If men aren't allowed to have male only spaces, why should we allow women to have their own spaces?

submitted by Kai_Decadence from self.GenderCritical

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I'm trying to think of men only spaces that women have no tried to invade and take over

I can't think of any other organization or event that was male centered that women didn't try to get into.

WTF is this misogynistic bullshit? Has "Gender Critical" suddenly become a MRA sub?

Maybe there's a lot of news I have missed, but before the recent rise of "trans men" what men-only spaces have women "tried to invade and take over?" Even back in the 1960s, 70s and 80s when women were lobbying to be allowed access to previously male-only facilities and orgs from which we were once totally excluded, I don't recall women trying to "invade and take over" any of them.

Women and girls wanted to be able to run marathons and join orgs like the NY Road Runners Club; join Little League; and join some previously male-only clubs where men met to do business, network and advance their careers. But I don't recall any women trying to "invade and take over" these orgs.

I was one of the first women to attend a previously all-male college/uni as an undergrad admitted as a "freshman" - and whilst women who entered such schools wanted equal access to places like the libraries, labs and classrooms, we never sought to end men's right to have their own dorms, loos, sports, locker rooms or fraternities. And we certainly didn't try to "take over" higher ed or the Ivy League.

I was part of the group that pushed for women alums to be able to use the pool and other athletics facilities at the Yale Club in NYC from which we were barred because of our sex. We wanted ample opportunity to be able to use the pool, squash courts and such - but we never tried to take over. On the contrary, we though that men should still be able to have the pool to themselves at certain times so they continue the YC tradition of swimming naked.

Maybe I have been asleep, but has there been a mass-scale movement in which large numbers of women have been pushing for entry into the RC priesthood, to attend orthodox yeshivas and become orthodox rabbis, to join college fraternities, to compete in men's sports, to use men's locker rooms and loos, to join men's gyms, to become members of support groups for guys dealing with erectile dysfunction, prostate cancer, gynecomastia and male-pattern baldness? In addition to meetings open to both sexes, there used to be male-only AA, AA and SA meetings in many places; I don't think women ever pushed to integrate them.

AFAIK, women never have tried to force the Masons to go "co-ed," or to open up the men's swimming pond at Hampstead Heath. Some women distressed about the decision to open up the women's pond to males whilst keeping the men's pond male-only did don fake beards and barge in on the men's pond a couple of summers ago - but that was to make a point; they were not trying to have the men lose their male-only space.

I hung out with a lot of gay guys in the 80s and 90s, and lived in a very gay nabe in NYC, but don't recall women seeking access to gay male bath houses, back rooms in gay clubs set aside for guys to have sex, the loos where men were known to seek sex, the parts of parkland where men used to cruise and have sex (such as the Bramble in Central Park). I used to share summer houses on Fire Island, and none of the women in my house would ever have thought for a second of trying to go with our gay male pals and housemates to all the male-only sex parties or other events like high tea in the Pines.

In ye olden days, there used to be lots of porn theaters and shops that catered to an exclusively male clientele. Women were never trying to get in those places.

NYC still has several posh male-only clubs such as the Union Club and the Knickerbocker that women aren't trying to get into AFAIK.

In the 80s, women never had a problem with the name or concept behind Gay Men's Health Crisis. A lot of women volunteered there, but as more and more women became ill with HIV and died of AIDs, there was never a push from women for orgs like GMHC to become "inclusive" of women. Though over time as AIDs crisis orgs morphed into HIV orgs, many orgs like GMHC expanded their services to some female clientele.

In my old nabe in NYC (Chelsea and the West Village) there were tons of men's gyms and men's hangout places that women never tried to "invade and take over."

There are lots of religious and conservative orgs and events that are male-only or male-centered that women haven't tried to "invade and take over." Like the Million Man March, all sorts of Muslim events, and those gross seminars and courses for men to learn to be PUAs.

I really resent the contention that there are no male-centered orgs or events "that women didn't try to get into" and "invade and take over." I think you are projecting male behavior onto women and blaming us for behaving like men when, in fact, we haven't behaved like men. Women of my generation and earlier generations who made inroads into previously male domains did not march in with weapons en masse and try to "invade and take over." We are actually pretty FUCKING polite and restrained.

This rewriting of history and trying to portray women as tyrants always trampling men's boundaries due to our custom of trying to "invade and take over" feels very similar to what's going on now with crimes. Male violent criminals in droves are identifying as women so large numbers of rapes, murders, serial killings, assaults, child molestations, dick-flashings and such that men commit are now getting recorded and reported as crimes committed by women. I don't think women are innately angels and morally superior to men. But still, there are patterns of behavior that are typical of the two sexes - and "invading and taking over" isn't female-typical behavior.

However, characterizing women's efforts to obtain access to places and programs from which we were historically excluded as attempts on our part to "invade and take over" sounds pretty typically male.

What's next - alleging that because of women's habit of trying to "invade and take over," the world's wars were started by women? Putin is a woman? Hilter was a woman? Papa Joe Stalin was a woman? Mao? Napoleon Bonaparte? LBJ, Dick Nixon, William Westmoreland, Henry Kissinger, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Yasser Arafat, Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, the leaders of ISIS - all women? Sheesh.

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I just want to clarify that I don't think women have tried to invade spaces that were male only while ignoring the business type avenues but that was not the same thing and I know it was necessary because of the unfair power dynamics that were in place decades ago. I was just sharing a comment of what some guy said about the Women's festival being shut down and I was having trouble trying to think of male only spaces where woman have done what he was saying and the only male only space I was picturing in my head aside from the men's restroom was male sports leagues. I was just drawing a blank at some other examples but ultimately I had a feeling the guy was talking out his bum and your detailed answered just showed that the guy was talking nonsense.

[–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yeah? Nah. Do we really need updates on all the stupid comments made by people on other parts of the internet, which is not reflective of the real world even in the best of circumstances, especially obscure ones like where you got this nonsense? I don't think we do. There is nothing of value to be found where you are looking.

Did you really need MarkTwainiac to show you "that the guy was talking nonsense'? When people knock "liberalism", they are often knocking something they do not really understand, and are knocking just some specific things they do not like. But one aspect of "liberalism, one admitted to by Biden recently, is that it is the dominate order in the world and has been for (at least) 80 years. Thus, what ever mind-set it has, can be found: every where modernity can be found, in every university, on every TV or radio, and it is ubiquitous on the internet even where it is supposedly hated and railed against. One aspect of that mind-set that we all easily succumb to is the inability to discern right from wrong or truth from lies because we too easily see nearly everything, and more importantly increasingly everything, as within someone's "rights" (a better word might be "licence"). By granting licence to people to do what ever they want, in their privacy or when they simply can afford it or when it's what they do for a living or because they think it feels good or what ever, we then put it in our own minds on some kind of equal footing with genuinely good or right things. We end up having to push down what we really or rightly think to accommodate BS even when the BS artists pushing their BS are kinda obviously lying or being disingenuous. Let's stop doing that. Or, put bluntly: who gives a fuck what some jack ass typed? Michfest's demise is a loss, the bad guys won. It's really that simple.

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah? Nah. Do we really need updates on all the stupid comments made by people on other parts of the internet, which is not reflective of the real world even in the best of circumstances, especially obscure ones like where you got this nonsense? I don't think we do. There is nothing of value to be found where you are looking.

I do agree but I really was curious about this one because it's not the first time I've seen these kinda men make these stupid claims (I've heard this IRL as well at my job back when the Maya Forstater case was happening and JK Rowling came out in support. One of my woman coworkers even said she didn't see why Rowling was saying what she was saying...) and whenever I would watch videos about feminist issues from the radical feminist angle because the MRAs who call themselves feminists ("libfems") stuff is useless when it comes to certain topics and you'd see some comments like that and I never saw responses from radfems so I was curious to hear what radfems think whenever they hear this kinda crap.

But lesson learned, I'll try not to keep asking these kinda questions. It seems that when men say that kinda stuff ("feminists wanted this", "this is true equality" (when Feminism was never about equality...), etc) is just them showing their misogyny.

[–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It seems that when men say that kinda stuff ("feminists wanted this", "this is true equality" (when Feminism was never about equality...), etc) is just them

Individuals say things, unless they are a mob chanting slogans. So, deal with individuals. When individuals speak for some group, especially some group they are not in, it usually does not go well and probably obscures what ever the group is about and always reduces variation with in the group.

I just feel like you know better than to have to bring the questions you're raising here in this thread. You don't have to give stupid ideas equal footing to good ones in your own mind.

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'll try to remember this all.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In my (male) opinion, it’s GOOD to ask these types of questions here, not for the purpose of trying to discredit any efforts by the women’s liberation movement, but rather for the simple fact that it keeps everyone on Team GC sharp and practiced on these types of talking points, so that we’re all on our A game when addressing the same logic and rhetoric out in the public square.