If You Don't Feel "Safe" Studying In A University Library Because There Are Men In It...
...You should get mental health help, not access to a women-only study lounge.
Economist Mark J. Perry, who I'm pretty sure did this because he was sickened by Title IX being used to remove due process from men, among other things, filed a bias complaint against Michigan State University for their women-only study lounge.
Emmett McConnell writes at The State News:
Following Perry's complaint, the news of the closing of the women's lounge swept across campus and struck a chord with students who attend MSU, so much that they have started a petition on change.org titled "Allowing women on Michigan State's campus to have a safe lounge to study in." It is petitioning President Lou Anna K. Simon, Cody, MSU, the Union and MSU Provost and Executive Vice President of Academic Affairs June Youatt.MSU sophomore Alyssa Maturen orchestrated the petition to fight for women's rights at MSU.
"I was eating dinner with some friends when one of them asked if I had heard about the closure," Maturen said. "They then read to me an article explaining about the complaint filed by Mark Perry and I became deeply upset."
More than 5,000 supporters have signed the petition, as of Aug. 2, to help keep the women's-only study lounge in the Union. Maturen hopes MSU administration will hear her and all 5,000 supporters' concerns and will be willing to work out a better solution.
So, feminists are aghast at male-only golf clubs -- discrimination! -- but see no problem with women-only study lounges.
So, feminism isn't about equal treatment for all, but special treatment for women, under the guise of wanting equal treatment.
Got it.
Does anyone think this constant demand for women to be treated as fragile flowers might make people think they should hire a man, rather than one of these wilting lilies who surely can't manage to be around male co-workers without suffering a mental health crisis?
What about men who identify as women? Are they allowed in? Of course, I would bet. And I suppose women who identify as men but still have female anatomy can use it because they feel *safe* there.
See how ridiculous this whole game is, taken to its logical extremes?
Isab at August 6, 2016 7:30 AM
Note how petioning for a gender-specific facility for women only, paid for with taxpayer dollars, is described, without a hint of irony, as 'fight(ing) for women's rights'. I will wager that these same women would not hesitate to describe a private association that only admits men as being chauvinist, exclusionary, divisive and denying women their rights. Thses people have taken over the duscussion and we have allowed them to reframe the words we use.
Modern feminism - nothing to do with equality, all about special rights and privileges for women only.
llater,
llamas
llamas at August 6, 2016 7:39 AM
The perfect feminist line is that they can blame Kendra Sunderland and Belle Knox for libraries being so dangerous. Now predatory men see them as hunting grounds. Or maybe just hopeful men.
Canvasback at August 6, 2016 7:59 AM
Grammar tip:
To tell whether to use "who" or "whom," you turn the sentence around from:
"... Perry, whom I'm pretty sure did this ..."
to:
"I'm pretty sure he [nominative case] did this ..."
The correct pronoun must also be in the nominative case, no matter what word order you use. Thus: "... Perry, who I'm pretty sure did this ..."
A professional writer -- especially one who takes pride in her work -- should not be making this mistake, and yet I see it again and again on this blog. As Trump would say: sad!
Szoszolo at August 6, 2016 9:45 AM
Pedantic bear is pedantic.
And no fun at parties.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at August 6, 2016 9:59 AM
A professional writer -- especially one who takes pride in her work -- should not be making this mistake, and yet I see it again and again on this blog. As Trump would say: sad!
It's not "sad." It reflects that I've got an enormous amount on my plate -- to the point where I rarely leave the house and work crazy hours seven days a week. So, sometimes I make errors in posting a blog item that I wouldn't in other writing, as a person who obsessively goes over and over her columns and book manuscript before they go out.
As for this post, I made the correction.
But FYI, the polite way to correct grammar isn't the way you did above, in tone or manner. It's to take a moment to look for contact information for a person and privately email them with "Hey, slight error in your post."
A number of commenters here have done this, and I always appreciate it. Especially right now.
Amy Alkon at August 6, 2016 10:06 AM
Grammar tip tip
"whom" is falling out of usage in American English. Get over it.
And geez louise, did you not understand the message anyway?
charles at August 6, 2016 10:11 AM
For anyone who's interested, the way you figure out whether it's "who" or "whom" is to see whether "he" or "him" could replace it in a sentence. (I use "he" or "him" for the test because "him" has an "m" on the end and thus goes with "whom.")
So, the sentence bit:
1: who I'm pretty sure did this
2: whom I'm pretty sure did this.
...So, the test:
1. WHO did this? HE did.
2. WHOM did this? HIM did.
Oh, right. So, it's "who" did this instead of "whom."
Love little tricks like this. And people who are classy and kind enough to privately "Pssst" people instead of publicly sneering at them.
Amy Alkon at August 6, 2016 10:13 AM
I've been criticized for my support of men's advocacy groups, because supposedly, they would not support me as a gay man.
Even if that's true, what choice do I have? Women advocacy groups would stigmatize me as a cis-gendered male. (Believe it or not, not too many people in my real life experience pick up on the fact that I'm gay. Or if they do, they don't care.)
But I've developed a case of "white male fatigue," I'll call it. I've reached a point where I'm just tired of being blamed for everything. "Well, since you oppress us women, we naturally need a place to study away from you."
Never mind that these same people would be the same to encroach in "civil disobedience" should a "men's study lounge" be made.
Yeah, whatever. I'm oppressing you. Flagellate, flagellate, flagellate, and all that. I'm horrid, okay? Worst thing that should ever happen to the planet. We white males should all be forced to colonize Antarctica stark naked.
Patrick at August 6, 2016 11:02 AM
When it comes to studying, or any other serious business requiring teamwork, the men are better off segregating from the women, even if it means having inferior facilities. If the women will do the segregating that's even better, because the men won't have to hear a lot of indignant bitching and whining about oppression and discrimination.
I learned that in nursing school, in a class of 62 women and 7 men. At the beginning of the first semester, in order to split up the work and get assignments done in less time, students joined together in study groups of 5 or 6. By the middle of the semester us men learned that study groups with women were dysfunctional. They just would not get along! They bitched, they bickered, they cried- actual tears!; this one didn't like that one; certain ones wouldn't talk to certain others; and they worried that they were going to do more work than someone else - to the extent that they often wouldn't do their share out of fear that someone else might do less.
In the middle of the first semester five of us men abandoned our study groups and formed a men-only study group. Best move we ever made. We met for two hours, twice a week, in a messy little storage room that none of the women would want. We shared pizza and chips and donuts and bacon and Subway sandwiches and caffeine. We goofed around and told jokes and laughed loudly and raucously, and talked crudely about the women, and played loud music, and ate our junk food, and got every assignment and every problem done on time and done right. Even when there was no work to do we still met, just to have a good time. The only thing any of us worried about was not carrying his share of the load; so each of us always did a little extra, just in case another guy was unable for some reason to get his part done.
Women whose groups were dysfunctional knew we were getting the work done, and they wanted to be in our group; but we told them, "Nuh-uh! No women!" When we met we drew a chalk line on the floor across the doorway and wrote "No Women" next to it. They started calling us the He-man-Woman-haters, but every time we met they'd hear us laughing and having a good time, and some of them would try to come in; but we'd shout them back out and tell them not to cross that chalk line. Some would get offended and go off pouting, calling us assholes and gay (two of us were married, two straight single, one gay single); and others would act so cute, standing just outside the door with their toes right up to the line, smiling and chatting, and waiting for us to invite them in. It was tempting, but we never weakened. We couldn't afford to. There was too much at stake. And it paid off in the end.
Ken R at August 6, 2016 1:56 PM
Because it's being sold as being about women "feeling safe" and not specifically about excluding men. See, if you want to exclude men, you need to frame it as a safety issue, not a gender issue. Once you do that, you can pretty much exclude men, especially white ones, from anything.
Conan the Grammarian at August 6, 2016 3:17 PM
Well, given women commit the majority of all interpersonal violence, why can men have a safe space?
lujlp at August 6, 2016 3:57 PM
If you're including things like spitting in someone's face, maybe that's true. If you're talking about potentially deadly violence, I'd like to see your sources. As in, more than one.
lenona at August 6, 2016 4:58 PM
If you're including things like spitting in someone's face, maybe that's true. If you're talking about potentially deadly violence, I'd like to see your sources. As in, more than one.
lenona at August 6, 2016 4:58 PM
How do you measure *potentially deadly violence*. Except after the fact?
I'd like to see some studies on that.
Isab at August 6, 2016 5:25 PM
How do you measure *potentially deadly violence*.
Look to see if a man perpetrated it. If so, it's potentially deadly.
dee nile at August 6, 2016 5:39 PM
"If the women will do the segregating that's even better, because the men won't have to hear a lot of indignant bitching and whining about oppression and discrimination."
Look at the rest of what you wrote Ken R. They won't self segregate. They want a women's only space and a mixed gender space. Men having their own space would not be tolerated.
Ben at August 6, 2016 8:02 PM
I'm late to the party, but I want to toss this out:
I can see that having a women's study lounge is nice. Interactions among women are undoubtedly different from interactions in a mixed-gender group. It's also convenient, when you want to get away from that guy who keeps hitting on you when you're trying to study.
The Title IX problem comes from the lack of a men's study lounge. Everything I just said about women is true for men as well: interactions in a single-gender group are pleasantly different, and it provides a place to retreat from mixed-gender interactions.
My preferred solution would be: provide both.
Regarding LGBT nonsense: Ignore it. People with a rare developmental disorder should not be driving this conversation. The fact that lots of attention seekers have jumped onto the bandwagon makes it even more important to ignore them.
a_random_guy at August 7, 2016 12:32 AM
Harvard
newscastmedia.com/harvard_study.htm
1975 National Family Violence Survey
www.socio.com/fam31.php
CDC
ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020
Know what they all say?
50% of violent relationships are non reciprocal, meaning only one party is abusive, the other 50% both parties are abusive.
In mutually abusive relationships women commit half the abuse, AND ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE THE INITIATOR OF THE PHYSICAL ABUSE
In unilaterally abusive relationships women commit in excess of 70% of the abuse.
50% of 50% is 25% of the whole
70% of 50% is 35% of the whole
35 + 25 = 60%
Women commit just over 60% of all domestic violence,
Women commit 150% MORE domestic violence than men
Women also commit nearly HALF of all sexual assaults.
Now, look close at that second link
NINETEEN SEVENTY FIVE
It has been know for nearly half a fucking century that women are just as, if not MORE, violent than men.
Couple that with the fact that violent criminal acts DROP every single year.
Now ask yourself why, knowing these incontrovertible FACTS, do feminists and women's 'safety' groups insist on claiming college campuses in america are more dangerous to women than countries in the middle east where women are LITERALLY executed by the government for the crime of being raped?
lujlp at August 7, 2016 3:26 AM
"The perfect feminist line is that they can blame Kendra Sunderland and Belle Knox for libraries being so dangerous. Now predatory men see them as hunting grounds. Or maybe just hopeful men."
That's why they need a separate space. How are they going to make money doing their public-masturbation videos if men keep interrupting them?
Cousin Dave at August 8, 2016 8:07 AM
I believe lujlp's numbers are correct. What happens is that the woman starts the fight but men are much much stronger and if they hit back the woman goes to the floor knocked out and the man goes to jail. In the average case, a woman can beat on a man and he can take it as long as she doesn't hit his face or have a weapon, but not the other way around.
Craig Loehle at August 8, 2016 10:37 AM
I can see the appeal of a women's only study area. BUT, if they want one, there should be a men's only area as well.
Of course, since we can no longer pee (which I'll note involves using the parts that make us men or women) in single-gendered areas, I don't know what this would mean.
Nevertheless, I would have proposed keeping it and making a guy area as well. Seems the equitable solution.
Shannon at August 8, 2016 9:42 PM
I notice you still avoided the details I mentioned. Maybe the studies did too?
lenona at August 9, 2016 7:23 AM
I notice you still avoided the details I mentioned. Maybe the studies did too? - lenona at August 9, 2016 7:23 AM
If you're including things like spitting in someone's face, maybe that's true. If you're talking about potentially deadly violence, I'd like to see your sources. As in, more than one. - lenona at August 6, 2016 4:58 PM
What details did you mention? Please quote them. This was your only comment, and all you did was ask for sources. Which you promptly ignored
lujlp at August 9, 2016 3:50 PM
Leave a comment