This morning I was reading about a "men's only" club in the city in which I live, that was established about 150 years ago. While it is no secret, many seem to view these kinds of things like some kind of secret society full of misogynists, but it seems to be more the kind of place guys just hang out together, play some pool and talk. The representative questioned said they have talked throughout the years about admitting women into the club but it has always been rejected because,
"It’s somehow more relaxed and free. If women were present, everyone’s demeanour would change somewhat, but for some, it would change a lot,"
Isn't that fair?
For the record, there are plenty of "women's only" social clubs in the same city, often with national representation. There are women's only gyms as well, and public sauna shifts etc. Yet, one of the very few clubs for men, gets treated as a negative. But is it?
Having been a man most of my life, and a boy before that, I can say that all people do change depending on who is around them, men and women. I would suspect that if one of the women's only clubs had a couple men join, they too would change their demeanour somewhat, and some change a lot. It is natural, because we are humans made to change our behaviour depending on the social conditions. That means, depending on who is in the room with us.
A men's only club sounds like a sausage fest to me, but I also think that it is fine if people want to hang out together with people they think they will have a good time with. Groups of guys go out to the hockey games, and groups of women go out to brunch here, and no one complains. It is a social arrangement. But once there is a "rule" that explicitly excludes people, it is frowned upon - at least if it is men excluding women. Women excluding men is celebrated.
I don't mind hanging out with a group of guys and we do on occasion with the neighbours, but I wouldn't want to spend most of my time in those conditions, because they bore me quickly. I prefer the dynamics of mixed groups, because I prefer the increased volatility and uncertainty that comes with the unknown. Men are more predictable and repetitive than women from my perspective, because I am more familiar with the range of male tendencies. Women bring far more energy into the conversation, because they are more likely to have differing experience to my own, so it is more attractive to engage with.
But I also get that some people today (no matter what group they subscribe too) are feeling like they don't have a space that is theirs to be a version of themselves that they can't be in normal conditions. We all have multiple versions of ourselves depending on circumstances, but some are more actively being repressed than others, especially in the hyper-sensitive, politically correct public discourse. Many assume the worst intention rather than the best, even when they know that it wasn't intended that way at all.
But a group of friends aren't politically correct.
Because they talk about things that are personal. A group of friends aren't citizens governed by the state, they are individuals who have thoughts and feelings and the desire to share with others, to both get their views across, or question their views. Repressing opinions means that they don't get air and light, but still exist there in the darkness, festering, with questions unanswered. A group of good friends is like a sounding board to test hypotheses and discuss alternatives.
And a lot of people don't have good friends anymore.
So they look to find alternatives in groups that they think will fill the void, but what they might be doing is finding groups that perpetuate the problems further. We see this in lots of groups that become extremist and violent, where "like minds" gather to speak their truth without questioning if what they believe is true at all.
Men and women do this.
I was listening to the song "Glory Box" by Portishead the other day and these lyrics stood out,
Give me a reason to love you
Give me a reason to be a woman
I just wanna be a woman
So don't you stop, being a man
Just take a little look
From our side when you can
Show a little tenderness
No matter if you cry
The song was released in 1994 and has a few themes included in it, but what should also be recognised is that it is generally about having the space to be a woman, to express herself as a woman, but also that men needn't stop being men and that a man can still be compassionate, show tenderness, without losing their status as a man. But it isn't about equality, is it? It is about equity.
The needs of the individual met.
And those needs can be different and generally are different between men and women, which means that there need be different structures and approaches put into place in order to provide an equitable outcome for all. For some, that might be a place where they can work out without feeling judged, or play pool and joke about without feeling judged. If men are conditioned (nature and nurture) to continually judge women, isn't it fair to assume that women are also continually judging men?
I know my friends, family and partners do this. Constantly.
We do not live in a judgement-free environment, which means that at least publicly, we are all under scrutiny. The only time we are not is when we are alone, and that still comes with the personal judgements that are conditioned by the environment anyway. Yet, we also need to share ourselves, and be acknowledged, and get feedback, and partake in intimacy and friendship and whatever else a person might need to be well-rounded, rich, and understanding.
I think understanding is being reduced.
Rather than understanding the conditions and then judging the outcomes, we are judging first without understanding what the causes are. So rather than improving the conditions, we are making things infinitely worse, as people are judged without being heard, criticised by people who don't have the decency to ask first. It is all bad social behaviour that leads to more separation, disconnection, and conflict.
Every label is exclusionary.
So many people talk about how accepting and inclusive they are, while simultaneously giving themselves and others labels to define them. Every label is exclusionary. For instance, a rainbow is all inclusive of every colour, but as soon as you start separating by saying red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violent - it excludes everything else between. That is the problem with spectrums, because we are all on all of the spectrums, no matter what you call yourself.
But as a species, we are exclusionary, because as a species we need to define our world to build our understanding of it, which means we have to have a word that differentiates between an apple and a rock, in order to say to someone "Don't eat the rock, it isn't an apple". Language itself is a form of exclusion, with each word definition excluding all the other potential definitions it could be.
But let's get back to the "men's only club" to finish off. What label have you ascribed to a member of the club? What assumptions have you made as to what kind of person they are, or how they treat women? What judgements have you given to people based solely on a label, who you have never met?
Are you "all inclusive" in your judgements?
Judgements can never be.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
And you may be rewarded.
