Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

'Women only' groups

Options
  • 03-11-2010 5:27pm
    #1
    Trog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭


    Hi guys, I started this thread in AH and was advised to start it again here to get a real discssion about it:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056078550

    I'll just copy and paste my original post for those of you who don't want to read 5 pages of sexist jokes and sparse discussion:

    Right, from the off, I don't want to start a battle of the sexes here. But this is an issue where I'm honestly divided, the lines here seem to be blurry at best.

    I'm a man, and I'm hearing about more and more women-only groups in the media. There's women only gyms, women only book clubs, and today I heard about a women only marijuana advocate group in California.
    Surely there's something amiss here? I understand that in certain circumstances it makes sense to have this- the gym is somewhere a woman might feel intimidated by men perving on them, for example, fair enough. I only wish there was a 'no d**khead gym for me to go to.

    The thing is, say I was to start a men only book club, for example. I'd be chastised for it and there'd be outrage. I wouldn't be able to go on Sean Moncrieff's radio show (where I heard the California thing) saying things like "Well, a lot of men don't like the image associated with book clubs, so I'm starting one where there's a safe environment for them" etc. I'd be abused off the airwaves. And proper order it would be too.

    This kind of behavior draws attention to distinctions which we should be moving on from. Yes, women and men are different, but the more attention we draw to these differences, the more people are going to treat women and men as different.

    Obviously this applies to all kinds of distinctions, but this one is the most prevalent in my opinion. You're far less likely to come across a 'Japanese people only' group, for example.


«134567…14

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Its ok, they still cant join the freemasons, were the REAL power is!!


    I think some golf groups are male only?


  • Options
    #3
    Kooli
    Registered Users Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    I think an important question is - do you want to start a 'men-only book club'? Does anyone? If so, and if there were valid reasons for it, I really don't think there would be the outrage you are imagining.

    I think when women start women-only groups, they do so for genuine reasons of feeling more comfortable in women-only settings.

    Are there occassions where men want to have a 'men only' group but can't? If so, what are they?

    Or is this more a case of arguing theoretically that they should be allowed to?

    If men want to start 'men only' groups for a genuine reason, then fine, go for it! But if they want to do it just because of a perceived discrimination, or just to put two fingers up to the equivalent 'women only' group, then I don't think that's particularly valid.


  • Options
    #4
    Trog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Trog


    I didn't get a chance to respond to this point: (the poster quotes some sexist jokes)
    Comments like this are why there are women's only groups. We realize that for 90% of men these are just jokes and you don't honestly believe that women can't be soldiers and are only sex objects. But when these sorts of comment come up over and over again it gets tiresome. So sometimes you just want to have a discussion that does not devolve into being asked either your cup size or to go make someone a sandwich

    Now I see the point here. Men can be very insensitive, but does segregating us not just add to the problem? Most men who are sexist are so because they feel a huge division between themselves and women, and they cannot identify with them. Surely having groups aimed at separating and excluding them can only make them feel more separated and breed more bad blood so to speak, promoting this casual sexism.

    Speaking from personal experience, I felt like women were an entirely different and incomprehensible species until I went to college and started socializing with them more on a neutral level, where the boundaries had dissipated.

    I'd be interested to hear people's views.


  • Options
    #5
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Men only groups are a bit gay. I recently told a mate of mine who's dad is a member of a male only golf club that his dad is probably a homosexual.


  • Options
    #6
    Kooli
    Registered Users Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    Trog wrote: »
    I didn't get a chance to respond to this point: (the poster quotes some sexist jokes)
    Comments like this are why there are women's only groups. We realize that for 90% of men these are just jokes and you don't honestly believe that women can't be soldiers and are only sex objects. But when these sorts of comment come up over and over again it gets tiresome. So sometimes you just want to have a discussion that does not devolve into being asked either your cup size or to go make someone a sandwich

    Now I see the point here. Men can be very insensitive, but does segregating us not just add to the problem? Most men who are sexist are so because they feel a huge division between themselves and women, and they cannot identify with them. Surely having groups aimed at separating and excluding them can only make them feel more separated and breed more bad blood so to speak, promoting this casual sexism.

    Speaking from personal experience, I felt like women were an entirely different and incomprehensible species until I went to college and started socializing with them more on a neutral level, where the boundaries had dissipated.

    I'd be interested to hear people's views.

    That's an interesting point, but the fact is that if I want to go to a gym it's because I want to go to a gym. If I want to join a book club it's to discuss books. There should be no onus on me to use this platform to try and eradicate casual sexism or to try and teach men what it is like to interact with women on an equal level. I just want to talk about books.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    I'm not sure what the issue is tbh.

    Surely pretty much any private group is allowed to set up and dictate their own rules of membership? What's the alternative? Banning single-sex clubs because too many of them are now appearing for women?

    I'm not sure why you think there would be outrage or you'd be chastised for a male only book-club. I seem to be hearing a lot of this supposed outrage and chastisement men could expect for doing similar but rather unsurprisingly, I haven't actually witnessed any - unless you include the RCC & their priesthood.

    I'm with Bigweld when it comes to setting up niches...for instance, my husband got so fed up with the lack of literature aimed at men, he's writing a book himself - which I think is great. Men and women ARE different and some men and women prefer to be in clubs and societies made up of their own sex only & I think that's okay too. As long as there is no monopoly & the option to have an opposing club for the other sex & maybe even one for both then I don't see the problem. :)


  • Options
    #8
    Trog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Trog


    Kooli wrote: »
    I think an important question is - do you want to start a 'men-only book club'? Does anyone? If so, and if there were valid reasons for it, I really don't think there would be the outrage you are imagining.

    I think when women start women-only groups, they do so for genuine reasons of feeling more comfortable in women-only settings.

    Are there occassions where men want to have a 'men only' group but can't? If so, what are they?

    Or is this more a case of arguing theoretically that they should be allowed to?

    If men want to start 'men only' groups for a genuine reason, then fine, go for it! But if they want to do it just because of a perceived discrimination, or just to put two fingers up to the equivalent 'women only' group, then I don't think that's particularly valid.

    It's more of a theoretical argument, but not that men should be allowed to do it, more that it shouldn't be acceptable at all:

    No, I don't want to start a men only group, because I feel that that is an incredibly unjust thing to do. It can only do damage to society, and separate people on unfair grounds. My point is that this kind of separation shouldn't be deemed appropriate at all, where there is no REAL reason to separate.

    There are a few men only societies and groups like golf clubs and the free masons, but they've all come under considerable attention for their sexist attitudes. The same is to be said for jobs where women aren't made welcome. And rightly so.


  • Options
    #9
    Kooli
    Registered Users Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    Trog wrote: »

    No, I don't want to start a men only group, because I feel that that is an incredibly unjust thing to do. .

    Sorry to be a stickler, but is it that you would like to have a men-only group, but you wouldn't do it because it's 'unjust'? Or is it that it's not something you particularly want, and you also wouldn't agree with the practice cos it's unjust?

    It's an important distinction.

    Women who choose to set up or attend women-only groups do so because this is how they want to conduct whatever activity it is. If it was a mixed group, they would not attend, or they would not enjoy it as much. They are not doing it to spite men, or to create a division.

    If men don't feel that need, then I don't see what the problem is. If there are areas they do feel that need, then they should sort it out and set up a group for themselves.

    No one has a problem with men-only weight watchers groups. They were set up to allow men to feel more comfortable, and not a jot of 'outrage' have I seen!


  • Options
    #10
    Trog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Trog


    Kooli wrote: »

    That's an interesting point, but the fact is that if I want to go to a gym it's because I want to go to a gym. If I want to join a book club it's to discuss books. There should be no onus on me to use this platform to try and eradicate casual sexism or to try and teach men what it is like to interact with women on an equal level. I just want to talk about books.

    Exactly, the point is that it shouldn't be an effort to 'cross the gap' between women and men, because the gap shouldn't even be an issue in the first place. It should just be about talking about books, not MEN talking about books, or WOMEN talking about books.

    The gym is another story, there is a legitimate reason to have an all-female gym, because body image is an issue when going to the gym, one which people can be particularly sensitive about. But there are a lot of groups which highlight a big divide between men and women for trivial reasons.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »

    Surely pretty much any private group is allowed to set up and dictate their own rules of membership? What's the alternative? Banning single-sex clubs because too many of them are now appearing for women?

    I don't think this kind of thing should be banned, as that's just plain infringing on people's rights, but on a societal level, we draw attention to sexism in a very unfair way.

    I agree that women and men are different. But when these differences are trivial, then surely drawing attention to this can only bring bad results. The issue is that men tend to be excluded from many groups where there is no evident reason for men specifically to be excluded.


  • Options
    #11
    LenaClaire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭LenaClaire


    Trog wrote: »
    I didn't get a chance to respond to this point: (the poster quotes some sexist jokes)
    Comments like this are why there are women's only groups. We realize that for 90% of men these are just jokes and you don't honestly believe that women can't be soldiers and are only sex objects. But when these sorts of comment come up over and over again it gets tiresome. So sometimes you just want to have a discussion that does not devolve into being asked either your cup size or to go make someone a sandwich

    Now I see the point here. Men can be very insensitive, but does segregating us not just add to the problem? Most men who are sexist are so because they feel a huge division between themselves and women, and they cannot identify with them. Surely having groups aimed at separating and excluding them can only make them feel more separated and breed more bad blood so to speak, promoting this casual sexism.

    Speaking from personal experience, I felt like women were an entirely different and incomprehensible species until I went to college and started socializing with them more on a neutral level, where the boundaries had dissipated.

    I'd be interested to hear people's views.

    Hi Trog,

    I am glad you re-opened this thread in a new forum. I did not mean to imply that we always want events that are women only. I am happily married and love spending time with my husband and other male friends at co-ed events. I just meant that sometimes it is nice to be able to totally relax and discuss things from a female point of view with out having to worry about being mocked for being a "feminazi" or whatever. It just gets exhausting putting up with the jokes and the comments on your looks.

    I think there should be men only events where men can talk about issues germane to them. Some of my guy friends go on retreats in the woods with big fires and stuff to talk about guy things. I think that is good for them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Denerick wrote: »
    Men only groups are a bit gay. I recently told a mate of mine who's dad is a member of a male only golf club that his dad is probably a homosexual.
    Inbetweeners fan? :pac:

    There are no male only golf clubs, only clubs that only allow men full "membership rights". Woman can and do play there too.


  • Options
    #13
    Trog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Trog


    Kooli wrote: »
    Sorry to be a stickler, but is it that you would like to have a men-only group, but you wouldn't do it because it's 'unjust'? Or is it that it's not something you particularly want, and you also wouldn't agree with the practice cos it's unjust?

    It's an important distinction.

    Women who choose to set up or attend women-only groups do so because this is how they want to conduct whatever activity it is. If it was a mixed group, they would not attend, or they would not enjoy it as much. They are not doing it to spite men, or to create a division.

    If men don't feel that need, then I don't see what the problem is. If there are areas they do feel that need, then they should sort it out and set up a group for themselves.

    No one has a problem with men-only weight watchers groups. They were set up to allow men to feel more comfortable, and not a jot of 'outrage' have I seen!

    I don't particularly want to set up a men only group, but if I did, I would only do it where there was a solid and definable reason to do so. The weight watchers thing is another body-image issue, and the body-image issue is one where the differences between the sexes plays a major factor. So that's fine.

    I understand that they don't do it in spit of men, I am merely suggesting that a better solution to the problem is to stop creating unnecessary boundaries so that both women and men can realize which are the important differences and which are trivial.

    It's not about whether men should be allowed do this, it's about what effect this kind of behavior ultimately has on our attitudes towards each other as a society, and I think this effect is negative, and so this behavior isn't something I support.


  • Options
    #14
    Kooli
    Registered Users Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    Trog wrote: »
    Exactly, the point is that it shouldn't be an effort to 'cross the gap' between women and men, because the gap shouldn't even be an issue in the first place. It should just be about talking about books, not MEN talking about books, or WOMEN talking about books.

    The gym is another story, there is a legitimate reason to have an all-female gym, because body image is an issue when going to the gym, one which people can be particularly sensitive about. But there are a lot of groups which highlight a big divide between men and women for trivial reasons.



    I don't think this kind of thing should be banned, as that's just plain infringing on people's rights, but on a societal level, we draw attention to sexism in a very unfair way.

    I agree that women and men are different. But when these differences are trivial, then surely drawing attention to this can only bring bad results. The issue is that men tend to be excluded from many groups where there is no evident reason for men specifically to be excluded.

    So am I right in saying that your issue is actually that women don't have valid or genuine reasons for wanting 'women-only' groups? The gym one is 'valid' but other groups (like book clubs) are not 'valid' because the differences are trivial and shouldn't be made a big deal of?

    Well I disagree!!

    When I am in a discussion with a group of women, it usually takes a very different tone and course than a discussion with a mixed group. The difference does not have to be about good and bad, better and worse, it's just different - better in some ways, worse in others. So if I want the type of discussion that is more typical with a group of women, I will join a women's only group for it.


  • Options
    #15
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Trog wrote: »
    I don't think this kind of thing should be banned, as that's just plain infringing on people's rights, but on a societal level, we draw attention to sexism in a very unfair way.

    I agree that women and men are different. But when these differences are trivial, then surely drawing attention to this can only bring bad results. The issue is that men tend to be excluded from many groups where there is no evident reason for men specifically to be excluded.

    Surely there is nothing stopping men from setting up their own club, either for their own gender or, indeed, both? We, thankfully, live in a democracy which means that if someone sees a market for single-sex clubs/groups/classes then they have the right to set one up and we all have the right to choose whether to attend the respective group, or not.

    If we can legally segregate children in classrooms according to religion or gender then I'm not sure why a book-club has you making proclamations of doom. :confused:


  • Options
    #16
    Trog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Trog


    jujibee wrote: »
    Hi Trog,

    I am glad you re-opened this thread in a new forum. I did not mean to imply that we always want events that are women only. I am happily married and love spending time with my husband and other male friends at co-ed events. I just meant that sometimes it is nice to be able to totally relax and discuss things from a female point of view with out having to worry about being mocked for being a "feminazi" or whatever. It just gets exhausting putting up with the jokes and the comments on your looks.

    I think there should be men only events where men can talk about issues germane to them. Some of my guy friends go on retreats in the woods with big fires and stuff to talk about guy things. I think that is good for them.

    This is a good point, and I agree that it can be nice to spend time with people of your own sex. Even to organise specific events like retreats. I went to an all boys school and I got a lot from it that I wouldn't have if girls had been there.
    But surely this can be done without setting up large, public societies with explicit rules banning the other sex for very trivial reasons. Instead of joining the women only book club where women talk about books in a way that excludes men, why not just spend some time with your female friends? This doesn't draw attention to a division unnecessarily, and therefore doesn't contribute to a problem.

    I understand that you don't always want to be away from men, and that it can be frustrating dealing with immature people (and trust me, as a man with mostly female friends, it can be equally frustrating for men at times- although perhaps less frequently). But surely the solution to this is still not to draw barriers?


  • Options
    #17
    Kooli
    Registered Users Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    Trog wrote: »
    But surely this can be done without setting up large, public societies with explicit rules banning the other sex for very trivial reasons. Instead of joining the women only book club where women talk about books in a way that excludes men, why not just spend some time with your female friends?

    OK now I'm getting confused - what are these large, public societies with explicit rules? A book club couldn't be described as that, so what are these other discriminatory organisations you are talking about?

    And I don't understand your suggestion that we should just spend more time with our friends rather than joining a women's only book club - that makes no sense to me. The purpose of the book club is to talk about books - spending time with friends is a separate activity that doesn't replace it. The book club isn't necessarily just a way to spend more time with friends?

    I'm baffled to be honest!


  • Options
    #18
    Trog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Trog


    Kooli wrote: »
    So am I right in saying that your issue is actually that women don't have valid or genuine reasons for wanting 'women-only' groups? The gym one is 'valid' but other groups (like book clubs) are not 'valid' because the differences are trivial and shouldn't be made a big deal of?

    Well I disagree!!

    When I am in a discussion with a group of women, it usually takes a very different tone and course than a discussion with a mixed group. The difference does not have to be about good and bad, better and worse, it's just different - better in some ways, worse in others. So if I want the type of discussion that is more typical with a group of women, I will join a women's only group for it.

    As I said above, you can have a women's discussion without drawing attention to barriers.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Surely there is nothing stopping men from setting up their own club, either for their own gender or, indeed, both? We, thankfully, live in a democracy which means that if someone sees a market for single-sex clubs/groups/classes then they have the right to set one up and we all have the right to choose whether to attend the respective group, or not.

    If we can legally segregate children in classrooms according to religion or gender then I'm not sure why a book-club has you making proclamations of doom. :confused:

    There is nothing stopping us, and that's fine, I don't think this kind of thing should be illegal, but I just think that there is a problem in our attitude- we accept and even celebrate some groups without batting an eyelid, even though little thought has been put into the connotations for such ideas. I'm not saying that it'll cause terrible things to happen, I'm just trying to highlight an issue that people don't seem to recognize easily.

    And classroom separation involves children who are at best struggling with their sexual identity. There is a valid reason to separate them- for most of my school years girls confused the hell out of me and distracted me too. If there were girls in my class you could probably have knocked 50-100 points from my leaving cert based on this alone.


  • Options
    #19
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Kooli wrote: »
    When I am in a discussion with a group of women, it usually takes a very different tone and course than a discussion with a mixed group. The difference does not have to be about good and bad, better and worse, it's just different - better in some ways, worse in others. So if I want the type of discussion that is more typical with a group of women, I will join a women's only group for it.

    If its not a case of better or worse, or good or bad, then why bother?
    I can kinda see where Trog is coming from in questioning all these different varieties of womens clubs, it gets to the point of questioning if women truely believed all was equal between men and women, why do women keep wanting to segregate themselves from men?
    Sure in certain circumstances, women may be uncomfortable with men around (gyms etc), but how will that ever change if people dont stop bringing in this culture that women are something that should be kept from men?


  • Options
    #20
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Trog wrote: »
    I understand that they don't do it in spit of men, I am merely suggesting that a better solution to the problem is to stop creating unnecessary boundaries so that both women and men can realize which are the important differences and which are trivial.

    It's not about whether men should be allowed do this, it's about what effect this kind of behavior ultimately has on our attitudes towards each other as a society, and I think this effect is negative, and so this behavior isn't something I support.

    Hang on are you saying women who prefer women only groups are to blame for the sexist attitudes in society cos they are not breaking down those barriers and educating men to not be sexist?

    WTF!

    How about you set up a mens' group and have other men tell men what sexism is and to change thier attitudes cos honestly when women to it they get abused and torn down.


  • Options
    #21
    LenaClaire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭LenaClaire


    Trog wrote: »
    This is a good point, and I agree that it can be nice to spend time with people of your own sex. Even to organise specific events like retreats. I went to an all boys school and I got a lot from it that I wouldn't have if girls had been there.
    But surely this can be done without setting up large, public societies with explicit rules banning the other sex for very trivial reasons. Instead of joining the women only book club where women talk about books in a way that excludes men, why not just spend some time with your female friends? This doesn't draw attention to a division unnecessarily, and therefore doesn't contribute to a problem.

    I understand that you don't always want to be away from men, and that it can be frustrating dealing with immature people (and trust me, as a man with mostly female friends, it can be equally frustrating for men at times- although perhaps less frequently). But surely the solution to this is still not to draw barriers?

    As for the book club issue, many of my female friends are either not interested in book clubs or do not read the same sorts of books as me. So being able to look for a group of women who want to discuss the same sort of books is nice. Also, when I moved I was able to find groups of women with similar interests and make new female friends.

    I would say out of my entire year I spend one day in an all female environment. I don't think by taking this one day (hours wise) out to be in women groups only I am in any way alienating my male friends which I actually have more of than female friends.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Trog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Trog


    Kooli wrote: »
    OK now I'm getting confused - what are these large, public societies with explicit rules? A book club couldn't be described as that, so what are these other discriminatory organisations you are talking about?

    And I don't understand your suggestion that we should just spend more time with our friends rather than joining a women's only book club - that makes no sense to me. The purpose of the book club is to talk about books - spending time with friends is a separate activity that doesn't replace it. The book club isn't necessarily just a way to spend more time with friends?

    I'm baffled to be honest!

    Fair enough, large is probably not the best word, but it's still an explicit public rule that draws attention to a trivial distinction, and excludes men based on a trivial distinction.

    And fair enough, you want to go to a book club to discuss books with women, and you are entitled to do so. I don't want you to not be allowed do this, I just would prefer if people didn't have such segregationist attitudes. What's more, when a similar attitude is presented in the opposite way, to favor men, I don't think it is accepted as easily it is for women.

    Another example of where men are excluded in a perfectly legal, but ethically questionable way is the businesswoman of the year awards. Now, can people not see that giving a woman an award based not just on merit, but on merit of her achievements as a woman specifically, just draws attention specifically to the sex differences in a largely trivial way.
    Now I don't say this should be illegal, I just think people should think about and understand what is happening here. Boundaries which are drawn in a positive light are still boundaries.


  • Options
    #23
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #24
    LenaClaire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭LenaClaire


    Trog wrote: »
    Another example of where men are excluded in a perfectly legal, but ethically questionable way is the businesswoman of the year awards. Now, can people not see that giving a woman an award based not just on merit, but on merit of her achievements as a woman specifically, just draws attention specifically to the sex differences in a largely trivial way.
    Now I don't say this should be illegal, I just think people should think about and understand what is happening here. Boundaries which are drawn in a positive light are still boundaries.

    Business women of the year type things were originated during the times when women were fighting for the right to work at all in management positions. There is still as very large discrepancy in the number of male vs female corporate level employees (CEO, CFO, CTO etc.). I know that is partly due to the generation that is currently holding those positions but the point of these awards is to get young women motivated to aim high for these positions and not just to accept the status quo.


  • Options
    #25
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Maybe some time in the future more people will be gender blind and just see people as they are and not make assumptions based on gender but many, many people are just not there yet.


  • Options
    #26
    maggy_thatcher
    Registered Users Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭maggy_thatcher


    If, instead of men only or women only, somebody picked a different arbitrary genetic marker and said 'blacks only' or 'whites only' would that be any more or less acceptable?

    I don't see the difference myself...if we shun one type of group segregation (especially where the person involved has no choice in which group they are in), we should shun them all.


  • Options
    #27
    Trog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Trog


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Hang on are you saying women who prefer women only groups are to blame for the sexist attitudes in society cos they are not breaking down those barriers and educating men to not be sexist?

    WTF!

    How about you set up a mens' group and have other men tell men what sexism is and to change thier attitudes cos honestly when women to it they get abused and torn down.

    This isn't what I mean to say at all. It's not a matter of who is to blame, it's a matter of what we tend to accept as good for society without consideration. I simply mean to highlight that people don't tend to consider the negative effects of a women-only group as much as a men-only group, and that as a society we should consider this.

    I don't mean to be offensive, but I still don't think what I'm saying here is unreasonable. As for your second paragraph, I think that it's not just about telling people what's sexist and what isn't, it's more about people getting used to what kinds of distinctions beween the sexes are important and what aren't.
    jujibee wrote: »
    As for the book club issue, many of my female friends are either not interested in book clubs or do not read the same sorts of books as me. So being able to look for a group of women who want to discuss the same sort of books is nice. Also, when I moved I was able to find groups of women with similar interests and make new female friends.

    I would say out of my entire year I spend one day in an all female environment. I don't think by taking this one day (hours wise) out to be in women groups only I am in any way alienating my male friends which I actually have more of than female friends.

    And this is reasonable, I wouldn't want to deny you it. Even if you wanted to spend all year with women I wouldn't deny you it. I still feel I have a point though.


  • Options
    #28
    Silverfish
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,696 Mod ✭✭✭✭Silverfish


    They did have a male-only gym in Ireland, I don't think it's around any more.

    There is male-only weightwatchers meetings (and no equivalent female only ones) which I don't think anyone would see an issue with, I certainly wouldn't.


  • Options
    #29
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Maybe some time in the future more people will be gender blind and just see people as they are and not make assumptions based on gender but many, many people are just not there yet.

    Do you think bringing in more and more "women only" versions of groups and services will help or hinder people becoming gender blind?


  • Options
    #30
    Trog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Trog


    maggy_thatcher wrote: »
    If, instead of men only or women only, somebody picked a different arbitrary genetic marker and said 'blacks only' or 'whites only' would that be any more or less acceptable?

    I don't see the difference myself...if we shun one type of group segregation (especially where the person involved has no choice in which group they are in), we should shun them all.

    In my OP I mentioned that I'm focussing on women as this is the most prevalent issue right now in my opinion, but no, any other generic marker is no more acceptable to me, as long as a trivial distinction is used as a grounds for separation then I don't think it should be supported.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    This is how I feel too. I was merely raising the issue in hopes of a good debate, (Which I got.) and to see if anyone could raise any points to make me reconsider my opinion.
    jujibee wrote: »
    Business women of the year type things were originated during the times when women were fighting for the right to work at all in management positions. There is still as very large discrepancy in the number of male vs female corporate level employees (CEO, CFO, CTO etc.). I know that is partly due to the generation that is currently holding those positions but the point of these awards is to get young women motivated to aim high for these positions and not just to accept the status quo.

    Fair enough, and right now there is probably a place for it, on reflection. Although I still feel that once the generation issue is resolved that this type of award can be a negative thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Trog wrote: »
    I don't mean to be offensive, but I still don't think what I'm saying here is unreasonable. As for your second paragraph, I think that it's not just about telling people what's sexist and what isn't, it's more about people getting used to what kinds of distinctions beween the sexes are important and what aren't.

    Did you go to boys only schools growing up?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement