Reframe your thinking on the topic, since sacrificial love is masculine and so is protection. You're not going to get far whining about ladies invading your space because, for the simp, that's a sacrifice. Instead, it has to be about protecting women.
It's not that women shouldn't be in your faculty because they don't belong there. It's that motherhood is the most prestigious and important job in the world (the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world), and that by dehumanising mothers and lying to girls that they'll be so much better if they become careerists "first" (read: instead), we're robbing them of their human experience. Let women come to the faculty after their children are grown, not before their eggs dry up and they die the last of their family line.
Your example article is about elderly ladies, so the specifics are different but the principle is the same: protection. You're too special to be sullied in the shed where we're cursing and spitting. Of course, the only way that will work is if you stop cursing and spitting in the presence of women and children, first.
The gym? We don't want to strip you down to your nakedness to be devoured by strange men. This can go for anywhere in the public, too; not just the gym. Pius X remarked, when he met some bicyclists, that they were in public in their underwear. The only way this works though is if you're protecting her from her lusts by covering yourself up in her presence too. Of course your entire city is a gay, furry, diaper dungeon, expanded beyond the shameful borders of the closet by a Talmudic thread strung up upon the telephone poles; it's not just obvious that that was going to happen, that was the plan.
Religion does not fear the dagger’s point; but it can vanish under corruption. Let us not grow tired of corruption: we may use a pretext, such as sport, hygiene, health resorts. It is necessary to corrupt, that our boys and girls practice nudism in dress. To avoid too much reaction, one would have to progress in a methodical manner: first, undress up to the elbow; then up to the knees; then arms and legs completely uncovered; later, the upper part of the chest, the shoulders, etc. etc.
-International Review on Freemasonry, 1928
It's not about protecting yourself from women. Get real; you could toss them out if you wanted to and only other men could stop you. They haven't invaded, they've been tolerated at the leisure of the simps who believe that they're sacrificing for them. Feminism requires men to enforce it. Reframe your thinking: it's about protecting the women, who are special and deserve a special space. Compare the situation to the china cabinet. You could throw the fine china into the cupboard, and would that be fair to the china? Is reserving the china in a special cabinet deporcelainising?
You're going to have to get to the root of the problem, which is immodesty and unchastity.
Knee-jerk reaction, the feminist is going to say that not every woman is called to motherhood. This is true. Let the perpetual virgins perpetuate their virginity. But no woman is called to the sterility which is the consequence of neutering society and telling them to be little men.
