On the same token, a specifically male only group tends to get crucified. It's more of a confusion of double standards, perceived or otherwise. Sure, most groups end up de-facto male only, but you never see groups actively advertised as male only.
This may be the case, but they don't accept males. It's in the FAQ, which I find unsettling. This is not acceptable in almost any other setting, but I don't see any outrage.
> Women exclusive groups, though, do send a very
> conflicting message that it's okay to exclude a gender.
Please clarify... You're saying that the currently enfranchised group (males) will get further encouragement for their exclusionary behaviors because the disenfranchised group (women) exclude males from some of their activities? Does't this completely ignore the current power imbalance between the two groups?
Same goes for virtually any space that used to be male-only. It's become socially unacceptable (and often illegal) to exclude females from anything, while it's still perfectly OK to exclude males.
The problem and hypocrisy is that saying "only men allowed" will get you tarred and feathered, while saying "only women allowed" will get you showered with praise about how courageous and bold you are.
The point of exclusivity is creating a safe space for women; for men most spaces are safe spaces - I can assert that as a male.
It doesn't mean, though, that we can deal with toxic masculinity without men being involved. I do remember seeing some serious effort within Thoughtworks (and I haven't even worked there) to discuss gender issues without excluding men, so it's not a impossible thing.
I've found that true for many things though which don't make sense if you put men instead of women or white instead of black. Like "This entrepreneur group is for women only", change women to men it becomes extremely sexist. I guess that's just how the world works.
I know what you're trying to get at here, that forming a 'women-only' group is selecting against men by allowing them to join, and that selection isn't fair.
Cmon, be real. There are discussion groups that select against other parties. Some of these groups are socially acceptable (cancer survivors, people in debt, women's issues). Other's might not be socially acceptable (excluding people based on their skin color).
In this case, a group to discuss women's issues is socially acceptable to a majority of people. If you're unhappy with this standard then go campaign against it somewhere else, don't try to poo-poo the OP's app.
One interesting question this article brings up is -- is there a legitimate place for gender-segregated institutions in our society?
It's a bit ironic that people will justify women-only spaces (e.g. a train car[1] or taxi[2]) as creating a safe space for women, but in the same breath deny the legitimacy of traditionally male spaces as being sexist and degrading to women, e.g. the push to make fraternities and sororities co-ed [3][4].
IMO, men have their own insecurities and worries, often with respect to their relationship with women, and having a 'safe space' to work out those issues is not only useful, but symmetrically fair.
It is a private organization is probably why; so they are allowed to discriminate. In government if they had a female issues oriented event there would be a foot note stating that men are welcome to attend.
edit: to respond to the below comment, I don't think it is socially acceptable. It just isn't something that affects people too adversely yet so while they may shake their head and fire off a tweet no one really cares enough to bring significant pressure to bear.
a) It enforces gender division. Can you say what evidence you have that such groups prevent women from accessing the mixed-gender groups. Or are you merely saying that it is unfair that men don't go to the women's group?
b) It is another brick in the wall. Can you say what evidence you have that such groups make it more difficult for women to participate in the workforce, or are otherwise blocked from achieving their potential? Or do you mean that it might make it more difficult for men to access everything they want to?
c) "Why not solve the problem" Do you have any evidence that such groups do not contribute to more participation in a community.
I'm not a woman, but I've heard similar complaints against LGBT groups. LGB people shouldn't have their club because it excludes straight people, etc. But I can vouch for the fact that such groups form a welcoming platform to enter wider community participation, provide support, and a way of resourcing people who face similar problems in the wider community. Admittedly that's all anecdotal personal experience, but I'd need to see some more concrete evidence that it is counter-productive.
"You can't discriminate based on anything related to gender"
Oh, okay... So affirmative-action programs to empower women and other groups are not discriminating against men due to their gender? Interesting double-standard they have there.
I do. However, I'm not sure how that means that a subset of the majority cannot also have their own exclusive spaces while also allowing a minority to have the same. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against a woman only support group and find the idea of Leap great. What is the problem you're stating, in this case, that a woman only group can solve that one comprised of men and women could not? Genuine question.
If the answer is "Men cannot understand" that's fair, but a terrible simplification. You'll find most men are at least willing to try to understand, and by vilifying the majority and hiding in a smaller exclusionary group you may just end up worse off than before.
reply