8 ms·

Safe space for women: a train car or taxi where for once, she doesn't have to feel the threat of sexual assault, molestation, groping, what-have you. (Problem m

by jrkatz 10y ago

Safe space for women: a train car or taxi where for once, she doesn't have to feel the threat of sexual assault, molestation, groping, what-have you. (Problem men in these environments won't usually have cause to fear.) Safe space for men: A smoking chair at the freemason's lodge where he can network his way up through society without worrying about competition from pesky women? I'm sure I'm exaggerating, but bear with me: A lot of the traditional men's spaces look like avenues for social advancement that are closed to women. This may be incidental because men have historically run things and the politicking and networking naturally occurred in spaces where men congregated, but incidental or not, attempting to bar women from traditionally male spaces today has the effect of locking women out of society, so to speak. In a vacuum, a club where men hang out exclusively is no different than a club where women hang out exclusively, but in reality the sheriff and mayor are rubbing elbows at the elk lodge, not at the women's gym down the road. As long as men hold the reins, locking women out of the spaces where men hobnob is another tool of control.

smallnamespace 10y ago
I agree with your assessment, but the lesson that society seems to have learned is that 'all-male communities are bad', even when those communities are not loci of prestige and power. For example, I think a lot of the hostility coming out of the Gamergate community is partly an attempt to claim 'gaming' as an all-male space. These aren't country-club millionaires figuring out how to buy the next local election.
- Crespyl 10y ago
  Unless I've misunderstood you, you seem to have a weirdly different view of the Gamergate fracas than I had. I thought the whole thing was a rejection of the attempt by members of the gaming media to paint "gaming" as some exclusively male (and explicitly anti-woman) subculture. There was no shortage of women speaking out as "members" of gg.
  - x0x0 10y ago
    Via the avenue of widespread harassment of women, starting with Zoe Quinn and continuing with Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu amongst many others. Thats certainly a different history.
  - jubalfh 10y ago
    That is a lovely joke though.
  - makomk 10y ago
    Yeah, Gamergate was probably closer to an attempt to claim gaming as a space for gamers (which might sound tautological, but the term "gamer" was heavily politicized by the gaming press because... it's complicated). It's not a good example in any case. The example that personally comes to mind is a Daily Show segment a long time back about an all-male retreat, hosted by one Samantha Bee and shot through with mockery of the idea it was needed, condescension, and the general assumption that she understood men better than they did. (This idea that women know men's own needs, desires and experiences better than they do seems pretty commonplace. Think I've even seen men accused of "mansplaining" their own personal experiences.)
RhysU 10y ago
For the record, there are masonic affiliated organizations that do admit females, including females not related to a mason. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonic_bodies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonic_bodies
pervycreeper 10y ago
That's certainly the most common rationalization that's given for the disparity, but even if accepted as valid, the criterion of being an "avenue for social advancement" is difficult to apply to one, but not the other. What's to stop people from 'networking' in women-only cars, and what of the myriad 'women in business' networking events and clubs that exist?
- x0x0 10y ago
  As long as you ignore who in society actually has power, that will work just great. On a totally unrelated note, there are 31 women who have served in the Senate. Ever. And there are zero women who have served as president, though that will change in February. There are a tiny minority of female board members. There is a high of 22 of the fortune 500 with female ceos.
  - pervycreeper 10y ago
    You think that no attendees of 'women in business' networking events hold any kind of power?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - bjornstjerne 10y ago
    > As long as you ignore who in society actually has power > ....Senate...president...board members...ceos. A man or a group of men having power is not the same as men, as a class, having power.
    - x0x0 10y ago
      When you're discussing gender-segregated networking or social events that underlie a gender-segregated power structure it is exactly a denial of access to women.
    - RangerScience 10y ago
      Kiiiiinda but not really? You're forgetting about the implied sub-selection (or lack thereof), which then needs to be re-applied to the situation over which the group has power. Take random small town A containing subgroup B, which holds most seats of power in town A. This is the same as: Subgroup B, as a class, having power, within town A. So let's rephrase: American men, as a class, have power in America. Now, what happens if our sub-selection ISN'T a sub-selection, and is just "humanity"? Human men, as a class, have power in humanity. This is backed up by leadership statistics. Now, I think what you're trying to say is: Correlation of the "man" attribute with power is the not the same as the "man" attribute causing power". Again, this kinda makes sense, but, AFAIK/IMHO, so long as the attribute in question is disproportionately shared by the people with power vs the distribution amongst the population, that attribute IS causing some degree of the power held.
ihsw 10y ago
This is classic tribalism -- like-minded people will congregate in safe spaces to share ideas and whatnot while denying entry to outsiders. Attributing it to some kind of banal hostility towards all women is nonsense, it is simply indicative of hostility towards outsiders (and in a male-dominated environment, women are outsiders). Rigid power structures, nepotism, and the like are present everywhere but it wasn't until recently that women have been regarded as partners rather than servants. The trend will inevitably change but attacking "manliness" with silly terms like "mansplaining" and "manspreading" will only get you labelled a nitwit (and rightfully so). The goal should be to empower women, not degrade men.
- eropple 10y ago
  I am a man. "Mansplaining" isn't degrading. It's the recognition of a common facet in Western society where men assume that women aren't competent in mathematical and technical fields at first glance and presume without cause that they need it explained to them by those men. And that first glance is because they're women. It is not, unless you get shitty when called on it, some deep character flaw. Societal inculcation is a thing and it's hard to shake without being confronted with it. I've seen plenty of people apologize when called on it and avoid making that assumption a second time. Recognize it, do better, move on.
  - ihsw 10y ago
    Just call it condescension, making it into a gendered term is bigotry. Tolerating the usage of that term is acknowledgement that bigotry towards men is acceptable. The fact that you are a man is irrelevant, I'm also a man and I find the acceptance of bigotry towards men to be abhorrent.
    - eropple 10y ago
      Please define "bigotry" and explain, in very if-A-then-B form, exactly how "mansplain" is either an example of bigotry or encourages such. If you believe that words mean things--which, even in today's climate, is a generally accepted position--this might be a difficult one for you.
internaut 10y ago
> I'm sure I'm exaggerating, but bear with me: A lot of the traditional men's spaces look like avenues for social advancement that are closed to women. This may be incidental because men have historically run things and the politicking and networking naturally occurred in spaces where men congregated, but incidental or not, attempting to bar women from traditionally male spaces today has the effect of locking women out of society, so to speak. In a vacuum, a club where men hang out exclusively is no different than a club where women hang out exclusively, but in reality the sheriff and mayor are rubbing elbows at the elk lodge, not at the women's gym down the road. As long as men hold the reins, locking women out of the spaces where men hobnob is another tool of control. Why can't they get their own elk lodge, hmmm? Money/Control/Power is not a fixed quantity jealously guarded by ragtag formations of men. It's something generated by an activity of some sort. Do the activity, reap the rewards. I'll let Bill Burr explain the simple male brain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWhZ2XS08aQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWhZ2XS08aQ
jimmywanger 10y ago
> Safe space for men: A smoking chair at the freemason's lodge where he can network his way up through society without worrying about competition from pesky women? Well, a space when you can engage in so called "locker room talk" without getting accused of being sexist or rude. Basically, at least for me, a lot of the time, when I'm with women in spaces, I feel judged. I can't say things like "son of a bitch" or "asshole" without feeling somewhat watched. And yes I agree I swear too much, but where's my safe space?
- eropple 10y ago
  Maybe you, y'know, shouldn't engage in so-called "locker room talk" (because let's be really real here, the "locker room talk" going around right now is bragging about committing sexual assault). That such things can be so normalized should be proof enough that you don't need a safe space. Your safe space (and, as a white male, mine too) is the entire Western world by default.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > Maybe you, y'know, shouldn't engage in so-called "locker room talk" (because let's be really real here, the "locker room talk" going around right now is bragging about committing sexual assault). No, that's reframing it in the context of the current presidential election. The sort of thing that I'm talking about is "Hey, what are you doing this weekend? Oh, I'm going out with this Cuban girl I just met. I hear they're supposed to be tigers in the sack". Notice no sexual assault there, just a conversation females might kick up a big fuss over. "Stop objectifying and stereotyping us." Or even "What happened to your car? Oh, the transmission guy bent me over and fucked me good for 800 bucks to replace some shitty gears he probably yanked out of a junkyard". These things should be allowed and have a safe place where you can say them.
    - eropple 10y ago
      The former is a conversation I--as a white male--would think you are, at best, skeevy, objectifying, and a little bit racist for having. Thinking that is not restricted to women at all. And you can be that kind of asshole anywhere you want to be. But you'll be considered in the context of the world you live in when you do. Why do you need a "safe space" where you can be shitty? Why not just don't be shitty? The latter--I've used very similar phrasing in conversations with feminist advocates and not gotten a bit of static because the context they were used in was perfectly clear and not avowedly harmful, as per your first example. I think you're misunderstanding the objections that would be raised about your speech.

by jrkatz 10y ago

smallnamespace 10y ago

I agree with your assessment, but the lesson that society seems to have learned is that 'all-male communities are bad', even when those communities are not loci of prestige and power. For example, I think a lot of the hostility coming out of the Gamergate community is partly an attempt to claim 'gaming' as an all-male space. These aren't country-club millionaires figuring out how to buy the next local election.

Crespyl 10y ago
Unless I've misunderstood you, you seem to have a weirdly different view of the Gamergate fracas than I had. I thought the whole thing was a rejection of the attempt by members of the gaming media to paint "gaming" as some exclusively male (and explicitly anti-woman) subculture. There was no shortage of women speaking out as "members" of gg.
- x0x0 10y ago
  Via the avenue of widespread harassment of women, starting with Zoe Quinn and continuing with Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu amongst many others. Thats certainly a different history.
- jubalfh 10y ago
  That is a lovely joke though.
- makomk 10y ago
  Yeah, Gamergate was probably closer to an attempt to claim gaming as a space for gamers (which might sound tautological, but the term "gamer" was heavily politicized by the gaming press because... it's complicated). It's not a good example in any case. The example that personally comes to mind is a Daily Show segment a long time back about an all-male retreat, hosted by one Samantha Bee and shot through with mockery of the idea it was needed, condescension, and the general assumption that she understood men better than they did. (This idea that women know men's own needs, desires and experiences better than they do seems pretty commonplace. Think I've even seen men accused of "mansplaining" their own personal experiences.)

RhysU 10y ago

For the record, there are masonic affiliated organizations that do admit females, including females not related to a mason. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonic_bodies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonic_bodies

pervycreeper 10y ago

That's certainly the most common rationalization that's given for the disparity, but even if accepted as valid, the criterion of being an "avenue for social advancement" is difficult to apply to one, but not the other. What's to stop people from 'networking' in women-only cars, and what of the myriad 'women in business' networking events and clubs that exist?

x0x0 10y ago
As long as you ignore who in society actually has power, that will work just great. On a totally unrelated note, there are 31 women who have served in the Senate. Ever. And there are zero women who have served as president, though that will change in February. There are a tiny minority of female board members. There is a high of 22 of the fortune 500 with female ceos.
- pervycreeper 10y ago
  You think that no attendees of 'women in business' networking events hold any kind of power?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- bjornstjerne 10y ago
  > As long as you ignore who in society actually has power > ....Senate...president...board members...ceos. A man or a group of men having power is not the same as men, as a class, having power.
  - x0x0 10y ago
    When you're discussing gender-segregated networking or social events that underlie a gender-segregated power structure it is exactly a denial of access to women.
  - RangerScience 10y ago
    Kiiiiinda but not really? You're forgetting about the implied sub-selection (or lack thereof), which then needs to be re-applied to the situation over which the group has power. Take random small town A containing subgroup B, which holds most seats of power in town A. This is the same as: Subgroup B, as a class, having power, within town A. So let's rephrase: American men, as a class, have power in America. Now, what happens if our sub-selection ISN'T a sub-selection, and is just "humanity"? Human men, as a class, have power in humanity. This is backed up by leadership statistics. Now, I think what you're trying to say is: Correlation of the "man" attribute with power is the not the same as the "man" attribute causing power". Again, this kinda makes sense, but, AFAIK/IMHO, so long as the attribute in question is disproportionately shared by the people with power vs the distribution amongst the population, that attribute IS causing some degree of the power held.

ihsw 10y ago

This is classic tribalism -- like-minded people will congregate in safe spaces to share ideas and whatnot while denying entry to outsiders. Attributing it to some kind of banal hostility towards all women is nonsense, it is simply indicative of hostility towards outsiders (and in a male-dominated environment, women are outsiders). Rigid power structures, nepotism, and the like are present everywhere but it wasn't until recently that women have been regarded as partners rather than servants. The trend will inevitably change but attacking "manliness" with silly terms like "mansplaining" and "manspreading" will only get you labelled a nitwit (and rightfully so). The goal should be to empower women, not degrade men.

eropple 10y ago
I am a man. "Mansplaining" isn't degrading. It's the recognition of a common facet in Western society where men assume that women aren't competent in mathematical and technical fields at first glance and presume without cause that they need it explained to them by those men. And that first glance is because they're women. It is not, unless you get shitty when called on it, some deep character flaw. Societal inculcation is a thing and it's hard to shake without being confronted with it. I've seen plenty of people apologize when called on it and avoid making that assumption a second time. Recognize it, do better, move on.
- ihsw 10y ago
  Just call it condescension, making it into a gendered term is bigotry. Tolerating the usage of that term is acknowledgement that bigotry towards men is acceptable. The fact that you are a man is irrelevant, I'm also a man and I find the acceptance of bigotry towards men to be abhorrent.
  - eropple 10y ago
    Please define "bigotry" and explain, in very if-A-then-B form, exactly how "mansplain" is either an example of bigotry or encourages such. If you believe that words mean things--which, even in today's climate, is a generally accepted position--this might be a difficult one for you.

internaut 10y ago

> I'm sure I'm exaggerating, but bear with me: A lot of the traditional men's spaces look like avenues for social advancement that are closed to women. This may be incidental because men have historically run things and the politicking and networking naturally occurred in spaces where men congregated, but incidental or not, attempting to bar women from traditionally male spaces today has the effect of locking women out of society, so to speak. In a vacuum, a club where men hang out exclusively is no different than a club where women hang out exclusively, but in reality the sheriff and mayor are rubbing elbows at the elk lodge, not at the women's gym down the road. As long as men hold the reins, locking women out of the spaces where men hobnob is another tool of control. Why can't they get their own elk lodge, hmmm? Money/Control/Power is not a fixed quantity jealously guarded by ragtag formations of men. It's something generated by an activity of some sort. Do the activity, reap the rewards. I'll let Bill Burr explain the simple male brain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWhZ2XS08aQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWhZ2XS08aQ

jimmywanger 10y ago

> Safe space for men: A smoking chair at the freemason's lodge where he can network his way up through society without worrying about competition from pesky women? Well, a space when you can engage in so called "locker room talk" without getting accused of being sexist or rude. Basically, at least for me, a lot of the time, when I'm with women in spaces, I feel judged. I can't say things like "son of a bitch" or "asshole" without feeling somewhat watched. And yes I agree I swear too much, but where's my safe space?

eropple 10y ago
Maybe you, y'know, shouldn't engage in so-called "locker room talk" (because let's be really real here, the "locker room talk" going around right now is bragging about committing sexual assault). That such things can be so normalized should be proof enough that you don't need a safe space. Your safe space (and, as a white male, mine too) is the entire Western world by default.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > Maybe you, y'know, shouldn't engage in so-called "locker room talk" (because let's be really real here, the "locker room talk" going around right now is bragging about committing sexual assault). No, that's reframing it in the context of the current presidential election. The sort of thing that I'm talking about is "Hey, what are you doing this weekend? Oh, I'm going out with this Cuban girl I just met. I hear they're supposed to be tigers in the sack". Notice no sexual assault there, just a conversation females might kick up a big fuss over. "Stop objectifying and stereotyping us." Or even "What happened to your car? Oh, the transmission guy bent me over and fucked me good for 800 bucks to replace some shitty gears he probably yanked out of a junkyard". These things should be allowed and have a safe place where you can say them.
  - eropple 10y ago
    The former is a conversation I--as a white male--would think you are, at best, skeevy, objectifying, and a little bit racist for having. Thinking that is not restricted to women at all. And you can be that kind of asshole anywhere you want to be. But you'll be considered in the context of the world you live in when you do. Why do you need a "safe space" where you can be shitty? Why not just don't be shitty? The latter--I've used very similar phrasing in conversations with feminist advocates and not gotten a bit of static because the context they were used in was perfectly clear and not avowedly harmful, as per your first example. I think you're misunderstanding the objections that would be raised about your speech.