'Women only' groups

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

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

That is untrue.

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.

No, that's not what I said. They're not abandoning them, they're simply employing them selectively.

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

Are you intentionally attempting to misrepresent me? How many times do I need to repeat that I am not accusing 'all' of anyone of anything, before you actually acknowledge it?

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

Irish society. Please stop the pointless pedantry.

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)

Then, and asking for the third time, tell me what would likely happen if a men-only business association were to be set up tomorrow? What would be the likely reaction in the media?

When did I seem loathed to admit that hypocrisy exists?

When I had to ask you multiple times to acknowledge its existence.

The Corinthian

Kooli wrote: »

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.

In your first post you are not in favour of quotas, but still feel that some form of intervention was required. This is the closest you come to a neutral stance, and already is hypocritical.

As the discussion progressed, you seemed to move more and more in favour of quotas, first by giving a one-sided understanding or opinion of affirmative action, then you went on to defend its use two posts later and even thanked the posts of others more openly supporting the policy.

So you'll forgive me if I am skeptical of your neutrality, given that at the very least you favour some means of affirmative action - something that you rejected here for men in a similar scenario.

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).

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.

Oh, I agree there are power imbalances between the genders, but at this stage they favour women more than men. For example, as I have repeatedly asked people, what laws exist that discriminate against women? I'm not sure any do any more, but even if they did I could easily name two that exist discriminating against men for every one that discriminates against women.

To date, no one has responded to this challenge.

This is not to say that discrimination against women, tacit or otherwise, does not still occur. However, what you are doing is only looking at the power imbalance, as you call it, when it disadvantages women and ignoring any that disadvantages men. If you did this, the picture is not as clear cut as before.

This is the hypocrisy of modern equality politics, and can be seen all over the place, including organizations such as the WEF and the laughable manner in which they measure 'Gender Parity'.

And in this regard you decided that what was good for the goose was not good for the gander. Men who are excluded from clubs need to get off their butts, but women who are not even excluded, but simply do not get selected as often to run for political office, need intervention. The excuse of 'power imbalance' has become just that, and excuse or justification for validating such double standards.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

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.

Here is another post for Wicknight to see that some women are convinced that all men argue certain ways and women dont.
Tell me Kooli, why do you assume that because you want to be told if you are right and wrong, why no other woman should care either?
Seeing as you dont care if about right and wrong, why do you bother having any discussions at all? Do you just like having people support what you do regardless of what you say? DO you thin you are above being contradicted.

Kooli wrote: »

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

There is no other way.

Kooli wrote: »

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.

I did, just above this bit.

Kooli wrote: »

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

Em, 4 or 5 men saying that the 3 or 4 women here who claim there is a fundamental difference in male vs female debating does not actually support the idea that men and women have significantly different debating modes, especially on a thread discussing the equality of women only groups, you are going to have skewed representations of men and women.

Mark Hamill

Wicknight wrote: »

"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.

I see what you are saying. I suppose I should be more exact in what groups I am talking about. When I say "women dont really want that equality anymore, then its hypocritical for the them to say they do", I'm only talking about the women who claim that they want gender inequality (not necessarily all women everywhere). There are plenty of women who claim to want gender equality, the same equality that was wanted by the first women who fought for women voting and equal pay (or, at least, the women today have not explained how the equality they are looking for is different from what was looked for in the past, and yet still counts as equality).
If these particular women claim they want equality, but in actual fact, just want equality when it suits them, then they are hypocrites. You cant have an unequal equality, it cancels itself out and you just end up with inequality again.

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There is no other way.


.

Yup case closed!!

metrovelvet

As far as Curves is concerned, can you recognise that a lot of women across the generations, including our mothers and grandmothers were raised to show modesty around the body in front of the men. It does not assume leering pervy eyes but a self conciousness that is bred into women. Can you not see how they might need the privacy to be able to excerise?

As far as book clubs are concerned, no I cant say I have ever been in a book club with pervy men in them but I can see how one might want to be able to discuss things through a female lens, without being interrupted, talked over, or told to get over it, etc. I can see how gay book clubs might like be able to talk about books through the gay experience of living in and among heterosexual paradigms, etc.

I can also understand how men might want a poker game where they can talk as freely as they like without worrying about offending women.

I dont have a problem with this. Why is this such an awful thing for women to do? Seriously, the mind boggles.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then, and asking for the third time, tell me what would likely happen if a men-only business association were to be set up tomorrow? What would be the likely reaction in the media?

There you go again

You want me to judge "the media" as hypocritical? Who specifically in "the media".

There are thousands of individual people employed in media in Ireland. Are all of them hypocrites? Or just the women? Or just the women in power? Or just some of the women in power?

Would all of them give the exact same opinion to a men-only business association? Or would some of them be for it and some of them against it, you know almost as if they were all individuals with different opinions.

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote: »

As far as Curves is concerned, can you recognise that a lot of women across the generations, including our mothers and grandmothers were raised to show modesty around the body in front of the men. It does not assume leering pervy eyes but a self conciousness that is bred into women. Can you not see how they might need the privacy to be able to excerise?

That is a good point.

I never actually thought Curves was about women thinking men were pervs, more a response to women and their hang ups about their body.

You can see this from the About page on Curves, and the unofficial motto "no makeup, no men, no mirrors", ie all the things that women worry about looking bad in front of.

The Corinthian

Kooli wrote: »

Yup case closed!!

What would you suggest then as a credible alternative?

Wicknight wrote: »

You want me to judge "the media" as hypocritical? Who specifically in "the media".

More pedantry to hide behind.

Would all of them give the exact same opinion to a men-only business association? Or would some of them be for it and some of them against it, you know almost as if they were all individuals with different opinions.

As opposed to all the criticism in the media for women only business associations. Oh wait, there's none.

And that really is the point, the bias in our society does not mean there are no dissenting voices, and suggesting that because some exist does not invalidate what I'm saying.

The reality is that a men only business association would receive criticism in the media, even if it is not universal, and arguably would receive a lot of it. A women only business association would and does receive none.

But I suppose unless I start listing out every journo who would do this, you're not going to accept that. If so, it's probably time you waste someone else's time with your pedantic nonsense, Wicknight.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

Yup case closed!!

Can you explain another way to have a discussion?

Zulu

metrovelvet wrote: »

As far as Curves is concerned, can you recognise that a lot of women across the generations, including our mothers and grandmothers were raised to show modesty around the body in front of the men. ... Can you not see how they might need the privacy to be able to excerise?

Yes I can. I'm sure everyone here can, but our my point at least, isn't that some women don't require privacy, the point is that the privacy can be provided without an out-right ban on all men.
Were "Curves" to alter there policy to allow everyone, but to have "women only" hours/days & and equal amount of "men only" hours/day, then I guarantee you opposition would be less.

As far as book clubs are concerned, no I cant say I have ever been in a book club with pervy men in them but I can see how one might want to be able to discuss things through a female lens, without being interrupted, talked over, or told to get over it, etc.

The concept here is that men are the ones who "interrupt" who, "talk over", & who utter "get over it".
This is horse manure - firstly women are as like to interrupt, or talk over as men are & secondly, the type of person who attends book clubs, tend to be a lot less likely to tell some one to "get over it".

I can also understand how men might want a poker game where they can talk as freely as they like without worrying about offending women.

Yea, but a poker game is one thing - a business banning on the basis of gender is totally different.

Mark Hamill

metrovelvet wrote: »

As far as Curves is concerned, can you recognise that a lot of women across the generations, including our mothers and grandmothers were raised to show modesty around the body in front of the men. It does not assume leering pervy eyes but a self conciousness that is bred into women. Can you not see how they might need the privacy to be able to excerise?

I dont see why we should reinforce peoples lack of self confidence in order to make money from them, in the same way as I dont think we should reinforce peoples hypochondric tendencies in order to sell them drugs.

metrovelvet wrote: »

As far as book clubs are concerned, no I cant say I have ever been in a book club with pervy men in them but I can see how one might want to be able to discuss things through a female lens, without being interrupted, talked over, or told to get over it, etc. I can see how gay book clubs might like be able to talk about books through the gay experience of living in and among heterosexual paradigms, etc.

What the hell is a female lens?
Since when do women never interrupt or tell people to get over themselves? Have you actually been in female company, because your claims here smack of inexperienced naivity.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I can also understand how men might want a poker game where they can talk as freely as they like without worrying about offending women.

I cant. Oh, I can understand were people might like to hang around like minded people, so they dont have to worry about offending someone, but I dont understand why it is based on sexist gender misconceptions.

metrovelvet

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I dont see why we should reinforce peoples lack of self confidence in order to make money from them, in the same way as I dont think we should reinforce peoples hypochondric tendencies in order to sell them drugs.


What the hell is a female lens?
Since when do women never interrupt or tell people to get over themselves? Have you actually been in female company, because your claims here smack of inexperienced naivity.


I cant. Oh, I can understand were people might like to hang around like minded people, so they dont have to worry about offending someone, but I dont understand why it is based on sexist gender misconceptions.

Ok you're right. Case closed.

Zulu

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok you're right. Case closed.

Super!

A topic resolved on an internet forum - I didn't see that coming.

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Can you explain another way to have a discussion?

We already have. Discussion where are you interested in hearing the point of view of others, not just for the sake of picking it apart. Where the goal is not necessarily to 'win' or to beat others into submission. Where you value alternative points of view, without necessarily agreeing with them. Where you are curious about where others get their ideas from, and want to hear more about the context they are coming from. Where difference is valued. Where there is not an 'end point' in mind i.e. the goal is not consensus or having arrived at the 'right' answer. Where the emphasis is not on 'rational peer-reviewed evidence' for anything anyone says.

But it seems what some of you hear when I say that is 'I like us all to agree and hug and congratulate each other because my self-esteem is too fragile to withstand opposition'. And if you see it that way, that is fine with me. But you can't join my book club with that attitude!

The Corinthian

Zulu wrote: »

A topic resolved on an internet forum - I didn't see that coming.

The much-fabled alternative to the Socratic method was obviously employed.

The Corinthian

Kooli wrote: »

We already have. Discussion where are you interested in hearing the point of view of others, not just for the sake of picking it apart. Where the goal is not necessarily to 'win' or to beat others into submission. Where you value alternative points of view, without necessarily agreeing with them. Where you are curious about where others get their ideas from, and want to hear more about the context they are coming from. Where difference is valued. Where there is not an 'end point' in mind i.e. the goal is not consensus or having arrived at the 'right' answer. Where the emphasis is not on 'rational peer-reviewed evidence' for anything anyone says.

Such an approach is all very well where it comes to certain discussions, where there is no right answer and consensus is not required, but what happens if there is or consensus is required. Valuing the other point of view is not going to make a lot of difference if ultimately that viewpoint will affect those who 'differ'. Valuing the other point of view is not going to make it more true. Valuing the other point of view won't help where only one point of view can ultimately win out to the detriment of another.

Indeed, what value are you placing on another point of view? How 'valued' is difference? What does that 'value' even mean?

But it seems what some of you hear when I say that is 'I like us all to agree and hug and congratulate each other because my self-esteem is too fragile to withstand opposition'. And if you see it that way, that is fine with me. But you can't join my book club with that attitude!

I don't know if it has anything to do with lack of self-esteem, but it certainly smacks of "I'm just going to believe what I want to believe regardless how blatantly obvious it is that it's rubbish", and that has more to do with hubris and selfishness.

Zulu

Kooli wrote: »

Where you value alternative points of view, without necessarily agreeing with them.

...and you could employ this method when communicating with a fundamentalist about to stone a woman for being raped?

I think sometimes we need to recognise what is right or what is acceptable.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

More pedantry to hide behind.

I can't judge an entire service sector as hypocritical.

The fact that you think I can highlights the problem here.

The Corinthian wrote: »

As opposed to all the criticism in the media for women only business associations. Oh wait, there's none.

How about you start a men only business associate, wait until someone starts give out about it, then find out if they did or didn't support women only business associations and if they did I will happily call them a hypocrite.

Calling "the media" a hypocrite is stupid. :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote: »

And that really is the point, the bias in our society does not mean there are no dissenting voices, and suggesting that because some exist does not invalidate what I'm saying.

Yes it does because you have no idea which individuals are "dissenting" or not. With out examining individuals you have no idea who is hypocritical and who isn't. And once you start doing that you aren't talking about this undefined notion such as "the media" you are talking about individuals with individual opinions.

Once again society is merely a collection of individuals. Some of them are stupid, some of them are hypocrites, some of them are morons.

Your insistence of generalizing everything out simply shows your own biases in this issue, the need to feel that there is some undefined social force pressing down on you when in fact that it is is just individuals expressing an opinion, sometimes a stupid hypocritical opinion.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The reality is that a men only business association would receive criticism in the media, even if it is not universal, and arguably would receive a lot of it. A women only business association would and does receive none.

Everything receives criticism in the media because the media is made up of a large collection of individuals with differing opinions.

The Corinthian wrote: »

But I suppose unless I start listing out every journo who would do this, you're not going to accept that.

You list every journo who did this and show they agreed with women only business associations and I will happily call them hypocrites.

I would wonder how you can even say there is large scale bias in the media with actually being able to do this. Is it just a gut feeling you have TC?

Generalizations about groups such as "the media" or "society" or "women" serve no purpose unless you are looking to make sweeping generalizations, which apparently you are.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

You list every journo who did this and show they agreed with women only business associations and I will happily call them hypocrites.

Earlier you were demanding that I highlight posters who were guilty of such hypocrisy. When I actually put one forward, you only even acknowledged it after being told twice and then only brushed the point aside on the basis that that poster can be ignored. Now you're just playing the same game ad nausium.

Go waste someone else's time with your pedantry.

Eliot Rosewater

This thread has descended into a slagging match, so I am locking it.

Humanities is a forum for civil, rational and intellectual debate. Many of the posts on the last few pages have exibited exactly the opposite of that: they've been personalized, disrespectful and sly. It is expected that people discuss issues on this forum without becoming confrontational and without resorting to lame debating tactics, like inflammatory sarcasm. Please bear this in mind when posting in the future.