In world of online moms, can dads come out and play?

For two years, hundreds of Sonoma County women have connected on a Web site dedicated to moms, where the discussions range from parenting and play dates, to more intimate thoughts on husbands and sex lives.

And then one day last week, the unthinkable happened: a man signed on as a new member.

“Hi all,” began the online introduction from Gary. “I’m a dad.”

The resulting uproar on sonomacountymom.com, where dozens of the site’s 361 members posted angry messages voicing their opposition to Gary’s presence, raises the hot-button issue of people attempting to crash gender-specific businesses, clubs or online forums.

Unlike the case of a women-only gym in Santa Rosa that was sued by the state after a man was denied entry as a member, the issue with the mom’s Web site comes at a time when laws pertaining to discrimination online are still unclear.

Legal issues aside, the story speaks to parental anxiety in an age of “To Catch a Predator,” as well as to the sometimes oxymoronic notion of Internet privacy and what experts say is a dearth of resources for stay-at-home dads.

Gary Traffanstedt, the Santa Rosa man responsible for all of the fuss, said his intention in joining the mom’s Web site was to network with other parents, not to start a movement.

Wanted to be upfront

The self-employed Web programmer said he sought out the group specifically because he spends so much time online. His wife, Rebecca, previously joined the site, but he said he would have considered it “dishonest” to simply post using her login information.

The article goes on to describe the largely hostile responses the women posted towards Traffanstedt. Sadly, it is not surprising that there seemed to be an assumption that he was a sexual predator trying to violate their space. It is tough enough being a father without having to deal with being labeled in such a manner, but I suppose that kind of treatment is to be expected. The owner of the site later stated that no one said this father was unwelcome, however, the reaction of the posters counters that notion. No one who is welcome to a community would be or should be treated in that fashion.

That said, while I think the reactions were largely sexist and immature, I do understand the need and desire to have a safe private space. I have seen this kind of thing occur on male survivor forums before, usually when women decide to post in or read forums specifically for men. It certainly did seem like the women were violating men’s privacy by commenting in those spaces, especially after it was made clear that a lot of the men felt uncomfortable with women being there.

The difference, at least as I recall it, is that the above reaction only occurred after weeks of asking women to respect male survivors’ spaces and boundaries without women listening to those requests. Of the half dozen sites I have been on over the years they all came to a crashing halt because of something like this. The most troubling part was that many of the women felt entitled to read and comment on men’s posts and to have access to the sites to begin with. In each instance the moderators created male-only spaces that could only be accessed by request or by payment.

Personally, while I never really feel all that comfortable around females, I usually never spoke in detail about my experiences anyway so there was little reason for me to specifically want women gone. However, a lot of males, especially those abused by women, would stop discussing their abuse because of women’s presence. So on that level I could understand why having women on a male survivor’s forum would cause far more problems than it would solve.

Likewise, I can understand why those mothers would have a problem with a father suddenly entering their private space and having access to their most private posts. I do not think that deleting posts or accusing the man of being a pervert was fair or reasonable though. I think that Traffanstedt should have thought more about entering what was is clearly a women’s-only space regardless of his intentions.

All that aside, I am curious as to whether this will eventually set some sort of legal precedent. I cannot imagine that it will given that most sites are paid for by their owners and could potentially be considered private property.