I can understand that some vulnerable women might feel uncomfortable about marching with men, but frankly they will be marching past an audience of men so I am unsure this is a good enough reason for the exclusion.
Domestic violence happens to men as well, and women commit DV against other women as well (as I know from personal experience).
Marching against violence is laudable, but I really fail to see why men are excluded. Not only can men be victims, but they can be the loved ones of women who are as well - fathers, brothers and new partners too. I think it would have more impact to see how many men there are who abhor violence as much as any of these women and march against all DV etc..
So what will happen if men do decide to turn up with their other halves or just on their own because they want to support victims of violence??
You will probably get beat up.
Men should not be excluded. The more people that turn up, the more power the message will have. Excluding half(ish) the population is not the way to go.
Men should not be excluded. The more people that turn up, the more power the message will have. Excluding half(ish) the population is not the way to go.
Well I don't think women should be allowed to go to football matches.
They should "respect men's spaces to meet, discuss, and organise"
Also they can show their suppport to their favourite team by babysitting children while their dad, brother, or son attends the match.
And of course they are welcome to make a financial donation to help meet the cost of their male relatives match tickets...
:rolleyes:
...or they could always do something positive like protest againt male violence within relationships. Its much harder for a man to seek help and it is a genuine issue for many men. Probably more than the statistics suggest.
Don't really understand this comment. My girlfriend is a feminist and so am I. Surely, you are too? Because being a feminist means you believe in equal rights for men and women, which I do and most other sane people in the world do.
So all the men BAWWWing about being left out- when ARE they going to have their own march, or organise an inclusive one? Or can they not be arsed? These things don't just happen, you know. If it bothers you that much that there isn't one then organise the bloody thing. You know, like these women did.
Don't really understand this comment. My girlfriend is a feminist and so am I. Surely, you are too? Because being a feminist means you believe in equal rights for men and women, which I do and most other sane people in the world do.
If it really is all about equality, why do we say "feminist" instead of "humanist"?
because it was the feminists not the humanists who fought for equality.
Yes, I think it's more to do with historical reasons when women were seen as lesser mortals and their uprising began. But it's a tangent really, I am still yet to hear, 3 pages in, of a good reason why men can not go on this march (though I have read several reasons why they should be allowed)
I wasn't saying they weren't any, just replying to someone who seemed to be saying there weren't any male only ones so your tit for tat and search was a waste of time.
Comments
Domestic violence happens to men as well, and women commit DV against other women as well (as I know from personal experience).
Marching against violence is laudable, but I really fail to see why men are excluded. Not only can men be victims, but they can be the loved ones of women who are as well - fathers, brothers and new partners too. I think it would have more impact to see how many men there are who abhor violence as much as any of these women and march against all DV etc..
You will probably get beat up.
Men should not be excluded. The more people that turn up, the more power the message will have. Excluding half(ish) the population is not the way to go.
Why do they have 'unwashed ladygardens'? What a stupid thing to say.
I agree with this.
I dont think the message is about child abuse as such, its about abuse within relationships.
It would be like if a men-only march said that women could still support them by making sure their dinner was on the table when they got home.
Talk about playing to a stereotype!
List of women only clubs.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=womem+only+gyms&rlz=1C1CHFX_en-GBGB435GB435&aq=f&oq=womem+only+gyms&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3.9804&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&rlz=1C1CHFX_en-GBGB435GB435&q=women+only+gyms&spell=1&sa=X&ei=Uso4UYv_HIbLPZeCgcgN&ved=0CC8QvwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.ZWU&fp=3fe8463959a88f3d&biw=1024&bih=647
I do. I bet a few of them will be gagging for it by the end of the day.
How cute.
Well I don't think women should be allowed to go to football matches.
They should "respect men's spaces to meet, discuss, and organise"
Also they can show their suppport to their favourite team by babysitting children while their dad, brother, or son attends the match.
And of course they are welcome to make a financial donation to help meet the cost of their male relatives match tickets...
:rolleyes:
...or they could always do something positive like protest againt male violence within relationships. Its much harder for a man to seek help and it is a genuine issue for many men. Probably more than the statistics suggest.
Don't really understand this comment. My girlfriend is a feminist and so am I. Surely, you are too? Because being a feminist means you believe in equal rights for men and women, which I do and most other sane people in the world do.
If it really is all about equality, why do we say "feminist" instead of "humanist"?
Well, humanists have already bagsied "humanist", apart from anything else.
because it was the feminists not the humanists who fought for equality.
Yes, I think it's more to do with historical reasons when women were seen as lesser mortals and their uprising began. But it's a tangent really, I am still yet to hear, 3 pages in, of a good reason why men can not go on this march (though I have read several reasons why they should be allowed)
As you could see, for instance, I did not deny the WI existed.