBH, if your primary concern is for blindly creating choice for women, regardless of the consequences, then there are bigger issues at stake.
While choice can be a good thing, that's not always the case. Where the "choice" of one person infringes on the "choice" of another, it becomes problematic. In this case, creating choice for women limits choice for men. Clearly this doesn't bother you, why do you hold women in higher regard than men?

The question was asked, would these guys who are all complaining actually go to any of these clubs or groups - because I'd agree with the observation that at the moment it's all coming across as distinctly dog-in-the-manger stuff.

This is humanities - we're discussing a topic. The "guys who are all complaining" are merely pointing out some evident issues with segregation.
It appears as though the preferred opposition is now to belittle & dismiss as opposed to tackling actual issues raised, why is that? Why stifle a conversation?

K-9 wrote: »

Just wondering where your line is.

Is it not clear? Do you care to make your point now - or is your intention to merely post questions? Because I'd appreciate the former & I've little intention to entertain the latter.

Male only Rugby teams?

Most rugby clubs have womens teams.

Homosexual only Male Rugby teams?

I don't support banning people due to sexual preference, do you?

Do you have an issue with Rugby?

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

Most rugby clubs have womens teams.
I don't support banning people due to sexual preference, do you?

The teams are segregated though, men play with men against other male teams, and women play with women against other women teams.

Are you against this?

Mark Hamill

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Who gets to decide what's good for society? Is women feeling safe and comfortable not good for society? Is men not becoming more aware of how unsafe and uncomfortable some women are not good for society?

NO, these are bad for society, because they are discriminatory based on gender. To understand why thats bad, just replace gender with race and ask if its good for society for white people to have somewhere they can go where black people cant go so white people can feel safe and comfortable.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Of course - and I think it's fair to say most women will do more than their fair share of dealing with sexism &/or chauvinism in their life-time - that they wish one activity in life that they don't, I don't see as a huge societal issue. A far greater issue is why such segregation has ever been considered necessary.

It was considered necessary, way back when women weren't allowed t o work because their place was seen as in the kitchen bacause men couldn't understand how they could possibly survive in the work place.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Several reasons, I imagine. For one, what constitutes being a dick-head is greatly subjective - as many a thread on this forum and others amply demonstrates and it still doesn't deal with women who wish just to enjoy a bookclub or get toned without the added stress of either trying to avoid such behaviour or having to argue or fight or complain about it.

So we are back to all men are dickheads, but women aren't? A women cant enjoy a book club that has men, even if every man present is serious, yet casual in his interest in discussing books (ie non-argumentative)?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Not necessarily in order to get more exposure, that can be a added bonus - but I certainly don't agree that it doesn't help the issue. The fact we are discussing an issue oft ignored, denied and swept under the carpet because of such clubs is testament to that.

But how does it help the issue when, being offered viable aternatives such as mixed enviroments strictly moderated to remove undesired behavour, you just flat out deny the possibility of this being possible? You dont even seem to want to approach a situation where mixed enviroments are no longer uncomfortable for you, its just a "perfect world" pipe dream.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Giving up what, exactly? Giving up having to deal with them for the duration of a particular activity? You've made reference to giving up and I've already addressed that. Your argument appears to be to completely ignore the point I made and repeat your original comment.

What point? That having mixed enviroments comfortable for women is not actually possible? Thats the only thing I'm getting from your side of the debate and it is a clear cut case of giving up.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

We are discussing what people choose to do in their free time, lets not get hysterical and blow it all out of proportion.

Who is getting hysterical?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If growing numbers of women do wish to work in female only environments then, again, why that is happening requires closer inspection rather than blindly lambasting women.

Who said it hasn't had a closer inspection? Who says the reason isn't that more and more women aren't convincing themselves that they cant be in mixed enviroments because of the values espoused by women only clubs.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure how competitive work environments could possibly be a parallel to women being made to feel threatened, uncomfortable or vulnerable by men, because of their gender.

I think you need to start reading the other posts on your side of the argument a bit more closely, particularly the ones by the women saying they dont like having to be right all the time and they dont like debating "like a men" (some such nonsense about the socratic method being male).

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think women certainly do blame the dickheads - and get angry that all men are tarred with the same brush but I still don't see how women are accepting it by having single-sex groups.

By having single sex groups, rather than more heavily policed mixed groups, these women are denying the possiblity of reintegrating with men. Just look at some of the views being espoused here by men, by the women who like women only clubs because men are too boistorous and loud and women are more thoughtful. Its sexist nonsense.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There are always a few women that seem to be anti-women and accept and almost revel in the sexist comments and treatment meted out by some men but I think they are very much in the minority.

So women who have self confidence are now anti women?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What statistics, sorry? Are there statistics published that show why women want women only environments in which to pursue their hobbies and leisure time?

The stats brought up when someone said 1 in 4 have been assaulted. The number is much lower., so you cant assume all women in all women groups are hiding from men.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Again, we're back to talking about employment rather than how people choose to spend their leisure time because you have to use something like official capacity employment to make the argument more rational. I don't think it's a very good analogy & is just needless whatifery.

You pointed out before that you got the same sexist treatment in the work place as you did outside, so it does apply. Or are you finally admitting that it is perfectly possibly to police mixed enviroments so that there is none of that dickhead behavour and that this is actually preferable to segregation of the sexes?

K-9

Zulu wrote: »

Is it not clear? Do you care to make your point now - or is your intention to merely post questions? Because I'd appreciate the former & I've little intention to entertain the latter.

Most rugby clubs have womens teams.
I don't support banning people due to sexual preference, do you?

Do you have an issue with Rugby?

No issue with Rugby. Was just thinking about the Gay Rugby World Cup, don't see a problem with that myself, but going by your morally absolute stance, it's discriminatory.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

The teams are segregated though, men play with men against other male teams, and women play with women against other women teams.

Are you against this?

K-9 wrote: »

No issue with Rugby. Was just thinking about the Gay Rugby World Cup, don't see a problem with that myself, but going by your morally absolute stance, it's discriminatory.

It is a form of discrimination.. and it exists in many contact sports.

But I'm curious about this line of argument... Because there are areas where discrimination still exists, you believe its ok to form new avenues for discrimination?

Mark Hamill

Thaedydal wrote: »

In the majority of groups there isn't a management. It's susposed to be a group of adult but that isn't always the case.

So gyms and book clubs and protest groups just magically appear when people congregate together without realising it? They may not have some kind of paid management, but they do have some kind of organiser who runs things and generally some kind of joining criteria.

Thaedydal wrote: »

So women should have to spend time and effort re educating every asshat they encounter?

No, everyone should. But if women are just going to pull back and label all men as asshats, why should any even bother?

Thaedydal wrote: »

Some times people are and thats a different type of bullshít but the type of banter which certain types of peple enguage in is not to everyone taste and again many people are far to pass remarkable about other people and how they are different to themsevles they are like children who can't seem to point out differences to make themsevles seem better.

Then just make it that your group doesn't accept such behavour-problem solved without labelling entire genders as childish or dickheaded.

Thaedydal wrote: »

No I was brought up to give as good as I got but the same comment coming from a man when coming from me to another man can have a different tone due to my gender and then you have the charming 'you were beaten by a girl' comments.

So you recognise that a lot of this boistorous behavour isn't a man bullying a woman issue, but just how people talk to each other in certain enviroments, and that women should have no issue with it, otside of personal confidence?

Thaedydal wrote: »

Yes some times both men and women have issues in mixed enviroments but
if you are in a group of people who keep making 'jokes' and comments which put down your gender/race/creed ect it is going to effect you. There can be a base level of sexism in certain groups and it's so much the wall paper they just can't see it.

Why do you let it affect you? Do you think when you leave that people making the jokes turn into upperclass denizens and spend the evening smoking cigars and commenting on the stock markets? They continue making the jokes, just at someone else. In some case yes, its because the people are sexist/racist etc, but in some cases its because people just like making jokes.

Thaedydal wrote: »

That would be the societal attitude which is re enforced in a broad spectrum way that women should not take part in such things as they are unladylike,
that they are not capable of it, that it will make them a freak and that they will not find love/ a mate if they step outside of the proscribed gender ideals.
(yes there is the same aimed at men but it's not as restrictive or un questioned imho).

And this societal attitude is wrong, isn't it?

Thaedydal wrote: »

REally? what has never been my experience of it, where have you heard such things?

Where else do women hear they cant do things like join heavy martial arts clubs or do manual labour jobs? Its not in any of the martial arts clubs or manual labour jobs I've been in. Admittedly, this sort of thing is started in school with mixed gender schools offering lobsided curriculums (girls schools emphasize home ec and arts, boys emphasize science and manual labour (wood work)-my school didn't even have home ec) but its propagate din adulthood.

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am asking about why you are picking on the likes of women's groups as being such a huge factor in this, why that and not any of the other factors?

I dont know I said it was huge factor, but it is a factor and this thread is about womens only groups so thats what I'm discussing here.

Thaedydal wrote: »

It is part of the dialogue not the sole dialogue.

So you honestly base you decissions on what groups to attend on how much complaining about chauvinistic men you can do?

Thaedydal wrote: »

Good, so how are you playing your part in your life with the men in your life?
When was the last time you challenged a sexist comment or assumption which was derogatory to women in your socail circle?

I have never really heard any.

Thaedydal wrote: »

No, you deem to miss the point of grassroots movements and of empowerment.

So women only book clubs are grass roots movements about empowerment? As well as complaining about chauvinists? When do you get the time to actually discuss books?

Thaedydal wrote: »

It can happen, esp when you have a new bunch of people trying to find away to live thier life after seeing how much influence the RC has on it,
it can be left unchecked to the detriment of other dialogue, so it's part of the
dialogue not the sole dialogue but it plays it's part in creating a common bond.

It can happen, esp when you have a new bunch of people trying to find away to live thier life after seeing how much influence hertronormative assumptions and rejection from gay groups has, it can be left unchecked to the detriment of other dialogue, so it's part of the dialogue not the sole dialogue but it plays it's part in creating a common bond.

So you dont just sit around complaining about the RC or unisexuals. You talk about paganism or bisexuality and discuss issues pertaining to it, such as discrimination or just finding you identity amongst people different to you, and you do this in an enviroment where behavour that would be disruptive is not allowed. And you do this without banning men?

Thaedydal wrote: »

Many groups have supporter groups, Al anon for AA, Gay Parents groups, LGBT friends and supporters ect.

Support groups are different. Firstly they are specifically about support, unlike say a book club. Secondly, they generally are only attractive to the people they are trying to support (I am neither gay nor a parent, so gay parents groups aren't really of interest to me). Thirdy, I'm still pretty sure most anyone can enter these, you dont have to be LGB or T to join the LGBT society in college.

Thaedydal wrote: »

There have been Christians turn up to pagan meetings and as long as they were respectful of the dialogue and didn't try to preach or undermine or deny the experiences of those present it wasn't an issue, where that did happen and where there were evangelicals turning up and mill ant right wingers turning up and taking pictures of people coming and going then steps had to be taken to tell these people they were not welcome and to move the group with out leaving a forwarding address for them to find.

If christians turned up to you pagan groups, then they aren't strcitly pagan only, they just are organised to promote pagan centric discussion. And if these groups can run well, as long as the bad behavour is policed, then why cant this apply to book clubs or gyms etc?

liah

Why is a women's only book club more disturbing to all of you than the idea that your gender is receiving such a bad name that it's become necessary? Why are you spending so much time and effort here berating women for retreating instead of berating the vocal, obnoxious minority who has taken it upon themselves to represent you?

You're all arguing about how we should be "fixing" it and trying to make everyone "equal," well why the bloody hell aren't you doing the same?

The fact that women-only groups exist should be enough incentive to take action against the men who are giving you all a bad rep. You all know from discussing in this thread that each of the women here do NOT think badly of ALL men (no matter how many times you try to tell us we do). We just think badly of the vocal minority who love to make our lives hell.

The problem with us women trying to "fix" those men's attitudes is that they're precisely the ones who wouldn't take it seriously from a woman's mouth.

So if you REALLY want this theoretical utopia you keep on banging on about where everyone is so lovely and respectful and recognizes one another as individuals rather than our respective genders (fat chance on that, by the way; it will never happen) talk to and berate them, not us.

Treat the cause, not the symptom. 'Cause frankly, I'm sick of being forced to be the one to fight.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

It is a form of discrimination.. and it exists in many contact sports.

Is it wrong though?

Deleted User wrote: »

But I'm curious about this line of argument... Because there are areas where discrimination still exists, you believe its ok to form new avenues for discrimination?

If there are areas where discrimination exists (eg male only rugby teams, or female only showers) and are ok then discrimination by itself is not automatically wrong.

It then becomes a question of judging why some are and some aren't and where the line is.

If on the other hand you believe that all discrimination is wrong by simple virtue of it being discrimination then that is a position that requires we revisit some of the most basic elements of society, such as segregated showers.

Zulu

liah wrote: »

Why is a women's only book club more disturbing to all of you than the idea that your gender is receiving such a bad name that it's become necessary?

Who says it is?

Why are you spending so much time and effort here berating women for retreating instead of berating the vocal, obnoxious minority who has taken it upon themselves to represent you?

Firstly, I wouldn't consider point out a few obvious truths beratment, and secondly, who says we aren't?

You're all arguing about how we should be "fixing" it and trying to make everyone "equal," well why the bloody hell aren't you doing the same?

Again -who says we aren't?

The fact that women-only groups exist should be enough incentive to take action against the men who are giving you all a bad rep.

You assume we aren't; you assume wrong.

The problem with us women trying to "fix" those men's attitudes is that they're precisely the ones who wouldn't take it seriously from a woman's mouth.

...and the solution is to ban all men.

So if you REALLY want this theoretical utopia you keep on banging on about where everyone is so lovely and respectful and recognizes one another as individuals rather than our respective genders (fat chance on that, by the way; it will never happen) talk to and berate them, not us.

So start another thread about them so.

Treat the cause, not the symptom.

A cause is segregation.

liah

Zulu wrote: »

Who says it is?

Firstly, I wouldn't consider point out a few obvious truths beratment, and secondly, who says we aren't?

Again -who says we aren't?

You assume we aren't; you assume wrong.

...and the solution is to ban all men.

So start another thread about them so.

A cause is segregation.

I don't see you decrying sexism anywhere else on boards. If you do it in real life, congratulations, but I seriously doubt that all the guys posting here catch out every guy on every comment.

What is the cause of this particular segregation?

Women separating themselves from men is caused by something. It's not caused by itself. It didn't just appear out of nowhere. It's caused by **** who won't listen to us when we try to correct them on their attitudes. Stop telling us to "fix" it, because we can't. Only guys can get through to idiots like that.

I do not understand the point in attacking the segregation; segregation is simply a retreat. The cause for the segregation needs to be addressed.

Also, I don't like these "well if white people were to hide from black people would that be okay?" or "trade the word gender with race" bollocks.

Are white people hassled by black people on a daily basis? If so, it's news to me. I think it would be much more fair to compare it to LGBT people having gay bars and the like; they have developed a retreat from straight people because they want to occasionally get away from bigotry. Obviously not all straight people are bigots, but a large enough percent are that they feel it necessary to hide away for awhile. The way to solve the segregation of the LGBT community is not to ban gay bars or other gay-only activities but to increase education and awareness about how people impact one another so that eventually there will be no use for them.

Until then, there's no point chastising them for separating themselves once in awhile. They obviously have a need for it. We are all only human and not a single one of us can be strong all the time, not a single one of us can fight all the time. If that means pushing away possibly nice people to protect themselves for an hour a week, who the hell are you to judge?

Until the cause (of the segregation) is addressed then you can't expect to remove the symptom.

Ickle Magoo

Mark Hamill wrote: »

NO, these are bad for society, because they are discriminatory based on gender. To understand why thats bad, just replace gender with race and ask if its good for society for white people to have somewhere they can go where black people cant go so white people can feel safe and comfortable.

There are groups for specific races and ethnicities, for religions, political beliefs, local areas, parents, cancer survivers, etc, etc, etc - how is a womens club any different?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It was considered necessary, way back when women weren't allowed t o work because their place was seen as in the kitchen bacause men couldn't understand how they could possibly survive in the work place.

Right, so women weren't allowed to do something at all. Now they have the choice - they can work full-time, part-time, not at all. So it isn't about segregation anymore, it's about choice. There are no gyms or bookclubs or whatever that men can attend? They must be able to attend the groups that want to be women only?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So we are back to all men are dickheads, but women aren't? A women cant enjoy a book club that has men, even if every man present is serious, yet casual in his interest in discussing books (ie non-argumentative)?

No, we're back to some men are unarguably dickheads and some women want to ensure they don't have to put up with it while enjoying a social activity. Some women enjoy the camaraderie and dynamics of women only groups. A woman can - and do, many bookclubs exist that are mixed - enjoy bookclubs with men. Is it really an issue that people have the choice?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But how does it help the issue when, being offered viable aternatives such as mixed enviroments strictly moderated to remove undesired behavour, you just flat out deny the possibility of this being possible? You dont even seem to want to approach a situation where mixed enviroments are no longer uncomfortable for you, its just a "perfect world" pipe dream.

Sorry? Where did I deny moderation is not possible? Or suggest I was ever uncomfortable for that matter? More words in mouth, great.

In some cases it's proved either impossible or no motivation to police unwanted behaviour. That's the reality. Not that it cannot be moderated in all instances, just that it isn't in some - and when given an alternative where it's not even an issue where do you think those women will go?

I notice we still seem to be completely glossing over the horrendous fact that moderation, strict or otherwise is actually required. I'm finding it hard to believe you are arguing against women-only activities while accepting they are likely to have to complain or rules and moderation is going to be required by the group or establishment they frequent - would that not give you all you need to know about the motivation for some to attend women's only?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What point? That having mixed enviroments comfortable for women is not actually possible? Thats the only thing I'm getting from your side of the debate and it is a clear cut case of giving up.

Where are you pulling this stuff from? Who said anything about mixed environments being impossible to be comfortable for women? Have you been to the gym recently? Have you been to your local bookclub? Most groups are mixed. It's about choice - for whatever reason women want that choice.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Who is getting hysterical?

Going from a woman's book club to re-writing global employment legislation isn't getting hysterical?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Who said it hasn't had a closer inspection? Who says the reason isn't that more and more women aren't convincing themselves that they cant be in mixed enviroments because of the values espoused by women only clubs.

Aren't convincing themselves?

Of course the alternative is that it isn't the women who are convincing themselves of anything, it could just be that women's groups do espouse certain dynamics that are attractive to some women and that some men are in complete denial over what they are.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think you need to start reading the other posts on your side of the argument a bit more closely, particularly the ones by the women saying they dont like having to be right all the time and they dont like debating "like a men" (some such nonsense about the socratic method being male).

Now we have sides? I thought this was a discussion not a school yard boys Vs girls thing? There are lots of reasons being put forward for different women either understanding or appreciating what women's only groups have to offer. That you choose to blindly dismiss them all isn't the same as all women having cloned thoughts on the subject.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By having single sex groups, rather than more heavily policed mixed groups, these women are denying the possiblity of reintegrating with men. Just look at some of the views being espoused here by men, by the women who like women only clubs because men are too boistorous and loud and women are more thoughtful. Its sexist nonsense.

So you acknowledge that groups may well require heavy policing and yet can't see why that may be unattractive to some women? Seriously? And then in the same sentence dismiss men being boisterous and loud - what exactly is being policed?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So women who have self confidence are now anti women?

It wasn't confident women I was referring to no, you see I view women who have to to anti-women to try to pally in with sexist guys as being anything other than confident - quite the opposite in fact.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The stats brought up when someone said 1 in 4 have been assaulted. The number is much lower., so you cant assume all women in all women groups are hiding from men.

You know the number of women who have been assaulted, do you?

I didn't say all, you do love puting words in my mouth. If women want women-only groups then they are deliberately choosing to exclude men - I presume there is often a reason behind that. It would be a refreshing change to see men deal with those reasons rather than lambaste women for daring to have them.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You pointed out before that you got the same sexist treatment in the work place as you did outside, so it does apply. Or are you finally admitting that it is perfectly possibly to police mixed enviroments so that there is none of that dickhead behavour and that this is actually preferable to segregation of the sexes?

Some women have to work - some of them have to work with dickheads, I don't know where you are getting the idea that because it's a workplace that there is no dickhead behaviour going on or that it is adequately policed. Not to mention it completely ignores the issues many women still encounter even in the heavily legislated world of professional employment.

The difference being we have (or at least I think we should have) a choice where we socialise and who we socialise with.