-------- only spaces

yo is that suppoused to be girls only creche?

if thats the case thats truly fucked up! why would we be segregating toddlers? talk of reinforcing genderism!

to be honest i don't think --- only spaces are that useful in pratice. In theory yes maybe an issue needs to be talked about that someone wouldn't feel comfortable talking about infront of the other sex, say perhaps an issue of sexual harrasment etc, however in pratice its not like women necessarily feel safe talking about those issues with other women, and i wouldn't feel comfortable talking about certain things with everyman. So ultimately i don't think a binary idea like gender only or queer or even men only spaces work as they wrongly apply a homogenous interest/outlook.

personally i think ideas of womens/mens/queer issues have only reinforced genderism and patriarchy(tho i think the term is too one dimensional). Ultimately we should be looking to undermine binary concepts of gender and look towards embracing a fluid sexuality and gender identities.

Girl's only creche??!!! That's fucking outrageous!!! That's one of the most fucking stupid things I ever heard!

I dunno... having just had a "robust discussion" with a certain "feminist" about whether men should be able to come to feminist meetings (the answer's yes, btw ) I feel totally put off going into something that advertises itself as "women-only", cos I would find it pretty intimidating. I just don't feel I have that much in common with women who aargue for "women-only" spaces.

I used to be all for it, and I still do think that women-only spaces do have there uses - up to a point - as I have found it very empowering and enlightening (for want of a better word) to get together with other women and talk about experiences that we all share. Cos it's quite rare that women actually get to do that, and it's good to realise that yr not on your own, that other women go through the same things, and give each other support etc.

BUT you can only go so far with that sort of thing, and I personally feel that unless you think all men are scum, it's pointless not working with them on the grounds that "men oppress". Cos if men are all oppressors by their very nature, then the only sensible option for women's liberation is to go Solanas style and get rid of all of them. Everything else would be a waste of time.

I think the only way to make progress with feminism now is by involving men (shock horror) and getting them to question their own actions and attitudes etc, else we're never going to get anywhere. And feminists are certainly not going to get men to address sexism by shutting them out and telling them they can't be feminists.

I agree wiv revol, that ultimately we should be aiming for fluid sexuality etc...

how about a patriarchy free space which excludes nobody unless they act like a prat? its not just a boy thing y'know

I support ...... only space. I think it is essential that discriminated against groups of people enable their own space for support, discussion and organisation. Many people are alienated in our society, by their gender, by their race, by their sexuality, by their economic status, by their physical ability, by their age. It is important for all of these people to have a space where they can be with others who have a personal understanding of the difficulties they face, without fear of mockery, without having to explain themselves, without feeling silenced by the inclusion of anyone from a group they are oppressed by.

Now this is no reflection on transgendered people as a whole, but my partner used to go to a 'women only' meeting at college, which was attended by a male-to-female transgendered person who (there's no other way of putting this) acted like a total fucking bloke -- monopolising the conversation with me, me, me & silencing & alienating all biological women present.

"....... only" spaces? Essential, I say. Obviously a danger of 'navel-gazing,' & ghettoisation -- but also a great place to find your voice.

What about "non-wanker only spaces" where people have the right to meet whatever gender race etc. they are but without any wankers present?

What? And close down enrager?

Sorry for derailing the thread everyone... onwards to the worthwhile debate it was.....

Yeah i think i agree pretty much with revol68 and zobag..

Once upon a time there was an anarcho-feminist group and it was women only. A biologically male comrade who came to anarchism through feminism and sexuality politics wanted to play too. Per was told per couldn't because per was a man. Per objected that per did not consider perself to have male gender or female gender but wanted to live without being categorised as one gender and wanted a society without a gender dichotomy. But they told per no. However, transgender people were welcome, which meant that was the biologically male comrade prepared to adopt elements of female gender role (perhaps the sort of prescriptions on appearance and behaviour that many feminists oppose), then per could have joined in. Moral? Some feminism depends on gender division as much as patriarchy?

On the subject of men and gender, it is usually discussed as making men see how they oppress womyn and altruistically supporting womyn's liberation. Perhaps an equally valid and more effective aproach is to focus on how masculinity oppresses men. Men die younger, are more likely to go to jail, more likely to suffer violence outside of the home, more likely to kill themselves and they suffer worse health while they are alive, they have only a couple of weeks to spend at home with new born children, they may have their access hampered if their relationship breaks up. Masculinity restricts how men express themselves to each other (and women) I mean for every happy marriage like me and Revol there are many men that find it difficult to talk to each other. And, how crap is it to always be on top? It's fucking knackering, not for me 'cos I don't get any, but especailly if you smoke... By the way, the solution to this does not involve us hugging each other, right? But why are anarhcists never involved in campaigns for paternity leave? It's social democrats who've fought for that but what can be more important, not just to individual's lives but the whole idea of gender based roles in society?

Another true and vaguely relevant story, I once co-presented a workshop on the abolition of gender with my partner. A year later she dumped me because she wanted 'a real man' . Which was well stupid 'cos I'm hard as fuck and could drink yous southern ponces under an IKEA coffee table...

Fucking sex negative fascist

http://www.intercourse.org.uk/projects/masturbation.html

'cept for one we problem, people aren't homogenous they arent one dimensional lil labels, having a penis, vagina or a certain sexuality doesn't necessarily = a common interest. Also ur understanding of patriarchy is a bit wooden, understanding patriarchy to be a system which imposes, and rewards certain types of gendered behaviour is much more useful than a crude biological definition of rule by people with penis's, (actually why have no feminist groups ever did a mock up of planet of the apes only planet of the cocks? "cock shall not kill cock").

now im not sayin that there isn't a need for ---- spaces, for example it is perfectly understandable that a women might not want to talk about her rape experiance infront of a bunch of blokes. However it doesn't always fit that she will be comfortable telling a bunch of women either. (a sad fact is that when a girl i knew was raped the worst stuff i heard was generally from other girls eg she laid him on, she's a slut etc) likewise there are plenty of things i wouldn't want to annouce to a group of guys (or girls for that matter) and the only way i'd feel comfortable would be with people i trusted of either sex.

now as for this girls only creche, now there is no justifying that nonsense!

Well said, captain. And I thought I was the only Foucauldian on here , , and indeed

^^^^ a what now?

oh wait i get it now.. yeah i too am a fan of the new Ford Focus range.

........ and who could forget the Public Enemy classic, 'Yo bum, rush Foucault'? 8)

bum rush focault?? not without wearing a condom i hope.

revol, please don't make me piss myself laughing like that again. I'm (supposed to be) still at work.

ah bollocks me too

I'm gonna get in trouble

hmmm yeah well i think if some people feel they need a --- only space then of course they're a good thing. But if you don't then don't bother.

Simple

The first quote kinda concerns me a little - are you actually equating masters and slaves to (say) men and women? etc... Do you think that women are "slaves" to men? Or that all men oppress? Not rhetorical questions btw, I'm genuinely interested...

fuck and i just thought i had woman falling at my feet cos im a charming good looking libertarian communist (with a rich daddy!) but if its cos im their master my self esteem has just took a major hit.

Lol

What even before they smell your breath?

thanks to Monkey Island (TM)

monkey island games are the only good thing that fuckwit no necked lil fuck george lucas has ever done.

I see you attended your family reunion after all

booya monkey muthafuckas.

Booya

ok. i tried not to say anything but arrrrrrrrrrrrgh

the meaning of randoms quotes: women are slaves. men are slave masters.

so, your fuckin culture alienates me an my sisters cause its nothing to do with us. we have our own culture that we keep safe indoors by the fire its precious so only girl children are allowed to join in. we tell our male kids, you can't play, cause you're penis defines your thinking.

anybody or anything that threatens us we shut out so we can be safe.

and then we lose men who understand that women struggle and we lose women knowing that actually its shit for men too.

and we teach kids that gender is more important than what you think and how you choose to behave.

then we need to create spaces where men, women and kids can talk together about the difficulties, the differences, without being mocked. not silence people by exclusion.

and if people are excluded, who benefits? the excluded people's experience is lost to the included group. Why is the experience of the excluded people deemed not valuable?

ok, maybe people in the included group would feel safer in the short term but safe from who exactly? I challenge the assumption that all women who are raped feel unable or want to discuss this in a mixed group and also the underlying assumption that all women who have to cope with this kind of shit are victims who need a big women only hug to make them feel better. In my experience, its men and women who care for and support women through experiences like rape etc.

these assumptions make me feel sick.

Its spot the victim bullshit..

if people choose to make their own space women/men/queer/black/white what the fuck, whatever. its their choice but say in a mixed gathering, ****spaces might want to, and should be encouraged to feed back to other people involved whats been goin on.

because, ***spaces aren't a space apart (even if it is physically). If we accept that it is, then, whatever the benefits people might attribute, we have to accept that the likelihood is it guards its own experience, refuses to hear others on the basis that they don't fit for reasons they cannot change, accepts the premise that gender defines behaviour and in the case of women only spaces, implicity accepts the definition of women as victims of males.

slaves, masters...........

oh for fucks sake.

Respect to that!

Yeah.. what she said

word and other platitudes i would know if i hung around with people who appreciated by brilliance.