"There's usually at least one [man] whenever I visit," says Kaitlin Phillips, 29, a member in New York for the past two years. "It's bizarre to choose to occupy a space women specifically wanted for themselves. Classic patriarchal entitlement complex."

Yet, if it were women invading spaces set aside for men, it would be called "inclusiveness" and "diversity." Not some entitlement complex. On the contrary, the very existence of a space for men would be called "classic patriarchal entitlement complex."

I enjoy sex-segregated space sometimes. I imagine it is nice for men, too.

NicoleK: I enjoy sex-segregated space sometimes.

So do I. I just wish they weren't lauded when they're for women, but a symbol of the oppressive patriarchy when they're for men.

I would love to belong to a gym that's just for men, for instance. We have plenty of women's gyms, even an entire franchise just for women.

I used to belong to a gym with a main workout area that was basically co-ed, but set aside a separate room with equipment and machines just for women. Oddly, they didn't see anything wrong with this.

...feminist icons like Anita Hill....

Oh, please.

You beat me to it Patrick. For generations women pushing their way into men only places have been lauded a great people doing great things. Switch the gender and you are a monster. This is rank bigotry and hypocrisy.

"Why do men need to be there? Why can't they respect the spirit of the place? Men have to have everything."

Maybe they identify as a woman, transphobic bigot.

Gotta swim against the current on this one. I see nothing wrong with either women or men wanting to have a place where they can associate with only others of their sex. (You know, freedom of association and all those other personal liberty annoyances).

I'm confused about the fact that a large number of members world wide means it can't be a social club.

It is also an egregious hypocrisy for women to invade men's organizations. I think both men and women who do this are simply trolls with deep seated emotional issues.

So, my confusion is why do some people insist on harassing others who have no desire to interact with them?

Jay: So, my confusion is why do some people insist on harassing others who have no desire to interact with them?

My question for you is, "Why do you believe that merely being in a place where some don't want you is 'interacting' and 'harassing'?"

There might be a woman who doesn't want to interact with men in a restaurant. If I walk in, sit down, place my order, eat, pay and leave, am I "interacting" with her? Is my mere presence "harassing" her?

So, my confusion is why do some people insist on harassing others who have no desire to interact with them? ~ Jay at December 19, 2019 6:24 AM

Early on, the argument was that men-only clubs were where men gathered to talk business and get clubby with each other - i.e., make contacts.

The argument went that women, barred from such spaces, were not able to get ahead in their professions because they could not head down the to club for social hour and meet the movers and shakers.

Women were then a significant minority in many fields and even a women-only club was limited in its ability to enable women to make contacts with movers and shakers.

In court fights, many clubs countered that they would change their rules to forbid networking or business talk in the club, but the counter argument went that the contact was the important element, not the subject of the conversation.

Breaking down the doors of the "old boys club" was the only way, the argument went, that women could reach higher levels in their professions; that men-only clubs acted as de facto discrimination against women, leaving them out of the relationship building available with membership to such clubs.

So, single-sex clubs were barred as discriminatory.

Patrick: "My question for you is, Why do you believe that merely being in a place where some don't want you is 'interacting' and 'harassing'?"

Sorry Patrick but your question is a straw man that changes the entire meaning of my post. The people who form private clubs are not going to public/open areas and complaining of others in those areas. To the contrary, they are avoiding such places when they don't wish to interact. They are using closed/private sites to associate with others like them.

Why do you think their voluntary separation from public areas is such a terrible action? Have you never wanted to meet with a few friends in a private setting?

Jay, you aren't going against the current. You are going against the law. I have no issue with men only places. My only issue with women only places is that they are legal and men only places are not.

As Conan points out above, single sex clubs are defacto discriminatory by law.

Conan, I understand and appreciate the past decisions on breaking down barriers that had kept women from using networking and other relationships in such organizations. I agree it was de facto discrimination. Ending it was proper.

My concern is does that mean that every attempt at private interaction should be now and forever banned? It begs the question, must we be forced to associate with anyone who wishes to push themselves on us? I don't have an answer. But there has to be some middle ground between discrimination by exclusion and forced association.

Jay: Sorry Patrick but your question is a straw man that changes the entire meaning of my post.

Sorry, Jay. There was no strawman. You are plainly inferring something not even the article tried to claim was going on.

I could walk into The Wing and be met with disapproval from the women who feel that men shouldn't be allowed in it at all.

However, merely being present in the club does not mean I am "interacting" with anyone. And it certainly doesn't mean I'm "harassing" anyone.

You inferred that a man's mere presence in the club is harassing the women. You used the word. Own it. You also inferred that a man merely being in the club is interacting with with the women. Again, you used the word. Own it.

Jay: Why do you think their voluntary separation from public areas is such a terrible action?

On, the subject of strawmen, I never said such things were "terrible" at all. On the contrary, I said earlier that I would love to see more gender-segregated areas. My only issue is that when women attempt to invade men's-only spaces, they are lauded as brave, while men attempting to invade women's-only spaces are viewed as exercising "patriarchal entitlement."

That aside, I'm enjoying some parts of the article immensely, particularly the comments from the hypersensitive set. For example, from this woman who invited a male co-worker to join her.

“I’ll never do that again,” she says. “He didn’t respect the space, acting like we were in a coffee shop or something. I was getting looks from other members.”

Okay, he came in as an invited guest. How did he not "respect the space." You can't say that his mere presence was failing to "respect the space"; he was invited.

So, what did he do? Rip his pants off, jump on the table and do helicopters?

"Acting like we were in a coffee shop or something" doesn't seem so terrible. I don't do them much, but as far as I can tell, the patrons of coffee shops seem to be reasonably well-mannered. (Not considering the isolated incidents of outrageous conduct we see in the news.)

“I glare at the men and I glare at the members who bring them,” says the anonymous New York member.

Ooooh, that will really show those men and the members who bring them! You just fix them with that death ray glare. I'm sure they'll feel your searing disapproval and change the error of their ways at once.

My only issue with women only places is that they are legal and men only places are not. ~ Ben at December 19, 2019 7:31 AM

I believe women-only are also discriminatory by law and illegal. As the article points out, "legally the company can't ban men."

My concern is does that mean that every attempt at private interaction should be now and forever banned? ~ Jay at December 19, 2019 7:35 AM

No, but if you join a social club, of whatever persuasion, you're going to sometimes interact with people, some of whom you'd rather avoid. It's the nature of a public or semi-public place.

You are right Conan. I should have said acceptable not legal.

"A guy even checked me out a few weeks ago. The whole purpose of the space is to not have to deal with anything like that." Has it ever crossed women's minds that the reason for male clubs is not "patriarchy" but so guys can go somewhere without worrying about getting in trouble with their wives? If I go out to lunch with my male friends, my wife is ok with it--but if it were a mixed group I better bring her along. Women too often want special privs--sororities but not fraternities allowed.
Conan points out that the logic behind banning men's clubs was that this was where the big-boys made deals. This is a tiny percentage of males, the lawyers and politicians and CEOs. Fraternities have no such grand schemes in mind--they supply housing and friends for guys on a campus but Harvard banned them. Other men's clubs likewise were not grand deal-making sites but things like the Odd-Fellows or Elks or VFW (not technically men only but effectively so) or secret societies like the Masons.

If I go out to lunch with my male friends, my wife is ok with it--but if it were a mixed group I better bring her along. ~ cc at December 19, 2019 8:53 AM

The other reason is that men, traditionally, were expected to be on their best behavior in mixed company. That meant no swearing, no farting, no scratching, no belching, and no ogling or commenting on women who pass by; and no commenting on past conquests. In other words, no locker room talk.

Drinking and smoking were other things that men were exercise restraint in doing in front of women. At men's clubs, they could enjoy cigars and hooch without inviting the reproving eye of "that monstrous regiment of women."

Having a place where they could get away from societal constraints and let their proverbial hair down was welcome - to many men, at least.

"I found out that when you get married the man becomes the head of the house. And the woman becomes the neck, and she turns the head any way she wants to." ~ Yakov Smirnoff

...the logic behind banning men's clubs was that this was where the big-boys made deals. This is a tiny percentage of males, the lawyers and politicians and CEOs. ~ cc at December 19, 2019 8:53 AM

I was a small number of people actually making deals. What counted more were the contacts made.

My grandfather used to make contacts and deals at "the club." He was the city (perhaps town as the population was about 10,000 at the time) manager and made many contacts and deals while playing cards and drinking with the Elks, the Rotarians, and the Masons.

My grandmother was not happy that he spent so much time playing cards and drinking, but how do you think they got the airport or the polio hospital built so quickly? One guy knew another guy from the club and he knew another guy and pretty soon all the pieces needed were assembled.

I totally get the belching thing. At Smith there were no guys to see us, so there was a lot more wearing of pajamas everywhere. Not the sexy kind. We looked like crap. It was comfortable.

AOC is a "big name"?

Why in hell don't we hear about Grace Hopper, Sally Ride, Patty Wagstaff, or Katherine Johnson?

Is it because leftists can't stand actual achievement?

Well, Johnson could travel and attend the meetings, at least.

Well, Wagstaff might be able to travel to a meeting, at least.

LOL caught the error just as I was posting. Too late.