#tl;dr: why are we arguing about whether feminist spaces should always include men or not

[vintage-bentley]

Let’s apply this to other groups.

Should POC be allowed spaces that exclude white people? Should trans people be allowed spaces that exclude cis people? Should Muslims be allowed spaces that exclude non-Muslims? Should disabled people be allowed spaces that exclude able-bodied people? Etc. Etc. You could make the argument for any one of these that they’re wrongfully excluding well-meaning allies, possibly even the family of those attending the event. You could claim that it’s alienating to both those allies and those who want to bring them along.

But when it comes to any oppressed group other than women, nobody argues against exclusive spaces. And if they do, they’re rightfully viewed as ignorant (think white people complaining about not being allowed to join a black student’s union).

When it comes to anyone other than women, it’s generally understood that exclusive spaces for oppressed groups exist for many reasons. One might be wanting to find community with those who share your experiences. Another might be wanting to have conversations about these experiences without feeling pressured to change the way you speak about them for the comfort of outsiders (many women know that conversations about women’s experiences are very different depending on if there’s a man in the room. For example, talking about periods).

Why is it that this understanding suddenly disappears when we’re talking about women?

We can absolutely argue that there should be events open to everyone, because I agree that no progress can be made if we just shut everyone out all the time. But exclusive spaces are important too. Audre Lorde and any other woman who wants to bring men along to feminist spaces needs to accept that some spaces just aren’t suited for that. Some feminist spaces need to be for women only, and some need to be an open event for everyone. A balance can and should exist, because both of these spaces are important for different reasons, and achieve different things. We need both, not one or the other.

You all realize Feminists have been critiquing "women only spaces" for decades right?

I think often about Audre Lorde's critique of a women only event that welcomed her wife and daughter, but not her son. Because she questioned it - the function and purpose of barring even the sons of Feminist women from Feminist events. Especially the barring of her young Black son, who would otherwise be left alone in the city where he would be more prone to the very violence those same Feminist women claimed to want to change.

Because what functional, forward thinking Feminist purpose does it actually serve to do that? What message does that send to women with sons, husbands, brothers, lovers, friends, who want to involve the men and boys in their lives in their activism? Who want to build a functionally better world for us all outside of the oppressive grasp of Patriarchy? Especially for the marginalized men who often sit at their own intersection violent Patriarchal oppression, that still happens to be Patriarchal oppression despite it not being distinctly misogyny?

What purpose does it truly serve to sequester yourself away into a pocket of the world, detached from those you share it with? What bright and shining future does that really promise you?