“Men are showing up to the Wing and women are pi$$ed“
While I’ve been on a bit of the Gender Dysphoric (Transgender) bend as I see it as a 2+2=5 demand structure, this one I’m taking a bit on the lighter side. Hey turnabout is fair play, or have you no sense of (relatively) short history? Back when the First Wave Feminists were demanding equality (vs the domineering of today), a good spectacle for them was invading mens’ clubs, especially the old fashioned mahogany book and display cases lining the walls, over stuffed formal armchairs with cigar tray and glasses of whiskey, port, or Scotch on a table beside them. Older gents in formal suits with butlers / attendees waiting on them for their needs – and where men talked about men stuff by themselves. The women decided that they didn’t want to get shut out of all that and literally stormed the doors. One by one, they fell; first with “allowed female guests” and then “associate members” and then being normalized, full members.
Mens’ clubs, either of that kind or golf clubs, were no more.
Lately, we’ve seen it in reverse – all kinds establishments have sprung up to cater to all kinds of female groups, one of them being (reformatted, emphasis mine):
The Wing was supposed to be the ultimate sanctuary for women: decidedly feminine in design, with walls and furniture in shades of millennial pink and a thermometer set at a women’s-clothing-friendly 72 degrees. Conference rooms and telephone booths are named after feminist icons like Anita Hill and fictional literary heroines such as Hermione Granger of “Harry Potter” fame. It offers perks that other co-working spaces can’t match — showers stocked with high-end beauty products and events featuring big names such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Critics of the Wing were quick to point out the lack of diversity in the spaces, but the company’s expansion and popularity has brought up a completely different issue that was never expected to arise: straight men wanting to come in and hang out. Sure, it’s not against the rules for men to be at the lady lair, which costs anywhere from $185 to $250 a month in the US to join. But that’s only because legally the company can’t ban men.
Well, ladies, your predecessors set the rules and now you have to live by them. Diversity of gender (not bastardization of “gender identity” although I’m fairly sure that’s being ill looked upon as well) was set well before you were out of diapers:
After all, a rather younger crowd as opposed to the stereotypical upper crust former gentleman’s club of your, don’t you think? But the law was set and what was good for the goose is now good for the gander.
“…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.”
Now just swap in “matriarchical” into that last line and the circle is now complete. And “check this out” as well:
“…At first it was jarring,” says a 30-year-old longtime New York member, who asked to not be named. “It started about a year ago and it’s getting worse. 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.”
Well, ma’am, the whole idea of mens clubs was to not have to deal with women: ” to not have to deal with anything like that” works both ways but you ladies would have nothing to do with that old fashioned notion. But some won’t even acknowledge that it was the female gender that create it:
“…I think they’re just losers,” she says of the male plus-ones. “Or cucked boyfriends. It’s a legal fluke.”
No, it was your “older sisters” that sued under the 14th Amendment for that equality and were quite proud of doing so – you, bringing down the patriarchy and all. They just didn’t understand that they were undermining their future “sisterhood” at the same time.
Go read the whole post – I find it rather amusing to being “chuckle worthy”.
On the serious side, though, this whole thing was caused by ignoring the Constitution. You know, that part of the First Amendment about “Free Association”? Men just wanted to be by themselves. Now the women want that same Right, right? But they thought it was a “win” for denying men that Right back in the day.
And now they’re lamenting (and not even knowing why) that at the same time they denied men that Right, there were denying for themselves. Decisions have consequences and you chose badly (to quote from another patriarchically led movie).
How about this, feminists – let men be men and be men by themselves in their clubs and maybe, just maybe, they’ll agree to let you be ladies and leave you alone as well? Deal?
Naw, I didn’t think so.
(H/T: NY Post)
