Women's Rights

I agree with your point, Samuel, that the troublesome part of allowing a single-sex organization like this an exception is that it sets a precedent which can then be manipulated.  

Yet I am not sure that it's a basic human right not to be excluded from a tour package.  As Thomas suggested above, perhaps women should have the right to have certain clubs, organizations, and services to themselves.  I am not entirely sure that I believe in the merit of women-only gyms and women-only taxis, but what I think distinguishes these services from women-only tour groups is that the latter are focusing on positive connections and bonding between women, whereas the former are focusing on isolating women from men instead of instituting strict harassment policies.  

I think the way Erin Maitland explained and justified her need for an exemption was ridiculous from the beginning and played right into every gender stereotype in the book.  In contrast, the other woman, who seems to have been granted an exemption in Western Australia, did successfully demonstrate the need for a women-only travel company.  Looking at her reasoning - women want to feel empowered traveling together, to share their stories and experiences, to escape from the often overwhelming responsibilities heaped on them in everyday life - I can see the argument that a women-only exception is not so much about excluding men as it is about allowing women the necessary space to fortify their identities and connections as women. 

I think this concept really scares some men.  Definitely not implying you here Samuel, but in the article both of the women in charge of the travel companies felt the need to reassure the public that these women were not running away from anything.  Perhaps, and I'm just throwing this out there, part of the strong reaction to the notion of a women-only travel company is fear that these women will somehow take off and abandon their societal roles?  It sounds to me like women are still somewhat under lock and key and the thought of a whole bunch of them heading off into the wilds together scares the bejeezus out of some men.  

Samuel, we also have to remember that we are all navigating in a world that has been constructed by white, heterosexual, privileged (economically) men.  The rules, the law, everything works for them, and the rest of us must find ways to start defining ourselves and our worlds, so sometimes the things we do or say don't make sense, or may go against the law, or may be ambiguous.  That is where some consideration must be given, and I am glad you agree that some "preferential" treatment is fine (since it gives underprivileged groups some leveled-grounds to help themselves).

The problem is that a lot of co-ed or integrated programs are defined in men's terms.  They are very gendered from the beginning, and this is a threat to a lot of women.  I don't blame them for feeling threatened.

Take the sexual revolution, for example.  The original idea was for both men and women to have equal grounds when it came to sexuality.  However, it happened on men's terms.  The result: women's bodies were further objectified, and now it is easier for men to have access to them.  Women did not define themselves, and some protections were taken away.

Stemming from experiences like that, a lot of "traditional" or "conservative" women have fought back by trying to start single sex policies/programs/projects/events that reflect many traditional values.  This is because they feel that this is a way to protect themselves and their daughters from the "innate" sexual depravity of men (SARCASM, this is socially constructed).

I agree that single sex policies will always have backlash, and it's probably not the most effective thing to do.  However, how can you blame these women when they live in a world that is defined for them, and that constantly tries to define them?  The easiest thing to do is to revert to a role that grants them certain protection (albeit at the cost of traditional gender roles).

The hardest thing to do, which I think should be THE thing to do, is to have more integrated programs where women are empowered and given a loud enough voice to define feminism, and where men can also help tackle the problems that women go through, etc.  This should be extended to programs where minorities mix with white people, where poor people can mix with rich people, etc. so everyone can have a say into constructing a world that benefits everyone.

Thoughts?

I dont mind integration nor do I mind giving women their space BUT not only should women be included more in joint decisions...They should also be given greater power than men at least in some cases or else the same old problem of men "helping" by taking over will continue.

Women often struggle with the dilemma of working within systems of opression (mainly patriarchy) in order to ensure their survival in a patriarchal society, while at the same time having to see how to not become willing participants in their own subordination.

Women like Erin Maitland want to challenge the system of opression, but end up with a controversial and contradictory project/policy.  This is the same contradiction affecting Sarah Palin, the women from the Claire Boothe Luce Leadership Institute (or whatever it's called), etc.

While I will agree that these examples of women hate feminists and have also dug their own hole from which they have to struggle to come out from, I want to add that they were simply acting out of fear.  Fear to become objects in this world created for them.  Fear of the "innate" male sexual drive (which is wrongly thought to be normal and healthy).  Fear of abuse.  They want protection, but they are looking for it in traditional gender roles that set us back 100 years.

To prevent this, we should promote more integration in projects and policies.  Integration does not mean men will come and save women.  Women can create their own groups and policies, and invite anyone to support them, be it men or feminists.  In those cases, I think women have this power you speak of.

Finally, I wand to add that in some cases, women only groups are definitely needed.  These are mostly in cases where relief is needed, like shelters for domestic abuse, support groups, etc.  However, things like Pink Taxis (in Lebanon and Mexico), women only travel agencies, etc, are only patchwork to greater societal problems.

Dear Juan,

Thoughts? Certiainly,

Much of what you've said sounds a little too much like it's come strraight out of a handbook for "women's studies."

I was there! The 50's, 60's. And I remember.

I remember listening to women who were fond of saying things like, "Men define women, " and then proceed to burn their bras. (Never mind there was no evidence the "brassiere" was ever invented by a man.)

Never mind that male and female roles are fundamentally define by the expectations of both sexes.

While most men fully supported the more pragmatic goals of the women's movement -- equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity -- the ideological arm of the movement was forming a metaphysics according to which every institution of this society was irremediably sexist, and every male, even the most sympathetic, ineradicably guilty by association with it. Some positions, even among persons brought up in the "logophallocnetric" West, were well beyond the reach of rational argument. Feminist fundamentalism shared that distinction with other dogmatisms, such as religious fundamentalism, and when all was said and done, similar mentalities gave rise to both.

This may sound like heresy, but my sympathies still remain with my own gender largely because, at bottom, there is no other place to put them.. :)

..and nevermind that there is no evidence of "bra-burning" ever happening...

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/burnbra.asp

I have nothing against women-only events and spaces... It's nearly impossible for my wife and I to be in the company of straight men for any extended length of time without having to answer all kinds of stupid, inappropriate questions or for some dude to try to score a threesome with us. One should at least be able to escape this kind of crap on a vacation...

God, I Love YouTube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcS3QevoG0g

You and your significant other must be gorgeous. :)

You're my kind of man Juan. 

:-)

Dear Juan,

No one has ever let men off the hook for anything in this society ... When women say things like, "Men will take anything they can get" or "Men will screw anything they can get their hands on," they are expressing a point of female chauvinism that makes calling men bitches or sluts superfluous.

I agree with the cooking thing. Cooking has been a hobby of mine since I was 16, dispite my mother who wouldn't let me in her kitchen for fear I'd turn gay. I got around her by getting up early one Sunday morning and fixing my father and her breakfast in bed. When my mother complained, my father playfully said, "Shut up woman, he ain't good for much else, let him cook for God's sake."

Hi Sarah,

Yeah I tend to not explain my ideas well on this site because there's so much I want to say and I only get some windows of opportunity.

OK, so I was comparing Erin Maitland with Sarah Palin and the women that head the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute (are you familiar with them?).  This is because I saw similarities in the way they want to help women by reverting to traditional gender roles.  Tell me if I misunderstood your article, but it seemed to me that Erin Maitland didn't defend her women's only travel agency for what you and I could agree are the "right" reasons, am I wrong?  Anyway, keep in mind that a lot of my response stemmed from this comparison I'm talking about.

Sarah Palin and the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute have blatantly attacked feminists and blamed them (us) for the problems afflicting women.  I should have explained this a lot better, because otherwise it seems like I get off the point or I am accusing Erin Maitland of this (I'm not).  Many feminists in different blogs (even this one) have responded by attacking back.  They condone Sarah Palin, in a similar fashion you are condoning Erin Maitland or that other Dr.  I initially did, too, but then I had discussions with a couple of girls who are getting their masters in Women's and Gender Studies, and we concluded that as feminists we should try to find points of solidarity with them, not attack them and leave it at that.  That is why I try to understand where women who try to revert to traditional gender roles come from.  I'm not trying to 'define' anyone or any particular group.  And I was trying to find points of similarity between Erin Maitland and Sarah Palin.

I drew my conclusions after reading theories from different people who talk about masculinity, the male sexual drive discourse, among other theories.  I didn't cite them because I wanted to keep my response short, though now I feel like I should've (I don't want to seem like I'm the all knowing man who will save women, not at all).  I am not trying to be authoritative or trying to define women either.  If anything, I'm accusing patriarchy of giving all of us roles, and defining women.  I'm not trying to define them, but I'm pointing out a reality that I wish wasn't there.

These theories I have read talk about women navigating a patriarchal society, one in which they must ensure survival by playing certain roles, while making sure they don't themselves become participants of subordination.  When I said that women act out of fear (and I was specifically talking about Sarah Palin and the Clare Booth Luce Institute women), I was referring to a fear of patriarchy.  They are trying to gain some agency, while at the same time trying to protect themselves from the threat of being dominated, yet they still feel compelled to participate in this world dominated by patriarchy.  I also said fear because one of the things conservative or traiditonal women tend to blame on feminists is the sexual revolution.  This sexual revoution was gendered from the very beginning, and it happened on men's terms.  The result was that women were further objectified and their bodies became more accessible to men who would enact their masculine privilege.  Who wouldn't be afraid of men after something like that happens?  I refer to this example because of the argument that when women wear work out clothes (as mentioned in the article) they feel the danger of being assaulted.  Therefore, many conservative women, in my opinion (one that I reached after several conversations with girl feminists), try to re-institute traditional gender roles (much the like the ones the woman in this article does) in order to protect themselves and their daughters from rape, sexual coercion, etc.  Hence the creation of women only taxis, women only gyms, women only anything.

I probably added WAY too much information and drew from too many theories and tried to make comparisons that are not very obvious at a glance, and that is where I may seem like I'm authoritative, I'm defining women, I'm belittling women, etc, when in fact I'm trying to do the opposite.  I believe in empowerment much more than anything else, but I do try to criticize and understand the different ways of thinking before demonizing or attacking women who try to follow traditional gender roles.  As a feminist, I think it's my responsibility to try to understand these women, and I'm sorry my points are getting across in any overbearing way.  I also tried to be a bit sarcastic, much like you were in your article Sarah.

Oh, and I forgot to apologize about my points about the second woman from Adventurous Women.  At first I thought Erin Matiland owned both agencies, so excuse me for getting confused.

Is anything I'm saying making sense?

Please let me know.  The last thing I want is for a writer of this blog to accuse me of the opposite of what I'm trying to do or say.

Thank you Sarah for asking me to clarify :-)

I apologize again, I do tend to have too much to say in too little time so I know I have challenges when it comes to being more clear.  I should also watch my language to sound like I'm leaving room for discussion as opposed to sounding like I'm the know-it-all in feminism or women's rights..