Mastodawn

Are gender-exclusive groups ever ok?

Are gender-exclusive groups ever ok? - Lemmy

[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: > “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 [https://mona.net.au/stuff-to-do/art/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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcJHZAil-W4]” - a discussion about fake man-caves and sexism.

Show thread

rekabis Feb 10

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 before admitting a single boy.

Now, because they have both boys and girls, the Boy Scouts are trying to drop “boy” from the name, to be called only “Scouts”. This has 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 spaces in the same city are immune from those same “rules” under the claim that any attempt to apply those same rules 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.

Show thread

Lunar Feb 10

liberals trying to understand equality: “what do you mean we need to give 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

Show thread

AndrewZabar

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.

Show thread

Lunar Feb 11

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 the same amount as those who have less to those who have more. That just maintains the status quo.