[offtopic split] Egalitariansm + feminism + related topics

[vox nihili]

I don't think discussing it is going to be a worthwhile experience, because I think you have a lot of cognitive dissonance. Do you also get upset about scholarships to aboriginal students, because those promote the wrong, 'us vs them', mentality? Something that doesn't practically disadvantage men can't really be construed as sexism. I'm perfectly happy to oppose examples of discrimination against men but a woman's room is so far away from that.

In short, I asked about egalitarianism to make the point that if women are disadvantaged, then acting to redress that situation is really not against the 'ethos'.

Cognitive dissonance implies that I've made statements that contradict each other. Establishing an environment that selectively excludes a gender in order to pursue gender equality is far more of a contradiction that anything I've said.
It would be better not to have scholarships that are for aboriginals only because, literally speaking, it is racist in that it's a scholarship available to certain people on the basis of race, excluding other races. At the same time, there is a genuine and pressing need to address the enormous and heinous disadvantage in indigenous communities and practicality dictates that "racism" in that sense is completely acceptable because the practicality of trying to means test everyone for the levels of crippling disadvantage experienced by the majority of the indigenous population is very low. I should really clarify that point: I don't think indigenous scholarships are a bad thing nor do I disagree with them; without the burden of practicality it would be better that those scholarships weren't "indigenous only" and went to anyone who experiences the same level of disadvantage as the indigenous and not to those indigenous who have been fortunate enough to avoid the crippling disadvantage experience by many of their peers. The numbers are so overwhelming that it's impracticable to do; the indigenous for the most part do experience awful disadvantage and rightly deserve the scholarships.

The best model for egalitarianism is to provide an environment wherein men and women are equal. Not one that excludes men, not one that excludes (or devalues) women. Personally, I've always found sexism really weird to be honest. I've never been able to understand why people are sexist; it just seems so unbelievably stupid.

[excal]

An opportunity for women who have been the victims of domestic abuse and/or sexual assault to find comfort in another victims is a fantastic idea and certainly not something to which I'd object. The idea of a room devoted especially to women at the exclusion of men, however, is sexist and intentionally provocative; except for, of course, when it is used to provide genuine support to abuse victims.

Have you, perhaps, considered that the world outside the womyn's room is basically the men's room?

Part of me just feels like feminism would have a better chance of achieving its goals if it moved on from the "us vs them" mentality and were more constructive in its approach. For real change to be sustainable, you have to unite the masses and that's something I don't think the feminist movement does.

Why are you blaming females for breeding the 'us vs them' mentality? Seems a bit disingenuous don't you think, considering the historical context?

[scribble]

i've never been in there, but as far as im concerned, if that room is able to help comfort a single person who is struggling to come to terms with some injustice they've experienced then it's worth having and anyone who is "offended" can suck it the fuck up.

[vox nihili]

Have you, perhaps, considered that the world outside the womyn's room is basically the men's room?

Why are you blaming females for breeding the 'us vs them' mentality? Seems a bit disingenuous don't you think, considering the historical context?

Assuming that is the case, segregation doesn't seem like a very sensible response.


I'm not blaming females for the "us vs them" mentality at all. I'm saying it's disingenuous for people to segregate men from women and to be intentionally sexist in the pursuit of gender equality.


Just guess it makes it difficult for a man to support feminism and to support gender equality when the so-called fighters for it are locking all the men out of the room...

[vox nihili]

i've never been in there, but as far as im concerned, if that room is able to help comfort a single person who is struggling to come to terms with some injustice they've experienced then it's worth having and anyone who is "offended" can suck it the fuck up.

I don't disagree with that to be honest. I just mean that in terms of helping along feminism and gender equality, it really misses the goals. If it does offer support to abuse victims, then "suck it the fuck up" gets it just about perfectly.

[excal]

Assuming that is the case, segregation doesn't seem like a very sensible response.

Men created the segregation throughout history through overt and not so overt sexism, women simply banded together for protection in numbers under the banner of feminism, which manifests in things such as the womyn's room. Seems pretty sensible to me.

I'm not blaming females for the "us vs them" mentality at all. I'm saying it's disingenuous for people to segregate men from women and to be intentionally sexist in the pursuit of gender equality.

Did I just hear a backpedal? Let me bold the relevant part.

...feminism would have a better chance of achieving its goals if it moved on from the "us vs them" mentality...

...implying that feminism, not society at large, needs to move on from 'us versus them'.

Just guess it makes it difficult for a man to support feminism and to support gender equality when the so-called fighters for it are locking all the men out of the room...

Feminist men would be inclined to disagree.

[excal]

I'm generally against ideas of "affirmative action" because I think that "positive discrimination" is still discrimination, but I can't really see the problem anyone would have with facilities that specifically cater to females needs. It's like a specialist doctor. Although, there's definitely a contradictory nature to it when the operator of the room is running it in the name of equality.

But then again, I always get frustrated whenever I come across a "don't open the door for me" feminist because they read way too much into things and feminism encompasses their entire thought process.

So tell me what other solution you have to address the immediate inequality of one group over another?

[vox nihili]

Men created the segregation throughout history through overt and not so overt sexism, women simply banded together for protection in numbers under the banner of feminism, which manifests in things such as the womyn's room. Seems pretty sensible to me.

Did I just hear a backpedal? Let me bold the relevant part....implying that feminism, not society at large, needs to move on from 'us versus them'.

Feminist men would be inclined to disagree.

Tit for tat isn't a particularly sensible way to approach things though. We've already seen how destructive sexism is for men and women (and by sexism I do only refer to sexism against women there), it seems silly to try to expand on it in the name of "gender equality".

Bit unreasonable to suggest that that implication was evident; it wasn't because I didn't make it. Feminism, in my mind, has the goal of establishing equality among the genders. In the context of its goal to do that, supporting an "us vs them" mentality is a poor way of achieving its goal. I'd also suggest that general society doesn't have an "us vs them" mentality and that presiding mentality in sexism against women has been an "us better than them" mentality, which is just as ridiculous (more ridiculous in truth).

[hobbitle]

Woah. Dudes, I just wanted a nap hey...
;-)

[excal]

Bit unreasonable to suggest that that implication was evident; it wasn't because I didn't make it. Feminism, in my mind, has the goal of establishing equality among the genders. In the context of its goal to do that, supporting an "us vs them" mentality is a poor way of achieving its goal. I'd also suggest that general society doesn't have an "us vs them" mentality and that presiding mentality in sexism against women has been an "us better than them" mentality, which is just as ridiculous (more ridiculous in truth).

Two things (bolded in sequence):
1. You are now suggesting that feminism supports an 'us vs them' mentality. I would argue that you can't make a stand for anything if you've been snuffed out, so some defence is necessary. In other words, it is something that is necessary - but not desirable - given where we are at with equality in practice. Which leads onto point 2.
2. You don't think there's an 'us vs them 'mentality out there? While it isn't as overt as it once was*, subtle sexism against females is very much alive and kicking.

* although this government has somewhat woken it up from its slumber

[excal]

You mean instead of affirmative action? You're advocating something where one is given preference over another due to something as arbitrary as gender or race?

A question to answer a question is not an answer. Do you have a better solution?

Addit: Nikoli basically summed up my views on it, thanks! I think that affirmative action is not an ideal solution, it brings us closer to a socially just situation than anything else we've come up with. And yes, sometimes it overcorrects but it is still better than the previous state of things.

[slothpomba]

Addressed to no one in particular (seriously).

Is the women's room egalitarian? No. It is inherently descrimatory and segregated. It is not egalitarian, let us be clear.

However, we must be mindful of something, something Dr.Martin Luther King Jr says best in his Letter From Birmingham Jail:

You deplore the demonstrations that are presently taking place in Birmingham. But I am sorry that your statement did not express a similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being. I am sure that each of you would want to go beyond the superficial social analyst who looks merely at effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. I would not hesitate to say that it is unfortunate that so-called demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham at this time, but I would say in more emphatic terms that it is even more unfortunate that the white power structure of this city left the Negro community with no other alternative.

We must be mindful of why the women's room came into existence, why the feminist movement came into existence. It is because society was inherently non-egalitarian, women were not equal. Things are better today but it still cannot be said that women are 100% equal. So, yes, the room is inherently non-egalitarian but it is a response, born out of history and current trends, of a non-egalitarian society. People may lament the existence of the room but they fail to analyse why we even need a room in the first place, the genesis of the room.

Now, many things in our lives are segregated or discriminatory. Gay bars for instance but I am not sure if anyone is liable to complain about those. Now, it may be some lament the lack of a room with beds for them, the lack of a room that is quiet for them. That may be a valid complaint. However, the womens room is more than a place it with beds, it is an idea, it is a concept. Much like a church or Parliament House transcends its function and material contents, so does a room like this. If you wanted a room with beds which is hush, i'm sure that can be adequately addressed. I suspect this is the *true* complaint of many. How many are actually against the womens room as a concept, a concept of a safe place for women, the thing that transcends the material? We wait to see who will raise their hand.

[vox nihili]

Two things (bolded in sequence):
1. You are now suggesting that feminism supports an 'us vs them' mentality. I would argue that you can't make a stand for anything if you've been snuffed out, so some defence is necessary. In other words, it is something that is necessary - but not desirable - given where we are at with equality in practice. Which leads onto point 2.
2. You don't think there's an 'us vs them 'mentality out there? While it isn't as overt as it once was, subtle sexism against females is very much alive and kicking.

1. You're right, that's jumping too far. There are segments of the feminist movement that certainly support an "us vs them" mentality, but there is also a significant portion that's more sensible and realistic.
2. Not really. I think that sexist men are just pig-headed to be honest. It's not the whole "fuck women" attitude, it's more of a "who do they think they are?" attitude. It's pathetic.

[excal]

On point 2, you have a lot to learn and see. As I said, overt sexism is less of a problem these days but it's the subtle things that can still do a lot of damage that is alive and well.

This video kind of makes superficial what is a very complicated issue, but it does have a pretty significant point. Watch it and tell me what you think about how (subtle) sexism has been built into our language. There are plenty of other examples of the same.

[pi]

On the note of Women's rooms on campus, I think they're unnecessary. Monash once had a bake sale where cookies were more expensive for men, also unnecessary.

I'm not against feminism (N.B. have done about 10 minutes reading on this in my life) but I don't think these initiatives are necessary. The only gender specific rooms we need on campus are bathrooms/toilets/changerooms.