Daniel and Ann,
I found Daniel Linden's comments to be very interesting. I heard him saying that there were a number of places where, in earlier parts of his life, he had enjoyed male-only camraderie, and that, while it seems natural enough now that few of those places exist, he still thinks the male-only camraderie is appropriate. That doesn't sound misogynist to me, nor can I see anything in his post indicating feelings that women should be excluded from any of the men's places where they have now gained their rightful place.
Perhaps in discussing what he likes about the male-only environment, Daniel should have focused solely on the positive aspects of men and not complained about any of the negative things he found in women's company. On the other hand, in the modern age, we've sort of gotten past worrying about that so much, haven't we? I mean, we now know pretty clearly that men and women behave differently, and that part of that is because their brains and hormonal systems are different. Surely it makes sense that some aspects of uniquely female behavior would be grating for some men, just like some aspects of male behavior are clealry grating for some women. I don't see why that has to be a source of friction here.
On the other hand, I do think that Daniel's response to the issue of gender-induced difficulties in a dojo vs. difficulties induced by other factors was flippant, and I'm still curious to hear a more considered answer. I'm sure that he didn't mean, as Daniel Rozenbaum implied, that he doesn't value people who have problems or bring them into the dojo. It'd be nice if he'd help us understand whether he sees a difference between same-sex partners training together and husband and wife training together, or whether there are other common 'dojo issues' that he has decided that his dojo doesn't need to deal with.