Son not welcome at sewing workshop

[Cheryl39]

Just tried to sign up for me, my 16 year old daughter and 18 year old son to join a one day sewing workshop and the tutor was very unwelcoming about my son joining. She said the workshops are mainly attended by women and the group as a whole might be uncomfortable talking about women's issues with a young man present. I feel really sad about this and so have not signed up.....is the tutor being discriminatory......what are your thoughts?

This is another straw man - that feminism is code for female supremacy. It's not. It's equality.

Can I ask what makes you think feminists ignore the interests of their sons?

Well I presume at least a couple of those ranting on this thread about men invading womens spaces and how anything remotely feminine is one of those spaces must have sons? I can't see how saying its ok to exclude men from any number of things they might be interested in is looking after their interests.

But then I don't think the ludicrous standpoint voiced by those few is common so i doubt its much of a problem.

"Well I presume at least a couple of those ranting on this thread about men invading womens spaces and how anything remotely feminine is one of those spaces must have sons?"

Ah, right. So feminists you have made up, then. What a relief. For a minute I thought there might actually be a problem here.

I didn't say they did Bertrand. You have taken a small part of my post away from the context it was written in. My point was that the consequences (of ignoring the interests of sons) can be felt throughout in society not just in people's personal lives. toosexy, had talked about looking after her son's interests in terms of her personal life rather as opposed to doing this being also important to feminism on a much wider scale.

So feminists you have made up, then

No, the ones that are on the thread, for all to scroll back and read. Pretty sure I didn't make them up, unless I'm hallucinating their posts?

Well, there were people who pointed out that there are circumstances where women only spaces are a good thing. And why. And that men wanting to use them for the sake of it is not a good thing.

Is that what you meant?

Yes, but there were also posters like the one who told me that its good to exclude men from commercial sewing classes on the basis that there may be DV suffers there, and then extended that theory to many other instances.

So not, thats not what I meant at all.

How is a teen boy wanting to sew with his mother wanting to use a womens only space for the sake of it?
You are, again, conflating distinct and separate issues.

Yet agian, denoting anything vaguely feminine in nature as a "women only space" is not only unhelpful, it's offensive.

Bertrand, the sewing group mentioned in the OP was not advertised as a woman only space, though. Added to this, if all there was, was women only sewing groups how does this address and challenge existing gender stereotypes?

Also if hobby groups were unisex then men would not seek to infiltrate them in order to use them to target women (as mentioned with the book group upthread), could they?

I think increased equality inevitably involves the need for increased integration. If sectors of the population remain divided it perpetuates stereotypes through an 'us and them' mentality.

If equality is better equality is achieved there would be less need for safe women's spaces to start with. However until then we are stuck with the need for them. I think, though, equality is best served if safe spaces do not perpetuate and reinforce the same gender stereotypes, which are bound up with the same inequality, feminism seeks to challenge.

Bertrand I assume toosexy is referring to posts like Vestal's posts today or the ones yesterday , which ignored the fact the OP clearly said this was just a one day workshop, were determined to turn it into a scenario of safe spaces being invaded. As toosexy has said several times, conflating 2 completely different scenarios or in the case of Vestal pretty much arguing that everything should be sex segregated.

"Bertrand, the sewing group mentioned in the OP was not advertised as a woman only space, though"

No, I know it wasn't. And based solely on what the OP said, I think it was pretty universal that her son should have been allowed to join. The conversation then broadened to other women only spaces and why.........

This is another straw man - that feminism is code for female supremacy. It's not. It's equality

The message I'm getting from some on here is certainly not that feminisim is for supremacy , nor even for equality, but that women are so weak and feeble that all activity has to be segregated.

No, I know it wasn't. And based solely on what the OP said, I think it was pretty universal that her son should have been allowed to join. The conversation then broadened to other women only spaces and why.........

Not universal. There are a fair few posts trying to invent reasons why it might have been or ought to be women only.

but that women are so weak and feeble that all activity has to be segregated.

Another considerable exaggeration. What do you think of the men who fiercely guard some members clubs and vote down any attempt to allow women to join?

The conversation then broadened to other women only spaces and why.........

I'm fully aware of this Bertrand. I also made a comment relevant to this discussion in the latter part of my last post, where I said this,

I think increased equality inevitably involves the need for increased integration. If sectors of the population remain divided it perpetuates stereotypes through an 'us and them' mentality.

If equality is better equality is achieved there would be less need for safe women's spaces to start with. However until then we are stuck with the need for them. I think, though, equality is best served if safe spaces do not perpetuate and reinforce the same gender stereotypes, which are bound up with the same inequality, feminism seeks to challenge.

The conversation then broadened to other women only spaces and why

No, it brought in several irrelevant things that had no bearing on the OP, and posters berated others for not seeing them as the exact same thing.

Another considerable exaggeration

No it is not. I found Vestal's posts of today chilling.

What do you think of the men who fiercely guard some members clubs and vote down any attempt to allow women to join?

Given this has not been discussed why are you bringing this in (apart from presumably leaping to the conclusion I will defend them ? )

Since you ask I find them as ridiculous as some of the posts on here. Muirfield golf course has recently voted to allow female members. I know 3 of the members who voted in favour
, all of whom without prompting from me, roundly condemned a fellow member who voted against it as being a complete idiot.

And actually, I think, having more unisex groups, as safe spaces, for people who have suffered abuse, might do better to avoid minimising abuse, in terms of it being an unavoidable result of patriarchal society. The insinuation implicit in this minimisation being that male abusers are somewhat powerless victims of the patriarchy too. Having men standing alongside women, challenging patriarchal abuses does more to break down the gender stereotype of men being somehow naturally more susceptible to becoming abusive.

I think, though, equality is best served if safe spaces do not perpetuate and reinforce the same gender stereotypes, which are bound up with the same inequality, feminism seeks to challenge

I agree.

Given this has not been discussed why are you bringing this in (apart from presumably leaping to the conclusion I will defend them ? )

You were speaking of how you look down on "segregation" and it makes women appear "weak" so I was curious as to what you thought of the many members clubs which deny women membership and the men who want to ensure women can't join. It's not exactly a huge leap or change of topic.

I thought it reasonably likely you'd defend them though finding women who might want safe spaces "as ridiculous" as often powerful and influential men fiercely guarding their privilege and excluding women from such clubs is also baffling to me.

I think, having more unisex groups, as safe spaces, for people who have suffered abuse, might do better to avoid minimising abuse

Only if those who have suffered abuse wanted these groups. It's vital to keep safe spaces for people who have to feel comfortable in.

Nolove, I appreciate that.

I think there is some contention around 'safe' women only spaces reinforcing the gender stereotypes that feminism seeks to challenge, though. Integration and equality naturally go together, just as segregation and inequality do. However whilst there is a patriarchy that systematically leads to abuses of women, women will want safe women only spaces. Chicken and egg comes to mind, sadly.

Your last paragraph makes no sense at all; either as an interpretation of what I said on here or as a standalone point.

What in anything I have said could possibly lead you to this I thought it reasonably likely you'd defend them.

I have been saying exactly the opposite- that skills, learning and hobby activities should not be segregated.

"I think, though, equality is best served if safe spaces do not perpetuate and reinforce the same gender stereotypes, which are bound up with the same inequality, feminism seeks to challenge"

I'm a bit conflicted on this. I can really see advantages in single sex courses in areas where one sex has traditionally not been involved. Women on,y car mechanics, for example. Men only baking, or sewing.

But as there practically no money for adult education any more, it's probably a moot point.

clarity I can see what you mean. I do agree regarding something such as being spoken of in this thread - a sewing workshop - this certainly shouldn't be gendered. Sewing shouldn't be the preserve of or specifically associated with a particular sex.