'Women only' groups

Trog · 03-11-2010 6:45pm

Silverfish wrote: »

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.

Yes, but in issues involving body image then the oposite sexes do actually play a significant role so I wouldn't see any harm. My issue is where distinctions are drawn trivially. Eg, womens book club, womens car insurance etc...

Trog · 03-11-2010 6:47pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Did you go to boys only schools growing up?

Yes, and as I said, because I was an adolescent and at that age girls distracted and confused me, I would consider this acceptable.

Kooli · 03-11-2010 6:48pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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?

I actually dont know how to answer your first question apart from being blindingly obvious - if they are different, and I am looking for those particular differences in a particular context, then that's why I'd bother?

OK let's stick with the book club example: let's just say I wanted a boisterous, loud, argumentative discussion with lots of laughs, I believe I would be more likely to get that in a mixed setting with both sexes present. But if I wanted a quieter discussion, where I don't have to shout or compete to be heard, and I won't be interrupted, but I might not laugh as much, then I would be more likely to get this in a female only book club. YES these are generalisations and YES there are exceptions, before I get all the inevitable responses of 'me and my mates laugh more than any guys I know' or 'Lots of guys are capable of a thoughtful discussion'. I realise there are exceptions, but generally there are differences between how groups of men and groups of women talk.

And on your second point - equal does not mean the same. Not for me anyway. I have never been of the opinion that there is no difference between the sexes, and I don't think you have to see things that way to believe in equality.

I see that you're questioning why women want to segregate themselves from men - do you have a theory about why? You seem to be saying that it implies something about their beliefs about equality?

Nevyn · 03-11-2010 6:49pm

Trog wrote: »

Yes, and as I said, because I was an adolescent and at that age girls distracted and confused me, I would consider this acceptable.

I think it's part of the problem and not everyone goes on to college or to environments where they can learn women are people too and not lesser
and not be be made a mockery of or a stereotype out of.

Ickle Magoo · 03-11-2010 6:56pm

Trog wrote: »

Yes, but in issues involving body image then the oposite sexes do actually play a significant role so I wouldn't see any harm. My issue is where distinctions are drawn trivially. Eg, womens book club, womens car insurance etc...

Women's car insurance is there because of the disparity between claims in terms of men and women drivers - not because women specifically WANT to be in an exclusive insurance group that only has other women in it regardless of the premiums on offer.

I still don't see an issue, if people want to be in groups for men or women, then what is the actual problem?

First of all you say;

then surely drawing attention to this can only bring bad results

then;

I'm not saying that it'll cause terrible things to happen,

Which is it? What "terrible things"?

There are different dynamics in same-sex groups than there are in mixed. I can understand why people of either gender would want to have a single-sex club or group. As long as it's a book club and not a government or official decision making process then I don't know why it would be a big deal?

Trog · 03-11-2010 6:58pm

Kooli wrote: »

I actually dont know how to answer your first question apart from being blindingly obvious - if they are different, and I am looking for those particular differences in a particular context, then that's why I'd bother?

OK let's stick with the book club example: let's just say I wanted a boisterous, loud, argumentative discussion with lots of laughs, I believe I would be more likely to get that in a mixed setting with both sexes present. But if I wanted a quieter discussion, where I don't have to shout or compete to be heard, and I won't be interrupted, but I might not laugh as much, then I would be more likely to get this in a female only book club. YES these are generalisations and YES there are exceptions, before I get all the inevitable responses of 'me and my mates laugh more than any guys I know' or 'Lots of guys are capable of a thoughtful discussion'. I realise there are exceptions, but generally there are differences between how groups of men and groups of women talk.

And on your second point - equal does not mean the same. Not for me anyway. I have never been of the opinion that there is no difference between the sexes, and I don't think you have to see things that way to believe in equality.

I see that you're questioning why women want to segregate themselves from men - do you have a theory about why? You seem to be saying that it implies something about their beliefs about equality?

Ok, I understand your reasons for wanting a women only book club, but perhaps you're just looking for a book club with a particular code of etiquette. As you said, you're basing your distinction on generalization, which I think is unfair, while it's hardly an outrage or discrimination.

And equal definitely doesn't mean the same. however where the differences between men and women are not involved, we shouldn't treat them as important. If you were looking for your above book club, wouldn't it be fairer to have one where everyone's allowed in, but if they don't respect the wishes of others via the rules of etiquette you outlined above, THEN they're excluded? Instead of picking out a characteristic based on a generalization and attributing it to every man, how about you just exclude people with that characteristic?

Now, I don't think that wanting a women only group implies anything about anyones beliefs on equality explicitly, I do think that such groups tend to contain exclusions that people would otherwise claim to be unfair. I think people don't consider this enough, hence the discussion.

I'd like to add- I don't want to put a stop to women only groups, I just want to draw attention to the way in which we tend not to consider the issue at all.

Trog · 03-11-2010 7:02pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

I think it's part of the problem and not everyone goes on to college or to environments where they can learn women are people too and not lesser
and not be be made a mockery of or a stereotype out of.

Agreed. But such environments are hard to come by when divisions are so widely accepted. Again, not saying there's any responsibility on women for setting up these groups, merely pointing it out for consideration.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

First of all you say;

then;

Which is it? What "terrible things"?

What I mean is, the effects are hardly to be disastrous, but they still harm the cause if we consider ourselves to be aiming for gender blindness. (Never heard that term before, it's very accurate.)

Edit:
I haven't done ANY study today. I'm an idiot for posting this. Very interesting discussion, thanks to all involved, but I gots ta go read some sh1t.

Ickle Magoo · 03-11-2010 7:11pm

Trog wrote: »

What I mean is, the effects are hardly to be disastrous, but they still harm the cause if we consider ourselves to be aiming for gender blindness. (Never heard that term before, it's very accurate.)

The cause? What cause does a women's only gym harm? If there is a clear demand for single-sex clubs then we clearly don't consider ourselves aiming for gender blindness in all aspects of life.

While I can see why equality in terms of paying the same for the same work regardless of gender, or giving equal parental leave is hugely beneficial across the board, I'm not sure why having the choice between mixed and single-sex book reading groups or gyms is an issue.

Mark Hamill · 03-11-2010 7:14pm

Kooli wrote: »

I actually dont know how to answer your first question apart from being blindingly obvious - if they are different, and I am looking for those particular differences in a particular context, then that's why I'd bother?

I thought it would be blindingly obvious that if the differences were not about better or worse, then they are simply arbitrary, and therefore dont really matter.

Kooli wrote: »

OK let's stick with the book club example: let's just say I wanted a boisterous, loud, argumentative discussion with lots of laughs, I believe I would be more likely to get that in a mixed setting with both sexes present. But if I wanted a quieter discussion, where I don't have to shout or compete to be heard, and I won't be interrupted, but I might not laugh as much, then I would be more likely to get this in a female only book club. YES these are generalisations and YES there are exceptions, before I get all the inevitable responses of 'me and my mates laugh more than any guys I know' or 'Lots of guys are capable of a thoughtful discussion'. I realise there are exceptions, but generally there are differences between how groups of men and groups of women talk.

That just sounds stupid-men cant discuss things without being loud? Ever seen or heard an argument between a teenage girl and her father. Also, for somone cliaming its not about better or worse, you seem to be implying that its is about being better, women book clubs are better because they, apparently, are quieter (unless you are claiming that men like to shout to be heard?).

Kooli wrote: »

And on your second point - equal does not mean the same. Not for me anyway. I have never been of the opinion that there is no difference between the sexes, and I don't think you have to see things that way to believe in equality.

No two people in the world are equal, regardless of what sex they are. I, obviously dont think everything is completely equal between men and women, I just dont see any immediate difference between a man and a women (bar the biological) than I would see between two men or two women. I thought that was the point of equality?

Kooli wrote: »

I see that you're questioning why women want to segregate themselves from men - do you have a theory about why? You seem to be saying that it implies something about their beliefs about equality?

It seems to be a step backwards in terms of equality, imo. Women are being brought up to think that men will bother them if they mix in certain circumstances and that its up to the women to make their own groups and services so they have to deal with men as little as possible, rather than actually deal with the problem and demand equality from the men bothering them. It reminds me of muslims arguing the burka is there to protect women from mens uncontrollable lust, while everyone else with a brain sees how ridiculous it is for the women themselves to be convinced that its their fault for how men might react and that its up to them to do something about it.

Nevyn · 03-11-2010 7:24pm

Trog wrote: »

Agreed. But such environments are hard to come by when divisions are so widely accepted.

No those environments are not hard to come by they start in the home.

Mark Hamill · 03-11-2010 7:31pm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The cause? What cause does a women's only gym harm? If there is a clear demand for single-sex clubs then we clearly don't consider ourselves aiming for gender blindness in all aspects of life.

While I can see why equality in terms of paying the same for the same work regardless of gender, or giving equal parental leave is hugely beneficial across the board, I'm not sure why having the choice between mixed and single-sex book reading groups or gyms is an issue.

I cant help but take what you are saying and replace "sex" or "gender" with "race" and wonder if you would see things the same way.

Why shouldn't we be aiming for gender blindness in all aspects of life where we can? Why accept that there is some fundamental difference between men and women in terms of, say, book clubs when there isn't, the difference is personality based, not gender based and group ettiquette rules will eliminate the undesired behavour which can exist in either gender.

I just dont see how we can ignore the less obvious inequalities while trying to claim that the big ones dont exist. If men and women should have equal parenting rights and equal pay, then why shouldn't they too have equal gyms, equal book clubs or equal protest groups? It begs the question of why these needs that drive the formation of "women only" services are ignored in terms of parenting and pay and just works against the gender equality cause (imo).

Mark Hamill · 03-11-2010 7:36pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

No those environments are not hard to come by they start in the home.

Only to a point. You see the women biologically related to you as being different to the women not biologically related to you (hormones, sexual partner viability and all that). While I never thought of women in any way less than men when I entered college (from an all boy primary/secondary education) it certainly took me a while to learn to speak to them as comfortably as I can speak to other guys.

CDfm · 03-11-2010 7:40pm

Take Portmarnock Golf Club which is men only members but women can play etc -well the court ruling there by a female judge was very balanced and wise.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1103/breaking34.html

Take Curves gyms -women only - private clubs - http://www.curves.ie/

If a woman goes to a gym and wants to put her bits back where she would prefer them to be without guys looking -well she should be able to and we alll have sensitivities.

Not a problem there for me and I think they are a good thing btw.

I would not want to join a golf club etc without female members but thats just me as I imagine it would be a bit stuffy for me and a lot of my friends are women. God only knows why as I am fairly un p.c. and unreconstructed at times.

Some people see gender stereotyping or single gender stuff as empowering but I have my doubts if such a group would be for me.

That said, I would feel odd saying in front of women " my nuts are sore" ( I have a woman GP & no concerns about medical professionals )and so on.

Some militant womens groups get up my nose and I try to stay away from that kind of stuff these days. A militant mens group would do the same as it is against my instincts. I am a Dad and would have liked to have been treated equally as a parent but c'est la vie. Tempus Fugit.

Kooli · 03-11-2010 7:51pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That just sounds stupid-men cant discuss things without being loud? Ever seen or heard an argument between a teenage girl and her father. Also, for somone cliaming its not about better or worse, you seem to be implying that its is about being better, women book clubs are better because they, apparently, are quieter (unless you are claiming that men like to shout to be heard?).

.

No both have aspects that are 'better'. If I want to prioritise a thoughtful discussion with no interruptions than the women's one would be better. If I want to prioritise a more lively discussion with a lot more laughter, the mixed one would be better. Again it's generalisations, but I can't be persuaded that there are no differences between men and women!!

I'm also not saying men can't discuss things without being loud, but that men's discussions do tend to be louder, and loud is not actually a bad thing! Louder and quieter do not imply a judgement - it just depends what you're looking for.

I don't necessarily think it's important for men to learn to be quieter - why should they? Nor do I think women should learn to speak up more and louder and interrupt - why should they?

I'm actually someone who values the differences between men and women, and I don't think we should aim for everyone being the same.

Trog · 03-11-2010 8:04pm

CDfm wrote: »

Take Portmarnock Golf Club which is men only members but women can play etc -well the court ruling there by a female judge was very balanced and wise.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1103/breaking34.html

Take Curves gyms -women only - private clubs - http://www.curves.ie/

If a woman goes to a gym and wants to put her bits back where she would prefer them to be without guys looking -well she should be able to and we alll have sensitivities.

Not a problem there for me and I think they are a good thing btw.

Well, I don't think Portmarnock Golf Club should be legally forced to accept women. I'm talking about our attitudes to these things, not the law.

And the gym thing, as I said already, pertains to an issue which is specifically influenced by gender issues- body image.

Kooli wrote: »

No both have aspects that are 'better'. If I want to prioritise a thoughtful discussion with no interruptions than the women's one would be better. If I want to prioritise a more lively discussion with a lot more laughter, the mixed one would be better. Again it's generalisations, but I can't be persuaded that there are no differences between men and women!!

I'm also not saying men can't discuss things without being loud, but that men's discussions do tend to be louder, and loud is not actually a bad thing! Louder and quieter do not imply a judgement - it just depends what you're looking for.

I don't necessarily think it's important for men to learn to be quieter - why should they? Nor do I think women should learn to speak up more and louder and interrupt - why should they?

But you're still making a generalization and assuming all men to have a characteristic that they don't necessarily have. Here you shouldn't be avoiding men, you should avoid people who are loud. If a lot of men happen to fit that profile, so be it, but don't tar everyone with the same brush.

Consider if I was to say (hypothetically) I don't like to talk to women because in my opinion most of them are shallow. I know it's a generalization but it's true in my opinion. Now this is a view that I'm legally entitled to have. But would you honestly accept and support it as an opinion appropriate for our ideal societal values? No, of course not, because it's an unfair assumption.

Edit:
AGH! I can't leave this. Must... do... work... Or I could watch mad men... (A woman copywriter? Now THERE's equality

)

Nevyn · 03-11-2010 8:11pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Only to a point. You see the women biologically related to you as being different to the women not biologically related to you (hormones, sexual partner viability and all that). While I never thought of women in any way less than men when I entered college (from an all boy primary/secondary education) it certainly took me a while to learn to speak to them as comfortably as I can speak to other guys.

The limitations placed on people due to gender start in the home with house work seen as women's work ect.

If you never had contact with women other then family and then when you went to college I would ask why did you segregate yourself? There are plenty of youth groups, hobbies and voluntary groups you could have been a member of and worked with and along side women.

Shame your parented didn't ensure that you had the socail skills and experience to talk to people.

Permabear · 03-11-2010 8:12pm

This post has been deleted.

Ickle Magoo · 03-11-2010 8:14pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I cant help but take what you are saying and replace "sex" or "gender" with "race" and wonder if you would see things the same way.

Why shouldn't we be aiming for gender blindness in all aspects of life where we can? Why accept that there is some fundamental difference between men and women in terms of, say, book clubs when there isn't, the difference is personality based, not gender based and group ettiquette rules will eliminate the undesired behavour which can exist in either gender.

I just dont see how we can ignore the less obvious inequalities while trying to claim that the big ones dont exist. If men and women should have equal parenting rights and equal pay, then why shouldn't they too have equal gyms, equal book clubs or equal protest groups? It begs the question of why these needs that drive the formation of "women only" services are ignored in terms of parenting and pay and just works against the gender equality cause (imo).

I can't help but take what you are saying and think if you could take on my class of women who have suffered domestic violence and wonder if you'd see things the same way.

The fact is people have all variety of experiences in life,whether it's a teenager uncomfortable with the lewd comments and wolf whistles in the uni-sex gym or an older women who wants to explore erotic literature with her peers. I don't see why gender specific clubs that cater for such people should be viewed negatively as long as there is alternatives for everyone else.

I can understand why a group that wants to discriminate based on hatred would not be desirable & I agree - however, many women only-groups were set up because of men's treatment of women in same sex groups. Now, while I can understand the injustice of not tarring all men with the same brush I still wouldn't invite my very non-violent, gentle husband to my battered women's class. If you want to view that as akin to hating black people, be my guest.

CDfm · 03-11-2010 8:17pm

Trog wrote: »

Consider if I was to say (hypothetically) I don't like to talk to women because in my opinion most of them are shallow. I know it's a generalization but it's true in my opinion. Now this is a view that I'm legally entitled to have. But would you honestly accept and support it as an opinion appropriate for our ideal societal values? No, of course not, because it's an unfair assumption.

Well - I have been to more treatments than my female partner in the past year. I haven't told her yet but we have been invited to a lesbian birthday party -we missed another as we were on holiday.

Now that elections are being talked about -if I was canvassed by a politician I would ask them straight out where they stood on particular "gender issues" and values. Not least because I would hate to see my son go thru what I did in a divorce. Women should want equal treatment for their children irrespective of gender too.

Trog · 03-11-2010 8:19pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

The limitations placed on people due to gender start in the home with house work seen as women's work ect.

In this I wholeheartedly and categorically agree with you. And it's not right to place responsibilities on women unfairly in the home. (I'm still useless at housework though.:P)

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Exactly. And what's more, there is little to suggest that this would ever be the case non-accidentally.

Trog · 03-11-2010 8:30pm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I can understand why a group that wants to discriminate based on hatred would not be desirable & I agree - however, many women only-groups were set up because of men's treatment of women in same sex groups. Now, while I can understand the injustice of not tarring all men with the same brush I still wouldn't invite my very non-violent, gentle husband to my battered women's class. If you want to view that as akin to hating black people, be my guest.

Your post presents a very good point, and perhaps I shouldn't mind as long as there's no basis in malice or hate.

But the above I would distinguish as a separate issue. Obviously, a group set up specifically for victims of domestic (or any kind of) abuse has a very good grounds for being exclusive. Similarly, I would say it is very acceptable to exclude non-alcoholics from alcoholism support groups, or those that aren't grieving from a bereavement group. But the issue for me is only where this kind of valid reason is absent.

whydoibother? · 03-11-2010 8:31pm

I not sure about my views on when people should be allowed to exclude either gender from a club, but all I can say is that I find equally balanced groups more pleasant to be in. I'm a girl and I know that often too many girls left alone for long enough can equal bitchy. I've also spent time in very male-dominated environments and watching them try to outdo each other in the "macho-ness" stakes becomes very tedious, especially when it involves demeaning women in front of me ... detailing their "conquests" for example. I know I'm picking out the worst here, and I'm not suggesting any of this goes on at these lovely book clubs and many other well-behaved single-sex groups. But personally I've always found a much nicer atmosphere where it's a 50/50 split.

Trog · 03-11-2010 8:36pm

whydoibother? wrote: »

I not sure about my views on when people should be allowed to exclude either gender from a club, but all I can say is that I find equally balanced groups more pleasant to be in. I'm a girl and I know that often too many girls left alone for long enough can equal bitchy. I've also spent time in very male-dominated environments and watching them try to outdo each other in the "macho-ness" stakes becomes very tedious, especially when it involves demeaning women in front of me ... detailing their "conquests" for example. I know I'm picking out the worst here, and I'm not suggesting any of this goes on at these lovely book clubs and many other well-behaved single-sex groups. But personally I've always found a much nicer atmosphere where it's a 50/50 split.

I agree. I actually have more female friends than male. I find that you're more likely to come across agreeable people in a group which is mixed than in a group which is dominated by one sex or the other. But maybe that's just to do with the type of personality I like to be around. Could also just be a coincidence.

LenaClaire · 03-11-2010 8:40pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It seems to be a step backwards in terms of equality, imo. Women are being brought up to think that men will bother them if they mix in certain circumstances and that its up to the women to make their own groups and services so they have to deal with men as little as possible, rather than actually deal with the problem and demand equality from the men bothering them. It reminds me of muslims arguing the burka is there to protect women from mens uncontrollable lust, while everyone else with a brain sees how ridiculous it is for the women themselves to be convinced that its their fault for how men might react and that its up to them to do something about it.

I was brought up by very liberal parents to treat everyone equally and expect equality in turn so I would not say I was "brought up" to expect men to bother me. I managed to learn that lesson all on my own through the behavior of some boorish men. I am not say that all or even many men behave this way but enough do to make me wary of the rest.

Dangerous Man · 03-11-2010 10:18pm

I studied English literature in college. A large portion of our time was spent sitting around in mixed-gender groups discussing literature. Books. Some people were loud and obnoxious - not all men and not not all women. Some spoke with agendas in mind - not all men - not all women. Some people were thick -not all men - not all women. Some people had insightful things to say - not all men - not all women. Perspectives varied. In short there is absolutely no need whatsoever for a women's book club. There is no benefit in omitting men if the purpose of the club is to discuss literature.

Truley · 03-11-2010 10:23pm

This is an interesting topic and I'm sorry I haven't read the whole thread but I'll add my 2c. As a woman I have absolutely no issue with male or female only clubs or businesses that provide private services to consenting adults. That includes the likes of book clubs, gyms or the infamous Portmarnock.

However there are instances where gender discrimination does annoy me. One case in point being gender segregation of children's services. I recall seeing a poster recently in the school I work advertising a girl's only after school knitting and craft club. I think that in this case there is no legitimate reason for barring a person based on their gender. I also think that it's different from a private organisation in that it actively witholds a service from a person because of their gender rather than serving a genuine niche like a golf club or therapy group does.

That aside, I also think it sends out a really terrible message to young children about attitudes to gender and gender roles. Why is it considered okay to tell a boy that knitting is a girl's only occupation?

Another issue I have is the prevalence of a women's officer or representative in committees that don't provide a similar male role, examples off the top of my head being student unions and a few government funded sports organisations. This I think actively encourages a disproportionate gender relationship which I think is unnecessary.

I can see what the OP is getting at, though it seems most people don't seem to have a problem with gender bias on a private or commercial basis. I think the real focus should be on supposedly 'positive' discrimination in public institutions, children's services and committees etc I don't think gender prejudice should be acceptable in these instances.

wolfpawnat · 03-11-2010 10:24pm

How I like to see it is if a girl went to a gym and was told sorry, you can't come in on the grounds of your gender, she would claim it to be sexest and unfair.

Women spent years trying to get equal rights, now they have them, they want more. I don't care if you feel awkward going to the gym with men there. Get over yourself!

Either everyone, or no one IMO.

And it is not Mother and Toddler Groups, Its parent and toddler. I am sick of seeing dads/granddads coming in with the kids and being ignored!!!

PS I am a woman.

Trog · 03-11-2010 10:34pm

Truley wrote: »

That aside, I also think it sends out a really terrible message to young children about attitudes to gender and gender roles. Why is it considered okay to tell a boy that knitting is a girl's only occupation?

Another issue I have is the prevalence of a women's officer or representative in committees that don't provide a similar male role, examples off the top of my head being student unions and a few government funded sports organisations. This I think actively encourages a disproportionate gender relationship which I think is unnecessary.

I can see what the OP is getting at, though it seems most people don't seem to have a problem with gender bias on a private or commercial basis. I think the real focus should be on supposedly 'positive' discrimination in public institutions, children's services and committees etc I don't think gender prejudice should be acceptable in these instances.

Some great points. Positive discrimination is a huge problem in my eyes, not just in the sex divide. The thing is that people don't realize that singling people out based on trivial factors like race or sex isn't a great idea, even if it is in praise. I think people just don't really think about it.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

How I like to see it is if a girl went to a gym and was told sorry, you can't come in on the grounds of your gender, she would claim it to be sexest and unfair.

Women spent years trying to get equal rights, now they have them, they want more. I don't care if you feel awkward going to the gym with men there. Get over yourself!

Either everyone, or no one IMO.

And it is not Mother and Toddler Groups, Its parent and toddler. I am sick of seeing dads/granddads coming in with the kids and being ignored!!!

PS I am a woman.

Can't say I agree with all of this though. I don't think women want 'more rights' so to speak, I just think that many people are misguided in where they focus their efforts.

One area that there is an obvious divide here is parents rights, but that's a whole other thread in my opinion.

CDfm · 03-11-2010 11:18pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

The limitations placed on people due to gender start in the home with house work seen as women's work ect.

+1

I know a family who are members of a Christian church/group where the values being passed on to the girls wouldnt have been out of place in the middle of the last century.

So in one way its voluntary too -but there are structural barriers -like the disaster that is Irish childcare funding.

If you never had contact with women other then family and then when you went to college I would ask why did you segregate yourself? There are plenty of youth groups, hobbies and voluntary groups you could have been a member of and worked with and along side women.

Shame your parented didn't ensure that you had the socail skills and experience to talk to people.

@Mark Hamill -there is a point here & it is a shame and it can chill you out to be friends with women on a friendly basis.

I got co-opted onto a womens pub quiz team 6 or so months ago .

You should give it a try.

Ickle Magoo · 03-11-2010 11:23pm

Trog wrote: »

Your post presents a very good point, and perhaps I shouldn't mind as long as there's no basis in malice or hate.

But the above I would distinguish as a separate issue. Obviously, a group set up specifically for victims of domestic (or any kind of) abuse has a very good grounds for being exclusive. Similarly, I would say it is very acceptable to exclude non-alcoholics from alcoholism support groups, or those that aren't grieving from a bereavement group. But the issue for me is only where this kind of valid reason is absent.

It's quite an extreme example I grant you but the question of why single-sex groups, gyms, clubs exist is a valid one - I don't think you can automatically assume groups that have no obvious reason to be exclusive actually have no reason to be exclusive - nor those that attend have no good reason to want to attend a single-sex group.

'Women only' groups

Comments