female identifying only area at Glastonbury.

Grimarse - that your wife and daughter might be violent and abusive is irrelevant. We all know that women can be as vicious and abusive as the worst sort of man.

That does not translate into widespread fear of womenkind by men.

Men don't walk alone along a street at night and see a woman - or group of women - and get that automatic jolt of fear and uncertainty. Men don't walk past groups of (sober) women in broad daylight and automatically speed up and put their head down, for fear of drawing the group's attention and comment.

Unknown men cause fear in women, in a way that unknown women don't cause fear in men.

Women only cause fear in men, other women, and children, on an individual level. If they're a known entity - and have proved themselves to be violent or abusive - for example your 'teacher' wife or 'bully' daughter.

Unless I know a woman is a bully, I have no reason to fear her. I don't need to know anything about a man, to fear a random one that I might meet in X circumstance.

This fear is caused by nothing more or less than what I know men - as a group - are capable of (even though my personal experience of men has generally been extremely positive).

@Felascloak: Is it really progressive in any way to have representation for men who identify as women?
I never saw a problem in the lack of representation of people who wear high heels and make up. The problem, as I see it, is the lack of representation of ... well, women.

on twitter just this month I have had 3 dick pics sent to me. several @s calling me a cunt/bitch/fucker/deserve to be raped all because I share feminist articles so yes. Women need safe places because even on the internet, where I am protected from physical abuse I still get a hell of a lot of verbal abuse.

Why does this even need justification? If some women want a place to congregate by themselves, and it is used each one of several hundred women might have their own reason. If it's used it was worth it.

I get the point about trans though, this virtue signaling on trans issues is becoming not just a farce, but a dangerous one as well.

vestal I think because part of the aim of the space was to provide a boost to representation of women at a male dominated event.
They can do that whether they use a biological or gender identity definition of women.
Sorry for getting ducked into the derail. Too much

I think back to my mum telling me in the swimming pool changing rooms when I was little, that there wasn't any reason to be embarrassed, we all have the same bits.

I remember once I'd grown up, going into my first London gym, full of naked Scandinavians using the hair dryer and repeating it to myself - 'no-one cares, we all have the same stuff, it's fine', or in communal showers at a biker rally. And it was true. None of the women cared, it was friendly, there was chatting and laughter, and women just getting on with each other care-free.

When that's not true though, when we don't all have the same bits, then how does that work? I can't imagine ever being comfortable enough to go in communal showers at a biker rally if men were in there too.

Back to Glastonbury, how do they justify this decision?

Women only would mean there's safety from groping. Which is a very important and big difference to the alternative.

Self-identified women only would mean there is ... what? Freedom to use the pronoun "she" for everyone in the tent? How does that make a music festival any more fun?

Reclaim the Internet comes to mind. FWR board a target, and threads are so frequently derailed.

Aaand Grimarse succeeded in derailing the conversation and now we are all trying to prove to him that we are right to fear men, instead of having any kind of productive conversation.

Which ... kind of in itself proves that we need women-only spaces for feminist debate.

There are some references here sapac.umich.edu/article/196

Surveys have consistently reported that college men acknowledged forced intercourse at a rate of 5-15% and college sexual aggression at a rate of 15-25% (Koss, Gidycz, and Wisniewski, 1987; Malamuth, Sockloskie, Koss, and Tanaka, 1991)

The national survey of rape conducted by Koss et al. (1987) revealed that 1 in 12 college men committed acts that met the legal definition of rape, and of those men, 84% did not consider their actions to be illegal

In a large study of college men, 8.8% admitted rape or attempted rape (Ouimette & Riggs, 1998)

So it's a pretty substantiated figure (I've seen other studies supporting it among sailors I seem to remember as well).

There's an interesting discrepancy between admitting 'Rape' and admitting

Vestal, where are you getting your 15% of men are rapists statistic from?

Ah, well, that explains it - that page is Great Britain, not the UK.

Hey though, terrorism is equally a risk and we should definitely all be scared of brown people hmm

Not non-existent doesn't mean equal.
I haven't read that anybody has said they are equal risk.

That terrorism figure is way off. 4 people were murdered by terrorists in one week earlier this year in Belfast.

lass I got it from here

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain

7/7 was 11 years ago so I didn't add it in. If I had then the number would go up to 57. Compared with around 1100 women killed and
If you have better stats let me know, I'm not sure its really relevant though, there are definitely are not even close to 2 people a week killed by terrorists in the UK.

There were approximately 10000 convictions for rape and sexual offences in 2015 alone
www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/highest_ever_numbers_of_violence_against_women_cases_being_prosecuted_and_convicted_in_england_and_wales/

Hey though, terrorism is equally a risk and we should definitely all be scared of brown people

What no one seems to have pointed out about terrorists, is that they are also predominantly men.

I was out for a run yesterday on a canal towpath and there were a few other people walking along that I passed (with difficulty ). There were a couple of lone men, two teenage girls walking a dog (maybe one of them was grimarse's daughter??) a male/female couple.
Now, I did have a slight worry that when I passed the girls they might have thought I had a big arse or they might have took the piss a bit (I'm so old now that they probably didn't even register my existence though!). The couple I didn't worry about because they were adults and one of them was female so, from experience, I knew it'd be pretty unlikely that there would be any danger for me.
The 2 separate men that I passed, I did think twice about. It's unlikely that either of them would be a rapist and also the sort of rapist who would attack someone in a public place, and I would have been really unlucky to have come across a man like that on that particular day and time. I don't run at a regular time so no one would have known I'd be going etc etc. The official advice for women is to vary thief route and not to go to the same isolated place at the same time to avoid giving a man the chance to attack you, shockingly this is the kind of risk assessment that women really have to do in real life every day. I'm not scared of women attacking me, or teenage girls, because they generally don't attack anyone. I am (a bit) scared of being attacked by a man because women and men are often victims of male violence. It's just common sense that I'm statistically safer with a woman than with a man. Everyone is, men, women, and children. Women are less violent than men. It's just true.
Sorry this is probably too simplistic but I just wanted to say it because this is real life for women in the world of men.

5 people have been killed by terrorists in the UK in the last ten years

That is nonsense. Goodness knows where you found that figure.

Oh but you are a thick one, aren't you?

Yes indeedy, I decided to temporarily leave off the discussion of fearing rape, terrorism, male violence, and racial profiling to make a random statement asserting that no one has ever met your wife has ever been afraid of her for anything she has ever done or been suspected of doing. You got me!

But the conversation was about fear and perceptions. Now I don't know (although I'm comfortable in saying I think it's unlikely) if there is anything about your wife that might legitimately make strangers fear her, but I very much doubt that anyone fears your daughter (assuming she is a child).

People bring their experiences and what they have been told and make deductions based on them. Often not very accurate deductions, but we base our fears on some sort of calculation. Women are told from a young age that they aren't safe on their own, that they should dress in ways that make them 'less of a target', that they are taking their lives into their hands if they walk down the street at night etc. They see on the news the all too frequent reports of women being abused and killed by men, and then add in their own experiences, and most of us have a few.

So we worry. We worry about random men we might encounter at night and whether we might in some way be 'asking for it'. We worry less about our male friends and our boyfriends/husbands although in truth we should worry more as we are more likely to be attacked by them.

Perhaps we also worry about terrorism, but then lots of terrorists are men, so that's really just an additive factor isn't it?

Sure there have been terrorist attacks, and many more planned and foiled. But then the same could be said for sexual assaults couldn't it? I'm sure that most rapists plan far more rapes than they carry out.

You explicitly said that no-one is afraid of her. You wrote it, about someone you don't know. Then you accuse me of dragging her into the argument. So now you have to play the MRA card. Well done. As I said earlier, there is no middle ground with bigots. Good night.

People still aren't afraid that your family womenfolk might be terrorists even if your daughter is a mean-spirited shit.

We were talking about terrorism and fears of terrorism driving judgments about terrorists, and you brought your wife and kid into a discussion on who is afraid of terrorism, who stereotypes brown people as terrorists, is it fair to be afraid of brown people because they could be terrorists and how might sex intersect with fear of violence and terrorism.

Then BOOM! "What if my daughter picks on girls, girls aren't angels y'know, wah!"

Just keep denying the MRA charge all the while pulling out MRA 101 debate tactics that do their worst to avoid acknowledgment of the absolutely epidemic scourge of male violence ruining this beautiful world.

It was in response to People are not afraid of your wife and daughter. PEOPLE ARE NOT AFRAID OF YOUR WIFE AND DAUGHTER. I didn't move the goalposts - you did. You have made the classic Fwr feminist assumption that women are inherently saintly and incapable of violence or abuse.