No replies, just negs. I assume at the moment that you have a wrong conception of MRAs and are attributing the MRA label to certain other types of groups.
So everyone who doesn't believe in so called "positive discrimination" is an MRA automatically? Huh? You'll have to show me the logic you used to get from one statement to the other.
In other words, there are some MRAs that minimise discrimination against women, so you must do the same in opposition? Why not instead lend support to MRAs that don't do this, and attack all marginalization?
Since this is a reply to my comment, I gather you think it's a response, but I'm not seeing the connection. There are a lot of reasons women choose not to talk about gender discrimination, and I respect those choices. But that doesn't mean it's not an issue, either broadly or in this specific case.
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.
The link I posted did actually say that we shouldn't have affirmative action for men in female dominated spaces and should instead try to get rid of the idea of gender roles full-stop in some vague and incompletely defined fashion. (The reason I linked that response in particular was because I read it at the time when the original Atlantic piece came out.)
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.
Seriously though, I am not a proponent of gender restricted events, but I have not commented on this particular thread because I wanted to watch the content first, and it's not really the place for such discussions.
That said, others may feel differently, having not participated in prior conversations on this topic, and thus, the label you've applied to opponents is unnecessary and unfair.
Do you believe that no gender discrimination in favour of men occurs in the rest of the industry? Are you against any particular act of discrimination that you happen to witness, or are you stating a preference for a system in which no discrimination occurs?
(I, too, am against gender discrimination, which is why I am for these.)
a) Doesn't demonstrate that it enforces anything. The evidence is better explained by the fact that more women want to go the latter. Do you understand what enforcing segregation means?
b) But for all your generality, you've not given any evidence of such bricks or detrimental effects of such groups.
c) Why? Is it any more relevant here?
"A LGBT JQuery group is questionable." Thanks for weighing in on that. It's good to know we can count on straight advice for what groups are good and what are questionable.
But this is clearly not even remotely the case in this story. All of the defendants covered in the story had explicitly discriminatory policies. What motivated you to write that groups seeking to eliminate inequalities that harm men "mostly seem to be a reaction against attempts to address institutionalized misogyny" in response to this story? Why did you feel this was remotely relevant to bring up in response to explicit discrimination?
Sure and if someone advocated for violence against those groups they should be banned. But “men are not women” does not advocate for violence as I’m sure you’re aware of.
reply