The Women's Institute faces revolt ...

[ArabeIIaScott]

I know this was mentioned recently on here, and the letter shared, but I can't find the thread.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11982451/Womens-Institute-faces-revolt-policy-allowing-transgender-members-join.html

"So there is a kids club near me. Should I be allowed to join? If not why not?2

Safety reasons I suppose.

so Basically as a white straight woman I would be very welcome in a group for black gay men? If not, why not?

Nope, not usual at all. Over 60's is for over 60's.

Gwenhwyfar · Today 10:35
"Women who join the Women's Institute presumably wanted a women'sgroup. Why can't they have that, even if it makes men sad?"

Same for all those men only golf clubs then?
It's not really the same as a domestic violence refuge or a rape crisis centre, is it? There's no real reason why it has to be just women

I entirely sympathise with men wanting some men only associations.

But why? I mean, I am no threat to kids. Take my word for it. Just as women are supposed to take males word that they are women really honest guv. If adults can be excluded from childrens clubs, males can be excluded from womens groups. As a straight white woman, should I throw a tantrum and sue if I’m excluded from a group for gay black men? Or should I just accept that group is not for me as I don’t fit the demographic? Why should women have to allow men into their groups?

The idea that a man can 'live as a woman' does sound very old fashioned. What does he have to do to 'live as a woman'? Wear a dress? Do the housework? Paint his nails?

What else can we live as @Viviennemary ? And how?

No male can live as a woman what they are doing is living a male idea of what a woman is.

I do see your point here. Wear a dress and do housework. I don't do these things very often. So does that make me a man no.

So how does a man live as a woman?

You just say you are one, and then bingo!, the WI etc just roll out the red carpet, and likely even encourage you to give talks on how just saying you're a woman makes you a woman, with a side order of implied threat that if you voice any dissent, your views and you are persona non grata.
So, Girl Guides and all girls schools/colleges...welcome males.
Lesbian groups, female business spaces etc...welcome males.
WI, older all female social gatherings...welcome males.
That pretty much covers every age range, every situation.
Hijacking of a whole class, in plain view, with the acquiescence of the movers and shakers in polite society.
And of course, you're all expected to politely roll over, as women have always been obliged to, and will continue to be obliged to.
Re the WI, surely some members are lawyers even if retired. There must be a way to force proper consultation and reflection.
Forgot Green's disingenuous "no culture war here, thank you very much" bleating, she knows any vote on allowing entry to TW would be soundly beaten.
Well, ladies. Are the generations of WI that sorted us out post war, helped bring up Britain's kids, took years off Tony Blair's life, always called a spade a spade, made damn fine jam, REALLY gonna roll over on this?

I wasn't going to comment again as this is just getting repetitive.

If there is a valid reason why an association is set up to be of use to one sex or the other why would anyone deny it.

And there are numerous reasons why women want women only spaces (I am not talking here about the provision of single sex services) the obvious one being that one's sex means you have common experiences.

And as it is only recently that there has been publicity and even encouragement that men should be part of groups to share common experiences (men's sheds? - cant rmember the name) it just illustrates why the shared experience through something in common whether it be age, sex, race, disability is not in fact that new an idea.

These single sex associations are totally different from say having a public facility which through practice has become single sex, or through membership rules. So a golf club that excluded women would be hard pressed to explain that playing golf needs to be a single sex experience.

And to repeat what has been said over and over again, why should a perfectly valid single sex association, ie the WI be told it no longer has the right to be single sex because a tiny minority of a tiny minority wants to infringe on women's rights?

So strongly expressed outrage aren't about being transphobic or denying trans rights but saying we have our rights and we are not giving them up because someone who isn't part of the associations remit wants to intrude / colonise.

Very glad you’re against men only golf clubs.

Fortunately there aren’t any in the UK.

Our local men’s shed is for “anyone aged over 18”. But it’s clearly intended for men to meet up for friendship and support and I would have no interest in intruding on that.

Interesting...my thread as a male talking about the GC male attitude to TRA got slightly stalled on male exclusive spaces, and I found the majority of respondents to my thread were not accepting of men having their own spaces.

It's an uneven dynamic, as noted by others.

Despite that, I still think men (and of course women) should be free to have single sex clubs, spaces, etc.

I (female) am generally more comfortable in male company, and with hindsight that has steered my career choices into more traditionally male industries. That has also brought me into some pretty toxic male environments (interestingly, it tended to be the degree educated men that were arseholes, not the ones from trades backgrounds).

I have no problem with males being entitled to their own social spaces. Women bring a different dynamic into men’s groups just as much as men do to women’s.

Youve clearly no clue what the WI entails so why you're so keen to voice your opinion I dont know.

Each WI is it's own institute. It must provide 11 meetings a year, and everyone who wants to attend a meeting must pay the subscription fee. Each WI has it's own 'flavour' for want of a better word. Each of the 11 meetings needs to serve a broad purpose of educating women on various topics. The events are well planned and freely available so anyone can choose to skip events. Often the meetings are followed by a discussion, and at some point they talk about other events taking place - trips or other clubs or community events.

Unsurprisingly, when you make a commitment to a group - you like to attend and you pay to go - you are more invested in what happens. Should a breastfeeding woman be allowed to attend? What happens if she cant go?

I sat in one meeting that was to talk about a local rape charity. I listened as the woman talked about her trauma, her recovery, how women can support those who have suffered, how support is available for anyone who needs it. It led to a vulnerable talk on domestic violence, and how long term trauma can affect you.

I've sat as one of our members talked about using her handbag to hide a brick as she walked home from work late evenings. How she had to use it once when she was attacked.

Some WIs are political, active. Others are much more docile, and limited to the calendar of events. Others have lots of extra meetings and topics. Some involve themselves in supporting local charities, orhers litter picking.

Little introduction for you before you talk on what you don't understand.

interestingly, it tended to be the degree educated men that were arseholes, not the ones from trades backgrounds

This has been my experience too.

Officer class Englishmen, who went to those dreadful schools with Cadet training, seem to this outsider to be a distictly problematic group. Even if at school they thought of themselves as outside that group, they still absorb the message of a world split into officers and other ranks, a graded society, and the critical, endless, need to 'spilt the opposition' - divide and rule.

Nest time you read the words of a complete d!ckhead, check his bio - he'll have been to one of those schools.

They're also into cosplay, whether military uniforms or not.

I'm afraid that wasn't the consensus on my thread. Indeed, I regretted mentioning exclusive male spaces, my whole argument just got bogged down.

Fascinatingly, male spaces provoked more argument than my take on porn addled autogynephiles.

I would say lol, but doesn't seem polite. Lol.

I'll repeat a point I made on another thread.

Women didn't want to be included in men-only social groups because they wanted to be men, or even particularly wanted the company of men. They wanted to be in those spaces because that's where the power was. Because that's where decisions were being made that they were affected by but not part of. Where trust was built, hands were shaken, alliances were formed between men only.

So, while there are undoubtedly good reasons for male-only social groups where men can understand and support each other and we should be comfortable having those exist, as long as social, economic, political and cultural power rests disproportionately with men, any male-only space will come under greater scrutiny and have a higher bar to meet to justify the exclusion of women than vice versa.

yup

men's sheds for mutual support? fine

all male days on the golf course for senior managers because the women 'didn't like golf' (as happened very recently indeed at a company I worked for)? obviously not fine

I agree with all of this except the last half-sentence:

... and have a higher bar to meet to justify the exclusion of women than vice versa.

The EA does not impose any bar on men-only or women-only associations. They are lawful for no better reason than men or women want to associate with their own sex.

I don't want that to change because I am bored shitless with having to lay out justifications for female only space, having to highlight yet again women's vulnerability and disadvantage, having to provide evidence of male violence and why women need our own spaces. I am bored shitless with having to beg.

This part of the EA says we can have women only associations just because we want to. Just because we prefer to meet without the presence of men.

I will fight to preserve that and also for the EA amendment or clarification that means such women's associations don't have to admit men who are legally female because they have a GRC. Just because we don't want to. Just because we know they are male and prefer it better without them.

A certain type of men's clubs do deserve continuing scrutiny because that is where the power was (still is to an extent?). If it's an issue between employers and employees then it can be dealt with under the employment sections of the EA - i.e. men's clubs are lawful but it would be unlawful to conduct business in one if it disadvantaged female employees.

But most of the business that goes on in men's clubs is above the level of employer/employee and the EA doesn't apply anyway, and if it did the amounts that can be claimed in a discrimination claim are paltry compared with the value of the business discussed - like environmental fines, settlements would just be written off as an expense.

I didn’t see your other thread.

All male social spaces like men’s sheds which provide companionship and support are not the same as the self appointed male groups in the working environment that deliberately exclude women because the men want to hold onto the power.

I’ve been there, done that and made myself the “bloody difficult woman” by not allowing them to exclude me. Probably didn’t help my career prospects but hey ho.

Who are you?