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

[BernardBlacksMolluscs]

This thread is to replace the one that got deleted earlier today, and the TAATs that came after it.

As per MNHQ in site stuff, we're OK to have this conversatrion

www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/4687254-how-do-we-discuss-the-reality-of-parts-of-the-uk-absorbing-large-numbers-of-men-from-other-cultures?reply=121883255

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think a much stronger inclusion argument, is that “women from some religious minorities will not be able to access services at all, if there is no single sex provision”.

Needing a private place to adjust a hijab - that is a bit over-emphasised, and I mistrust the reasons for the over-emphasis by feminists.

When I originally spoke, about feeling pissed off whilst reflecting upon the patriarchal woman-policing of women’s tempting, sexy hair, being emphasised as a justification for single sex spaces, upthread, I was specifically thinking about the UK but broadly, beyond the thread itself.

Sorry I just wrote my post and saw that you’d been saying the same sorts of things.

why are we even bothering to explain this at all?

Because consciousness raising is a fundamental principle of feminism. We share information.

Yes I get it. I agree. The reason I quibbled over the word gotcha is that it is definitely part gotcha, part human shield, as you said, and also part submissive capitulation to win over misogynists.

I know it isn’t very productive to feel pissed off about it, but sometimes I find that recognising something I’d been going along with actually conflicts with what I believe, does start off by pissing me off. It can be the emotion accompanying illumination.

And I have frequently seethed along the lines of “why are we even bothering to explain this at all?”

It is really frustrating that our words and thoughts and feelings alone do not have weight. It’s like the way so many victims of horror have to repeatedly live through their ordeal in order to provide testimonies to support feminist arguments. Otherwise it’s “that never happens” or whataboutery. It’s infuriating.

It is really frustrating that our words and thoughts and feelings alone do not have weight.
But its right that feelings shouldn't change policy in the face of facts. Its how we end up with situations like self ID.

Getting angry at women who use too many words because you are frustrated sounds like displacement.

Are you wilfully getting the wrong end of the stick here? I can’t tell.

I wonder if you are cruising for a scrap @Thelnebriati.

I am sure you are aware that I am not pissed off about anyone using too many words.

Ditto, that I am not talking about changing policy based on feelings alone.

Or that my anger at the injustice of women’s position in a patriarchal society, and the lengths we need to go to, just to be heard, is in fact anger at women.

Yes I can see that you are angry. You are happy to call out other women for posting in ways you don't approve of, but don't seem to be familiar with threads on this board or want a discussion around the issues, so I'm out.

I do feel anger when the feminist arguments immediately cede ground. For example, saying “I believe in trans rights” before putting forward a feminist argument.
‘Trans rights’ - what exactly are they? Surely it means the right of males to enter women’s spaces because they call themselves ‘trans’. So you cannot move forward to then argue the case for single sex spaces after you first conceded that you believe males are entitled to enter them.
The modesty argument is another.

In the old days feminists were proud to be angry about patriarchy. How times have changed.

I know TheInebriati has left the thread, but to set the record straight, I haven’t actually called anyone out. I have been speaking in generalisations.

I know, don't worry about it Tea. For whatever reason, theinebriati seems a bit annoyed and not really engaging with what people are actually saying.

Ah well, thanks BeastlySlumber.

A lot of the attitudes of some newcomers to the UK are what women fought against from 1850 to 1920 if not earlier. All those Victorian women in very long skirts who could not cycle due to clothing so it is a bit irritating when the sheer weight of numbers of newcomers with the attitudes we fought 100 years of battles to overcome are brought back en masse. One man per village is no problem at all. Vast numbers is the issue particularly when all young men concentrated in one area particularly when not with wives and families

Yes, it’s true. I think the issue of women wearing trousers in the early C20th was being able to see the shape of the woman’s crotch, and that has returned to us a century later.

I know TI has left the thread but I'm quoting so pp know what I'm responding to.

It pisses me off to have to justify the demand for single sex spaces with a whole list of reasons. I feel like it should be enough to say "I need single sex spaces" and I don't think I should have to explain why.

There is something that sticks in my craw about having to justify my wish for single sex spaces by describing how I might have a heavy period to deal with, or have to get partially undressed for some reason. The fact is that I don't want men in a space that should be women only. The reasons are nobody else's business. End of.

Men don't have to explain why they don't want women in their spaces. At least, they haven't had to as far as I know.

Maybe it's not enough to just say we need single sex spaces. Maybe we do need to spell it all out, I don't know. I know I've made those lists before. But maybe I'll stop now. The information's out there for those who want to know.

(It's totally off topic, sorry! The thread has meandered a lot!)

I am totally with you. The process can start to feel violating BeastlySlumber. Having to provide a window into your most private moments, in order to justify your need for privacy.

Perhaps though, to soften my earlier point, some women would rather play the ‘maidenly modesty’ card using the example of a couple of errant hairs from a hijab, than have to experience the violation of talking about their miscarriages, heavy periods, IBS, panic attacks, etc.

There are some prurient bastards who just enjoy our discomfort and pretend to not know why women need privacy, just to try to get us to talk about it.

@Xenia i was thinking about what you are saying about the beliefs about women being 100 years old.

If you had a time machine and brought busloads of men from the year 1911 and dropped them off in large groups around the UK, there would be huge efforts to bring them up to speed with women’s rights. They would be mocked as backwards dinosaurs when they freaked out at a woman’s short skirt, or whatever.

That, sort of, is what has happened, men with ‘1911’ expectations of women are placed in larger groups in the UK, except they aren’t being mocked.