Never said they didn’t.

I suppose my point is that exclusion of any group or category of person effects what is said. So it doesn’t really matter. Its not a good enough reason.

Making a group explicitly exclusionary implies a perspective that the excluded group is an out-group, and thus an adversary.

Men who formed explicitly exclusionary male only spaces, boy’s clubs, etc. in the past almost certainly feel some level of disdain for women. And men who enforce soft exclusion, like guys who do litmus tests to see if a woman is earnestly interested in whatever the club is about, aggressively disgust me.

This is not a feeling I apply with gendered prejudice.

I don’t know if you lack the ability to understand that these four points were made in the context of why women might want a meeting without men or something else.

I wasn’t being a smart ass. (well, mostly) I’m a soft anti-natalist, my suggestion was a half joking gendered version of what I actually believe. I think that, if you have given information on what a person’s life is going to be like you should be honest in your assessment if they’ll live a life worth living and make the world a better place by being in it. I just have a much higher bar to clear than most people.

My view is that, if society is to give birth to 100 people, if there is a chance 1 of them will live a life so miserable that they are driven to suicide, regardless of reason, you should probably birth none of them. Guess what the global percentage of people who die of suicide is?

Either way, I’m don’t think you belong in this conversation.

Its a good thing you don’t get to make that decision then, asshole.

The goals of feminism.

There are many kinds of feminists and forms of feminism. I assume you don’t care to elaborate on specifics because you think you’d show me I’m right to view exclusionary spaces with some level of suspicion and disdain.