Sun, surf, and segregation

[beetiger]

I’m back from a week of pure escapist lounging in Key West. I managed to get plenty of sun without collecting a sunburn, plenty of water while only getting slightly queasy once or twice, several slices of excellent Key Lime pie, the opportunity to commune with both stray cats and chickens and captive butterflies, and my recommended weekly allowance of drag shows. The week’s soundtrack was overall excellent, though lediva did lament the lack of Beach Boys. Most importantly, I got a well-needed big ol’ chunk of high-quality time with lediva, who is just an amazingly wonderful person to be around.

We stayed at Pearl’s Rainbow, a women-only resort in the old part of Key West, and a perfect home base for wandering around. It was quirky and comfortable and populated by older-than-Spring-Breakers lesbian couples, who lounged around a pool surrounded by tropical plants, sunning themselves. It was cozy and safe feeling and just right. I’m not sure why part of me feels, on a gut level, that these people are more like me than the perfect-in-a-bikini 22 year-old Spring Breakers on the boats, without talking to either of them. It’s all physical stereotyping, and it makes me feel vaguely ashamed when I catch myself at it. Sometimes I feel like a real fake in lesbian spaces, me with the wedding ring and the phallic talisman tucked into my clothing and the sort of straightish look and the determinedly ambisexual spirit.

In general, I’m kind of conflicted about the fact that I really enjoy women’s spaces, gay or straight. I know so many gender-variant people who’d love to be welcomed into that kind of community, and just can’t for physical reasons manage it. I know people in male bodies who are much more safe/caring/loving/add-your-own-stereotype-here than some women that I know. I’ve been in women’s groups where people are gossipy, catty, and just not very nice, and ones where the main topic of conversation is male-bashing. And I can’t really put my finger firmly on what the difference in womanspace is, something that feels energetically different, something about the gender sameness that matters, even though by all reasonable rights it shouldn’t. Nevertheless I really crave it, especially in a spiritual/religious context.

Now I’m back in the office, with a lab bay filled with about seventeen quadrillion boxes that got sent to me during the week, a dusting of snow on the grass outside, and no increase in desire to hang out with my coworkers, whom I’m not sure noticed that I was gone. Life goes on.

Comments

[beetiger.livejournal.com]

I really wish I'd saved a copy of that challenge to single-gender spaces I sent off to aynjel's friend.

I'd be curious to see it, if you find it or can reconstruct it. I'm sure you've got more to say than "it's discrimatory and I want in!", which is the usual argument. I think we've only discussed the topic briefly once before, and I was hard to understand at the time because I was wearing my new fangs.

And as I said above, I often feel quite torn that womenspace is so primally emotionally satisfying to me, because on an intellectual level the concept kind of disappoints.

[queenofstripes.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you've got more to say than "it's discrimatory and I want in!"

I wish I were as sure as you. I can't help but feel they misidentify the thing they're trying to sort for. While that sorting is useful even if flawed, it does a hell of a lot of harm to people like me -- not just in terms of missed opportunities, but of the false distinctions it perpetuates. There's still ample room for compromise, but short of things like TransBound, the feminist community doesn't seem to waste any time worrying about whether their postgendered allies are getting the door slammed in their faces. As I pointed out to Sev (Aynjel's friend), I am not a mere auxiliary to feminism, nor a camp follower. Feminism is the intellectual root of all gender criticism in modern society (AFAIK?). There is no masculine alternative except for queer theory, which a) is an academic offshoot of feminism anyhow and b) doesn't really represent my own goals or identity in most forms. Women's spaces are the only spaces where some of these issues are being robustly discussed. If I must start a group of my own out in the parking lot... so be it, but the feminist movement will lose itself a potential supporter and I'll lose even more power.

I don't see why it's all right to filter out the entirety of the male sex regardless of behavior, because a few feel threatened by our presence as a whole, due of the actions or attitudes of a subset of people -- people who I, need it be pointed out, am not. It feels, in a very literal way, like visiting the sins of the father upon the child. Though it's the utter right of any citizen to operate or patronize any private group any way they like -- I even support the right of the Scouts to exclude homosexuals -- I think such exclusions on broad biological bases are socially counterproductive. Due to negative reinforcement and happenstance, I was wary around African-Americans for years. I was bullied and beaten regularly by a small group of them. The sociological forces that produced their behavior are real, widespread, and persistent. But how would you feel if I attended a whites-only vacation resort, or attended whites-only discussions about violence, to make sure that I would never repeat the experience?

If you can't make the distinction on the basis of real, consequential traits -- don't make them. Sev compares her desire to be in the company of women, for instance, to her desire to be in the company of her "favorite freaks." But these favored individuals have presumably been individually selected on the basis of their individual personalities, wits, and interests, correct? I do feel that, inevitable though it may be, to make the decision to exclude on the basis of such a broad, malleable trait as gender is "prejudice" by dictionary definition. It is a form of sexism that reinforces gender stereotypes and treats people as nothing more than their participation in a gender -- or their presumed participation. The women's movement presumes that feminine experience is unavailable to males, and I hold myself and my online experiences as evidence, however provisional and limited, that this is simply not the case. Though I retain a great many archetypally masculine traits -- some of which I'm sure would justly be unwelcomed in a feminist "safe space" -- how much lessened would those traits be, were I granted more opportunities to replace them with feminine ones? Once again... give us an "honorary womyn test" -- via ScanTron, if you must -- at the very least. Expand the definitions or collapse them, just don't presume that they are the things the women's movement asserts they are unless you are quite ready to defend the point to me at length. (Er, not directed at you, Bee, or at anyone in particular -- just possessed by the spirit of Emma Goldman again. ;) ) Otherwise, I'll continue believing that the feminist movement is, indeed, one of the very things that perpetuates and preserves the masculine traits to which it objects.

[queenofstripes.livejournal.com]

FWIW, here's the entry that specifically inspired me to contact Aynjel's friend. You can probably imagine why it has me in a sour mood today, though I don't hold it against her, or you... Her entries on single-gender spaces provoked me a bit less. But I'm still intensely uncomfortable being spoken of as if oppression -- or even danger -- somehow mystically radiated off of me because I was born with a chromosome that ostensibly favors me in a number of enterprises, or predisposes me towards a number of behaviors, in which I don't even have an interest.

[queenofstripes.livejournal.com]

And frankly, yes, it does offend me that I would attain at least grudging admittance to some of these gatherings if I subjected myself to months of hormone treatments and plastic surgery, as if the shape of my cheekbones, the slope of my larynx, and the particular variety of hormonal goo secreted through my brain could somehow determine my worthiness to participate. You know I despise that brand of biological reductionism. I'm almost tempted to make a classist argument here -- I'm uninsured, lower-middle class, and already in the work force (as opposed to a more fluid lifestyle like school or retirement), so it would be prohibitively difficult for me to have a full medical sex change at this stage of my life -- no matter how much I would embrace the change. So I should be locked out because, not to put too fine a point on it, I can't afford the admission fee? I've heard of clubs changing different amounts to women and men at the door... but $40,000 versus nothing is a bit steep, don't you think?

[beetiger.livejournal.com]

Well spoken. More on this later, if I have more energy...but I just wanted to state briefly that I feel really differently about primarly political or academic spaces such as the "feminist movement", which I strongly feel should be open to anyone with something to add, and primarily social spaces like a resort or a religious or sports organization. You seem to be putting these two together.

[secanth.livejournal.com]

(Smile) Just a side note, but if it were ME going on vacation, I think the only robust discussions I'd be having would be whether to hit the beach, the pool, or the hot tub.

That said, I think you're right about there being a difference. As an almost 50, bi, involved with another female person...well, I feel vastly uncomfortable *showing* that affection in 'public'. My love is even more inhibited about it. When I read the description, my first thought was "Oh, that would be wonderful!". I'd like to feel comfortable enough to 'spoon' with my love...but unless it is someplace specifically designated as such and that I KNOW is safe, I can't do it.

Yes, organizations are one thing...but a private vacation is something else. And I think I should have the option of going somewhere I'm comfortable enjoying myself. If no one provides that...well, hiding in hotels rooms to cuddle instead of holding hands down by the pool is a lot less fun.

[queenofstripes.livejournal.com]

Here's a question for you, Secanth... Would you be afraid to show your affection for F******** in front of me? What about in front of Runnerwolf's circle of friends, both genders? What about at a con? What about at a queer convention? What about, I dunno, in front of a bunch of drag queens? What about at a mostly-gay Mardi Gras in Key West? Cripes, how about Capitol Hill, Seattle? ;)

The point is, there are much, much better ways to select for the sort of people who won't threaten or harass you than to cut out an entire chromosome-coupling. These are all cultural things, not biological things, and let's face it... nothing will make you 100% safe, sure as hell not keeping out a bunch of people based on their biological sex, some of whom might have the exact same benign intentions as you and your lover.

The message I get from Pearl's Rainbow is "we're keeping out the men, lucky you." But does that really make you safe? Is there anything stopping, say, a pair of evangelists from the 700 Club from coming in and spoiling your vacation? Can you predict how well a person will welcome your affection for your partner based on their gender? Look me in the eye next time we see each other, and tell me that you think Rik or I need to be secluded from you and Rita because we're a threat. I think there's a better way.

[secanth.livejournal.com]

Fair enough question. Would I be hesitant to show affection to Falconcat in front of you? No. Would she? Yes In front of my kid's circle of friends? No. Would she? Yes....as to the others, I've been to cons with her, and to my recollection, the most we've ever done in public is giggle. I've never been to any of the others, so I couldn't tell you.

The point is that I should be able to take a vacation somewhere both I and my partner feel comfortable. Yes, safety is illusionary, and people like you and Rik are not a threat to us. Logically, both Falconcat and I know that, accept that...but there's a world of difference between knowing it's safe logically and *feeling* safe.

[queenofstripes.livejournal.com]

The point is that I should be able to take a vacation somewhere both I and my partner feel comfortable.

So should I, Secanth, so should I. And that's not an option to me right now. Nor is it the owners of Heaven's Pearl obliged to provide that space -- any more than a turn-of-the-century country club owner is obliged to let those fractious, hot-blooded Jews, Italians, and Negroes onto his private property. But I'm afraid I'm going to have to stick it to FC here. Why? Why would she be uncomfortable? If it's because she's only seen me in the flesh 2-3 times and she's shy because she doesn't know how I react to things, that's one thing. If she has specific evidence for a particular stereotypically masculine trait of mine that would make her uncomfortable, like my temper, that's fine. If the scent of testosterone screws up her tactile nervous system, that's fine. :p But if she'd be uncomfortable cuddling with you around me because I'm biologically male, then I'm going to have to say that I don't think she has a very good rational basis for that discomfort. And I could totally, utterly sympathize with her past experiences if they've led her to that discomfort -- I'd be OK with an individual, especially a friend, pleading that the basis of their behavior was irrational and would I please respect it anyhow. If my male body or ~40% male personality bothered her, I would respect that. But supporting people's irrational prejudices, no matter how much those prejudices should be tolerated in the name of friendship and respect, is NOT appropriate behavior for a business, nor a government, nor any other institution. Again, if it's indecent for a business to cater to people's racial or classist prejudices and keep "those rabble" out, it's equally indecent to keep "those pigs" out no matter how much more comfortable it would make people with their prejudices. I'm sorry to have to say it in such blunt terms -- you know my affection for Mom-3 and Mom-4 is unshakeable and I would never hold a difference of opinion against you -- but I feel very strongly about this because it affects my daily life and my prospects for happiness as surely as the converse affects yours and FC's. There is more that unites than divides us and I am not so different from you.

[secanth.livejournal.com]

I realize you feel strongly, PV. But in this case...yes, there are reasons. I'm not going into her secrets here, but she has more than enough justification to distrust men. There ARE things you don't know about her...or me. For her...and for me...such fears are not totally irrational. As I said, I was speaking out of knowledge of my relationship. Yes, you should have just as much right as I do to be comfortable...but keep in mind that not all of us CAN be comfortable in the same situations.

Re:

[queenofstripes.livejournal.com]

They ARE irrational, Secanth, because I AM NOT THEM. It is IRRATIONAL to ascribe characteristics which you KNOW somebody does not possess because they happen to belong to other people who share a superficial characteristic with them, however widespread. And again, I still sympathize 100% with her concerns, and do not demand that she or anyone else recover from them on my timetable for my convenience, but I still think it is an utterly misguided and damaging social policy to reinforce those concerns rather than dealing with their root causes. If you can find me one thing that inheres in my Y chromosome or my body in general that makes me a credible threat to do whatever it is that justifies her distrust in men, I invite you to tell me what it is. Otherwise, you are calling me something that I am not, and I will not accept that.

Furthermore, I still haven't heard anyone stand up and tell me why, since black people have done things just as heinous to white people as whatever happened to your lover, and vice versa, it is not just as acceptable to create whites-only spaces -- or, for that matter, men-only spaces.

Secanth, you know that a great many of Runnerwolf and my friends from CWRU were abused or traumatized by their parents -- people 30 and over. And despite that, we love a great many people 30 and over. Imagine the coolest science fiction convention in the country, one to which all your friends were going, one at which certain things happened which did not and probably could not happen anywhere else in the world, things which are very close to your heart... Now, imagine that because of a few people who had been traumatized by the actions of older people there, the entire convention decided to bar all people over thirty.

How would that make you feel, Secanth? How would it make you feel to be told that, simply because of something which you can't help and take for granted about yourself, something you'd accepted and had never really had a problem with before, you are unworthy of our company at this convention? Wouldn't it sting just a little? Wouldn't you have to wonder just a bit why lil' ol' you is suddenly this big threat? Can't you imagine that, just for a moment, your self-confidence would be addled and all the stereotypes and fears associated with age would come knocking at the door, that you're too authoritarian, too prudish, too outmoded, just plain too obsolete? And if you failed to fend those fears off, can't you imagine that you might walk around for the rest of your life wondering if, no matter all the nice things your younger friends say about you, if some of these stereotypes aren't true?

[secanth.livejournal.com]

PV, there are some things I will NOT discuss in a public forum. And why do you assume it only happened to FC? Let us just say that some kinds of abuse provoke fears that are NOT rational, and will not go away simply because we wish them to, and MAY not go away after years of therapy. We don't stop fearing simply because someone says "Oh, gee...you know I'M no threat"....espically when it's a line you've heard before from your abuser. No, you are not an abuser, and I am quite aware you are not that kind of person. And I'm sure it hurts to be 'lumped' into the same catagory. It hurts ME when I'm judged to be 'lazy, slovenly, stupid, and no willpower' simply because I'm fat. It hurt when I was in high school and I was considered 'unworthy' of anything but being teased and laughed at and it hurts now. It hurts when someone assumes I'm a stupid hillbilly. It hurts when someone assumes I'm to damn old to understand anything.

But some traumas go far too deep to go away just because we wish them to....some take years of therapy just to LIVE with, much less overcome. And if you happen to be able to turn back time, by all means go back and deal with the root causes...because otherwise you have to deal with the results. Or rather, she and I deal with the results. I'd love to be able to make it all go away, let us both forget it, and move on...but sometimes it doesn't work that way.

Safety and Comfort

[beetiger.livejournal.com]

Unlike a lot of the women who choose women's spaces, I don't actually feel unsafe in mixed-gender spaces, or particularly safer in women's spaces. As I mentioned above, I've been in women's spaces that have gotten really ugly; no guarantee of safety there.

It's a strange thing in the nature of gender-segregated spaces that people who are excluded by them seem to "want in" much more than other types of private spaces separated out by interest. No one complains that they can't go to Republican conventions when they are Democrats, or that Catholics aren't welcome at a Jewish temple. It just wouldn't be of interest.

I wish I knew why gender is so core to our culture, whether there is something existentially different about that parameter. I know women's spaces feel emotionally different from general spaces, or spaces that are divided up in any other way I've experienced, in a way that I really like. Maybe it's just the standards of behavior, I don't know. Maybe, given our culture, it's the only way for the some women who are scared and inhibited by their relationships to men to act like themselves.

I've been to pagan events which were not technically women-only, but which had very small numbers of men at them. It didn't ruin the space for me. So I suppose if we could figure out how to build feminine spaces that just were boring enough to men that only a few of them would show, it might be okay.:) (Though ask Bard. He's been at some of these things from that perspective, and I daresay he didn't find them that friendly.)

I would like to see more openness to people who really believe they belong in women's spaces, but who don't physically fit the mold, transwomen who don't pass well or sissybois who actively pursue a feminine identity all the time. Women's space, to me, *is* a psychological thing, but it comes from the psychology of consistently living as a woman in one's mind and in our culture, not from having a vagina.

I often wonder whether, in that perfect world down the line, there would still be a place for places for people who share something to gather away from people who don't share that thing, for a time. I think there would, though that place wouldn't be a place that collects taxes or massive advertising dollars or any of those things that make excluded folks feel like the need to bash down the doors.

Just someplace where I could hear women's voices singing.

Re: Safety and Comfort

[queenofstripes.livejournal.com]

It's a strange thing in the nature of gender-segregated spaces that people who are excluded by them seem to "want in" much more than other types of private spaces separated out by interest. No one complains that they can't go to Republican conventions when they are Democrats, or that Catholics aren't welcome at a Jewish temple. It just wouldn't be of interest.

Now, I don't think it's that simple in my case. This isn't just a matter of "the grass is always greener." I'll spare you going over my resume. ;p And as a matter of fact, not only have I always wanted to see Mecca, I felt an insatiable curiosity about what was in the Temple's Holy of Holies ever since I read the Old Testament... and I found myself filled with a seething annoyance many years ago when I read about that one Greek Orthodox temple that even female livestock, much less female humans, are excluded from...

And I don't think that utopia would mean eliminating all the places where people who share something to share it in the absence of people who don't understand or embrace it. I think it would mean those places would represent that think they seek in a more pure and just form, free of illusions and easy answers about what that thing truly is. I think it would mean being able to truly know the nature of each would-be participant, well enough to know whether they're a threat to this holiness, without making inevitably cruel and baseless guesswork from their external appearances. Again... if you believe that the thing you sought at Heaven's Pearl was a chromosome, a hormone, or a genital mode, you are welcome to make that case.

Some other time, maybe in person, we'll discuss the DScream and our own highly successful experiments in boredom and obfuscation as a filtering tool. :)

I sold out my gender and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.

[queenofstripes.livejournal.com]

And more to the point... where do you think I would fit in better? Some Walt-Whitmanesque bathhouse for bears in the Bay Area? A hard-core leather-biker bar on Castro Street? The mainstream gay community despises femmy males even more than the feminist community does. Where, precisely, do I go? (And that also raises the question of why masculine traits are despised in straight men, yet celebrated and accepted among dykes... yet feminine traits in men are also celebrated among feminists, and despised among queers. Is it masculine traits, really, that are being selected out here? Or something more arbitrary?)

Thankfully, there are places opening up, like TransBound, the furry cons... and whatever kink communities I can find whose wealth doesn't cause me as much class discomfort as the male-dominated world causes some gender discomfort. :p But interestingly, back to the "academic spaces" thing, where the hell are we in the theory world? Are the mainstream academic feminists possibly as much out of touch, as guilty of chauvinism and denial of the postgender message, as the previous male-dominated academic world was about feminism? Is there just a cycle of oppression going on? Looking at how each generation of the sexual-minority movement treats the following generation, I think it's at least a question worth asking...

Re: I sold out my gender and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.

[secanth.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't touch that first question with a ten foot ... urm ... pole. (Mainly because my knowlege of such places is sketchy at best...though I think the leather bar is probably out)

I'm not disagreeing with you...yes, there should be spaces we ALL feel comfortable with, whatever our gender identities may be. (both physical and/or mental) And I know virtually nothing about the academic community. I was speaking purely from the perspective of MY relationship. But shouldn't there be a place where those of us who aren't all that open can *start*? For some of us, I think we'd have to 'work our way up' to actually being comfortable with everyone. (Sort of the 'If I can be open *here*, maybe I can ....' version.)

Re: I sold out my gender and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.

[queenofstripes.livejournal.com]

Yup, and again... I don't begrudge FC her need for "safe space," though I think it's the right thing to do for her to try to get over it at whatever pace she can -- and I think that exposure to harmless, degendered swishyboys like me is a pretty good step in the process. :) And yes, having a place that acknowledges lesbian sexuality is better than having nothing but mixed-gendered spaces where masculinity is the default gender-in-power. (I cover this in the 12+ pages of gender-theory rant I wrote on the commute today, might transcribe tonight if I have time.)

Again, I'd be OK with the existence of women-only places if there were real hope of getting feminine-only places. But I think that the theories on which modern feminism bases its defense of these one-gender spaces actually inhibits the development of mixed-gender spaces based on avoiding the problems of masculinity without excluding all males. And I think that's wrong.

I can forgive individual errors here, and I can even forgive people who passively perpetuate the problem in the process of doing other good things, but I can't forgive people who think there's no problem at all.

It's what I call the "Barbie Doctrine" again, and it plagues modern social theory discussions. Most people can't get past the idea of "You're criticizing Practice X, so you must be saying that Practice X is always evil and wrong." It's like, when I try to tell conservative ultra-straight people that Barbie dolls perpetuate bad body image, they fume, "Why do you hate Barbie? It's just a freakin' toy!" But I don't hate Barbie. I think giving a single kid a single Barbie doll is pretty harmless, and I don't begrudge Mattel the right to make a fashion doll with totally unearthly body proportions. :) It is, in itself, pretty harmless. But the cumulative effect of all the toy companies and all the anoxeric little plastic girls in the world is not harmless. It would make for a better world if Mattel at least also made dolls that had "pudgycute pagan chick" proportions and used its PR machine to teach such girls that they, too, were worthy and adorable. It's the refusal of the toy companies to acknowledge the problem or use their power to solve it which is a moral crime.

I have no more problem with Heaven's Pearl than I do with my niece having a full collection of Polly Pocket dolls. She's not a little automaton, she's a bright, assertive and clear-eyed girl with a strong sense of self and a grandmother who's already teaching her not to take any shit from anybody. :D She'll be fine, and if Polly Pockets make her happy, I'm glad she has them. And if Bee and Diva enjoyed their week at Heaven's Pearl, that more than justifies their existence. But all the same... if the feminist community as a whole refuses to deal with the issue of us feminine males, the 5th columnists among the patriarchy who have sold out our gender for nothing but a handful of patronizing apologies, then everybody who runs a women's-only space will have to answer for our fates.

Re: I sold out my gender and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.

[secanth.livejournal.com]

I think 46 years of trying to deal is sufficent to prove she's like to. I never said it was right to have JUST places like the Key West one...of course it isn't. I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be places for ALL genders, in all combinations. I'm just trying to say that not everyone can *fit* in your 'accept everything someday' mold.

Re: I sold out my gender and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.

[queenofstripes.livejournal.com]

Yeah, like I said, I'm not trying to make this sound like FC's fault. Trauma is irrational by its very nature, and I'd blame the society that allowed that trauma to happen long, long before I'd blame its recipient. I just don't like the way that the feminist movement, in my perception, capitalizes sometimes on that trauma to reinforce its beliefs. It's this whole essentialist idea that feminism can only define itself in opposition to males -- that we're enemies at worst and whiny, self-interested, insincere allies at best. It's like, even if I surrender, I can never be a citizen, and I never wanted to fight in the first place. It's... well, let's just say it's a damned shame that there are some things that, now, I'll never want to talk to you and FC about because there will always be that little haze of doubt about whether I'm treading on sacred space that I'm not welcome on. Turnabout is fair play, but I really truly am sorry and I really truly don't blame either of you. Victims of circumstance. :(

[queenofstripes.livejournal.com]

I realize I didn't draw a clear distinction -- I thought about going into the details, but I figured I'd gone on long enough already. :> I have differing opinions on single-gender social spaces and single-gender political spaces... but it just boils down to why I think each is a bad idea to have single-gender, and what should rightfully be done about it.

In either case, I have a fairly (and uncharacteristically ;> ) libertarian attitude towards the solution. I don't mind the existence of such spaces as long as viable alternatives exist -- and as long as no force, intentional or otherwise, inhibits the creation of such spaces.

I think people should manage their "spaces" in a certain way because it's good for society, not because anyone else has the right to make them change against their will (unless it's a public institution or a monopoly). And the only weapon I can rightfully wield to make somebody open up their private spaces to me is my own reason and powers of persuasion.

In the case of social spaces, off the top of my head... For one thing, I do have a problem with the seeming double-standard that the feminist movement applies. I've never seen a good rationale (and I invite such -- I haven't done all that much research into this and I'm sure they exist) for why male-only places like the Scouts and the Augusta tournaments are to be lobbied against, but female-only places like Pearl's Rainbow are to be welcomed. I don't accept the argument that the power differential alone excuses it. Though real, I believe the power differential between men and women is also very fluid; it is entirely conceivable to me that there have developed cases in which women do oppress men, and in such cases that disparity too should be corrected.

Furthermore, once again, it raises the question of what, precisely, is being selected for. Is it something biological or psychological? If you'll forgive me being a bit wry again... if the purpose of Pearl's Rainbow were synchronized menstruation, I'd be all for it. :p But it's presumably the creation of a certain environment, where certain forms of human relation can thrive and others will be excluded. How predictably can those be associated with biological sex -- and to what extent can this separation be blamed for perpetuating this predictability?

[queenofstripes.livejournal.com]

If safe mixed-sex feminine spaces were recognized and plentiful in our society, I'd welcome Pearl's Rainbow as one of many alternatives. And I don't necessarily assert that it's "their problem," as private entrepreneurs, to provide such spaces... any more than I necessarily feel it's Mattel's fault for making collectible dolls with the equivalent of 15" waists. But if nobody deals with the problem, we all suffer. And if all the people who possess the means to change the situation refuse to admit there's a problem... you get a lot of anorexic teenaged girls and a lot of self-loathing young adult sissyboys, and I DO think that the entrepreneurs share the blame for that.

A mutual friend of ours tried to console me about women's-only spaces over the weekend... and yet, the best example of a "men's only" space she could come up with is the military, which isn't even a men's only space outside the dubiously appealing social milieu of combat. ;p The whole idea that women's only spaces are OK if there are men's only spaces smacks to me of "separate but equal." By pushing us back towards a gender space that neither welcomes nor describes us, they reinforce the idea that we are "the Other." They disempower gender-smeared people with feminine traits as surely as men's-only and male-biased mixed-gender spaces disempower women.

I feel regularly excluded from so much as becoming emotionally intimate from my female friends, much less from engaging in the casual, friendly flirting exhibited in this very thread. I don't imagine that you will deny that there is a pervasive force in this culture that stereotypes men as invaders, dehumanizing predators with ulterior motives, sex-obsessed boys unable to contact women on high or sincere emotional levels -- that any act of eroticism or even empathy we display is tainted by our nature.

I have absorbed a rather large amount of that disgrace into my self-image, thank you all, and it has impaired by ability to bond with my female friends and feel welcome among them. And I do blame certain strains of feminist ideology, the same sort that supports the idea that women-only spaces are necessary, for this damage. And I don't expect the feminist movement to come weeping with sympathy for me at any time in the foreseeable future.

[beetiger.livejournal.com]

why male-only places like the Scouts and the Augusta tournaments are to be lobbied against, but female-only places like Pearl's Rainbow are to be welcomed.

It's about money, and power. There aren't any women clamoring to get into the eight or so (gay) men's resorts on Key West, the counterparts to Pearl's.

Re:

[queenofstripes.livejournal.com]

Could you clarify a bit? I think I see where you're going -- and darn it, you're beating me to the punch of a full page of my gender rants from the commute today. ;) You mean it's because of the money and power attendant to the Scouts and the Augusta tournaments, right? And to exclude someone's group from a prestigious and high-profile institution like the Augusta Club or the Scouts might very authentically prevent their participation in an "Old Boy's Network" and somewhat curb the excluded group's social power. That is an eminently fair argument... But not everybody wants money and power. What I want is a fair voice in the battle to define the role of gender in our society, recognition of my true self not based on anyone's prejudice, and a safe shelter from machismo and patriarchal power games. Shutting me out of women's social spaces weakens my ability to achieve those things, I would propose, as much as exclusion from a posh country club impairs a female athlete or financier's ability to socialize within her field.

And besides, you know I'm a rare bird... I don't expect that the male equivalent of a fag hag is going to be an accepted stereotype, much less accepted company, any time soon. But I do have the impression that the "fag hag" itself is not uncommon... so I wouldn't be surprised at all if I had a few born-female equivalents somewhere who'd love, at the very least, to sneak a peek. If they exist, they're probably as vocal and visible as people like me are -- i.e., not very. I wouldn't be so sure that they don't exist, though!

Just out of curiosity... have you seen any further "clamor" from men, queer or otherwise, wanting to get into places like Heavens's Pearl? I know Sev complained of men wanting into feminist academic circles, of course, but we already agreed to separate those out... and I would attest that that's different anyhow, because once again, there really is no equivalently male field of gender studies. The very way in which our society frames these debates make such things impossible, as far as I can tell -- it would be laughable, like Martin Mull's "Department of White Studies" jokes. There aren't any women clamoring to get into the debate on our side, because "masculinism" is effectively irrelevant.

[beetiger.livejournal.com]

And to exclude someone's group from a prestigious and high-profile institution like the Augusta Club or the Scouts might very authentically prevent their participation in an "Old Boy's Network" and somewhat curb the excluded group's social power.
Yes. I apologize for any telegraphing or incoherence...I'm not quite my usual self of late.

What I want is a fair voice in the battle to define the role of gender in our society, recognition of my true self not based on anyone's prejudice, and a safe shelter from machismo and patriarchal power games.
But the women's social spaces I'm talking about aren't for battling. They're for retreating, and comfort, and safety, and community.
I really want you to have places to express your wonderful, gender-fluid self in this way. You deserve it. Everyone does. But I'm not sure why you think that getting a ticket into women's space would do that for you.

As far as men clamoring to get into Pearl's, I hadn't heard of any problem. It's a nice place, but the men's only places are more established and probably nicer. As far as I could tell, Pearl's seems to be a good way to get the women out of the gay resorts that are technically for both genders but really set up just for men. :P

Re:

[queenofstripes.livejournal.com]

They're for retreating, and comfort, and safety, and community.

They're for talking. Talking is powerful. And I did mean the shelter part, too. I balked at talking about the safety and comfort and community part in more detail because... I'm shy about it, darn it. I don't have the words to describe what I want out of that space. To be totally honest, the fact it's still outside of people's imagination why I would want to be there, not just for pure political motives, means I've failed. But the worst just sound toxic when they come out of my mouth, so I'll resume my silence.