GC: Are men entitled to male-only spaces?

submitted by womanual from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]slushpilot 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Yes, absolutely. You can't endorse spaces for one without the other.

Now, there are reasonable limits, and I think it depends on what the interest of the group is, and whether there is enough access available to both sexes independently. For example, if you're talking about a very niche hobby—like let's say there's a men's only model helicopter flying club—an obviously spurious thing, and so niche that there's not enough people to independently form an equivalent women's club, then I would question that.

[–]womanual[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You can't endorse spaces for one without the other.

I disagree because I think privileged groups don't need their own spaces. For the same reason I think it's OK for black people to reclaim the n-word but it's racist for white people to use that word. I also think it's OK for POC to have their own spaces but not white people. Dylann Storm Roof shot an entire black church after they let him pray for an hour. In 2015, white supremacist Gregory Bush shot 2 black elders at a Kroger's in Louisville, Kentucky. Minutes before moving to Kroger's, he tried to enter a black church but was denied. That church had safety reasons to keep white people out. If a white church had a policy of "no POC allowed" it would absolutely be racist, because white people stole this land from my people and it's white people who have formally created and enforced racist systems throughout history and still do. So you can endorse spaces for one without the other. I endorse spaces for POC but not white people. I endorse spaces for women but not men. I endorse spaces for gays but not straights.

[–]slushpilot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

This question was about men & women, primarily.

[–]womanual[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The answer to the question is women are an oppressed group while men aren't. That's why men don't need spaces just for men.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Is a sense of shared oppression is the only legitimate reason a group might need to meet?

[–]womanual[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

It's the only legitimate reason why a group can exclude certain demographics.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well there you go. I think that's a real lack of imagination. Also though, you are changing something around. I'm asking about legitimate reasons a group might need to meet. The exclusion implicit in my question is based on membership in the group in question. If non-membership counts as exclusion, then so be it.

But, are you saying a group can not meet unless it is a group organized around a shared oppression? How oppressed can that group be if they can prevent other groups from meeting among themselves? Your view seems impossible, and even irrational upon scrutiny.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also above you make this statement, which I think really goes to the heart of your position on this:

I think privileged groups don't need their own spaces.

I realize you say 'think' and not know, but how can you know that, or how can your thoughts on it be authoritative such that because you think it they should not be able to meet among themselves. It is one think to think it, but another then to take that though uncritically and just create a blanket opinion about who can not meet among themselves.

And, I'm not even going to waste time on your assumption about your universalizing the concept of privileged. I wish you success in stopping the Bilderbergers and the G7-9-15-etc from meeting, barring the the CFR from getting together and all the rest, but how do you intend do that? Or is it just straight white men that can't meet? It seems like you're arguing for tokenism or representation, if it's not just virtue signalling or sour grapes.