Have feminists brought this upon themselves?

[Lessthanaballpark]

I’ve heard this opinion so much lately, mostly amongst men who seem to be enjoying the struggle between feminism and trans-activism and the threat to women’s rights.

The opinion is that feminists have been attacking male spaces for years and now are getting their comeuppance.

Or that we’ve created the language of inclusion and gender that has led to this.

It’s a mean spirited attitude for sure. But is there any truth to it? Has feminism hoisted itself with its own petard?

I've heard similar. I brought my children up in, what I would consider to be, a truly 'gender neutral' way in that I definitely had a son and a daughter but I never imposed expectations or limitations on them based on their sex.

I have been told by one of my friends previously that it is parents like me who have caused this.

Although after many lengthy conversations on the matter, this (male) friend did finally get it - that the trans movement isn't about breaking down the gender stereotype boxes and saying anyone can do what they want, it's just preferences, and are instead rigidly reinforcing them by saying 'if you're a woman you do X and if you're a man you do Y and if you want to do something from the other box, then you need to climb into it fully or stand in the middle and declare yourself boxless'.

@Mrsjamin

Many men never understood what women actually wanted in the first place. They thought what women wanted was to state there is absolutely no difference between men and women. However now women point out the differences between men and women, stating that sex is real and leads to completely different lived experiences, men become smug and say "that's what we were saying all along, men and women are different... See!"

Yup.

It’s such a wilful miss-understanding though. This is what you wanted. Accompanied by a smirk

The old ‘she asked for it’ argument is still alive and well.

Misogynistic men are always going to enjoy an attack on women's safety, dignity, freedom or privacy, therefore it should surprise no one that some men are enjoying this moment.

They have never forgiven women as a whole for having the the cheek to enter the workforce, or to enter professions that didn't include teaching, nursing or domestic service. To actually object and have to power to challenge sexual harassment. For Western society to start challenging men who patronised women's intelligence, to object belittling us in retro adverts.

Some feminists are not necessarily lovely people who do measured responses. Some can be spiteful or petty, but a large part of this is that some men can't stand the idea that women actually stepped out from the kitchen and more into public life, and so they are smugly pleased to see anyone who believes in women's rights suffer now. We 'asked' for it.

@PartyofPun

It’s such a wilful miss-understanding though. This is what you wanted. Accompanied by a smirk

Not sure @PartyofPun, but I have heard some men saying things like 'But you asked for equality!!! Well there you go!!! Now you have mixed-sex changing rooms!!!' Like how fucking dare we object to being paid less for the same work and other such cheek.

The alternative world they would like to see is one where their sexist views or actions are completely unchallenged, where women are at the mercy of men's wishes.

Although the sentiments related in the original post are goady and the the reactions indignant, it should be possible to have a serious discussion of the downsides of aspects of feminism. There are always tradeoffs.

Reading these boards, I get the impression that feminists do not value what has historically been the female contribution to society. Counterintuitively, what is valued is the male realm. There is little curiosity about how women did exercise power, how they ran families and social networks etc, how they made their way in the world. It is not a stretch to argue that feminists were so focused on entering the male world, that they didn't imagine the female world as worth protecting.

Certain aspects of feminist ideology seek to downplay the differences between men and women: women would be more like men if it were not for socialization/oppression/patriarchy. But women and men are different biologically and psychologically. By claiming otherwise, it could be argued that feminists have left the door open for gender ideology.

So… we can have nothing and like it, or get a bit of something and have people take it away.

People who say stuff like that aren’t even worth answering outside of ‘haha that’s a funny opinion.’ It’s the type of thick skulled Reddit wanking nonsense that deserves a raised eyebrow and a how stupid are you look.

Also, there really is no ‘downside’ to feminism, because that implies an ‘upside’ to what was before.

No feminist has ever wanted men to say ‘you are the same as us.’ All feminists want is to be able to say is ‘we are worth the same as you.’

@Datun

Male Only spaces tend to be mens clubs, golf clubs, Freemasons, etc. Places where deals are done, business is discussed, power happens, etc.

Women only places tend to be places of refuge for women who need to escape from or recover from male violence. Or places where they are vulnerable and need to be safe.

There's no symmetry. Women wanting access to the first, and men wanting access to the second are both about the imbalance of power in favour of men.

It's certainly absolutely zero surprise to me, that men don't get it.

There was nothing stopping women from forming women only golf clubs, working women's clubs etc - they just chose not to - or there wasn't sufficient of women to make it viable.

Women only places could also include the Women's Institute - fantastic organisation and still going strong today - hardly can be described as a refuge from male violence though.

@Datun

Male Only spaces tend to be mens clubs, golf clubs, Freemasons, etc. Places where deals are done, business is discussed, power happens, etc.

Women only places tend to be places of refuge for women who need to escape from or recover from male violence. Or places where they are vulnerable and need to be safe.

There's no symmetry. Women wanting access to the first, and men wanting access to the second are both about the imbalance of power in favour of men.

It's certainly absolutely zero surprise to me, that men don't get it.

Funnily enough I did wonder when the Freemasons will admit the first transman and they should also expel any transwomen from their membership! Surely at some point that particular space needs to be pushed at in order to peak men to push back.

@perkyblinder the Freemasons seem to have changed their rules in 2018 to allow men, transwomen and transmen to join. However, given that members have to nominated by an existing member, it would be interesting to know how the inclusion of transmen actually works in practice.

Felix125

There was nothing stopping women from forming women only golf clubs, working women's clubs etc - they just chose not to - or there wasn't sufficient of women to make it viable.

Is that so.

extract

A 12-year-old girl sat on a bus, flanked by her parents, en route from Prescot to Manchester for a football match. She wasn’t going to watch; she was going to play. Unremarkable? Today, certainly. But it was the 1950s, and girls and women were under strict edicts not to play – from none other than the FA.

That 12-year-old girl was Sylvia Gore. She had always loved football, and as a child would kick a ball around with her father and uncle, learning the techniques like millions of other children the world over. “The local football team, Prescot Cables, used to look for me at half-time so I could come on and kick a ball in the goal – they accepted it,” Gore said in May 2016. “A lot of men up and down the country didn’t.”

The FA’s ban on women’s football began in 1921 – a kneejerk reaction to its popularity. The world-famous Dick, Kerr’s Ladies – plus a handful of other outfits – had helped to fill the gap left by the Football League’s hiatus during the First World War, and attracted huge attendances to their games as they raised money for charity.

Up to this point, women’s football had been running almost parallel to the men’s game. A trailblazing player using the pseudonym Nettie Honeyball had formed the British Ladies’ Football Club at the end of the 19th century, and her team toured the country to play exhibition games. Although spectators may have originally turned up to delight in the undignified spectacle, reports from the time suggest they found themselves enthralled by the quality of play.These games were intermittent, though, and didn’t detract or distract from the important business of men’s football. Dick, Kerr’s Ladies and their contemporaries were the real threat. The FA lost patience with the women after Dick, Kerr’s and St Helens brought 53,000 fans through the Goodison Park turnstiles on Boxing Day 1920, believed at the time to be the largest gate at any football match in England since records began.

One year later, English football’s governing body passed a resolution declaring the sport “quite unsuitable for females” and informing men’s clubs that they should refuse to let women play at their grounds. The achievements of Dick, Kerr’s Ladies were pushed into the shadows by a footballing establishment that was embarrassed by women’s success.

Continues: www.fourfourtwo.com/features/womens-football-banned-england-50-years-fa-world-cup-history

Have been reading some fascinating articles about the rise of women's sports clubs - there was a great deal of opposition to them on the grounds of women not being in their rightful sphere, of essentially seen as too bitchy to each other to be able to successfully run a group and were subject to scrutiny even when playing in women's clubs to make sure they were behaving 'correctly'.

The Women's Institute admits transwomen so isn't female only.

I'm also probably misremembering but I'm sure I read something about the proposed building of a women's golf clubhouse in the 1920's or 1930's which was opposed by the men who owned the land (and on which their own clubhouse was located) and the women then refused to provide the teas for the men's matches. There was a bit of a coup and the women got their clubhouse. I don't know enough specific details to find it online though.

Very well said @Datun

Women and girls need private spaces where they are protected from unwanted attention and violence from men. Men and boys have never needed spaces where they’re protected from women. They have no idea how it feels.

@Waitwhat23 Golf clubs are quite something. I read an interview with a top female golfer, she was saying how club officials flapped and fussed about allowing her in the clubhouse because ladies weren’t allowed (except in the kitchen). All sorts of silly shenanigans like allowing her in certain permitted parts of the building on an exception basis, through a back door, accompanied by an official to make sure she didn’t contaminate the sacred building with her femaleness! It made them sound really pathetic.

Controlling men will always find a reason to 'win'.
They don't care if they contradict themselves, because they are always right.
They can argue at the same time that:
Women need protection so should not be in sport.
Women wanted equality so cannot complain about men in their spaces.
Commen sense doesn't enter their thought process as it's all about dominance.

@FictionalCharacter - you might find these interesting -

womensgolfjournal.com/golf/no-women-allowed/

hitlongandprosper.com/2017/08/22/lundin-ladies-women-only-golf-clubs/

And yes, a lot of the stuff is completely ridiculous. One golf club allowed women to play but they had to make sure they weren't seen through a specific window in case it put the men off their post game port and cigar!

PurgatoryofPotholes

"...One year later, English football’s governing body passed a resolution declaring the sport “quite unsuitable for females” and informing men’s clubs that they should refuse to let women play at their grounds..."

So why didn't females back then start their own FA?

They existing men's FA would have no say in how it was run

**So why didn't females back then start their own FA?

They existing men's FA would have no say in how it was run**

Exactly. And why did all those stupid women bother campaigning for the vote instead of just starting their own government? Men would have no say in how it was run. And why did they bother fighting to be allowed into the workplace, they could have just started their own industrial revolution.

sussexcricketmuseum.org/sussex-womens-cricket

Particularly this!

'In 1937 the Sussex WCA is recorded as causing a stir during the WCA AGM over the uniform worn for playing. Sussex suggested that they be allowed to wear socks instead of stockings. This was seen as a radical proposal and was rejected. It was thought that the proposal would offend male committee members and that too much emphasis was being put on comfort. When the proposal was rejected Marjorie Pollard, President of the Sussex WCA, replied with an article in the Women’s Cricket Journal in which she stated:

Women cricket players in this country do not own one cricket club…Women cricket players are entirely dependent upon the goodwill of the owners of cricket grounds. Any one false step -any one power offended – even by the sight of bare legs (and often our legs are not too attractive to other people) may have repercussions that can undo the work of years.'

The Women's Institute admits transwomen so isn't female only.

So, presumably a vote was given to existing members of the WI about this and they voted to allow transwomen to be members. That's called a democratic process by the members and nothing to do with an "imbalance of power by men"

'Working Men's Clubs' now have both male & female members

Boy Scouts have female members - but Girl Guides still don't allow males to join

Non of these have anything to do with an imbalance of power - its each specific organisation allowing its members to decide. If there are members of those organisations don't agree with the decision, why don't they set a new club up with their own rules?

If women set up new clubs, men who ID as women will demand access. They want validation for their feelings above biological differences.

So why didn't females back then start their own FA?

They existing men's FA would have no say in how it was run

That's an interesting way to say "Oh, I didn't know that. Looks like I was wrong."

Is it a regionalism?

Was there a vote for WI members? I'm not a member so can't comment - perhaps another poster will be able to advise.

Girl Guiding insists that it remains single sex when it has in fact become mixed sex but without the appropriate safeguarding to match. One Guider is fighting her expulsion from the organisation for raising concerns and their social media deletes any dissenting opinions. Democratic?

Given the hate focused towards any group who attempt to state themselves as single sex (groups for lesbians have been particularly badly targeted by this), women who have been ousted from organisations set up for their needs don't particularly want to be targeted for threats and being 'cancelled'.