'Women only' groups

southsiderosie

annoyingbeast wrote: »

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.

Equating a women's book club with the KKK is absurd. Since when did chick lit readers go around lynching people? "Look, he's reading War and Peace": GET HIM!!!!"

metrovelvet

Trog wrote: »

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.

Thaed is spot on. Debate and the socratic method is a traditionally male form of discussion [argument], using logic [as you said] to get at the 'truth'. However it is not much use for creating new ideas or paradigms or exploring topics. It is useful but it is also limited and not always appropriate or interesting. The thing about using this ALL the time is it's really boring, all you have to do is demolish the axiom and the argument is destroyed.

I have often made the mistake of pirouhetting into Humanties thinking im entering a collaborative discourse only to have the goal posts shifted and lo and behold it's a dialectically oppositional debate hanging onto the bastions of philosophical logic. Nothing wrong with that, if you also are open to a more collaborative and exploratory means of discussion. But it seems in Humanities, despite it NOT being in the charter that you MUST use the Socratic method, the default is debate in its strictest sense.

Does that make me a victim? No. Does it make me interested? No. Does it make me want to talk to people who have other ideas about how to talk? Yep.

southsiderosie

I have to disagree with the posts around discussion and the Socratic method.

Yes, it can be a very bullying and grinding experience. But when used correctly, it can lead to clarification and enhance the learning process.

I have seen it used to terrorize students. But I have more often seen it used to draw students into discussions and to distill broad topics down into something which may not be truth, but at least has more concrete meaning. But the main factor here is not the gender of the participants but rather the demeanor and style of the discussant.

I'm not familiar enough with this forum to comment on the discussion style. But I'm not sure that a Socratic approach works well online, because it can easily come across as unnecessarily hostile.

metrovelvet

southsiderosie wrote: »

I have to disagree with the posts around discussion and the Socratic method.

Yes, it can be a very bullying and grinding experience. But when used correctly, it can lead to clarification and enhance the learning process.

I have seen it used to terrorize students. But I have more often seen it used to draw students into discussions and to distill broad topics down into something which may not be truth, but at least has more concrete meaning. But the main factor here is not the gender of the participants but rather the demeanor and style of the discussant.

I'm not familiar enough with this forum to comment on the discussion style. But I'm not sure that a Socratic approach works well online, because it can easily come across as unnecessarily hostile.

I agree with you. It is useful and enhancing but it is also limiting if its used exclusive of other approaches.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ntlbell

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.

And here you have ladies and gentleman a woman who won't attempt to converse discuss a very valid point without trying to belittle and small time a man who has a different opinion to herself.

A woman on this thread makes an observation and her little support group falls in line to thank the post. a male makes an observation and he's a belitting, sexist, piss taking childish moron.

the theme of this thread that proves the posters point, women who engadge in the likes of women only book clubs are better off.

ntlbell

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

As do plenty of women.

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

A lot of men argue in a very relaxed, calm sharing manner, some women argue like they're in a brawl on o'connel street as do some men. people are different man or woman

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

Lets just ignore all the sexist nonsense and blame it on greek old men?

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

Men often have problems been heard by other men, women have the same problem with other types of women this a human issue, not a sex one.

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

what has this got to do with something as simple as a book club for example? is it women feel their point of view of a book wouldn't get across because some neatherdal is screaming about his critque on one flew over the cukoo's nest?

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

You could replace woman for man there it's the same story.

liah

I think I'm in agreement with whoever said that this thread is a decent example for why some women want to join women-only groups.

I'm pretty sure the majority of women in here "get" the other womens' arguments, sort of a same wavelength thing.. the men posting seem to just want to be right. Sometimes it's not about being "right." Sometimes it's just about escapism and wanting to feel safe and KNOW there will be no threat. Women-only groups are that safety net. There is NOTHING wrong with that.

Though personally I do genuinely believe there are differences in how men and women think and perceive. I don't care if it's politically correct to say or not, but we just plain think differently and no amount of "equality" can change that. Men and women are not the same, but saying that doesn't mean one is better than the other. Differences aren't always bad, they're just differences, and if you compare and contrast their pros and cons we're still equal on an overall level.

This seems to be one of those issues where we just think differently on the subject.

Yes, guys, we're all individuals but be realistic here.We are wired differently and there's nothing wrong with wanting to be in the company of the same gender once in awhile. What the hell's the difference between a one-hour weekly women-only book club and a lads' night out down the pub, in fairness?

Mountain = molehill.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nevyn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If this was the case the vast majority of the world would be atheists.

Logical agruement fails when it comes to the thing which can not be seen and when dealing with matters which are spiritual and emotional.

liah

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course, on an individual level everyone is different. But there are well-documented, well backed-up studies that indicate the way we process thought is different. And I think that surpasses culture, it's an evolutionary byproduct. I'll have to find the papers on it.
There are 'male' trends and 'female' trends.

It's not an "us and them" thing; like I said, neither gender is "better" overall than the other, but I think it would be a bit foolish to throw the baby out with the bathwater; we just need to accept that we are different and appreciate it instead of be afraid of it.

But that's besides the point anyway. This argument is pointless. One side gets it and the other side doesn't and no amount of arguing is going to change anyone.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zulu

liah wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the majority of women in here "get" the other womens' arguments, sort of a same wavelength thing..

...and I'm pretty sure that association in elite groups promotes this type of thinking. If we choose to identify with a particular subsection of society, and then remove ourselves into their company, we in effect limit our exposure to differences. When we limit our exposure to the differences of our society, it's all to easy to start prejudicing & too loose sight of the benefit of a broader spectrum of experience. This would be my fear with "x"-only groups. It hinder integration, and integration is good.

the men posting seem to just want to be right..

I don't like this comment. It's ambiguous - what does it mean?
Are you stating that women do not wish to be right?
Are you stating that men just want to be right? in that they don't wish to converse & explore new ideas?

...and again, elite groups only promote this type of thinking, which does nothing to promote an equally understanding progressive society.

liah

Zulu wrote: »

...and I'm pretty sure that association in elite groups promotes this type of thinking. If we choose to identify with a particular subsection of society, and then remove ourselves into their company, we in effect limit our exposure to differences. When we limit our exposure to the differences of our society, it's all to easy to start prejudicing & too loose sight of the benefit of a broader spectrum of experience. This would be my fear with "x"-only groups. It hinder integration, and integration is good.


I don't like this comment. It's ambiguous - what does it mean?
Are you stating that women do not wish to be right?
Are you stating that men just want to be right? in that they don't wish to converse & explore new ideas?

...and again, elite groups only promote this type of thinking, which does nothing to promote an equally understanding progressive society.

"This type of thinking?" What does that even mean? It's not a "type" of thinking. It's an observation. I could be wrong, as it's impossible to know everyone's genders, but most of the women are on the same page as each other and most of the men are on the same page as each other. How does an observation suddenly a "type of thinking" make?

It just seems like the men aren't really understanding the points the women are trying to make and are trying to make it about what's best for everyone and it's all this theoretical musing to show us that our feelings are invalid because they don't think there's a reason for them.

Yes, obviously no one should be in exclusively womens-only (or mens-only, for that matter) groups, but what on earth is so impossible to understand about wanting to get away from it once in awhile? Again, what's the difference between a one hour a week book club meeting and a lads' night out down the pub? Seriously? Because one's official and one isn't?

Look, we have girls' nights and guys' nights in or out. All of us have. And they serve a purpose, politically correct or not. Sometimes, you just wanna be around people who "get" certain things about you, and like I said before.. it's nice to be in a no-risk environment once in awhile. Where there's no threat of pressure. I don't see why it's such a big deal whether it's an official club or a girls' night in with your best friends.

If it was the case where women and men were 100% constantly segregating themselves from one another, then yeah-- of course you'd have a point! But one hour a week? Really? Is that seriously such an issue? Is that seriously what's contributing to so many issues? I don't think so. The book clubs and golf clubs are largely harmless. And neither gender should have to constantly be battling sexism, and neither gender should feel bad about wanting to seek refuge with their own gender once in a blue moon to recharge with no pressure. It's not sexist or anything else. It's just healthy.

Zulu

liah wrote: »

"This type of thinking?" What does that even mean?

Sorry, I would have thought that was straight forward enough, read: sexist thinking.

How does an observation suddenly a "type of thinking" make?

An observation is a thought, is it not?

It just seems like the men aren't really understanding the points the women are trying to make and are trying to make it about what's best for everyone

Well that’s good then. Progress! How bad is it when we are striving to consider "everyone". And this is a bad thing?

and it's all this theoretical musing to show us that our feelings are invalid because they don't think there's a reason for them.

I can only speak for myself, but I assure you - your feelings aren't invalid & I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I assure you I think there's a reason for them also.

...but what on earth is so impossible to understand about wanting to get away from it once in awhile?

Nothing at all. It's very easy to understand - but that doesn't make it right!
All I'm saying is, when choosing to "get away from it all" means getting away from a particular group (be it sex/race/religion) then, it's a warning sign.
Perhaps it's a considered learning from a time when men had lots of elitist "get aways", and we all know too well how they failed us.
Lessons learned and what not.

Again, what's the difference between a one hour a week book club meeting and a lads' night out down the pub? Seriously? Because one's official and one isn't?

No difference at all - both are equally good/bad.

Look, we have girls' nights and guys' nights in or out. All of us have. And they serve a purpose, politically correct or not. Sometimes, you just wanna be around people who "get" certain things about you,

All this I understand...

and like I said before.. it's nice to be in a no-risk environment once in awhile.

...and this I don't like. This comment is sexist. This comment determines that men are a risk. You are happy to negatively portray a whole sex here. That’s bad. And if this is the type of attitude that breeds a one hour book club, then that’s bad too.

Where there's no threat of pressure.

This is an extension of the previous sexist assertion - yes there is pressure! Women pressure women. Men aren't the only cause of pressure.

I don't see why it's such a big deal whether it's an official club or a girls' night in with your best friends.

The big deal isn't the girly night out, the big deal is the insecure group who are meeting because they think that men are a "risk" & the source of "pressure". In this case the girly night out looks a little more insidious.

We don't mind a group of men meeting to play dress-up soldiers, but if part the reason for their meeting was that they felt at risk by homosexuals or black people - would you feel some comfortable about it?

If it was the case where women and men were 100% constantly segregating themselves from one another, then yeah-- of course you'd have a point!

What about 95%, 80%, 75%... where's the line?
Where do we decide where the short end of the wedge ends?

southsiderosie

Zulu wrote: »

...and I'm pretty sure that association in elite groups promotes this type of thinking. If we choose to identify with a particular subsection of society, and then remove ourselves into their company, we in effect limit our exposure to differences. When we limit our exposure to the differences of our society, it's all to easy to start prejudicing & too loose sight of the benefit of a broader spectrum of experience. This would be my fear with "x"-only groups. It hinder integration, and integration is good.

...and again, elite groups only promote this type of thinking, which does nothing to promote an equally understanding progressive society.

So you think in order to have a cohesive society, that ever activity that people participate in has to be with people who are ostensibly "different" than them? And the failure to do so is a sign of a lack of 'integration'. Integration into what? How 'diverse' is every activity we participate in during the day supposed to be?

Zulu

southsiderosie wrote: »

So you think in order to have a cohesive society, ...

No.

I think that a sub sect labelling a whole other group as a "risk" and then segregating themselves from that group doesn't lead to a cohesive society.
And I think that idea isn't exactly a novel one.

PS: nice selective quoting :rolleyes:

Ickle Magoo

So groups that were set up in reaction to how men treat women are the cause of segregative women's only groups? That's some logic. You don't think perhaps the cause of segregative women's only groups are the kind of men that drive women to want to be in a women's only group? Seriously now.

I think it would serve better to understand why women's groups exist if you consider for a moment why some women want to spend time away from men. To keep bleating on about segregation and elitism conveniently misses entirely the reasons why women's only groups have become so popular. If you think it serves as a warning - who should be heeding that warning? How bad do you think things had to get for women's only activities to become so popular?

liah

Zulu wrote: »

Sorry, I would have thought that was straight forward enough, read: sexist thinking.

An observation is a thought, is it not?

An observation is an observation, if it were the total opposite situation I'd make the opposite observation. Observations do not a way of thinking make.

Just because I'm willing to recognize that sometimes it's not about being "right," it's about being able to take a break once in awhile does not make me sexist. It also doesn't make me sexist to recognize differences in gender. I'm certainly not elevating any one gender above another.

Zulu wrote: »

Well that’s good then. Progress! How bad is it when we are striving to consider "everyone". And this is a bad thing?

It is a bad thing, imo, to deprive people of time with people of their own gender for the sake of being politically correct-- depriving people of anything does nothing but breed resentment.

I don't know about everyone else, but I am human. Sometimes, I just want a freaking break from the opposite sex. Sometimes, it's really, really nice to be able to talk to a girl. Or a bunch of them. 90% of my closest friends are male, the last few people I've lived with for any extended period of time have been male-- don't get me wrong-- but we think differently. And it's nice getting the other end of the spectrum without being made out to be a sexist just because you want a female point of view.

Zulu wrote: »

I can only speak for myself, but I assure you - your feelings aren't invalid & I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I assure you I think there's a reason for them also.

And what's your take on what the reason would be?

Zulu wrote: »

Nothing at all. It's very easy to understand - but that doesn't make it right!

But it's not always about being right, and sometimes that's okay. Sometimes it's just about getting away for awhile. As I said before I don't think it's right to deprive people of time with their own gender should they choose it.

Zulu wrote: »

All I'm saying is, when choosing to "get away from it all" means getting away from a particular group (be it sex/race/religion) then, it's a warning sign.
Perhaps it's a considered learning from a time when men had lots of elitist "get aways", and we all know too well how they failed us.
Lessons learned and what not.

It may be a warning sign but it doesn't make it any less necessary. It'd be a lovely world if we could all walk around and never be offended by anyone or anything, but that world doesn't exist and it never will, because we're human and we're fcked up. And that's just how it goes. Everybody's going to need recharge time once in awhile, from your standard straight male to the furthest reaches of the LGBT scene.

It may not be in the best interests of political correctness and equality but it doesn't matter. At the core of it, we all have to look out for ourselves and our own mental health, and if that means taking a break with only members of the same sex, then that should be fine.

It's only a problem when it becomes the standard practice. A womens-only book club is hardly going to make much of a difference.

Zulu wrote: »

No difference at all - both are equally good/bad.

Then what's your argument?

Zulu wrote: »

All this I understand...
...and this I don't like. This comment is sexist. This comment determines that men are a risk. You are happy to negatively portray a whole sex here. That’s bad. And if this is the type of attitude that breeds a one hour book club, then that’s bad too.

This is an extension of the previous sexist assertion - yes there is pressure! Women pressure women. Men aren't the only cause of pressure.
The big deal isn't the girly night out, the big deal is the insecure group who are meeting because they think that men are a "risk" & the source of "pressure". In this case the girly night out looks a little more insidious.

Eh, no, it's not. That comment said that sometimes it's nice to be in a no-risk environment. You evidently do not know what I mean by risk and I have in no way implied that all men are this way. In fact, that statement was gender-free and applies equally both ways-- it's you who took it up as a gender issue.

The "risk" and "pressure" can apply to both genders equally. Sex has nothing to do with it, but it's interesting that you're so determined to brand me as sexist despite me not even mentioning the word men there.

Stopping these "insidious" girly nights out isn't going to happen from banning gender-restricted clubs. And these girls have every right to enjoy a night on the town without being distracted by someone all over them, the same as males do. They wouldn't have to if people actually respected one another, but they don't.

Until there is no NEED for people to have to join a group or have gender-only events there's no point musing about the what-ifs or the you-shoulds. The fact is, that utopia just isn't ever going to happen. There's always going to be dickheads on both sides who will force us into wanting to chill out without that possible outcome.

Zulu wrote: »

We don't mind a group of men meeting to play dress-up soldiers, but if part the reason for their meeting was that they felt at risk by homosexuals or black people - would you feel some comfortable about it?

Do you feel uncomfortable about LGBT people meeting up with one another? Black people having their own meetings? Christians? Republicans? Potheads? Or is it just the gender thing that's bothering you?

I don't mind if those men who play dress-up soldiers meet up because they feel at risk. That's fine. They're not hurting anyone. It's when they actually take up action against them that it becomes an issue.

The whole world will never fall into one line of thinking, there's always going to be divides and there's always going to be at least one stupid prick ruining it for the rest of us, and that means there's always going to be the need for clubs for all groups and hobbies and interests and cultures and whatever the hell else.

What about 95%, 80%, 75%... where's the line?
Where do we decide where the short end of the wedge ends?

Oh give me a break. It doesn't matter. The majority of people are perfectly fine interacting with the opposite gender. It's only a very tiny minority of people who interact exclusively with their own. Besides, we're talking about a one hour weekly book club, this is completely irrelevant. Mainly because it'll never happen.

Take out all the theories and the assumptions and just be realistic here-- who is it hurting? What is the real issue here? Tackle that. Not the product of it.

But don't ever expect the world to be perfect, it never will be-- might be best to operate within the realms of what's real instead of the theoretical.

Zulu

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So groups that were set up in reaction to how men treat women are the cause of segregative women's only groups? That's some logic.

Thats not the point I was making - you know it, and I know it. Do you wish for rational discourse or a session in brow-beating?

The point I made was clear: a sub sect labelling a whole other group as a "risk" and then segregating themselves from that group doesn't lead to a cohesive society.
If you disagree fair enough - and I'm sure if you have a brief look around, you'll find plenty of like minded individuals.

To keep bleating on

Hardly language I'd use to encourage polite discussion.

...about segregation and elitism conveniently misses entirely the reasons why women's only groups have become so popular.

My point wasn't in relation to why they exist, but rather to the downside of their existance.

If you think it serves as a warning - who should be heeding that warning?

Clearly anyone who chooses to join such a group, but also society as a whole.

liah wrote: »

An observation is an observation, if it were the total opposite situation I'd make the opposite observation. Observations do not a way of thinking make.

Sigh. So this is whats become of my saturday nights: symantics.

observation = an act or instance of noticing or perceiving
thought = a single act or product of thinking; idea or notion

A huge difference which, clearly the crux of this debate is hinged on. :rolleyes:

I don't know about everyone else, but I am human. Sometimes, I just want a freaking break from the opposite sex.

Thats fine, but you've either ignored my point or missed it:

The big deal isn't the girly night out, the big deal is the insecure group who are meeting because they think that men are a "risk" & the source of "pressure". In this case the girly night out looks a little more insidious.

Eh, no, it's not. That comment said that sometimes it's nice to be in a no-risk environment. You evidently do not know what I mean by risk and I have in no way implied that all men are this way. In fact, that statement was gender-free and applies equally both ways-- it's you who took it up as a gender issue.

When no risk = women only, then logic dictates that men are the risk.

Do you feel uncomfortable about LGBT people meeting up with one another? Black people having their own meetings? Christians? Republicans? Potheads? Or is it just the gender thing that's bothering you?

I have as much an issue with either group, which is very little. However, the other mentioned there don't describe "men" as a "risk" which I guess adds something.

Oh give me a break. It doesn't matter.

Excuse me - it was you that had a problem with 100% - I'm just trying to understand where the cut off is & highlight that if 100% is bad, then consideration must be made as to when good turns bad.

Take out all the theories and the assumptions and just be realistic here-- who is it hurting? What is the real issue here? Tackle that. Not the product of it.

Well I'm trying to tackle the cause tbh. No the cause of the book club, but the cause of prejudice & sexism.

But don't ever expect the world to be perfect, it never will be-- might be best to operate within the realms of what's real instead of the theoretical.

Two things - one, if we don't at least strive for perfection we're doomed.
Two, this is humanities, the point is not to limit discussion.


on that note - good night, there's drinkin' needs doin'

Ickle Magoo

Zulu wrote: »

Thats not the point I was making - you know it, and I know it. Do you wish for rational discourse or a session in brow-beating?

I fail to see anything rational about men complaining about women only groups set up in part due the behaviour of men. There is no logic or rationality to bow-beating that they are just "wrong" regardless of positives, occasionally necessity and completely & deliberately ignoring the whys.

Zulu wrote: »

The point I made was clear: a sub sect labelling a whole other group as a "risk" and then segregating themselves from that group doesn't lead to a cohesive society.
If you disagree fair enough - and I'm sure if you have a brief look around, you'll find plenty of like minded individuals.

Are you also putting forward that bitchy gem as a paragon of rational discourse? Lol.

Having to deal with a man who is predatory, sexist, dismissive, creepy whatever; basically one who is enough of an idiot to ruin the wish to attend whatever club/gym/etc is a very real risk and a fairly common occurrence for most women - if that weren't the case, there wouldn't be half as many women's only activities.

Zulu wrote: »

Hardly language I'd use to encourage polite discussion.
My point wasn't in relation to why they exist, but rather to the downside of their existance.
Clearly anyone who chooses to join such a group, but also society as a whole.

This is far from what I'd consider a polite discussion - the constant jibes inferring only one position (gender) is rational or logical while steadfastly ignoring the prime reason for women-only activities existence, in favour of blaming the women who wish to attend them is neither rational nor particularly polite.

It's farcical to keep trying to argue against the existence of woman's only activities without dealing with WHY they exist....and what of the upside to their existence? What of the positives for the women that attend? Does that count for nothing?

liah

Zulu wrote: »

Sigh. So this is whats become of my saturday nights: symantics.

observation = an act or instance of noticing or perceiving
thought = a single act or product of thinking; idea or notion

A huge difference which, clearly the crux of this debate is hinged on. :rolleyes:

It makes a difference when you're trying to twist my words to make me appear as something I'm clearly not and try to make me seem like I said something I clearly didn't.

Observation does not equal a way of thinking, you were implying that because I had observed something it was my line of thinking, which you just proved wrong with your dictionary definitions.

Thats fine, but you've either ignored my point or missed it:

The big deal isn't the girly night out, the big deal is the insecure group who are meeting because they think that men are a "risk" & the source of "pressure". In this case the girly night out looks a little more insidious.

When no risk = women only, then logic dictates that men are the risk.

You are still missing my point and trying to make me out to be sexist when I did NOT say "men are the risk." I did not specify as I figured any adult could understand that it applies in both scenarios.

It's not that "all men are a risk," or even that "all women are a risk," or that "all x are a risk." It's that "I don't want to put myself into the scenario where I may to encounter one of these people"-- THAT'S the risk. Not that men or women are "dangerous," we just want to avoid a potential scenario. That scenario is centered around the opposite sex. Therefore, if we are in a same-sex scenario, the opposite-sex scenario can't happen, and therefore we don't have to worry about it.

Would it be bad to want to avoid certain parts of Detroit because you might get mugged? By your logic it would be, because that would be branding all people there as bad-- when really, it's nothing to do with that. It's about avoiding the risk. Nobody actually thinks that all those people are bad, but there's nothing wrong with wanting to avoid the ones who are.

This applies with the whole men-only or women-only thing; it's not that we're terrified all men are out to get us, we just don't feel like being put in the position of maybe having to turn someone down, put up with inappropriate comments, or feel uncomfortable in any way for whatever reasons (which, frankly, don't need to be validated to you).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PhysiologyRocks

I'm female and really don't see the point in these groups.

It's not that I relate poorly to other women. It's not that I feel an overwhelming need to have men around. I just don't see any extra 'safety' in women only situations, or feel any less of a need to be right without men around. I also don't think there's anything much that happens in my life that's a result of my gender that only women can understand.

donfers

PhysiologyRocks wrote: »

I'm female and really don't see the point in these groups.

It's not that I relate poorly to other women. It's not that I feel an overwhelming need to have men around. I just don't see any extra 'safety' in women only situations, or feel any less of a need to be right without men around. I also don't think there's anything much that happens in my life that's a result of my gender that only women can understand.

and thank the lord the vast vast majority of women think like you, otherwise it would be pretty hellish out there for both sexes, all of us permanently walking on eggshells for fear of giving off the impression that we are trying too hard to be right, or objectifying each other with our gaze or being incapable of innovating some alternnative non-Socratic form of argument or espousing the values of the patriatchal Society I was born into or making someone somehow feel unsafe or threatened or at risk just for being born male...nope too much of a headache for me, I prefer to just get out there and get to know people and as I've said thankfully the vast majority are laidback and open and don't analyse everything I do to the nth degree so that some word or gesture or look can be fitted into whatever preconceived politcal agenda they are already carrying around with themselves. Thankfully the vast majority aren't burdened by fear of being victimised or offended by something or other and simply get on with their lives. Of course some of the activists' points are valid and sometimes they are unfairly treated but to actively seek it out, to try to perceive it at every possible eopportunity is not just unwise, is not just plain wrong, it's unhealthy (for them,not Society...in many ways they are sacrificing themselves which is laudable).

However if a small minority of women feel the need for these type of groups then by all means let them. I think most people here don't have a problem with women discussing a book together for one hour a week, I think the debate is centred more around the principle therein, the motivation for segregation which is certainly questionable no matter who does it (men, women, blacks, whites) and anyone who does support it certainly should be rigorously questioned as it can potentially be very damaging. Ironically I find many posters who have argued that men and women are not so different in other threads suddenly suggesting, well yes we are for the purpose of this argument, we think differently etc etc. (alarm bells always ring for me when adherence to a political agenda trumps consistency of argument)

The comforting thought is that most women I knew are of the mindset of the lady I quoted rather than the more radical elements that will of course not agree with my post. However, in many ways to have that minority radical element is great too because they cause the slow shifts in progress, so although I disagree with them, I respect their integrity and intentions. Things will never shift to the degree they would aspire to as quickly as they would like but they do oil the chains so that the mass majority will slowly budge in their direction as and when needs be. The secret perhaps is not to push too much or the chains will come off altogether and the shifts reverse (backlash effect)

Rev Hellfire

liah wrote: »

Would it be bad to want to avoid certain parts of Detroit because you might get mugged? By your logic it would be, because that would be branding all people there as bad-- when really, it's nothing to do with that. It's about avoiding the risk. Nobody actually thinks that all those people are bad, but there's nothing wrong with wanting to avoid the ones who are.

Thats not a correct analogy its more certain people from Detroit are muggers so to its only natural that to avoid the risk you exclude all people from Detroit.

Ickle Magoo

PhysiologyRocks wrote: »

I'm female and really don't see the point in these groups.

It's not that I relate poorly to other women. It's not that I feel an overwhelming need to have men around. I just don't see any extra 'safety' in women only situations, or feel any less of a need to be right without men around. I also don't think there's anything much that happens in my life that's a result of my gender that only women can understand.

Can I ask, is it that you don't see the point for you - or don't see a point to them full-stop, for any women?

liah

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

a certain amount of the opposite gender are incredibly difficult to deal with due to certain specific scenarios so to its only natural that to avoid the risk you exclude all people from opposite gender for a brief break once a week after putting up with the scenarios you're trying to avoid for every single other day out of that week.

FYP.

And donfers, if you're questioning the validity of my consistency (you didn't address me directly but from context it seems that way), I urge you to check again-- I've always said there are differences between men and women, and never has it been driven by any sort of "political agenda."

I'm all for equality in terms of human rights. Which is why I see no problem with gender-specific groups for either gender. What I don't believe in is that both genders, outside of genitalia, are identical-- they're not. Neither is better, and neither is worse, because different isn't always better or worse-- it's simply different.

Why must I have some sort of political agenda for saying this? My (male) housemate agrees with me, most of my male friends agree with me, large amounts of documented scientific evidence (that has no political affiliation) agree with me, evolutionary history agrees with me.

Different isn't better or worse. It's just different. Knock it off with the insinuations of sexism and agendas, it's tiring and blatantly false.