3 ms·
> Also, there's no reason why any women's group should have to admit men to appease the "I promise we're not sexist against men" line of reasoning. I doubt it
by jfim 14y ago
> Also, there's no reason why any women's group should have to admit men to appease the "I promise we're not sexist against men" line of reasoning.
I doubt it would go very well if someone hosted a men-only event and said "I promise we're not sexist against women."
I don't think anyone is against having women-focused groups any more than having other interest-based groups. Women exclusive groups, though, do send a very conflicting message that it's okay to exclude a gender.
- jt2190 14y ago> Women exclusive groups, though, do send a very > conflicting message that it's okay to exclude a gender. Please clarify... You're saying that the currently enfranchised group (males) will get further encouragement for their exclusionary behaviors because the disenfranchised group (women) exclude males from some of their activities? Does't this completely ignore the current power imbalance between the two groups?
- mlent 14y agoThe thing is, when women's groups are formed, they aren't to "keep men out". The point is that women aren't even thinking about men, they are thinking about other women. So no, I don't think it sends that message. All this line of thinking does is shift attention towards men, thus reinforcing a male-centered culture.