'Women only' groups

Zulu

southsiderosie wrote: »

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

Then perhaps you missed this post:here

ntlbell

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

I have also spent time working in bars over the years and hadvewitnessed it my expirience was it was normally 50/50

so 3 different people 3 different expiriences.

I guess hearsay is probably not a great basis for stats.

southsiderosie

Zulu wrote: »

Then perhaps you missed this post:here

And I already said that I didn't think that women should have to 'combat the cause' every minute of the day. I also don't see a causal relationship: casual (and virulent) sexism existed before these kinds of organizations popped up.

I think the case of Curves is interesting because it's the ultimate case of "voting with your feet". Obviously a lot of gyms are getting it wrong in their approach to women, and someone is exploiting this economic opportunity. It makes perfect sense to me from a business perspective, more so than from the social perspective.

Zulu

southsiderosie wrote: »

And I already said that I didn't think that women should have to 'combat the cause' every minute of the day.

...and I said: You don't need to combat the cause, if you don't believe it exists or if you are happy to be a hypocrite.

If, however, you believe it exists, or you do not wish to be considered a hypocrite, then not only do you need to act against it, but you also need to activly choose to avoid sexist societies.

I think the case of Curves is interesting because it's the ultimate case of "voting with your feet". Obviously a lot of gyms are getting it wrong in their approach to women, and someone is exploiting this economic opportunity. It makes perfect sense to me from a business perspective, more so than from the social perspective.

"Voting with your feet" in this country tends to be an obvious indicator of ignorance. I wouldn't let the masses dictate to me what is right or wrong. And if women choose to follow the direction of people "voting with their feet" I'd wager there would be a lower number voting in todays society.

Truley

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

It just goes to show it can come from both sides and nobody can say it's worse for one gender because we're only aware of our own experiences.

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.

I find that in club/pub environments men have to be more careful about touching off other men or being too touchy feely with women, as they are more at risk of violent repercussions. Also *I think* bouncers and society in general are far more 'tuned in' to spotting bad or what can be perceived as bad behaviour from men, as in there is a clearer line about what is unacceptable from men. I'm not even talking sexual, just the way people can push through or bump off people.

I remember working in a club that had a hen night of women dressed as teachers and carrying wooden spoons. The women spent the entire night going up to random men either on the dancefloor or at the bar and wacking them on the arses. Sometimes they did it pretty hard and I saw a fair few men get angry about it. All the staff and security knew about this and thought it was a great laugh, even when men complained or asked them to stop. I really don't think a group of men would have gotten away with this sort of behaviour, not that they don't do it. I'm aware that harrassment goes both ways but I think the rules about what is appropriate behaviour from women are far more lenient.

Just my observations though, not stating it as an objective fact.

southsiderosie

Zulu wrote: »

...and I said: You don't need to combat the cause, if you don't believe it exists or if you are happy to be a hypocrite.

If, however, you believe it exists, or you do not wish to be considered a hypocrite, then not only do you need to act against it, but you also need to activly choose to avoid sexist societies.

"Voting with your feet" in this country tends to be an obvious indicator of ignorance. I wouldn't let the masses dictate to me what is right or wrong. And if women choose to follow the direction of people "voting with their feet" I'd wager there would be a lower number voting in todays society.

I sometimes enjoyed going to black student events at my university because I was the only black student in the department. Yet I also enjoyed playing on the department softball team, even though I was the only female. I also played in two volleyball leagues, one co-ed and one all women. I don't think these activities make me a hypocrite or a paragon of virtue, they are simply an indication of having different interests for different reasons. And I don't think that I or anyone else should have to apologize for that.

How people choose to spend what limited personal time they have these days should not have to be a political statement, or about "proving" how enlightened or committed to social justice they are. Frankly I don't care if people think I am a hypocrite, because those people have never walked one second in my shoes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

The primary concern I'd have would be that, while they can provide an environment where a sex can feel "more at ease", they do nothing to combat the cause.
So, while the Curves gym provides an environment where a woman can feel she can sweat to her hearts content without having to worry about looking bad in front of men - this does nothing only compound the underlying issue that women feel objectified!
Women should be able to go to a gym and sweat regardless of whos looking because, humans, when exercising, sweat.

Zulu wrote: »

...and I said: You don't need to combat the cause, if you don't believe it exists or if you are happy to be a hypocrite.

That is some what faulty logic

So a woman who goes to Curves because she doesn't want to be objectified by men is a hypocrite because if she really believed men shouldn't objectified women she should be spending all her time placing herself in a position where she is objectified in order to make a point?

Would that also work for a more extreme case? A woman who doesn't want to be attacked and thus only goes out with a large group of other women at night is a hypocrite because if she really believed women shouldn't be attacked she should be spending all her time placing herself in a position to be attacked in order to make a point about how bad it is?

Ickle Magoo

Truley wrote: »

Just my observations though, not stating it as an objective fact.

You could well be right about the pub/club scene - I'm sure it very much depends on the venue in question, if not the local demographic altogether.

I really don't think women's groups have been set up as a result of the predatory pub/club scene anyway - it's a sad fact but on a night out most of us expect to receive unwanted "attentions" at some stage in the evenings proceedings - but more of a reaction to the tiresome everyday occurrences while women are just going about their daily business.

Zulu

Wicknight wrote: »

That is some what faulty logic... <rabble rabble misrepresented post>

Nonsense! Try again; that wasn't either my point or sentiment of my point.

Mark Hamill

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why should she have to do anything?

Why should she have to deal with the problems in her own life instead of running away from them? Really?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why can't women have women only activities? Seriously?!

I never said they cant, I just cant see how you square the need for so many women only activities with constant call for sexual equality.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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?

Show were I said they should absorb it? I have consistently said that they should make the men stop it, not just run away somewhere where thy can no longer here it. Its an out of site, out of mind mentality that shouldn't be accepted.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

And when you finish that hobby, and come back to the real world, do you think that **** will have disappeared?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

Who says it should be their responsiblity? Was it the black peoples repsonsibility in the last century to demand equality in America? Who do you think is going to give you the equality you want, who is going to get rid of the **** you hate?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

You just claimed that most women want female only company because of they where treated by men (either emotionally or physically). Are you trying to tell me know that these women dont hate being in mens company fo rthat treatment they get?

Mark Hamill

jujibee wrote: »

A lot of the time you are alone or the "people in charge" are involved.

Any evidence for this accusation that a lot of the time, the people in charge are in on it?
How high did you go? Doormen, managament, guards?

jujibee wrote: »

I have reported instances that I think are inappropriate to mods and they have not agreed with my assessment.

And that had to be becasue you were a woman?

jujibee wrote: »

I appreciate that there are times when we can ask for help and will receive it but my point is I should not have to ask for help.

In terms of convincing someone to help you when they can already see you obviously need it, then no you shouldn't have to ask. But there are plenty of times and situations were it is not immediately obvious how or even if you are being effected by the people around you, and you may need top point it out that you need help.

jujibee wrote: »

I know it is not a perfect world and it never will be but I can't help wishing for it.

But what use arw wishes if you just segregate yourself from men in the circumstances you think you will be bother? How do you ever expect to attain a perfect word by avoiding the problem without solving it?

jujibee wrote: »

But you see that is the point. By calling it a woman's book club we are making it clear that we don't want to have to deal with that. I have known several women's book clubs that had male members. The point is not to exclude men. The point is to discuss issues pertaining to women.

Well, there is the problem. The point of a book club is not to discuss issues pertaining ot women, its to discuss books. By virtue of choosing only the types of books you like and by having a definite system laidout specify what is and isn't acceptable in discussions, then you will automatically exclude the undesirables, men and women both.

jujibee wrote: »

I bet if you found a women's book club and you asked to join on the condition that you followed their charter that most would welcome you (I would not say all because some are strictly female for various reasons).

Then why call them womens book clubs in that case? If you only want people to follow your rules and discuss certain books, then just allow people to do that. By putting on the label, even if you are willing to ignore for those truely interested, you will miss out on discussions of the books with people who are also interested in them. If you are serious about discussions, why would you do that?

jujibee wrote: »

We don't want to exclude men but we want a place to discuss our issues and fears with out worrying that we are going to be labeled as feminazis or what ever the going term is.

Why would you use a book club to discuss you issues and fears? Thats what therapists are for.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

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

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....

Are you two accusing the male posters here of being abusive in any way to you?

Kooli wrote: »

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

Should women at least try to avoid aggrevating it or stalling the progress of solving it?

Kooli wrote: »

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?

Because it is YOUR problem. I dont get abused or mocked like women do, and while i would step in and stop it if I thought someone was under duress, I simply dont see it very often at all (admittedly I dont go out drinking, but in college and in the societies I havent seen any).

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

Nonsense! Try again; that wasn't either my point or sentiment of my point.

It certainly seemed to be your point

Frankly, it disappoints & saddens me that we'd actively encourage sexist discrimination in this day and age.

The primary concern I'd have would be that, while they can provide an environment where a sex can feel "more at ease", they do nothing to combat the cause.
So, while the Curves gym provides an environment where a woman can feel she can sweat to her hearts content without having to worry about looking bad in front of men - this does nothing only compound the underlying issue that women feel objectified!
Women should be able to go to a gym and sweat regardless of whos looking because, humans, when exercising, sweat.

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

Kooli-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.

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.

...and I said: You don't need to combat the cause, if you don't believe it exists or if you are happy to be a hypocrite.

Certainly seems to be your point Zulu.

Curves is segregation that does nothing to stop the objectification of women.
Segregation of women from men is not the solution to the objectification of women.
Women who wish to combat the sexism or the objectification of women yet go to Curves or other institutions that are women only are hypocrites.

If you would like to point out which one of those summaries I'm misunderstanding feel free.

Ectoplasm

Wicknight wrote: »

Certainly seems to be your point Zulu.
Curves is segregation that does nothing to stop the objectification of women.
Segregation of women from men is not the solution to the objectification of women.

I agree with you here but what will stop it? A woman not segregating herself and being objectified doesn't stop it either.

Wicknight wrote: »

Women who wish to combat the sexism or the objectification of women yet go to Curves or other institutions that are women only are hypocrites.

Here is where I don't agree. I don't think it is hypocritical to try to avoid an uncomfortable experience, I think it is very very human.

A woman can state that she wants to combat the objectification of women but that doesn't mean she has to 'go into battle' every time she leaves her house. Who could do that? It'd be exhausting! In fact she wouldn't even have time off at home because women are objectified online, on tv and on the radio. The reality is, she'd have to isolate herself.

Tbh I don't think that many of the women going to Curves are doing so to avoid objectification - many, many women have serious body image issues and are barely comfortable around other women, never mind men. If this works for them, I think it's good. I see it as no different to Mens Weight Watchers meetings. Many men are more comfortable talking about their weight issues without women around and if it helps them, that's a good thing.

I'm neither pro nor anti 'men only' or 'women only' groups. They're not really for me, but I don't judge the people whose needs they do meet.

Trog

Wicknight wrote: »

It certainly seemed to be your point













Certainly seems to be your point Zulu.

Curves is segregation that does nothing to stop the objectification of women.
Segregation of women from men is not the solution to the objectification of women.
Women who wish to combat the sexism or the objectification of women yet go to Curves or other institutions that are women only are hypocrites.

If you would like to point out which one of those summaries I'm misunderstanding feel free.

I've just been skimming here, but I think a more valid point Zulu could have made (and may have meant) is that IF such segregation contributes to the problem, then it is surely counterproductive for someone who is anti-sexism to support this cause. It's not necessarily that going to these groups makes you a hypocrite.

Kooli wrote: »

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

I've just noticed this post, and I take offense to it. How is it in any way sexist or chauvinist to raise an issue which, from as an objective stance as I can take, seems to be problematic? Where in this thread have I been unfair to women?

Your post is actually a reflection of a major imbalance in society which is central to this: an issue is brought up out of an innocent desire for debate, in which I am fully open to discussion, and it is criticized purely on the basis that the topic of concern is women. If you meant to refer to certain posts in this thread, then fine, but why is it not ok to raise the issue in a balanced way?

Zombrex

EMF2010 wrote: »

I agree with you here but what will stop it?

It wasn't my point, it was Zulu's

EMF2010 wrote: »

A woman not segregating herself and being objectified doesn't stop it either.
...
Here is where I don't agree. I don't think it is hypocritical to try to avoid an uncomfortable experience, I think it is very very human.

That was my point. I think lambasting women who are against sexism as hypocrites for joining a gym like Curves is silly.

Ectoplasm

Oops. Sorry but I read 'it seems to be your point' as this point was the one that made the most sense or this is the winning point.

Kooli

Trog wrote: »

I've just noticed this post, and I take offense to it. How is it in any way sexist or chauvinist to raise an issue which, from as an objective stance as I can take, seems to be problematic? Where in this thread have I been unfair to women?

I apologise if that post was offensive. Maybe I need to explain it better.

I don't actually think it's sexist or chauvinistic to raise an issue which is seen as problematic at all. And I apologise if it sounded like I was saying that. The fact that I keep returning to this thread shows I love a debate as much as the next person, and I find this discussion very interesting.

But the fact is I don't want to debate all the time. There are occasions when I would like to discuss things with just other women, so that I don't have to constantly argue my point that sexism against women even exists with people that have never experienced it and couldn't possibly understand what it is like.

So my point about this thread being an example of why women might want to go to women's only groups is if they want to talk about their shared experience without having to defend the truth of it, without being told that they are contributing to the problem and making it worse, without having an argument that other people experience discrimination too (duh, we know that). It's not that these aren't valid arguments. It's just that sometimes we don't want to argue!

There are other avenues when I absolutely do want to argue, defend my point, force others to defend theirs etc. But sometimes I don't - I just want support, or comfort, or a different type of discussion.

I hope that's clearer.

donfers

ah the old objectification argument which is every bit as credible as the "from a female point of view" argument, in my view, i.e. not at all

first let me again state that I support womans only groups for the simple reason that the type of woman who consciously seeks out an exclusively female group is better off being there for everybody.......but these arguments in support of the groups are nothing more than spin and guff, both meaningless and worthless and not having any credibility or even logic behind them - again just my opinion

"objectification of women" is almost a cliche at this stage, it describes how men look at women and has negative connotations. Yet it doesn't really mean anything, it spins a mythology about men and society without really laying claim to any kind of specific action. Am I allowed to look at you? Should I keep my eyes on the ground at all times? When does my gaze become objectifying? after 1 second, 1.5 seconds...maybe 2,5 seconds, maybe dribbling is necessary? How about when I talk to you? If I comment on your appearance rather than the fact you have a phd in women's studies does that mean I am objectifying you? Or does it mean that as I don't know you yet, I can only make valid comment on what I see before my eyes?

These lazy cliched arguments aren't just misleading, they're boring.

Nevyn

donfers wrote: »

ah the old objectification argument which is every bit as credible as the "from a female point of view" argument, in my view, i.e. not at all

first let me again state that I support womans only groups for the simple reason that the type of woman who consciously seeks out an exclusively female group is better off being there for everybody.......but these arguments in support of the groups are nothing more than spin and guff, both meaningless and worthless and not having any credibility or even logic behind them - again just my opinion

"objectification of women" is almost a cliche at this stage, it describes how men look at women and has negative connotations. Yet it doesn't really mean anything, it spins a mythology about men and society without really laying claim to any kind of specific action. Am I allowed to look at you? Should I keep my eyes on the ground at all times? When does my gaze become objectifying? after 1 second, 1.5 seconds...maybe 2,5 seconds, maybe dribbling is necessary? How about when I talk to you? If I comment on your appearance rather than the fact you have a phd in women's studies does that mean I am objectifying you? Or does it mean that as I don't know you yet, I can only make valid comment on what I see before my eyes?

These lazy cliched arguments aren't just misleading, they're boring.

And here we have ladies and gentlemen the type of dismissive argument which rubbished the many uncomfortable experiences of many women and leads to women not bothering to take part in the exchange any further as
you may was well try to explain colour to the blind.

donfers

Thaedydal wrote: »

And here we have ladies and gentlemen the type of dismissive argument which rubbished the many uncomfortable experiences of many women and leads to women not bothering to take part in the exchange any further as
you may was well try to explain colour to the blind.

I'm simply asking for it (justification for women only groups) to be explained more clearly and more honestly...however if you wish to run off to tll where everybody will agree with you about how nasty and sexist the men are then feel free

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

But the fact is I don't want to debate all the time.

I dont understand this type of mentality. Every discussion you have with someone with a differing opinion to you is a debate, you are discussing your differing opinions, its hard to avoid. The only alternatives I can think of is if you no opinion (or incomplete) and are being told about something (although its not like you cant contribute to the debate) or where you want to just have people agree with you, regardless of what you say, which I've always found to be stupid.

Kooli wrote: »

There are occasions when I would like to discuss things with just other women, so that I don't have to constantly argue my point that sexism against women even exists with people that have never experienced it and couldn't possibly understand what it is like.

And gyms or book clubs or protest groups are the place for this?

Kooli wrote: »

So my point about this thread being an example of why women might want to go to women's only groups is if they want to talk about their shared experience without having to defend the truth of it, without being told that they are contributing to the problem and making it worse, without having an argument that other people experience discrimination too (duh, we know that). It's not that these aren't valid arguments. It's just that sometimes we don't want to argue!

But you are in a book club, the point is to discuss a book, or you are in a protest group, the point is to organise a protest etc. Whats the point of even doing these things if all you want is to shy away from confrontation? Why assume there will be less confrontation in a girls only group?

Kooli wrote: »

There are other avenues when I absolutely do want to argue, defend my point, force others to defend theirs etc. But sometimes I don't - I just want support, or comfort,

Even if you are in the wrong? Would you not rather be correct and no longer be wrong, than have people pander to you and continue incorrect?

Kooli wrote: »

or a different type of discussion.

I honestly cant think of anything that has people telling their opinions without any defending of points that I would label a discussion.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nevyn

Men and women often have different discussion modes.

Men often debate and argue and pull points of information part, questioning to tear down the other person's point of view, to argue and to win.

Women share, they listen and share and ask questions when they want more information and challege in a subtly different way. Two women may have oppsoing views but they won't seek to hammer thiers home to the other one to win and again status, they share each again a different understanding and may or may not amend thier position or opinion on the matter.

All of western philosphy is based on The Agruement, which was how old dead Greek men sought to have thier ideas 'win out' over that of others. Women back then were not eduacted and were for only having babies wtih. Women being educated and maybe having a opinion which has any merit is a new invention of the last 150 years or so,
and often has been slow to catch on.

Unless a woman can argue in male mode then she is often not given any crediblity as so women have often taken on the manerisms of men to be heard by men.

Girls are often not encouraged to raise thier voices, contradict men or show men up in company, while it is a out dated notion it still applies for many.

So when a woman feels she is not being heard, and what she is sharing is not be respected and feels under attack and what she is saying is being torn to shreds she quits the feild of battle. Some will persist, some will get on with it day in day out, in work and in thier lives but sometimes it's nice not to have too.

Trog

Thaedydal wrote: »

Men often debate and argue and pull points of information part, questioning to tear down the other person's point of view, to argue and to win.

...

All of western philosphy is based on The Agruement, which was how old dead Greek men sought to have thier ideas 'win out' over that of others.

Unless a woman can argue in male mode then she is often not given any crediblity as so women have often taken on the manerisms of men to be heard by men.

I disagree. It's unfair to classify 'men's mode of argument' as trying to have their point of view win out. If your logic has a point which can be criticized, then why should it not be criticized? it's not about purposes of 'winning' but for purposes of better discussion.

The Argument isn't a device to have your idea win out, The Argument is in fact a structure of statements which are logically put together to present one's contention. The point of presenting it is so that it may receive criticism. The purpose of this criticism is so that our views may be altered and refined to withstand more criticism, and so that we can eventually reach a valid truth.

This isn't necessarily a male mode. It was originally devised by men, but it's a logical mode of debate. It is, in fact, the only accepted mode of presenting ideas in philosophy (by men and women alike).

Now, if you can show why someone elses argument is flawed on their own terms, then they have to either change it or drop it. If, however, you reach a point were neither can disprove each other nor convince each other of your own argument's validity, then it comes to accepting the disagreement and moving on.

This is how logical debate works, for men and women, and to say that doesn't follow (roughly) these guidelines is to say that they do not argue logically. They, speaking from a purely philosophical point of view, therefore shouldn't be given credit. But this isn't because they aren't arguing like a man, it's because they aren't arguing in the accepted logical mode.

This is just a point of clarity, it doesn't distract from your main point which is perfectly reasonable: Sometimes a woman doesn't want to be around men, because she wishes to escape the 'pressures' (I can't think of a better word, even though I'm sure this isn't right) of a male-dominated, or mixed environment.

Ickle Magoo

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why should she have to deal with the problems in her own life instead of running away from them? Really?

More like why can't she have one activity where such behaviour is guaranteed to be avoided? I could understand your amazement if the issue was women avoiding all men always but for a couple of hours a week out of their entire lives, equating it to running away full stop is getting a bit carried away, no?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I never said they cant, I just cant see how you square the need for so many women only activities with constant call for sexual equality.

Because there isn't sexual equality - nothing like it, frankly. Until there is I can see why women-only activities are proving popular.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Show were I said they should absorb it? I have consistently said that they should make the men stop it, not just run away somewhere where thy can no longer here it. Its an out of site, out of mind mentality that shouldn't be accepted.

Sexism can be found in the workplace, home, education, where-ever. I can see why being able to go somewhere or join a group that is not going to involve conflict with a misogynist/chauvinist or feeling they have to re-educate ignorant men must be quite a relief.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And when you finish that hobby, and come back to the real world, do you think that **** will have disappeared?

Do you seriously think if every women pulled up every man guilty of that sh*t, that it will disappear? Sadly, I think not.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Who says it should be their responsiblity? Was it the black peoples repsonsibility in the last century to demand equality in America? Who do you think is going to give you the equality you want, who is going to get rid of the **** you hate?

Are you suggesting there are no more racists? Women can shout about equality and demand respect all day every day and there will still be ignorant clowns who can't see what ignorant clowns they are. If a woman wants a break from the daily grind of that, I can understand that. I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about that, actually.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You just claimed that most women want female only company because of they where treated by men (either emotionally or physically). Are you trying to tell me know that these women dont hate being in mens company fo rthat treatment they get?

I don't think I said most but it would be rather naive to consider men's behaviour as having absolutely no relevance to the setting up of women-only activities - they wish to exclude men for a reason. Perhaps instead of blaming women for getting to the extreme situation of trying to exclude men from social activities, they should blame the kind of guys that make women feel so uncomfortable, bullied & harassed that attending a woman's only group holds such appeal?

For the record I don't think the women in my group necessarily hate men's company either - and after some of the stories I've heard, frankly I wouldn't blame them if they did. Many women who attend a women's only activity have a husband/boyfriend/son/brother/male friends, etc. They may just wish to avoid having to socialise with certain kinds of men - or even just avoiding the possibility of socialising with certain kinds of men for that particular activity - again, instead of blaming women for being driven to set up/attend/enjoy women's only activities, perhaps men should acknowledge the whys and point their anger and frustrations at those who are actually responsible for popularising them?

Trog

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Perhaps instead of blaming women for getting to the extreme situation of trying to exclude men from social activities, they should blame the kind of guys that make women feel so uncomfortable, bullied & harassed that attending a woman's only group holds such appeal?

Agreed and personally, I do blame most men.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

They may just wish to avoid having to socialise with certain kinds of men - or even just avoiding the possibility of socialising with certain kinds of men for that particular activity

You see, the thing is, it still tars all with the same brush to exclude all men. Not an atrocity, but still not really very fair (in theory).

Ickle Magoo

Trog wrote: »

You see, the thing is, it still tars all with the same brush to exclude all men. Not an atrocity, but still not really very fair (in theory).

It does & it's not fair to men who aren't ignorant clowns - although sometimes completely understandable - I've already acknowledged that. However, if you imagine an ideal world in which women-only activities have little to no demand, what do you think would be the main difference compared with how thing are now?

annoyingbeast

groups that exclude people are all wrong, all women groups, male golf groups, all boys/girls schools, freemasons, the orange order, the KKK, the black panthers, it all divides people and makes NO sense.