Portmarnock golf club found in breach of Equal Status Act

Imposter

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Maybe - could they demonstrate a need, as opposed to simple misogyny

Maybe they feel uncomfortable swinging a large stick so near to women!
Also please explain how an organisation proves a need for a women only gym without any scientific proof (i'm assuming none exists, but you can provide that instead if it does) that these women are actually uncomfortable around men.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Imposter
Also please explain how an organisation proves a need for a women only gym without any scientific proof (i'm assuming none exists, but you can provide that instead if it does) that these women are actually uncomfortable around men.

Please show me the requirement under law to provide scientific proof, as opposed to demonstrating a need.

Mind you, what am I doing here? I'm arguing with a bunch of people whose attitude to women is "shut up whining biatch, if you don't like how the world works then stay at home where you belong" - isn't that precisely what the legislation is designed to counter?

ixoy

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Mind you, what am I doing here? I'm arguing with a bunch of people whose attitude to women is "shut up whining biatch, if you don't like how the world works then stay at home where you belong" - isn't that precisely what the legislation is designed to counter?

No don't be so antagonistic. ReefBreak has raised some good issues. Say I feel uncomfortable around women, having felt disempowered by the popular rise of feminism. Psychological perhaps but it's not misogynistic. Can I, with fellow believers, form a men's only golfing group on the grounds that I enjoy golf but only feel comfortable in a male environment? To argue that women should get certain prejudices in their favour because of vague concepts like "uncomfortable" doesn't really wash - it's having cake, eating it, and following it up with a slice of pie.

Imposter

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Please show me the requirement under law to provide scientific proof, as opposed to demonstrating a need.

I'll rephrase, how would one demonstrate such a need? If it's just as simple as saying there are X number of females who are uncomfortable at the idea of exercising in front of males then surely a male only golf club that exists because it's members go into fits of rage when they see a women on the course is just as valid a reason?

Mind you, what am I doing here? I'm arguing with a bunch of people whose attitude to women is "shut up whining biatch, if you don't like how the world works then stay at home where you belong" - isn't that precisely what the legislation is designed to counter?

:rolleyes:You got it exactly, you're so clever.

Hobart

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Mind you, what am I doing here? I'm arguing with a bunch of people whose attitude to women is "shut up whining biatch, if you don't like how the world works then stay at home where you belong" - isn't that precisely what the legislation is designed to counter?

Look. If you are going to start over-dramatising because somebody disagrees with you, well then, take some of your own advice. A question was asked. I gave an answer. You did'nt like the answer. You start throwing rattles out of your pram. Tackle the issue and stop having a hissy fit.

IMO the world has gone PC mad. I have played in Portmarnock G&C club recently. There were women there. There were men there. Big deal I here you say. My point is that this club will/would have happily existed without any of this storm ala t-cup ensuing if they (the CLUB) where left to thier own devices. But no. The EA has to stick thier oar in. Why? Of what benifit is it to the populous at large? None.

Again IMO, the EA has made a serious error of judgement in taking this case. The feeble attempts to justify the existence of female only gyms, in this thread, is an example of the type of answers that will be concocted to justify arguments in favour of male discrimination. The fact is we cannot exist in a society whereby you can justify discrimination on the basis of "unconfortability". Where do we stop next?

Here's an exercise for you why don't you replace the Word "Male" with the word "Black" in the question posed by oscarbravo and see how you get on.

Seraphina

now im not interested in argueing the nitty gritty of discrimination law, but what i dont get it why on earth women want to join the club, if they are clearly not wanted.

i mean would you guys WANT to join a women only gym where you are obviously not wanted, aren't going to be talked to by other members and are just generally going to be badly received.
there are LOADS of bloody gyms about, why are you complaining? i think private clubs should have a right to restrict access to a certain point.

in the case of portmarnock club. they let the women in, so they must be given equal rights. you either let them in and give them full rights or dont let them in at all ffs. make up your mind.

Imposter

Originally posted by Seraphina
in the case of portmarnock club. they let the women in, so they must be given equal rights. you either let them in and give them full rights or dont let them in at all ffs. make up your mind. [/B]

Surely letting women play is better than not letting them anywhere near the club? I think it's actually quite a fair compromise. The members don't want women members for whatever reasons but have no problem letting them play. Apparently the main purpose is to play golf so both sides should be reasonably satisfied with the compromise that exists, imo.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Hobart
Look. If you are going to start over-dramatising because somebody disagrees with you, well then, take some of your own advice. A question was asked. I gave an answer. You did'nt like the answer. You start throwing rattles out of your pram. Tackle the issue and stop having a hissy fit.

You know what's funny? I barely rephrased what others said, and I'm the one having the hissy fit?

I asked the question whether women should be told to shut up whining, and two people (including you) said "yes." You also said that women who don't enjoy the status quo should stay at home. About all I added was the word "biatch," and yet I'm "over-dramatising"?

Here's an exercise for you why don't you replace the Word "Male" with the word "Black" in the question posed by oscarbravo and see how you get on.

Should all these mixed-gender clubs have communal showers? If not, why not? If not, why not have showers for separate skin colours?

You can see that there's a difference, I trust?

Hobart

Originally posted by oscarBravo
You know what's funny? I barely rephrased what others said, and I'm the one having the hissy fit?

I asked the question whether women should be told to shut up whining, and two people (including you) said "yes." You also said that women who don't enjoy the status quo should stay at home. About all I added was the word "biatch," and yet I'm "over-dramatising"? Should all these mixed-gender clubs have communal showers? If not, why not?

You can see that there's a difference, I trust?

And now your putting words into my mouth, tut-tut. Guess what? Have a re-read of what I actually said and then try to comment. I said that if they are unconfortable, well then they should exercise in the privacy of thier own home. I never said that they should "stay" at home. And actually WFT are you talking about? The "status-quo" does allow for female only clubs? Boggle???

No, all these mixed gender clubs should not have communal showers as some people should not be exposed to the sight of naked adults. People like children. Other people might be uncomfortable at the sight of people of the opposite sex standing naked in front of them. Maybe people should be given the choice. Male-only, Female only, Communal.

Originally posted by oscarBravo
If not, why not have showers for separate skin colours?

Exactly what are you talking about here?

ixoy

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Should all these mixed-gender clubs have communal showers? If not, why not? If not, why not have showers for separate skin colours?

You can see that there's a difference, I trust?

Indeed there's a difference - a differnece that undermines your point unless you're supposing that the gyms - the part where you exercise - are now all nude. You know, here's an idea, you could have a gym with male changing rooms and female changing rooms. It was a little idea thought up a few thousand years ago...

Again though, you're failing to address some of the points raised. Supposing you were raised in the Christian Bible belt. You were raised on beliefs of racial segregation. You feel uncomfortable in a mixed gym as a result. Should the club be allowed a racial discrimination policy then? If not, why not when you can create a bias on gender over similiar issues of feeling uncomfortable?

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Hobart
Other people might be uncomfortable at the sight of people of the opposite sex standing naked in front of them.

Ah. Uncomfortable. Right. Can't ask people to do things that make them uncomfortable, can we?

Of course, they could always shower in the comfort of their own home.

Exactly what are you talking about here?

In simple english: the male/female issue is a lot more clear-cut than race division issues, as you just confirmed.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by ixoy
Indeed there's a difference - a differnece that undermines your point unless you're supposing that the gyms - the part where you exercise - are now all nude.

The only point it might be seen to undermine is the one made by (I think) Imposter earlier in the thread: either you discriminate based on sex, or you don't - there's no middle ground. That's obviously not true, as there is a clear separation made once nudity is involved. So the line has been moved. Where does it end up? That's a question of social norms.

Supposing you were raised in the Christian Bible belt. You were raised on beliefs of racial segregation. You feel uncomfortable in a mixed gym as a result. Should the club be allowed a racial discrimination policy then? If not, why not when you can create a bias on gender over similiar issues of feeling uncomfortable?

Leaving aside the juxtaposition of "Christian" with "racial segregation" - it's a question of social norms, as I said above.

Let's move the goalposts a little, since everyone's so offended at the idea that women should have their own gyms. Should men be allowed to join the ICA?

Victor

Originally posted by ReefBreak
What if another friend confided that he didn't like playing on the same golf course as women, because they were too slow?

Then you politely ask if you can "play through".

Originally posted by Hobart
Women only gyms are as discriminatory as Portmarnock golf club. This "notion" of somebody being "uncomfortable" working out in a mixed gym is poppycock. If your unconfortable, work out in the privacy of your own home ffs!.

Why not play golf in the privacy of your own home then?

I don't particularly support the concept of a women only gym. One gym I know of operated on the basis of alternate days of the week for men and women. I do however think "separate, but equal provision" is not unreasonable, although at times a little prudish (like restaurant toilets that have two cubicles, one for men, one for women, off a shared lobby :rolleyes:). But lets face reality, some people are uncomfortable sharing their surroundings with the opposite sex, can you imagine using a treadmill or weights machine while wearing your burkha (whole different argument)?

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Here, here, why aren't the EA taking a gender discrimination case against motor insurance companies, or highlighting the discrimination in family law in this country? On both issues, they've said nothing.

Discrimination for insurance based on genuine actuarial data is permitted. This discriminates against young men and old women.

Statute law is outside the remit of the EA. However, I suspect they do comment in specific cases and make recommendations.

Zulu

Originally posted by Seraphina
now im not interested in argueing the nitty gritty of discrimination law, but what i dont get it why on earth women want to join the club, if they are clearly not wanted.

i mean would you guys WANT to join a women only gym where you are obviously not wanted, aren't going to be talked to by other members and are just generally going to be badly received.
there are LOADS of bloody gyms about, why are you complaining? i think private clubs should have a right to restrict access to a certain point.

in the case of portmarnock club. they let the women in, so they must be given equal rights. you either let them in and give them full rights or dont let them in at all ffs. make up your mind.

Finally some sence, let the old boys have their little club, if it keeps them happy.
It's worth noting that portmarnock is in fact a "closed club" (correct me if I'm wrong) which means you can't become a member.

I always find it funny to see people championing such a cause.
Girls, it's a tiny club for an elite group. Sure they're stuffy old f*rts, sure they have loads of money, but why bother? Even if they introduced equal membership, all of a sudden women will be allowed into the sacred members bar! ...for what a pint with them guys? would the women bother going into the bar? ...and what sort of women will REALLY become members there? :rolleyes:

Do get me wrong, but in all fairness girls....

ixoy

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Let's move the goalposts a little, since everyone's so offended at the idea that women should have their own gyms. Should men be allowed to join the ICA?

No one is offended by women having their own gyms. Everyone here is offended by you saying women can have their own gyms yet refuse to let men have their own gyms/golf clubs. It's the double standards that's irritating people about these laws.

If you want true equality, then - by your standards - they should be allowed join the ICA. I recently was pleased to see that straight men were allowed join the gay rugby team if they choose to. It's not the fact that anyone wants to - it's the fact that if you want your equality, you can't start having an unequal set of rules. The continued card played by some women of feeling marginalised in society is increasingly irksome when threads like these show the flaws in their argument.

Zombrex

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Actually, it does happen, there are plenty of women-only gyms in the country.

And I just remembered something:
I know there are some mixed-sex gyms in the country that have women-only periods. I'm pretty sure they don't have a men-only period. Hence, men are allowed join, but they are discriminated against. Try and defend that.

Why would I defend that, I am against that, it is the same thing that happens in Portmarnock!!

How can you be against gyms locking out men for certain periods, but for Portmarnock not allowing women to play at certain times. You are contradicting yourself Reef.

Imposter

Originally posted by oscarBravo
...since everyone's so offended at the idea that women should have their own gyms.

I don't think that's the problem. I think people are saying that if women only gyms are ok then male only golf courses should be ok too (Or any entry rules that the members decide, once it affects nobody else).

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Zulu
Finally some sence, let the old boys have their little club, if it keeps them happy.
It's worth noting that portmarnock is in fact a "closed club" (correct me if I'm wrong) which means you can't become a member.

I always find it funny to see people championing such a cause.
Girls, it's a tiny club for an elite group. Sure they're stuffy old f*rts, sure they have loads of money, but why bother? Even if they introduced equal membership, all of a sudden women will be allowed into the sacred members bar! ...for what a pint with them guys? would the women bother going into the bar? ...and what sort of women will REALLY become members there? :rolleyes:

In short, that's exactly my point. Niall Crowley and the E.A. have every right to campaign for equality in places like Portmarnock, but there are other issues that are far more important - such as Family Law. Yet, they only take on the easy option such as some exclusive golf club in North Dublin, that may or may not have a constitutional right to free association.

Zulu

Originally posted by Wicknight
Why would I defend that, I am against that, it is the same thing that happens in Portmarnock!!

How can you be against gyms locking out men for certain periods, but for Portmarnock not allowing women to play at certain times. You are contradicting yourself Reef.

ok you don't play golf then
All members can play at all times (except during compettions), but different groups have PREFERENCE at different times - nearly EVERY private golf club is like that, ...and generally, it's the juniors that suffer (after 7pm monday and tuesday )

Zombrex

Originally posted by ixoy
No one is offended by women having their own gyms. Everyone here is offended by you saying women can have their own gyms yet refuse to let men have their own gyms/golf clubs. It's the double standards that's irritating people about these laws.

IT IS NOT A MALE ONLY GOLF COURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is a golf course that allows women to play, but treats them as a different level than the men.

You can form a male only club, if by definiton the club needs to be male only. Portmarnock has no leg to stand on as to why they don't allow women full membership. It is not because they provide a male only service, because women play there!!!! So why, what possible justification does Portmarnock have to treat women with less rights than the men, other than discrimination??

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Wicknight
Why would I defend that, I am against that, it is the same thing that happens in Portmarnock!!

How can you be against gyms locking out men for certain periods, but for Portmarnock not allowing women to play at certain times. You are contradicting yourself Reef.

Again, I neither support nor oppose policy of Portmarnock, nor do I oppose, or even support, gyms locking out men for certain periods. Frankly I don't care about Portmarnock and their shítty rules, I'll never be able to join there anyway. I am simply highlighting the inconsistency in the equality authority which takes on cases based on perceived poliitically correct wisdom. It's my tax money that funds Niall Crowleys quango, I would expect it to be spent on causes that are worthwhile.

Zulu

Originally posted by Wicknight
IT IS NOT A MALE ONLY GOLF COURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is a golf course that allows women to play, but treats them as a different level than the men.

You can form a male only club, if by definiton the club needs to be male only. Portmarnock has no leg to stand on as to why they don't allow women full membership. It is not because they provide a male only service, because women play there!!!! So why, what possible justification does Portmarnock have to treat women with less rights than the men, other than discrimination??

:rolleyes: to treat women with less rights than the men :rolleyes:
Just wondering - do you know what them "rights" are? - access to the bar.
I'm sorry, but wouldn't your energy be better divereted elsewhere?
Would you - if you could - drink in there?

oscarBravo

Originally posted by ixoy
No one is offended by women having their own gyms. Everyone here is offended by you saying women can have their own gyms yet refuse to let men have their own gyms/golf clubs. It's the double standards that's irritating people about these laws.

Ixoy, do me a favour: read what I've posted, and argue with what I'm saying, not with what you think I mean.

If you want true equality, then - by your standards - they should be allowed join the ICA.

You obviously haven't the faintest clue what my standards are. Read my posts. I don't think men should be allowed to join the ICA. I do think women should be allowed to join the IFA. Can you see the difference?

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Wicknight
IT IS NOT A MALE ONLY GOLF COURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is a golf course that allows women to play, but treats them as a different level than the men.

You can form a male only club, if by definiton the club needs to be male only. Portmarnock has no leg to stand on as to why they don't allow women full membership. It is not because they provide a male only service, because women play there!!!! So why, what possible justification does Portmarnock have to treat women with less rights than the men, other than discrimination??

No need to shout. Again, I am not really disagreeing with you in regards to Portmarnock's policy - I don't really care about them. However, again, I highlight the fact that you, like the E.A., are guilty of blatant inconsistency in your opinions. You seem to have no problem with a women-only gyms, yet are apoplectic with rage whenever a golf club attempts to do something similar. And again, a women's only gym is actually worse than Portmarnock, because they don't even let men in the door, let alone become members.

ixoy

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Ixoy, do me a favour: read what I've posted, and argue with what I'm saying, not with what you think I mean. You obviously haven't the faintest clue what my standards are. Read my posts. I don't think men should be allowed to join the ICA. I do think women should be allowed to join the IFA. Can you see the difference?

Please explain yourself more clearly then - judging by the other posters in the thread it might help. You try and get by using a claim of social norms, but it doesn't really hold water. You're advocating that in a case where there is no need - at all - to discriminate then the society/club in question is entirely in breach of the Equality Act. So, in the case of golf, there is no justifiable reason for not allowing women full access. Ditto for the IFA. I assume you feel that the ICA, being an organization designated for women, should be women only given that it's purpose is centered around being female and so forth?

Now returning to the gymnasiums. I assume you posit the concept that women can be made to feel uncomfortable there. Let's rule out changing rooms because that's a spurious argument, easily overthrown. You feel women could be leered at, etc. Do you not subsequently agree that the situation could be reversed? That there are situations in which males could feel opressed and should have a similiar option of gender imbalance? Take yoga, for example: an exercise form typically associated with women. A man may feel undermined by women there. Should he be able to form a male only yoga class given the female equivalent leaves him uncomfortable? Both cases can surely be argued for.

Imposter

oscarBravo,

Here's what I think is your argument, please correct me if i'm wrong with any of this:

Women-only-gyms are ok because some women can feel uncomfortable being around men who are exercising. The gym does not have to show the need for this nor do the members have to prove they are uncomfortable being around men who are exercising. However the word of the gym owner that such a need exists is proof that the need is there and is not discriminatory towards men.

However having another private club which does not allow women be members but allows them use of certain facilities is discriminatory on the grounds that women can't become members.

Hobart

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Ah. Uncomfortable. Right. Can't ask people to do things that make them uncomfortable, can we?

Of course, they could always shower in the comfort of their own home

Try to stick to a realistic point of view. To expect people of the opposite sex to shower together in a healty club is un-realistic. To expect people of the opposite sex to exercise together in a health club is realistic. Or would you like this debate to generate into the realms of farce? .

Originally posted by oscarBravo
In simple english: the male/female issue is a lot more clear-cut than race division issues, as you just confirmed.

I have confirmed this? Have I? Where? Are you Again putting words into my mouth? I was asking for clarification on this point? Would you now like to address this.

Originally posted by Victor
But lets face reality, some people are uncomfortable sharing their surroundings with the opposite sex, can you imagine using a treadmill or weights machine while wearing your burkha (whole different argument)?

I will accept that, if you will accept that some people are uncomfortable working out in a gym with a person of a different race beside them. Both should be treated in the same manner.

Originally posted by zulu
portmarnock is in fact a "closed club" (correct me if I'm wrong) which means you can't become a member.

Your wrong.

Originally posted by zulu
Girls, it's a tiny club for an elite group. Sure they're stuffy old f*rts, sure they have loads of money, but why bother? Even if they introduced equal membership, all of a sudden women will be allowed into the sacred members bar!

Here we go again. Mis-informed balderdash. Ok. Heres a few facts, before your mind gets clouded.

1) It's not a "tiny" club at all. It's built on over 250 acres of the best link land you will probably ever see.

2) Stuffy old fa*ts? Where do you get that gem from? Do you know any member there?

3) Women are allowed into the members bar. There are actually women members.

Originally posted by ioxy
No one is offended by women having their own gyms.

I am.

Originally posted by Imposter
I don't think that's the problem. I think people are saying that if women only gyms are ok then male only golf courses should be ok too (Or any entry rules that the members decide, once it affects nobody else).

Bingo!!

Zombrex

Originally posted by Zulu
:rolleyes: to treat women with less rights than the men :rolleyes:
Just wondering - do you know what them "rights" are? - access to the bar.
I'm sorry, but wouldn't your energy be better divereted elsewhere?
Would you - if you could - drink in there?

The right denied is that women are refused membership, on the grounds that they are women. They are also refused certain playing times because they are women. This is despite the fact the women are allowed play in the golf course, which removes any argument that there is a valid purpose behind restricting access to women. It is clear discrimination, as there is no valid reason not to allow women full membership.

Victor

Originally posted by Hobart
The EA has to stick thier oar in. Why?

I presume they got a complaint and having considered the matter, were of the mind of upholding that complaint.

Originally posted by Seraphina
now im not interested in argueing the nitty gritty of discrimination law, but what i dont get it why on earth women want to join the club, if they are clearly not wanted.

Perhaps they live in Portmarnock or have friends and family in the club?

Originally posted by Imposter
Surely letting women play is better than not letting them anywhere near the club?

Not quite, it’s a matter of taking their money, but not giving back as much as they should.

Originally posted by Imposter
Apparently the main purpose is to play golf

Then they won’t need the ATM-like bar licence then.

Originally posted by Hobart
No, all these mixed gender clubs should not have communal showers as some people should not be exposed to the sight of naked adults. People like children.

Some people just shouldn’t be seen naked. as it stands showers etc. tend to be sorted on gender, not age.

Originally posted by ReefBreak
In short, that's exactly my point. Niall Crowley and the E.A. have every right to campaign for equality in places like Portmarnock, but there are other issues that are far more important - such as Family Law.

It’s not in their brief as the act excludes acts of the Oireachtas.

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Yet, they only take on the easy option such as some exclusive golf club in North Dublin, that may or may not have a constitutional right to free association.

Yes there is a right to free association, however that does not extend to have the right to free association with a bar licence. The act recognises the right to free association and the corresponding right to non-association (e.g. you can’t force someone to join a trade union, you don't have to share your dinner club with women, you can have a gay only club). However, the Oireachtas has said that any organisation, discriminating on one of the specified grounds, should not benefit from a bar licence.

Originally posted by ReefBreak
It's my tax money that funds Niall Crowleys quango,

The EA is a government agency.

Originally posted by Hobart
I will accept that, if you will accept that some people are uncomfortable working out in a gym with a person of a different race beside them. [/B]

Gender-based modesty is well established and certainly based on the act, still entertained. Racism is not.

Zulu

Originally posted by Hobart

Your wrong.

Here we go again. Mis-informed balderdash. Ok. Heres a few facts, before your mind gets clouded.

1) It's not a "tiny" club at all. It's built on over 250 acres of the best link land you will probably ever see.

2) Stuffy old fa*ts? Where do you get that gem from? Do you know any member there?

3) Women are allowed into the members bar. There are actually women members.

:dunno: I'm right!
Mis-informed balderdash...
1) ...250 Acres, so its a walk you want? Walk on the beach. Women member have full unrestricted access to these "250 acres" (reasonable exceptions).

2) FYI, I happen to know a few members there, but I think the point I was making was clear. There are certain people who hold outdates opinions and attitudes, some of these members included.

3) ...are they really? balderdash! I know there are women members, just not full-members (I think that is the whole point :rolleyes: )

Hobart

Originally posted by Wicknight
The right denied is that women are refused membership, on the grounds that they are women. They are also refused certain playing times because they are women. This is despite the fact the women are allowed play in the golf course, which removes any argument that there is a valid purpose behind restricting access to women. It is clear discrimination, as there is no valid reason not to allow women full membership.

Women are not refused membership. All members. ALL MEMBERS of portmarnock golf club, or any club for that matter, have restricted times on the tees.
The EA took the case because women are not allowed to become full members. And by bestowing full membership on women in this club it would entitle them to a vote on the courses future. Now I have no idea why they want a vote, and I have also no idea why they full members do not allow women fulll members. In any club there are restrictions around memberships:

i.e.

Pavillion Membership, 5 Day membership, Associated membership, Junior Membership, Full membership etc.....

Zombrex

Originally posted by ReefBreak
However, again, I highlight the fact that you, like the E.A., are guilty of blatant inconsistency in your opinions. You seem to have no problem with a women-only gyms, yet are apoplectic with rage whenever a golf club attempts to do something similar. And again, a women's only gym is actually worse than Portmarnock, because they don't even let men in the door, let alone become members.

I have no (well less of a) problem with clubs that cater specifically for a certain gender, for example a womens only gym, or a male only choir, or a womens football team, or a male only alcohol support group. In these situations the limiting to a gender serves a purpose, and it is legal under Irish law.

I have a problem with a club that allows both genders to access the facility, but targets one gender as having less rights to the facility than the other gender. Limiting the rights of women (or men) in the club serves no purpose other than a discriminationary one, and has no moral or legal justification.

I would throw my arms up if a gym allowed men in but limited their rights to use the facility purely because they were men.

Hobart

Originally posted by Zulu
:dunno: I'm right!
Mis-informed balderdash...

I won't get into a slagging match with you here. But your wrong. It is not a "closed" membership club. What happens when a member dies for instance?

1) ...250 Acres, so its a walk you want? Walk on the beach. Women member have full unrestricted access to these "250 acres" (reasonable exceptions).

Yes they do. What exactly is your point here?

2) FYI, I happen to know a few members there, but I think the point I was making was clear. There are certain people who hold outdates opinions and attitudes, some of these members included.

I'm sure you do know a few members there. From your "facts" on the club I am nearly positive I am talking to a member.

3) ...are they really? balderdash! I know there are women members, just not full-members (I think that is the whole point :rolleyes: )

Well then where are you getting your so-called "facts" from?

Victor

Just a side note, existing gyms that only catered for one gender are allowed to continue to exist, if their premises are not large enough to incorporate separate changing facilities.

Also, the EA have come down against night clubs with ladies nights and "trendy bars" banning old people.

Zulu

Originally posted by Hobart
I won't get into a slagging match with you here. But your wrong. It is not a "closed" membership club. What happens when a member dies for instance?

Yes they do. What exactly is your point here?

I'm sure you do know a few members there. From your "facts" on the club I am nearly positive I am talking to a member.

Well then where are you getting your so-called "facts" from?

hummm,
ok - it's not a closed club - it's just called a "closed" club, and considered a "closed" club by every other golfer in the country, but your perfectly right, if you've be on the waiting list for well over 20 years, and if a member dies, then its open to you.

When I said small club - I didn't mean land wise, but you seem to think that was revelant. By "small" I ment that the total number of full members isn't in excess for 10,000 (ie: it's not a breeding ground or hotbed for sexual discrimination, like say the BNP)

I'm not a member - but I'm surprised by your negative attitudes. I'm a member of a club nearby. We have full women members. (...actually we've gone to other side PC, but thats another story)

Hobart

Originally posted by Zulu
hummm,
ok - it's not a closed club - it's just called a "closed" club, and considered a "closed" club by every other golfer in the country, but your perfectly right, if you've be on the waiting list for well over 20 years, and if a member dies, then its open to you.

It's not called a closed club? I'm still trying to come to terms with what you are talking about in relation to this club and it's membership? Why do you think it is considered a closed club? It's membership is full. It's waiting list is long? So what? Most "popular" golf clubs would be under exactly the same pressure! You are just trying to pull "negative" superlatives out of thin air here. It's not closed, it never was closed and, probably never will be.

By "small" I ment that the total number of full members isn't in excess for 10,000

So under 10,000 is small for a golf club then? ROFL. I would be surprised if the membership of any, any golf club in Dublin would be in excess of 1,200. Now I know you are just a troll.

I'm a member of a club nearby. We have full women members. (...actually we've gone to other side PC, but thats another story)

Sure you are. What number member are you? 12,001? :rolleyes:

Zulu

Originally posted by Hobart
It's not called a closed club? I'm still trying to come to terms with what you are talking about in relation to this club and it's membership? Why do you think it is considered a closed club? It's membership is full. It's waiting list is long? So what? Most "popular" golf clubs would be under exactly the same pressure! You are just trying to pull "negative" superlatives out of thin air here. It's not closed, it never was closed and, probably never will be.

So under 10,000 is small for a golf club then? ROFL. I would be surprised if the membership of any, any golf club in Dublin would be in excess of 1,200. Now I know you are just a troll.

Sure you are. What number member are you? 12,001? :rolleyes:

Silly. :rolleyes:
Sorry I didn't give a smaller number - I figured you'd argue anyway so why bother.
Your ignoring my arguments, pin pointing irrevelant factors, and insulting me.
I'm the troll :rolleyes:

PS: alot of clubs are considered "closed", it's the term used when clubs like Portmarnock become practially impossiable for new members to join. (ie: moved into Portmarnock, can afford membership, wishing to become full member, but have to wait 20 odd years in a queue until previous members die.)

Ivan

Surely, despite anything else, the fact of the matter remains, that it is a private club. And as such should be entitled to dictate its policy as it sees fit. Presumely if it doesnt allow full female membership then it was set up by males.

Now for whatever reason, descriminatory or otherwise, they choose not to allow females become full members, is that not their perrogative?

GreeBo

Male-only, Female only, Communal.

Oh ffs!
what next, showers for bald asian men with big feet and back hair, in case they are uncomfortable?
Where the phuck are we, America?
:dunno:

GreeBo

Originally posted by Zulu

3) ...are they really? balderdash! I know there are women members, just not full-members (I think that is the whole point :rolleyes: )

Women who are not full members are associates.
The word member has a defined meaning and does not just mean "someone who has joined and pays to play golf in the club"

Zulu

Originally posted by redoxan
Women who are not full members are associates.
The word member has a defined meaning and does not just mean "someone who has joined and pays to play golf in the club"

ok

GreeBo

For all of you that have a problem with the club.

What if it was a club where only men could join, as any category of member.
But, out of the goodness of their own hearts they decided to open it up to lady associates?
but now this is being used against them.

Should the club have the right to decide that it is now a "men only club" and remove the women associates?

Either its a private club, free to make up its own rules, or it isnt, its ridiculous that the "law" can come in and out when it wants.

Zulu

How significant is portmarnock - really?

Champion a cause worth your energy, this is what bothers me...

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_869655.html
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_869655.html

GreeBo

Originally posted by Zulu
ok

Ok, so you arent a member of a golf club and dont understand the terminology.

Ordinary/Ful/ Member = the "most" a person can be
Lady Associate = not a full member, used to be the "most" a lady could be in a golf club
Pavillion = a category of membership with restricted playing times, usually has no or little voting rights
5-Day = does what it says on the tin
Junior Member = younger than an ordinary member
Juvenile Member = younger than a junior member
Junior Assoc = same as above but female
jevenile Assoc = same as above but female

There are more but I am bored...

Zulu

redoxan,
I understand what a member is (assoicate or otherwise), I just didn't understand why you were explaining it to me? I never said otherwise.

Why all the -ve vibes!

Victor

Originally posted by Ivan
Now for whatever reason, descriminatory or otherwise, they choose not to allow females become full members, is that not their perrogative?

Fair enough (legally, perhaps not morally), but don't expect them to keep their bar licence.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Zulu
How significant is portmarnock - really?

Champion a cause worth your energy, this is what bothers me...

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_869655.html
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_869655.html

why don't you start a thread on it (not joking, seriously)

GreeBo

Originally posted by Victor
Fair enough (legally, perhaps not morally), but don't expect them to keep their bar licence.

But my gym is allowed to have a (usually empty) women only workout area while I queue in the "general area"?


Please explain how this is any more or less legal?
There was no mention of a membership type that would allow me (a man) to use both areas. So I am paying full whack for access to 3/4's of a gym whereas ladies get access all areas for the same price?
Legal?, methinks not.:mad:

Victor

Then make a complaint or sue.

Zombrex

Originally posted by redoxan
But my gym is allowed to have a (usually empty) women only workout area while I queue in the "general area"?


Please explain how this is any more or less legal?
There was no mention of a membership type that would allow me (a man) to use both areas. So I am paying full whack for access to 3/4's of a gym whereas ladies get access all areas for the same price?
Legal?, methinks not.:mad:

err, as far as I know thats not legal, unless they provide male only area as well.

sue ... or better still inform the Equal Authority office.

and while you are at it read my post on male apathy and pointless complaining :rolleyes:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1418866#post1418866