It’s actually justifying exclusion by stating that it is a lesser evil than the results of inclusion.

BTW, few law firms officially say “this event is for men only”. It’s just that you don’t get quite so many female associates if, oh, you just happen to pick a firm event at a strip bar, or at an exclusive men’s club.

You know it’s odd, but while I’ve seen several different arguments for female-only spaces, none of them have even boiled down to anything remotely like “it’s okay for us to discrimintae because most of the time we’re the ones being discriminated against.” Got any examples of The Payback Principle?

The typical argument for women-only schools is that in mixed-sex classrooms men tend to dominate the conversation and the women don’t get a fair shake. An all female school means female students get more attention, participate more, etc. Which is true, which I why I said the argument has some merit.

That said, that is still discrimination and the justification is that in mixed-sex classes women are essentially discriminated against. (Maybe “discriminated” is not the right word here – disadvantaged due to the behavior of male classmates)

Because women are somewhat excluded from mixed-sex classrooms, the remedy is to completely exclude men. That is not “payback” but it is justifying exclusion by appealing to previous (reversed) exclusion. Maybe it would be more accurate to say in that case the argument being made is “it’s ok to exclude men because in mixed-sex classrooms we are largely excuded.”

As I said it has some merit, but it isn’t an easy argument to make. While men do tend to dominate discussions women aren’t absolutely barred from those discussions. It’s also the case that quieter men are excluded to much the same degree. In my experience most classroom discusions are dominated by a few people who are mostly men, but not by men as a collective group.

An operational trend towards exclusion to some degree is different from being excluded by rule. It is not impossible for a woman to dominate a mixed-sex discussion, but it is impossible for a man to dominate a female-only discussion.

Note that I’m not saying that female-only schools are a terrible idea, or that female-only lawyer events are a terrible idea. I’m just saying that events that appeal to women rather than that absolutely exclude men are much much easier to argue for. (And most likely accomplish the same thing)

How can anyone be against doing a variety of activities that appeal to different types of people? But it is fairly easy to be against activities that by rule exclude people. To say that certain people are just not allowed at all understandably rubs some the wrong way.

A lesson learned the hard way, as most of them are.

but that argument is much more convoluted and essentially amounts to “it’s ok for us to discriminate because most of the times we are the ones being discriminated against.” Which really is not a very sympathetic position although it does have some merit.

You know it’s odd, but while I’ve seen several different arguments for female-only spaces, none of them have even boiled down to anything remotely like “it’s okay for us to discrimintae because most of the time we’re the ones being discriminated against.” Got any examples of The Payback Principle?

The nonsensical gender-divided activities are but the tip of the iceberg at big firms. oy.

A thousand times yes.

I am very fortunate to be at a small firm. Our events include going to theater performances (both sexes included in hosts and invitees), going to dance performances (women included in hosts and invitees, because male didn’t come in the first go-rounds, and the male attorneys don’t want to go anyway), small events that are usually one-on-one (and therefore tailored to the interests of the client, be they male or female, and therefore might include golf or the opera or something else), and a large associate event that is hosted by all women (because all of the associates are women) and including only women (because in our associate-level network, there would only be a handful of guys, and we wouldn’t want them to feel awkward about being minoritized). Every once in a while there will be a faint-hearted grouse from a male partner about the gynocentrism, but upon being reminded that they, too, are completely welcome to the dance performance or the opera, they remember their own preferences and quiet down. Precious little bullshit, which is nice.

Now, ask me again whether my firm is great when I come up for partner in 2 years. If elevated, I would shift the mix from 3 men and 2 women to a 50/50 mix. I’m not sure that my enabling the firm to have a women-owned business designation would be enough of an appeal to make up for the loss of dominant male voting. We shall see…

Golf sucks. So does shoe shopping. Why can’t they have events that a greater majority of people would enjoy, like a barbeque?

Amen, sister!

But with these type of events, I don’t see how this is catering to female associates anymore than it is catering to the female clients.

I would never go to a spa if it involved being naked in front of humans I’m not married to (or related to who are older than three.) I don’t do public nudity. I imagine lots of people feel the same way. And if there won’t be nudity then there’s no reason not to make it mixed sex.