'Women only' groups

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zulu

liah wrote: »

I don't see you decrying sexism anywhere else on boards.

Sigh. Seriously - wtf? Not only isn't this assertion not true, it's ridiculous.

...but I seriously doubt that all the guys posting here catch out every guy on every comment.

And we have to, in order to have our opinions validated?

It's caused by **** who won't listen to us when we try to correct them on their attitudes.

Can you let up on the language please?

Stop telling us to "fix" it, because we can't. Only guys can get through to idiots like that.

Not really, these people you speak of don't listen to men either. We as men don't have a secret communications method.

I do not understand the point in attacking the segregation;

Well I've explained the problem I have with segregation.

The cause for the segregation needs to be addressed.

True, but that doesn't mean we ignore the segregation either.

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.

Perhaps you don't like it because it's accurate? It's a perfectly valid analogy.

Are white people hassled by black people on a daily basis?

No, but, black people were harassed by white people and the solution didn't lie in black people segregating themselves.

liah

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah dear lord, okay, I'm just going to stop using the term "book club" altogether. Can we be less specific and just talk about women's only groups in general like the title said? I've been using the infamous book club as an example but frankly it really doesn't have any bearing on the overall sentiment of my argument; I'm thinking a bit broader than that.

I also stated earlier that I have no problem with men's only groups, as long as there is an equivalent choice available for women. E.g. women's only groups. As well as the option for co-ed. People should have the freedom to be comfortable. If they're uncomfortable around the opposite sex, for whatever reason, they should have the option not to be.

Zulu wrote: »

Sigh. Seriously - wtf? Not only isn't this assertion not true, it's ridiculous.
And we have to, in order to have our opinions validated?
Can you let up on the language please?
Not really, these people you speak of don't listen to men either. We as men don't have a secret communications method.
Well I've explained the problem I have with segregation.
True, but that doesn't mean we ignore the segregation either.
Perhaps you don't like it because it's accurate? It's a perfectly valid analogy.
No, but, black people were harassed by white people and the solution didn't lie in black people segregating themselves.

You seem to think we have to fight it constantly and never back down for our opinions to be valid.

What language? "Wanker?" Really? Does the particular combination of letters I use matter? Sentiment remains the same.

The difference is, if a man spoke to one of those men, they would have a higher chance of taking him seriously than if a woman tried to explain it.

It's not a perfectly valid analogy. You seem to think that segregation = TOTAL segregation and removal from all situations. This is not the case. Re-read the LGBT comparison; it's much more valid.

Zulu

liah wrote: »

It's not a perfectly valid analogy.

It is of course! Why isn't it?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

Is it wrong though?

I don't know, since in some circumstances it would be difficult to go up against men physically especially in games like Rugby where men become extremely powerful physically, and it is a rather rough game.

I can see the reason when its practical.

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.

Fair enough, but the reasons behind it are whats important. Privacy of body or to protect a "weaker" physical type are different considerations to any club which does not have such considerations.

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.

I don't believe that all discrimination is wrong. I just believe that the cases of female only groups in book clubs, gyms, etc are wrong considering the lengths by which feminists chose to fight against them, when it was men who were holding them. What has changed?

liah

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? 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?

Why has it come down to men (let's forget the women who might be objecting) berating women for hiding from the minority group of men you mention? Why can't this be about equality? That men-only clubs were shut down when feminists were in full swing as being discriminatory, and now you're seeking to justify women-only groups.

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?

Why make the assumption that we're not? By seeking equality for both sexes, we're doing just that.

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 promotion of women-only groups promotes the belief that men-only groups are perfectly acceptable... until we have some female that cries discrimination because her rights are being infringed upon.

It appears to me that the fight for women only groups seeks to place women above men in the area of such "rights". I'm against the idea of any sex-only group that does not have very obvious practical considerations involved.

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.

Which is a reason to stop trying? I, typically, rip to shreds anyone making sexist remarks around me. Most of my male or female friends do the same. Simply put, because such sexism is retarded and usually opens itself up to easy criticism. But they'll shrug it off, and find a different audience to say such remarks to. Is knowing this a reason to stop? Nope. Because not saying anything promotes the idea that its ok to run your mouth off. Will it change things in the short term? Highly unlikely. TBH, I highly doubt all manner of sexism will ever be removed... but we can continue to condition people into thinking its wrong to do so.

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.

I'll berate anyone that seeks to have selective equality. That women are entitled to certain things, but men aren't, and vice versa.

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

Whereas for many of us we see different causes... I get annoyed with the equality gig. I was raised to believe that equality meant that men and women would have the same rights in the workplace, in the home, wherever. And so, I live my life with the hope that I will indeed get the same rights as women, just as I provide the same benefit to women, as I have to men. But, equality does not really exist. We're not equal. Oh, the law makes great attempts at giving us the same legal rights, and yet men are penalised because of their sex on a regular basis in child custody cases, and other such issues. In the workplace, men are more likely to be seen as causes of sexual harassment, than women. And I could go on, and on.

Simply put, women got equality with all the benefits of what they received before equality. And men got shafted.

You say you're tired of being the one forced to fight? You really should try looking at life from a male perspective, and you'll understand there is no other choice but to continue fighting. IF you want a life worth living, that is. It does help not to feel bitter about it though.

Mark Hamill

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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?

Who says it is different in a ll these cases? I would be against the ethnic segregation as much as gender. The other thing you seem to be missing is that a lot of these cases dont actually ban opposing/opposite beliefs or characteristics - you dont have to be a pagan to go to a pagan retreat etc, you just have to stick to discussions that are supportive of the group - ie go to a pagan group to talk about pagans respectively, go to a fianna fail group to talk about fianna fail repsectfully.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

The choice should be in the hands of the person deciding wether or not to go, not the people running the group. 50/100 years ago, people like them decided that women shouldn't have the choice to vote, to go to certain clubs or play certain sports because they saw women as fundamentally different and in need of seperation from men. Today, womens clubs are allowing the women to do these things, but they still see women as fundamentally different and in need of seperation from men, the sexism has barely lessened at all.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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?

Its not about what men want, its about what women want. If they want one gender to stop being sexist to another gender, then they have to do it as well.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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?

Yes, because some women are, inarguably, bitches and nagging hags. What would happen if a man opened a mens club for men to get away from irritating women for a while. What if someone opened a club saying that some people of certain ethnicicities are unarguably criminal, therefore none are allowed in these doors?
You only need to ban the dickheads to get rid of the dickheads, banning all men is sexist.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Sorry? Where did I deny moderation is not possible?

If its possible then whats the problem? Moderate the dickheads out and you have no dickheads, no women only groups needed.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Or suggest I was ever uncomfortable for that matter? More words in mouth, great.

If you are not uncomfortable, then why would you be bothered by anything?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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?

How can moderation be impossible? Do you think no moderation is involved in women only groups, that women are all angelic to each other and never bitch to each other? Why did the women, unhappy with the lack of moderation in a service or group, go and set up their own groups and just ban men? Why didn't they set up their own group with the level of moderation that they desired? Why did they make the sexist judgement to outright ban all men?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I notice we still seem to be completely glossing over the horrendous fact that moderation, strict or otherwise is actually required.

Since when? I've been saying that you should desire groups with better moderation, not just ones which outlaw men. It seems that you seem to be of the opinion that once you remove men, you no longer need moderation in an all female enviroment. Lets try that in girsl schools and see how long before they burn down.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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?

Do you think that no complaints are ever made in women only groups? Or in the mixed enviroments they leave behind? That women never argue or insult each other.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

Have you not being paying attention to all those posts you have been thanking? All these women saying they want an enviroment to talk about women issues and complain about dickheads and that these enviroments must include the gym or the book club or the local protest group? That men are too boistorous, that they are too logical. They may only being projecting their own feelings on other women, but its the view they are espousing.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

No, where do you think the original womens rights activists met up? Did they just simultaneously stand up one day and start calling for equality, all at the same time, without realisng others where interested in this too. Besides, we are at the stage of women only protest groups for drug legalisation, so its hardly far off women only political parties.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Aren't convincing themselves?

Should be "are convincing themselves"

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

I'm not in denial that they are attractive to women, its why they are attractive that I'm disputing. Its not that women fundamentally need what they are selling, its that they have convinced women that they need it.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Now we have sides? I thought this was a discussion not a school yard boys Vs girls thing?

All debates have sides, they have to. If people didn't disagree, then why is there a debate?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

I'm sorry, you tend to thank each others posts a lot, so i assumed you agreed on a number of issues, maybe the thanks are mistakes?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So you acknowledge that groups may well require heavy policing and yet can't see why that may be unattractive to some women? Seriously?

You seriously thin women only groups dont require heavy policing? Do you think that girl only schools have less rules than boys schools too?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And then in the same sentence dismiss men being boisterous and loud - what exactly is being policed?

The dickheads, of course, of both genders. I dismissed all men as being boistorous.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

Maybe they dont see them as sexist? Maybe they have the confidence to see that the men will poke fun at anything and there is no reason (within limits, that should also apply to the men) that she cant either?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

Do you?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I didn't say all, you do love puting words in my mouth.

You didn't say all, but you are certainly implying significant numbers.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

We are, we just dont see why we should give special dues to one reaons when it hasn't been shown to be prevelent. More women on this thread have complained about men being too boistorous or dickheaded or just unaware of womens issues to mix with, than have claimed that men scare them because of psychological issues.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

I pointed out dickhead behavour in the workplace before in this thread (as a reason for why someone might start discriminating hiring based on gender), and it was hand waved away as there being ways to deal with it in work place enviroments.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

And what if someone demands that same choice where she works? Should workplaces be allowed to discriminate based on gender to suit the currently employed?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

liah

Klaz, I hate to break it to you, but I've stated multiple times throughout the thread that I also have no problem with men's only clubs, or any other "segregated" club, so long as an equivalent is created for the opposite end of the spectrum.

I'm arguing for equality, too-- but I'm also arguing for freedom of choice. If certain people feel it necessary to hide away, they should have the freedom and human right to do so, and the mentality that is forcing people to feel the need to hide away should be tackled via education and awareness, like I already stated.

Zulu, I'm dead tired of repeating myself; if you're still not getting it you never will so let's just agree to disagree.

EDIT: donegalfella, if there's a market for it and the same is offered for men, then fine. I'm sure there are such things and as long as they don't hurt anyone else people should be free to make the choices they want.

There's certainly many religions who operate in much the same way and don't like it when people socialize outside of their religion. I don't see anyone looking to ban them. It's their choice to live that way.

liah

liah wrote: »

Klaz, I hate to break it to you, but I've stated multiple times throughout the thread that I also have no problem with men's only clubs, or any other "segregated" club, so long as an equivalent is created for the opposite end of the spectrum.

And yet, you're missing the reality of the situation. That there is a different perception if men do something which excludes women because of their sex, versus if women exclude men because of their sex.

Or do you disagree that a men-only social club wouldn't be criticised and ultimately forced to open to women if it was created?

I'm arguing for equality, too-- but I'm also arguing for freedom of choice. If certain people feel it necessary to hide away, they should have the freedom and human right to do so, and the mentality that is forcing people to feel the need to hide away should be tackled via education and awareness, like I already stated.

Well, personally, I find that choice can be worse for people than not having it. Choice isn't all its cracked up to be. And choice leads to other problems especially when those choices place limits on entry or participation due to their sex.

EDIT: donegalfella, if there's a market for it and the same is offered for men, then fine. I'm sure there are such things and as long as they don't hurt anyone else people should be free to make the choices they want.

What if only two women want to join such a club or activity instead of the 30 participants needed to run such.. So, they should be discriminated against simply because they're female, and there isn't the demand available to have two clubs in a town? Even though there is a male-only club which has open spaces but can't let the women in because they're not, well, men.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

So gay only Rugby teams are discriminatory.

That's all nice and idealistic but it kinda ignores the very reason they exist, doesn't it? The high rates of Homophobia in Rugby, soccer etc. were coming out is still a big thing, exactly because of the way they would be treated by players and supporters.

In response to that, they set up gay only teams. The reason gay only rugby teams exist is because of discrimination and homophobia in male dominated team sports.

I wouldn't quite equate women only book clubs to the above, but I don't see the harm in them!

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

So gay only Rugby teams are discriminatory.

Damn right it is.

That's all nice and idealistic but it kinda ignores the very reason they exist, doesn't it? The high rates of Homophobia in Rugby, soccer etc. were coming out is still a big thing, exactly because of the way they would be treated by players and supporters.

In response to that, they set up gay only teams. The reason gay only rugby teams exist is because of discrimination and homophobia in male dominated team sports.

And removing gay players to form their own system is going to fix things? Hardly. The only way people get used to something is through exposure/further experience. I can still remember the first time I met a "camp" gay man.. shocked me to the core, especially when I found my desk at work to be beside his... Now, after meeting dozens over the years, I hardly bat an eyelid at their mannerisms.

If I actively removed myself from positions where I might meet camp gay men, then, how would i change my initial experience of them?

How does removing gay men from Rugby improve the straight players reactions to them in the future?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

Damn right it is.



And removing gay players to form their own system is going to fix things? Hardly. The only way people get used to something is through exposure/further experience. I can still remember the first time I met a "camp" gay man.. shocked me to the core, especially when I found my desk at work to be beside his... Now, after meeting dozens over the years, I hardly bat an eyelid at their mannerisms.

If I actively removed myself from positions where I might meet camp gay men, then, how would i change my initial experience of them?

How does removing gay men from Rugby improve the straight players reactions to them in the future?

I don't think it is going to fix things, but I don't think that is the main reason it exists. The thinking seems to be that if the Gay World Cup is taken seriously that eventually being gay wont be seen as an issue by some.

Gay players can still play in the usual teams and try and out the homophobic attitudes from within. The 2 ways can work and coexist without contradiction? No? Or is this a morally absolute position?

K-9

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, probably comes down more to the mens organisations, as they were the pre existing groups. You'd probably need to find out what happened before these sports established and see what efforts were made by men to accept them and women to join.

Rev Hellfire

K-9 wrote: »

Gay players can still play in the usual teams and try and out the homophobic attitudes from within. The 2 ways can work and coexist without contradiction? No? Or is this a morally absolute position?

Would you be equally supportive of a heterosexual only rugby team ?

coffee_cake

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Women's chess? Really?

K-9

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Would you be equally supportive of a heterosexual only rugby team ?

No, but doesn't that avoid the issue, discrimination against gays?

Hetrosexuals aren't being discriminated against in Rugby, Homosexuals are.

Anyway, the point is, if they want a gay World Cup, what's the problem?

If women want a book club, so what?

Tbh, the notion of sex free policies on this thread seems rather artificial to me. It seems retaliatory and reactionary, rather than idealistic. Women campaigned against men only clubs so how dare they have their own clubs!

Rev Hellfire

K-9 wrote: »

No, but doesn't that avoid the issue, discrimination against gays?

Hetrosexuals aren't being discriminated against in Rugby, Homosexuals are.

Anyway, the point is, if they want a gay World Cup, what's the problem?

The problem is its a double standard.

Ickle Magoo

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Who says it is different in a ll these cases? I would be against the ethnic segregation as much as gender. The other thing you seem to be missing is that a lot of these cases dont actually ban opposing/opposite beliefs or characteristics - you dont have to be a pagan to go to a pagan retreat etc, you just have to stick to discussions that are supportive of the group - ie go to a pagan group to talk about pagans respectively, go to a fianna fail group to talk about fianna fail repsectfully.

What about single sex schools, faith schools, men's fooball teams, men's toilets?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The choice should be in the hands of the person deciding wether or not to go, not the people running the group. 50/100 years ago, people like them decided that women shouldn't have the choice to vote, to go to certain clubs or play certain sports because they saw women as fundamentally different and in need of seperation from men. Today, womens clubs are allowing the women to do these things, but they still see women as fundamentally different and in need of seperation from men, the sexism has barely lessened at all.

The difference is choice - it's the difference between not being allowed to do something at all and having the choice to do it with other women, other men, or both.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its not about what men want, its about what women want. If they want one gender to stop being sexist to another gender, then they have to do it as well.

We're back to utopia again. I think instead of harking for this never to be reached ideal, we should just accept that to have a choice is a good thing.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, because some women are, inarguably, bitches and nagging hags. What would happen if a man opened a mens club for men to get away from irritating women for a while. What if someone opened a club saying that some people of certain ethnicicities are unarguably criminal, therefore none are allowed in these doors?
You only need to ban the dickheads to get rid of the dickheads, banning all men is sexist.

I don't care if men want to set up men's only clubs - nor that I can't go into men's toilets, nor that the BNP can have a rally regardless of how much I despise their policies. I like living in a democracy. While I think it would be wonderful if everyone could live merrily together, nobody ever being horrible, no women ever having bad experiences with men but we can't and we don't so taking away that choice for women serves no purpose - it doesn't bring equality a single millimetre closer, it just denies some women the opportunity to partake in single-sex groups.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If its possible then whats the problem? Moderate the dickheads out and you have no dickheads, no women only groups needed.

Who moderates? Who has to complain? Who has to spend time and effort they would rather be giving to the activity into policing grown adults that can't police themselves?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you are not uncomfortable, then why would you be bothered by anything?

I'm not the one bothered here. I have no issue with single-sex clubs, I have no issue with mixed clubs - I think there is room for both.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How can moderation be impossible? Do you think no moderation is involved in women only groups, that women are all angelic to each other and never bitch to each other? Why did the women, unhappy with the lack of moderation in a service or group, go and set up their own groups and just ban men? Why didn't they set up their own group with the level of moderation that they desired? Why did they make the sexist judgement to outright ban all men?

Moderation can be impossible when those that are entrusted with doing the moderating are the problem. Why should they have to police anyone - why can't some women just choose to have women only activities just as men have been enjoying men's only rugby teams or football or cricket for aeons now.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Since when? I've been saying that you should desire groups with better moderation, not just ones which outlaw men. It seems that you seem to be of the opinion that once you remove men, you no longer need moderation in an all female enviroment. Lets try that in girsl schools and see how long before they burn down.

Burn down? What? A book club is now equivalent to children at school - straw and grasp, mark.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you think that no complaints are ever made in women only groups? Or in the mixed enviroments they leave behind? That women never argue or insult each other.

I don't for one second think that, no, but having a single sex group changes the dynamics and some people prefer that.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Have you not being paying attention to all those posts you have been thanking? All these women saying they want an enviroment to talk about women issues and complain about dickheads and that these enviroments must include the gym or the book club or the local protest group? That men are too boistorous, that they are too logical. They may only being projecting their own feelings on other women, but its the view they are espousing.

It's because I've been paying attention that I'm able to point out that the desperate attempts to assume we all think exactly the same are so feeble. There are certainly cases of women who get fed up with men, whether that be the way men choose to interact with them, aggression, fear or whatever and I see no harm in having groups for those women. There are plenty of women who are perfectly capable and enjoy going toe to toe with men in debate - and men and women do tend to debate differently, I would have to agree with that. As long as everybody gets catered for, then what's the problem?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, where do you think the original womens rights activists met up? Did they just simultaneously stand up one day and start calling for equality, all at the same time, without realisng others where interested in this too. Besides, we are at the stage of women only protest groups for drug legalisation, so its hardly far off women only political parties.

I've already suggested why that is, did you read the whole thread?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not in denial that they are attractive to women, its why they are attractive that I'm disputing. Its not that women fundamentally need what they are selling, its that they have convinced women that they need it.

And who are you to suggest why things may or may not be attractive to women? Or that they should be attractive? No two people are alike, we all have our experiences, wants, preferences - if someone wishes to have a social activity which is single sex then I don't see an issue. My husband plays in a sunday league football side - will I start campaigning to join? Or would I be better served by setting up a women's league? Would that mean that we are all sexist and hate each other? Of course not.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

All debates have sides, they have to. If people didn't disagree, then why is there a debate?

Because while people may agree with particular sentiments, they may not agree with everything, or to the same extent - we debate a lot on A&A, I've seen you agree with someone and still hold a slightly different stand/viewpoint. I'm not sure why you are being deliberately obtuse about it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm sorry, you tend to thank each others posts a lot, so i assumed you agreed on a number of issues, maybe the thanks are mistakes?

A number of issues isn't every issue - nor have I thanked every post by every poster making points for women's only groups. If women are thanking each others posts a lot then perhaps a common theme has emerged - perhaps that could be learnt from rather than just making catty remarks about it?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You seriously thin women only groups dont require heavy policing? Do you think that girl only schools have less rules than boys schools too?

Would you accept they have different rules for single sex schools and same sex schools?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Maybe they dont see them as sexist? Maybe they have the confidence to see that the men will poke fun at anything and there is no reason (within limits, that should also apply to the men) that she cant either?

If it were just poking fun at then they wouldn't be anti-women, they'd just be poking fun. I'm not sure if you don't know what I mean or are just trying to down play it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you?

I wasn't the one claiming to know the stats were wrong.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You didn't say all, but you are certainly implying significant numbers.

I think a significant number of women have been on the receiving end of awful treatment from men - how many of those now prefer women's only activities as a result of that or whether that factors into their decision, I can only guess at.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We are, we just dont see why we should give special dues to one reaons when it hasn't been shown to be prevelent. More women on this thread have complained about men being too boistorous or dickheaded or just unaware of womens issues to mix with, than have claimed that men scare them because of psychological issues.

I'm not sure it's men scaring them - we are trying to debate the popularity of women's only activities. I know of some, I hold a woman's only group, I know women who attend women's only groups and I have my own views on why they may prove popular from my own experiences. That's a world away from the "all men" this and "all women" this being personalised that seems to be getting thrown around. That's the second time in this thread you have tried to infer something about me personally and dragging the debate to the level of my interaction with men.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I pointed out dickhead behavour in the workplace before in this thread (as a reason for why someone might start discriminating hiring based on gender), and it was hand waved away as there being ways to deal with it in work place enviroments.

People do discriminate based on gender, people leave their jobs because of dickheads - why can't someone in their spare time chose whom to spend free time with? If that happens to be a guys pub quiz team or a men's rugby team or a woman's book club - is that really the end of the world?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And what if someone demands that same choice where she works? Should workplaces be allowed to discriminate based on gender to suit the currently employed?

Then that's a separate issue. I think there is a fairly obvious distinction between a woman choosing who her employers employ and who she spends her leisure time with.

K-9

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The problem is its a double standard.

Yes, but is that necessarily a bad thing? Gay only teams are highlighting the issue.

The idea seems to be that people may actually get surprised at the standard of rugby being displayed, shock horror, openly gay men can play Rugby quite well.

There's a homeless soccer World Cup as well. Suppose that is discriminatory as well!

Rev Hellfire

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, but is that necessarily a bad thing? Gay only teams are highlighting the issue.

The idea seems to be that people may actually get surprised at the standard of rugby being displayed, shock horror, openly gay men can play Rugby quite well.

There's a homeless soccer World Cup as well. Suppose that is discriminatory as well!

Such things imply it is acceptable to discriminate. How can you argue against something you practise yourself? Sauce for the goose is good for the gander.

K-9

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Such things imply it is acceptable to discriminate. How can you argue against something you practise yourself? Sauce for the goose is good for the gander.

But the point of their existence is to highlight discrimination they suffer, to publicise their plight. It is hardly harmful to Hetrosexuals, other than highlighting the issue.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem we are going to get loads of gay Rugby players coming out in the immediate future, so I can accept the double standard, if it achieves its long term goal.

Rev Hellfire

K-9 wrote: »

But the point of their existence is to highlight discrimination they suffer, to publicise their plight. It is hardly harmful to Hetrosexuals, other than highlighting the issue.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem we are going to get loads of gay Rugby players coming out in the immediate future, so I can accept the double standard, if it achieves its long term goal.

I'm curious is there an official 'gay' only policy on the gay rugby team, or does it rely on the fact few/no straight players would join such a team ?

K-9

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm curious is there an official 'gay' only policy on the gay rugby team, or does it rely on the fact few/no straight players would join such a team ?

Think they are open to all. Not sure how popular that policy is in practice however!

Rev Hellfire

K-9 wrote: »

Think they are open to all. Not sure how popular that policy is in practice however!

That makes it a very different proposition to what is discussed here then.

donfers

K-9 wrote: »

Well, probably comes down more to the mens organisations, as they were the pre existing groups. You'd probably need to find out what happened before these sports established and see what efforts were made by men to accept them and women to join.

No, it's not the organisations, it's the simple fact that sport is generally a meritocracy and the women can't compete at the same level as men, if you threw in a token female to pander to some agenda or another she would most likely be embarrassed at best and seriously hurt at worst (especially in more physical sports like rugby and boxing). Let's take an example, Michelle Wie who is considered the brightest young talent in female golf was allowed to compete in male events and she was a complete disaster, I think she made the cut once.

However when it comes to reading a book or going to the gym, we are not competing with each other, nobody can really argue that they are somehow better at reading or using the treadmill than someone else so the analogy with sports is nonsense...there are completely different parameters with regard to the reasons for segregation in sport.

I also think the whole "sexist men are driving the women to these places" thing is being overemphasised in this debate.

Having an opinion = not necessarily sexist

Being outspoken = not necessarily sexist

Shouting people down = not necessarily sexit

Questioning people's opinions = not necessarily sexist

However if you have some preconceived political agenda it must be so so tempting to label males who behave like this as sexist when the reality is they are like that with everybody.

In any case when these new womens only group form the same problems will invariably arise as they do in almost all groups with some voices being more dominat and overbearing than others,

The reality is the formation of these groups is often down to the insecurities of those involved and their failures to engage successfully in previous unisex groups (perhaps rather than lashing out at how they believe previous groups were operated unreasonably, they should look at themselves for the reason why this new exclusive group is necessary). Most of the men I know, rather than behaving like an idiot, walk on eggshells when in womens company, always wary of the acute possibility of causing offence and go way out on a limb to make sure the female members feel comfortable/unthreatened/supported. A lot of the examples of bad behaviour here seem to relate to the nightlcub/pub scene where of course with the sheer volume of people and sheer quantity of drink taken you will see loutish behaviour. I have seen seen awful hevaiour from men but also countless examples of disgusting behaviour from women. I could constantly refer to these examples to tar all females with the same brush but I realise that would be disingenuous and I instead choose to interpret the events within the context of that more drunken carefree environment. People, not men exclusively or women exclusively, can be duckeads at certain times in certain places - I think we can all agree on that. It's how much we let that behaviour affect us and how we choose to deal with it when it happens that is the test of us.

Running off and forming your own group is your right, it is not a solution.

K-9

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

That makes it a very different proposition to what is discussed here then.

To women only book clubs?

Not sure if it is very different. They had to set up gay Rugby teams to make a point. By the reasoning on this thread, it is automatically a bad thing.

As long as men can have a Gentlemen's club and hold a book club there, if they so wish, I don't see a problem.

liah

You're right, donfers. I agree largely with what you've said.

And it is a right; it doesn't always have to be a solution. If people want to join them, that's their decision. It still shouldn't be banned.

As I've said all along, with education and awareness eventually the need for them will disappear, although never completely. We haven't got far enough for that yet, though.

Truley

donfers wrote: »

Running off and forming your own group is your right, it is not a solution.

I think that sums up how I feel about it. Do I think single sex groups are sexist? Yes. In the sense that they make presumptions about people becasue of their gender. At the end of the day, even its members have to accept that organisations like this are based on the use of unfair discrimination, that's more or less objective. I would tend to avoid them personally, and I don't think I would encourage my children to get involved.

But ... I do respect people's rights to form them in a private or commerical setting.