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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

'Women only' groups

1246789

Comments

  • #152
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    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

    It is hard to take that seriously these arguments "Women can do X but if I did it there would be up roar"

    For a start it is based on the assumption of victimization. Wait until you are actually being victimized and then complain. Assuming you will and then using that as an excuse to feel oppressed is some what silly in my opinion.

    Secondly so what if there was uproar. Women deal with uproar all the time (women can't open a woman's only gym these days without uproar from men that if they did it there would be uproar ;))

    You have a right to expect that you can do something without facing legal discrimination, or physical violence or threats.

    You don't have a right to expect that you can do something and no one is allowed complain about it.

    You don't have that right, and women don't have that right.


  • #153
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I dont think it is necessarily over fetishised but historically what is female or feminine has been particularised as to being normative [despite being half the population] and that's why you have these types of groups and fragments.

    You have African American Lit classes, women's lit classes, etc because they are not included in the main, general default curricula. The same principal applies elsewhere. This is symptomatic of what happens in life, medicine, politics, law, etc and yes it happens in the west too.


  • #154
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Exactly the same. Or do you expect me ot believe that there are no abused men out there?

    There are - my point is that not all women who seek women-only activities do so because they are precious or they hate men or they have a burning desire to be sexist. It's often their interaction with men that have made a women-only activity look so appealing.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Firstly, the teenager should deal with the wolf whistles by complaining to management, not running away, its hardly a good life lesson to have teens run away from their problems rather than actually deal with them.
    Secondly, why wouldn't the old woman want to discuss her literature with anyone, male or female, that has an equal interest in it? I just dont get why such a woman should automatically think that only another woman could appreciate her hobbie in a similar way.

    Why should she have to do anything? Why can't women have women only activities? Seriously?! Why on earth should women just absorb all the crap that certain men throw at them and then force themselves to keep taking it (because believe me, fight one creep and there's another just around the corner) just to deliberately avoid ever setting up a women-only group for the lone purpose of keeping a few men whose noses are put out at the thought happy?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    But why dont the women just demand equality? Why do these women think that its up to them to specially cater for themselves rather than its up the the men to cop on and grow up?

    Probably much the same reason some men think it's up to women to make a point of specially catering for them when those women want to exert their democratic right to set up or attend a women's only group. I can't think of a single month in my life from the age of about 13/14 when I haven't had to deal with men whistling, staring, asking me out, commenting on my appearance - even physically grabbing or touching me. The thought of having both a hobby that I enjoy and to be able to enjoy it free from any of that shit is far more liberating than the never-ending fight against sexism, misogyny and creeps could ever be.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Domestic abuse victims is a special case, I dont think the women who go to womens only gyms or book clubs are all domestic abuse victims.

    The point you don't know what peoples histories are. Women don't walk around with "rape victim", "battered by husband", "emotionally abused by boyfriend", "bullied by male colleague" over their heads...women have many reasons for wanting to be in women-only groups and activities and large portion of those are related to their treatment by men and I see no reason why these women should force themselves to put up with some idiot wolf-whistling in the gym, or chatting them up in whatever class - and nor do they want the added hassle of trying to manners of those type of men in their spare time - and frankly why should that be their responsibility? We all avoid idiots when we can.

    I think some posters are forgetting - or trying not to think about - why such clubs were set up in the first place. Why do you think a female-only environment is so attractive to so many women? I can't believe you would truthfully think it's due to the hatred of men's company.


  • #155
    Ectoplasm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭Ectoplasm


    I've read this thread with interest. I'm not sure why the particular focus has been a book club, but the reality is there are 'mens' and 'womens' groups all over the place. Sports clubs. Mens teams, womens teams, mixed teams. I did a quick online search, there are dozens of mens groups in Dublin alone. Mens networking groups. Mens social groups. Boys nights out and girls nights out - you see them all the time!

    Both men and women will often feel the need to congregate. If you are a man or woman who doesn't, that is fair enough but just because it isn't your inclination doesn't mean you should judge those whose it is. Just don't join 'em.

    I really don't see the problem with this at all. The only problem would be where one group was allowed and another not and although a lot of people have said women would be 'up in arms' about it, I for one couldn't give a monkeys. :D

    With regard to the book club that has been brought up over and over - well there are two things to consider here. The first is that women make up the majority of the market when we talk about buying and reading fiction. I don't have stats for Ireland but for the US, Canada and England combined, men represent on 20%. Maybe women are just more likely to be in a book club that is only women?

    The other thing to consider is maybe the novels being selected for discussion are an issue? Men are more likely to read books written by men. As much as I hate, hate, hate the term, 'chick-lit' is a massive portion of the market - maybe these womens book clubs are focused on this?

    To be honest I'm just guessing here. If I wanted to join a book club, I wouldn't be looking for a 'women only' one, but if I did find one and it happened to only have women members I wouldn't be shocked or put off.


  • #156
    Kooli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


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


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


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


  • #158
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Zulu wrote: »
    ...because segregation is the solution? I think not.

    For women bored, fed up, annoyed and frustrated with how some men choose to interact with them it most certainly is - for a short time they get to do something they enjoy completely unimpeded by the BS they have to deal with every other day in real life - I can't think of a better, more workable and instantaneous solution tbh....


  • #159
    ntlbell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    For women bored, fed up, annoyed and frustrated with how some men choose to interact with them it most certainly is - for a short time they get to do something they enjoy completely unimpeded by the BS they have to deal with every other day in real life - I can't think of a better, more workable and instantaneous solution tbh....

    Similar to why men golf in portmarnack so.


  • #160
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    ntlbell wrote: »
    Similar to why men golf in portmarnack so.

    Congrats on the irony of trying to convince women why they shouldn't have women only groups by reminding us all why they do. :cool:


  • #161
    Kooli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    Zulu wrote: »
    ...because segregation is the solution? I think not.

    Does everything a woman does really have to have the objective of 'solving' the problem of casual sexism? Is it really not OK that sometimes they just want a break from it?

    If you think of all things in society that contribute to the problem of casual sexism, where on the list would 'women-only groups' be? Why should it be our responsibility to try and fix the problem ALL THE TIME?


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Trog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Trog


    I haven't been able to read everything since I last posted, and I don't have much time to keep in touch with this but it's been interesting. I'd just like to add a final few thoughts.

    Firstly, I shouldn't have used the "if I wanted to set up a mens group..." argument because admittedly it's a pretty poor line of reasoning.

    I can definitely see the reasons behind wanting such groups, and if there is demand I know they will always be there. And I would not want to criticize or deprive anyone of this option.

    I do still think that generally we have to stop making such distinctions. I know men treat women badly sometimes, but women do it to men too (perhaps less often). Generally, as a society, I think we tend to unnecessarily highlight things which shouldn't even be considered a factor in a lot of cases- namely race, gender etc., and even if this is done with positive intentions, it isn't conducive to us getting over these boundaries. A last example- if we celebrate women's achievement, specifically because a woman did it, does this not implicitly presuppose that the woman was less capable than a man in the first place? Why else would we celebrate womens achievement and not mens?

    Again, I in no way mean to criticize women who attend these groups, there are perfectly good reasons for it. Maybe I'm just too much of an idealist, or maybe my ideas on equality in this issue are skewed due to the fact that I'm a man.


  • #163
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #164
    ntlbell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Congrats on the irony of trying to convince women why they shouldn't have women only groups by reminding us all why they do. :cool:


    What makes you think I'm trying to convince women not to have women only groups

    I just want a few decent pubs I can go to without cackling. what women do in their own time is of no interest to me, in fact i wish more of these groups would set up.

    I just find it ironic after all the years of fighting for this and fighting for that now they want to segregate.

    but don't think for a minute i'm trying to convince women not to have women only groups the more the merrier.


  • #165
    Kooli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    Trog wrote: »
    I haven't been able to read everything since I last posted, and I don't have much time to keep in touch with this but it's been interesting. I'd just like to add a final few thoughts.

    Firstly, I shouldn't have used the "if I wanted to set up a mens group..." argument because admittedly it's a pretty poor line of reasoning.

    I can definitely see the reasons behind wanting such groups, and if there is demand I know they will always be there. And I would not want to criticize or deprive anyone of this option.

    I do still think that generally we have to stop making such distinctions. I know men treat women badly sometimes, but women do it to men too (perhaps less often). Generally, as a society, I think we tend to unnecessarily highlight things which shouldn't even be considered a factor in a lot of cases- namely race, gender etc., and even if this is done with positive intentions, it isn't conducive to us getting over these boundaries. A last example- if we celebrate women's achievement, specifically because a woman did it, does this not implicitly presuppose that the woman was less capable than a man in the first place? Why else would we celebrate womens achievement and not mens?

    Again, I in no way mean to criticize women who attend these groups, there are perfectly good reasons for it. Maybe I'm just too much of an idealist, or maybe my ideas on equality in this issue are skewed due to the fact that I'm a man.

    Thanks for that. Great post, and great discussion you got started.

    I highlighted the last sentence because I do think it's the crux of the issue. A lot of men seem to really not understand how women feel about these issues, and by trying to dismantle everything we say point by point is kind of missing the point!
    It's much easier to be idealistic and purely logical and theoretical about this whole issue if it doesn't actually affect you at all.
    In theory, I would agree that there should be no need for these distinction. But that doesn't mean that there is no need for them! And acting as if these distinctions aren't there won't make it so!


  • #166
    ntlbell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    It's amusing tho that someone posts about the reason why women want these groups, a man suggests same reason a man does and the man is being sort of smart alic sexist pig.

    ironing indeed.


  • #167
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    donegalfella wrote:
    This post has been deleted.

    You are right, that would certainly be easier - though perhaps not as much fun nor offer camaraderie. :)
    ntlbell wrote: »
    It's amusing tho that someone posts about the reason why women want these groups, a man suggests same reason a man does and the man is being sort of smart alic sexist pig.

    Yes, of course, it isn't at all completely transparent exactly what you were/are doing.

    My posts referred to women who had suffered abuse, sexual harassment and intimidation in a serious thread in a serious forum; as far as I can see the sum of your contribution is to argue about sexual assault statistics being over-blown due to the assaulted women being "confused", making some Jim Davidson-esque observation about a golf course and some wise-crack about wanting a pub free of "cackling".

    I think it's fair to say if one was looking for precisely the kind of juvenile antics that exemplify why women-only groups are popular, one wouldn't have to look far. :)


  • #168
    ntlbell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »

    Yes, of course, it isn't at all completely transparent exactly what you were/are doing.

    My posts referred to women who had suffered abuse, sexual harassment and intimidation in a serious thread in a serious forum; as far as I can see the sum of your contribution is to argue about sexual assault statistics being over-blown due to the assaulted women being "confused", making some Jim Davidson-esque observation about a golf course and some wise-crack about wanting a pub free of "cackling".

    I think it's fair to say if one was looking for precisely the kind of juvenile antics that exemplify why women-only groups are popular, one wouldn't have to look far. :)

    People were asking to speak to people so we have a foundation to base the 1/4 stats with dongealfella all ready explained exactly how the 1/4 came about and how it is flawed.

    I didn't say they were confused, the lady of death did, I suggested it might not be a solid base for coming up with the stat if they were "confused"

    I pointed out that the exact reasons you stated for womens group is why men would also retreat somewhere like a men only golf club such as portmarnock.

    But you have proved why a men only public bar is a nice idea.

    no one taken things up the wrong way being overly sensivitive changing the meaning of everything said to suit their own agenda or being accused of being childish and sexist for making a valid point.


  • #169
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Yes the university-sanctioned Balkanization was remarkable: women were not allowed to attend until the late 1960s and the oldest three eating clubs remained all-male well into the 1980s (and one of the three flew a confederate flag over the building).

    Princeton was a notoriously hostile place for non-males and non-WASPs until relatively recently. A lot of the campus identity-based groups arose in response to this prevailing culture and especially the eating clubs system.

    If you don't like identity groups, fine, but at least acknowledge some of the reasons why they exist in the first place.


  • #170
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    donfers wrote: »
    as far as I am concerned the type of woman who wants to be in a womans group is better off being in a womans group for the sanity of all of us

    So the fact that a woman enjoys doing certain activities with other women means she must otherwise be insufferable? Nice.


  • #171
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Kooli wrote: »
    Does everything a woman does really have to have the objective of 'solving' the problem of casual sexism?
    of course not, but to choose to do something that causes it is maddness.
    Why should it be our responsibility to try and fix the problem ALL THE TIME?
    it's not!

    At least it's not unless you have a problem with sexism. If you have a problem with sexism, then it is your responsibility not to presue sexist activities, even if thats not the most convenient for you.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    donfers
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,006 ✭✭✭donfers


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    So the fact that a woman enjoys doing certain activities with other women means she must otherwise be insufferable? Nice.

    other women only and like I said, best for all concerned


  • #173
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Zulu wrote: »
    of course not, but to choose to do something that causes it is maddness.

    How do women's groups cause casual sexism?


  • #174
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    How do women's groups cause casual sexism?

    Kindly review my previous posts on this thread as they address this question.


  • #175
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Zulu wrote: »
    Kindly review my previous posts on this thread as they address this question.

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


  • #176
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #177
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    But you are focusing on the individuals and not the institution. And the institution has a lot to answer for.

    Princeton (along with many other elite institutions) was itselfa "identity-based facility" for almost all of its history: from the 1700s until 1969 it was all male, and mostly white.

    These groups did not appear out of the ether in the 1960s. They were a direct response to institutions that said "unless you fit certain gender and racial (and often religious) criteria, you can't come in". And over time, they became institutionalized as well, even as the population and culture shifted.


  • #178
    Truley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭Truley


    I have to say, from my many years experience working in pubs and nightclubs I have found that incidents of sexual harrassment, groping and lewd remarks have largely come from the womens' side rather than from males. Women don't have the same concerns of physical boundries and can pretty much charge through people, make remarks, grope or force themselves on men and it's largely dismissed as being wild or confident where a man would heading for the sex offenders register. Hen nights and Ann Summer's parties are the worst culprits. Women can get away with behaviour that would get the average man dragged out by a bouncer or seriously beaten up by another male or boyfriend. That's what I observed from nightclubs etc


  • #179
    donfers
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,006 ✭✭✭donfers


    Truley wrote: »
    I have to say, from my many years experience working in pubs and nightclubs I have found that incidents of sexual harrassment, groping and lewd remarks have largely come from the womens' side rather than from males. Women don't have the same concerns of physical boundries and can pretty much charge through people, make remarks, grope or force themselves on men and it's largely dismissed as being wild or confident where a man would heading for the sex offenders register. Hen nights and Ann Summer's parties are the worst culprits. Women can get away with behaviour that would get the average man dragged out by a bouncer or seriously beaten up by another male or boyfriend. That's what I observed from nightclubs etc

    yup i've been on the wrong end of that kind of stuff a few times, just put it down to drunken exuberance and got on with things, agree with every word


  • #180
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Truley wrote: »
    I have to say, from my many years experience working in pubs and nightclubs I have found that incidents of sexual harrassment, groping and lewd remarks have largely come from the womens' side rather than from males. Women don't have the same concerns of physical boundries and can pretty much charge through people, make remarks, grope or force themselves on men and it's largely dismissed as being wild or confident where a man would heading for the sex offenders register. Hen nights and Ann Summer's parties are the worst culprits. Women can get away with behaviour that would get the average man dragged out by a bouncer or seriously beaten up by another male or boyfriend. That's what I observed from nightclubs etc

    I also have many years experience working in bars and I have to disagree. While drunken groups of women usually cause loud and obvious annoyance to most - & a large group of L-plate sporting, veil-wearing drunk women now has me sprinting in the opposite direction - the general harassment towards women from men was relentless, whether a reasonably quiet saturday afternoon or 5am...and that was just towards my staff! As a customer, I can't actually recall a night out that hasn't been sullied at some stage by at least one of us being harangued and groped by some eejit.

    I'm not sure you can possibly categorically state women don't have the same concerns about physical boundaries. I'm struggling to think of an occasion where getting through a crowd hasn't resulted in receiving a grope or tweak en route, I think most women are very aware of their physical boundaries - especially in pub/club scenarios.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    But you are focusing on the individuals and not the institution. And the institution has a lot to answer for.

    Princeton (along with many other elite institutions) was itselfa "identity-based facility" for almost all of its history: from the 1700s until 1969 it was all male, and mostly white.

    These groups did not appear out of the ether in the 1960s. They were a direct response to institutions that said "unless you fit certain gender and racial (and often religious) criteria, you can't come in". And over time, they became institutionalized as well, even as the population and culture shifted.

    I'm not disputing any of that but how many people who were there in 1969 are still there running things?

    Institutionalized sexism requires sexist people to keep it going.


  • #182
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


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

    Then perhaps you missed this post:here


  • #183
    ntlbell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I also have many years experience working in bars and I have to disagree. While drunken groups of women usually cause loud and obvious annoyance to most - & a large group of L-plate sporting, veil-wearing drunk women now has me sprinting in the opposite direction - the general harassment towards women from men was relentless, whether a reasonably quiet saturday afternoon or 5am...and that was just towards my staff! As a customer, I can't actually recall a night out that hasn't been sullied at some stage by at least one of us being harangued and groped by some eejit.

    I'm not sure you can possibly categorically state women don't have the same concerns about physical boundaries. I'm struggling to think of an occasion where getting through a crowd hasn't resulted in receiving a grope or tweak en route, I think most women are very aware of their physical boundaries - especially in pub/club scenarios.

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

    so 3 different people 3 different expiriences.

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


  • #184
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Zulu wrote: »
    Then perhaps you missed this post:here

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

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


  • #185
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    And I already said that I didn't think that women should have to 'combat the cause' every minute of the day.
    ...and I said: You don't need to combat the cause, if you don't believe it exists or if you are happy to be a hypocrite.

    If, however, you believe it exists, or you do not wish to be considered a hypocrite, then not only do you need to act against it, but you also need to activly choose to avoid sexist societies.
    I think the case of Curves is interesting because it's the ultimate case of "voting with your feet". Obviously a lot of gyms are getting it wrong in their approach to women, and someone is exploiting this economic opportunity. It makes perfect sense to me from a business perspective, more so than from the social perspective.
    "Voting with your feet" in this country tends to be an obvious indicator of ignorance. I wouldn't let the masses dictate to me what is right or wrong. And if women choose to follow the direction of people "voting with their feet" I'd wager there would be a lower number voting in todays society.


  • #186
    Truley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭Truley


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I also have many years experience working in bars and I have to disagree. While drunken groups of women usually cause loud and obvious annoyance to most - & a large group of L-plate sporting, veil-wearing drunk women now has me sprinting in the opposite direction - the general harassment towards women from men was relentless, whether a reasonably quiet saturday afternoon or 5am...and that was just towards my staff! As a customer, I can't actually recall a night out that hasn't been sullied at some stage by at least one of us being harangued and groped by some eejit.

    It just goes to show it can come from both sides and nobody can say it's worse for one gender because we're only aware of our own experiences.
    I'm not sure you can possibly categorically state women don't have the same concerns about physical boundaries. I'm struggling to think of an occasion where getting through a crowd hasn't resulted in receiving a grope or tweak en route, I think most women are very aware of their physical boundaries - especially in pub/club scenarios.

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

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

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


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


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

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

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

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

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


  • #188
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #189
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Zulu wrote: »
    The primary concern I'd have would be that, while they can provide an environment where a sex can feel "more at ease", they do nothing to combat the cause.
    So, while the Curves gym provides an environment where a woman can feel she can sweat to her hearts content without having to worry about looking bad in front of men - this does nothing only compound the underlying issue that women feel objectified!
    Women should be able to go to a gym and sweat regardless of whos looking because, humans, when exercising, sweat.
    Zulu wrote: »
    ...and I said: You don't need to combat the cause, if you don't believe it exists or if you are happy to be a hypocrite.

    That is some what faulty logic

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

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


  • #190
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Truley wrote: »
    Just my observations though, not stating it as an objective fact.

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

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


  • #191
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Wicknight wrote: »
    That is some what faulty logic... <rabble rabble misrepresented post>
    Nonsense! Try again; that wasn't either my point or sentiment of my point.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Why should she have to do anything?

    Why should she have to deal with the problems in her own life instead of running away from them? Really?
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Why can't women have women only activities? Seriously?!

    I never said they cant, I just cant see how you square the need for so many women only activities with constant call for sexual equality.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Why on earth should women just absorb all the crap that certain men throw at them and then force themselves to keep taking it (because believe me, fight one creep and there's another just around the corner) just to deliberately avoid ever setting up a women-only group for the lone purpose of keeping a few men whose noses are put out at the thought happy?

    Show were I said they should absorb it? I have consistently said that they should make the men stop it, not just run away somewhere where thy can no longer here it. Its an out of site, out of mind mentality that shouldn't be accepted.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Probably much the same reason some men think it's up to women to make a point of specially catering for them when those women want to exert their democratic right to set up or attend a women's only group. I can't think of a single month in my life from the age of about 13/14 when I haven't had to deal with men whistling, staring, asking me out, commenting on my appearance - even physically grabbing or touching me. The thought of having both a hobby that I enjoy and to be able to enjoy it free from any of that shit is far more liberating than the never-ending fight against sexism, misogyny and creeps could ever be.

    And when you finish that hobby, and come back to the real world, do you think that **** will have disappeared?
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    The point you don't know what peoples histories are. Women don't walk around with "rape victim", "battered by husband", "emotionally abused by boyfriend", "bullied by male colleague" over their heads...women have many reasons for wanting to be in women-only groups and activities and large portion of those are related to their treatment by men and I see no reason why these women should force themselves to put up with some idiot wolf-whistling in the gym, or chatting them up in whatever class - and nor do they want the added hassle of trying to manners of those type of men in their spare time - and frankly why should that be their responsibility? We all avoid idiots when we can.

    Who says it should be their responsiblity? Was it the black peoples repsonsibility in the last century to demand equality in America? Who do you think is going to give you the equality you want, who is going to get rid of the **** you hate?
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I think some posters are forgetting - or trying not to think about - why such clubs were set up in the first place. Why do you think a female-only environment is so attractive to so many women? I can't believe you would truthfully think it's due to the hatred of men's company.

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


  • #193
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    jujibee wrote: »
    A lot of the time you are alone or the "people in charge" are involved.

    Any evidence for this accusation that a lot of the time, the people in charge are in on it?
    How high did you go? Doormen, managament, guards?
    jujibee wrote: »
    I have reported instances that I think are inappropriate to mods and they have not agreed with my assessment.

    And that had to be becasue you were a woman?
    jujibee wrote: »
    I appreciate that there are times when we can ask for help and will receive it but my point is I should not have to ask for help.

    In terms of convincing someone to help you when they can already see you obviously need it, then no you shouldn't have to ask. But there are plenty of times and situations were it is not immediately obvious how or even if you are being effected by the people around you, and you may need top point it out that you need help.
    jujibee wrote: »
    I know it is not a perfect world and it never will be but I can't help wishing for it.

    But what use arw wishes if you just segregate yourself from men in the circumstances you think you will be bother? How do you ever expect to attain a perfect word by avoiding the problem without solving it?
    jujibee wrote: »
    But you see that is the point. By calling it a woman's book club we are making it clear that we don't want to have to deal with that. I have known several women's book clubs that had male members. The point is not to exclude men. The point is to discuss issues pertaining to women.

    Well, there is the problem. The point of a book club is not to discuss issues pertaining ot women, its to discuss books. By virtue of choosing only the types of books you like and by having a definite system laidout specify what is and isn't acceptable in discussions, then you will automatically exclude the undesirables, men and women both.
    jujibee wrote: »
    I bet if you found a women's book club and you asked to join on the condition that you followed their charter that most would welcome you (I would not say all because some are strictly female for various reasons).

    Then why call them womens book clubs in that case? If you only want people to follow your rules and discuss certain books, then just allow people to do that. By putting on the label, even if you are willing to ignore for those truely interested, you will miss out on discussions of the books with people who are also interested in them. If you are serious about discussions, why would you do that?
    jujibee wrote: »
    We don't want to exclude men but we want a place to discuss our issues and fears with out worrying that we are going to be labeled as feminazis or what ever the going term is.

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


  • #194
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Kooli wrote: »
    This thread is actually a really good example of why women might want to go to women-only groups.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    For women bored, fed up, annoyed and frustrated with how some men choose to interact with them it most certainly is - for a short time they get to do something they enjoy completely unimpeded by the BS they have to deal with every other day in real life - I can't think of a better, more workable and instantaneous solution tbh....

    Are you two accusing the male posters here of being abusive in any way to you?
    Kooli wrote: »
    Does everything a woman does really have to have the objective of 'solving' the problem of casual sexism?

    Should women at least try to avoid aggrevating it or stalling the progress of solving it?
    Kooli wrote: »
    If you think of all things in society that contribute to the problem of casual sexism, where on the list would 'women-only groups' be? Why should it be our responsibility to try and fix the problem ALL THE TIME?

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


  • #195
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


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

    It certainly seemed to be your point
    Frankly, it disappoints & saddens me that we'd actively encourage sexist discrimination in this day and age.
    The primary concern I'd have would be that, while they can provide an environment where a sex can feel "more at ease", they do nothing to combat the cause.
    So, while the Curves gym provides an environment where a woman can feel she can sweat to her hearts content without having to worry about looking bad in front of men - this does nothing only compound the underlying issue that women feel objectified!
    Women should be able to go to a gym and sweat regardless of whos looking because, humans, when exercising, sweat.
    ...because segregation is the solution? I think not.
    Kooli-Does everything a woman does really have to have the objective of 'solving' the problem of casual sexism?
    of course not, but to choose to do something that causes it is maddness.
    If you have a problem with sexism, then it is your responsibility not to presue sexist activities, even if thats not the most convenient for you.
    ...and I said: You don't need to combat the cause, if you don't believe it exists or if you are happy to be a hypocrite.

    Certainly seems to be your point Zulu.

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

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


  • #196
    Ectoplasm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭Ectoplasm


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

    I agree with you here but what will stop it? A woman not segregating herself and being objectified doesn't stop it either.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Women who wish to combat the sexism or the objectification of women yet go to Curves or other institutions that are women only are hypocrites.

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

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

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

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


  • #197
    Trog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Trog


    Wicknight wrote: »
    It certainly seemed to be your point













    Certainly seems to be your point Zulu.

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

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

    I've just been skimming here, but I think a more valid point Zulu could have made (and may have meant) is that IF such segregation contributes to the problem, then it is surely counterproductive for someone who is anti-sexism to support this cause. It's not necessarily that going to these groups makes you a hypocrite.
    Kooli wrote: »
    This thread is actually a really good example of why women might want to go to women-only groups.

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

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


  • #198
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    EMF2010 wrote: »
    I agree with you here but what will stop it?
    It wasn't my point, it was Zulu's
    EMF2010 wrote: »
    A woman not segregating herself and being objectified doesn't stop it either.
    ...
    Here is where I don't agree. I don't think it is hypocritical to try to avoid an uncomfortable experience, I think it is very very human.

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


  • #199
    Ectoplasm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭Ectoplasm


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


  • #200
    Kooli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


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

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

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

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

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

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

    I hope that's clearer.


  • #201
    donfers
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,006 ✭✭✭donfers


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

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

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

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


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement