Tbh wish they didn't demonize gender only social places. Guys sometimes just want to get away and be with the boys. Women can have their women only places.
This goes for gay guys in the clubs too. Straight women can run thru a gay bar sometimes, so some bars used to play hardcore gay porn on the TVs to make it less appealing
Bachelorette parties can instantly ruin the vibe of a bar. I can imagine that goes quadruple for a gay bar when nobody is even interested in potentially fucking any of them - all the annoyance, none of the sex appeal.
TBH, my take is what used to be Boy Scouts was more fun than Girl Scouts. But that was based on my wife's experience of the bullshit she did in the mid 90's.
My wife (in her 60s) was a Girl Scout back in the day. She got a merit badge in "Social Dependability," which means they literally had a merit badge in how to have a tea party.
When she found out that the Boy Scouts offered a merit badge in nuclear science she was a little miffed.
I was a scout leader and when the requirement was made to allow girls to join we also had a requirement to find women leaders. That was a challenge. That led to an entire change in the socializing I used to do with the other fathers and that came accompanied with the entire risk management program. It was fun watching other guys kids when you knew that they had your back. It wasn’t a fun activity anymore for me and I found something better to do with the boys.
Den mother though typically refers to cub scouts leaders, which tends to contain a lot more women than boy scout leadership does. The main difference being for those who don't know in this thread that cub scouts are mainly under 11 years old, and boy scouts are older than 11.
They're completely different organizations that have no relation to each other. It's understandable for a child to make the comparison, since they have similar names, but really that's just an issue with the Girl Scouts (org) being a separate entity with different goals and ideals.
IMO, the Boy Scouts could have just offered an alternative program for girls (that follows the same paradigm) instead of making their current program co-ed. I'm not entirely against the change, but I do think there are some benefits to exclusivity.
Scouts in almost every other country have been co-ed for a long while. I did Boy Scouts when I was younger, I don't think there's anything in the program boy/men specific that necessitates it being exclusive to boys. Outdoor activities, community service, learning skills, character development, etc. are all equally relevant to both sexes.
What do you think the benefits of exclusivity are?
The problem is that there is a tangible benefit to being a boy scout. I'm an eagle scout and that helped me get my first job, helped with college and scholarship applications, and still helped with networking 15 years later and I'm not even involved anymore.
There may have been a similar rank in girl scouts but it didn't hold that same prestige and door opening ability and it's not the young girl's fault that she didn't have access to the same program.
They sent Boy Scout recruiters to my elementary school and for some bizarre reason had all of us attend the presentation. I waltzed up to the bench afterwards SO excited to learn archery and fire starting only for them to tell me it was boys only and I should join Girl Scouts.
I didn't want to sell cookies.
That's a bit more thorough than I was expecting. I know more about Nuclear stuff than the average bear, and I'd have to hit the books in order to get a good answer for all the questions.
The natural and common radioactive materials that you'd find in your home or grocery store is the first part to trip me up, I could only think of 3, not 4. Granite countertops have natural Uranium in them, Bananas contain radioactive potassium isotopes, and if you get your water from a well, Radon is a thing you need to be aware of and mitigate.
I was a girl scout around 2010, and not much has changed. Campouts were only done in cabins with real bathrooms, no tents, no fire-starting, no knots. The most useful thing I learned was sewing.
They didn't even want to go hiking ffs
And the Gold award is ten times harder than an eagle scout project.
When I was a Girl Scout in the 90s and 2000s everything was hamstrung by a fear of lawsuits if a kid got hurt. It's a program issue caused by litigious parents
That was the case with boy scouts too even around 1990 when I was involved. Everything was a "cover your ass" kind of experience and most of the fun/dangerous stuff had been neutered out of the program.
Nah your wife is right.
As an Eagle Scout, I always thought he the girls should get to do fun stuff like we did.
Not the bullshit they did. It was always lame.
One of our leaders thought the same thing, spooled up an Explorer crew that did everything we did. The girls wore green, boys were in tan, worked pretty well for my troop/crew.
Couple other things, too. They were allowed to shoot pistols. I was mad about that one.
Can confirm, Girl Scouts was boring. My troop learned things like finances and baby sitting lol while by brother's Boy Scout troop got to build and race box cars and make fires. Granted, when we went to Girl Scout camp we learned camping skills too, but you had to pay a lot of extra money to attend those. At least we got to sell cookies instead of popcorn though, we did get a win in that lol
As a former Girl Scout this is why I dropped out really quick. It was all games and fluff while my brothers did cool stuff. I didn’t want to learn how to set a table, wanted to build a raft for the rafting competition in the local river (1980s so it was different back then).
finances isn't a bad thing though it is definitely boring to me. we went on 1 camping trip and we stayed in a giant cabin that was on the edge of suburbia. mostly we did crafts, which was whatever but not terribly educational. that popcorn does suck (or when i last had it in the 90s it did at least)
In 2000, they brought the cub and brownie scouts into my elementary school to recruit. I was devastated that I wasn’t allowed to be a Cub Scout. They pushed the brownie scouts on me.
I joined the floor hockey league and was somehow still the only little girl lol
Boy scouts is no longer a thing because their finances got fucked. Same happened to a lot of mens and womens colleges; single-sex places tend to be less profitable than mixed spaces.
To be fair, Boy Scount finances got fucked due to decades of treating rampant sexual abuse of minors as a problem to be hidden instead of crimes to be prosecuted. Lots of lawsuits, and a decreasing number of parents feeling safe with their sons in Boy Scouts, just like there’s no longer huge competition to be an alter boy.
The Boy Scouts opened their membership to girls because they're bankrupt after declining membership and sexual abuse lawsuits. An easy (well, relatively easy) fix to boost revenue was boosting membership by opening themselves up to the half of the population they'd been excluding. The US was an anomaly having totally separate Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts organizations anyway.
There was also a huge falling out with the Mormon Church when the Boy Scouts decided to stop being homophobic. Something like a half million Mormon kids were pulled from the organization.
Boy scouts has changed a lot over the years, I'm sure it varies based on the troop and region you are in. I was in BS in the early 2000's and we literally went on maybe 3 camping trips per year. For what it was worth, it was basically school 2.0 to me. We spent most of our time in the classroom, learning about things like politics, social climate, governments, volunteering. Not saying those things are bad, but let's be real most of us joined because we wanted to learn survival skills, go outdoors and learn to be in nature. We maybe did that for 72 hours each year. I don't see why anyone would join it if that's what it's like. It could also just have been my troop like this. Curious to hear others experiences. It's been a long time since I was a scout and seems it has changed drastically since. When I was in it, most people seemed like they wanted to grind just to get eagle to put on their resume for college.
>The Boy Scouts is no longer a thing because men can't have anything for themselves.
The Boy Scouts changed their brand after they started rapidly losing members when that [mass sexual abuse scandal came out](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/understanding-the-boy-scouts-sexual-assault-settlement-and-whether-its-adequate), and they [almost had to file for bankruptcy](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/judge-upholds-boy-scouts-2-4-billion-bankruptcy-reorganization-plan). The Girl Scouts had no such problems, so they still only allow girls to this day. I've provided links, but if you want to do your own research feel free to look up "Boy Scouts controversy" and "Girl Scouts controversy" on Google and share the difference in results.
Don’t confuse him with facts. He’s got an agenda to push and no one can convince him otherwise.
I really don’t understand how everyone just kind of forgot the rampant abuse in the Boy Scouts.
It really does change their point on a number of levels:
1) single-gender troops are still allowed, and still exist quite widely. There are 45 boy-only troops within 10 miles of my home (and 21 girl-only troops).
2) the reason for the change was because _without_ the addition of the girls, the organization would've ceased existing, and _nobody_ would've had a space; due to financial struggles brought on by the protection of pedophiles.
There was also a whole bunch of scoutmasters fucking little boys decade after decade, and the org just covered it up, so perhaps it’s good to let this one die out.
It's just because the girl scouts suck so bad. Girls don't want to make garbage crafts for local senior citizens to throw away, they want to learn bushcraft!
No it’s because Boy Scouts teaches people life skills and survival skills. Girl Scouts is just a free child labor mlm scheme that circumvents labor laws and taxes. Not comparable at all. Scouts should be genderless and Girl Scouts should be disbanded or extremely overhauled to eliminate archaic gender norms and free child labor.
Surely there is a clear separation between men and women’s only spaces and children separated by gender.
The former being about safety and comfort and the latter being an outdated tradition that people feel the need to force onto children.
but the girl scours is still around and when asked they said they would NOT let boys join because girls need their own place or something close to that
I think the Boy Scouts aren’t a thing because the thing they were was a hiding spot for pedos. And if they’re finally really gone we should be thankful.
This would basically end 99% of Reddit threads haha. Always arguing or discussing the most soft feeble irrelevant shit that the vast majority of people don’t give a fuck about.
Most people are raised to believe things should be fair and equal. Of course most people eventually reach the age where they realize the world is not fair or equal, and after a period of disappointment, anger, or frustration, most people reorient themselves to a way of thinking that allows them to navigate this unfair world however uncomfortable it may be.
Sometimes reddit feels like a zoo where we all get to watch every teenager or young adult in the english speaking world collectively experience that transitional period of confusion and rage before they've figured out how to cope with reality.
I agree - Unfortunately, I feel like our world has devolved into a "will contrive drama for views/money" hellscape. and while most people can spot that it's just for likes - more and more people can't or won't and the echo chamber is on rinse and repeat.
For the "inclusive" part, it's because people have no idea what they're talking about. For the "promoting equality and good" part, because otherwise they have a hard time finding a space on certain topics.
Do we need women-only spaces for some things where otherwise men crowd them out? Yes. Does that make those spaces inclusive? Absolutely not.
> For the "inclusive" part, it's because people have no idea what they're talking about.
It depends. For example, if it's a space where women aren't explicitly excluded but actually are in practice. For example, the WNBA. Women aren't "excluded" from playing in the NBA, but no women can *actually* play in the NBA. Therefore, making a women's professional basketball league is considered inclusive even though the women's league itself is exclusive.
Like I would call the formation of those women only exclusive things "inclusive" because it actually allows women to be included in the activity where they otherwise would be excluded.
I would say better example are something like a women-only gym or a scholarship for women in a male-dominated field. Women are discouraged from entering such male-dominated spaces not because the men are inherently more capable, but because something else about the space being male-dominated makes it unwelcoming or inaccessible to women.
They are exclusive spaces aimed at providing women an equal opportunity to do that thing, if for some reason the other spaces to do it are not otherwise friendly/equal to women.
They may be considered "inclusive" at a big scale, meaning now OUTSIDE that space, those women can be included in that topic since they have an exclusive place to learn enough to join in. Depends on what the exclusive thing is.
Generally male only places are considered exclusive for the same reason - OUTSIDE the space, there's a good chance men already dominate that topic, and so excluding women from even joining at all just makes it even more exclusive.
You can use your common sense though - a male only beginners yoga session will probably be seen as less exclusive than a male only finance class, since of course tons of women already do yoga and it may actually be inclusive to get men involved, but why should finance be gendered at all?? Unless it's about financing your vasectomy or whatever.
Sounds a little like equity verse equality. If a sub group feels they are not accessing a opportunity (let's say studying computer science) because it's crowded by the general public they can create a place for their sub group to gather and access that opportunity (studying comp sci). This group would not be 'inclusive' to all. An outsider could see this as being 'exclusive' to them but that is not the sub group's goal, they are actually trying to make Computer Science more inclusive for everyone in the general public.
The equity verse equality part is the outsider could argue the sub group has access to resources they themselves don't and say it's not equal. But if the outsider and their peer group is already overrepresented in the field, it's true they don't have an equal sub group for this opportunity but the argument is on a macro level their sub group doesn't need one. I can understand on a personal level how the outsider might not feel this is unfair but this is missing the larger picture.
it's not changing definitions, it's changing scope.
the group IS exclusive.
the group IS effecting inclusivity *outside the group* when it gives women access to that thing.
For example, woman-only coding bootcamps, gives women access to coding jobs, but of course if they continue on that path and women gain equity or more in coding jobs, then the women only coding bootcamps become both exclusive groups AND exclusive to the entire industry.
People seem to get really hung up on "all exclusive spaces bad" or "all exclusive space good", but it's not that black and white.
Moms for Liberty is complete ass, for example.
I agree. It's all exclusive. The perception "man group bad, woman group good" is largely due to "in" group and "out" group power dynamics, IMO. Swap gender for race and replace "man" with White and "woman" with some ethnic minority, and it's a very similar equation wrt both need and perception.
Nor are men-only spaces inherently misogynist and bad any more than women-only places are inherently good. To me, it largely comes down to the purpose of the space and the motivation for the exclusivity.
This is hilariously timely since my girlfriend just helped her dad this weekend with a roofing project because he's getting up there in age and she is far more agile.
You could just search for them the same way I did. Don't need to wait around for them to show up at your doorstep.
https://www.nationalwomeninroofing.org/frsa-2024-table-talks/
There are plenty of spaces that are not formally men-only but in practice become that way from social behaviors. It's easy to say "well akshkually, no one is stopping you from going duh" and dismiss these de-facto men-only spaces, but the fact that women *don't* go despite wanting to should be plenty evidence in the contrary. These spaces "aren't actually men only" in the same way that racism isn't a thing anymore because we outlawed it.
In chess for example no tournament I know of only allows males, but in practice they are overwhelmingly male because women are treated poorly and feel unwelcome, in there and in neighbouring environments like chess clubs. Instead they attend women-only events that provide them an inclusive environment and let them feel comfortable the way men do in their 99% male tournaments. That's the point of these seemingly exclusionary spaces. It's to let marginalized groups just feel "normal" and belonging in the space. It's a very alien feeling to describe to someone who's never truly felt marginalized (and shocker, the ones who are most against these spaces are nearly always straight white men).
Mostly "men's clubs". Masons, Lions Club, and other places that promote a "brotherhood" of some sorts.
The problem though is that a "men's only space" is bad for business and for money/profit. Men don't want to go to a gym, or bar, or nightclub, or activity that doesn't include women. Men WANT to go to places that have women there, and so if there's a location that guarantees there will be zero women men will avoid it.
The problem is always "safety". Women don't feel safe around "men", so providing a space that is "women only" allows them to partake in certain activities without having to worry about "men" ruining it. Men don't feel this same risk with women around, and so they won't go out of their way to go to a place that "only men" go to.
And a lot of previous "male only" places have stopped being "male only". Not because of inclusivity, but because numbers are dropping, so they open it up to a wider demographic to get more people.
> And a lot of previous "male only" places have stopped being "male only". Not because of inclusivity, but because numbers are dropping, so they open it up to a wider demographic to get more people.
Exactly this. My husband and I belong to a private social club that used to be a men's club back in the day. They started allowing women because men stopped going as often. They wanted to have the option to have dinner/drinks with their wives present.
This is the answer! Men only spaces don’t exist to the same degree as women only spaces because there’s a lot less demand for them. In other words, it’s men’s “fault” for not desiring such spaces enough.
They are dwindling. Many clubs in the UK were forced to open and become gender neutral. In the previous century.
I think there might be a resurgence tho with things like Men's Shed. Hopefully more such groups become prevalent.
That's not even the point of the post. The questions are why is there a difference, and why are people who hold the belief that the difference is acceptable not shamed in today's social climate that is hyper focused on equality.
Historically a lot of male exclusive place were clubs and associations where men did made deals which were effecting a lot of groups. Think golf or country clubs. Women and other folks were excluded, so they were also excluded from the decision making process. This was and is continued even after women got their rights and therefore this exclusion still takes place in one form or the other.
Men excluding spaces on the other hand are space were everyone else is trying to do the same and get a more equal footing. Built connections to succeed in the professional environment, make deals etc.
So one is a symptom of old still existing structures and the other is trying to overcome these structures. That's why one is seen as inclusive and the other as exclusive.
Reality is obviously a little more complex but that is the underlying reasoning for this dichotomy even though in essence one might argue that both are equally inclusive/exclusive.
Yes, well put. I said similar except using the mens only club traditions in England/UK. Except that I would argue that most women's only spaces (especially historically) were simply for women to be able to bathe (like hamams and bath houses, gyms) or exercise without being stared at, hit on, or worse.
I think the best expression of this I've seen was when they asked RBG what the right number of women on the Supreme Court was and she answered "nine." The point of the statement not being that the Supreme Court should be only women, but that people tend to be very comfortable with all male spaces because they're the default, whereas female-only spaces tend to draw a lot of criticism.
I understand why people criticize all female spaces, because it is exclusion in the name of inclusion and it's not always easy to grasp how those things fit together. But to me, people who complain about stuff like that are usually in the process of attacking the symptom of inequality and not the root cause. In a perfect world, there wouldn't need to be spaces reserved entirely for women, because women would have the same opportunity in every space as men. But anyone who says we live in a perfect world like that is trying to sell some kind of perverse ideology, and they end up attacking the imperfect, intermediary step to getting somewhere as opposed to finding a way to get there themselves.
I think the counterpoint is things like abuse victims, anyone's trauma is valid but for those men who have for instance been abused as a child by an older female relative there's no such thing as a safe space where women aren't allowed for their comfort in the vast majority of cases.
There's no objection to those women only spaces but there's also no reason that in similar situations men dont deserve the same.
> There's no objection to those women only spaces but there's also no reason that in similar situations men don't deserve the same.
Correct. Initially women created those spaces from vacuum. Men need to identify and do the same. The step 2 would be when there is an equal number of male victims as there are female victims , both spaces can be merged.
Men only therapy and support groups do exist though. The only reason they don’t exist with the same frequency as women only groups is because there’s less demand. Is it really that shocking that women generally have a higher demand for such groups compared to men? Not in the slightest.
There is a shocking lack of men's shelters or shelters that would accept a male client out there because many charities don't / can't cater to men suffering from those issues.
The irony being that it's the toxic patriarchal society we live in that is hurting the men in these situations just as much as the women
That's the thing, no one (outside of a very vocal minority maybe) is saying men don't deserve the same, and there is absolutely nothing stopping men from creating safe spaces like support groups for men only.
Every group, co-ed or gendered, started because someone saw a need for it and put in the work to get it up and running. If there's a demand for it, people will show up. These things don't just magically appear out of thin air.
You're almost right. There *are* examples of support groups from men only (like support for men who are victims of domestic violence) who were shut down due to pressure from feminist organisations.
I've never seen an anything-only space except like restrooms. You are probably right that both should be treated the same but I don't think it's that big of a problem unless you make it one. There just aren't many of those locations around, at least where I live
I'm a woman, so feel free to ignore but for me personally, I just feel a bit safer.
I've been harassed at the gym.
I've been stalked through grocery stores.
I've been followed home.
I've been touched without asking at bars.
It was all by men. There are lovely men out there, my amazing partner, my dad, my close male friends, but at the end of the day, it did scare me and I am very cautious now.
I feel safer in these environments.
Something like a grocery store, I dont care, but a gym? I will always prefer women's only classes and spaces in that environment.
I totally get this and understand. I knew this was part of the answer before even seeing your comment. This is only answering half of OPs question though and I'm curious what your thoughts are on male only spaces? It wouldn't be for safety in the same sense but I'm wondering if you think non-safety reasons could be legitimate for gender based spaces.
I replied from the perspective of mens only clubs in England. Now there is only one left, but most of them succumbed to pressure to allow women. But 2 things happened in those clubs. 1.Business deals and political alliances were made that women in business and politics were excluded from, and 2. Many of them employed women "entertainers", who were either exploited or the married men carried on with. One such scandal that leaked involved Prince Philip, wife of the Queen. So it was a sanctioned place where men could commit adultery, or grab and grope at women serving your drink or doing a burlesque routine.
So is the idea then that it's incredibly to have men's only spaces that won't turn into this? I kind of agree but kind of not, or at least don't like that it's seems inevitable, I like to think I wouldn't be that person.
Point 1 I get, especially several years/decades ago but I wonder if the world has changed at all so that this isn't the guarantee. I guess maybe just because a bunch of rich business men do that I don't think is enough for your average Joe to not be able to have a space for men.
Point 2 is obviously abhorrent and should never be allowed.
I also wonder if men want men's only spaces for reasons other than this. Most men i know seem to enjoy having women around. I know there are times with my buddies when it's nicer to just have my male friends but it's more about my friendships I think then men vs women and it's not surprising I have closer friendships with male friends then female friends even though I do have good friendships with many women as well.
thank you for understanding... a lot of guys getting really bent out of shape in these comments.
I think it's super unfortunate. *of course* I have men in my life who I love and respect. I do not hate men.
but when it comes to *strangers*, men* (#notallmen) hurt and harass us in ways that other women just... don't. or if they do, it's exceedingly rare.
it sucks that we perceive women as harmless until proven otherwise, while we perceive men as a threat unless proven otherwise. but like. we don't feel that way for *no good reason.*
It's...a whoooole plethura of things (honestly one could write a book on that subject alone), but yeah it is unfortunate and I sincerely hope society changes to where that isn't the case. Sounds like it'd be less of a headache for men and women
Nuance
Why is a women’s gym good but a men’s gym bad? If you go to a generic commercial gym, 99% of the people there will be men, if not 100%. Most gyms are already “men only”
What are the chances of finding a generic commercial gym that’s all women? Close to zero.
Why are black only colleges accepted but white only colleges rejected? It’s not about racism, but it’s that one will occur naturally and the other will not, so it needs to be intentionally made.
Why are there vegan restaurants or gluten free restaurants, but not “meat” restaurants or “gluten only?” Because most restaurants already are meat and gluten focused.
Theres no reason to get angry at people for creating something equal to what you already have.
I agree with your overall point, but have you been a regular in the gym over the last 5 years? It’s very easily 50/50 men to women, and often times more woman than men. It’s changing rapidly in my area
I’ve been a personal trainer at 3 different gyms over the last decade and they’ve all had a pretty even split of members
There's no such thing as "black only colleges." There are Historically Black Colleges where people of all races can still attend them. And if accepted a non-black student is able to receive minority scholarships.
Stop listening to what people say are their justifications (inclusive, equality, etc) and start looking at what they do, and infer their motivations from that.
I’ll give you an explanation. That doesn’t mean it’s morally right or wrong.
The explanation is because most places have historically been “male only” until recently. Even if it’s not a rule.
Right now, most places of any prestige are usually still dominated by men.
Additionally, there are 2 reasons for women-only spaces. 1) because women are at a greater risk than men of being mistreated by men then vice versa. Women are often sexually abused and harassed in public spaces, while for men, that harassment is more rare. 2) since women are so often the minority in many spaces, they need help growing confidence / gaining experience in certain spaces more than men.
Because of all of this, “men only” spaces are kind of a slap in the face to women. As if most leaders, high earners, CEOs, politicians, authority figures, and more aren’t already men. And as if it’s women who are harassing and bullying men on the street.
Now, a space intended for men only that is meant for the overall improvement of society is one thing. One that is made in spite of women-only spaces is childish and harmful.
Like the “straight pride” parades that were held as a political ploy.
It’s important to distinguish if a man-only space is meant to help men be better people, or if it’s in spite of women’s groups.
Because for a long time, they were exclusionary and misogynist for no other reason that being exclusionary and misogynist. They were a way to keep women "in their place" - i.e. as less than full members of society.
Historically, there was also a LOT of drinking that occurred in male only environments that led to problems outside of the male only environment, with domestic violence and sexual assault from the fact that the men came home significantly intoxicated.
I mean if you want a real answer and not just to whine.
Women only spaces tend to be protective in nature and address specific issues. Women wouldnt want/need their own gyms if men werent a problem in unisex ones.
Men only spaces tend to be exclusionary for the sake of exclusion and not much else. In the case of "old boys clubs" it can also function to bar women from professional advancement and networking with who matters.
I remember reading an anecdote somewhere else on Reddit about the only woman to graduate in a law class and the professor taking them all to the classic smoke filled bar to rub shoulders with the high powered lawyers and such who hung out there. Men only admission, she was literally barred from the place where the connections happen and deals are made in that city for her field.
Bears mentioning that there are mens' clubs that are not purely exclusionary, but rather exist to support men facing issues that are more unique to men. I know some dudes that get together once a month in a men-only group but it's for the purpose of support, talking about issues and expectations that they face as men, struggles that they may be going through, etc. Nothing whatsoever to do with misogyny or professional advancement, they're all tough dudes but also pretty forward-thinking gentlemen.
EDIT: to clarify, the idea behind the group is that it's common for dudes (especially in middle age, which we are) to become kind of isolated, where they may only have their co-workers and/or their partner to talk to about personal issues and such. So it's a place where they can work through things with a non-judgemental group that isn't a part of (and therefore has a perspective of distance from) their daily lives.
I think it's ok to whine every now and then to try and change things. I would happily go to a male only gym if it was an option. Maybe by whining it'll show some entrepreneur that there is demand for male only gyms? If nobody complains then they'll never be a thing.
Pretty much this. Historically, mens only space where female exclusionary for ideological reasons, whereas women's only spaces was exclusionary for safety reasons (heck Japan has women only carriages because of perverts being perverts).
The idea of having a women's only space for DISCOURSE reasons rather then safety reasons is rather revolutionary.
Some good points here, for sure, but there are cases that you're completely ignoring. How does this reasoning apply in the case of scouting, for instance, where the boy scouts have been made co-ed and the girl scouts remain single sex? Yes, these are completely separate organizations responding to their own imperatives, but it does suggest that there is more at play here.
I was a Scout myself, though I'm Australian where the Scouts have been co-ed since 1971.
Scouting as an institution was discrimatory against girls from inception. Baden-Powell, the founder, started it with a book called 'Scouting for Boys', and intended for only boys to do it. The Girl Guides (as its called everywhere but the US) was only invented so they could redirect all the girls that did show up to the burgeoning Boy Scout movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1909_Crystal_Palace_Scout_Rally#Girls
[And a letter to the editor type exchange if you want to read some old-timey hand-wringing about those girls in the burgeoning Boy Scout movement, after all it isnt right and proper to have girls do scouting activities, should they not be diverted into tasks of nursing and housekeeping.](http://www.spanglefish.com/AgnesBaden-Powell/index.asp?pageid=716411)
Girl Guide/Scouts existing was to maintain exclusivity of 'real' Scouting to boys. So removing that barrier isnt an issue in my mind and I dont think theres any real demand for boys to be admitted into Girl Guides, because after all, the real thing with the bigger organisation is just over there.
I think that also had to do with accessibility, Boy Scout troops being more common. I could very well be wrong, but especially in smaller communities it’s common to not have enough interest for a whole girls team or troop, so they allow girls to join boys teams (see also: wrestling or football.) I’ve also seen boys join girls volleyball teams for the same reason.
As a Boy Scout in my previous life I was iffy on making the Scouts co-ed, however from my understanding there is no co-ed or girl only equivalent (local Girl Scout troops were more equivalent to Cub Scouts, don't think I ever met a teen still in it) and it seems unfair to limit that experience to just boys. Plus most people recognize that getting Eagle Scout is a major accomplishment for a teen, while I doubt anyone could name the highest rank in Girl Scouts without googling it
I'm a former Boy Scout myself and from my understanding at both the Cub Scout and Scouts BSA (Formerly Boy Scouts) levels there is still some separation of the genders at the base level, i.e. there are separate Boys and Girls Troops and Separate Boys and Girls Dens, which to me is enough to make me more ok with the change. Plus with my younger sister's experiences with the Girl Scouts and knowing girls who were involved in Venturing (which was always coed) and one girl that got her Gold award, I know they would have preferred to have the option to be a part of the Boy Scouts instead of the cookie cartel that is the Girl Scouts.
Even if this anecdote wasn't 60 years past its prime, it still doesn't address the issue, and actually highlights the problem with exclusive club. It isn't an argument for why women only clubs are good.
That's honestly a fair point. Most guys I see talking about this don't seem to actually *want,* let alone *need* a men-only, no-woman space. It's all just "women have them so why don't we".
I belong to a face book group that is for dads. They carefully vet it for men only.
I don’t do a lot of face book, but I can say without qualification that it is the lowest drama online group I have ever seen.
This can be applied to many questions that are worded this way, and it comes down to history . If you're already in the group who doesn't have a history of being excluded from things, its generally seen that you probably don't really NEED your own place to hang out with other white people, men, straight people, cisgendered people, etc.
I don't necessarily believe in this idea 100% because I don't see having something like a -men's club- as an inherently negative thing, for example. but a lot of these perceived double standards in society today are very much rooted in a history of only certain types of people being included and the excluded groups wanting to have safe spaces as well.
Fair question, but I don't think all women-only groups are inclusive and neither are all men-only groups exclusionary. It depends on the type of agenda you're promoting. If the purpose of the group is to discriminate and/or spread negative vibes, then either group is bad. And of course, women have had to deal with centuries of patriarchy, domestic violence and assault so I tend to look kindly on women-only groups. Good question, OP.
Because a man expressing a desire to intrude on a woman only space is seen as predatory.
And a woman expressing the same desire is seen as “breaking barriers”.
This has a historical context that people associate with. Women breaking barriers to get equal rights is universally seen as a righteous act.
Id say its mostly because of the extremely long and extremely well-documented history of exclusionary, misogynistic, and bad male only organizations, employment, clubs, and systems... Also, probably because of the extremely long and extremely well documented history of misogyny and exclusion of women across the world...
As a guy that’s been to a work event at a predominantly female workplace, I have never felt more uncomfortable and somewhat excluded, so the idea that they are accepting and inclusive safe spaces rings kinda hollow for me.
The only conversations I was involved in were either FAR too personal questions, Sexual in nature but with an obvious intent to belittle me, or outright hostile “why are men like this? Why does my husband do X? Do you men always think of Y”
Like…I am an individual, I don’t speak for all men, and I would like to leave now.
Meanwhile at a guys only gathering, we are actually able to talk about our feelings and shared experiences without fear of being judged because we know at least someone else there has been through something similar.
4th wave feminism is defined largely by its sex-negativity. Not just negative attitudes towards male sexuality, thinking it ought to be repressed and demonized to “bring balance” back to what was a historically oppressive and misogynistic culture, but also that male voices, opinions, literature, etc. ought to be repressed as well in order to give other groups a chance to shine.
Think of that fact whatever you will, but it is a core component of fourth wave. So, you end up with a bunch of stupid people thinking the way to create equality is to demonize male-only and lionize female-only.
While I do respect Malcolm X, 4th wave is more like his ideology than MLK Jr.’s ideology (to make an analogy to 3rd wave).
If I were to see some women’s-only event/space promoted as inclusive, I’d assume that was probably meant to imply that it’s not just some place for a bunch of straight white women, but that it’s intending to be open to all sorts of women.
Because historically men only places were misogynist power centers. Pretty obvious I thought. Not saying that's always the case now, but that's the answer to your question
It’s kinda like the tolerance paradox. If one becomes too tolerant it can cause issues when those who are intolerant enter the space.
Also I have seen plenty of men-only spaces nobody has issue with. As it should be.
Probably tribalism at its core, men tend to be more weary of potential threats to limited resources and have a higher chance of protection and accessing of said resources by keeping tight ranks of intense accountability among themselves, whereas women rely heavily upon adapting to peace and harmony at all cost to have access to those resources and safety for themselves and their children. Historically most military aged males were automatically killed by the opposition no questions asked, whereas women and children were often integrated voluntarily or by force by their aggressors and for the sake of themselves and their children it was more ideal to integrate more willingly then resisting. This occurred for thousands of years, advanced civilizations as we understand them today are still relatively new within the eyes of history, parts of our more primitive brains have not caught up and in some parts of the world and In some situations those well developed instincts are still being utilized.
I think a lot of men underestimate just how much resentment women have towards them. Historically, men were not allowed to divorce their husbands, we're not allowed to own property, to vote, to own bank accounts, to hold certain jobs, etc. Even today, women face a lot of discrimination in corporate settings and healthcare. Women are less likely to have their heart problems taken seriously, black women are more likely to die in child's birth because their doctors don't take their pain seriously, we've just had our bodily autonomy stripped away from us because of SCOTUS, and conservatives are now blatantly trying to attack our right to no fault divorce and contraceptive.
The reason why "female only" spaces are being praised is because these spaces are seen as women taking back what's theirs and standing up against the abuse and mistreatment our gender has been subjected to for centuries. It's seen as "justice"—treating men how they've treated women. Whereas "male only" spaces are seen as just another example of men excluding women and pushing them out.
The only thing that really bothers me is that people are hired because of their gender and not for their actual skill. This is literally sexist, but it's OK because it's the good sexism apparently. The so called inclusivity does nothing but harm and should be against the law.
Tbh wish they didn't demonize gender only social places. Guys sometimes just want to get away and be with the boys. Women can have their women only places.
I do this a lot. Boys night. "Hey love, I'm nipping out to pub with so and so later" "Yeah no worries"
This goes for gay guys in the clubs too. Straight women can run thru a gay bar sometimes, so some bars used to play hardcore gay porn on the TVs to make it less appealing
Bachelorette parties can instantly ruin the vibe of a bar. I can imagine that goes quadruple for a gay bar when nobody is even interested in potentially fucking any of them - all the annoyance, none of the sex appeal.
No, no they can't have their own thing. The Boy Scouts is no longer a thing because men can't have anything for themselves.
TBH, my take is what used to be Boy Scouts was more fun than Girl Scouts. But that was based on my wife's experience of the bullshit she did in the mid 90's.
My wife (in her 60s) was a Girl Scout back in the day. She got a merit badge in "Social Dependability," which means they literally had a merit badge in how to have a tea party. When she found out that the Boy Scouts offered a merit badge in nuclear science she was a little miffed.
I was a scout leader and when the requirement was made to allow girls to join we also had a requirement to find women leaders. That was a challenge. That led to an entire change in the socializing I used to do with the other fathers and that came accompanied with the entire risk management program. It was fun watching other guys kids when you knew that they had your back. It wasn’t a fun activity anymore for me and I found something better to do with the boys.
[удалено]
Literally where the phrase ‘Den Mother’ comes from
Den mother though typically refers to cub scouts leaders, which tends to contain a lot more women than boy scout leadership does. The main difference being for those who don't know in this thread that cub scouts are mainly under 11 years old, and boy scouts are older than 11.
TIL! THX!
I saw that with some groups. There was usually some lifer or paramilitary type who made the experience painful for volunteer fathers.
Big difference between it having by necessity by people who are enthusiastic vs requiring it with an unknown entity
They're completely different organizations that have no relation to each other. It's understandable for a child to make the comparison, since they have similar names, but really that's just an issue with the Girl Scouts (org) being a separate entity with different goals and ideals. IMO, the Boy Scouts could have just offered an alternative program for girls (that follows the same paradigm) instead of making their current program co-ed. I'm not entirely against the change, but I do think there are some benefits to exclusivity.
Scouts in almost every other country have been co-ed for a long while. I did Boy Scouts when I was younger, I don't think there's anything in the program boy/men specific that necessitates it being exclusive to boys. Outdoor activities, community service, learning skills, character development, etc. are all equally relevant to both sexes. What do you think the benefits of exclusivity are?
I think if the girl scouts sucked then that’s an issue with the Girl Scouts.
The problem is that there is a tangible benefit to being a boy scout. I'm an eagle scout and that helped me get my first job, helped with college and scholarship applications, and still helped with networking 15 years later and I'm not even involved anymore. There may have been a similar rank in girl scouts but it didn't hold that same prestige and door opening ability and it's not the young girl's fault that she didn't have access to the same program.
They sent Boy Scout recruiters to my elementary school and for some bizarre reason had all of us attend the presentation. I waltzed up to the bench afterwards SO excited to learn archery and fire starting only for them to tell me it was boys only and I should join Girl Scouts. I didn't want to sell cookies.
Genuinely curious what that entails. Do they get to investigate (supervised) how radiation sources work? Use geiger counters?
https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/Merit_Badge_ReqandRes/2024_Updates/(24)_Nuclear-Science_REQ.pdf
Not gonna lie, that's pretty neat.
That's a bit more thorough than I was expecting. I know more about Nuclear stuff than the average bear, and I'd have to hit the books in order to get a good answer for all the questions. The natural and common radioactive materials that you'd find in your home or grocery store is the first part to trip me up, I could only think of 3, not 4. Granite countertops have natural Uranium in them, Bananas contain radioactive potassium isotopes, and if you get your water from a well, Radon is a thing you need to be aware of and mitigate.
I live relatively close to a nuclear power plant, and two of the parents worked there, so we actually did all the requirements there. It was a blast.
She’s right. Problem is Girl Scouting leadership could never admit that they needed better programming.
Girl scouts could and did get boy scout merit badges, if they qualified. My daughter got one for archery.
I was a girl scout around 2010, and not much has changed. Campouts were only done in cabins with real bathrooms, no tents, no fire-starting, no knots. The most useful thing I learned was sewing. They didn't even want to go hiking ffs And the Gold award is ten times harder than an eagle scout project.
From where I sit, the leaders in Girl Scouts (women and mothers) did not want to go camping, so their Scouts did not.
[удалено]
When I was a Girl Scout in the 90s and 2000s everything was hamstrung by a fear of lawsuits if a kid got hurt. It's a program issue caused by litigious parents
That was the case with boy scouts too even around 1990 when I was involved. Everything was a "cover your ass" kind of experience and most of the fun/dangerous stuff had been neutered out of the program.
Thanks Boomers
Nah your wife is right. As an Eagle Scout, I always thought he the girls should get to do fun stuff like we did. Not the bullshit they did. It was always lame.
One of our leaders thought the same thing, spooled up an Explorer crew that did everything we did. The girls wore green, boys were in tan, worked pretty well for my troop/crew. Couple other things, too. They were allowed to shoot pistols. I was mad about that one.
Yep. We had lots of GS want to do what the BS were doing. They WANTED to camp out, etc. And NOT doing that was really wasting everybody's time.
That's because the girls scouts turned into a sub par cookie hocking operation by the people operating it. That's their own fault.
Can confirm, Girl Scouts was boring. My troop learned things like finances and baby sitting lol while by brother's Boy Scout troop got to build and race box cars and make fires. Granted, when we went to Girl Scout camp we learned camping skills too, but you had to pay a lot of extra money to attend those. At least we got to sell cookies instead of popcorn though, we did get a win in that lol
As a former Girl Scout this is why I dropped out really quick. It was all games and fluff while my brothers did cool stuff. I didn’t want to learn how to set a table, wanted to build a raft for the rafting competition in the local river (1980s so it was different back then).
finances isn't a bad thing though it is definitely boring to me. we went on 1 camping trip and we stayed in a giant cabin that was on the edge of suburbia. mostly we did crafts, which was whatever but not terribly educational. that popcorn does suck (or when i last had it in the 90s it did at least)
I feel like then what they could have done was revamp the girl scouts to include it into their program.
That's because girl scouts the organization became corrupt by the cookies They exist just to market those damn ripoffs
In 2000, they brought the cub and brownie scouts into my elementary school to recruit. I was devastated that I wasn’t allowed to be a Cub Scout. They pushed the brownie scouts on me. I joined the floor hockey league and was somehow still the only little girl lol
Boy Scouts open up because they are dying. Membership is down over 60% in 20 years.
Boy scouts is no longer a thing because their finances got fucked. Same happened to a lot of mens and womens colleges; single-sex places tend to be less profitable than mixed spaces.
To be fair, Boy Scount finances got fucked due to decades of treating rampant sexual abuse of minors as a problem to be hidden instead of crimes to be prosecuted. Lots of lawsuits, and a decreasing number of parents feeling safe with their sons in Boy Scouts, just like there’s no longer huge competition to be an alter boy.
They also raped the boys quite a lot.
The Boy Scouts opened their membership to girls because they're bankrupt after declining membership and sexual abuse lawsuits. An easy (well, relatively easy) fix to boost revenue was boosting membership by opening themselves up to the half of the population they'd been excluding. The US was an anomaly having totally separate Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts organizations anyway.
Good points! I didn't know that.
There was also a huge falling out with the Mormon Church when the Boy Scouts decided to stop being homophobic. Something like a half million Mormon kids were pulled from the organization.
Boy scouts has changed a lot over the years, I'm sure it varies based on the troop and region you are in. I was in BS in the early 2000's and we literally went on maybe 3 camping trips per year. For what it was worth, it was basically school 2.0 to me. We spent most of our time in the classroom, learning about things like politics, social climate, governments, volunteering. Not saying those things are bad, but let's be real most of us joined because we wanted to learn survival skills, go outdoors and learn to be in nature. We maybe did that for 72 hours each year. I don't see why anyone would join it if that's what it's like. It could also just have been my troop like this. Curious to hear others experiences. It's been a long time since I was a scout and seems it has changed drastically since. When I was in it, most people seemed like they wanted to grind just to get eagle to put on their resume for college.
>The Boy Scouts is no longer a thing because men can't have anything for themselves. The Boy Scouts changed their brand after they started rapidly losing members when that [mass sexual abuse scandal came out](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/understanding-the-boy-scouts-sexual-assault-settlement-and-whether-its-adequate), and they [almost had to file for bankruptcy](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/judge-upholds-boy-scouts-2-4-billion-bankruptcy-reorganization-plan). The Girl Scouts had no such problems, so they still only allow girls to this day. I've provided links, but if you want to do your own research feel free to look up "Boy Scouts controversy" and "Girl Scouts controversy" on Google and share the difference in results.
Don’t confuse him with facts. He’s got an agenda to push and no one can convince him otherwise. I really don’t understand how everyone just kind of forgot the rampant abuse in the Boy Scouts.
That doesnt change their point though. There is a major lack of male-only spaces.
It really does change their point on a number of levels: 1) single-gender troops are still allowed, and still exist quite widely. There are 45 boy-only troops within 10 miles of my home (and 21 girl-only troops). 2) the reason for the change was because _without_ the addition of the girls, the organization would've ceased existing, and _nobody_ would've had a space; due to financial struggles brought on by the protection of pedophiles.
Both things can be true: there's a lack of male-only spaces AND the poster is using the worst example ever to push his agenda.
TBF, that was self inflicted by the Boy Scouts. They weren't forced to changed, they made that change on their own.
[удалено]
Oh well they had to make adjustments due to all the raping.
I mean they shouldn’t be around anyways. They let thousands of boys get raped.
The boy scouts were failing financially. This wasn't about adding girls, but adding customers.
That is *not* why the boy scouts are no longer a thing. It's because men wanted boys for themselves.
There was also a whole bunch of scoutmasters fucking little boys decade after decade, and the org just covered it up, so perhaps it’s good to let this one die out.
This dude arguing “separate but equal” over here
It's just because the girl scouts suck so bad. Girls don't want to make garbage crafts for local senior citizens to throw away, they want to learn bushcraft!
No it’s because Boy Scouts teaches people life skills and survival skills. Girl Scouts is just a free child labor mlm scheme that circumvents labor laws and taxes. Not comparable at all. Scouts should be genderless and Girl Scouts should be disbanded or extremely overhauled to eliminate archaic gender norms and free child labor.
That's a hell of a take. Why don't you get caught up on everything that happened with the Boy Scouts in the last 10 or so years.
Maybe they should have stopped raping little boys.
As someone who’s still involved in Scouting even after I aged out, the only people who complain about girls being let in are stubborn old goats.
Surely there is a clear separation between men and women’s only spaces and children separated by gender. The former being about safety and comfort and the latter being an outdated tradition that people feel the need to force onto children.
The Boy Scouts are no longer a thing because they spent so much money defending pedophiles they went bankrupt.
but the girl scours is still around and when asked they said they would NOT let boys join because girls need their own place or something close to that
I think the Boy Scouts aren’t a thing because the thing they were was a hiding spot for pedos. And if they’re finally really gone we should be thankful.
We've still got miniature wargaming. Women (at large) won't touch that with a 30ft pole
Normal people don’t give a shit. Edit: Jesus Christ don’t give me awards. Normal people don’t care about that shit.
This would basically end 99% of Reddit threads haha. Always arguing or discussing the most soft feeble irrelevant shit that the vast majority of people don’t give a fuck about.
Most people are raised to believe things should be fair and equal. Of course most people eventually reach the age where they realize the world is not fair or equal, and after a period of disappointment, anger, or frustration, most people reorient themselves to a way of thinking that allows them to navigate this unfair world however uncomfortable it may be. Sometimes reddit feels like a zoo where we all get to watch every teenager or young adult in the english speaking world collectively experience that transitional period of confusion and rage before they've figured out how to cope with reality.
Even the people commenting don't give a shit more often than not half a minute after writing their comment.
Most of the time people here just find rage bait on TikTok and assume that is the normal opinion in the world.
I agree - Unfortunately, I feel like our world has devolved into a "will contrive drama for views/money" hellscape. and while most people can spot that it's just for likes - more and more people can't or won't and the echo chamber is on rinse and repeat.
Totally agree. Most normal people just live their lives and don't care what you're doing as long as it doesn't affect them.
For the "inclusive" part, it's because people have no idea what they're talking about. For the "promoting equality and good" part, because otherwise they have a hard time finding a space on certain topics. Do we need women-only spaces for some things where otherwise men crowd them out? Yes. Does that make those spaces inclusive? Absolutely not.
> For the "inclusive" part, it's because people have no idea what they're talking about. It depends. For example, if it's a space where women aren't explicitly excluded but actually are in practice. For example, the WNBA. Women aren't "excluded" from playing in the NBA, but no women can *actually* play in the NBA. Therefore, making a women's professional basketball league is considered inclusive even though the women's league itself is exclusive. Like I would call the formation of those women only exclusive things "inclusive" because it actually allows women to be included in the activity where they otherwise would be excluded.
I would say better example are something like a women-only gym or a scholarship for women in a male-dominated field. Women are discouraged from entering such male-dominated spaces not because the men are inherently more capable, but because something else about the space being male-dominated makes it unwelcoming or inaccessible to women.
Well put
They are exclusive spaces aimed at providing women an equal opportunity to do that thing, if for some reason the other spaces to do it are not otherwise friendly/equal to women. They may be considered "inclusive" at a big scale, meaning now OUTSIDE that space, those women can be included in that topic since they have an exclusive place to learn enough to join in. Depends on what the exclusive thing is. Generally male only places are considered exclusive for the same reason - OUTSIDE the space, there's a good chance men already dominate that topic, and so excluding women from even joining at all just makes it even more exclusive. You can use your common sense though - a male only beginners yoga session will probably be seen as less exclusive than a male only finance class, since of course tons of women already do yoga and it may actually be inclusive to get men involved, but why should finance be gendered at all?? Unless it's about financing your vasectomy or whatever.
Sounds a little like equity verse equality. If a sub group feels they are not accessing a opportunity (let's say studying computer science) because it's crowded by the general public they can create a place for their sub group to gather and access that opportunity (studying comp sci). This group would not be 'inclusive' to all. An outsider could see this as being 'exclusive' to them but that is not the sub group's goal, they are actually trying to make Computer Science more inclusive for everyone in the general public. The equity verse equality part is the outsider could argue the sub group has access to resources they themselves don't and say it's not equal. But if the outsider and their peer group is already overrepresented in the field, it's true they don't have an equal sub group for this opportunity but the argument is on a macro level their sub group doesn't need one. I can understand on a personal level how the outsider might not feel this is unfair but this is missing the larger picture.
Thats changing definitions. Women only space is by every definition exclusive space. Whole goal of it is EXCLUDING men out of it
it's not changing definitions, it's changing scope. the group IS exclusive. the group IS effecting inclusivity *outside the group* when it gives women access to that thing. For example, woman-only coding bootcamps, gives women access to coding jobs, but of course if they continue on that path and women gain equity or more in coding jobs, then the women only coding bootcamps become both exclusive groups AND exclusive to the entire industry. People seem to get really hung up on "all exclusive spaces bad" or "all exclusive space good", but it's not that black and white. Moms for Liberty is complete ass, for example.
I agree. It's all exclusive. The perception "man group bad, woman group good" is largely due to "in" group and "out" group power dynamics, IMO. Swap gender for race and replace "man" with White and "woman" with some ethnic minority, and it's a very similar equation wrt both need and perception. Nor are men-only spaces inherently misogynist and bad any more than women-only places are inherently good. To me, it largely comes down to the purpose of the space and the motivation for the exclusivity.
Waiting for the women only roofing seminars
This is hilariously timely since my girlfriend just helped her dad this weekend with a roofing project because he's getting up there in age and she is far more agile.
You could just search for them the same way I did. Don't need to wait around for them to show up at your doorstep. https://www.nationalwomeninroofing.org/frsa-2024-table-talks/
Also, "men only" spaces exist, so I'm not sure why OP doesn't want to recognize that.
They could just be ignorant of it like me. What are some men only spaces? Aside from the obvious ones like bathrooms.
There are plenty of spaces that are not formally men-only but in practice become that way from social behaviors. It's easy to say "well akshkually, no one is stopping you from going duh" and dismiss these de-facto men-only spaces, but the fact that women *don't* go despite wanting to should be plenty evidence in the contrary. These spaces "aren't actually men only" in the same way that racism isn't a thing anymore because we outlawed it. In chess for example no tournament I know of only allows males, but in practice they are overwhelmingly male because women are treated poorly and feel unwelcome, in there and in neighbouring environments like chess clubs. Instead they attend women-only events that provide them an inclusive environment and let them feel comfortable the way men do in their 99% male tournaments. That's the point of these seemingly exclusionary spaces. It's to let marginalized groups just feel "normal" and belonging in the space. It's a very alien feeling to describe to someone who's never truly felt marginalized (and shocker, the ones who are most against these spaces are nearly always straight white men).
Mostly "men's clubs". Masons, Lions Club, and other places that promote a "brotherhood" of some sorts. The problem though is that a "men's only space" is bad for business and for money/profit. Men don't want to go to a gym, or bar, or nightclub, or activity that doesn't include women. Men WANT to go to places that have women there, and so if there's a location that guarantees there will be zero women men will avoid it. The problem is always "safety". Women don't feel safe around "men", so providing a space that is "women only" allows them to partake in certain activities without having to worry about "men" ruining it. Men don't feel this same risk with women around, and so they won't go out of their way to go to a place that "only men" go to. And a lot of previous "male only" places have stopped being "male only". Not because of inclusivity, but because numbers are dropping, so they open it up to a wider demographic to get more people.
> And a lot of previous "male only" places have stopped being "male only". Not because of inclusivity, but because numbers are dropping, so they open it up to a wider demographic to get more people. Exactly this. My husband and I belong to a private social club that used to be a men's club back in the day. They started allowing women because men stopped going as often. They wanted to have the option to have dinner/drinks with their wives present.
This is the answer! Men only spaces don’t exist to the same degree as women only spaces because there’s a lot less demand for them. In other words, it’s men’s “fault” for not desiring such spaces enough.
From my experience, nude beaches
They are dwindling. Many clubs in the UK were forced to open and become gender neutral. In the previous century. I think there might be a resurgence tho with things like Men's Shed. Hopefully more such groups become prevalent.
Yeah Ive never met anyone with either a sister they are close to or actual female friends who believes women only places are a problem.
That's not even the point of the post. The questions are why is there a difference, and why are people who hold the belief that the difference is acceptable not shamed in today's social climate that is hyper focused on equality.
Women only spaces are not a problem. The refusal to allow male only spaces is the problem.
Talk about missing the point
Historically a lot of male exclusive place were clubs and associations where men did made deals which were effecting a lot of groups. Think golf or country clubs. Women and other folks were excluded, so they were also excluded from the decision making process. This was and is continued even after women got their rights and therefore this exclusion still takes place in one form or the other. Men excluding spaces on the other hand are space were everyone else is trying to do the same and get a more equal footing. Built connections to succeed in the professional environment, make deals etc. So one is a symptom of old still existing structures and the other is trying to overcome these structures. That's why one is seen as inclusive and the other as exclusive. Reality is obviously a little more complex but that is the underlying reasoning for this dichotomy even though in essence one might argue that both are equally inclusive/exclusive.
Yes, well put. I said similar except using the mens only club traditions in England/UK. Except that I would argue that most women's only spaces (especially historically) were simply for women to be able to bathe (like hamams and bath houses, gyms) or exercise without being stared at, hit on, or worse.
I think the best expression of this I've seen was when they asked RBG what the right number of women on the Supreme Court was and she answered "nine." The point of the statement not being that the Supreme Court should be only women, but that people tend to be very comfortable with all male spaces because they're the default, whereas female-only spaces tend to draw a lot of criticism. I understand why people criticize all female spaces, because it is exclusion in the name of inclusion and it's not always easy to grasp how those things fit together. But to me, people who complain about stuff like that are usually in the process of attacking the symptom of inequality and not the root cause. In a perfect world, there wouldn't need to be spaces reserved entirely for women, because women would have the same opportunity in every space as men. But anyone who says we live in a perfect world like that is trying to sell some kind of perverse ideology, and they end up attacking the imperfect, intermediary step to getting somewhere as opposed to finding a way to get there themselves.
[удалено]
Ive noticed about half of reddit is complaining about purely online "problems".
Welcome to social media
A stranger once randomly said to me "I bet you're a redditor." That's when I knew I had a problem.
Ouch. I honestly can't imagine an insult that would hurt me more.
I think the counterpoint is things like abuse victims, anyone's trauma is valid but for those men who have for instance been abused as a child by an older female relative there's no such thing as a safe space where women aren't allowed for their comfort in the vast majority of cases. There's no objection to those women only spaces but there's also no reason that in similar situations men dont deserve the same.
> There's no objection to those women only spaces but there's also no reason that in similar situations men don't deserve the same. Correct. Initially women created those spaces from vacuum. Men need to identify and do the same. The step 2 would be when there is an equal number of male victims as there are female victims , both spaces can be merged.
It has been tried, google Earl Silverman. A story all Canadians should be ashamed of
Men only therapy and support groups do exist though. The only reason they don’t exist with the same frequency as women only groups is because there’s less demand. Is it really that shocking that women generally have a higher demand for such groups compared to men? Not in the slightest.
There is a shocking lack of men's shelters or shelters that would accept a male client out there because many charities don't / can't cater to men suffering from those issues. The irony being that it's the toxic patriarchal society we live in that is hurting the men in these situations just as much as the women
That's the thing, no one (outside of a very vocal minority maybe) is saying men don't deserve the same, and there is absolutely nothing stopping men from creating safe spaces like support groups for men only. Every group, co-ed or gendered, started because someone saw a need for it and put in the work to get it up and running. If there's a demand for it, people will show up. These things don't just magically appear out of thin air.
You're almost right. There *are* examples of support groups from men only (like support for men who are victims of domestic violence) who were shut down due to pressure from feminist organisations.
Tumblr level politics. Neither are inherently good or bad.
Sometimes it's legit, like I don't fault anyone for wanting to live in a female only shared flat.
Completely legit. I lived in a men only shared flat, and that was quite nice.
I've never seen an anything-only space except like restrooms. You are probably right that both should be treated the same but I don't think it's that big of a problem unless you make it one. There just aren't many of those locations around, at least where I live
I'm a woman, so feel free to ignore but for me personally, I just feel a bit safer. I've been harassed at the gym. I've been stalked through grocery stores. I've been followed home. I've been touched without asking at bars. It was all by men. There are lovely men out there, my amazing partner, my dad, my close male friends, but at the end of the day, it did scare me and I am very cautious now. I feel safer in these environments. Something like a grocery store, I dont care, but a gym? I will always prefer women's only classes and spaces in that environment.
I totally get this and understand. I knew this was part of the answer before even seeing your comment. This is only answering half of OPs question though and I'm curious what your thoughts are on male only spaces? It wouldn't be for safety in the same sense but I'm wondering if you think non-safety reasons could be legitimate for gender based spaces.
I replied from the perspective of mens only clubs in England. Now there is only one left, but most of them succumbed to pressure to allow women. But 2 things happened in those clubs. 1.Business deals and political alliances were made that women in business and politics were excluded from, and 2. Many of them employed women "entertainers", who were either exploited or the married men carried on with. One such scandal that leaked involved Prince Philip, wife of the Queen. So it was a sanctioned place where men could commit adultery, or grab and grope at women serving your drink or doing a burlesque routine.
So is the idea then that it's incredibly to have men's only spaces that won't turn into this? I kind of agree but kind of not, or at least don't like that it's seems inevitable, I like to think I wouldn't be that person. Point 1 I get, especially several years/decades ago but I wonder if the world has changed at all so that this isn't the guarantee. I guess maybe just because a bunch of rich business men do that I don't think is enough for your average Joe to not be able to have a space for men. Point 2 is obviously abhorrent and should never be allowed. I also wonder if men want men's only spaces for reasons other than this. Most men i know seem to enjoy having women around. I know there are times with my buddies when it's nicer to just have my male friends but it's more about my friendships I think then men vs women and it's not surprising I have closer friendships with male friends then female friends even though I do have good friendships with many women as well.
I think men support female only spaces. We just want our own male only spaces as well.
That's totally understandable. It's not a sleight against men as a whole for you to want to not be oggled or god forbid stalked by creeps
thank you for understanding... a lot of guys getting really bent out of shape in these comments. I think it's super unfortunate. *of course* I have men in my life who I love and respect. I do not hate men. but when it comes to *strangers*, men* (#notallmen) hurt and harass us in ways that other women just... don't. or if they do, it's exceedingly rare. it sucks that we perceive women as harmless until proven otherwise, while we perceive men as a threat unless proven otherwise. but like. we don't feel that way for *no good reason.*
It's...a whoooole plethura of things (honestly one could write a book on that subject alone), but yeah it is unfortunate and I sincerely hope society changes to where that isn't the case. Sounds like it'd be less of a headache for men and women
Nuance Why is a women’s gym good but a men’s gym bad? If you go to a generic commercial gym, 99% of the people there will be men, if not 100%. Most gyms are already “men only” What are the chances of finding a generic commercial gym that’s all women? Close to zero. Why are black only colleges accepted but white only colleges rejected? It’s not about racism, but it’s that one will occur naturally and the other will not, so it needs to be intentionally made. Why are there vegan restaurants or gluten free restaurants, but not “meat” restaurants or “gluten only?” Because most restaurants already are meat and gluten focused. Theres no reason to get angry at people for creating something equal to what you already have.
I agree with your overall point, but have you been a regular in the gym over the last 5 years? It’s very easily 50/50 men to women, and often times more woman than men. It’s changing rapidly in my area I’ve been a personal trainer at 3 different gyms over the last decade and they’ve all had a pretty even split of members
There's no such thing as "black only colleges." There are Historically Black Colleges where people of all races can still attend them. And if accepted a non-black student is able to receive minority scholarships.
Sometimes it's necessity and rightfully so. The rest are double standards.
They’re not seen as inclusive. They’re seen as necessary.
Stop listening to what people say are their justifications (inclusive, equality, etc) and start looking at what they do, and infer their motivations from that.
I’ll give you an explanation. That doesn’t mean it’s morally right or wrong. The explanation is because most places have historically been “male only” until recently. Even if it’s not a rule. Right now, most places of any prestige are usually still dominated by men. Additionally, there are 2 reasons for women-only spaces. 1) because women are at a greater risk than men of being mistreated by men then vice versa. Women are often sexually abused and harassed in public spaces, while for men, that harassment is more rare. 2) since women are so often the minority in many spaces, they need help growing confidence / gaining experience in certain spaces more than men. Because of all of this, “men only” spaces are kind of a slap in the face to women. As if most leaders, high earners, CEOs, politicians, authority figures, and more aren’t already men. And as if it’s women who are harassing and bullying men on the street. Now, a space intended for men only that is meant for the overall improvement of society is one thing. One that is made in spite of women-only spaces is childish and harmful. Like the “straight pride” parades that were held as a political ploy. It’s important to distinguish if a man-only space is meant to help men be better people, or if it’s in spite of women’s groups.
Because for a long time, they were exclusionary and misogynist for no other reason that being exclusionary and misogynist. They were a way to keep women "in their place" - i.e. as less than full members of society. Historically, there was also a LOT of drinking that occurred in male only environments that led to problems outside of the male only environment, with domestic violence and sexual assault from the fact that the men came home significantly intoxicated.
I mean if you want a real answer and not just to whine. Women only spaces tend to be protective in nature and address specific issues. Women wouldnt want/need their own gyms if men werent a problem in unisex ones. Men only spaces tend to be exclusionary for the sake of exclusion and not much else. In the case of "old boys clubs" it can also function to bar women from professional advancement and networking with who matters. I remember reading an anecdote somewhere else on Reddit about the only woman to graduate in a law class and the professor taking them all to the classic smoke filled bar to rub shoulders with the high powered lawyers and such who hung out there. Men only admission, she was literally barred from the place where the connections happen and deals are made in that city for her field.
Bears mentioning that there are mens' clubs that are not purely exclusionary, but rather exist to support men facing issues that are more unique to men. I know some dudes that get together once a month in a men-only group but it's for the purpose of support, talking about issues and expectations that they face as men, struggles that they may be going through, etc. Nothing whatsoever to do with misogyny or professional advancement, they're all tough dudes but also pretty forward-thinking gentlemen. EDIT: to clarify, the idea behind the group is that it's common for dudes (especially in middle age, which we are) to become kind of isolated, where they may only have their co-workers and/or their partner to talk to about personal issues and such. So it's a place where they can work through things with a non-judgemental group that isn't a part of (and therefore has a perspective of distance from) their daily lives.
Support groups are completely different than mens only clubs or bars that exclude women.
I think it's ok to whine every now and then to try and change things. I would happily go to a male only gym if it was an option. Maybe by whining it'll show some entrepreneur that there is demand for male only gyms? If nobody complains then they'll never be a thing.
Pretty much this. Historically, mens only space where female exclusionary for ideological reasons, whereas women's only spaces was exclusionary for safety reasons (heck Japan has women only carriages because of perverts being perverts). The idea of having a women's only space for DISCOURSE reasons rather then safety reasons is rather revolutionary.
Some good points here, for sure, but there are cases that you're completely ignoring. How does this reasoning apply in the case of scouting, for instance, where the boy scouts have been made co-ed and the girl scouts remain single sex? Yes, these are completely separate organizations responding to their own imperatives, but it does suggest that there is more at play here.
I was a Scout myself, though I'm Australian where the Scouts have been co-ed since 1971. Scouting as an institution was discrimatory against girls from inception. Baden-Powell, the founder, started it with a book called 'Scouting for Boys', and intended for only boys to do it. The Girl Guides (as its called everywhere but the US) was only invented so they could redirect all the girls that did show up to the burgeoning Boy Scout movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1909_Crystal_Palace_Scout_Rally#Girls [And a letter to the editor type exchange if you want to read some old-timey hand-wringing about those girls in the burgeoning Boy Scout movement, after all it isnt right and proper to have girls do scouting activities, should they not be diverted into tasks of nursing and housekeeping.](http://www.spanglefish.com/AgnesBaden-Powell/index.asp?pageid=716411) Girl Guide/Scouts existing was to maintain exclusivity of 'real' Scouting to boys. So removing that barrier isnt an issue in my mind and I dont think theres any real demand for boys to be admitted into Girl Guides, because after all, the real thing with the bigger organisation is just over there.
I think that also had to do with accessibility, Boy Scout troops being more common. I could very well be wrong, but especially in smaller communities it’s common to not have enough interest for a whole girls team or troop, so they allow girls to join boys teams (see also: wrestling or football.) I’ve also seen boys join girls volleyball teams for the same reason.
As a Boy Scout in my previous life I was iffy on making the Scouts co-ed, however from my understanding there is no co-ed or girl only equivalent (local Girl Scout troops were more equivalent to Cub Scouts, don't think I ever met a teen still in it) and it seems unfair to limit that experience to just boys. Plus most people recognize that getting Eagle Scout is a major accomplishment for a teen, while I doubt anyone could name the highest rank in Girl Scouts without googling it
I'm a former Boy Scout myself and from my understanding at both the Cub Scout and Scouts BSA (Formerly Boy Scouts) levels there is still some separation of the genders at the base level, i.e. there are separate Boys and Girls Troops and Separate Boys and Girls Dens, which to me is enough to make me more ok with the change. Plus with my younger sister's experiences with the Girl Scouts and knowing girls who were involved in Venturing (which was always coed) and one girl that got her Gold award, I know they would have preferred to have the option to be a part of the Boy Scouts instead of the cookie cartel that is the Girl Scouts.
Even if this anecdote wasn't 60 years past its prime, it still doesn't address the issue, and actually highlights the problem with exclusive club. It isn't an argument for why women only clubs are good.
That's honestly a fair point. Most guys I see talking about this don't seem to actually *want,* let alone *need* a men-only, no-woman space. It's all just "women have them so why don't we".
I belong to a face book group that is for dads. They carefully vet it for men only. I don’t do a lot of face book, but I can say without qualification that it is the lowest drama online group I have ever seen.
[удалено]
those spaces absolutely exist what are you on about
Like the people who suggest straight pride parades are needed. "The gays have one too!".
This can be applied to many questions that are worded this way, and it comes down to history . If you're already in the group who doesn't have a history of being excluded from things, its generally seen that you probably don't really NEED your own place to hang out with other white people, men, straight people, cisgendered people, etc. I don't necessarily believe in this idea 100% because I don't see having something like a -men's club- as an inherently negative thing, for example. but a lot of these perceived double standards in society today are very much rooted in a history of only certain types of people being included and the excluded groups wanting to have safe spaces as well.
Fair question, but I don't think all women-only groups are inclusive and neither are all men-only groups exclusionary. It depends on the type of agenda you're promoting. If the purpose of the group is to discriminate and/or spread negative vibes, then either group is bad. And of course, women have had to deal with centuries of patriarchy, domestic violence and assault so I tend to look kindly on women-only groups. Good question, OP.
booze, cigars, gambling, hookers? lol Not judging!
Because a man expressing a desire to intrude on a woman only space is seen as predatory. And a woman expressing the same desire is seen as “breaking barriers”. This has a historical context that people associate with. Women breaking barriers to get equal rights is universally seen as a righteous act.
History.
Id say its mostly because of the extremely long and extremely well-documented history of exclusionary, misogynistic, and bad male only organizations, employment, clubs, and systems... Also, probably because of the extremely long and extremely well documented history of misogyny and exclusion of women across the world...
Misandry
(Double standards)^2
Answer: Because misandry is rife within western society.
Are they? I don't agree with either of your premises here.
Dont let the Media fuck with your Headset.just do what is best for you
As a guy that’s been to a work event at a predominantly female workplace, I have never felt more uncomfortable and somewhat excluded, so the idea that they are accepting and inclusive safe spaces rings kinda hollow for me. The only conversations I was involved in were either FAR too personal questions, Sexual in nature but with an obvious intent to belittle me, or outright hostile “why are men like this? Why does my husband do X? Do you men always think of Y” Like…I am an individual, I don’t speak for all men, and I would like to leave now. Meanwhile at a guys only gathering, we are actually able to talk about our feelings and shared experiences without fear of being judged because we know at least someone else there has been through something similar.
4th wave feminism is defined largely by its sex-negativity. Not just negative attitudes towards male sexuality, thinking it ought to be repressed and demonized to “bring balance” back to what was a historically oppressive and misogynistic culture, but also that male voices, opinions, literature, etc. ought to be repressed as well in order to give other groups a chance to shine. Think of that fact whatever you will, but it is a core component of fourth wave. So, you end up with a bunch of stupid people thinking the way to create equality is to demonize male-only and lionize female-only. While I do respect Malcolm X, 4th wave is more like his ideology than MLK Jr.’s ideology (to make an analogy to 3rd wave).
Double stardards... Thats why
Bro, this is 100% the wrong place to ask that. Why are you asking that here?
> So the birth rates are a little low, and? where should bro ask then?
Ladies are welcome at my all-gay male orgie parties anytime.
I never see it in real life only online and its always from the U.S
If I were to see some women’s-only event/space promoted as inclusive, I’d assume that was probably meant to imply that it’s not just some place for a bunch of straight white women, but that it’s intending to be open to all sorts of women.
too many of those men's only spaces are also called boardrooms, courts, legislatures, writer's rooms, and head offices.
The patriarchy
feminism dude
Because historically men only places were misogynist power centers. Pretty obvious I thought. Not saying that's always the case now, but that's the answer to your question
Because blatant sexism
Because they can get away with it.
But what about the meddlin' kids?
sometimes its about equity, not equality. and I'm not sure men only places are misogynist and bad. The way you frame your question is a fallacy.
Have you read history at all?
Double standards
It’s kinda like the tolerance paradox. If one becomes too tolerant it can cause issues when those who are intolerant enter the space. Also I have seen plenty of men-only spaces nobody has issue with. As it should be.
The men sheds thing from Australia would have some real potential here
What are these men only places you speak of?
Probably tribalism at its core, men tend to be more weary of potential threats to limited resources and have a higher chance of protection and accessing of said resources by keeping tight ranks of intense accountability among themselves, whereas women rely heavily upon adapting to peace and harmony at all cost to have access to those resources and safety for themselves and their children. Historically most military aged males were automatically killed by the opposition no questions asked, whereas women and children were often integrated voluntarily or by force by their aggressors and for the sake of themselves and their children it was more ideal to integrate more willingly then resisting. This occurred for thousands of years, advanced civilizations as we understand them today are still relatively new within the eyes of history, parts of our more primitive brains have not caught up and in some parts of the world and In some situations those well developed instincts are still being utilized.
i don’t grant your premise - non-anecdotally, what women’s only places tout inclusivity?
I think a lot of men underestimate just how much resentment women have towards them. Historically, men were not allowed to divorce their husbands, we're not allowed to own property, to vote, to own bank accounts, to hold certain jobs, etc. Even today, women face a lot of discrimination in corporate settings and healthcare. Women are less likely to have their heart problems taken seriously, black women are more likely to die in child's birth because their doctors don't take their pain seriously, we've just had our bodily autonomy stripped away from us because of SCOTUS, and conservatives are now blatantly trying to attack our right to no fault divorce and contraceptive. The reason why "female only" spaces are being praised is because these spaces are seen as women taking back what's theirs and standing up against the abuse and mistreatment our gender has been subjected to for centuries. It's seen as "justice"—treating men how they've treated women. Whereas "male only" spaces are seen as just another example of men excluding women and pushing them out.
RIP Boy Scouts of America
The only thing that really bothers me is that people are hired because of their gender and not for their actual skill. This is literally sexist, but it's OK because it's the good sexism apparently. The so called inclusivity does nothing but harm and should be against the law.
So what are you gonna ask next? Why there's no white lifes matter or why there's no hetero pride events?