WomensStuff

Yup, agreed on all fronts :-)

Picture a well-intentioned man. (I'm not even talking trolls who do this deliberately and strategically.) This well-intentioned man intrudes into a conversation about, say, workplace sexual harrassment experiences. They say something ham-fisted like:

How is it 'creepy' if I put my hand on a woman colleague's shoulder when looking at something on their desk to help? I do the same with my male colleagues.

Again, we're presuming a well-intentioned man here. Not a troll who's deliberately triggering. Just a well-intentioned man who genuinely believes that it's fine to do this.

Now five women, say, have been comparing war stories about sexual harassment at work. They each respond with a further example, or a a plausible progression from "hand on shoulder" to real life experience that ended badly or whatnot. Each of these five women brings up a different point or point of view, so this isn't just repetition.

Now the well-intentioned man responds to each one, asking for more details, or failing to understand and needing explanation, or whatever.

We now have, with only one round of this, a situation where five women in total have spoken: one twice (to report the original story, and then to respond to the man), the rest once each. Six messages from five women in total. And from one man we have six messages.

And this never ends in one round, does it? In no time flat we have a thread that is 80% written by one man and 20% written by five women. One man's voice is drowning out five women's voices.

Now multiply this by the number of men (again, here we're assuming only the well-intentioned!) and the number of threads and you rapidly have a forum for women that is mostly men talking.

That is how you "talk over" a group on Lemmy.

Between the jumping-spider-reflexes of the mod team and, yeah, the actually pretty level-headed responses of the men I've seen who've stumbled here, this has been pretty good. I was expecting to see a whole lot of manosphere rage in the modlog and … haven't.

This is a nice place!

I'm not sure if that reference to a terf group was a subtle dig or just ham-fistedness. I'm going to assume the latter for now and overlook it.

I think the core of why women-only spaces (or any affinity-based spaces) exist is that sometimes, people need a “room” where they don’t have to explain themselves from scratch, justify their feelings, or brace themselves for misunderstandings, no matter how well-intentioned. It’s about having a place where you can relax and be understood without constantly translating your experience or others.

Exclusivity sometimes matters

It’s a bit like why people form Chinese-only groups, or native women-only circles, or even expat meetups. It’s not necessarily about thinking outsiders are bad or unwelcome as people; it’s about the relief of not having to explain cultural references (like 关系, say), background pain points, or subtle social cues. Even the most well-meaning outsider, by virtue of their different life experience, can unintentionally disrupt that sense of “home base.” And sometimes, you just want to be with people who get it, so you can drop your guard for a while.

Constant explanation is draining

Even when outsiders are respectful and curious, their presence often means the group’s energy shifts from sharing and healing (or even just shooting the shit) to explaining and justifying. It’s not about active hostility; it’s about emotional labour. Imagine a Chinese-only group where a non-Chinese person keeps asking (genuinely!) for explanations of idioms, jokes, or cultural references. It’s not malicious, but it’s exhausting for the group members who just wanted to chat freely.

By way of analogy, imagine a French-language only room that permits monolingual anglophones. How much time would be wasted on translating things people say to a non-francophone? How much energy and effort would be spent on servicing the needs of the anglophone participants at the expense of the people the group is ostensibly for?

Yes. That masculine/feminine divide can sometimes be that vast.

The "Five Geek Social Fallacies"

This ties into the “Five Geek Social Fallacies,” especially the first one: “Ostracizers are Evil.” The idea is that some people believe any exclusion is inherently bad, but in reality, boundaries are necessary for healthy communities. (I stressed that because it's an incredibly important point.) Not every space has to be for everyone, and that’s okay. Sometimes, the most supportive thing you can do is recognize when your presence isn’t needed, and respect that boundary.

It's not #AllMen (or #AllOutsiders)

It’s not that every man, or every outsider, is a problem. It’s just that the group can’t function as intended if it’s always on alert for the possibility of being misunderstood, having to explain basics, or, in the extreme case, having to defend its existence. The easiest, kindest way to preserve that space is to set a clear boundary, even if it means some good people are left outside. It’s not a judgment on those people, it’s a recognition of the group’s needs.

Exclusivity in these contexts isn’t about hostility or superiority. It’s about creating a rare, valuable space where people can be fully themselves, unfiltered and unguarded. Sometimes, that means drawing a line—not because outsiders are bad, but because the group’s needs come first in that particular space.

I hope that helps clarify where I’m coming from.