[a sign reads FEMINIST CONFERENCE next to a closed door, a blue character shrugs and says…]
I don’t care
[next to the same door, the sign now says RESTRICTED FEMINIST CONFERENCE WOMEN ONLY, there are now four blue characters desperately banging on the door, one is reduced to tears on the floor, they are shouting]
DISCRIMINATION
SO UNFAIR!!!
LET US IINN!!
MISANDRY
while I do get the ick from restrictive language like that, my main problem with the second sign would be that I’m 98% sure that it’s indicative that the “feminists” are actually terfs and by “women only” they mean “no <t-slur>s”
and by “women only” they mean “no <t-slur>s”
Why would TERFs not allow TERFs? That makes no sense!?
I’m assuming this is a joke that went over people’s heads
Look up what the E in TERF stands for.
I have no idea what any of those letters stand for lol
There’s actually mens that are feminist. Why would they be excluded from the conference?
Also, conferences are a great way to recruit new participants so that’s also stupid
Why would they be excluded from the conference?
To create a safe space for women.
Oh yeah fair enough. I was more focused on OP’s bad argument that I forgot about this. My bad
Yes. I think this comic just does a bad job of portraying this. The second sign is unnecessarily agressive and a conference doesnt make much of an immediate connection to a safe space.
Seems a bit sexist
I am not shocked that we’re still having this “discussion” in 2026
It’s like the discussion about if you can be racist toward white people. It’s endless drama
It’s not. You’re boring and stupid. Go read a book.
You’re saying it’s not endless drama while participating in the drama
Hohojoho you’ve got me now
You can’t shit your pants then blame other people for participating in it because they called you out for it.
It’s like the discussion about if you can be racist toward white people.
Depends on whether you’re using the common definition, or intersectional feminist jargon. That is literally the distinction.
Common definitions:
prejudice, discrimination, or hostility directed at people because of their race or ethnicity.
Intersectional feminist jargon:
Racism is racial oppression embedded in social structures and power relations, often operating together with patriarchy and other systems of domination.
PS: Race isn’t real. Not even a social construct: it’s straight up an arbitrary line drawn by a bunch of ignorant assholes, for the sake of being assholes. Ethnicities are real though.
Women choosing who they want to spend their time with is sexist?
Is that based on solely the sex of the person?
Yes. Because sex discrimination and sexism are not the same thing. And not all forms of discrimination are wrong. We just use “discrimination is wrong” as a useful first-pass mental hack. But every non-discrimination law is written with certain reasonable exceptions built into it. It is sex discrimination, but not sexism, to refuse to hire cis men as wet nurses. It is disability discrimination, but not illegal discrimination, to refuse to hire someone in a wheelchair to be a circus acrobat.
This is sex discrimination, but it is neither illegal or sexism. It’s not saying that men are inherently inferior to women. It’s saying that there is a bona fide reason to make this space woman-only, based on the lived experience of men vs women.
Wikipedia just redirects sex discrimination to sexism
All non-women that could attend that conference safely respect their choice and don’t want to. Thus the sign is valid.
The fact this doesn’t hold when “feminism” is gender-reversed comes from patriarchy. Treating men better than our patriarchical society treats them without treating women worse is a feminist position.
And indeed, feminist men-only groups are just as respected by feminists as feminist women-only groups.
The exclusion is still solely based on sex. I’m not even saying that’s wrong in all situations
It isn’t. My sex is XY, but I would be allowed entry because I’m a (trans) woman. More importantly, it’s about the shared experience of being treated as a woman or being at risk of being treated as a woman in patriarchal society.
That said, the social status of someone who is known to have XX chromosomes or who is at risk of people learning they have XX chromosomes would also have a lot of overlap with women, so it would make sense in many cases to categorically allow everyone with XX chromosomes even if they are (cis) men.
(I don’t think cis men with XX chromosomes are medically possible, but you can have cis women with XY chromosomes because testosterone insensitivity isn’t lethal).
So these days, most of the time you would have more queer-inclusive categories like FLINTA, explicitly including everyone who has experience with patriarchy as “the woman”. Different exclusions make sense in different situations; sometimes it makes sense to exclude trans men, sometimes it makes sense to exclude people who don’t menstruate. Sometimes organisations are wrong/immoral about who they exclude, like TERFs. But a feminist meeting without men is going to be able to touch on a lot of topics they otherwise couldn’t safely and go a lot deeper than when having to explain things to men.
(There’s also the “sexism = prejudice + power” thing, which I don’t really vibe with as a rebuttal because it neglects the power of local institutions that may run askew from larger society; if you can host a conference, you have enough power for your prejudice to be sexist).
(I don’t think cis men with XX chromosomes are medically possible, but you can have cis women with XY chromosomes because testosterone insensitivity isn’t lethal).
So is it more a gender than sex exclusion? My native language doesn’t (afaik) separate the two so it can be hard for me to remember to make the distinction.
Why would a space exclusive for feminists ever not be a safe space for women?
A space can be safe for cisgender, white feminists without being a safe space for trans women, women of color, working class women, disabled women, etc. Intersectionality is a big part of what makes ‘general’ spaces for women actually only safe or accessible for women who fit a narrow ideal of Western womanhood.
Like, ideally a feminist space would account for this, but ask a black feminist if they’re safe and welcome in every feminist space and they will probably tell you no, because many spaces center the concerns of cisgender, white, otherwise privileged women.
The point was that most men aren’t interested in being there unless they’re told they’re excluded.
Feminism welcomes all. But some times there need to be safe spaces for women, and women’s groups are there for that. So the comic is just a joke, not a provocation.
There are local men’s groups around where I live, they’re safe spaces for men who want to talk about relationships , fatherhood, anger issues or how to be more confident in their masculinity etc. Women are (usually) excluded. Many of these men are feminists, I would guess.
You are correct, there are men who are feminists, but this comic isn’t about them. Men who are feminists would not say “I don’t care” at an open women’s conference, they would join in and allow women to have their space at the closed conference. Both the open and closed conferences have valid reasons for existing. Not all conferences are about recruitment.
This comic points out the hypocrisy of men who say they don’t care about feminism until they are excluded from women’s spaces, then they complain about not being allowed into any space they want. Sometimes women like to have our own spaces to speak about our feelings and experiences with other women and that’s ok.
I think men should have their own spaces like that too. A place for men to talk about their feelings and positive aspects of masculinity without it devolving into the toxic masculinity we see from a lot of influencers who focus on dominating women and body dysmorphia. A place where men can build positive friendships and community, a place to support other men.
I remember when right wingers would get mad that women’s shelter wouldn’t take men or there’s wasn’t an equivalent for Ben. I’d tell them “we’ll start a men’s shelter”. Turns out people want to control other people.
Therw was a dude who did exactly that. Political feminists intent on the narrative that only women are victims fucking destoyed him
Lol true story vibes. I doubt it was 1 guy and I’m pretty sure women would be receptive to plight of men
I simply (shamefully) couldn’t remember his name. Earl Silverman
You really wanna read up on what happened.
Yeah looks like earl went broke running a men’s shelter nothing about feminist destroying him. Kinda just basic accounting, but shows that Earl was alone in his venture and not even other men helped or got involved
I’d tell them “we’ll start a men’s shelter”.
Never forget Earl Silverman
Earl died by suicide on April 26, 2013, shortly after selling the shelter due to bankruptcy and ridicule.[5][6][7]
“Feminism is for Everybody” is a lie, and Earl’s life proves it.
This shit still pisses me the fuck off.
Love how this always gets downvoted, but i grew up around foster kids in that area, and I promise you his effort would have saved lives.
Same with atheists who were trying to make genital mutilation blanket illegal in the states, as well as fighting groups like the heritage foundation who want to keep such classic patriarchal standards alive, but being against that means you obviously hate women and think MGM is worse than FGM, and other strawmen. It was enough to make both progressive groups hate each other, with accusations of SJWs or incels based on similar legitimate grievances on both sides.
Heritage foundation types have obviously been making record ground in the meantime.
For some reason progressive solidarity just isn’t possible, because we can’t help the wrong group of struggling people. Social signalling is obviously more important than cooperatively helping those who are suffering, or in stopping the wealthy from shaping the system to fuck everyone that isn’t already part of their grotesque fascist system.
Can’t stop the actual fascists if other progressives are all the real enemy for some incomprehensible reason that always makes it back to stupid issues like this, where we just can’t recognize the niche situation, or show basic compassion or solidarity within.
As long as we keep “punching up” we can ignore the foster kids who died alone, or festered into something negative because all they ever had was a non-life where they are simultaneously exploited and told they don’t deserve help because they share some intersectional features of privilege, as explained by people who obviously never fully understood intersectionality or how such high dimensional representations can be reasonably interpreted. Usually protected by some socialized bubble of privilege where they can just go with what is being socialized and not think too hard about it.
So it’s all a clusterfuck of people using the same words to say different things, and ignoring the forest for the trees.
But surely the problem is the incels, or SJWs, and not the system that exploits both and discourages either from co-constructively solving general problems of inequality.
Or just beat up the undiagnosed poverty autistic waiting to access the library, while feeling good about how much you are fighting the system of oppression.
Or like in silverman’s place, bully the person trying to help a group that doesn’t actually have access to help, and try to shame people who mention that crushing the potential men’s shelter did not actually do anything to benefit any progressive values.
These aren’t the billionaires or entrenched oligarchs that are actively shaping a society that individualizes blame in ways that ensure you never look at the lobby groups, or war machine, or people with the money generally fucking the system into their preferred fascist shape. Let’s go after the fucking homeless instead I guess, because they are the truly privileged oppressors.
Fucking Ben
I took psychic damage. I’m especially annoyed by the part where they rendered it at the slanted pixelated low resolution, and then upscaled it with a bilinear or bicubic interpolation.
I just want to feel good about being a man for one day.
You know, this is quite common for both genders. A major part of earlier feminist demands was “We want to get in on all the male spaces”. You know, having the right to go to football games, military, and so on.
It’s currently quite a big political topic in my country that feminists are demanding that some traditional men-only shooting clubs should open up to women. A ton of women demanding that the clubs are opened for women aren’t even interested in actually joining these shooting clubs (and in fact often wouldn’t even be allowed to join because they are regional clubs and they are from a different region), but that doesn’t matter.
What they protest for is not that they can actually join, but that they’d be allowed to join in theory.
It’s also a quite big thing over here that women started to go into men’s restrooms during events and such when there’s a queue on the women’s restroom.
So why would anyone be surprised that the same thing happens the other way round too?
There are always some idiots who’s identity hinges on making sure others can’t have safe spaces.
Big difference between being allowed to piss and shoot and being allowed into a women’s club to talk about women-specific issues.
Yes because everyone knows when men get together all they do is burp, fart, piss, and tell racist jokes.
There are a ton of dogshit takes in this thread.
You’re literally the only person in this thread saying that.
Big difference between being allowed to piss and shoot and being allowed into a women’s club to talk about women-specific issues.
Your comment you trog, only things I added were burping and farting — congrats on your tag.
Rule 1, be nice.
You were talking about toilets and shooting clubs.
For one thing I wasn’t the OC. For another, what the OC immediately pointed out is that women have been invading male only spaces for decades. In fact it was practically propagandized following the second World War, unless we’re conveniently forgetting about ‘Anything you can do I can do better! Anything you can do I can do best!’ .
Literally, men’s only private clubs were almost sued out of existence because of women alleging discrimination (because they weren’t allowed in and the club catered to men first, god forbid).
All of this to say, completely disregarding what men actually do in male spaces is thoughtless at best — misandry at worst. Truth be told, I don’t actually give a fuck if men or women have safe spaces — I don’t expect anything of value to come from either environment. I blocked the women’s only community immediately.
What. The comment above me mentioned bathrooms and shooting clubs. How does that extrapolate to racism?
No. It really doesn’t matter. A safe space is a safe space. You think the guys at the shooting clubs do nothing but shoot? They talk there about men-specific issues.
There are plenty of non-gender restricted shooting clubs in my country and there are womens toilets in my country too. It’s not about women not being allowed to piss or shoot. It’s about these specific women not being ok with the fact that safe spaces for men exist.
Same as the guys in the OP. They don’t protest because they specifically need to be in this meeting because they want to discuss women-specific issues. They are just not ok with safe spaces for women existing.
In both directions it’s a power thing. People like that (no matter the gender) get off on taking things away from others. The point is not to be able to be in that place, but to take away safe spaces from someone else. And that’s an asshole move for asshole reasons no matter if the person doing that is a man or a woman.
So what about you? Are you ok with male safe spaces existing? If not, tell me, what reason for that do you have that is not an asshole reason?
No, I get it why they are upset. Their feelings are hurt by a space existing that they are specifically excluded from. This is the same for any other situation that would say they are excluded from.
I for example, would not feel terrible if I didn’t study to be an Engineer because I don’t care about it. But having the possibility outright denied because of a factor not really from a fault of mine (like being too short, or from the wrong bloodline, or something similar) would make me pretty bitter.
I learned to not care and be Zen about people having secrets, and secret clubs, and things I never can.
Except for the Engineer one, I am still pretty bitter about it.
Safe spaces are important for everyone. My non-asshole reason is: I like to piss and shoot.
Edit: If we’re talking about the UK, we’re talking about a place where women alive today remember not being allowed to go to pubs because women weren’t allowed to drink alone in public. I support them taking back unnecessarily gendered spaces.
Can you piss in a toilet that fits your gender and is just a few meters farther down the hallway? Can you shoot in the next shooting club down the road?
If yes, why exactly does it have to be in the one that is a safe space for someone else?
Because there’s no reason why a shooting club needs to be gendered. If you can’t see the difference between a hobby club and a protected safe space for a certain group I don’t think we’ll see eye to eye on that issue.
The toilet thing is a bit more complicated. Generally, women take longer to use the washroom for mechanical reasons, and the same toilet space is usually allotted to both genders while men’s bathrooms have urinals as well as toilets, which take up less space - more pissers per square foot, if you will. That’s why the lineup to a women’s washroom is usually longer, and why I would absolutely use a men’s washroom rather than piss myself.
I’m fine with men using the women’s washroom when they need to. If there’s one thing everyone should be able to do regardless of the sign on the door, it’s taking a piss when they have to.
So men are not allowed to choose their safe spaces, is that what you are saying?
Or are you dictating which activities are allowed to be performed in a safe space?
There are non-gendered shooting clubs. Why would it be not ok for there also to be gendered shooting clubs?
In general, your post is all about “Safe spaces are only for me, screw everyone else”. That’s an asshole take.
This is called a strawman argument.
Here’s a question to ask yourself:
Outside of toilets why are they gendered
Why is it a “men only” shooting club? Do you have special guns that only penises can fire?
I mean…on the flip side, do women have discussions that only vaginas can have?
you can both be right here, because both sides are equally valid.
just to add,
during the civil rights movement it was important to have equity, and I’d say when it comes to gender equity we’re far more progressive about it today than 60 years ago.
I would say it’s only fair to have gender blocked communities as a form of equity. whereas before women didn’t even have the option to have a safe space unlike today.
Very different arrangement.
The group online is asking for women only to speak (you can be a member, you can read posts, just limited on who can speak), because women’s voices are drowned out
Men aren’t being overwhelmed and chased from gun clubs by hordes of women
I agree that women have the right to create communities where male voices are limited or silenced.
I disagree that it’s a different arrangement.
in the spirit of equity it’s only fair that men are afforded the exact same rights as women. this would include the right to create communities where female voices are limited or silenced.
regardless of if women are utilizing their right to join gun clubs doesn’t negate the right to a safe space to anybody.
This here. I don’t quite get how someone can argue that safe spaces for one gender should exist but not for the other gender.
Everyone needs safe spaces, and women’s safe spaces aren’t threatened at all by the existence of men’s safe spaces.
There seems to exist a radical subsection of fundamental feminists who are against anything that might be good for men on principle. Kinda how there’s a radical subsection of male assholes who believe the same for women. People like that suck and are exactly why we can’t have nice things.
Because they are a male safe space where men can be among themselves. There are plenty of non-gendered shooting clubs, so here’s a question to ask yourself: Why would a woman need to be part of exactly the one that is gendered?
It’s obviously not about access to a shooting club, since she could just join a non-gendered one.
So why exactly does she need to abolish a men’s safe space?
Does the feminist meeting above have special words only vaginas can say?
So what exactly is it about men about themsleves they can’t do around women? What makes this an equivalence to the women’s lemmy community group and its mission as defined?
I mean you’re trying to use the words, show the concepts .
Genderswap your statement and you start to understand the issue. What is it about women that they cannot do or talk around men?
It seems to me like you don’t think of men as humans.
Men aren’t excluded from the comm.
They’re just asked not to speak
The club isn’t allowing women to be present at all
Now do you see the false equivalence?
Yeah, the false equivalency is that you are saying that safe spaces don’t matter unless you want them.
You are arguing in bad faith.
The club doesn’t matter to you. You don’t even know which club it is. You don’t even know which country this is about. The club doesn’t affect you in any way, but you are against it, because you are against safe spaces for men.
Men are human too, no matter what you think.
Come back with something other than strawmen
The club isn’t allowing women to be present at all
So you’re saying women should be allowed, we should ask them not to speak while at the club… Are you sure you’re not Republican or something?
That opinion is somehow even worse… Nice catch.
Based
(Rhetorical) Why is it restricted? With this kind of restriction, my first thought is that something must have happened to cause the restriction to be implemented.
I can imagine a few good reasons (+ also some bad ones) for why the restriction is there, but imo it would be best practice to explain why it’s there. So that people don’t have to speculate, and also to pre-emptively take the wind out of the sails of mysogonists that want to use it as a pretext to attack the organisation.
There’s a lemmy community called womenstuff or something like that and as the name implies is for women and only women should comment and post. Sometimes a man will comment and post and they have to be told that the comrunithy is for women only.
Lemmy needs private and accesible by invite only communities.
The mods there have said they want women passing by to see it and also anyone else really, just that they ask men please don’t post because it’s a women’s space. It’s pretty hard to be mad about it when everyone there seems so nice, especially the mods.
Nothing about that name indicates that men shouldn’t comment. If it was “womensOnlySpace” then maybe.
Well tbf it is in their sidebar and a mod has to comment in every single fucking post because it’s super easy to not look at the community when reading a post and nobody on mobile is reading a damn sidebar.
I will say at least when a guy wanders in accidentally the mods (not anyone else though) are nice about it, even if I do fundamentally disagree with the concept of their group (I don’t like X-only, like if we had a “men only” comm I’d have the same opinion on it) and the placement of it (on a site without invite only private groups, it should be a Delta Chat group or something instead if you don’t want people wandering in) and also the execution (who knows if I’m a man or a woman unless I say “as a man” in my posts? This is a pseudononymous forum, for all you know I’m three 8yo girls in a trenchcoat with a fake moustache. It seems mostly based on vibes, which is an option I guess) but whatever I can’t stop discriminatory shit when they do it just as I can’t when some dude does it to them, all I can control is not being a discriminatory dickhead myself, it’s on them if they want to be bad people (the royal them/they).
Shouldn’t that guy be smoking a cigar while sipping on a cognac and reading his paper in a Gentlemen’s Club!?
Cisfem here. Fucking terfs shat the bed for all of us.
TERFs just accelerated what was already there.
Had to double check that isn’t the women’s community where we’ve all accidentally posted.
I’m not surprised by the comments who reject the idea in total. But the I am surprised by the comments that try and fail to think charitably about this. They end up both sides-ing it.
Edit: I figure I ought to do a little you’re cute explain to the possibly very curious and good faith commentator.
- Women often mask or change the demeanor when men are present. This will restrict what they share and how they share it.
- Men often dominate the discourse both in time and style. This is related to number one.
- Women who have been traumatized by men will be on guard with men present. They will never be able to tell if you are safe or not in a public discourse situation.
- Men and women in the modern American context have different ways of relating to each other. When these conferences happen they sometimes are investigating new theories and new tactics. Male input can undermined free sharing.
- Men do the same.
2 & 3) We should birth fewer boys. It sounds like everyone would be happier.
- I hate American “passive gendered segregation” culture and want to destroy it. Also, new theories and tactics to achieve what?
Men believe that women “dominate conversation” whenever women take more than about 30% of the speaking time.
Do the following:
- Have men and women meet in a group and have a conversation on nearly any topics.
- Record the conversation.
- After the conversation, have participants fill out surveys on how much time the men and women spent talking.
- Review the tapes with a stopwatch and record the actual time spent talking by men and women.
Scientists have done this. What they find is that men will be utterly convinced that the women are dominating the speaking and conversation time, even if 2/3rds of the time is actually given over to men speaking.
Men do this without even realizing it. You probably do this without even realizing it.
If you really want techniques on how to end “passive gendered segregation,” then you need to adjust the character of cis men so they don’t feel that they’re being discriminated against at the exact same time they’re actually dominating things. Masculinity as practiced is performative and fragile.
Men do the same.
Never said they didn’t.
2 & 3) We should birth fewer boys. It sounds like everyone would be happier.
I don’t know if you lack the ability to understand that these four points were made in the context of why women might want a meeting without men or something else. Either way, I’m don’t think you belong in this conversation.
I hate American “passive gendered segregation” culture and want to destroy it.
Okay.
Also, new theories and tactics to achieve what?
The goals of feminism.
Never said they didn’t.
I suppose my point is that exclusion of any group or category of person effects what is said. So it doesn’t really matter. Its not a good enough reason.
Making a group explicitly exclusionary implies a perspective that the excluded group is an out-group, and thus an adversary.
Men who formed explicitly exclusionary male only spaces, boy’s clubs, etc. in the past almost certainly feel some level of disdain for women. And men who enforce soft exclusion, like guys who do litmus tests to see if a woman is earnestly interested in whatever the club is about, aggressively disgust me.
This is not a feeling I apply with gendered prejudice.
I don’t know if you lack the ability to understand that these four points were made in the context of why women might want a meeting without men or something else.
I wasn’t being a smart ass. (well, mostly) I’m a soft anti-natalist, my suggestion was a half joking gendered version of what I actually believe. I think that, if you have given information on what a person’s life is going to be like you should be honest in your assessment if they’ll live a life worth living and make the world a better place by being in it. I just have a much higher bar to clear than most people.
My view is that, if society is to give birth to 100 people, if there is a chance 1 of them will live a life so miserable that they are driven to suicide, regardless of reason, you should probably birth none of them. Guess what the global percentage of people who die of suicide is?
Either way, I’m don’t think you belong in this conversation.
Its a good thing you don’t get to make that decision then, asshole.
The goals of feminism.
There are many kinds of feminists and forms of feminism. I assume you don’t care to elaborate on specifics because you think you’d show me I’m right to view exclusionary spaces with some level of suspicion and disdain.
you think you’d show me I’m right to view exclusionary spaces with some level of suspicion and disdain.
I didn’t address this directly because you didn’t do the work to show you were actually interested in the conversation. That’s why didn’t have the right to be there. This response is more serious and worth giving you my attention and energy. Had you provided the context and thinking you provided in this response in the first response, I would have considered answering especially if you were able to support it’s relevancy.
I won’t be addressing the anti-natalist because I don’t see how it’s connected and it seems like it’s emotionally charged for you. Emotionally charged politics are important, but only if they are connected to the topic and if I judge that I have any relevant position to make any intervention. So I won’t be sounding off on that.
That leaves the first point where you started in your first comment “Men do the same.” and gave your thinking in this last comment. On the face of it, an out group is not an adversary. If I attend a cancer survivor’s group and people who never had cancer show up, it changes things. People who never had cancer are not my adversaries. My goal isn’t to fight those people. I want to connect with others through a shared experience.
Men’s only groups in the past was often a place where real decisions for power and profit were made. This is radically different from a the support some women may get in a women’s conference or the strategy and tactics developed from shared seed experiences for the political project of over throwing patriarchy.
I don’t normally post on weekends but I left my lunch in the office fridge and your response has been a grain of sand in my brain. Figured I’d finish up writing my response.
I didn’t address this directly because you didn’t do the work to show you were actually interested in the conversation. That’s why didn’t have the right to be there. This response is more serious and worth giving you my attention and energy. Had you provided the context and thinking you provided in this response in the first response, I would have considered answering especially if you were able to support it’s relevancy.
It wasn’t clear how I could have responded to pull out the counter arguments I wanted to get to. I want to skip to the core of the discussion because if I used up time on initial 101 arguments, statistically the person I’m responding too gets bored, suspicious, or tired of the argument overall. Also, being flatly and snarkily blunt about a specific thing without additional details gives a chance for someone to reveal what they actually think in anger without tactical obfuscation of their actual beliefs, wasting time.
Its doesn’t work often but it has every once in a while. The alternative almost always seems like I get the same old same old boilerplate.
I won’t be addressing the anti-natalist because I don’t see how it’s connected and it seems like it’s emotionally charged for you. Emotionally charged politics are important, but only if they are connected to the topic and if I judge that I have any relevant position to make any intervention. So I won’t be sounding off on that.
Its emotional to be natalist as well. Its connected to the discussion at a fundamental level, to be natalist means you value certain things as an axiom that lead to a certain derrived perspectives, one that I think is arguably similar to yours. Which is why I brought it up.
I stated it more to identify if this is a fundamental difference in our views. Something irreconcilable. Its a lonely feeling to have it confirmed. Very few have a conscious belief on the matter, pro or con. And default absent minded to natalist perspectives largely due to religion and cultural inertia.
On the face of it, an out group is not an adversary. If I attend a cancer survivor’s group and people who never had cancer show up, it changes things. People who never had cancer are not my adversaries. My goal isn’t to fight those people. I want to connect with others through a shared experience.
Segregation foments adversarial attitudes. Even with trivial or made up differences. It widens the empathy gap, creates perceived out-group homogeneity, and a sense of moral superiority. Group polarization absolutely can and probably will manifest in your suggested cancer survivor group, especially with an explicit ban on people joining who are not survivors of the disease. The goal is irrelevant, the result is what matters.
Men’s only groups in the past was often a place where real decisions for power and profit were made.
Statistically very true. Not a hard rule though, and to say there is no power in a woman’s only group that couldn’t further disenfranchise a dis-empowered non-woman would be disingenuous.
This is radically different from a the support some women may get in a women’s conference or the strategy and tactics developed from shared seed experiences for the political project of over throwing patriarchy.
“Over throwing patriarchy” is a vague goal at best though. What does that actually entail? Much like the rapture, the inevitable communist revolution, or judgement day this is just an in-group meta narrative, not really a goal at all.
I’m going to skip the meta-conversation and tactic you used. I don’t think they clarify or further the discussion about why women would want a conference without men.
Regarding natalism, I skipped it not because it was emotional, but it was tangential and unclear in how it was related to the specific topic. Again, I have nothing against emotions playing into one’s politics.
Segregation foments adversarial attitudes. Even with trivial or made up differences. It widens the empathy gap, creates perceived out-group homogeneity, and a sense of moral superiority.
This is only true if you fail to understand the internal needs of the segregated group. In this case, it is to regain power in themselves and through connection to others who get it. This subverts any empathy gap that could happen. When a cancer survivor group meets, I don’t ever know what it was like having had cancer. But I can provide an empathetic space to understand that:
- I don’t get it
- It serves some of them in healing
If the only result you care about is how it effects out-groups, then you misunderstand how healing and political movements are created at the earliest stages. How do you think political movements are formed if not in small groups meeting privately?
Not a hard rule though, and to say there is no power in a woman’s only group that couldn’t further disenfranchise a dis-empowered non-woman would be disingenuous.
Women are historically oppressed minorities. Patriarchal systems caused their oppression. Who are the dis-empowered non-woman that are being disenfranchised?
“Over throwing patriarchy” is a vague goal at best though. What does that actually entail?
Much of this particulars are covered in the long history of feminism. Recounting it all would take several books. Staying with in the confines of one or strain will help guide the discussion. What feminist literature have you read? Who are your guiding lights in the movement? That will dissipate the vagueness. There may not be one single definition, but the contours for disagreement move from a blob to specific corners of concern. I’m asking for these because if you view these goals as ‘religious,’ it suggests you are unfamiliar with the specific, material policy work and labor history that defines the movement. There is nothing inherently wrong with not being familiar with the field in specificity.
So in sum, I’d like to hear:
- How do you think political movements are formed if not in small groups meeting privately?
- Who are the dis-empowered non-woman that are being disenfranchised?
- What feminist literature have you read? Who are your guiding lights in the movement?
This [harmful in-group vs out-group effects] is only true if you fail to understand the internal needs of the segregated group.
No, its a documented and highly scientifically backed effect.
If the only result you care about is how it effects out-groups, then you misunderstand how healing and political movements are created at the earliest stages.
Its not the only effect that I care about but I do care about it.
How do you think political movements are formed if not in small groups meeting privately?
Political movements are value neutral, or at least subjectively perceived as good or bad depending on who you ask about which movement.
If you want to say that the harmful in-group & out-group effects are a worthwhile sacrifice to achieve other ends, that’s one claim I could see as understandable but I would want to know the specifics of what the actual end goal(s) is/are before I’d support it. Further, the main way a political movement actually grows and achieves positive things is to broaden their support typically. If they lean into leveraging power they might have over a majority they’re using might makes right logic. I can certainly see the utility of that if you view the majority as stupid or evil and I’ll even admit these days its hard not to feel that way given the state of my country. At that point though I don’t even see the point other than cynical power games.
Who are the dis-empowered non-woman that are being disenfranchised?
NB’s & men who fall into disenfranchised categories like bipoc, lgbt, homeless/impoverished/working class, and probably most relevant to gender issues is the neurodiverse male population. Not to mention that creating an exclusively women space can attract TERFs, where they can spread their bullshit more efficiently by leaning into the in-group & out-group effects.
Women’s issues is gender issues. Gender is like any social construct, its defined by relationships and collective beliefs.
What feminist literature have you read? Who are your guiding lights in the movement?
My feminism? I was critiquing the feminism you are defending that would justify an exclusionary in-group. I’m suspicious of why you’d want to ask.
If you must know, I tend to agree with Xenofeminism. Its the form of feminism that embraces rationalism, any consistent Xenofeminist would agree with me here.
My main problem with this kind of thinking is the way it mirrors racial segregation. ‘I just don’t feel safe with those people around,’ is an all too common sentiment among racists. The key has to be to find ways to make people feel safe and humanised among those who are different in everyday life, because simply creating isolated bunkers of ‘safety’ that exclude others based on unchosen characteristics of their body is not a recipe for a cohesive, cooperative society.
Sure that’s a fair point but I think it’s important to point out people also self segregate along all sorts of lines, including racially. It’s one thing if the state is enforcing segregation or if a group of people with something in common want to hang out with each other at the exclusion of people who don’t have that thing in common. Segregation and self segregation aren’t the same things.
Tbf if I’m invited to a whites only party to discuss “white interests” like idk Ultimate Frisbee and Mayonnaise or whatever “white interests” would be, I’m probably not going even if it is “self segregation” so it’s “better” than if the government did it. I mean you’re not wrong, letting the people choose to be racist instead of enforcing it through law is “better” I guess but imo we should strive for more. I don’t think we can actually fix society’s ills until society can sit in a room together and talk, y’know? Idk I guess I just like diversity more than sameness.
Hol up.
Segregation and self-segregation are indeed different, but the difference is in where the choice occurs, not in whether the body doing it is a legally recognised government. You gave two examples of one and called one of them the other. Self-segregation is where individual choices add up to an effective separation. Choosing to deny access to a public event to a particular group, even without state power, is still segregation, enforced by the host as a local seat of power.
If your issue is that it rhymes, then I think you’re missing how the powerful use this to oppress and exploit people. When minorities do it, it is done to regain power and dignity from being oppressed and exploited.
Uhh, are you trying to imply that discrimination isn’t bad as long as it serves your dignity? That would legitimise its use by the powerful. They could just claim to be preserving their dignity from the damage it would take in associating with minorities. Or is it that it’s fine as long as you aren’t ‘powerful?’ That’s an easily gamed relitivism. People will justify antisemitism with how many Jewish people are in positions of wealth/power. I mean, more than they already try to. I’m guessing that’s not something you’d prefer.
Being able to tell the difference between people who have historically been exploited and oppressed and those powerful people feigning it is an easy task. Rascists do it. White supremicists do it. It is no reason to abandon the tools of restoration for the oppressed. It’s not the only one, but it is one.
Again, if you are suggesting it is legitimate for one, it becomes transitively legitimate for the other, regardless of whether you think it should. If you are saying it is a legitimate tactic, everyone can use it, even the people you don’t like, and you are just diving into a multigenerational, essentialist, retributive justice death spiral.
Change comes from the oppressed organizing in their own spaces and not by holding the moral high ground.
The powerful will do whatever they need regardless of the moral high ground or not. They haven been using exclusion for centuries to maintain their position. They don’t need my ‘permission’ or a ‘logical precedent’ to gatekeep. They have the systemic power to do it regardless.
They manufacture legitimacy for themselves using ‘tradition,’ ‘efficiency,’ or ‘safety’ to mask their gatekeeping. They don’t borrow legitimacy from the marginalized. Throughout history, the dominant group has never waited for a logical ‘green light’ from the oppressed to justify exclusion. And they won’t give up power because we have the moral high ground.
If we ‘disarm’ and stop creating restorative spaces, we lose a vital tool for survival, while the powerful lose absolutely nothing. Abandoning a functional tool for restoration (like a support group or a focused conference) because a bad actor might mislabel their own dominance as ‘restoration.’ That’s like saying we shouldn’t use a scalpel to save a life because a murderer might use one to take one. The intent and the material outcome are what define the action, not the fact that a blade was used.
They will continue to exclude because they can, with or without a consistent moral philosophy. You are prioritizing the ‘purity’ of a logical rule over the material survival of a group.
Can you name a single historical instance where a dominant group stopped a practice of exclusion because they realized they no longer had the ‘transitive legitimacy’ to continue it?
I just want to say it is so refreshing to finally see a comment from someone who genuinely understands power and oppression finally shine through in a thread that has been so muddled and confused it’s been maddening to read.
their own spaces
You’re making the same conflation as several other people here. A private space can exclude through non-invitation without specific/class exclusion. A conference is not a private space. It is public. By rendering the space public, it creates an equality of people as possible attendants as members of the public. By excluding a generalized group, it discriminates through stereotype, which brings things to the meat of your point.
If you take the whole matter into amorality, there is nothing wrong with ANYTHING the powerful do, and render any argument about dignity of the oppressed meaningless. You have no place left to stand and you lose. If you argue the powerful are somehow different from other people, you establish a belief in inherent inequality. You have no place from which to claim injustice, and you lose. If you fight against the powerful without some semblance of reason, you cannot form a cohesive collective, so you will have no power with which to fight them, and you will lose.Can you name a single historical instance where a dominant group stopped a practice of exclusion because they realized they no longer had the ‘transitive legitimacy’ to continue it?
Feminism. If each generation of feminists had never made claims to human dignity, there would be no liberation or justice. If they had only focused on stripping the dignity of powerful men, they never would have gotten the support of the rest of their society. Action disrupts the old system but the moral argument is what transforms society into something new. The ‘dominant group’ isn’t the 1% crowd. It’s the 90% who they trick into supporting them. The ‘powerful’ shit themselves at the idea of seeing the majority turned against them. If early feminists hadn’t convinced the people around them of the capability and equality of women, it wouldn’t have mattered how hard they tried, they would just have been ignored by the majority and snuffed out by the powerful minority. If they hadn’t fought to establish a moral norm of equality, all their screams would have been noise fading into the void. Acting like you actually believe in your principles isn’t ‘disarming’ yourself. It’s letting the enemy take your rifle so you can take the fort. It’s planting the tree so your children can sit in its shade. It’s how you get justice rather than get yours.
Removed by mod
This is gonna be good.
