Discrimination

maggy_thatcher

Pittens wrote: »

Except open a club for men only.

If you read my posts, you'd see I said I was fine for a club to be made that had restrictions on who could or could not enter. Just because I don't discriminate based on gender doesn't give me the right to force a separate group of people to not discriminate.

Riskymove

top clarify an issue that sometimes gets lost when discussing Portmarnock:

women are not banned from the course; its that only men can become members

women are free to go there and play the course, just like male non-members at certain times etc

I am sure there is probably a members only lounge or something for the old lads to gather in, safe from female persecution...leave them to it, they are welcome to their sad lives.

anymore

Laminations wrote: »

Ok I'll ask you. You want co-ed toilets? Assuming you are female, you dont mind being patted down in airport security by a man? Do you mind me joining an all womens gym or running in an all womens marathon or sitting in on a mothering class? Gender differences are not easily equatable to race/colour differences. Discrimination on any grounds (like Sleepy says above) is fine once there is no implicit superior-inferior message. The thing with gender differences is that sexuality is involved. No problem allowing children play nude in a paddling pool in the summer but I'd be sure you'd have a problem letting your significant other play naked with members of the opposite sex (or same depending on orientation).

Sexual orientation just raise a question in relation to urinals in gents toilets ! I suspect it is a question that may be best avoided !

Laminations

anymore wrote: »

Sexual orientation just raise a question in relation to urinals in gents toilets ! I suspect it is a question that may be best avoided !

Sorry I didnt want to bring orientation in, just gender diferences, as in men pee standing up and usually are more fragrant in there use of cubicles. There are no sanitary towel dispensers or bins in a male toilet. The sexes are different in many respects, different doesn't mean worse or better and ignoring these differences is wrong. There is legitimate and illegitimate discrimination.

anymore

Riskymove wrote: »

top clarify an issue that sometimes gets lost when discussing Portmarnock:

women are not banned from the course; its that only men can become members

women are free to go there and play the course, just like male non-members at certain times etc

I am sure there is probably a members only lounge or something for the old lads to gather in, safe from female persecution...leave them to it, they are welcome to their sad lives.

Is it the case and part of the problem that female members may not use the course at certain times and do not have the option of paying the full membership in order to get full playing priviliges on the course ?
In other words it is their gender alone which disqualifies fthem from full participation.

maggy_thatcher

anymore wrote: »

Is it the case and part of the problem that female members may not use the course at certain times and do not have the option of paying the full membership in order to get full playing priviliges on the course ?
In other words it is their gender alone which disqualifies fthem from full participation.

They aren't female members - there are non-member playing times, when anybody can play.
They defined it as a gentlemen's club with a golf course attached, rather than purely a golf club, and it is the gentlemen's club part that restricted entry for several reasons, one of which was gender.

silverharp

Laminations wrote: »

eh, no its not, its racist, you can tell by the use of the derogatory term.

here is the piece I was thinking about. Not all issues are so black and white

http://www.nationalreview.com/09oct95/feature.html

``This racism stuff is all bull -- -- ,'' one African student who was driving to put himself through school, told me. ``I'm not going to pass up a fare, which is money in my pocket. But I don't want to get robbed. You know what the black crime rate is in New York? Do you want me to risk a gun to my head, man? What's wrong with you?''

A white driver in Chicago told me, ``No exceptions, pal. I never pick up ****.''
``You don't like blacks?'' I asked.
``Not blacks. ****.''
``That sounds like racism to me.'' ``Hey, that's c---- . I pick up older blacks all the time. I have no problem with giving black women a ride. My black buddies won't pick up no ****. I ain't no more racist than they are.''

anymore

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

They aren't female members - there are non-member playing times, when anybody can play.
They defined it as a gentlemen's club with a golf course attached, rather than purely a golf club, and it is the gentlemen's club part that restricted entry for several reasons, one of which was gender.

Then if the ' gentlemens club' is the objective with a golf course attached, why cant women elect to pay for and have full playing facilities but have only use of the ' gentlemen's club ?
By the way does the club have gentlemen members who are judges ?

P,s, does the club restrict the hours during which women employees can work or is it ok to work all the available if you are female ?

maggy_thatcher

What I believe people should be focussing on is not some private organization that wants to isolate themselves from the rest of the world, but in areas where discrimination occurs that is funded by the state. An example of this would be a large number of schools in the country. In this case, I (as a taxpayer) am paying for discrimination. I believe that a choice should be made -- be open to all members of the community, or only get your funding from people within the areas of the community that you accept.

anymore

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

What I believe people should be focussing on is not some private organization that wants to isolate themselves from the rest of the world, but in areas where discrimination occurs that is funded by the state. An example of this would be a large number of schools in the country. In this case, I (as a taxpayer) am paying for discrimination. I believe that a choice should be made -- be open to all members of the community, or only get your funding from people within the areas of the community that you accept.

You get a benefit as a taxpayer from the education of children even where there is discrimination. Well educated children benefit us all economically. However do we get any benefit from ' gentlemens' clubs ? Are their membershio fees subject to Corporation Tax or VAT ?

maggy_thatcher

anymore wrote: »

You get a benefit as a taxpayer from the education of children even where there is discrimination. Well educated children benefit us all economically.

Yes, but the fact that the gender of a person stops a person going to a particular school to get that good education is a bad thing imho. What if the 'best' school in your neighbourhood was an all boys school, but you had a girl? You are faced with two choices - send the child to a school further away, or send the child to a school that isn't as good. How does that benefit us "all"? I'm not against single-sex schools, just that they should be run without any state money.

anymore wrote: »

However do we get any benefit from ' gentlemens' clubs ? Are their membershio fees subject to Corporation Tax or VAT ?

I don't know if they are subject to any particular taxes, however why should you feel that you entitled to any benefit from a privately run club? If the club doesn't get funding from the taxpayer, then it doesn't cost you anything. If the club did get funding from the taxpayer, that's a whole different ballgame.

anymore

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Yes, but the fact that the gender of a person stops a person going to a particular school to get that good education is a bad thing imho. What if the 'best' school in your neighbourhood was an all boys school, but you had a girl? You are faced with two choices - send the child to a school further away, or send the child to a school that isn't as good. How does that benefit us "all"? I'm not against single-sex schools, just that they should be run without any state money.

I don't know if they are subject to any particular taxes, however why should you feel that you entitled to any benefit from a privately run club? If the club doesn't get funding from the taxpayer, then it doesn't cost you anything. If the club did get funding from the taxpayer, that's a whole different ballgame.

If this organisation is exempt from taxes on its income, then it is receiving favourable treatment from the State and there is no reason the State should exempt it from discrimination rules.

There are benefits in having single sex schools, both for boys and girl.
What is it that makes one school ' good' or better than another ? There are always going to be limitations on choice of schools regardless whether schools are segragated or not. We do not live in an ideal world.
Even if your views on school are correct, I fail to see the relevance to golf clubs. It is not a case of one or the other. Both issues can be addressed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SLUSK

anymore wrote: »

If this organisation is exempt from taxes on its income, then it is receiving favourable treatment from the State and there is no reason the State should exempt it from discrimination rules.

There are benefits in having single sex schools, both for boys and girl.
What is it that makes one school ' good' or better than another ? There are always going to be limitations on choice of schools regardless whether schools are segragated or not. We do not live in an ideal world.
Even if your views on school are correct, I fail to see the relevance to golf clubs. It is not a case of one or the other. Both issues can be addressed.

Can we also have schools for no blacks, dogs and Irish?

If you think some discrimination is A OK? Why not go all the way?

maggy_thatcher

anymore wrote: »

There are benefits in having single sex schools, both for boys and girl.
What is it that makes one school ' good' or better than another ? There are always going to be limitations on choice of schools regardless whether schools are segragated or not. We do not live in an ideal world.

So from that, I assume you've no objections to a public school that has an IQ test then (under 150 need not apply say)? There are obvious benefits in that the school doesn't have to try and teach across multiple levels, but is openly discriminating against those with slower learning abilities.

anymore wrote: »

Even if your views on school are correct, I fail to see the relevance to golf clubs. It is not a case of one or the other. Both issues can be addressed.

It's more that if we only have the bandwidth to fix one at a time, I believe we should target the much larger problem of state-funded discrimination than who a private organization wants to associate with.

anymore

SLUSK wrote: »

Can we also have schools for no blacks, dogs and Irish?

If you think some discrimination is A OK? Why not go all the way?

Well as you are aware there are all Irish schools. ( Gael Scoileanna) Now as regards schools for dogs, there are schools also for dogs ..though I dont think these canine schools exclude bitches We are apparently to have a Muslim University, funded by Saudi Arabia) :rolleyes:

anymore

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

So from that, I assume you've no objections to a public school that has an IQ test then (under 150 need not apply say)? There are obvious benefits in that the school doesn't have to try and teach across multiple levels, but is openly discriminating against those with slower learning abilities.

It's more that if we only have the bandwidth to fix one at a time, I believe we should target the much larger problem of state-funded discrimination than who a private organization wants to associate with.

What does an IQ test for ? And should we explel pupils who fail or fall below the minimum standards. Perhaps they could be employed to brush the floors and pick up litter at ' Gentlemens' Clubs....

maggy_thatcher

anymore wrote: »

What does an IQ test for ? And should we explel pupils who fail or fall below the minimum standards. Perhaps they could be employed to brush the floors and pick up litter at ' Gentlemens' Clubs....

You said that there were benefits to discriminating based on gender in schools. I pointed out another example where we could implement discrimination to make education better. Obviously there'd still be schools that would cater for less intelligent children, and with the smart kids out of the way they may actually progress faster. My opinion is that a public school should mean that it is open to the public, not a subset of the public.

anymore

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

You said that there were benefits to discriminating based on gender in schools. I pointed out another example where we could implement discrimination to make education better. Obviously there'd still be schools that would cater for less intelligent children, and with the smart kids out of the way they may actually progress faster. My opinion is that a public school should mean that it is open to the public, not a subset of the public.

Your main gripe seems to be that a girl cant attend a boys school - this isnt necessarily true anymore - and from there you are jumping to conclusion that issues such as Portmarnock and gentlemens clubs are irrelevant.
Start a separate thread and we can go into the education issue in more depth, but even so it shouldnt preclude considering discrimination at clubs such as Portmarnock.

maggy_thatcher

anymore wrote: »

Your main gripe seems to be that a girl cant attend a boys school - this isnt necessarily true anymore - and from there you are jumping to conclusion that issues such as Portmarnock and gentlemens clubs are irrelevant.
Start a separate thread and we can go into the education issue in more depth, but even so it shouldnt preclude considering discrimination at clubs such as Portmarnock.

As far as I could tell, this discussion had expanded to discrimination in general, not just a particular private organization. My opinion is that what private groups do is their own business and what outsiders have to say about it is irrelevant. Discrimination at a state level should be removed/banned, but discrimination at a private level should be purely up to the membership of that private group.

anymore

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

As far as I could tell, this discussion had expanded to discrimination in general, not just a particular private organization. My opinion is that what private groups do is their own business and what outsiders have to say about it is irrelevant. Discrimination at a state level should be removed/banned, but discrimination at a private level should be purely up to the membership of that private group.

Ok, you are against discrimination if taxpayer money is involved and indifferent if taxpayer money isnt invloved. You are entitled to your view.
And, as we were saying about Portmarknock,........:)

P.s as taxpayers money is now invloved in shoring up the Catholic Church, should we be promoting full equality in the Cathoilc Church for women ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

maggy_thatcher

anymore wrote: »

P.s as taxpayers money is now invloved in shoring up the Catholic Church, should we be promoting full equality in the Cathoilc Church for women ?

Yes - and non-Catholics as well
(Though really we should just remove all taxpayer funding from a religion -- church and state should always be separate entities).