you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SnowAssMan 19 insightful - 4 fun19 insightful - 3 fun20 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

Kind of obvious isn't it? Men in women's spaces is the problem. E.g. men's sports, toilets, prisons etc. were already unisex. Anyone can use/join them. It's the female spaces where men aren't allowed. There is actually no such thing as a "men's space", so women using them doesn't affect anyone except themselves. It's for their own good not to use them, not men's.

Also, practically everyone here was on reddit, on feminist subs. We all got expunged &/or our subs banned because some men decided that a movement dedicated to examining & fighting against sexism wasn't affirming their self-identification as "valid women", due to feminist analysis far too often acknowledging the existence of sex – which is the height of transphobia, didn't you know?

I doubt there are any transgender females who want to be in men's prisons lol but the trans-movement, like any movement, is androcentric, which in their topsy-turvy world would probably be called transgynocentric, or something equally ridiculous. So they don't care that changing rights to be based on felt-gender will actually be detrimental to the female members (the vast majority, but clearly a social minority) of their community.

Heck, it's mostly trans men who insist people use terms like "pregnant people" and "menstruators"

Wrong. The pressure is coming from the male ones. They just blame the female ones. The female ones generally keep out of everyone's way. The homosexual ones aren't as hostile either. The main issue are the het male trans – the most dogmatic, obnoxious & relentless ones with the most entitlement & least legitimacy.

Barring the white ones, "transgender people" are just feminine homosexuals in every culture on the damn planet.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

Men in women's spaces is the problem. E.g. men's sports, toilets, prisons etc. were already unisex. Anyone can use/join them. It's the female spaces where men aren't allowed. There is actually no such thing as a "men's space", so women using them doesn't affect anyone except themselves. It's for their own good not to use them, not men's.

Not true. Women historically were explicitly barred from many sports and spaces such as schools, universities, clubs, most of the clergy. Still many clubs, fraternities and institutions like the Catholic hierarchy of the priesthood are for males only. In most of the Islamic world women can't be imams, and they certainly can't be mullahs and ayatollahs, and they are only allowed in one small part of mosques behind a curtain. Same goes for orthodox Jewish sects; only males get to become rebbes and devote their lives to study of the sacred texts, and at worship and social events like weddings women & girls are kept off to one side - or to a balcony - separate from the boys & men.

When previously all-male institutions like the university I attended decide to admit females, many had to amend their charters and other founding documents which said they were only for men. After I graduated, the alumni clubs only permitted women in certain parts of the premises - we were barred from the pools and gym, for example. When I was growing up, women were explicitly barred from applying for a vast number of jobs and positions. Women were also were not permitted to participate in distance running at the community or club level, or to partake in marathons.

There are still many private clubs around that are male-only, or if they are mixed-sex they have male-only spaces like the Men's Grill and Men's Lounge.

[–]SnowAssMan 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

That's not the same thing at all. Women were barred from the public sphere in general & it's been a long, slow process where they were allowed to participate. Once women were allowed into the public sphere, in some instances they got their own sex-specific institutions, as opposed to just using the original ones, ulike in all the other instances.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

Women in the 20th century in the Western world were not "barred from the public sphere in general" LOL. At all. Women were allowed in a vast number of spheres and spaces. Women could even be US Congress members and US Senators, state legislators, governors, mayors, civic leaders. In the 20th century, India, Israel, the UK and Pakistan all had female prime ministers.

But for the first three-quarters of the 20th century, the vast majority of women in the Western world were barred from many specific jobs and professions because of our sex. There were plenty of women working in all sorts of factories, offices and business enterprises throughout the 20th century - but only in certain jobs (except for during WW2). Women weren't kept at home chained to the stove, barefoot and pregnant throughout - women were allowed to participate in the larger world outside the home, but with a few exceptions like Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir, only if we kept to our place. Women could work in business, but mainly as secretaries and file clerks. Women could work in restaurants, but almost always only as waitresses, not as cooks or chefs. Women could work in banks, but as tellers, not as loan officers and executives...

In the 19th century, women responded to being barred from male institutions by setting up some female-only analogous ones such as women's colleges and universities, some as sister schools to the male ones (Radcliffe, Pembroke, Barnard), as well as medical schools, and of course women's hospitals and health clinics. But for the most part, this was not the case in the 20th century. When women were allowed into areas that previously we'd been barred from in the 20th century, particularly in the 1960s and onwards, we did not seek or get our own sex-specific institutions in general - except that is, for facilities like rape refuges, DV shelters, consciousness raising groups, support groups, rehab programs. Women who started attending Yale in the late 60s didn't seek or set up a Yale 4 Women. Women who entered various professions like law, medicine & business in unprecedented numbers in the 1970s did not set up women's law, medical and business schools - or aim for separatism in the world of work after graduation. Women who fought for the right to run in marathons did not seek to have a separate NY Marathon and Boston Marathon for women - in fact, when the NY marathon tried to segregate women, all the female runners protested and refused.

Where existing institutions already existed and sex mattered, such as in scholastic sports & dormitory provisions, women in the 20th century set up female-specific sports programs, places (locker rooms, loos, dorm rooms or sections of dorms) and social spaces (sororities, women's centers) within the extant institutions - but by and large, we did not advocate for creating a whole bunch of entirely separate institutions. We wanted our own locker rooms and sports competitions, but no girls & women in JHS, HSs, colleges & universities were advocating for our own female-only gymnasiums, field houses, ball fields, track & field facilities, courts, rinks, pools, boathouses and such. And where sex did not matter - such as in classrooms, libraries and labs, we wanted to learn and live in a mixed sex environment. In many previously all-male universities, women didn't even want separate housing - we preferred to to live in mixed-sex dorms where sex segregation only occurred by floor, section, pods or room, and where both sexes could come & go freely at all hours.

[–]SnowAssMan 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

We generally agree, especially when not arbitrarily limited to the 20th century. There was a time when women weren't allowed to get a higher education, or most jobs. I think that is sufficiently concordant with my earlier statement.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Some women" always had power and privileges, even in 15th century or 5th centuty, but it was mostly achieved through class - being rich, owning land of husband who died. Those are outliers.

When "all women" received those same freedoms and abilities is another question.

"On the West" it started in 1910-20s and ended at around 1970-90s, in some European country women were not able to own a land or open credit card without man's approval up until 1980s, so women weren't "completely barren from public life" (I think it is the phrasing why MT was so pedantic), but were severely limited to women, except few, and last canton was forced to do so in 1991: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerland

In most "Western" countries this process was around 1940-60s, so at least half of 20th century women were limited in freedoms in "Western" countries.

In many developing countries situation is severely worse:

AE gave women voting rights just in 2011, and not even fully, as women were allowed to run for elections only in 2015 there, but only for municipal ones.

In Omen and UAE this happened only in 2005-6. So few years ago.

In Russia there were 500 jobs forbidden for women to work at until 2019 (including ones like being metro train driver), and since 2019 there only 100 such jobs, mostly ones that require heavy lifting or are close to military services or connected with dangeroues chemicals.

In 2019 Saudi Arabia allowed women to go outside of house or a job on their own, without male permission and without male guardian: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-women-idUSKCN1UR5TB

And so on, and on, and on, and on.