Many words are being spilled on the subject of Le Stud and whether women should be allowed to drink there. Here's a version of an editorial originally in the Gazette, saying that they should, which is typical of that side of the argument.

Well, the fact is, they can, as demonstrated in yesterday's little event. But should they? This rant on craigslist makes a counterpoint: gay folks would like to have their own spaces where they are not subject to scrutiny by straights. Another rant points out: "From my own experience at the old K.O.X. when they began to let women in, they brought the straight men in. Cruising one cute guy there one night he turned to his friend and said "look, I'm getting checked out by a faggot." In. A. Gay. Bar."

We always think in terms of rights now. But there's another way to see this. If you belong to a majority culture (on any basis), you can say, when considering a minority culture's territory: yes, I have every right to go there, but I won't. Don't be the arrogant troll that maintains that you're being excluded because a subculture to which you don't belong needs its own spaces.

Another way to look at this and similar issues: a distinction which is being lightly thrown aside in the editorial linked above, in Martineau's blog entry from yesterday, and other items I've seen, is that when the dominant culture draws lines based on exclusion and prejudice, it is a problem, and we do get reasonably outraged. When women were excluded from certain jobs, when nonwhite people are excluded from clubs or jobs or access to housing, society acts properly in setting it straight. But when a subculture that has historically been harassed and endangered (and is still not always safe) draws a line, that is not being done from a position of power. It is not the same thing. Is that so difficult to understand?
posted at 14:08