In my post, Sexist/ Not Sexist (add link) JamesH left the following question:
Purely out of interest, where do you stand on female-only health clubs / gyms?
Or female-only Clubs or schools?
I don’t have a problem with previously male-only Clubs and institutions opening up to admit both sexes, it was long overdue.
However, it seems that the pendulum swung the other way and whereas it isn’t acceptable to have a male-only gym these days, it seems perfectly acceptable that there be female-only facilities. I can’t see the justification for it.
It’s the same with the Scouting movement. In this country, the Cubs and ‘Boy’ Scouts* were forced to accept girls that wanted to join, and had to make the necessary changes to accommodate them. I have no problem with that, but then find it somewhat hypocritical that the Brownies and Girl Guides still exist, and are still run as female-only packs.
Though I have my questions as to whether he’s asking that phrase in good-faith (sorry, JamesH, MRA’s are suspect here) it is an important question to consider.
In a more equal world, one where women and men are completely equal, where women and men were equally represented in every aspect of life, and where objectification was an antiquated notion much like the idea that women don’t have souls, I don’t think it would be super-necessary to have “Women’s Only” or “Men’s Only” spaces with the exception of very narrow, biological groups (post-partum depression groups, or victims of testicular cancer sorts of things).
We don’t live in a perfect world.
So now comes into question how we live with this not-perfect world. **
There is one school of thought, and a perfectly defensible at that, that we should not have any sexism except for the ones that relate to the actual, biological differences between women and men. There should be no men or women only spaces, and sexism is equally unjust in all situations, and if we use sexism for anything we’re just reiterating that basing people on different genders. This belief (it’s not completely insane) also goes on to say that while inequalities still exist in the world between men and women, if we use any sexism to combat sexism, then we are just cementing inequalities, and one day we will have an equal society; and this generation will have to suffer the inequalities for our posterity.
Then, there is the different school of thought. This one comes from the idea that the world is not equal, and that women need “safe spaces” until the day that we have an equal society (if ever). This one suggests that in order for women to live equally in an unequal society, we have to carve out some spaces just for us. Thus, because of problems with guys ogling women when they want to exercise, there are women-only gyms. Because women normally get out-shouted by guys in classrooms, gender segregated classrooms. Because women generally get less attention then men, we get gender-segregated youth groups. And because women are not generally as strong as men, we get women-only sports groups. This theory also suggests that once women get into their safe spaces, then they can grow and assert themselves, hastening an equal society.
I wrestle with this, because basically it boils down to: “Is it just to fight sexism with another kind of sexism?” Standard number one ignores how living with sexism hurts right now, and it has sort of Underpants Gnome theory to getting rid or sexism. (Step One: Live with Sexism now. Step Two:? Step Three: Equal Society). A lot of sexism is reinforcing: if you take for instance the fact that girls get less attention in mixed-gender settings, those little girls will grow up thinking that the less attention is what they deserve, and in turn give less attention to the next little girls. The ogling at gyms just teach women that they are ALWAYS supposed to be on display for men, and men thinking that this behavior is okay, and both teaching the next generation these ideas.
But standard number two suffers from (in my opinion) two very important problems: one, it has no evidence to suggest that women ever leave these safe spaces, and go fight sexism and two, it’s using the proxy of gender instead of the larger problems of sexism.
To explain point two, let’s go with women-only gyms. When I was growing up, I went to Curves. I happened to like Curves; it was so much nicer than the high school gym which was my only other option. I didn’t have to deal with the overt ogling, it smelled much nicer, it was cooler, and I never felt intimidated by people; either that I wasn’t “good enough” to work out at the gym. This, to me was awesome. It wasn’t as awesome for my guy friends.
Curves is women-only; and particularly stresses body acceptance and mutual support. My guy friends ended up not exercising in lieu of going to the toxic, mixed-gender high school gym. I went to Curves because I didn’t want to be ogled at, I didn’t want to have to constantly compare myself against the other people, or have them judge me and belittle me. My guy friends wanted to escape the same things, and didn’t have a choice in which to do so. Contrary to popular beliefs, women can look at men and make them feel uncomfortable. Other guys were insulting them, and belittling them, and they felt totally dehumanized. Now, as a feminist, I can see how gender roles are at the heart of it: if guys didn’t constantly have to prove their prowess, this wouldn’t have been a problem for them. But it did; and having Curves available to me surely didn’t help them. And, to be perfectly frank, it was no perfect protection for me either. Yes, I had a good experience: but there could have been some bullying-type woman, or someone who decided to ogle me and make me uncomfortable.
I now go to my college gym, which is mixed-gender. I don’t have a problem with it; in fact, my work-out partner is male. If there’s a person that’s being an ass, I go and tell the person who works there, and they talk to the person and in one instance, actually threw someone out of the class. The only class that is gender-segregated is the belly-dancing class (which actually let in a male who asked). But, this building has a real commitment to a safe work-out space, and I will glare you down if you ogle me. This may be a different experience for others, and we still need to have that discussion.
So, in summation: I sympathize with the idea of women-only spaces, but I don’t think they’re necessarily as effective in combating sexism/ building up women in reality as they are in theory. The much more effective task is to have rules specifically stating what the problem is; and more importantly, enforcing them.
* When the heck did the Boy Scouts do this? They certainly didn’t when I wanted to join up, and their website doesn’t say anything about it.
** A lot of this could also apply to race and racism, sexual orientation, but not always perfectly.
It sounds like what could have benefited both you and your male friends would be not a “no men allowed” gym, but a “no sexism allowed” gym. What would be nice is to segregate not on the basis of gender (which as you say is only a proxy), but on the basis of whether you were a respectful, non-sexist, non-bullying member.
Actually doing that might prove difficult, because how do you know? But it’s worth brainstorming about, I think.
I think I see women-only safe spaces as a reasonable substitution for what would be ideal, which would be places where women can feel safe even with men around. It’d be sad if such a thing were impossible at this point in our culture.
I’ve been wondering about the same thing that James has for a while myself and usually get dismissed with something to the effect of the comment that comes right after where James posted his questions in that thread you are referencing here.
This:
Apples and oranges, JamesH. Women have fought to get into previously male-only spaces b/c they were effectively being locked out of education and networking opportunities that their male peers could pretty much take for granted.
does not address how boys’/men’s organizations that have female equivalents (like the boy scout/girl scout things James mentions) are being forced to accept both genders while said female equivalent is kept female only. If its all about fair chances and networking then why aren’t both sets of scouts mixed gender?
But standard number two suffers from (in my opinion) two very important problems: one, it has no evidence to suggest that women ever leave these safe spaces, and go fight sexism…
And I think this is a major problem. First and foremost you may possibly end up with an echo chamber in which there is no longer any actual discussion and you just have a crowd of people saying the same things over and over and everyone ALWAYS agreeing with them and going postal on anyone that shows the slightest bit of dissent…in essence doing the exact same thing they accuse people outside their own echo chamber of doing.
And from there you wonder, “These people are trying to incite major change but only certain people are allowed to have a say in this major change?” Now this is a bit of a tight rope. The people in question are a group of people who feel they are not being fairly represented and they want their voice heard. That’s fine well and good until you realize that this group of people are trying to have laws added/changed/removed and in general incite change that affects everyone. Well now you have a group of people who feel they are not being represented fairly and in order to correct that they want to have laws added/changed/removed that have an effect on everyone but at the same time taking the stance that only members of that group should have a say. Aren’t they doing to everyone else what they feel has been done to them? (sorry about this paragraph sounding like circular rambling.)
Danny-
The thing is; I don’t entirely disagree with it with the commenter. It IS apple and oranges: when men were keeping the women out, it’s because they wanted to marginalize women. When women are trying to keep out men, it’s because they are trying not to BE marginalized.
And yeah, I do believe that the marginalized people should have the leading voice on how to change society, which includes women’s voices being the one we listen to the most on what constitutes gender equality. When guys get to opine on what gender roles should be, we end up with cases where the Supreme Court says things like “Women’s roles (should be) those benign one of wife and mother” (on a court case saying it was Constitutional to keep women out of law) and more recently, that it’s not a woman’s possible death is not an “undue burden” for them getting a particular type of abortion.
…when men were keeping the women out, it’s because they wanted to marginalize women. When women are trying to keep out men, it’s because they are trying not to BE marginalized.
At face value I believe that but the problem is when it goes from “We want our voices to be heard!” to “Our voices are the only ones and if you don’t agree with us then go f’ yourself!” By all means marginalized voices should be heard but that does not mean that they should be the only voice or else it creates that circle I got into in my first comment.
Now on the specific example of Boy/Girl Scouts if one group is being forced to mingle genders while the other is being protected from mingling how does that not leave one group with the short end of the stick (and swing the pendulum from one unbalanced extreme to the other)?
…which includes women’s voices being the one we listen to the most on what constitutes gender equality.
Agreed. Women are just as much a gender and a part of this world as men are and they should have an equal voice.
Danny, I don’t believe we’re at a point where womens’-only networking is hurting the menfolk by unfairly blocking them out of jobs/education/training/other opportunities. Women haven’t even reached equal levels of power and influence. I’m not trying to say that womens’-only spaces are always some kind of perfect utopian existence thing, but I do think they can be and often are beneficial to women in a number of ways. And I fail to see how menfolk are suffering irreparable harm by being shut out women-only spaces…if true gender equality ever became a reality, it seems likely the womens’-only thing would largely fade into obsolescence…wake me up when we’re there…on the gym thing, I seem to remember at least one gym that advertised a ‘lunk-free’ environment, where all members had to abide by a code of conduct…
Danny, first and foremost, like I mentioned in the foot-note, I don’t think Boy Scouts IS having to bring in girls. If you guys can point me to that, I’d be appreciative. And secondly, I don’t think guys have any idea on how to shut-up and listen.
It has been shown in multiple studies that people think that we are at “gender equilibrium” way before the numbers actually hit 50/50, and think women contribute equally when they only speak about 1/3 as much (internet goons, some one want to link me to the actual text of these?), and also think women are dominating the conversation when the speak equally. I’ve reproduced this same information in my own classes (to MY surprise). Try it in your own conversations in mixed gender environments: you’d probably be surprised.
Antigone:
Thebigmanfred:
Here’s a pretty good example of what I mean. Today in class, I was sitting in the row, and my classmate was looking at a boat he wanted to get. He said “Chicks dig sailboats”. I said “I don’t think so; some girls might like them, but I know I don’t, and I think the term “chick” is diminutive”. He said, “Yes, they do. Guys with sailboats always get girls, and it’s just a word so what’s the big deal” (I’m paraphrasing by A LOT).
This is one of those cases where my experience as a woman was determined to be less valuable than his as a guy. The fact that I’m actually a woman might have some weight as to what actual women like, but nope, our experiences get co-opted by men and then we’re in the “enviable” position of being told what are experiences are.
That’s what I mean when women should be leading the discussion on gender equality: guys don’t get to tell women what it’s like to be a women in this society.
To pull it into this post, it’d be like a guy saying that “women’s only” gyms are not valuable, because “being ogled is a compliment”. We’re using the guy’s experience and belief, and by doing so ignoring women’s actually experience of being ogled.
“When the heck did the Boy Scouts do this? They certainly didn’t when I wanted to join up, and their website doesn’t say anything about it”
They did/do in the UK. I have no idea what they did/do in the US.
And agreed on this:
“That’s what I mean when women should be leading the discussion on gender equality: guys don’t get to tell women what it’s like to be a women in this society.”
But then why do a lot of women seem to think they can speak for a man’s experience of being male in this society?
If you think that ‘we’ put words into ‘your’ mouth, then consider the implications in reverse. I see PLENTY of social comment written by, no doubt, well intentioned women (although some are less obviously well intentioned) who, by definition, have no idea of what they’re talking about. “Walk a mile in my shoes” doesn’t just apply to women.
As for the MRA tag, I’ll take that in the spirit in which it was intended, but it’s an easy/lazy classification with a lot of attached baggage (from your point of view at least). I do comment on Glenn’s site, and I do support SOME of the issues he raises, but I (and all his readership) are so much more than ‘MRA’s’ just as you and the readership here are more than just ‘Fem’s.’
I am the father of two daughters. I and my wife have made, and will continue to make, huge sacrifices to see them well educated, motivated to achieve whatever they’re capable of and (most importantly) happy. I think I’ve been courteous, tried to keep on-topic and generally not attempted to railroad this site.
I agree with some of the points made in blogs and comments here, and think some of the others don’t hold water. If I take the time to comment here, you can be assured that I’m doing so because I BELIEVE I have a valid point or question, not because I get my kicks from sticking twigs in hornet nests!
(sorry – rant over).
Okay, I know that anecdote is not the singular of evidence, but I’m going to provide my experience as a data point, because I think it’s relevant.
I went to an all-girls’ high school, with an explicit feminist ideology. It was impossible to be out-shouted by a boy, or for a boy to assume that he was the natural leader of a classroom discussion. So, it never occurred to me, when I got to university, that girls weren’t supposed to actively participate in classroom discussions—I had always actively done so.
My first-year history seminar was about 3:2 women to men. My best friend from high school and I were the only women who regularly, reliably, and outspokenly participated in classroom discussions. The other regular participants were a more mature male student, and three or four freshman guys. The girls waited to be asked for their opinions, and very rarely jumped in. The guys regularly ignored what my friend and I said until the prof had picked up on it. The guys spoke and argued amongst themselves. They just seemed to assume that they would lead the discussions (not all the guys, but the ones whose approach to the class most closely resembled that of me and my friend).
It was the same in my smaller lecture classes. I’m a keener; I participated regularly, asked questions, responded to questions, and sometimes made a pain in the ass of myself, just like I expect my students to, now.
Most of my fellow pains in the ass were guys.
I attribute my blithe assumption that it was my job to participate, to argue, to engage, and not to wait to be invited to my training in high-school, where that was indeed the assumption.
So I’m not sure the women emerge from women’s-only spaces expecting to fight sexism. Instead, these spaces can be valuable places to experience what it’s like to interact without some of the constraints of systemic sexism, and to shed or fail to gain certain sexist expectations. And I think that can translate to interactions outside the single-sex space.
Zingerella-
I have noticed that most women don’t see inclined to proffer tons of opinions in my classes, except for those who have come from women-only schools. But, in a few years, they do tend to blend in with the rest of the women.
I sometimes wonder what was my sever to the “women should be quiet”. I went to a mixed-gender public schools, and my parents are pretty conservative. But I’ve never been shy about speaking about in my class, and calling people out on ignoring me.
But, in a few years, they do tend to blend in with the rest of the women.
This, I think, is because patriarchy wears a body down. I’m still a mouthy broad, but then, I work in a woman-dominated profession, full of outspoken women, so I dodged the problem. Also, most of my upper-year classes were so small that everyone had to get involved, so it was more difficult for the guys to however unintentionally take over.
Teaching a course in a program that attracts a large number of women (I typically have no more than three men in a class of 20), I notice that the men seem far more ready to participate than the women do, generally. As in, in a class of 20, I can count on at least one guy being engaged, and at least two women to participate actively right off the bat. The rest of the students need coaxing. I also tend to get more resistance and disrespect from male students—not from all male students, thankfully, but oftentimes the one person sitting with crossed arms and a sneer on their face at the back of my classroom is a tall 30-something male, generally with an advanced degree in something unrelated to what I’m teaching. IBTP.)
Frequently the other groups who seem to be more engaged include older students and former or current teachers. And I get the odd keener who is just really into what I’m teaching, and that’s really nice.
fred:
You know when I read your paragraph I thought of quote from Batman Begins (yes, I’m a nerd). The commissioner asks Batman “what about escalation? If we get guns they get machine guns, if we get body armor they get armor piercing rounds.” I actually think escalation is unavoidable if a group advocates on behalf of one group.
I wish I had remembered that and save myself a lot of words. In fact that example reminds me of the anime Tank Police. It takes place in a fictional city in the future in which the war between criminals and law enforcement had escalated so much that the police literally patrolled the city in tanks (hence the name) and in the opening sequence the chief of police actually says that tactical nuclear weapons wouldn’t be such a bad idea.
I suppose the point with escalation is that we weren’t the ones who escalated first.
JamesH-
I tried to answer the question in a polite, and realistic fashion; admitting that I find MRA’s suspect. I try to be upfront with my biases, because I think pretending like I don’t have them is the opposite of “fair”. I try to work on my own biases, but I’ve been burned by MRAs before, so I try to own up.
If you prefer a label other than MRA I’d be more than willing to alter it.
I suppose some women (not me) but some women think that they can speak for men because it’s all. over. everything. Movies are overwhelming are written by men, directed by men, star men and are marketed for men. The majority of books (particularly “classic” books)are written by men, with male protagonists, and male antagonists. Music, art, architecture….mostly men. Laws, written by men, for men, interpreted by men. Religions: overwhelmingly male, about male deities. So, if women think that they can speak for men it’s because this society is set up for them (this applies to wealth, race, orientation as well).
I reiterate: I do not believe this anymore. I’m beginning to see from reading MRA blogs and more importantly, from getting my guy friends to open up about it, that men have lots of pressures on them that women do not understand (like, seriously, the penis size thing was something that I still don’t get). Women cannot opine about men’s experiences like men can. But, men get to talk about their experiences an often lot; I’d like to see some parity.
Antigone:
I think my last comment got eaten by the cosmos and that sucks because it was pretty long and addressed the scout thing.
I suppose the point with escalation is that we weren’t the ones who escalated first.
Meaning that the one that did not escalate first is somehow assumed to not be capable of wrong doing?
Its cool to see that you are giving MRAs a chance Antigone (I was the same way about feminists until I started running across some actual open minded ones like the folks here). And as a neutral person (I don’t claim to be a feminist or MRA even though I share values with both camps) I’ve seen a lot of instances of one side trying to define the other while at the same time raising arms when the other side does it to them.
But, men get to talk about their experiences an often lot; I’d like to see some parity.
True but telling a marginalized man that he is part of a group that generally speaks up more often isn’t all that helpful.
Danny-
You’re comment must have, because it’s not in the moderation que. And yeah, as a man, you’re pretty much represented, just like as a white person, I’m represented. That means that if we’re discussing race, I take a back seat to people of other races. Now, as a lower-income person, one would get a leg up over rich people when it comes to talking about income (not that I’m holding my breathe: the politics of money always end up really rich-heavy).
Oh well I’ve been on the net long enough that the cosmos are hungry and all content is fair game.
The only part I can recall was about the scouts thing. As James later mentions I haven’t seen anything about boy scouts being forced to open up to girls but in my looking I did see that the followup organization (I think the site said you age out of the boy scouts at 12 or something like that) to the boy scouts is call Venturing which is open to 14-20 year olds of both genders.
And yeah, as a man, you’re pretty much represented, just like as a white person, I’m represented. That means that if we’re discussing race, I take a back seat to people of other races.
And just for the record as a black person I don’t want you sitting in the back, putting you there gives the rise to the chance that I may try to speak for you while you sit in the back and grow resentful. I want there to be a round table so we can all look at each other and everyone has a fair say. Or maybe I’m too hopeful.
I think an enormous part of the value in women’s-only spaces comes from realizing just how pervasive our assumptions of male dominance are. And then also realizing how those assumptions can be unlearned.
The problem with men defining women’s experiences isn’t that they’re always wrong. They’re not. The problem with men defining women’s experiences is that in doing so, they diminish our ability to speak to our own experiences. This is a consequence of marginalization; because our media and cultural conversations are so male-dominated, men’s words about women will tend to overpower and invalidate women’s words about ourselves. The same is true of white people defining the experiences of people of color, able-bodied people defining the experiences of people with disabilities, and so on.
Women speaking for men may not do so with complete accuracy, but as a group, we aren’t able to devalue men’s words about themselves. Evidently.
That said, I don’t think it’s the case that men can never speak about women’s experiences. I think there’s definitely a role for male allies telling women’s stories. There’s always some danger of appropriation, but that’s very much outweighed by their ability to do activism in spaces women can’t reach. This is true in general for allies with privilege—they can use their privilege to support their activism (the details of how being the sticky bit).
Danny:
Same here.
Antigone this is kinda what I’m talking about with escalation. That man broke the law by blinding that woman, she had gotten legal sanction to blind him back, and then he wants her to come to further harm if necessary to ensure that she is indeed blind. I want to say that wanting revenge is wrong but I really can’t blame her for wanting it and I also don’t blame him for wanting to make for certain that she really is blind if the “eye for an eye” rule is going to be applied.
Danny-
I responded to that, and said it was wrong first and foremost. And, technically, she didn’t escalate: she asked for drops in the eye, not splashed across the face.
I was a leader for a co-ed Beaver group and I found it to be a really positive experience. I was also involved in Guiding at the time, which I found to have such ridiculous rules that any serious camping activity was difficult to carry out. The Scouting movement was just as concerned with safety, but not to a level that made it impossible to actually do things outdoors.
In my small town, there was no force involved in making the group co-ed. There were four lodges of Beavers and only one was co-ed during my involvement. Parents were interested in having a co-ed group; in particular, a father was interested in being a leader in his daughter’s group, something that isn’t possible in Guiding. By then, both Venturing and the Scout level already had girls involved and so it was a logical next step, one that was supported by the community.
Antigone what I mean by escalate is not that she wants to do the same thing to him its the fact that she wants legal sanction to do it.
Danny, in Iran there is legal sanction for it. Go to the previous entry, ‘an eye for an eye’ and click on the second link in the post. Most acid attack victims prefer to ask for ‘blood money’ so they can get necessary surgeries. Ms. Bahrami chose ‘parity’, as the courts view it in Iran. Mohavedi will be blinded, but he won’t have acid burns across his entire face, and over his hands and arms the way she does.
The ‘escalation’ in that case? When Mohavedi threw acid over Bahrami for refusing to marry him.
Back to the original women’s only gym issue:
I think one point you may have missed is that a women’s only gym (or school, or whatever) denies both sexes the opportunity of interacting in a co-ed environment WITHOUT experiencing any of the negative events previously mentioned.
My girlfriend and her 4 friends have never experienced oogling, unwanted attention, etc at the co-ed gym they go to. I will admit it is fairly upscale, with a higher proportion of middle aged professionals than the average gym, but it still has it’s share of heavy weights, and they understand what acceptable behaviour constitutes.
Basically, there are a lot of decent people out there, and you should recognize the lowest common denominator for what it is, instead of generalizing their behaviour to all men.
The concept of isolating yourselves off so you can grow and be nurtured in a safe environment sounds great in theory, however the concepts of equality and consideration between sexes cannot be realized at a person to person level when only one sex is present.
This can’t be a great long term plan, as it seems to fall more on the side of the problem than the solution.
“Basically, there are a lot of decent people out there, and you should recognize the lowest common denominator for what it is, instead of generalizing their behaviour to all men.”
Hold hard there, boss–the women who want to put themselves in women-only spaces tend to want to do so based on real-life experiences they have already had in great quantity, not on some theoretical generalizations they up and whipped out of a movie they saw where men ogled women one day.
For ogling to become a non-problem, I’m afraid what’s called for is for the general male population to step up to the plate and make it unacceptable amongst themselves, not for women to decide en masse to stop minding it based upon the fact that it is practiced by some to many men rather than every single man alive. Blaming the victim much, aintcha?
thru your current issues, I agree that people really should all take extra caution of our self.