'Women only' groups

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

Except that you're making it the issue. Its no longer about playing Rugby, but now about gay rugby players. Even the people who don't have any issue generally with gay players will take exception to that, and eventually you'll be in a worse position than before.



Say if you have two friends. One gay, the other heterosexual. They both want to play on the same team. With the "normal" teams, there would be no problem there, however with the Gay team, one player is prohibited from joining because he is heterosexual.

Honestly, I don't see the problem with working out things with the mixed teams. They're going to have to eventually if they wish to change perceptions. The only thing that having separate teams does, is highlight that they want to be treated differently. And they will.

"Normal" teams don't take exception to it, as far as I'm aware!

The Gay teams don't discriminate either, though I don't think there has been a huge uptake from Hetro players!

My point is, both approaches are useful. Gay Rugby teams highlight the issue and players like Gareth Thomas of Wales campaign for equal treatment after publicly coming out.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The difference is assuming you are correct the gay rugby team does not have a prohibition on heterosexuals, the option to join is there should one wish.
Unlike the women-only clubs which actively discriminate by permitting no males to join.

Basically it seems to boil down to for some people here:

Discriminate against males = female empowerment
Discriminate against females = male oppression

But men are free to set up their own book clubs if they so wish, or male gyms etc. From memory, was there a male weight watchers club at one stage?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But, assuming that these gays are like some here on this thread, they aren't doing it to highlight their plight, they are doing it because they dont ever accept that it could get better (some unreachable utopia).

Far from it, they recognise that it is a very long process and it seems to be one of the last taboos left for Gay men, openly coming out in the world of Rugby, Soccer, GAA etc. This is part of that process, highlighting the issue, as even highlighting it seems a taboo!

If it's a means to an end, yes. Probably more a Machiavellian approach that a morally absolute one!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They are just saying, well if you are going to discriminate, then so will I. That kind of attitude is hardly going to help, is it?

I've seen that justification used for Portmarnock Golf Club, maybe even one or 2 posters from this very thread used that stance to justify the men's club there.

I think some of the objections on this thread are based on that, look over there at the wimminz clubs, not any particular moral stance on sexism!

The Corinthian

liah wrote: »

I'm 23 years old ffs. Don't you dare hold me (or, frankly, anyone else) to the standards of a generation that had a completely different mindset and upbringing and way of looking at the world.

None of us are free from earlier mindsets as they echo long after they are the accepted wisdom. And neither was I suggesting that all women have a hypocritical, cake and eat it, mentality either.

However it does exist and it quite prevalent.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, I don't think I mentioned the sixties anywhere, so please don't start inventing things I said. The only historical example I raised was from the nineties, specifically in student politics, and that certainly has baring on today, given many of these same people are politicians and trade unionist officials today.

And suffrage.

Ok sixities cheerfully withdrawn. You want to actually answer the question now?

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, it was an outright rejection of an attempt to dismiss me using an emotionally changed label.

I'm not dismissing you, I'm tackling you head on. Your just like Israel and the I didn't mention the sixities comments are just attempt to dismiss my charge against you.

What the heck to the "standards" of a century ago or even the standards of the UCD women trying to close down Portmarnock got to do with any of the posters here or any other woman who didn't partake in these movements?

Are any of these women here on this forum?

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm waiting on you to condemn Kooli btw, or were those just empty promises?

I haven't read Kooli's post but she is a horrible horrible hypocrite and no one should ever listen to her again.

Now care to actually answer the question rather that continuing to stall?

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

None of us are free from earlier mindsets as they echo long after they are the accepted wisdom. And neither was I suggesting that all women have a hypocritical, cake and eat it, mentality either.

However it does exist and it quite prevalent.

:rolleyes:


Me: It seems silly to blame say Curves gym for the lack of male only gyms. So long as Curves are not stopping male only gyms then what is the problem?

You: Replace Curves gym with Portmarnock Golf Club and you have just given the same argument that was rejected as sexist fifteen odd years ago.

Me And?
Is that supposed to some how stop me from holding my position?
Are any of those women here today in this discussion?
Do you think any of the women here today in this discussion should be held to the standards these women set?

You: Yes. It's hardly a century ago that these arguments were being made and deciding that these standards no longer suit now is not acceptable.

liah

Where is it prevalent?

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok sixities cheerfully withdrawn. You want to actually answer the question now?

Did I not? If not how did I fail to answer it?

I'm not dismissing you, I'm tackling you head on. Your just like Israel and the I didn't mention the sixities comments are just attempt to dismiss my charge against you.

You're not tackling anything, you're just flinging mud. If you want to accuse me of misogyny you need to point out why and all you've done is claim that I am accusing all women of something (which I have repeatedly denied doing) and have not bothered to prove how I hate them too, which is also part of the definition.

It's a low blow, unwarranted and only designed to discredit me with a label rather than tackle my arguments. Shame on you.

What the heck to the "standards" of a century ago or even the standards of the UCD women trying to close down Portmarnock got to do with any of the posters here or any other woman who didn't partake in these movements?

Again, I have answered this. This a la carte equality is a prevalent attitude out there. That does not mean that all women (or men) ascribe to it, but it cannot be denied that it forms a large part of today's conventional wisdom.

I really am not sure what other answer you want from me.

I haven't read Kooli's post but she is a horrible horrible hypocrite and no one should ever listen to her again.

So it does exist.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

Did I not? If not how did I fail to answer it?

You failed to answer it by not providing an answer. More stalling :rolleyes:

Let me ask again

What the heck to the "standards" of a century ago or even the standards of the UCD women trying to close down Portmarnock got to do with any of the posters here or any other woman who didn't partake in these movements?

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're not tackling anything, you're just flinging mud. If you want to accuse me of misogyny you need to point out why

I have already.

Picking two movements with people who probably have nothing to do with each other and using that to call women hypocrites is just an excuse for misogyny

The Corinthian wrote: »

Again, I have answered this. This a la carte equality is a prevalent attitude out there.

Based on what? And with who?

Once again

Picking two movements with people who probably have nothing to do with each other and using that to call women hypocrites is just an excuse for misogyny

The Corinthian wrote: »

So it does exist.

Hypocrisy? Yes TC, it exists.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

You could say that about anything.

Is it "fair" that I grew up in Ireland at a time when hardly anyone was into Games Workshop stuff so there was no store here and now lots of people are and there is a store.

When you appeal to "fair" who are you appealing to? Who is the arbiter of "fair"?

Another example which isn't barring you based on your sex... If Games workshop were open and only serving males in your town, preventing women from purchasing/playing the games, then perhaps it would be a more comparable example...

Who are "they"?

Duh. Women in general.

The same women who protested against inequality in the 60s and 70s? How old are these women? I'm surprised they find the time or the energy to continue to set up exclusive women only institutions. :pac:

Why this focus on the women who sought equality 30/40 years ago? You seem to have no objection to enjoying the benefits like voting, workplace equality etc but when it comes to this one point, suddenly they're completely unrelated to women in general?

Fair enough, that wasn't entirely clear given this post

Which you still haven't answered. What has changed?

How do you know they didn't?

Since there's an obvious bias here whereby posters can see only from a female angle of what sexism entails.... This thread is rife with double standards regarding equality.

Fair enough.

The equality you speak of doesn't actually exist though. It is not illegal to make a private group and restrict it to only men or only women. In a lot of ways the feminists you side with lost.

The feminists I side with? I love the way you seek to twist things. I'm not siding with them. I'm siding with the life I've had to grow up through because of the rules they saw fit to change...

Many women are stupid. Many men are stupid. This shouldn't be news to you.

Stupid? Ignorant might be better. Or Biased. Or just plain sexist.

It hasn't been thrown away. The equality you speak of, where any man or woman can join a gender specific group doesn't exist.

So how can it be thrown away?

Seriously? There aren't laws that seek to prevent gender discrimination? Actual question here... since I always believed that there were.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

Another example which isn't barring you based on your sex... If Games workshop were open and only serving males in your town, preventing women from purchasing/playing the games, then perhaps it would be a more comparable example...

Well no, it is due to market forces. My point was that market forces aren't fair, there is no arbiter of fairness who says Wicknight wants a Games Workshop he should have one.

Equally no one said women should get a female only gym because that is fair, but it ain't fair that men get one. The reason men don't have these is because there is little to no market demand for them.

Deleted User wrote: »

Duh. Women in general.

"Women in general" are not a political group or ideology. Why would you assume women in general share any ideology. Men don't.

Deleted User wrote: »

Why this focus on the women who sought equality 30/40 years ago? You seem to have no objection to enjoying the benefits like voting, workplace equality etc but when it comes to this one point, suddenly they're completely unrelated to women in general?

Can you explain how they are actually related?

Why would a woman today be expected to hold to what a woman 30 years ago believed lest she be charged with being a hypocrite?

Deleted User wrote: »

Which you still haven't answered. What has changed?

I've no idea if anything changed.

For we know the women who believed that there should be no gender discrimination in clubs or societies still believe that.

Do you have evidence they don't?

Deleted User wrote: »

Since there's an obvious bias here whereby posters can see only from a female angle of what sexism entails.... This thread is rife with double standards regarding equality.

You claim they didn't spell out the same standards for men as for women and you seem to be basing that on what some women today are saying. Again how do you know these different women even subscribe to the same ideals?

Deleted User wrote: »

The feminists I side with? I love the way you seek to twist things. I'm not siding with them. I'm siding with the life I've had to grow up through because of the rules they saw fit to change...

You are siding with the life you had to grow up through (sounds like a happy time for you :pac:). What does that mean?

Are you saying you don't have an intellectual position on this, you were simply bread to have a particular opinion? That seems unlikely. From everything you said you have the same principles as these feminists in the sixties. Yet for some reason you seem to think they have gone back on these principles, I'm not sure why.

Deleted User wrote: »

Stupid? Ignorant might be better. Or Biased. Or just plain sexist.

Yes all those things.

People seem to think it is shocking that a woman can be ignorant, or biased or sexist.

This is a some what odd position since women are just humans. Through out this entire thread there seems to be an inability to think of women as individuals, which individual opinions and positions. Instead there are all these notions of "women" as some sort of ideological blob having done this, "women" having done that, "women" being hypocrites, "women" given up their own principles.

I can only imagine what such an idea must be like for a woman to be faced with that sort of nonsense, as if merely being a woman had signed her up to all these political movements and ideologies before she was even born.

I know I would find it insufferably insulting if I was met with a similar attitude with regards to "men".

Deleted User wrote: »

Seriously? There aren't laws that seek to prevent gender discrimination? Actual question here... since I always believed that there were.

There are but the do not make it illegal to form male/female only private clubs.

If they did you could close down Curves tomorrow with a ten a penny lawyer.

Kooli

Wicknight wrote: »

And suffrage.





I haven't read Kooli's post but she is a horrible horrible hypocrite and no one should ever listen to her again.

Oh no I've been exposed!!

So one of my quoted posts said I understood why women went to women's groups, and another, from an old thread in a different forum, was clarifying what my understanding of affirmative action was (the post actually contained no opinion on it).

I actually don't see where the hypocrisy is, but there ya go!

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no, it is due to market forces. My point was that market forces aren't fair, there is no arbiter of fairness who says Wicknight wants a Games Workshop he should have one.

Equally no one said women should get a female only gym because that is fair, but it ain't fair that men get one. The reason men don't have these is because there is little to no market demand for them.



"Women in general" are not a political group or ideology. Why would you assume women in general share any ideology. Men don't.



Can you explain how they are actually related?

Why would a woman today be expected to hold to what a woman 30 years ago believed lest she be charged with being a hypocrite?


I've no idea if anything changed.

For we know the women who believed that there should be no gender discrimination in clubs or societies still believe that.

Do you have evidence they don't?



You claim they didn't spell out the same standards for men as for women and you seem to be basing that on what some women today are saying. Again how do you know these different women even subscribe to the same ideals?



You are siding with the life you had to grow up through (sounds like a happy time for you :pac:). What does that mean?

Are you saying you don't have an intellectual position on this, you were simply bread to have a particular opinion? That seems unlikely. From everything you said you have the same principles as these feminists in the sixties. Yet for some reason you seem to think they have gone back on these principles, I'm not sure why.


Yes all those things.

People seem to think it is shocking that a woman can be ignorant, or biased or sexist.

This is a some what odd position since women are just humans. Through out this entire thread there seems to be an inability to think of women as individuals, which individual opinions and positions. Instead there are all these notions of "women" as some sort of ideological blob having done this, "women" having done that, "women" being hypocrites, "women" given up their own principles.

I can only imagine what such an idea must be like for a woman to be faced with that sort of nonsense, as if merely being a woman had signed her up to all these political movements and ideologies before she was even born.

I know I would find it insufferably insulting if I was met with a similar attitude with regards to "men".



There are but the do not make it illegal to form male/female only private clubs.

If they did you could close down Curves tomorrow with a ten a penny lawyer.

There is an awful lot of selective abstraction going on in some of the arguments. It would be an awful disservice to men everywhere if women reading this would reciprocate with the same selective abstraction and perceived all men to hold some of the cuckoo views held by what is said by some posters on this thread. In fact if I were a man I would cross my fingers that some of what is spoken here is not the views of androgists' platforms or spokesmen [persons].

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

What the heck to the "standards" of a century ago or even the standards of the UCD women trying to close down Portmarnock got to do with any of the posters here or any other woman who didn't partake in these movements?

And again, I demonstrated that these militant standards persist with posters here, as evidenced by their views elsewhere, while calling for a hands off approach when it does not fit their agenda. It makes it very relevant.

Picking two movements with people who probably have nothing to do with each other and using that to call women hypocrites is just an excuse for misogyny

But I did not call women hypocrites, I called some people (of which a majority are women) who hold such double standards hypocrites. That our society presently seems to condone such double standards adds to the problems - however, that certainly cannot be blamed on any one gender.

You're getting carried away with your mudslinging.

Hypocrisy? Yes TC, it exists.

Which is my point and one you seem loathed to admit.

Kooli wrote: »

I actually don't see where the hypocrisy is, but there ya go!

You don't see the blatant double standard in what you wrote?

In one case market forces are good enough and it's up to men to sort their own problems out. In the other market forces are not and women need quotas to sort out their problems.

That's called hypocrisy.

Reward

There are mens groups starting emerge on campus in the US.

I think its a lot to do with the "politically incorrect" status of males and the feminised education system which is clearly letting males down.

Mark Hamill

K-9 wrote: »

Far from it, they recognise that it is a very long process and it seems to be one of the last taboos left for Gay men, openly coming out in the world of Rugby, Soccer, GAA etc. This is part of that process, highlighting the issue, as even highlighting it seems a taboo!

If it's a means to an end, yes. Probably more a Machiavellian approach that a morally absolute one!

But how does it highlight the issue by removing the gays from the regular rugby and putting them in their own league? It means the people with issues will encounter gays even less, which will hardly drive the people with issues to change. It will also lead to some of them saying (when challenged on their issues with gays) "why would they want to play with us when they can have their won league". Segregation just leads to more segregation.

K-9 wrote: »

I've seen that justification used for Portmarnock Golf Club, maybe even one or 2 posters from this very thread used that stance to justify the men's club there.

I think some of the objections on this thread are based on that, look over there at the wimminz clubs, not any particular moral stance on sexism!

Portmarnock mens only golf club was set up in answer to all the womens only clubs excluding men?
Look my point is that by setting up a discriminatory group or service to cancel out another discriminatory group or service, all you end up with is two discriminatory groups or services, you dont end (or combat) the discrimination. Discrimination doesn't magically become acceptable just because the discriminated side gets to discriminate back, two wrongs dont make a right.

Eliot Rosewater

metrovelvet wrote: »

It would be an awful disservice to men everywhere if women reading this would reciprocate with the same selective abstraction and perceived all men to hold some of the cuckoo views held by what is said by some posters on this thread. In fact if I were a man I would cross my fingers that some of what is spoken here is not the views of androgists' platforms or spokesmen [persons].

metrovelvet, personal digs directed at other users, no matter how indirect, are not acceptable.


I advise everyone to take a deep breath before posting on this thread again, and to show a little more respect towards their fellow users. Less of the silliness please.

/mod

Mark Hamill

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no, it is due to market forces. My point was that market forces aren't fair, there is no arbiter of fairness who says Wicknight wants a Games Workshop he should have one.

Equally no one said women should get a female only gym because that is fair, but it ain't fair that men get one. The reason men don't have these is because there is little to no market demand for them.

Market demand can be created, its got nothing to do with what people need, its to do with what marketing companies, with billions of euro of advertising, can convince you that you want.
Besides, all else aside, market demands shouldn't entirely decide what actually gets offered - there is market demand for evolution to be removed in schools in some districts in America, doesn't mean we should listen to these people.

Wicknight wrote: »

"Women in general" are not a political group or ideology. Why would you assume women in general share any ideology. Men don't.

Tell that to the women here who have claimed that mixed groups are boistorous and womens only groups are more thoughtful, that men are two competitive in their arguments while women are more about listening.

Wicknight wrote: »

Can you explain how they are actually related?

Why would a woman today be expected to hold to what a woman 30 years ago believed lest she be charged with being a hypocrite?

I think whats expected is that the equality a woman today wants should be the same equality that was wanted 30 years ago.

Wicknight wrote: »

People seem to think it is shocking that a woman can be ignorant, or biased or sexist.

This is a some what odd position since women are just humans. Through out this entire thread there seems to be an inability to think of women as individuals, which individual opinions and positions. Instead there are all these notions of "women" as some sort of ideological blob having done this, "women" having done that, "women" being hypocrites, "women" given up their own principles.

I can only imagine what such an idea must be like for a woman to be faced with that sort of nonsense, as if merely being a woman had signed her up to all these political movements and ideologies before she was even born.

I know I would find it insufferably insulting if I was met with a similar attitude with regards to "men".

+1

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

And again, I demonstrated that these militant standards persist with posters here

Even by your own arguments that isn't what you are trying to do

The Corinthian wrote:

Yes. It's hardly a century ago that these arguments were being made and deciding that these standards no longer suit now is not acceptable.

So you have apparently demonstrated that posters here still hold to the "militant" standards of previous generations and the problem today is that they are abandoning these standards because they no longer suit.

WTF are you talking about?

The Corinthian wrote: »

But I did not call women hypocrites, I called some people (of which a majority are women) who hold such double standards hypocrites.

You called the women here hypocrites despite being unable to actually demonstrate they all are.

From what I am reading here it is apparently ok to practice sexual discrimination in associations, as long as there is an equivalent for the other sex.

This is the problem with this topic, because it's about choice and about freedom of association and about equality, but apparently only when it suits women.

Yes. It's hardly a century ago that these arguments were being made and deciding that these standards no longer suit now is not acceptable.

What is being highlighted is that in the last twenty years, attempts to force men's groups to accept women members took place in the name of equality and now men are being told that this behaviour is not acceptable when the shoe is on the other foot.

These comments aren't about anyone in particular, just the women posters on this forum, or this unidentified blob of women in society.

You aren't saying post X is a hypocrite, or poster Y is contradicting herself.

You expand out to the general and then when called on it retreat to the specific.

The Corinthian wrote: »

That our society presently seems to condone such double standards adds to the problems - however, that certainly cannot be blamed on any one gender.

There you do it again. "Our society"? Who in our society, specifically?

You say in society men are being told that this behaviour is not acceptable? Told be who exactly? And why do you think that those who tell them this felt it was acceptable when it was being done for women (thus making them hypocritical)

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're getting carried away with your mudslinging.

And you get carried away with your generalizations.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Which is my point and one you seem loathed to admit.

When did I seem loathed to admit that hypocrisy exists?

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Market demand can be created, its got nothing to do with what people need, its to do with what marketing companies, with billions of euro of advertising, can convince you that you want.
Besides, all else aside, market demands shouldn't entirely decide what actually gets offered - there is market demand for evolution to be removed in schools in some districts in America, doesn't mean we should listen to these people.

The market demand was simply in relation to the charge that it is "unfair" that women get Curves and men don't, as if that was the reason Curves exists was because the fairness fairy is a misandrist.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Tell that to the women here who have claimed that mixed groups are boistorous and womens only groups are more thoughtful, that men are two competitive in their arguments while women are more about listening.

Ok. Where are they and I will tell them this.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think whats expected is that the equality a woman today wants should be the same equality that was wanted 30 years ago.

Why?

30 years is a long time in terms of ideology, I don't see why ideology isn't allowed change.

Mark Hamill

Wicknight wrote: »

The market demand was simply in relation to the charge that it is "unfair" that women get Curves and men don't, as if that was the reason Curves exists was because the fairness fairy is a misandrist.

And my point was that it would be unfair for any sex to get their own Curves just because of market demand. Market demand is not the same as fundamental need, no amount of market demand for one would make a whites only gym anything but racist.

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok. Where are they and I will tell them this.

Kooli did it here and here (men are boisorous, women are thoughtful), several posts talked about women liking having discussions from a female point oview (such as this one from liah) and there was that tangent a few pages back were some claimed that women and men fundamentally debate different to each other (a post from Thaedydal and one from metrovelvet)

Wicknight wrote: »

Why?

30 years is a long time in terms of ideology, I don't see why ideology isn't allowed change.

It is allowed to change, but the ideology 30 years ago was equality for women and men. If that has changed, and women dont really want that equality anymore, then its hypocritical for the them to say they do.

metrovelvet

Oh look. The ladies have left the building. I wonder why.

Kooli

The Corinthian wrote: »

You don't see the blatant double standard in what you wrote?

In one case market forces are good enough and it's up to men to sort their own problems out. In the other market forces are not and women need quotas to sort out their problems.

That's called hypocrisy.

Well you didn't seem to hear me before so I'll say it again - I didn't actually express an opinion about affirmative action in the post you quoted. I just gave my understanding of what the purpose of affirmative action is. No actual opinion on it.

But let's say I did give an opinion, and that I did say I agreed with affirmative action. (I'm actually not sure where I stand on it).

I've never really seen the value of just switching the genders in an example in order to show the hypocrisy of it. It totally ignores the power imbalances in society which exist.
Now I'm pretty sure you don't agree there are any power imbalances between the genders, so I can't really take this line of argument any further with you.

But for those of us who do see a huge power imbalance in society between genders and races (and usually it is only the people who are a member of the disempowered group who see this, the members of the group who hold the power just try to argue that we're wrong), it makes no sense to say setting up a women's group that excludes men is the same as setting up a men's group that excludes women. I'm not saying men can't do it (I think they should be able to if they want to), I'm simply saying it's not the same. Doesn't have the same connotations in our society.

If a group of black women wanted to set up a book club and said I couldn't join as a white woman, I admit I would probably find that hard to understand. But I would accept that it is something I don't understand because of my position as a white person. If they told me that they experience a lot of discrimination and racism as black women that I couldn't possibly relate to, and they just want a safe space where they are free from this, I wouldn't try and argue that no in fact they don't experience discrimination. I wouldn't tell them that the discrimination they experienced from some white people was because those white people were a**holes, not that they were white. And I wouldn't blame them for the racism they've experienced, just because they have chosen to segregate themselves in this one area of their lives. And I wouldn't say it is their duty to ensure they are in mixed book clubs, because it is their responsibility to undo the mistreatment they receive. And I wouldn't say 'What if I had a book club that only allowed WHITE people? Would that be OK?' because I recognise that the white community are in the position of power in our society, and I accept that I do not understand AT ALL what it is like to be black in that type of society. (And if anyone mentions how 'racist' the MOBOs or Black History Month are in response to this, or other ways white people are 'discriminated against' I'll scream!!)

Obviously I have no idea if any black women would feel this way or would want their own book club, I'm just making a point.

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And my point was that it would be unfair for any sex to get their own Curves just because of market demand. Market demand is not the same as fundamental need, no amount of market demand for one would make a whites only gym anything but racist.


Kooli did it here and here (men are boisorous, women are thoughtful), several posts talked about women liking having discussions from a female point oview (such as this one from liah) and there was that tangent a few pages back were some claimed that women and men fundamentally debate different to each other (a post from Thaedydal and one from metrovelvet)


It is allowed to change, but the ideology 30 years ago was equality for women and men. If that has changed, and women dont really want that equality anymore, then its hypocritical for the them to say they do.

Actually I think that this thread have proved that men do argue in the way the women here have described - the socratic arguments, the picking apart of every point, the demanding of evidence for every utterance, the quoting of previous utterances to demand consistency.

Some women (including myself) have admitted they occasionally like that type of argument too, but occasionally they like to discuss things another way.

Most men have responded that there actually is no other way to discuss an issue. Literally, there is no other way. Or if there is, it is a sign of some sort of weak-mindedness or low self-esteem, and is not actually a discussion.

So did that not actually demonstrate the point that there are gender differences in the way people discuss things?

metrovelvet

This thread has demonstrated exactly why women want to bring back the drawing room.

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And my point was that it would be unfair for any sex to get their own Curves just because of market demand.

And as I pointed out the market is often very unfair. Why would I not have a Games Workshop store just because I live in Ireland, for example.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Market demand is not the same as fundamental need, no amount of market demand for one would make a whites only gym anything but racist.

Depends on the reason for the gym. If the reason is that people wish to be some where where they don't have black people because they don't like black people because they are black that would certainly make it racist.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Kooli did it here and here

Poor old Kooli, taking the weight of all woman kind on her shoulders :pac:

Anyway Kooli and liah and Thaedydal listen up you hypocritical she-devils.

Men are not a political group or ideology. Why would you assume men in general share any ideology. Women don't

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It is allowed to change, but the ideology 30 years ago was equality for women and men. If that has changed, and women dont really want that equality anymore, then its hypocritical for the them to say they do.

"Women" don't want anything. Some women want equality, some women what inequality, some women want to rule the world. Some women have clever articulate arguments, some women have stupid hypocritical arguments. Some women want sensible things, others want radical things.

Discussion women or men as a unified group is silly unless you are discussing psychical biology.

Kooli

Wicknight wrote: »

Poor old Kooli, taking the weight of all woman kind on her shoulders :pac:

Anyway Kooli and liah and Thaedydal listen up you hypocritical she-devils.

Men are not a political group or ideology. Why would you assume men in general share any ideology. Women don't

Don't worry I can handle it!!

While I agree that men as a whole or women as a whole DEFINITELY do not share any ideology, I don't agree that men and women are not different.

There are always exceptions, but no one grows up without the influence of biology, society and culture. All three of these things have something to say about gender. We don't exist in a cultural vacuum.
From a very, very early age, people interact with boys and girls differently. People have different expectations of them. Different qualities are valued and promoted in each. Men and women have completely different experiences of interacting with the world. I'm sure both genders would be equally shocked if they could walk a week in the other's shoes and see how different it is. It is the PRIMARY, most fundamental way we distinguish people. Before age, race or anything else.

Now I'm not saying this has the same effect on everyone. Of course it doesn't (I hate the fact that I even have to say that, it's so obvious!!) But to say it has no effect and that most men are as much like most women as they are like other men just is not true.

One difference (which is evidence based!) is that men are more likely to derive self-esteem from success or achievement, whereas women are more likely to get it from approval and acceptance. So that influences how they interact with other people. And it might be one of the reasons why discussions go a different way. Neither is right or wrong, or better or worse. Just different. But society tends to value the male way. Success and achievement are our cultural values. Relationship-building is not given the same kind value.

OK maybe I've gone on a tangent here....

TL:DR women and men are different!!

metrovelvet

Kooli wrote: »

Don't worry I can handle it!!

While I agree that men as a whole or women as a whole DEFINITELY do not share any ideology, I don't agree that men and women are not different.

There are always exceptions, but no one grows up without the influence of biology, society and culture. All three of these things have something to say about gender. We don't exist in a cultural vacuum.
From a very, very early age, people interact with boys and girls differently. People have different expectations of them. Different qualities are valued and promoted in each. Men and women have completely different experiences of interacting with the world. I'm sure both genders would be equally shocked if they could walk a week in the other's shoes and see how different it is. It is the PRIMARY, most fundamental way we distinguish people. Before age, race or anything else.

Now I'm not saying this has the same effect on everyone. Of course it doesn't (I hate the fact that I even have to say that, it's so obvious!!) But to say it has no effect and that most men are as much like most women as they are like other men just is not true.

One difference (which is evidence based!) is that men are more likely to derive self-esteem from success or achievement, whereas women are more likely to get it from approval and acceptance. So that influences how they interact with other people. And it might be one of the reasons why discussions go a different way. Neither is right or wrong, or better or worse. Just different. But society tends to value the male way. Success and achievement are our cultural values. Relationship-building is not given the same kind value.

OK maybe I've gone on a tangent here....

TL:DR women and men are different!!

You are right and its reflected in dialogue styles too. Traditionally men have sought mastery and women have sought to work collaboratively.

There is an awful lot of sticking heads in the sand when it comes to what you are talking about. This morning taking my three year old to playschool he hurt himself openning the gate and he started to cry and the creche worker cooed a little and told him he was 'a brave boy.' I remember thinking to myself if he were a girl she'd probably compliment him on his shoes.

Zombrex

Kooli wrote: »

Don't worry I can handle it!!

While I agree that men as a whole or women as a whole DEFINITELY do not share any ideology, I don't agree that men and women are not different.

You are not allowed not agree. You must fall into line with the collective, all praise the hive mind. We are one*

I have a serious reply to this but right now I'm off to the cinema. Ladies <tips hat/>


(I'm not even a woman, though some days I wish I was.... boobs)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

I wasn't mocking. I was making a point. Just because you dont like the point being made, does not mean it vioates the 'norms' which are not written in stone btw and can always be modified and should be modified if they are obstructive to constructive dialogue.

Eliot Rosewater

metrovelvet wrote: »

I wasn't mocking. I was making a point. Just because you dont like the point being made, does not mean it vioates the 'norms' which are not written in stone btw and can always be modified and should be modified if they are obstructive to constructive dialogue.

The main obstructions to constructive dialogue on this thread have been silly and unneccesary comments that have done nothing to further the debate. As donegalfella said, Humanities is a forum for civil, rational and intellectual discussion, not for flippant remarks. Caring passionately about something, as you do about the topic in hand, does not give you a right to throw discussion standards out the window.

Now, moderation is not to be discussed in-thread, as you know, and I don't appreciate you breaching that. If you have a problem you can PM myself or donegalfella.