[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.
As a cis man, I think very lowly of men-only groups. Usually (from my admittedly limited experience) if a group goes out of their way to identify as “men-only,” the people there tend to be the kind of men who are very misogynistic and generally insufferable to be around, even for other men. Any group genuinely focused on the hobby or culture they claim to identify with wouldn’t really care about your gender.
Women-only groups though, I tend to sympathize with and respect a lot more, and IMO they are the symptom of the West being a heavily male dominated society rather than an innate desire among women to be exclusionary. If the world didn’t revolve around men and had genuine gender equality, there probably wouldn’t be a need for many women only groups either, but that’s unfortunately not the world we live in.
I can’t really speak on trans/nonbinary exclusion though because I have no personal experience being on the business end of it. I try to only participate in groups where they don’t care about your gender to begin with.
On the flip side, I think men could use more men’s groups because male loneliness is problematic. Women don’t want to feel responsible for men’s loneliness (rightly so), so the natural solution is men need to do better at making friends with men. The problem is doing it in a healthy way
That said, I would suggest the solution is hobby groups without gender exclusion. Like carpentry, basketball, knitting, dance, ballet. Hobbies seem to self select.
Most of my hobbies are female dominated in my conservative area.
I think there’s a parallel with other social clubs, too.
My medication kicked in while writing this and it shows. TLDR: in Germany, there are various social clubs including international cultural exchange groups (generally composed of immigrants/children of immigrants and Germans in a roughly 2:1 ratio) and clubs based around specific countries open only or mostly to immigrants from those or neighboring countries (whether openly or simply through convention, selection bias, and social pressure). The former are fun and the latter tend to be toxic unless there’s currently a large wave of immigration/refugees from the country they represent in Germany, in which case they can help coordinate resources and support, as well as help people deal with culture shock and the trauma of needing to flee their home country.
I’m an American immigrant in Germany. I love international groups and being able to bond with people about dealing with German bureaucracy as a non-native. I have zero interest in American emigrant groups.
In international groups, we do make fun of Germany, but it’s not mean spirited. We also commiserate about the actively negative aspects of living in Germany as an immigrant. In American groups, I suspect it would turn into U-S-A chants or something similar.
International groups here welcome Germans as a rule, whereas for groups for specific nationalities, it tends to be limited to people who can speak the language.
There’s a real need served by national groups for brand new immigrants who are overwhelmed by everything being different (often significantly more different than Germany is for an American), and they’re great for creating a sense of community that can be helpful for short term immigrants (though they can hamper long term integration).
I suspect I’ll warm up to American groups as a way to give new immigrants a crash course on German culture if we get a wave of American refugees in the next couple of years, because those are the demographics (large groups of people temporarily displaced from the same country who all come at once) that tend to benefit from these type of groups.
I’ve been told that national groups for Arab countries tend to be full of either bitter, unpleasant people and/or gay people and blatant alcohol drinkers, because everyone else just meets at the mosque. Although given that I have no first hand experience and the person telling me about it only has experience with a handful of cities, it may not be accurate for the rest of the country.
“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.
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.
Downvoted you for this stunning example of cultivated ignorance:
I think their claim is nonsense, grossly exaggerated at best.
One only needs to look at the scouts of America to see this in play.
Boy Scouts were sued to open their ranks to girls. That suit won, forcing them to open their org to girls.
Girl Scouts were then sued for the flip example - to open their ranks to boys. The suit was almost immediately thrown out for “misogyny”.
After that “victory”, the then-head of the Girl Scouts admitted in private and off the record that she would rather destroy the org in its entirety - essentially razing it to the ground and permanently locking up the name “Girl Scouts” from being used by anyone else - before admitting a single boy.
Now, because they have both boys and girls, the Boy Scouts have tried to drop “boy” from the name, to be called only “Scouts”. This precipitated another lawsuit from the Girl Scouts in that dropping that part of the name will only accelerate their own membership decline.
You literally cannot make this sh*t up.
Men’s-only spaces across the country, like private gyms, are being attacked from all sides on the claim that their very existence is “misogynistic”, and yet service-identical women’s-only spaces in the same city are immune from those same “rules” under the claim that any attempt to apply those same rules to them is also “misogynistic”.
One of the best ways to uncover bigotry is to flip the term in contention and see if it reads any different after that from before. If it does, you’ve found a bigoted pattern in play.
True equality reads identically regardless of how the term in contention is flipped.
Edit:
I have zero issue with women’s only spaces. They are needed. But FFS you cannot eat your cake, and have it, too.
Real equality can only be achieved by applying the same rules equally. If women are to be allowed to have their own women’s-only spaces, men must also be allowed to have their own men’s-only spaces.
Hence the term, equality. Because if things aren’t equal, why even use that word? You might as well call it for what it truly is - anti-male gender bigotry.
liberals trying to understand equality: “what do you mean we need to give only to the poor? it’s only equal if we give the same amount to the rich!”
you need only ask yourself for what reason men-only groups exclude women and for what reason women-only groups exclude men to understand why protecting and elevating women’s groups and dismantling misogynistic institutions are both valid
liberals trying to understand equality: “what do you mean we need to give only to the poor? it’s only equal if we give the same amount to the rich!”
That comes from a fatal and corrupted understanding of what equality is.
Equality represents equal opportunity:
- A young adult who is wealthy has the intergenerational resources to pay for university, pay for their own housing, pay for essentially everything without having to work a single job.
- A young adult who is poor and has no resources should, in order to apply true equality, be provided with said education, housing, food and other resources as deemed necessary to put them into the same level of opportunity as the wealthy one.
See how that equality of opportunity works? It’s not opening up a spot at that university for the poor, but ensuring that they have just as equal of an opportunity to apply, learn, and succeed as the wealthy. And without constantly worrying about things the wealthy - by virtue of their wealth - don’t have to worry about.
And honestly, this equality doesn’t end at application acceptance. It should really go all the way way back to birth, with the disadvantaged family getting UBI, psychological parent’s counselling, parental guidance, healthy school district funding, affordable housing, and a lot more. Because systemic inequality is generations in the making, anything applied to only the current generation is a band-aid approach to a broken leg problem.
But I digress.
you need only ask yourself for what reason men-only groups exclude women and for what reason women-only groups exclude men to understand why protecting and elevating women’s groups and dismantling misogynistic institutions are both valid
Yes, that’s called anti-male gender bigotry, and there is just no other way to spin that.
Why do men want men’s only gyms? Not to oppress women, that’s for sure. Because, to beg the question: WHAT WOMEN?? There are no women at that gym to be oppressed.
There are far more women’s only gyms than men’s only gyms - women should go there. That’s what those gyms are there for - to allow women a place to exercise without men.
And conversely, men want to go to a men’s only gym to get away from the distraction of women.
Seriously - stand in front of a men’s only gym, and interview the men going there. A significant number will cite a variation of this as their primary reason for switching.
They want the camaraderie of men in a place without distractions. They don’t want the gym thots doing thirst traps on Instagram. They don’t want to be interrupted in the middle of a set by some woman fondling their buttocks (I’ve actually seen this happen, with zero repercussion only because it was a guy who was the “victim”). They don’t want to deal with unjustified accusations of harassment and other assumed slights. They just want to work out in peace.
And if they cannot work out in peace, why should women?
As in, why call it “equality”, when it is most clearly nothing of the sort?
Wow I’ve never seen anyone actually argue their own hypocrisy with hypocrisy.
Motivations are irrelevant. Equality is equality, you can’t give rights to one demographic and deny to another because you think the other is ‘icky’. That is discrimination. Kinda the very thing we’re trying to argue against, and yet you used it as part of your reasoning.
you can’t give rights to one demographic and deny to another because you think the other is ‘icky’.
Literally nobody said this. My whole point is that equality isn’t achieved by “applying the same rules equally” (as the person I responded to said) to people who aren’t on an equal playing field.
You don’t solve inequality by giving both those who have less and those who have more the same amount. That just maintains the status quo.
edit: Y’all really need to learn about substantive equality.
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
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.
Yes and I don’t care about the rest of the culture war.
This thread is the best evidence of why Men’s groups exist.
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.
As a woman, I don’t tend to care too much about gendered groups. I’m of the opinion that if somebody doesn’t want me there, I don’t want to be there.
Depending on the context of the group, there’s a valid reason for their existence, for example pregnancy groups (probably sex-exclusive though?) as I don’t really see what a male/man would get out of it.
I’m sure similarly valid groups exist for men, but I can’t think of any right now.
I tend to be more okay with women’s only spaces just because they feel safe – due to certain men displaying overt and unwanted sexual desires and seemingly just unable to control themselves, which can be uncomfortable or trigger traumas – so naturally I believe men should be entitled to their own spaces as well.
If the purpose of the group is that they’re sexiest, I honestly don’t know why the opposite gender would want to hang around them anyway.
By most measures, I’m a pretty stereotypically “manly” guy, and you can say pretty much the same thing about most of my male friends.
I’ve never really felt as though a woman being present in any way impeded anything we were doing. If anything it improved things in a “the more the merrier” kind of way. As long as they’re ok with the cigar smoke, fart jokes, having to pee outside, etc. anyone is welcome to participate in our bullshit.
But I do feel like we can get in the way of women bonding and venting it the ways they need and want to. The old “it’s not about the nail” kind of thing.
And of course, there’s a whole lot of guys who are just dangerous toxic assholes who probably shouldn’t be allowed to be around women in general, but trying to figure out which ones can and can’t be trusted is a tall order and it’s a lot easier to just say “women only.”
So I don’t really see much point in men-only spaces, but I do see it for women-only spaces.
There’s some exceptions, sure, like men who have certain kinds of trauma that involve women may need some safe places to work that out. And it’s not that women can’t also be dangerous, toxic assholes, but in terms of numbers, severity, and actual risk, things are kind of on a different level than with men, so it’s easier to deal with that on a case-by-case basis.
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?
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.
Any group can be empowering for its members. If it’s a group that already has an unequal amount of power in society, exclusive meetings will tend to exacerbate the inequality. But if it’s a relatively powerless group, it can counter the imbalance.
“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.”
My rpg club took the incdusivity road in the 2010, and is now a very inclusive/diverse place. We do have the blue haired enbies that riqht winger hate, and some old players who after acouple of beer starts complaining about RPG becoming woke (An inclusive place means they’re welcome too)
We do have a couple of women only group and a point someone launched a men only table. While we had one of the old player complaining about the women only game, no blue haired enby complained about the men only game. So I have the impression that this whole women only space are OK, men only space aren’t is some bullshit.
Note that, this worked becaused the gender specific game include people identifying as this gender, are the exception, and have a justification. It’s not I don’t like wo•man so I want only a gender but * I want a game exploring masculinity/feminity and therefore will limit the cast gender*
This is a question we’ve faced in the queer community forever. As LGBTQ people there’s a lot of blur between sex/gender. Bars have gotten into hot water with the community over the years for being sex/gender exclusive.
However, in the instance of a sexual environment, like a bath house or fetish club, is such segregation legitimate? For example, I am solely gay and only interested in biologically male genitalia. I completely support trans men politically but if I am in a sexual situation I am only interested in men with penises. However, my husband loves trans men sexually and finds men with vaginas hot af. So IDK. I guess that if I went to a gay sex club and there were trans men there that’s simply not my particular jam, like there are gonna be other cis gender guys there that aren’t going to be my thing either. But ultimately sexual environments would be the only acceptable segregation I can think of off the top of my head.
Also, note that there used to be an incredibly important annual lesbian music event, the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival, that ran from 1976 to 2015 that arguably died because of their exclusion of trans women. From 1991 forward the festival, which was on private land, had a trans exclusionary policy that divided the attendees.
But ultimately sexual environments would be the only acceptable segregation I can think of off the top of my head.
the clubs i frequent are more sexually charged than bath houses and the straight women who show up have the unfortunate tendency to treat it like a petting zoo.
it got so bad that one of the places instituted a fetish gear requirement for entry and it was VERY effective at keeping straight women out, but it had the unfortunate side effect of push the straight women to the other establishments and it significantly reduced the levels of sexual charge in all of them.
