'Women only' groups

Zombrex

The thing is, say I was to start a men only book club, for example. I'd be chastised for it and there'd be outrage

It is hard to take that seriously these arguments "Women can do X but if I did it there would be up roar"

For a start it is based on the assumption of victimization. Wait until you are actually being victimized and then complain. Assuming you will and then using that as an excuse to feel oppressed is some what silly in my opinion.

Secondly so what if there was uproar. Women deal with uproar all the time (women can't open a woman's only gym these days without uproar from men that if they did it there would be uproar )

You have a right to expect that you can do something without facing legal discrimination, or physical violence or threats.

You don't have a right to expect that you can do something and no one is allowed complain about it.

You don't have that right, and women don't have that right.

metrovelvet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I dont think it is necessarily over fetishised but historically what is female or feminine has been particularised as to being normative [despite being half the population] and that's why you have these types of groups and fragments.

You have African American Lit classes, women's lit classes, etc because they are not included in the main, general default curricula. The same principal applies elsewhere. This is symptomatic of what happens in life, medicine, politics, law, etc and yes it happens in the west too.

Ickle Magoo

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Exactly the same. Or do you expect me ot believe that there are no abused men out there?

There are - my point is that not all women who seek women-only activities do so because they are precious or they hate men or they have a burning desire to be sexist. It's often their interaction with men that have made a women-only activity look so appealing.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Firstly, the teenager should deal with the wolf whistles by complaining to management, not running away, its hardly a good life lesson to have teens run away from their problems rather than actually deal with them.
Secondly, why wouldn't the old woman want to discuss her literature with anyone, male or female, that has an equal interest in it? I just dont get why such a woman should automatically think that only another woman could appreciate her hobbie in a similar way.

Why should she have to do anything? Why can't women have women only activities? Seriously?! Why on earth should women just absorb all the crap that certain men throw at them and then force themselves to keep taking it (because believe me, fight one creep and there's another just around the corner) just to deliberately avoid ever setting up a women-only group for the lone purpose of keeping a few men whose noses are put out at the thought happy?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But why dont the women just demand equality? Why do these women think that its up to them to specially cater for themselves rather than its up the the men to cop on and grow up?

Probably much the same reason some men think it's up to women to make a point of specially catering for them when those women want to exert their democratic right to set up or attend a women's only group. I can't think of a single month in my life from the age of about 13/14 when I haven't had to deal with men whistling, staring, asking me out, commenting on my appearance - even physically grabbing or touching me. The thought of having both a hobby that I enjoy and to be able to enjoy it free from any of that shit is far more liberating than the never-ending fight against sexism, misogyny and creeps could ever be.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Domestic abuse victims is a special case, I dont think the women who go to womens only gyms or book clubs are all domestic abuse victims.

The point you don't know what peoples histories are. Women don't walk around with "rape victim", "battered by husband", "emotionally abused by boyfriend", "bullied by male colleague" over their heads...women have many reasons for wanting to be in women-only groups and activities and large portion of those are related to their treatment by men and I see no reason why these women should force themselves to put up with some idiot wolf-whistling in the gym, or chatting them up in whatever class - and nor do they want the added hassle of trying to manners of those type of men in their spare time - and frankly why should that be their responsibility? We all avoid idiots when we can.

I think some posters are forgetting - or trying not to think about - why such clubs were set up in the first place. Why do you think a female-only environment is so attractive to so many women? I can't believe you would truthfully think it's due to the hatred of men's company.

Ectoplasm

I've read this thread with interest. I'm not sure why the particular focus has been a book club, but the reality is there are 'mens' and 'womens' groups all over the place. Sports clubs. Mens teams, womens teams, mixed teams. I did a quick online search, there are dozens of mens groups in Dublin alone. Mens networking groups. Mens social groups. Boys nights out and girls nights out - you see them all the time!

Both men and women will often feel the need to congregate. If you are a man or woman who doesn't, that is fair enough but just because it isn't your inclination doesn't mean you should judge those whose it is. Just don't join 'em.

I really don't see the problem with this at all. The only problem would be where one group was allowed and another not and although a lot of people have said women would be 'up in arms' about it, I for one couldn't give a monkeys.

With regard to the book club that has been brought up over and over - well there are two things to consider here. The first is that women make up the majority of the market when we talk about buying and reading fiction. I don't have stats for Ireland but for the US, Canada and England combined, men represent on 20%. Maybe women are just more likely to be in a book club that is only women?

The other thing to consider is maybe the novels being selected for discussion are an issue? Men are more likely to read books written by men. As much as I hate, hate, hate the term, 'chick-lit' is a massive portion of the market - maybe these womens book clubs are focused on this?

To be honest I'm just guessing here. If I wanted to join a book club, I wouldn't be looking for a 'women only' one, but if I did find one and it happened to only have women members I wouldn't be shocked or put off.

Kooli

This thread is actually a really good example of why women might want to go to women-only groups.

Zulu

...because segregation is the solution? I think not.

Ickle Magoo

Zulu wrote: »

...because segregation is the solution? I think not.

For women bored, fed up, annoyed and frustrated with how some men choose to interact with them it most certainly is - for a short time they get to do something they enjoy completely unimpeded by the BS they have to deal with every other day in real life - I can't think of a better, more workable and instantaneous solution tbh....

ntlbell

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

For women bored, fed up, annoyed and frustrated with how some men choose to interact with them it most certainly is - for a short time they get to do something they enjoy completely unimpeded by the BS they have to deal with every other day in real life - I can't think of a better, more workable and instantaneous solution tbh....

Similar to why men golf in portmarnack so.

Ickle Magoo

ntlbell wrote: »

Similar to why men golf in portmarnack so.

Congrats on the irony of trying to convince women why they shouldn't have women only groups by reminding us all why they do. :cool:

Kooli

Zulu wrote: »

...because segregation is the solution? I think not.

Does everything a woman does really have to have the objective of 'solving' the problem of casual sexism? Is it really not OK that sometimes they just want a break from it?

If you think of all things in society that contribute to the problem of casual sexism, where on the list would 'women-only groups' be? Why should it be our responsibility to try and fix the problem ALL THE TIME?

Trog

I haven't been able to read everything since I last posted, and I don't have much time to keep in touch with this but it's been interesting. I'd just like to add a final few thoughts.

Firstly, I shouldn't have used the "if I wanted to set up a mens group..." argument because admittedly it's a pretty poor line of reasoning.

I can definitely see the reasons behind wanting such groups, and if there is demand I know they will always be there. And I would not want to criticize or deprive anyone of this option.

I do still think that generally we have to stop making such distinctions. I know men treat women badly sometimes, but women do it to men too (perhaps less often). Generally, as a society, I think we tend to unnecessarily highlight things which shouldn't even be considered a factor in a lot of cases- namely race, gender etc., and even if this is done with positive intentions, it isn't conducive to us getting over these boundaries. A last example- if we celebrate women's achievement, specifically because a woman did it, does this not implicitly presuppose that the woman was less capable than a man in the first place? Why else would we celebrate womens achievement and not mens?

Again, I in no way mean to criticize women who attend these groups, there are perfectly good reasons for it. Maybe I'm just too much of an idealist, or maybe my ideas on equality in this issue are skewed due to the fact that I'm a man.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ntlbell

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Congrats on the irony of trying to convince women why they shouldn't have women only groups by reminding us all why they do. :cool:

What makes you think I'm trying to convince women not to have women only groups

I just want a few decent pubs I can go to without cackling. what women do in their own time is of no interest to me, in fact i wish more of these groups would set up.

I just find it ironic after all the years of fighting for this and fighting for that now they want to segregate.

but don't think for a minute i'm trying to convince women not to have women only groups the more the merrier.

Kooli

Trog wrote: »

I haven't been able to read everything since I last posted, and I don't have much time to keep in touch with this but it's been interesting. I'd just like to add a final few thoughts.

Firstly, I shouldn't have used the "if I wanted to set up a mens group..." argument because admittedly it's a pretty poor line of reasoning.

I can definitely see the reasons behind wanting such groups, and if there is demand I know they will always be there. And I would not want to criticize or deprive anyone of this option.

I do still think that generally we have to stop making such distinctions. I know men treat women badly sometimes, but women do it to men too (perhaps less often). Generally, as a society, I think we tend to unnecessarily highlight things which shouldn't even be considered a factor in a lot of cases- namely race, gender etc., and even if this is done with positive intentions, it isn't conducive to us getting over these boundaries. A last example- if we celebrate women's achievement, specifically because a woman did it, does this not implicitly presuppose that the woman was less capable than a man in the first place? Why else would we celebrate womens achievement and not mens?

Again, I in no way mean to criticize women who attend these groups, there are perfectly good reasons for it. Maybe I'm just too much of an idealist, or maybe my ideas on equality in this issue are skewed due to the fact that I'm a man.

Thanks for that. Great post, and great discussion you got started.

I highlighted the last sentence because I do think it's the crux of the issue. A lot of men seem to really not understand how women feel about these issues, and by trying to dismantle everything we say point by point is kind of missing the point!
It's much easier to be idealistic and purely logical and theoretical about this whole issue if it doesn't actually affect you at all.
In theory, I would agree that there should be no need for these distinction. But that doesn't mean that there is no need for them! And acting as if these distinctions aren't there won't make it so!

ntlbell

It's amusing tho that someone posts about the reason why women want these groups, a man suggests same reason a man does and the man is being sort of smart alic sexist pig.

ironing indeed.

Ickle Magoo

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

You are right, that would certainly be easier - though perhaps not as much fun nor offer camaraderie.

ntlbell wrote: »

It's amusing tho that someone posts about the reason why women want these groups, a man suggests same reason a man does and the man is being sort of smart alic sexist pig.

Yes, of course, it isn't at all completely transparent exactly what you were/are doing.

My posts referred to women who had suffered abuse, sexual harassment and intimidation in a serious thread in a serious forum; as far as I can see the sum of your contribution is to argue about sexual assault statistics being over-blown due to the assaulted women being "confused", making some Jim Davidson-esque observation about a golf course and some wise-crack about wanting a pub free of "cackling".

I think it's fair to say if one was looking for precisely the kind of juvenile antics that exemplify why women-only groups are popular, one wouldn't have to look far.

ntlbell

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Yes, of course, it isn't at all completely transparent exactly what you were/are doing.

My posts referred to women who had suffered abuse, sexual harassment and intimidation in a serious thread in a serious forum; as far as I can see the sum of your contribution is to argue about sexual assault statistics being over-blown due to the assaulted women being "confused", making some Jim Davidson-esque observation about a golf course and some wise-crack about wanting a pub free of "cackling".

I think it's fair to say if one was looking for precisely the kind of juvenile antics that exemplify why women-only groups are popular, one wouldn't have to look far.

People were asking to speak to people so we have a foundation to base the 1/4 stats with dongealfella all ready explained exactly how the 1/4 came about and how it is flawed.

I didn't say they were confused, the lady of death did, I suggested it might not be a solid base for coming up with the stat if they were "confused"

I pointed out that the exact reasons you stated for womens group is why men would also retreat somewhere like a men only golf club such as portmarnock.

But you have proved why a men only public bar is a nice idea.

no one taken things up the wrong way being overly sensivitive changing the meaning of everything said to suit their own agenda or being accused of being childish and sexist for making a valid point.

southsiderosie

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes the university-sanctioned Balkanization was remarkable: women were not allowed to attend until the late 1960s and the oldest three eating clubs remained all-male well into the 1980s (and one of the three flew a confederate flag over the building).

Princeton was a notoriously hostile place for non-males and non-WASPs until relatively recently. A lot of the campus identity-based groups arose in response to this prevailing culture and especially the eating clubs system.

If you don't like identity groups, fine, but at least acknowledge some of the reasons why they exist in the first place.

southsiderosie

donfers wrote: »

as far as I am concerned the type of woman who wants to be in a womans group is better off being in a womans group for the sanity of all of us

So the fact that a woman enjoys doing certain activities with other women means she must otherwise be insufferable? Nice.

Zulu

Kooli wrote: »

Does everything a woman does really have to have the objective of 'solving' the problem of casual sexism?

of course not, but to choose to do something that causes it is maddness.

Why should it be our responsibility to try and fix the problem ALL THE TIME?

it's not!

At least it's not unless you have a problem with sexism. If you have a problem with sexism, then it is your responsibility not to presue sexist activities, even if thats not the most convenient for you.

donfers

southsiderosie wrote: »

So the fact that a woman enjoys doing certain activities with other women means she must otherwise be insufferable? Nice.

other women only and like I said, best for all concerned

southsiderosie

Zulu wrote: »

of course not, but to choose to do something that causes it is maddness.

How do women's groups cause casual sexism?

Zulu

southsiderosie wrote: »

How do women's groups cause casual sexism?

Kindly review my previous posts on this thread as they address this question.

southsiderosie

Zulu wrote: »

Kindly review my previous posts on this thread as they address this question.

I've already read the whole thread, and I still don't get how people think x leads to y.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But you are focusing on the individuals and not the institution. And the institution has a lot to answer for.

Princeton (along with many other elite institutions) was itselfa "identity-based facility" for almost all of its history: from the 1700s until 1969 it was all male, and mostly white.

These groups did not appear out of the ether in the 1960s. They were a direct response to institutions that said "unless you fit certain gender and racial (and often religious) criteria, you can't come in". And over time, they became institutionalized as well, even as the population and culture shifted.

Truley

I have to say, from my many years experience working in pubs and nightclubs I have found that incidents of sexual harrassment, groping and lewd remarks have largely come from the womens' side rather than from males. Women don't have the same concerns of physical boundries and can pretty much charge through people, make remarks, grope or force themselves on men and it's largely dismissed as being wild or confident where a man would heading for the sex offenders register. Hen nights and Ann Summer's parties are the worst culprits. Women can get away with behaviour that would get the average man dragged out by a bouncer or seriously beaten up by another male or boyfriend. That's what I observed from nightclubs etc

donfers

Truley wrote: »

I have to say, from my many years experience working in pubs and nightclubs I have found that incidents of sexual harrassment, groping and lewd remarks have largely come from the womens' side rather than from males. Women don't have the same concerns of physical boundries and can pretty much charge through people, make remarks, grope or force themselves on men and it's largely dismissed as being wild or confident where a man would heading for the sex offenders register. Hen nights and Ann Summer's parties are the worst culprits. Women can get away with behaviour that would get the average man dragged out by a bouncer or seriously beaten up by another male or boyfriend. That's what I observed from nightclubs etc

yup i've been on the wrong end of that kind of stuff a few times, just put it down to drunken exuberance and got on with things, agree with every word

Ickle Magoo

Truley wrote: »

I have to say, from my many years experience working in pubs and nightclubs I have found that incidents of sexual harrassment, groping and lewd remarks have largely come from the womens' side rather than from males. Women don't have the same concerns of physical boundries and can pretty much charge through people, make remarks, grope or force themselves on men and it's largely dismissed as being wild or confident where a man would heading for the sex offenders register. Hen nights and Ann Summer's parties are the worst culprits. Women can get away with behaviour that would get the average man dragged out by a bouncer or seriously beaten up by another male or boyfriend. That's what I observed from nightclubs etc

I also have many years experience working in bars and I have to disagree. While drunken groups of women usually cause loud and obvious annoyance to most - & a large group of L-plate sporting, veil-wearing drunk women now has me sprinting in the opposite direction - the general harassment towards women from men was relentless, whether a reasonably quiet saturday afternoon or 5am...and that was just towards my staff! As a customer, I can't actually recall a night out that hasn't been sullied at some stage by at least one of us being harangued and groped by some eejit.

I'm not sure you can possibly categorically state women don't have the same concerns about physical boundaries. I'm struggling to think of an occasion where getting through a crowd hasn't resulted in receiving a grope or tweak en route, I think most women are very aware of their physical boundaries - especially in pub/club scenarios.

Zombrex

southsiderosie wrote: »

But you are focusing on the individuals and not the institution. And the institution has a lot to answer for.

Princeton (along with many other elite institutions) was itselfa "identity-based facility" for almost all of its history: from the 1700s until 1969 it was all male, and mostly white.

These groups did not appear out of the ether in the 1960s. They were a direct response to institutions that said "unless you fit certain gender and racial (and often religious) criteria, you can't come in". And over time, they became institutionalized as well, even as the population and culture shifted.

I'm not disputing any of that but how many people who were there in 1969 are still there running things?

Institutionalized sexism requires sexist people to keep it going.