|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I always find it hilarious how bigots like the women quoted in this article act all surprised when someone complains. If this were a men-only retreat, you'd better believe they'd be gate-crashing, protesting, and boycotting the sponsors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good point, Matthew, and for the most part I agree. I think that, left to ourselves, the sexes are naturally inclined to segregate from each other for various forms of recreation and ritual - or even just to "escape" from each other for a while, as there is a definite love-hate aspect to the nature of the relationship between men and women.
However, there is a significant difference between women shooing men away from a bridal or baby shower or a "girls' night out," and excluding us from a public event on the basis of "protecting" women from the male element. It's equating the female-only environment with a place of goodness and light, and equating maleness with plague - a radical feminist stance that I don't think we would dignify with the right to hold a public event if it were any other "oppressed" group. Keeping in mind that males are a natural part of the environment, to insinuate that we are an inherently oppressive influence over another natural part of the environment (i.e., women) is akin to Nazi-ism, yet in the guise of progressivism.
And even if it truly were progressivism, it would still be a grave insult to any member of the male population that he should be excluded from a progressive event because he, as a male, is not "progressible." And that, to me, has nothing to do with protecting or nurturing women at all - it's about punishing and spiting men. It's about compounding any guilt we may already feel about how we have "wronged" women by not allowing us the relief or satisfaction of actively correcting the wrong. It's about vindication and revenge. And it says a lot about what type of weak-minded, bitter and pathetic individuals are really behind that type of ideology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think anybody said anything about forcing them to shut it down. The thread I started here was about protesting the exclusion of men. Just as they may have a right to be bigots, we have the right to protest their bigotry and boycott their sponsors as part of the persuasive process. I am a firm believer in speaking out against what I believe are wrongs and not just sitting idly by and waiting for things to right themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, some people have tried to shut them down through the courts.
As for speaking out about things that are wrong, I stand by my origional assertion that I don't think that women only events are wrong.
If you want to protest their insinuation that men=bad women=good then I might support that. I think it's very important to know and to let others know _exactly_ what it is that you're protesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just because you don't think they're wrong doesn't mean I can't protest them if I think they're wrong.
For what it's worth, not-for-profit events really don't bother me if they're one sex only. FOR-profit events, establishments, or stores that give one sex preferential treatment or discounts over another DO bother me. In many states, that's considered a violation of civil rights. How will you feel when you are required to pay a higher price for the same food from the same store as a woman who gets it for 50 percent off because she's a woman?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responding to Matthew's original response to my response:
Again, I agree. I wasn't suggesting that the event be shut down or crashed. My feeling is the same as yours that to censor feminist propaganda would only reinforce the dogma of oppression - that it is better to let them say their piece and then weigh in the validity of their statement (or just to give them the rope so they can hang themselves with it). Nightmist may disagree, and I think he's right in his argument, too - but perhaps I pick my battles differently.
I was responding to your query as to whether or not it is ethical to have single-sex events, with my feeling being that there are certain justifications for having a single-sex event that are innocuous, and others that are not so innocuous. And yes, taken out of context, a women-only rock concert seems rather innocuous. But when viewed in context of how men are also not much included in other, more important feminist efforts which are changing the world for men and women alike, an event like this does not seem so innocuous. Generally, it's been my feeling that when men are barred from anything feminist-related, it's because we are seen as a contradiction to equality and progressivism, which is hardly an innocuous justification. Therefore I don't think that the segregation is ethical in this case.
When you think about it, a lot of the issues cited on this website stem from the whole idea that men are, by nature, not very equalitarian or progressive-minded, therefore it is proper to censor us or curtail our rights because we lack the moral fiber to not abuse the legal latitude currently enjoyed by women (i.e., men would use abortion rights to control women; men would abuse or neglect our children if we got custody of them as often as women do; men would not pay child support if we didn't have to, etc.). This is also one of the reasons why a men's movement is generally regarded with a certain skepticism, because of the idea that, even if the movement is not evil, men are simply not ethical enough - being "corrupted by power" - to make ethical demands even if we do have legitimate gripes. Meanwhile, can you deny that the perceived moral superiority of women (and thus, the moral superiority of feminists, who are mostly women) is not a major reason why feminism has succeeded as well as it has, even in spite of blatant examples of bigotry on feminists' part?
And so that's why, even though this particular event might not be of significant importance to raise a ruckus, the attitude that I suspect is truly behind its single-sex policy is not only much more widespread than that but also is having a significant impact on the way men are being treated in this culture. Basically, it's the stance that "equality" is really for women only, and that the reshaping of our culture (which affects men and women equally) should rightfully take place with men on the outside, looking in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well stated, Hawth. It's too bad that there are people who really do believe "equality is for women only," and do not see the connotative contradiction between the subject and the rest of the sentence there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
