[All these points apply to sex and to gender, so for ease of reading, I’ll just discuss gender]
Gender-exclusive groups are common in many societies, such as men-only and women-only social clubs and casual activity groups like a men’s bowling group or a women’s reading circle.
Sometimes this is de-facto, but sometimes this is enforced by rules or expectations, treating the club as a safe space for airing issues people have with other genders, or avoiding perceived problems with other genders.
I came across this old comment in a garbage subreddit by accident when researching. The topic is Men’s Sheds:
“Here’s the thing. No reasonable person has an issue with women having their own women’s activity groups. The annoying part is that whenever men try to do something similar, that’s a problem. Women either want them banished or demand entry, EVERY time.”
I think their claim is nonsense, grossly exaggerated at best. I also know of many counterexamples of men trying to get into women-only groups (as an extreme case, the Ladies Lounge of the Mona art gallery in Australia was taken to court for sex discrimination, with the creator claiming they would circumvent the ruling by installing a toilet). But nonetheless, I can understand why they feel this way, patriarchal social relations change how most people see men-exclusive spaces vs. women-exclusive spaces.
But my response to their claim is that, I am reasonable and I do have an issue with any group setting up places which discriminate based on gender. These safe places can form as a legitimate rudimentary form of protection, yes, but they maintain and often even promote sexism, and should all be challenged and turned into something better which serves the same purpose.
Of course, I’m limited by my own experiences and perspective, so I’d love to hear your opinions on the topic.
Bonus video: “Why Do Conservative Shows All Look the Same? | Renegade Cut” - a discussion about fake man-caves and sexism.
A lot of these groups might not be as gender exclusive as they may appear?
I looked up our local mens shed and membership is not gender restricted. The objects of association are focussed on issues related to men, but membership is not restricted. I suspect that this is fairly typical amongst mens sheds in Australia.
There are Dads groups and Mums groups, and these are also not very exclusive. I’m a cis-male and attended a “mums group” with our new born twins. Yes it was literally called a mums group. I felt welcome, although at one point I left the room when I felt as though the conversation was headed towards the physical effects of pregnancy and birth on mothers, just because I didn’t want anyone else to feel uncomfortable.
I can see that a group which excludes a gender could develop a toxic culture, but I don’t think gender exclusive groups are necessarily bad because of that risk.
Kind of a side note but I want to see peoples opinion. Do boys tend to make friends with boys and girls tend to make friends with girls because that is what is natural? Or is it due to the oppressive nature of our current time?
Really young kids don’t care and mingle freely. It’s a learned thing; the latter. Although “oppressive” might be a bit on the strong side.
Im not sure what isn’t oppressive about gender pay gap, domestic abuse/violence and generally treating females as inferior.
Sure. We’re talking about kids playing here, though. Looking at that and saying it’s basically wife beating would sound hysterical.
I didn’t mean to say kids playing with there own gender is oppressive, rather our society is fundamentally oppressive and kids playing with there own gender could be a result of that.
As a father of three boys. This is enforced far more by the mother’s of girls than anyone else.
My oldest made friends almost exclusively with girls before he was five. Without fail mother’s would move their girls away and toward other girls. This happened in a few situations, both structured and unstructured environments.
When it was dad’s with daughters, it was only about 1/4 of the time, and mums or dad’s with sons never did.
I have seen it the other way also, where boys were steered to other boys, but it was far less often.
I used to go to a men’s only yoga class, I was far more comfortable there than in a mixed class. The class was discontinued, not because of lack of interest… but because the instructor got pregnant, it never restarted. She was a great instructor very professional and targeted the exercises to men’s problem areas.
Men’s only spaces are important, as much as women’s spaces. Men’s mental health is often overlooked, and men’s spaces are an easy way for men to vent about shit that is bothering them.
Also “our current time” is a little strange, history it’s full of segregated spaces, even of just by social convention. Our current time is far more accepting of mixing than a lot of history.
It’s natural.
The latter 100%. Just noticed this with our kid who came home from kindergarden one day and said that he liked playing with friend A there because they’re both boys. We asked him why he think that playing with boys is better when you’re a boy and, well, that’s what friend A said. This never had been a topic before. It’s learned behaviour that reinforces gender segregation.
Yes and I don’t care about the rest of the culture war.
“Here’s the thing. No reasonable person has an issue with women having their own women’s activity groups. The annoying part is that whenever men try to do something similar, that’s a problem. Women either want them banished or demand entry, EVERY time.”
Men exclude women because men view women as inferior, women exclude men because men view women as inferior.
Yes, obviously it’s not only okay, but such groups are very necessary and should be publicly funded and protected. However almost solely in the specific case of excluding cis men. For as long as patriarchy exists, safe spaces and protection from the structural and individual male violence are needed. They’ll naturally drop away as they become unnecessary, if capitalism, which fuels patriarchy, is permanently defeated.
No.
Sure, of course they are.
I’ll even go so far as to say that even more fine grained groups are okay. What becomes a problem is when every group excludes people that really shouldn’t be.
You get a chess club, why the fuck can’t a woman join? Right? Calling it a men’s club is just exclusionary for no purpose. Even the girl/boy Scout divide was pointless in any real sense, and was a missed opportunity for those scouts to have guidance on how a scout is supposed to treat others.
Hell, when it comes right down to it, even a specific cis organization is fine, just the way trans specific ones are. The problem, again, is when a club is exclusionary just for the sake of it.
We all have aspects of our lives that aren’t shared by people with other genders and/or types of genitals. There’s struggles and discrete experiences that a trans man can have that I never will, and vice versa.
But, again, once it ceases to be about that kind of specificity, it starts being bigotry in disguise and needs to fuck right off. Ain’t no good reason women shouldn’t be allowed into things like community action groups. A gender division there is just pointless and stupid. If they also exclude trans men, it’s as bad (maybe even worse).
Hell, the masons are full of shit in that regard. Fraternal orders are hypothetically okay, but since when have the masons actually been about men sharing the unique aspects of life that men share? It’s just exclusionary bullshit (and I’ve seen it from the inside, so I know it’s utter bullshit). They’re the best example of how not to be a gender based organization.
I’m not saying that men shouldn’t be able to gather and just hang out. We should, as should women. There really is a different vibe, and there’s no way around that. But once you start organizing that on a bigger scale, you have a different threshold to meet.
Since, historically, most of the men’s organizations not only excluded women, but actively served to continue oppression of women, being a de facto patriarchal enforcement group, those groups get the worst attention. They weren’t really men’s groups, they were power control groups that men only could use to gain, maintain, and exploit control. That’s why there’s pushback on them, not the fact that they were/are gendered.
Everyone deserves a safe space. And for a lot of women, that space shouldn’t have men. I’m a middle class, cis, white guy, almost everything is a safe space for me. It’s crazy people get offended when they are like me and someone won’t let them into their club.
As long as the discrimination isn’t used to hurt people but protect the interests of the group I think it’s fine.
The issue isn’t safe spaces. I mean, in the context you used, you are entirely correct - society in general is largely a safe space for white men.
The issue here is actually men’s-only spaces. And it is in that context that the anti-male bigotry comes boiling out of the societal woodwork under the weaponized mantra of “misogyny”.
As in, women can have all the women’s-only spaces they want or need, because to force them open to both genders is “misogyny”. And honestly, I am willing to let them have that olive branch.
However, they then turn around and demand that all men’s-only spaces be opened up to women, because to keep them men’s-only is also, somehow, “misogyny”.
Sorry, but that’s not how that works. That isn’t how any of that works.
The single most effective tool for determining if bigotry exists is to change the terms in contention, and see if things read identically to before, or oppositely to before.
If the two examples read wildly differently from each other, then congrats - you found a bigoted pattern.
So when you hear about men’s only gyms being cracked open for women to attend, consider how wildly different it would read if it was a women’s only gym being forced to admit men. That sure reads wildly differently, doesn’t it? That’s because there is deep bigotry in having the former being forced through while the latter is being defended against.
And honestly… if true equality in treating everyone with the exact same rules is “misogynistic”, why call it equality in the first place? Just call it for what it truly is: anti-male gender bigotry.
And honestly… if true equality in treating everyone with the exact same rules is “misogynistic”, why call it equality in the first place? Just call it for what it truly is: anti-male gender bigotry.
this only works under the assumption that men and women are on an equal playing field, which isn’t even remotely true as patriarchy ensures women remain a disadvantaged group.
you fundamentally do not understand why women’s spaces even exist. the vast majority of men’s only spaces never needed to be men’s only in the first place, and only are because of bigotry toward women. women-only spaces, on the other hand, exist for two reasons: for women’s safety, and for women’s representation.
men are not actively threatened by violence, nor are men a disadvantaged and underrepresented group in multiple fields that have historically discouraged them the way women are. as long as men maintain the dominant role in society, men entering women’s spaces designed to lift women up only serves to prevent progress toward equality.
I don’t really know where I stand on this issue to be honest as I can see pros and cons for both.
But even if equality did exist (gender, sex, race, religion etc), equality doesn’t necessarily mean that equity is achieved.
Weasel words. Equity and equality are used as cudgels by liberals against the left. End heirarchy and gendered organizations.
Funding is a core concern for organizations like Boy Scouts of America (BSA) and Girl Scouts (GS). GS is funded by cookie sales. BSA was funded by donors.
Intersectionality does come into play with regard to GS versus BSA. I contend gender is only one issue. Class is also playing a role.
We can move beyond gendered clubs. Why not have free associations?
I think the entire equity debate is confusing many of the inputs for outputs - which they are not. They are inputs, and are therefore equality-based, not equity based.
Take, for example, the old meme:
This meme is actually entirely wrong.
In the above meme, the left panel is an example of inequality. because the opportunity provided - the ability to see the game - is unequally provided across the three spectators. There is no equality of opportunity here, no equal ability to see the game due to the differing heights of the viewers despite the addition of boxes for all three.
It is the right panel which is the ideal example of equality - the ability to see the game. Here all three spectators have anny individual deficiencies that they cannot control and cannot overcome without outside help - their heights - made irrelevant by the equalizing effect of the boxes. All three heads are brought to equal and sufficient height for them to achieve equal opportunities to view the game.
Equity doesn’t even factor in here, because the enjoyment of the game is impossible to force across all spectators. To force equal outcomes - equal enjoyment of the game - would be monstrously inhuman and downright evil.
At my university there are CS clubs specifically for women because only like 1% of the CS students in both classes and clubs are female
I think males naturally create their own exclusive spaces, and as such, I think women deserve to have theirs.
One of my first comments here was asking as a male if my input was welcome in a women’s community. I was told it was not, so I didn’t say anything else.
And despite not being trans myself, I have been welcomed in a few of the trans communities here.
I try not to be bothered by being excluded. Why would I want to be involved, if I’m not welcomed?
Is it problematic? yes. Is it evil? no.
As long as these gender-exclusive spaces don’t preclude people from participating in wider society, it’s fine. I can live just fine knowing I’m not welcome in womens safe spaces. I think most women are okay with not being invited to the boys weekend.
Just overall this seems like a non-issue. Where I draw the line is things like, men not letting women into certain jobs, or barring them from voting, etc. Basically if you prevent people from participating in society in some way. That has nothing to do with people wanting their own spaces.
As ~always with gender and politics, there’s a pretty big gap between what is and what ought.
What is: The people who make and seek out men-only groups have a stereotype of being shitty, sexist people. The stereotypes around women-only groups are a lot weaker and less negative. These stereotypes are not rules, but do certainly lead to some social stigma.
What ought 1: In a better world gender-specific groups might exist for people to find support and connection around their gendered experiences. There’s some experiences that aren’t commonly shared across genders and it can be a lot easier and safer to share with people who you know also have that experience.
What ought 2: In a still better world there wouldn’t be a significant desire for such groups because we are all sensitive and caring enough that such a group doesn’t make sharing meaningfully easier or safer, because it’s already easy and safe.
Not every men’s group is a shitty stereotype. It does seem unacceptably common, though. Not every women’s group is a safe space, and some are just as toxic and abusive as the far-too-common men’s groups. Do we ban them? I don’t think we can. Because women’s shelters need to exist even if men are domestically abused too and never in my fucking life have I heard anyone suggest a battered men’s shelter might even maybe be a good idea. Okay, fine, so violence and safety reasons … Except, shit, not everyone is hetero… A same sex partner can probably find out where women’s shelters are. And men are abused to by their partners, men and women, in alarmingly higher rates than anybody seems to take note of. And what do you do with Trans folks? Because their rights are human rights too and why the fuck do we still need to explicitly say that anymore? sigh
And that doesn’t even begin to cover social groups.
I guess if you’re not an asshole, a bigot, an abuser, or whatever … best you can do when you encounter these things (and you will) is ask yourself whether something gendered is reasonable or not. The answer might be yes, or no, or conflicted either way. I’d like to say that it should be okay if we don’t agree about the answers. I’d like to say that people should be able to accept that the other person is making a good faith effort to determine the relative “okayness” in an individual case with an individual perspective. Sadly, we humans seem not to be wired to do that. I’m just gonna continue thinking gendered stuff is pretty dumb on the whole with a couple of conflicted views on a couple of specific things because I know I don’t live in a perfect world.
Not every men’s group is a shitty stereotype.
determine the relative “okayness” in an individual case
Well, yeah?
OP asked the question in general terms, I answered in general terms. With more specific information you can make a more specific judgement. That’s why I said “stereotype, not rule” and separated is vs ought?
I don’t need to list out every possible reason someone might want a gendered group to show that there is a valid reason. Instead just give one. In fact I avoided talking about domestic abuse shelters exactly to avoid this sort of ‘whataboutism’.
The comment you replied to is just “not all men!,” but group-flavored. You’re right to call it whataboutism.
This post has clearly brought up a lot of interesting discussion. I just want to add my thoughts…
I never thought of myself as someone who would benefit from male-only spaces as I tend to not like men, but in my mid 20s I started going to bars and clubs oriented towards gay men because I was exploring my sexuality.
I found that often these places have a strong sense of community and camaraderie that I have grown to see as quite sacred. Part of this sense of community is rooted in a shared experience of our gender identity and sexual identity.
Sometimes having women in these spaces could ruin the vibe and sometimes having women in these spaces had no negative effect or was even positive. It really depends on the attitude of women coming into those spaces. Are they there to gawk? Are they there to seek community?
If you made a blanket rule banning women I think it would be very detrimental. For example there are trans men who havent come to terms with this yet, and cutting them out of a space like this is bad.
It would also be disingenuous to claim only women were the ones ruining the vibe. Some men are creeps, controlling, judgmental etc.
To me the important thing isn’t that we ban non-men from entering into the space and say it’s a men-only place. That excludes people who would be good to have there and doesn’t guarantee you remove all of the bad people from coming. But I do think it’s important to have spaces that we say are for men. This is a place for men that caters to men and if are not a man don’t expect it to cater to your needs.
It’s like if you have a Mexican restaurant in the United States oriented towards serving Mexican customers. You can go there even there even if you’re not Mexican, but it’s disrespectful to get angry if people don’t speak English well.
There are always both men and women, who, upon finding out that a space exists that isn’t for them decide to try and enter those spaces out of protest. I think in most cases it’s probably best to let these people in. Either they will acclimate to the culture or they will get bored and stop going eventually. I know that this will make the space less safe or comfortable feeling for some people, but there’s literally no way to have community without also having people be part of that community that are sometimes unsafe or uncomfortable to have around.
Sure, they’re okay. Honestly we might be a bit too strict about avoiding them, at this point.
Where it becomes a problem is if you’d like to join whatever group, but the only one available is not open to you. Which happened a lot historically, but is rarer now.
I think their claim is nonsense, grossly exaggerated at best.
Can confirm, in my experience the problem with mancaves is that you pretty quickly want to let women in. There’s no tradeoff, we can not talk about our feelings and make a mess in a mixed gender crowd, too.
But my response to their claim is that, I am reasonable and I do have an issue with any group setting up places which discriminate based on gender. These safe places can form as a legitimate rudimentary form of protection, yes, but they maintain and often even promote sexism, and should all be challenged and turned into something better which serves the same purpose.
I’m curious whether you think you think this applies to, for example, a spa or locker room where people are in various states of undress and are separated into exclusive spaces based on gender?
Those are different things, and I think it important to say that because your question reads like you’re conflating them, when you aren’t; you’re asking how far it does stretch, not saying that locker rooms are the same as a social club.
Which isn’t directed at you, but any passersby that didn’t catch it
As far as that goes, I’m actually okay with shared lockers/showers/bathrooms, so long as you can find privacy as an individual. Stalls with good isolation for them what care in other words. I don’t, however, think it would be okay to enforce that at this point in time
sorry by spa I was implying not a social club but a place like baths or an onsen where women might be naked in baths together; typically these spaces are sex / gender separated
I think the assumption in my question is that in the baths and locker rooms we assume the spaces are open and people do not have total privacy when in states of undress.
I would hope that in 25-50 years from now, gendered locker rooms and bathrooms will be a thing of the past, and slowly replaced with individual unisex stalls. Maybe for high volume places (like a stadium or airport) there will still be bathrooms with a wall of urinals, but those will probably not be labeled “men’s” and will just be urinals.
The public pool locker room is the last place in american society where you can exist legitimately naked in public.
Moving to a place where everyone is expected to go into a private stall seems :(
I live in Denmark and that’s at least how bathrooms are basically everywhere here. It’s nice.
That’s a good question. In fact, I think just yesterday on reddit the front page had a photo of a sign at a public bath in China saying something along the lines of “No homosexual men allowed”, with top comments hypothesizing it was probably more about banning unwanted or public sex acts than homophobia itself.
I assert that this kind of gender segregation is usually about deterring sexualization (and even sexual violence). This is the case for spas, locker rooms, toilets, or even more general places like gyms. My basic position is that being able to deter unwanted sexualization is a useful goal for many reasons, but that’s a rudimentary attempt to solve it. At best, I’d say it’s a coping mechanism which should be understood as such. So I don’t believe they must immediately be abolished, that might be utopian, we need to begin mainstreaming a culture that would enable these sexist institutions to be abolished.
But ultimately:
- They’re a product of heteronormativity. Obviously there are plenty of people attracted to the same gender who won’t be deterred by this.
- They’re a product of normalized sexual abuse in culture. There’s a “common sense” that if you put men and women in the same room in a state of undress, then abuse will happen. But we know that’s not some ultimate “human nature”! It’s a result of culture and social structure. Consider nudist groups and nudist society as a direct counterpoint to the cultural sexualization of nudity.
Link to that reddit post
I think people often don’t seem to realize that sex-segregated bathrooms were a relatively recent invention, going back only a few hundred years: https://time.com/4337761/history-sex-segregated-bathrooms/
I do think the assumption that women will be attacked or sexually assaulted underlies at least some motivation (the TIME article above claims it is a view of women as weak and the public as dangerous - which generally fits that view). The fact that this reasoning was used to justify segregation in every aspect of public life, to the point of having separate train cars, and yet we saw that segregation go away nearly everywhere but bathrooms, it makes it seem like the claims about safety could have been overblown (or maybe more accurately: that segregation doesn’t necessarily protect as much as it claims). The TIME article argues that the only reason bathrooms are still segregated has more to do with the difficulty with changing codes and standards than anything like actual safety reasons.
OK, here’s another question: in the Middle East / Western Asia misogyny is quite a significant problem (that might be an understatement), and in northern Syria there was a women-only militia formed called the YPJ. The YPJ was formed as a group based on egalitarian, feminist ideology and has been praised for having improved the power and situation of women in that region.
It seems to me that segregation is sometimes used to oppress women, but sometimes segregation is also how women are able to carve out independence and push back against their oppression.
What do you make of this example of women who under extreme oppression were able to form a women-only militia which then increased the power of women in the region?
