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 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.