"The Wing" - sexist New York coworking space that excludes men

[steve_bank]

As long as there is a female free male safe zone to get away from those annoying females I don't see a problem

 

[phands]

The idea of safe havens for women is one that shouldn't be necessary, but sadly is. I wonder if Derec similarly objects to the numerous safe-houses that protect women from abuse, often at the hands of their partners....

 

[J842P]

View attachment 18406

Too many words. Like the Bible.

Well, it *is* true that there are schools of radical feminism that are very anti-trans. Or at least, anti-trans women being considered women. They are generally referred to as TERFs, or trans-exclusionary radical feminists.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

View attachment 18406

Too many words. Like the Bible.

Well, it *is* true that there are schools of radical feminism that are very anti-trans. Or at least, anti-trans women being considered women. They are generally referred to as TERFs, or trans-exclusionary radical feminists.

I have heard of that.

 

[Toni]

As long as there is a female free male safe zone to get away from those annoying females I don't see a problem

I can see that given how often men are sexually harassed by women.

 

[RVonse]

It sounds like the fainting couch women who are so fragile that they can't bear to be near any man. I say let them have it. It will also be a great workspace for the ultra conservative Muslim women who are banned from being in the presence of men who are not of their immediate family. Their ideology fits perfectly with the founders of this workspace.

Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, most women can handle most men and the troublemaker males are usually fired. Maybe it is best to keep the snowflakes outside the regular workforce.

Best answer to OP so far.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

It sounds like the fainting couch women who are so fragile that they can't bear to be near any man. I say let them have it. It will also be a great workspace for the ultra conservative Muslim women who are banned from being in the presence of men who are not of their immediate family. Their ideology fits perfectly with the founders of this workspace.

Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, most women can handle most men and the troublemaker males are usually fired. Maybe it is best to keep the snowflakes outside the regular workforce.

Best answer to OP so far.

"Any response that mentions the fragility of women, I totally agree with!"

 

[RVonse]

It is an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, as Charlie points out, having a workspace free of sexual harassment is an important goal... especially in a society where some men think that sexual harassment should be tolerated as if it is on par with annoying pop-up ads and locker room jokes.

But technically this would seem to be a violation of the same type of equal access women (and other minorities) have had to fight for. "Social clubs" have long been a means to bar women, Jews, Blacks and every other group other than rich, white males from corporate boardrooms. Calling it a "social club" does not disguise the fact that business is conducted there, and access to that inner circle of business could potentially give preference to its members.

The real solution is, of course, to stop the sexual harassment. Unfortunately, as we have seen on other threads on this very board, some men don't want to do that.

So what is the solution?

Give women a space in which to flourish without being forced to deal with knuckle-draggers but at the risk of shutting decent men out of potential career-related opportunities?

Or pass laws to remove knuckle-draggers and/or their sexual harassment behaviors from the co-ed workplace.

Or tell the women to just get barefoot and pregnant and go back to their kitchens where they belong.

Actually Axulus does have it right though. Just let the women have their special work space that excludes men and let them feel safe and better about themselves. They will only hurt themselves in the long term because these protected women will fail to compete in the business environment as men do. Women (on average) are simply not risk takers and those male risk takers are still going to be competing with them in business. This is an evolutionary difference that makes men better at leadership but also gives women lower driving insurance rates (risk taking is good for business but not so good for driving). Anyway, rather than argue with them it would be better to just let the free market show them first hand the error of their ways..

 

[Toni]

It is an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, as Charlie points out, having a workspace free of sexual harassment is an important goal... especially in a society where some men think that sexual harassment should be tolerated as if it is on par with annoying pop-up ads and locker room jokes.

But technically this would seem to be a violation of the same type of equal access women (and other minorities) have had to fight for. "Social clubs" have long been a means to bar women, Jews, Blacks and every other group other than rich, white males from corporate boardrooms. Calling it a "social club" does not disguise the fact that business is conducted there, and access to that inner circle of business could potentially give preference to its members.

The real solution is, of course, to stop the sexual harassment. Unfortunately, as we have seen on other threads on this very board, some men don't want to do that.

So what is the solution?

Give women a space in which to flourish without being forced to deal with knuckle-draggers but at the risk of shutting decent men out of potential career-related opportunities?

Or pass laws to remove knuckle-draggers and/or their sexual harassment behaviors from the co-ed workplace.

Or tell the women to just get barefoot and pregnant and go back to their kitchens where they belong.

Actually Axulus does have it right though. Just let the women have their special work space that excludes men and let them feel safe and better about themselves. They will only hurt themselves in the long term because these protected women will fail to compete in the business environment as men do. Women (on average) are simply not risk takers and those male risk takers are still going to be competing with them in business. This is an evolutionary difference that makes men better at leadership but also gives women lower driving insurance rates (risk taking is good for business but not so good for driving). Anyway, rather than argue with them it would be better to just let the free market show them first hand the error of their ways..

1950 is calling. It misses you very much.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Think it through. It defeats the purpose of "The Wing". It an easy way for any guy, with any agenda, to walk right into the place. Unless you are prepared to take an anti-trans stance.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Their stated objective is to have a place where they can get away from men. They want a safe space, but at the same time this would be an easy way to violate that safe space.

Your stance seems to be quite anti-trans.

I'm not making any stance. I'm making an observation of conflicting agendas. I oppose gendered bathrooms, nevermind gendered "safe spaces" like this. I am reminded of the rail cars in Australia (I think it was?) we had a thread about here once, where women were allowed on and men were kept out.

And yeah, the problem is that a lot of guys walk into places with agendas. I'm not talking about guys putting on dresses and pretending to be trans---because that does not seem to actually be a thing, except in the minds of some particularly ugly conservatives.

And certain Feminists. And it could become a thing if you insist on special places and perks for women and denied to men, especially if people are to be considered trans just because they say so. A couple of bros could change absolutely nothing about themsleves, walk in, and claim to be trans women lesbians. What are you going to say to stop that? All you've done is coral the especially fragile women together for them to prey on, while simultaneously giving women-haters something to point at as a double standard. Well done.

 

[Toni]

Yes, it does. Their stated objective is to have a place where they can get away from men. They want a safe space, but at the same time this would be an easy way to violate that safe space.

Your stance seems to be quite anti-trans.

I'm not making any stance. I'm making an observation of conflicting agendas. I oppose gendered bathrooms, nevermind gendered "safe spaces" like this. I am reminded of the rail cars in Australia (I think it was?) we had a thread about here once, where women were allowed on and men were kept out.

And yeah, the problem is that a lot of guys walk into places with agendas. I'm not talking about guys putting on dresses and pretending to be trans---because that does not seem to actually be a thing, except in the minds of some particularly ugly conservatives.

And certain Feminists. And it could become a thing if you insist on special places and perks for women and denied to men, especially if people are to be considered trans just because they say so. A couple of bros could change absolutely nothing about themsleves, walk in, and claim to be trans women lesbians. What are you going to say to stop that? All you've done is coral the especially fragile women together for them to prey on, while simultaneously giving women-haters something to point at as a double standard. Well done.

I love how you disrespect and marginalize trans individuals while declaring that women who are sick of being sexually harassed are fragile.

Men seem to absolutely fall apart at the very idea of being excluded and are so desperate that they have to resort to the same excuses my ultra conservative southern baptist relatives make about transgendered people. I’m waiting for you to suggest that The Wing needs men to keep them safe from people pretending to be tranwomen who really are there to hit on women.

Take some Motrin and chill.

 

[ruby sparks]

It is an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, as Charlie points out, having a workspace free of sexual harassment is an important goal... especially in a society where some men think that sexual harassment should be tolerated as if it is on par with annoying pop-up ads and locker room jokes.

But technically this would seem to be a violation of the same type of equal access women (and other minorities) have had to fight for. "Social clubs" have long been a means to bar women, Jews, Blacks and every other group other than rich, white males from corporate boardrooms. Calling it a "social club" does not disguise the fact that business is conducted there, and access to that inner circle of business could potentially give preference to its members.

The real solution is, of course, to stop the sexual harassment. Unfortunately, as we have seen on other threads on this very board, some men don't want to do that.

So what is the solution?

Give women a space in which to flourish without being forced to deal with knuckle-draggers but at the risk of shutting decent men out of potential career-related opportunities?

Or pass laws to remove knuckle-draggers and/or their sexual harassment behaviours from the co-ed workplace.

Interesting to note that in theory, a girl could hypothetically go to a girls' only school, then a female university college and then to a hot-desking women-only coworker office, and even get there and back every day in a female only train carriage in some countries. Many women have reservations (as in doubts not seat bookings). Here in the UK, for instance, women-only train carriages were mooted in 2015 and drew a stinging response from some feminists.

Regarding single sex education, opinions and data are mixed:

The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling
https://www.feminist.org/education/pdfs/pseudoscienceofsinglesexschooling.pdf

As you say, what needs to be aimed for are improvements in integrated, diverse environments, and at least things appear to be improving in workplaces:



Segregation is arguably going in a retrograde direction, especially if a pattern started to be established on a wide scale. Maybe I grew up and still live in a country which has too much segregation in terms of one thing, religion. Not the same issues I know, but it has made me averse to the word segregation because of the stereotyping it encourages. By the same token, segregation by sex may also reinforce the stereotypes about gender differences that have made and make it hard for women to be treated as equal players in public life and in the workforce.

That said, I'm not strongly for or against women-only spaces and I can't claim to know what the various long term effects will be. Maybe it's a great idea. If the trend continues, time will tell.

On a technical front, I do think the large clubs may run into legal difficulties if they allow segregation that would not be allowed for men (or other groups) especially given that there have been longstanding calls for an end to the mens' ones for example, to 'drain the swamp', as one fairly recent newspaper article here put it.

 

[ruby sparks]

How times change.

 

[Toni]

Hey, ruby: please go read your posts in the thread that was closed.

I know you think of yourself as a pretty good guy and probably you are. But go read your posts. Sober. And see if maybe you don’t see the possibility of a valid point of women only spaces.

Then get back to me.

 

[ruby sparks]

Hey, ruby: please go read your posts in the thread that was closed.

I know you think of yourself as a pretty good guy and probably you are. But go read your posts. Sober. And see if maybe you don’t see the possibility of a valid point of women only spaces.

Then get back to me.

I was sober!

I just got bored with the usual ding dong and felt like jazzing things up a little. I blipped. Perhaps inadvisedly. Many of my comments weren't entirely serious, by the way.

Hey, I'm not saying there isn't a valid case for women-only spaces, even clubs, even clubs which include working and networking. And knitting, if they want to do that.

 

[Toni]

It is an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, as Charlie points out, having a workspace free of sexual harassment is an important goal... especially in a society where some men think that sexual harassment should be tolerated as if it is on par with annoying pop-up ads and locker room jokes.

But technically this would seem to be a violation of the same type of equal access women (and other minorities) have had to fight for. "Social clubs" have long been a means to bar women, Jews, Blacks and every other group other than rich, white males from corporate boardrooms. Calling it a "social club" does not disguise the fact that business is conducted there, and access to that inner circle of business could potentially give preference to its members.

The real solution is, of course, to stop the sexual harassment. Unfortunately, as we have seen on other threads on this very board, some men don't want to do that.

So what is the solution?

Give women a space in which to flourish without being forced to deal with knuckle-draggers but at the risk of shutting decent men out of potential career-related opportunities?

Or pass laws to remove knuckle-draggers and/or their sexual harassment behaviours from the co-ed workplace.

Interesting to note that in theory, a girl could hypothetically go to a girls' only school, then a female university college and then to a hot-desking women-only coworker office, and even get there and back every day in a female only train carriage in some countries. Many women have reservations (as in doubts not seat bookings). Here in the UK, for instance, women-only train carriages were mooted in 2015 and drew a stinging response from some feminists.

Regarding single sex education, opinions and data are mixed:

The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling
https://www.feminist.org/education/pdfs/pseudoscienceofsinglesexschooling.pdf

As you say, what needs to be aimed for are improvements in integrated, diverse environments, and at least things appear to be improving in workplaces:

View attachment 18432

Segregation is arguably going in a retrograde direction, especially if a pattern started to be established on a wide scale. Maybe I grew up and still live in a country which has too much segregation in terms of one thing, religion. Not the same issues I know, but it has made me averse to the word segregation because of the stereotyping it encourages. By the same token, segregation by sex may also reinforce the stereotypes about gender differences that have made and make it hard for women to be treated as equal players in public life and in the workforce.

That said, I'm not strongly for or against women-only spaces and I can't claim to know what the various long term effects will be. Maybe it's a great idea. If the trend continues, time will tell.

On a technical front, I do think the large clubs may run into legal difficulties if they allow segregation that would not be allowed for men (or other groups) especially given that there have been longstanding calls for an end to the mens' ones for example, to 'drain the swamp', as one fairly recent newspaper article here put it.

The way I read this post, it sounds as though you think that women can’t compete with men. The issue is that women are sick of the sex harassment and discrimination that they endure relentlessly from a very young age. Some want to just not have to deal with that shit for a bit. So they can relax. So they can get some work done.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I love how you disrespect and marginalize trans individuals

I have said nothing of actual trans people. In my way, trans wouldn't even be an issue, as there would be no gender designated spaces such as this one.

I’m waiting for you to suggest that The Wing needs men to keep them safe from people pretending to be tranwomen who really are there to hit on women.

I am waiting for you to tell us that The Wing needs men to protect the women from men period. That's kind of the whole idea of such a place, isn't it? Keep the men out?

Take some Motrin and chill.

Toni, meet mirror, again.

 

[ruby sparks]

The way I read this post, it sounds as though you think that women can’t compete with men.

Fuck me I've been rumbled again. That's twice in 24 hours. I really must adjust the elastic bands holding my mask on.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The way I read this post, it sounds as though you think that women can’t compete with men.

Fuck me I've been rumbled again. That's twice in 24 hours. I really must adjust the elastic bands holding my mask on.

I can't tell if you were sucking up to people on this board and are now trolling them or if something else is going on with you. You did write stuff in that other thread that is what I would have imagined Toni to have expected from the image of me or Derec that she has built in her mind. Neither of us actually would say such things in reality however. You did. What gives?

 

[ruby sparks]

The way I read this post, it sounds as though you think that women can’t compete with men.

Fuck me I've been rumbled again. That's twice in 24 hours. I really must adjust the elastic bands holding my mask on.

I can't tell if you were sucking up to people on this board and are now trolling them or if something else is going on with you. You did write stuff in that other thread that is what I would have imagined Toni to have expected from the image of me or Derec that she has built in her mind. Neither of us actually would say such things in reality however. You did. What gives?

To be honest, I am sort of disinclined to derail this thread by having a post-mortem on another one.

Though I admit I'm curious as to what things you refer to.