Men/Whites/Woman - what's the difference?

[Identifiesaspissedoff]

As the other thread got deleted can I rant here please?

Do people seriously not get that the difference between 'men only' spaces 'whites only' spaces and 'woman only' spaces is that woman have (and still are) been an oppressed group whereas men and whites have traditionally been the oppressors? Is men wanting to enter woman's spaces not a bit like whites demanding the right to enter Native American reservations? Or am I not getting it? If I am getting it how do I get it through to others?

Mainly a lurker, but I'm starting to really like this board and am very impressed with a lot of the posters on it.

Its not that you don't get it. People who use that argument are abusive.

One counter argument is 'do white people have the right to demand access to a meeting organized by Black people.'
Or
'Do men have a right to demand access to the women only space in a synagogue, temple or mosque.'

To me it's just common sense. But I'm starting to be made to feel like I'm the bigoted one?

One poster suggested asking people who said that why they thought whites / men might need their own spaces to illustrate that it (mostly) doesn't make sense.

Men need a men only space to discuss issues that affect them; prostate or penile cancer, DV or assault. Same as women do.

A whites only meeting would be weird. I cant imagine anything I would discuss with only white people.

It depends what you mean by male and female only spaces. Toilets and certain kinds of hospital wards should be; as well as refuges for rape victims etc, all for obvious, legitimate reasons. Beyond all that, I'm really not sure about the idea of a 'space' that only one category of people can occupy. What is this thing with 'spaces' these days? It's all 'safe spaces', 'male spaces', 'female spaces', people 'reclaiming spaces'. Weird. Some 'feminists' go so far as to suggest schools should be single sex, which I think would do enormous damage by reinforcing the divisions that feminism should be in the business of combining.

Also, if you insist on female only spaces then you kind of can't complain when men decide to have theirs - and then before long you're back where you started with patriarchy - with 'male jobs' and 'female jobs' and groups of lads in the pub and gossipy knitting circles - with patriarchy, which above all else, likes to confine men and women to their 'spaces'.

Men need a men only space to discuss issues that affect them; prostate or penile cancer, DV or assault.

True, but would women be completely barred from those spaces? Obviously, there isn't much reason for a woman to attend a penile cancer support group, but what if, say, a man wanted to bring his wife along for support? Provided that was fine with other members of the group, would that be a problem?

Trauma groups are usually single sex. Having a person of the opposite sex in the group inhibits many people from speaking openly.

Trauma groups are usually single sex. Having a person of the opposite sex in the group inhibits many people from speaking openly.

Ok, fair point, and I stand corrected. If there is a really sensitive issue under discussion that pertains to one sex then there is an argument for that space being limited to people of that sex.

I think when you go beyond that however, then things get dodgy.

In some ways, this left-wing identity politics of victimised groups having their own spaces is the flip side of the right-wing identity politics that insists on whole nations being limited to people of a certain identity. Both are divisive and anti-humanist.

To me the difference is that historically people were kept out of white and male spaces so that the people in those spaces could retain power. Whereas female only spaces were established for safety. I'm sure I'm not explaining myself well I just don't see why it's so hard to see the difference? Sadly I think DJ's original response to my question was probably correct.

What's you're talking about is an argument called "reducto-ad-absurdum". People are taking a statement you've said, and using the same sentence structure have replaced certain nouns to demonstrate that the argument is absurd.

The problem is it's not absurd, what they've done is a kind of 'logic' sleight of hand; they have by changing the nouns also changed the context and thus made it absurd. This is also often called a "straw man argument": not addressing the principle argument they make it weaker by saying it is the equivalent of saying x, y or z and that's absurd so your original argument is absurd.

Saying that women should have access to women only spaces is the conclusion of the argument. It is is tied to "suppressed premises" (premises that aren't overtly stated) which are:

P1/ it is good for people to not be put in danger/oppressed.
P2/ people who are in danger/oppressed should be given refuge from their danger/oppression in places that exclude their oppressor
P3/ women are oppressed/put in danger by men.

C1/ therefore women should have access to women only places.

But yes, people will try and argue with you because 'poor trans people feel like women'. Fah- feelings don't make for arguments or truth, but generally make for nonsense. By pretending the above argument is sexist or racist makes absolutely no sense now because if you replaced the words women with white or men or some such you would have absurd premises (such as 'P2/ Men are oppressed/put in danger by men').

Thus they actually defeat their own straw man argument by the same principle...interestingly one could make the argument that trans people should be given their own spaces by the same logic- to which I would actually agree. But it is fallacious and wrong to assert that women's spaces should be made available to men (by which I mean biological men and women, nothing to do with gender identity).

And that is all ithe argument about giving up women's spaces is: an assertion based on emotion. I am not bound to agree with an assertion someone else makes because they feel like it. That way madness lies.

I think there's a huge difference between a trauma/therapy group and a men only club. As you say, its to retain privilege.
Its men who want to abolish women only spaces and they will use whatever argument they think is most effective to get their own way. Women did not decide one day it was safe to open them up. We didnt ask for this but its being imposed on us.

Tell them to make all mens spaces all gender inclusive to give everyone a free choice, and leave womens spaces as they are. The women that feel safe will voluntarily join them, and women only spaces will be made redundant

DjBaggy, I agree.

I'm not sure anyone can credibly argue that trauma/therapy groups , spaces for vulnerable women and places like wards and toilets should be unisex. There are also issues where anatomical differences come into play (not sure about mixed football teams for example, though maybe it could work, who knows?).

But I think this is really just common sense.

I think when it goes beyond that (single sex schools for example) then it gets unhealthy. That really is my point.

A whites only meeting would be weird. I cant imagine anything I would discuss with only white people.

Yeah, and I think decent men feel the same about men only meetings that aren't for the purpose of discussing embarrassing prostate problems, or something.

The only thing I can think of that would be done in a whites only group is racism. As I want nothing to do with racism, if there were a sign on the door "whites only" I would stay the hell away from it.

And I suppose most men only groups are for the purpose of expressing misogynist thoughts safely away from wives and daughters, to whose love those men still feel entitled, even though they hate women.

I am pretty sure the men I know would be somewhat freaked out if anyone suggested to them that they go anywhere that's only for men, despite it not concerning private matters. Because they'd think "Um, what the heck are you intending to do there that women can't be present?"
I know I would if I were a dude. I'd automatically suspect they're planning to go to a strip club, or, at best, get horribly, embarrassingly drunk.
(I am also suspicious of women-only events that aren't feminist or about privacy, tbh, as more likely than not it'll be about performing femininity. Never thought about it before, but while a women-only hotel advertised in a feminist magazine sounds great to me, if any mainstream hotel advertised that they're a hotel "for women", I'd be massively suspicious of what they mean by that.)

One poster suggested asking people who said that why they thought whites / men might need their own spaces to illustrate that it (mostly) doesn't make sense.

Has it come to a situation where private individuals have to set out a case for 'needs'? And who then is to be asked to judge whether these needs are justified. If a group of individuals want to get together and exclude others they ought to be able to do so - they do not need the by-your-leave' of others.

I think when it goes beyond that (single sex schools for example) then it gets unhealthy.

And yet, all research suggests that girls do better in single sex schools, and, as I want women and girls to achieve as highly as they possibly can, then single sex schools are the way forward for girls.

It also helps to protect girls from the endless sexual assaults/jibes/bullying they get from boys in mixed sex schools. Anything that protects girls from that is positive.

If boys and men aren't prepared to sort their behaviour out, then single sex education is the best and safest way for girls to be educated. What's unhealthy is expecting girls to be second best to boys and allowing boys carte blanche to perpetrate the rape culture they learn from porn on their female classmates.

Op none of it makes any sense because they see women as the "privileged" class keepingn the trans people down.

as long as you see our private spaces as privilege and not a hiding space they will remain confused.

If you think women are swaning around in fluffy loos powdering themselves and not trying to go for a piss without abuse from drunk men you might (they) might be a privileged male

Thanks hidden I think that's a proper explanation of what I'm trying to articulate.

Gina do woman do much oppressing of transwoman? Surely their oppression is from men and they should be campaigning to be safe in men's spaces?

It's a straw man.

Women need women-only spaces to protect them from male violence.

White people constructed white-only spaces because they thought they were superior to non-white people.

In no way comparable.

People who use this argument clearly cannot think critically.

And yet, all research suggests that girls do better in single sex schools, and, as I want women and girls to achieve as highly as they possibly can, then single sex schools are the way forward for girls.

What research? And does this research account for the fact that more girls who attend single sex schools are from affluent backgrounds?

I'm sure everyone does an awful lot better at a Farquars School for Young Ladies than an inner city comp blighted with social problems.

Just to add white Women have historically taken part in the oppression of brown people as well as brown women. Let's not gloss over that by pretending that white men have been oppressing brown all by themselves without their white partners

However I am glad that these conversations are being had as soon none of these safe spaces will exist.

Easily google able user
www.bbc.com/news/education-35419284

The reason single sex schools contain the more affluent, assuming that is true, would be because they are usually selective schools. Are there actually any non selective ones left. It was normal when I grew up. (Recent name change btw bor a new poster)

The study in the link controlled for selective intake and social background.

muchomo I agree, I am also glad that these conversations are being had. Women only spaces are there for a reason.