Feministe Feedback: Talking to Men About Gender-Exclusionary Spaces

48 thoughts on Feministe Feedback: Talking to Men About Gender-Exclusionary Spaces

1. I’d tell him that one of the major differences between advancing in the business world and stalling in a low-paying job is knowing the people who do the hiring and promoting, which is why networking is so important. When men form men-only networking clubs (which is basically what this is, I think), they’re excluding women from the opportunity to make those important connections and advance their careers, helping to keep the number of women in the upper echelons of the business world low. And because there are so few women in high positions, when women form their own single-gender clubs, they can’t provide nearly the same benefits as the male-only clubs. So such clubs are providing an advantage to men that women can’t get, either by joining the men or doing it on their own, which helps keep the glass ceiling in place, which, in turn, makes women-only networking and mentoring less useful than male-only, and the cycle begins again.

2. Maybe it’s just because my parents were both involved in Freemasonry, but I don’t see a problem with single-gender social clubs as a categorical rule (perhaps because the culture where I grew up was such that there was a large degree of interaction between the Freemasons and Eastern Star). However, reading about this specific organization makes it sound like it’s definitely a place for wealthy hobnobbery. Colleen definitely makes good points describing the cyclical nature of such networking that such clubs can embody.

   My first instinct was to answer that if her father wanted to join this club, to do so with the obligation to fight the privilege that had gotten him in, and to give voices to the women who are ignored by such an arrangement; I’ll admit the recent discussion of white privilege with regards to publicity in the blogosphere was what pushed me in that direction. However, reflecting on this makes it seem less and less ideal. The e-mail indicates that the man in question “would never have been asked to join” but for some specialized skills that the group needs; that sort of situation, in my experience, tends to lead to the new member to the group feeling the need to “prove himself” to fit in, which would actually make it more likely that he would embrace the privilege that got him there, rather than fight it.

   I’m not sure there’s really a good answer here: you’re either subverting class privilege at the expense of feminism, or you’re subverting male privilege at the expense of anti-classism. Ultimately, I’d explain to your father that this club is subordinating women (seconding Colleen’s argument), and hope that he finds that important enough to at least influence his decision.

3. In my Women in the Law class the semester, we examined the constitutionality of single-sex clubs, such as the Rotary Club or the Boys’ Club. Essentially, the motivation behind desegregating these clubs is, exactly like Colleen said, to ensure that both men and women get the connections and social benefits that come from membership.
   The only way that a club can prevent desegregation (if there’s a law suit) is by showing that the club itself is an intimate, exclusive association, and that remaining single-sex benefits the nature of the club. Associations like the masons or the rotary club have a hard time proving that being all-male is essential to their club, especially if the club is based on business associations in the community.
   Single-sex clubs and all-white clubs work to enforce the white patriarchy by creating a group that ‘others’ can’t join, effectively raising themselves above the ‘others’.
   And that’s rarely a good thing.

4. There are good reasons to form gender exclusionry clubs. Some people want to talk honestly without having the pressure of wanting to impress the opposite sex. There are also plenty of bad reasons. Ask him why the club excludes women. Chances are they are just mindlessly clinging to tradition.

5. I think this is really difficult. It’s a massive undertaking to get anyone, but especially a white male, to even acknowledge any sort of privilege; an even larger one to convince him to actively exclude himself when he’s been invited.

   I think 1. makes the case, and it might be easier to see the starkness of the effects if an analogy is made to restricted clubs – carefully – because while in our society those are seen with another layer of nastiness, beneath the nastiness the socio-economic effects are still there.

   But I think a good person could hear the arguments and understand them and still have mixed feelings about it. If there’s a secret, exclusionary path to success, it’s a pretty big thing to count yourself out of it.

6. I am planning to watch this discussion, because as a women’s college alumna and a supporter of single-sex education for girls, I have a lot of trouble articulating problems with male-only social spaces without laying myself open to charges of hypocrisy. And that’s just inside my own head — never mind when I start discussing it.

   I am reminded me of when I was a little girl, and I saw a bumper sticker urging women to join the Order of the Eastern Star. I thought this sounded awesome, and asked my mom what they did.

   “They make casseroles for the Masons,” she said.

   “Oh.” And that was that.

7. I would say that there’s nothing wrong with male-only clubs in principle, but that a problem arises when you start to question the purpose of a male-only environment, especially in today’s world.

   And I think one of the purposes is simply to give men a place to talk about women in a way that they don’t feel able to do so when women are present. Essentially, it’s a “feminism-free zone” where misogyny can go unchallenged, or if it is challenged, where it is much easier to use the collective force of the group to reinforce the dominant paradigm. In a male-only misogynist environment, it is actually very hard for a man with feminist ideals to speak his mind (I’ve been there, and cringe inwardly at my cowardice every time I remember those situations when I didn’t speak up – needless to say I never returned to those environments if I could help it).

   In today’s world, where feminism and women’s equality is at least given lip-service in society (even though, obviously, it isn’t observed in any meaningful sense) the privileged retreat into misogyny is even more corrosive.

   To answer the direct question put: I think, reading the correspondent’s description of the situation, that although the club clearly subordinates women, it is going to be her father who is most clearly subordinated. Where she writes, “He’s a working-class guy and would never have been asked to join were it not that he has some skills and qualifications that they require for some of their activities”, I see the “nerd” who’s allowed to join the cool guys’ gang because he’s willing to do their homework for them. While advancement may follow from this, it will a) be at the expense of his peers and b) never be as great as the advancement the other members of the club obtain from the club (or, quite possibly, from his membership of the club). It is probably this attitude that also permeates the club’s members’ attitudes to women, as well. I think if she explains to her father how they are seeking to exploit him, and then point out that the club as a whole also treats women in the same way, he may get it.

   I am tempted to try to draw a comparison with racist attitudes where a black person is tolerated, even treated as a “friend”, so long as he has a skill required by a white person, but I really don’t feel qualified to say whether or not that’s a valid comparison or not. It might help to illustrate why what this club is doing is bad for the correspondent’s father as well as for women, though.

8. I actually asked my father why he’d want to belong to a group that said I couldn’t belong simply because I was a girl.

   I don’t know if this would work for other people, but my father (who for whatever reasons hadn’t thought of that) then refused to join. I thought it was kinda awesome. (I was a wee lass.)

   I’m more just tossing out thoughts than thinking that I have some grand solution, but maybe pointing out that any group that assumes that former presidents are members and that it’s their being part of the group that helped propel them to the presidency says by default that they think women shouldn’t have that sort of support to become president (which is nicer than saying they don’t think women should be president).

9. I’m a cruel, cruel, cruel, cruel, cruel, cruel woman. So: my answer would be that you probably can’t prevent your Dad from joining this organization, but after he joins, you can play with his head. As his daughter you’re entitled to do that. Ask him whether or not it’s true that the Grovians do indeed sacrifice little baby mannequins. Play him some Alex Jones documentaries. Ask him where the Grovians keep their pointy hats. Tell him that you can’t wait to accompany him on “Ladies’ Night” because you’ve always wanted some cellphone pictures of Montgomery Burns on his native heath. And so forth. You know the kind of thing. Demonstrate that while women with feminist sympathies may have been docked of their senses of humor, we retain a sense of the absurd.

   If any of this sounds excessively undaughterly, well, then…suck it up, I suppose. After all, you wouldn’t expect your Dad to dictate as to what social organizations you are and are not allowed to join, would you? One of the things which I think women have to learn how to deal with is that this is a world in which agendas conflict and in which people often work at cross-purposes. What’s good for your father isn’t automatically guaranteed to work to your benefit, nor is what will benefit you necessarily bound to improve things for him. As a man your Dad will naturally have access to stuff you can’t get, and while I think it’s okay if you bring this up to him as a concern, I don’t think it’s fair for you to ask him to engage in the kind of self-sacrifice which has always been recommended to women (with, as we all know, spectacularly miserable results).

10. What Colleen said: I second it.

    Colleen says:
    May 3rd, 2008 at 4:03 pm – Edit
    I’d tell him that one of the major differences between advancing in the business world and stalling in a low-paying job is knowing the people who do the hiring and promoting, which is why networking is so important. When men form men-only networking clubs (which is basically what this is, I think), y’re excluding women from the opportunity to make those important connections and advance their careers, helping to keep the number of women in the upper echelons of the business world low. And because there are so few women in high positions, when women form their own single-gender clubs, they can’t provide nearly the same benefits as the male-only clubs. So such clubs are providing an advantage to men that women can’t get, either by joining the men or doing it on their own, which helps keep the glass ceiling in place, which, in turn, makes women-only networking and mentoring less useful than male-only, and the cycle begins again.

11. I might begin by talking to him about why he is excited about joining and then point out the essential unfairness of such advantages being denied to women.

12. Thank you so much for this post. I have a similar problem with articulating why such clubs are abhorent because they just seem so fundamentally wrong that I almost feel it would be patronising to the listener to have to carefully explain why.

    My instinctive response to words of support for such clubs would be something like:
    “Are you blind??? Can’t you see??!” which generally doesn’t prove very productive…

    I’m going to keep Colleen’s response at the back of my mind for the next time the subject comes up. I do fear though that wise words such as hers would be dismissed by club members who seem, in my experience, quick to take the line that their organisations are just ‘jolly social clubs’ and harmless. Blindness can be easily willed if it makes you feel more comfortable.

13. On the one hand, I’m generally opposed to gender-exclusive clubs– nobody’s stopping men or women from grouping together without an official banner waving overhead, after all, so creating a club for to do just that seems like nailing an elaborate, snooty version of a “no girls/boys allowed” sign on a tree house. On the other hand, the cold pragmatist in me thinks that while his not joining may be morally correct, it isn’t really going to change any paradigms, so he should join just to exploit the business contacts he’ll gain from it. After joining, if he finds that he can’t make any profit from his membership, he should just leave.

    I’m certainly conflicted, but we are careening into a recession, so my advice (for what it’s worth) is that he should join and get as many advantages and as much money as he can. Almost nobody walks away from a recession better off than they were before, after all.

    Anyone else look back in awe at how cynical they’ve become? Shit.

14. In our Islamic societies anything beyond our doorstep is a gender exculsionary space. We get a special carriages on the train, special seating in restaurants that is hidden, total educational seperation, seperate lines, on and on. If we ignore, forget or slip up and just find ourselves breaking this gender apartheid we stand to get raped. If we are raped, we are punished- NOT the rapist(s), why, because we violated the Islamic doctrine of khulwa, which is not to have a man on you…. it is simply to be with a man, thus you can be raped, and then imprisoned and flogged. Thus male restricted spaces under Islam are a rapists charter, pure social conditioning for abuse, the Muslim man thinking, “Hey, she entered our section of the restaurant to get a snack, we got every right to devour her with our eyes, follow her, hunt her, she must be a whore to have entered the male area, she deserves everything she is going to get.” Gender apartheid, like everything else on a feminist level, maxes out in our societies. This is why we need the feminist blogosphere to be clear on where it stands and to not be used as a mouthpiece for fascitsic reactionary forces that while based in the US, seek to impose this tyrannical system. Pakistani women and Pakistani apostate girls are leading this rejectionist stance. We got our own sites also where you can come to show ure solidarity and to escape Pro Muslim silencing. Islam ought to be regard by American radical comrades as a MALE ONLY SPACE, the Muslima is merely a front for patriarchy, little eichmans of the ruthless machinery of gender oppression in our sick societies.

15. Where she writes, “He’s a working-class guy and would never have been asked to join were it not that he has some skills and qualifications that they require for some of their activities”, I see the “nerd” who’s allowed to join the cool guys’ gang because he’s willing to do their homework for them. While advancement may follow from this, it will a) be at the expense of his peers and b) never be as great as the advancement the other members of the club obtain from the club (or, quite possibly, from his membership of the club).

    I was placed in a similar position when I was approached to join an underground fraternity at my undergrad at the end of my first year. I was non-White and from a working-class background. Despite those factors, they chose me in part due to my knack with academics and with computers. What made it easier to turn them down other than the odious personality of most of their privileged overentitled members and a strong anti-fraternity campus culture was a strong aversion to provide help to shield them from the well-deserved consequences for their intellectual and life-skills shortcomings. Watching them flounder in classes and exams after endless bragging about their “superior” private high school education and ragging on “publik hi skool”* graduates like myself was a great bonus.

    As for him, I would point out that in additional to the unfairness of the club’s exclusionary rules, that he is being set up as a mark not only to do the more “well-heeled” members’ homework, but also as a “lower ordered person” for their double-secret hidden amusement. This pattern is too familiar not only in real life, but in American pop culture such as “Revenge of the Nerds” movies.

    On the other hand, I can understand why someone from a working-class background may want to join to gain any socio-economic advantages over the limited choices he already has. Personally, I see little wrong with him joining if he goes in with the mindset to milk those advantages, provide the minimum amount of “help” he can get away with, and using his entry to subvert them somehow…

    * I will admit privilege in this area as I attended a well-reputed urban public magnet high school so the stings of some uninformed Profs and private school kids ragging on the inherent inferiority of public high school educated kids did not intimidate me nearly as much as other college classmates who attended public high schools.

16. The effects of gender apartheid on the male mind even in western society with all male schools and frat houses are well known as breeding grounds, conditioing zones for derogatorary views of women. Now imagine whole societies structured like that, where men are so unstable around women, they have become predatory in their own sexual desperation. In such societies, like Pakistan, the underlying concept of gender exclusivity has created the perfect environment for street harassement, kidnapping of women, sexual assault and even rape, cos no woman will report to the police when the first question she will be asked is, “Where were you?” Well maybe she WAS in the ‘wrong’ place, but is there ever a right place for rape and abuse? Well there is under the system we got, we live it, our pain is real, our fear is real, we live it, you don’t, so don’t promote this against us, and please, stop the silencing of Pakistani feminists and Pakistani apostate girls, COS WE ARE DETERMINED TO SPEAK OUT. PAKISTAN IS NOT URE COLONY, WE REJECT AMERICA TO IMPOSE ISLAM ON US BY OPEN AND BY COVERT MEANS

17. STOP THE SILENCING OF PAKISTANI FEMINISTS ON THIS SITE

18. Midnight Louise, I think the answer to your concern is contained within Colleen’s response. Women are excluded from the male-only networks and mentoring. Slowly we begin to break in, but for now the natural solution is to create female-only networks in response. That is the purpose women’s colleges serve; they build female networks. I’m a graduate of a women’s college, but a rather unusual one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claremont_Colleges) in that we had co-ed classes, dining halls, etc. I think that helped to clarify the purpose of a women’s college in my mind. The question becomes: “If there are men everywhere on campus, why remain a women’s college?” And the answer that comes out is that there is a focus on developing women’s voices, and providing a network of female mentors and role models.

    All-girls education in elementary and secondary schools is a little more touchy. On the one hand, you want girls to be able to socialize with boys comfortably and to hold their own in mixed-gender settings. (Likewise you want boys to be able to socialize with girls and not see them as an alien Other.) On the other hand, it’s true that girls tend to take a self-confidence hit around puberty which seems to be exacerbated by co-ed settings. Now a lot of research says that’s as much about the teaching as the presence of the boys themselves — the genders are not treated the same in mixed settings — but given the autonomy that teachers have (need, really) in the classroom, it’s actually easier to segregate genders than to try to break teachers of habits they’re often not aware they have.

    I think if we ever reach a truly gender-egalitarian society, there will be no need for single-sex education at any level. Seeing as we have a long way to go yet… There’s still a reason for single-sex education. I don’t think I would put any daughter of mine into single-sex education for her entire schooling, but particularly during the Middle/Jr. High years (6-10th grade, varying by girl) when self-confidence ebbs, I would consider it.

19. “PAKISTANI APOSTATE GIRLS AND ALL FRIENDS ASK TO JACK AND HOLLY”

    This is to American friends Jack and Holly. You visit to Pakistani feminists site
    and always very welcome, never silencing, and now you are sisters to Pakistani girls, nothing any differences, no way, we kiss you!!
    We want full, unrestrcited and open debate on Islam and Feminism, hijab, American support for gendery tyranny abroad, the entire thing. This debate is huge and it is need also, we need all to come out in the open, cos now we got this simmering on all sides, many many Americans is support us also, and let the Muslimas come and say their stuff also. So what we are asking, is can you open a thread on this and monitor also, so all our issues can be discussed, this post will be huge, it’s a massive issue and everyone wants involve and final say, this is for Jack and Holly. I asking Jack and Holly, why… cos some idea that they somewhat sympathy with Pakistani girls, this is what we think. If you got sympathy, then please please please allow us chance to speak and state our case about hijab and Islam and women. This is all we want, not more.

20. Here in rural Minnesota, these types of mens-only clubs (Masons, Optimists, etc.) appear to be places for really old guys to go to socialize a bit. And plan charity events — a recent annual one here benefited the local domestic violence shelter. These really old guys (in his 70s, my Dad is a younger member of the one he belongs to) seem to have a social life there that they didn’t have in the same way pre-retirement. Despite the sexism, I can’t begrudge them that. The women of the same age group in rural Minnesota have their book clubs and bridge games. It’s less formal, but just as segregated.

21. Midnight Louise: I went to a women’s college also, and used to have the same problem. For me, the critical distinction between men-only groups and women-only groups (and between privileged-group-exclusive associations in general and their counterparts) is the idea of safe space. When I entered an all-female academic environment, I was astonished by the feeling of automatically being taken seriously, a feeling I had never had anywhere else. Men don’t need to create a male-only space for that; for them, being treated like human beings is the default (at least if they’re white, straight, cisgendered, able-bodied, etc., but the men who aren’t wouldn’t be helped any with their discrimination by discriminating against women in turn).

    In short, we have Black History Month and no White History Month because every month is a white history month; we need women’s clubs because the whole freakin’ world is a boy’s club.

22. What’s the goal?

    If he asked “what do you think?”, then offering information as Colleen suggested may be helpful, but that assumes he’s already asking a question or two. If he’s not asking, then my goal would be to raise the question – specifically to help him ask the question. So I’d say “when you talk about that club, I feel excluded” and be willing to explain why.

    When someone I love and respect tells me I’m doing something wrong, especially when it’s something I was proud of or happy about, I feel defensive and hurt and am not inclined to listen calmly to the feedback. When someone I don’t love or respect gives me that feedback, I just ignore it. Either way, it doesn’t change my mind or my actions. If I feel really defensive, I’m inclined to dig my heels in even more. But if someone tells me how they feel, I will listen, and maybe I’ll assess my own part in what hurt her and reconsider my actions.

23. I worked briefly at an all-male undergraduate school, and now attend a (co-ed) graduate school that is part of an all-female college. I am still wrestling with the idea of gender-exclusionary spaces, and I have to be honest that they seem harder and harder to justify, particularly when we start thinking about the way we enforce these spaces (like anti-trans policies at places like the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival). However, I do still take seriously the idea that there is a qualitative difference between exclusionary spaces created by an historically marginalized community–such as women, or African-Americans, or queer folks–specifically to analyze and resist their marginalization, and the exclusionary spaces created by a privileged group (men, white folks, straight people). The former space can potentially work toward counteracting injustice; the latter might also serve the same purpose, but is much more likely just to reinforce the networks of privilege that already exist for the dominant group. There is nothing radical about men, for example, gathering in male-only spaces unless they come together to analyze their privilege with the aim of confronting sexism.

    I worry about the idea of “safe space,” as much as I have appreciated it in the past, and as seriously as I take other women’s desire for it, and the reason is that I worry about how we define those things and people which make the space UN-safe–it all too easily becomes a justification for marginalizing groups of people and individuals because of certain perceived characteristics that make them a threat. That’s too close to the rhetoric of racism, homophobia, anti-immigration, etc. to make me comfortable.

24. As an example, I live in a fairly affluent community with a lot of golf courses, so naturally a lot of kids take caddying jobs over the summer. One of these courses does not allow Jews (or other non-Christians, ironically I live in a largely Jewish community) or women to gain membership or take these summer jobs. As a statement, most of the kids who are eligible to work at the golf course don’t, because there’s no good reason, other than anti-Semitism and sexism, that women can’t join.

    Ask your father if there are any legitimate reasons for the club to remain men-only. Unless the are actually the Secret Society of Sperm Donors, there’s probably no legitimate reason; so there shouldn’t be any good reason to attend.

25. Colleen and Snowdrop Explodes, loved your comments. Right on!

    As a tradeswoman, I am at a distinct disadvantage to my male compadres in the Local because I do not have access to these clubs, nor is it considered “proper” in much of the midwest for a married man to socialize with an unmarried woman (and I don’t mean privately, I mean publically, as in, male co-workers will invite male co-workers to social events, group gatherings, parties, barbeques, and yes—those all male clubs). Any time I have been able to socialize with co-workers off the job, and thus make those crucial “friend” connections, it has been due to divorced men who reached out. Those same divorced men stop doing that once they get into a serious relationship or once they get married. There are few exceptions.

    The common excuse offered for all male clubs is that “it’s just social”, or “women wouldn’t be interested”…but it does impact employment. Especially in any type of employment that relies on cameraderie—-when work gets scarce, it’s easier to lay off a stranger than a friend. It’s easier to work overtime with men, and not have to answer harsh questions from an angry wife about why your tool buddy was female.

    That’s why the whole “subverting class privilege” bullshit doesn’t wash with me. Why are only working class men offered these opportunities to hobnob with the hoi polloi? The masonic lodge operates as a union-within-the-union in some Locals (not mine—anymore). I’ve seen how that functions, and it ain’t pretty. It perpetuates a whole lotta ugly shit, and the other usual excuse—-“well, you can subvert it from within”—nahh, not unless you have the numbers, you can’t.

    My city owns its own powerhouse. It has a lake that was built by the Army Corps of Engineers. The city owns the lake, and leases the lakefront property to homeowners and various “lake clubs” with 100-year leases (the owners own the building, the city owns the land the building is on). Almost all the “lake clubs” are exclusively male. A few years ago, one of the clubs had a vote to see if they would open the membership to women. The vote failed, and the club remains all male. The justification? It’s a “family-oriented” club, with a strong emphasis on sports and socializing—women and children can always attend events at the club, and opening the membership to women will take that “family” emphasis away. Frankly, it was a good case study on how sexism works in the club situation, because there was actually a significant contingent of men who were open to allowing women (mostly men under 40), but the vote was upsetting to wives of members—wives worried about their husbands coming into contact with single, unaccompanied women. The votes of the older “we don’t need no stinkin’ women” men, combined with the votes of “you better vote ‘no’, buster, because we ain’t payin’ these dues to let the trash in” married men were enough to keep the status quo. Can you say, “internalized oppression?”

    Meanwhile, my female-earned, female-paid tax dollars are going to support the lakefront (the city pays for the maintenance of the lake and beaches) of clubs that prohibit female members by charter. And this is excused by the fact that the city has a beach house open to the public, so “everyone” has access to the lake. A couple of days ago, the city announced the public beach will remain permanently closed due to budget cuts. There goes access for me and my daughter (who don’t count as a “family”).

    And this, in a roundabout way, is why I am vehemently against sex-segregated schools. My feeling is that sex-segregated places reinforce the pre-existing sex-segregation in the arenas of power and opportunity. Male-only schools reinforce sex stereotyping of women, and reinforce cultural mores of women-as-sexual-temptation. Even women (ex: the angry wives of that all-male lake club) get into the act, confusing relative privilege with real, power-holding privilege. I don’t want my daughter educated in an all-female school, because she’s going to be entering a sex-integrated workforce—and I’m not at all convinced that males educated in an all-male environment are going to see her as deserving the same opportunities, or having the same abilities. Fighting stereotypes requires face-to-face time, and a hell of a lot of it. Particularly at early ages, during the formative years.

26. umm… don’t think it is wrong. And am vaguely resentful that simply because I am feminist, I will surely agree with you and offer points to support your point of view.

27. If the club in question is actually the Bohemian Club, I would not say anything for a few years.
    There are two types of members: full members (the really rich guys) and working members…talented guys who are in the fields of theater, art, music, literature, who are there to provide the human infrastructure.
    They are granted membership on a fast track, and pay a reduced fee, and they are expected to perform their craft for free at club events throughout the year. This is an enormously time-consuming obligation, and one which limits family time.
    Some guys enjoy being part of the group, don’t mind the time spent, and if the father in question is one of these no amount of convincing is going to have any effect.
    Many, however, find after a few years that they’ve been had. They are not “members”; they are giving away their knowledge and talents and time so the real members can party big-time.
    My advice is to wait for the grumbling to start.

28. I think Colleen and others’ comments are right on. I would actually start by pointing out that he’s really excited about this and (presumably) feels like it’s an opportunity for him professionally or otherwise — and then asking whether he really thinks it’s reasonable to only allow men to have similar opportunities. And asking what their reasoning is for not allowing female members, as others have also suggested, is a good tack, too — if there is no logical reason (as I’d bet any amount of money there isn’t), then that might help him understand that this is about sexism, and about denying opportunities to women. Good luck!

29. sonia @ 26: While it may not wrong, it’s not beneficial for women in general, nor the cause of feminism. Doubtful that it’s in any way oblique and neutral to the cause though; the whole thread seems to gear towards all-boys clubs being harmful. Can you offer reasons why it wouldn’t be wrong?

30. That’s why the whole “subverting class privilege” bullshit doesn’t wash with me.

    I only threw that out there because I knew people who joined frats, sororities, and networking clubs specifically for the purpose of subverting those organizations through activities ranging from subtle conscious raising to acting undercover to leak information of unsavory and illegal activities to the press and interested DAs/law enforcement/watchdog groups. Thanks to their activities, a number of members involved in these unsavory/illegal activities faced embarrassment and consequent social sanctions at a minimum…and/or were socked with severe legal sanctions including imprisonment.

31. Ah, ok, exholt. I see where you’re coming from now. How I’ve heard the phrase in the past is, “I’ll be different, and I’ll change the culture of the organization by my presence—-it won’t change me, no sirreee!” Which isn’t what tends to happen. Critical mass is necessary to change a culture. In the current climate, not joining these groups has been more of an effective agent of change than joining. If you’ve got the critical mass to do it, subverting from within can be effective.

32. Generally speaking, I don’t see a need for mens-only clubs. Even if it’s a bunch of old guys sitting around planning charity fund raisers, I don’t see how excluding women is beneficial.

    HOWEVER, that being said, I do take the stand that if men cannot have mens-only clubs/spaces, than women shouldn’t either. From a strict equality point of view, it is a bit hypocritical.

33. re: sex segregated education.

    I went a private all girls high school. I went to public grade school. I was very dubious of this whole ‘all girls’ thing being better for women. We were paired, however, with an all male school that lived across the street, and so there were some co-ed classes. I had very positive experiences there, in large part because a good proportion of the faculty were feminists. In college I noted that while very few students spoke in classes, the majority of those were male, and I was one of the few women who would contribute. Yes, the guys at the boys’ school did display a bit of superiority complex, but generally we were equipped to shoot them down and not take their shit.

    Yes, there were way more things going on at the schools. However, I am saying that given the right circumstances this can positively impact a young woman’s development.

34. at Jha 29: Sorry should I have explained more. So a few points.

    1. I have no problems with all-girls groups/clubs/whatnots, in fact I think it is good for young girls in particular (but really everyone) to be in spaces where gender (and all its many many added baggage) is suddenly taken out of the scenerio. Therefore, I really cannot justify why having all-male spaces is wrong (which I don’t think anyway).

    2. I don’t understand “not beneficial for women, nor the cause of feminism”. I feel like “benefiicial” in this case is completely and utterly subjective and up to the whims of priviledges that go beyond gender.

35. “From a strict equality point of view, it is a bit hypocritical.”

    The problem with that, as others have already pointed out, is that it assumes that male and female voices are given equal weight in mixed gender groups, which isn’t true.

    *********

    I don’t think that single gender groups are necessarily bad, just that all-male groups especially tend to not challenge the status quo, for obvious reasons.

    I think one good rule of thumb for deciding whether a single-sex group is “ok” is to ask whether it’s stated purpose is in line with it being single-sex.

    Women-only spaces such as women’s colleges aren’t shy about explaining that their goal is to help women. But part of what is so insidious about groups like the Rotary Club is that their stated purpose says nothing about only helping male business leaders network, and yet they are all male. (Or more technically, were all male. Rotary is now only male dominated and male ruled.) So there’s a harmful assumption, that important business people are always male, that goes unspoken and unchallenged.

    This is how we get what Colleen was talking about. If it was simply a group for male business leaders, and not a group for important business leaders – who, hey, happen to all be men – then the women’s auxiliary wouldn’t be an auxiliary, it would be a sister group – and the two would coordinate together on (mostly) equal footing, and there would be less of the exclusionary “boys club” networking going on.

    Another good rule of thumb is whether or not members of the opposite sex are treated as worthy of being mentors.

    Women’s colleges and girl’s high schools are full of male professors, deans, even presidents. (Although not so much lately when it comes to the last.) This isn’t true of many all-male educational institutions. For example, the all-boys school that recently refused to have their soccer game refereed by a woman.

    And then we have groups like the one my cousins attended, where the goal was to teach them to be proper young ladies. Unlike the boy or girl scouts, the group was not about creating a safe and appealing space for boys/girls but unabashedly about teaching them gender appropriate roles. Which meant an absolute absence of male mentors, rather than just mostly female mentors.

    For peer run groups like the Rotary Club (whether all-male or simply male dominated) the question changes to internal power structures and to what kinds of events and charity work they focus on. Are the leaders always men? Do they address “women’s” issues in their charity work? Or do they ignore them even when they have to go out of their way to do so? Such as ignoring how women’s rights plays into AIDS prevention in Africa, when raising money to help African girls infected with AIDS. (True and long story that prompted me to get up and leave a Fourth of July picnic a few years back before I started ranting back at the idiot who was oblivious to the fact that one might want to say “no” to one’s husband, and how the inability to do this makes many women in Africa more at risk for AIDS.)

    Obviously though, I don’t really know how all this can fairly applied with anti-discrimination laws. Or even if we would want to. I think it’s better and easier to simply require that groups prove the being single sex is necessary to the function and purpose of the group, and at the same time does not create disadvantages for excluded groups, which is what the law says now. (I think.)

36. Worked at a social club that had “allowed” women to join in the 80’s. Nothing about the experience was good – and I was was in a Director position. Sexism, racism, classism, elitism – whatever, it is all there. I saw nothing good come out of that place — there wasn’t a slang minority term that I didn’t hear – or have applied to me. I sold my soul and I am the worse for it.

37. Can transexual or transgendered folk join these men-only clubs/orgs? If not, that’s grounds right there for condemnation.

38. I wouldn’t worry too much about justifying single-sex education for women, at least not on a secondary level. Women’s colleges are rapidly disappearing, either closing up shop or going co-ed. And yes, I am a bitter alumna whose alma mater went co-ed.

39. Can I bring up the fact that The Bohemian Club is not just a run-of-the-mill men’s club, too? It is a playground for the powerful – social and political elite who hide out in the woods for 2 weeks every year and seek to continue their stranglehold on American politics, business, and “tradition.” It strikes me as odd and a bit exploitative, too, that they accept member based on the skills they can offer to the club – I get to join because I am the head of a Fortune 500 and can play and have fun and network, and you get to join because I need you for what you are physically, mentally, or technically capable of. I too am conflicted about gender-exclusionary spaces, but this isn’t an average example of one, and I thought I should bring that into the discussion as well.

40. Wow, I really didn’t expect that my email would actually get published. I was pretty frustrated when I wrote it and just kinda assumed that it was too incoherent for people to understand what I was asking. Thanks to everyone for your suggestions. Whenever I started to think rationally about it, my mind would flash back to him proudly telling my uncle about how the dues weren’t tax-deductible because making them tax-deductible would jeopardize the prohibition against women.

    The class element is very real, too. He was proud of the fact that he got to tell some State Dept mucky-muck what to do. He’s got a college degree, but he could do the work he does now without one. Most people who do it don’t go to college. At the same time, though, I don’t think Mr. State Dept is going to be breaking down the door trying to give my dad a job because he had such a great time hanging lights with him, although I’m not sure my dad realizes that.

    My main problem is this: this isn’t my dad hanging out down at the club with his buddies, who happen to all be male, planning a fundraiser or doing volunteer work. It’s bigger than that.

    Thanks again, everyone. Your suggestions have been really helpful.

41. I’m not quite sure if I ought to open my mouth here, ’cause this is, for me, one of those complex issues where my position is hard to articulate, but I think it bears considering what gender-exclusionary spaces do for the people in them.

    There is a vast difference in effect between female-only spaces and male-only spaces due to the status quo that we are used to, but the basic provision is the same: they provide a respite from the tensions of a mixed-gender society where interactions are often charged, and replace it with a space of like people (although often like-mindedness plays a key role), which regardless of who you are, tends to be a comforting thing.

    I have often heard women, gay people, et cetera, talk about the feeling of entering a woman-only space, or riding the subway to a gay pride event and realizing halfway there that most of the people on the train car were also gay—it’s a wonderful, relaxing, uplifting feeling, and while this would be less pronounced for white men than for marginalized groups, I’m sure it is there, and I honestly don’t begrudge anyone that, even the most favored members of society, because for all that they rule the outside world, they do share it with the rest of us.

    (Note that what I’ve just said applies only to occasional separatism, not to active bigotry or to anything that gives its members an advantage in the public sphere over non-members.)

    In fact, I’d go so far as to argue that such spaces can be helpful: they provide security, and a person who feels secure is less likely to react negatively to others the way people will often lash out when they feel threatened. Obviously this is anecdotal, but the Masons I know are, as a whole, by far the most respectful to women of any men I’ve encountered. I have no idea how much of that is based on the organization’s moral code (or the fact that most of the Masons I know are also members of the Order of the Eastern Star and thus self-selecting for the ability to deal well with women) and can’t speak for any other male-only organization, but in my experience they are wonderful at treating women as people, as equals, and as superiors where rank and position dictates as much.

    Incidentally, the all-male nature of the Freemasons has been cracked on a few occasions, and in fact there are lodges (sort of acknowledged but not recognized by the main organization) that admit women as members. The issue (aside from the sexism that I’m sure is present somewhere) is that they function under rules handed down since the beginning of the Lodge, things that are unchangeable (think like the U.S. Constitution and the importance we ascribe to whether a law or policy is constitutional), and there is the question of whether “man” can be held to have been meant in the sense of “mankind” when it was written; whether the founders actively meant to exclude women or just didn’t think to include them due to the culture back then; in great part they are, essentially, stuck with rules that cannot be changed, can only be reinterpreted, and need to be reinterpreted in good faith, which takes some doing, and in the absence of active sexism I don’t begrudge them whatever time it takes to accomplish it. Yes, I wish I could become a Mason, but in the meantime I don’t trouble myself, or them, with the fact that I can’t. I have enemies when they’re shooting, basically, and these are not.

    Oh, incidentally, the Order of the Eastern Star does rather more than make casseroles for the Masons (which, in my experience, we don’t do at all, though the Masons have been known to make us pancakes). The various organizations related to the Masons, the Eastern Star, Shriners, Job’s Daughters, DeMolay, et cetera, are referred to as the “fraternal family” of Freemasonry, and I say from experience and from a feminist perspective that they live up to that word, family—all that it means and most of what it should mean. There is room for improvement, but I cannot and will not say that the gender-exclusive nature of the central organization overpowers the benefits of its existence.

    Obviously, it depends on the organization, and on the people in it at a given location—I’ve encountered some casual conservativism that makes me want to hurl, as I’ve encountered it elsewhere—but as a general rule, I find that a Masonic symbol on a ring or bumper sticker generally has a good person attached to it, and I would count it as a net positive if a potential boyfriend (or anything else) was one.

42. I belong to an all male organization.

    I’m in my early 40s. My job is demanding. Prior to joining this organization, my life lacked a sense of balance. I wasn’t integrated into a community. I felt isolated. I was unhappy.

    I was approached by this organization because of a particular skill I had. My life now has more of a sense of balance and community. The single sex nature of the organization is integral to its success. I believe that most of the men in this organization are good husbands. This organization gives them a couple hours one night a week where they can take a break from their role as husband and/or father. That’s not to say that they don’t treasure these roles, its simply that taking a break from anything from time to time is a healthy thing.

    I’m sure many men benefit economically from all male organizations. I may be the exception, but I go out of my way NOT to forge business relationships at this organization because I don’t want to jeopardize these relationship (akin to family members not going into business together).

    I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind with this post. I do hope that it may open others to consider that there may be more motivating a person to join an all male organization than climbing the corporate ladder.

43. I have a major beef with single gender colleges, middle schools and high schools. The lone exceptions are the all-male Morehouse and the all-female Spelman, which are located across the street from each other.

    First and foremost, I think it is an affront to Title IX and the Education Equity Act of 1972, which is yet to be discussed here. I remember reading up about that on the Feminist Majority’s web page a few years back.

    I also have a major beef with single-gender clubs since hearing about the Augusta National Golf Club’s men-only policy nearly six years ago — I live in Williston, South Carolina — only 38 miles from the Augusta National. To this day, they still have that policy.

    Sometimes single-gender spaces are created as safe havens (see women-only game guilds on Mighty Ponygirl’s blog from August 6, 2007 and in comments responding to the topic). But more often than not, single-gender space are made because the creator hates the opposite gender. While men are far more likely to create men-only space out of hatred for women, I’ve seen women create women-only spaces solely because they hate men.

44. This is ridiculous. This is a free society where people can form their own clubs and hobbies however they see fit. To trample on that is to trample on the constitution… not that feminists have ever had a problem doing that before.
    Charles

45. I would tend to agree with some of the insights offered that this is making a mountain out of a mole hill. I personally have spent most of my life working for female superiors and I don’t see that the concept of a male-only organization is either misogynistic OR a means of networking men-only into corporate boardrooms in the average organization. Fortune 500 companies may be an exception, but you are talking a fraction of one percent of men there, people.

    On the other hand, I resent the fact that I, as a man, can be barred from sacrosanct “women-only” spaces when it’s coupled with the expectation that I have NO right to enjoy “men-only” spaces. As a gay man, I was repeatedly barred from a lesbian-feminist bar where I was *asked* to help teach two-stepping, yet if I want to immerse myself at a bar where I can mix with potential dates–OTHER GAY MEN–I have NO right to that because, apparently, we might be carrying on some social networking that will deprive a woman of economic opportunity or social standing. I can’t work out in a gym where the majority of (straight) men won’t feel the need to display for the benefit of the cute blonde women in step class, but YOU feel it’s perfectly fine to insulate YOURSELVES from it by having women-only gyms. And that’s perfectly legal and acceptable to you.

    I think that you are at the point where the vast majority of men are well-versed and experienced with the concept of gender equality–we’ve lived through non-money-making sports, like wrestling, being eliminated so our colleges can field women’s soccer and field hockey, and you are at the point of diminishing return. It’s time for women to take responsibility for themselves and for their own advancement without attempting to tear down further the ability for men to BE men WITH men. So get the bug out of your behind and start worrying about what you’re doing for your BOYS’ well-being as much as you worry about your girls. You can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip.

46. Dean,

    I think that spaces specifically for gay men are a bit different than generic men-only clubs. Because people who are not heterosexual are a minority, they need safe spaces. The same goes for other minorities, including women and POC.

    Women-only gyms are safe spaces. One of the problems with our society is that heterosexual men feel entitled to stare at and hit on women, regardless of whether or not the woman expresses interest. This has happened to me, although not at a gym, and it can be absolutely frightening. Another problem with our society is that women are taught to feel ashamed of our bodies, especially when we’re around men. Creating gyms exclusively for women does not solve either of those problems, but it does alleviate the discomfort that women often feel in coed spaces, and it creates an atmosphere of support.

    I guess the point is, generic men’s clubs such as the Freemasons and the Rotary Club are not safe spaces; they are old boys’ clubs. That is the difference. I hope that we can eventually get to where safe spaces are no longer necessary, but as of now, that is not the case.

47. rah: “The same goes for other minorities, including women and POC.”

    Women are not a minority, and they never have been. They were marginalised in the past, but that’s not the same thing. Women have always had the power to affect legislation and the social direction of society as a whole. Black people were denied any power to do so, and Gays were criminalised.

    “I guess the point is, generic men’s clubs such as the Freemasons and the Rotary Club are not safe spaces; they are old boys’ clubs.”

    And there are plenty of womens clubs that are not “safe spaces” either, just an exclusive club for the girls. The point is, regardless of who needs the “spaces” more, or for what reason; when you say that people are not entitled to their own space but you are entitled to yours, it’s hypocrisy. As you say, perhaps one day they won’t be neccessary, but until then, they have to exist for both.

48. I think there are couple of points that are extremely accurate.
    1. These “networking clubs” are part of the cornerstone to the functional patriarchy.
    2. Safe spaces are needed for people who are queer, women, etc.
    3. But at the same time when exclusionary policies are designed it is best if they are designed without falling into the same traps as these “networking clubs”. (The single best example to this day is queer womens spaces that exclude trans women).

    I mention the last one for very clear reasons. The “womens space” argument has been used by those who seek to exclude trans women numerous times, often for reasons that are insensitive, bigoted, and out of touch. Thankfully I live in DC, where many of the womens spaces in the queer community (where it is often the worst) and outside that very consciously are trans inclusive.

    I am all for creating safe spaces. They are necessary and they are needed. But in creating these safe places they must be done in a way that does not exclude groups who should be included in those same safe spaces for the same desire and need for safety. Safe spaces should be safe for all people who may need that space. Also we must not create hierarchies that present themselves as problematic. This has happened in the queer community (see HRC, why dyke march started, etc), the feminist community (see the history of exclusionary behavior of women of color and trans women during the second wave), and many others. The key to safe spaces is to avoid exclusion in ways that may be harmful to those who should not be excluded and can benefit from those same safe spaces and to avoid creating harmful heirarchies.

    These clubs are old boys clubs, they are the backbone of the hierarchical society. They are entities that keep the elite male power structure in place. Lest we forget the Ku Klux Klan at one point was legitimized in the same way.

    There is a difference between safe places, and places which are nothing more than devices used to keep in place a power structure that is inherantly harmful to minorities and to women. The queer spaces, especially the womens ones, represent really the only place I have to go where I do feel safe. So preserving safe spaces, is very important.

Comments are currently closed.