'Women only' groups

Zulu

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I fail to see anything rational about men complaining about women only groups set up in part due the behaviour of men.

The complaint isn't that they have been setup per say - the complaint is that they exclude half of society because of the actions of a tiny percentage; that they exclude half of society because they were born with a penis.

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

The fact that you'd dismiss that point so flippantly as "bitchy" is telling.

Straight question for you.
Do you agree or disagree with the statement: "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."

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

Thats completely understandable, but it's one man. To ban all men on the action of one or a few is bad.

Understandably, we have laws protecting travellers from the same prejudice attitudes.

Why is it ok to have a no-men gym, but not a no-travellers gym?

This is far from what I'd consider a polite discussion - the constant jibes

where am I making jibes? Report them please. Also point them out to me so I can either apologies or explain. I don't believe I was making jibes, and I don't appreciate you trying to belittle my arguments by inferring the same.

liah wrote: »

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.

I'm not twisting your words Liah.

You are still missing my point and trying to make me out to be sexist when I did NOT say "men are the risk."

No you didn't say "men are the risk", but you did say about women only groups that: "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."
To suggest that removing men from the situation means women will "KNOW there will be no threat" means that men post the threat.
If you are now saying that's not quite what you mean; that it came out wrong - fair enough, please clarify, but don't accuse me of twisting your words, don't attempt to belittle my point.

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"--

I don't see the difference.
This to me reads the same as: it's not that all travellers are thieves, but I just don't want to expose myself to the risk of the tiny minority of travellers, so i'll ban the lot.

Rev Hellfire

Zulu wrote: »

I don't see the difference.
This to me reads the same as: it's not that all travellers are thieves, but I just don't want to expose myself to the risk of the tiny minority of travellers, so i'll ban the lot.

qft, to argue to the contrary is simply misandrist.

liah

Zulu wrote: »

I'm not twisting your words Liah.

You certainly were, but alright, whatever you say.

No you didn't say "men are the risk", but you did say about women only groups that: "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."
To suggest that removing men from the situation means women will "KNOW there will be no threat" means that men post the threat.
If you are now saying that's not quite what you mean; that it came out wrong - fair enough, please clarify, but don't accuse me of twisting your words, don't attempt to belittle my point.

Yes. The topic is women-only groups. I've made it perfectly clear I would say the same thing if we were talking about men-only groups. You ARE twisting my words by pretending I'm making this only about women and trying to make me out to be sexist because I see no problem with refuge once in awhile.

Read my last few posts again if you still cannot understand that.

I don't see the difference.
This to me reads the same as: it's not that all travellers are thieves, but I just don't want to expose myself to the risk of the tiny minority of travellers, so i'll ban the lot.

Read my comment about detroit or my last post before this one. If you still can't make sense of it then there's no point continuing this conversation. You are demonizing me and twisting my words to fit your perception of what you think I should be. I don't appreciate it.

EDIT: And why do you lot keep on arguing as if we're "segregating ourselves from society?" It's one hour a week to escape from every single other day of our lives. I'd be behind you if we were legitimately segregated but as I said many times before: mountain = molehill. Your argument is groundless unless we are legitimately arguing for total segregation and not just a one hour a week break.

Zulu

liah wrote: »

You certainly were, but alright, whatever you say.

Please report it & let the mods sort it out.

Straight question for you also.
Do you agree or disagree with the statement: "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."

Read my comment about detroit or my last post before this one. If you still can't make sense of it then there's no point continuing this conversation.

As was pointed out - this analagy is incorrect. It's more like the traveller one I made.

You are demonizing me and twisting my words to fit your perception of what you think I should be. I don't appreciate it.

Then report the post.

liah

Zulu wrote: »

Please report it & let the mods sort it out.

Straight question for you also.
Do you agree or disagree with the statement: "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."

As was pointed out - this analagy is incorrect. It's more like the traveller one I made.

Then report the post.

Reporting would be pointless, you're only "expressing your interpretation of what I have written," and while I may disagree with your interpretation and consider it to be utterly false, I doubt it's enough to make it worthwhile to report.

I would agree with that statement, but that statement isn't what we're talking about. What we're talking about is: "a sub-sect dealing with unsavoury members of another particular group for six days out of the week wanting to have one hour a week 100% guaranteed free of those unsavoury members."

It's not quite tarring every man with the same brush, considering the majority of our lives is spent with both genders. When it is one hour a week to be able to socialize while being 100% guaranteed to not have to deal with things that you put up with for the rest of that week from the opposite gender, where is the segregation? It's just a break.

At this one hour a week level, IT DOES. NOT. MATTER.

Concentrate on the causes of the segregation, or concentrate on it if it starts consuming people's lives, but one hour out of a week? Causing all this? Seriously?

Rev Hellfire

liah wrote: »

It's not quite tarring every man with the same brush, considering the majority of our lives is spent with both genders. When it is one hour a week to be able to socialize while being 100% guaranteed to not have to deal with things that you put up with for the rest of that week from the opposite gender, where is the segregation? It's just a break.

At this one hour a week level, IT DOES. NOT. MATTER.

Cool, so its ok to discriminate as long its for an hour or less.

I hope my local starts an "No travellers hour" so I can have a pint or two safe in the knowledge the pub will not get ransacked or I'll get not stabbed for that duration.

Ickle Magoo

Zulu wrote: »

The complaint isn't that they have been setup per say - the complaint is that they exclude half of society because of the actions of a tiny percentage; that they exclude half of society because they were born with a penis.

I'm not sure you aren't underestimating the percentages involved. I'm not sure that nationwide women's only gym's and clubs have been set up because of the actions of a couple of guys to a couple of girls. I would presume these people are business people first and did their market research - which baring in mind the popularity of female only gyms obviously points to a not insignificant percentage.

I don't think for a minute that all men are anything. Most guys I know are fantastic people I am proud to know - but everywhere women go or meet, you are guaranteed to find creeps/sexist guys who get a kick out of belittling women/aggressive men/whatever. I don't attend any women's only activities bar the classes I hold but I can certainly see why they hold such wide appeal.

Zulu wrote: »

Straight question for you.
Do you agree or disagree with the statement: "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."

I think it's a leading and fairly pointless question, tbh. I work with an all women's group - do I think those hourly once a week classes equate to a segregation issue that is tearing at the fabric of society? No. I think to do so is wildly over-reaching.

Do I think the general treatment of women merits closer examination and there should be a move towards making completely socially unacceptable the kind of behaviour that is driving a wedge between men and women and making women so mistrustful and cynical of men's motives - yes.

Zulu wrote: »

Thats completely understandable, but it's one man. To ban all men on the action of one or a few is bad.

Understandably, we have laws protecting travellers from the same prejudice attitudes.

Why is it ok to have a no-men gym, but not a no-travellers gym?

Why would you assume it's one man? On a typical day a woman may have numerous comments, whistles, whatever - from numerous men. If you put yourself in her shoes for a moment, can you see no reason why a female only group would hold appeal?

You seem determined to view it as negative discrimination against men rather than positive discrimination in favour of women. I see no reason not to blame those men that have popularised women only activities rather than blaming the women for wanting to ensure they don't have to put up with such behaviour. Perhaps if half the population had issues with travellers on a regular basis then legislation would reflect that, too?

Zulu wrote: »

where am I making jibes? Report them please. Also point them out to me so I can either apologies or explain. I don't believe I was making jibes, and I don't appreciate you trying to belittle my arguments by inferring the same.

This is a discussion between lots of people, not just you and I - one poster has already been banned for their contributions and there has been at least one mod warning. Hardly polite discourse.

There have been plenty of back-handed, passive-aggressive statements that things I say are "telling", that any repeat of an opinion to the contrary of your own is "brow-beating" but posters that agree with you repeating their assertions are having rational discourse. Snipes about looking around for like-minded individuals with serve no purpose to your argument save having a dig at other posters that agree with me through your reply to me.

It's an interesting discussion and one worth having, it doesn't help that several contributors appear to have come to the discussion determined to feel insulted and refuse to acknowledge why such clubs and gyms were/are were set up in the first place nor why they continue to be the first choice for some women. Blaming the women that wish to attend women's only activities for having something wrong with them, rather than looking at the wider issue of how on earth a modern society came to the point that women enjoying an activity free from having to deal with men's behaviour became a successful business model, both nationally & internationally rather misses the point.

liah

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Cool, so its ok to discriminate as long its for an hour or less.

I hope my local starts an "No travellers hour" so I can have a pint or two safe in the knowledge the pub will not get ransacked or I'll get not stabbed for that duration.

It's a private establishment, it can do what it likes, and as long as it's not hurting anyone else it doesn't matter. I'd wager there's more than a few places in Ireland where you'll not be let in by travelers.

I can disagree with people's opinions as to the reasons why they join those groups, but if they're genuinely joining them because they're sick of being hassled by the group that's not allowed in-- I don't think the problem lies with them, I think it lies with the ones doing the hassling.

Just to add I've never been and probably will never be a part of any group or affiliation that excludes anyone. Doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed the right to have them should they feel it necessary.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Rev Hellfire

liah wrote: »

Just to add I've never been and probably will never be a part of any group or affiliation that excludes anyone. Doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed the right to have them should they feel it necessary.

Indeed and I've no problem with that.
It's no different to the men-only clubhouses, they're both cut from the same cloth. Trying to argue otherwise is a nonsense.

Nevyn

Well why aren't those who oppse such sexism not demanding that all schools are no longer segrated along genderlines, surely that is more of an issue as it effects more of the population then book clubs and curves?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

liah

If you walked down the street on an average day and had multiple men making comments, wolf-whistling, etc. to get into your educational/work environment to be met with a slew of women jokes, then walked back home in the evening past a bunch of belligerent drunken men who think it's fine to slap your ass as you go by, then get on your computer to go to a forum to be met with even more women jokes and comments and requests to see your tits, and this happened to you multiple times a week, I really don't think you'd see it as so hard to relate to.

No sensible adult actually thinks all anything are anything or legitimately believes in generalizations. But when it happens on such a large scale, so consistently, why is it such a big deal if someone HAPPENS to make a mistake about someone (by turning them away) because they're trying to get rid of all the other bull that comes in such high percentages?

My best friends will always be male and always have been male, I find men a lot easier to relate to most of the time, but I've encountered far more idiots than genuinely normal, good guys. The idiots speak the loudest and are the most aggressive.

Again, it's not like the women who are in women-only groups only ever socialize with women. They don't. They socialize with men, they have brothers, sons, boyfriends, husbands, uncles, grandfathers, friends. They just want a break once in awhile.

I'll never understand why so much energy is being spent attacking the people who are joining these groups instead of attacking the people driving the people to join these groups.

They're the ones ruining it for the rest of you guys, not us.

liah

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Indeed and I've no problem with that.
It's no different to the men-only clubhouses, they're both cut from the same cloth. Trying to argue otherwise is a nonsense.

I know. I've been saying that all along. I have no discrepancies with either men or women or anything-only groups, so long as they don't interfere with anyone else.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Alright, fair enough; for the sake of the argument then, where is this infamous book club being held?

southsiderosie

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure you aren't underestimating the percentages involved. I'm not sure that nationwide women's only gym's and clubs have been set up because of the actions of a couple of guys to a couple of girls. I would presume these people are business people first and did their market research - which baring in mind the popularity of female only gyms obviously points to a not insignificant percentage.

I think the whole market angle of this is not being taken seriously. Gyms like Curves exist because there is a demand for them, and they are expanding like wildfire because they are servicing a segment of the market that other businesses weren't. If I owned a gym, and a Curves opened across the street from me and was thriving, instead of castigating those women, I would ask myself "what are we doing wrong that we are losing all of these potential clients, especially older women with a lot of disposable income?".

I also think that gendered groups can be a "starter point" for women jumping into new activities, especially when it comes to sports. For example, women's surf camps are extremely popular in the US, in part because surfing as a sport has traditionally been very male dominated, and surfers in general can be very territorial. Yet once people gain the confidence from their "entry point" experience, they go on to surf with whomever and where ever they want. I see Curves as fulfilling a similar function: it is a way to ease women into fitness, but once they get comfortable with it and serious about it, then they can move up to a more "serious" co-ed gym.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ickle Magoo

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Cool, so its ok to discriminate as long its for an hour or less.

I hope my local starts an "No travellers hour" so I can have a pint or two safe in the knowledge the pub will not get ransacked or I'll get not stabbed for that duration.

This is a country that allows discrimination against children based on what religion their parents have - in state schools! - for 6hrs a day, five days a week over 12 years or so.

Because I don't want to renounce my nationality, despite living here, paying taxes and PRSI into this countries coffers, I don't get to vote in certain elections.

Discrimination is a part of life and it's not always bad, nor based in hate. Do we insist that football teams allow women to play alongside men? Do we have men and women racing each other at the olympics? We don't even have men and women throwing darts in the same professional competitions for goodness sakes! We have single-sex schools, single-sex help groups, single sex organisations. We have people who want to club in with others who want a united ireland, those who want to see a ban in fox-hunting, etc, etc, etc.

Surely the important thing is that people have a democratic right to set up exclusive or inclusive groups as they wish? Looking at why such groups are popular or have an increased following and dealing with that is the only way to solve any divisive issue - forced disbanding of such groups just serves to sweep the issue under the table.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

If you suggested men wanted to set up a gym because every time they went to the uni-sex gym they got hassle from women - and enough men agreed with that to the point that setting up a men-only gym was a plausible business model, I wouldn't be calling it sexist. I'd be horrified and I'd be demanding a closer look at what the hell women were playing at.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I wasn't as aware of so many women's only activities around even 10-15 years ago, not as widespread anyway. I'm not sure that means that women's lot in society has grown worse, rather that more women are capable of doing something about it.

Nevyn

liah wrote: »

If you walked down the street on an average day and had multiple men making comments, wolf-whistling, etc. to get into your educational/work environment to be met with a slew of women jokes, then walked back home in the evening past a bunch of belligerent drunken men who think it's fine to slap your ass as you go by, then get on your computer to go to a forum to be met with even more women jokes and comments and requests to see your tits, and this happened to you multiple times a week, I really don't think you'd see it as so hard to relate to.

But I have found that there are men who'd never behave in such away and so don't think the above happens in this day and age, it's either they are luck in their life or they are blinkered or don't see how such things can impact.

Mark Hamill

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

More like why can't she have one activity where such behaviour is guaranteed to be avoided?

Why cant all activities be guaranteed to avoid such behaviour

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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?

With the ever growing number of women only groups and services? No not really, it will only get worse.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

So because there isn't sexual equality, you promote sexual inequality in order to combat sexual inequality?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

My poiny is they shouldn't have to go somewhere special to avoid chauvinists, its hould be a matter of fact. Having more and more womens only groups will not ever achieve this.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

Do you think it will ever disappear if they dont?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

Its giving in, thats my problem with it. Its saying that such men will always exist and instead of dealing with it, you just say, I cant do anything about it, so why bother.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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?

But I do blame them. By setting up more and more womens only activities, its the women who are accepting them.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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?

Again, you are implying that significant numbers of the women in all womens groups have psychological reasons for wanting to avoid men, something which isn't necessarily supported by the statistics or by the other people who agree with you here (kooli wants women only groups so she can discuss womens issues in the gym or in book clubs without men over hearing).

liah

Thaedydal wrote: »

But I have found that there are men who'd never behave in such away and so don't think the above happens in this day and age, it's either they are luck in their life or they are blinkered or don't see how such things can impact.

Of course there's men who'd never behave in such a way, not once have I ever said all men are like that. Quite the contrary.

Unfortunately, it does happen in this day and age, when I was living in Ireland it happened to me at least once a week or more.

Doesn't change the fact that my best friends are still guys, doesn't make me think all guys are like that, but it does make me want to hide away from the vocal minority who are like that.

Nevyn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is the usa and while their school system has many flaws it's not as screwed up as our here. I have not seen any of the posters who are condemning female book clubs and blaming them on encouraging sexism decrying single sex schooling, esp as it seems to have done a disservice to the Op.

Mark Hamill

metrovelvet wrote: »

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.

I'm sorry did you just say you cant use logic to create new ideas?

Mark Hamill

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

Logical arguments only "fail" when people wont, for emotional reasons, accept the logic. People who claim you cant use logic or reason in spiritual or emotional matters are simply basing this on the fact that they dont want to use logic or reason as these matters tend to fall apart as nothing more than wishful thinking quite quickly.

southsiderosie

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think it's a bit of both, and somewhat contextual. I don't always think that women relate better to other women, but certainly when it comes to some parenting issues and work-related problems, then I can see why women would seek to form these kinds of groups. Whether they will help is another matter altogether, since some women's parenting groups are EXTREMELY judgemental about people's choices.

There are also some contexts where the behavior of some men is obnoxious enough to make some women want to create a space that they can occasionally retreat to, in order to catch their breath a bit. I think the AH/TLL dynamic is an example of this, but I would note that men are certainly most welcome in TLL, (and indeed there is a male moderator) but under the terms of the forum.

Maybe that is where the happy medium is: women seek out women's groups in order to bond around some kind of shared experience, but because the interpretation of these experiences is not always universal, they may have to shop around a bit to find like-minded women. Women also seek out women's groups as a refuge from a certain kind of male behavior, and theoretically these groups could include men as long as they were bound by the norms of the expected group dynamic.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

liah

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not part of any book club, gender-segregated or not, so I don't really know what goes on. I've used the term book club a lot but in all honesty I'm arguing the idea of women or men-only groups in general, not just book clubs. Therefore I honestly don't know the reasons why the book club itself is segregated. I'm simply offering up reasons as to why people may want out once in awhile.

Again, as long as they're not hurting anyone and they're private, they can do what they like.

The issue should be with the reasons why they find it necessary to retreat, not what they retreat to.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

liah

Which is the worst problem:

1) The particular men who drive women to these groups giving all men a bad name, or
2) The women who join these groups to avoid those particular men?

(feel free to replace "men" and "women" with whatever group of your choice).

Ickle Magoo

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why cant all activities be guaranteed to avoid such behaviour

Why can't they indeed. Why did it get to the stage that women's only gyms were set up - or that they proved popular enough to pop up in every town? I appreciate it's more anecdotes but certainly most women I know are blue in the face dealing with sexism or chauvinism on multiple fronts in their life.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

With the ever growing number of women only groups and services? No not really, it will only get worse.

Then what has to happen to stop that? Women have to see that uni-sex activities are as much fun, as safe and as stress-free as their single-sex alternatives. It's not just women's responsibility to ensure that happens, surely?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So because there isn't sexual equality, you promote sexual inequality in order to combat sexual inequality?

I don't think women should have to avoid attending same-sex activities and argue and fight and complain and try to ignore some of the reasons that make single-sex activities so popular for the sake of some utopian ideal.

If the sexual inequality was dealt with - hell, even the level acknowledged would be a start! - then I don't think they would be so popular. I don't think it's just up to women to deal with sexual inequality, nor martyr themselves for the sake of keeping false appearances of equality.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My poiny is they shouldn't have to go somewhere special to avoid chauvinists, its hould be a matter of fact. Having more and more womens only groups will not ever achieve this.

But it will perhaps trigger more conversations like this to happen and that in turn may (hopefully) slowly move what is or isn't socially acceptable or deemed offensive - and that may lead to more men realising what should be what the rest of us consider matter of fact.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you think it will ever disappear if they dont?

If it won't disappear either way, it's a completely pointless question, isn't it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its giving in, thats my problem with it. Its saying that such men will always exist and instead of dealing with it, you just say, I cant do anything about it, so why bother.

I think it's more like saying I have to deal with shmucks like this at work, I had to deal with them at school, I have to deal with them whenever I go out - here is one place I don't have to deal with them. Hurrah!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But I do blame them. By setting up more and more womens only activities, its the women who are accepting them.

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Attending a women's only gym doesn't negate any fight against sexism or chauvinism that the woman most likely has/will have in other aspects of her life.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Again, you are implying that significant numbers of the women in all womens groups have psychological reasons for wanting to avoid men, something which isn't necessarily supported by the statistics or by the other people who agree with you here (kooli wants women only groups so she can discuss womens issues in the gym or in book clubs without men over hearing).

I've said numerous times that there are many reasons for women wanting to attend women-only activities - my women's class is certainly driven by the men's behaviour they have witnessed/experienced so I'm looking at things from that angle.

When looking at a group in society that is increasingly looking to exclude another's involvement in areas of their life - ignoring why that is or blaming those for wanting to get away is fruitless.

Nevyn

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why cant all activities be guaranteed to avoid such behaviour

Life would be just peachy if we could but who's going to police it?

Yes ideally women should be free to take part in any group no matter the topic or focus and never have to suffer stupid sexism and their gender being made an issue of.

But life doesn't work that way, I know women how have dropped out of everything ranging from open source coding groups to hill walking to online gaming guilds/clans to the peace core as they found that sexist attitudes were ignored or were the default and when they raised the issue were shouted down, frozen out, told it was they were too sensitive or they were too reactionary. So that going to the group/actibity became stressful and they were constantly fighting that battle and it worn them out and being unable to effect change esp when the rest of the people didn't think it was needed they left.

I would say any group which has women leave time and time again should have a look at why. Many groups are unknowingly hostile to women and having one or two women who are accepted as one of the lads and perpetuate sexist behaviour and thinking doesn't change that.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

With the ever growing number of women only groups and services? No not really, it will only get worse.

Are you concerned we will see women segregate themselves utterly for all hobbies?

Why does this concern you?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My poiny is they shouldn't have to go somewhere special to avoid chauvinists, its hould be a matter of fact.

You are right we shouldn't but the world and people is flawed and imperfect.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Having more and more womens only groups will not ever achieve this.

I think educating people is more needed then shutting down women only spaces. We dont' have gender studies, we don't have modern history,
teens aren't made aware of the changes in society in the last 60 years and let examine the thinking they have towards each gender and people.


But women only spaces can provide support and encouragement so that women can talk about experiencing chauvinists and sexism and not to be then told they are being too sensitive and such things don't exist.
And if more women are able to make a call on if something is out of order and shout out then hopefully change will happen.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its giving in, thats my problem with it. Its saying that such men will always exist and instead of dealing with it, you just say, I cant do anything about it, so why bother.

I think you will find women can only do so much and that men have a part to play in solving this issue, men need to talk to other men and say sexism isn't cool and to call each other out instead of playing along and re enforcing which thinking.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But I do blame them. By setting up more and more womens only activities, its the women who are accepting them.

Do you honestly think that cos I have been to women only groups, sessions, seminars, workshops that I have given up and accepted sexism?

Or that as I go to pagan only gatherings, workshops moots and weekends that I have given up pointing out how where and when the RC church has too much power in this country?

Or that as I have been to Bisexual workshops, gatherings and conventions that I have given up and am accepting of bisexual erasure?

Hell no, each chance to reconnect with others who experience some of the same things I do, which are related to how I differ from the norm renews my spirit, lets me know I am not alone and that others get sick of the same bullshít from people.