Thread to discuss the reality of parts of the UK absorbing large numbers of men from other cultures

If you're thinking about e.g. single sex swimming sessions though, yes they may have been preferred by a wide group of women, but there were certain groups - Muslim women, Orthodox womem, assault victims - who could literally only attend those sessions. I think its ok to point out that if you change the rules to include 0.05% of the population, you are automatically excluding those other groups instead. Especially when many of those groups are already under-served and struggling with access.

The way I see it, mentioning the needs of Muslim or Jewish Orthodox women is simply pointing out that there are many different ways in which different kinds of women - sportswomen, women in prisons etc - are impacted. I don't have a problem with that, as religious belief is a protected characteristic in law, and in discussing the way religious women are impacted, it shows that one characteristic - ie. gender reassignment (or, as we have seen played out, any man who claims he 'feels like a woman') - is being prioritised over another. The protected group of males taking precedence over those of a protected group of females. Any criticism of the religion or its practices is irrelevant, I would argue, as the law states that they are protected in their belief. I may well see the covering of hair as victim blaming, but that doesn't mean I think the solution is forcing adherent women to reveal their bodies to men. Debate and discussion are the answer to that, not men barging their way into women's spaces.

Although now I come to think of it, why are we even bothering to explain this at all? I mean, we want women-only space because we're women. Do people really not understand this? It's somehow demeaning to have to give a list of reasons.

Oh I see.

Well, I personally think it's fair enough to include religious or ideological requirements on such a list.

I just don't think we should use Islam as a kind of "gotcha" for the reasons I tried to explain.

I think ‘list of examples of scenarios where women only space is required.’

eg- people might say victims of sexual assault who are triggered by the presence of a man, woman who has a baby in the pram and needs to leave the door ajar, etc.

By the masters tools, I meant in this case, the patriarchal policing of women’s behaviour and social engagement.

there's an uncomfortable feeling sometimes that Muslim women are being used like a kind of human shield in these exchanges!

Yes. That’s the feeling. Why isn’t enough to state what the basic needs for all women and girls are? Privacy, safety, dignity, etc.

Lists of examples of what?

Yeah, something like that! Although I don't have a problem with using "the master's tools" - I don't see that we have to create entirely new structures in order to deal with structural problems. But I think it's language that plays into identity politics and it's meant to be placatory to identitarians. OR it's meant to purity shame your opponent, like "oh so you don't care about Muslim women then?"

I mean, the fact is that anyone advocating for the abolition of single sex spaces clearly doesn't care (or hasn't thought about) Muslim women and girls. And pointing that out probably does rupture the cognitive dissonance somewhat. But there's an uncomfortable feeling sometimes that Muslim women are being used like a kind of human shield in these exchanges! And could backfire in a horrible way, with concessions to Muslim women meaning there are sex and race-segregated spaces.

Plus it avoids getting to the point that the reason most women want single sex spaces is for our privacy and dignity, not for religious or ideological reasons. That's important too.

Are you discussing examples from this board? If not, why are you using examples from the US as a stick to beat UK feminists?
On threads where people have asked for lists of examples, the first poster doesn't list all the possibilities. People chip in. You've singled out one example, and your justification feels convoluted.

The feminist position is that feminism advocates for the rights of all women, even if they don't agree with us, even if they are not active feminists.

I don’t necessarily think gotcha is the right word, but I know what you mean. I think it often belies a lack of confidence in the feminist justification and is often the first or only example of women’s need for single sex facilities.

There’s a belief that people who argue that women aren’t entitled to single sex space might be more willing to consider it if it has a patriarchal basis.

The subtext is: “oh I see what you mean about needing single sex space now - you don’t want her imam, dad, future husband, etc, thinking she’s unclean/damaged goods, because a bloke has seen her hair, maybe in those cases single sex spaces should be allowed”.

It’s a case of using the ‘masters tools’.

I know it is always couched in the language of inclusion, but I get the strong instinct that its over-emphasis is coming from the same place as people beginning every criticism of gender identity ideology with “first I’d like to say, I believe in trans rights” or by amplifying the voices of male transsexuals over women. It’s feminists pre-emptively conceding to misogynist opposition to deflect potential criticism.

I think both of you are right. Of course we should advocate for all women to have access to single sex spaces and public life in general. But also, we shouldn't use Muslim women as a kind of 'gotcha' to make the idea of single sex spaces palatable to the idpol left. All women need single sex spaces for their dignity.

EndlessTea
Thinking about it now, it really pisses me off, the way so many feminists use the ‘Muslim woman needing to adjust her hair covering’ argument for single sex spaces.

I keep seeing people post this, as if women have said that's the only reason for needing single sex spaces.
My argument has always been that if we want women to be able to participate in society then we need to make space for them.
I'm not going to stop making that argument. Find a way to deal with your anger.

This conversation is ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT and covers so much of what we've discussed on this thread. Going to buy her book.

open.spotify.com/episode/4yNPedvPGE2lZ4uPtYViot

I think that no one cedes power willingly, I think this is a deep animal instinct, a Predator will never willingly relinquish its prey otherwise it won't survive
We should always anticipate opposition and look for ways to nip it in the bud

*Why, because some patriarch

Thinking about it now, it really pisses me off, the way so many feminists use the ‘Muslim woman needing to adjust her hair covering’ argument for single sex spaces. Why, become some patriarch will declare her a tart if a bloke sees her hair?
My own needs, my own dislike of sharing with men should be enough.

And if you look back - all the feminist gains were made in spite of apparently overwhelming opposition.

No need for despondency women are clever and better at collaborating, now that we can see what they are doing now that we understand the power structures the mechanics of it all all we can easily make strategies
men waste a lot of energy in pissing contests, find it harder to collaborate and share power it's easy to use their strength against them

Anyway… I don’t want to become despondent.

We need to pull on our big girl pants, find our ovaries and show a bit of pride in our feminist gains in the West.

Enough of this mugsie self-abnegation of accepting the unacceptable in the name of #bekind, ‘cultural sensitivity’ bs.

Yes, pornographers, pimps and plastic surgeons jumped straight into the void left behind by the religious patriarchs to make mugs of women all over again, but it is still better. We have more rights.

Yes

But at least we called it terrorism. We're not doing that with Islamists. In Batley, the teacher is still in hiding and even his school doesn't support him.

We need to at least call it what it is.

I agree, but I suppose it’s the same as it was with the IRA. They declared war against us, and the official line was to just call them terrorists and not accept their declaration.

I think there's already a war on the west. (Isn't that the title of Douglas Murray's latest book?) When you have beheadings of teachers (Samuel Paty) and other terrorist attacks, I don't think it's okay to keep pretending that nothing's going on.

The problem is that Islamists know they're at war with us, but we don't seem to understand that we're at war with them.

women as service humans for men
That's what they will always do if we let them get away with it, we have to examine and recognise what's going on and find ways to stop letting them get away with it
They will always stitch us up if they can