'Women only' groups

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zulu

liah wrote: »

I don't see you decrying sexism anywhere else on boards.

Sigh. Seriously - wtf? Not only isn't this assertion not true, it's ridiculous.

...but I seriously doubt that all the guys posting here catch out every guy on every comment.

And we have to, in order to have our opinions validated?

It's caused by **** who won't listen to us when we try to correct them on their attitudes.

Can you let up on the language please?

Stop telling us to "fix" it, because we can't. Only guys can get through to idiots like that.

Not really, these people you speak of don't listen to men either. We as men don't have a secret communications method.

I do not understand the point in attacking the segregation;

Well I've explained the problem I have with segregation.

The cause for the segregation needs to be addressed.

True, but that doesn't mean we ignore the segregation either.

Also, I don't like these "well if white people were to hide from black people would that be okay?" or "trade the word gender with race" bollocks.

Perhaps you don't like it because it's accurate? It's a perfectly valid analogy.

Are white people hassled by black people on a daily basis?

No, but, black people were harassed by white people and the solution didn't lie in black people segregating themselves.

liah

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah dear lord, okay, I'm just going to stop using the term "book club" altogether. Can we be less specific and just talk about women's only groups in general like the title said? I've been using the infamous book club as an example but frankly it really doesn't have any bearing on the overall sentiment of my argument; I'm thinking a bit broader than that.

I also stated earlier that I have no problem with men's only groups, as long as there is an equivalent choice available for women. E.g. women's only groups. As well as the option for co-ed. People should have the freedom to be comfortable. If they're uncomfortable around the opposite sex, for whatever reason, they should have the option not to be.

Zulu wrote: »

Sigh. Seriously - wtf? Not only isn't this assertion not true, it's ridiculous.
And we have to, in order to have our opinions validated?
Can you let up on the language please?
Not really, these people you speak of don't listen to men either. We as men don't have a secret communications method.
Well I've explained the problem I have with segregation.
True, but that doesn't mean we ignore the segregation either.
Perhaps you don't like it because it's accurate? It's a perfectly valid analogy.
No, but, black people were harassed by white people and the solution didn't lie in black people segregating themselves.

You seem to think we have to fight it constantly and never back down for our opinions to be valid.

What language? "Wanker?" Really? Does the particular combination of letters I use matter? Sentiment remains the same.

The difference is, if a man spoke to one of those men, they would have a higher chance of taking him seriously than if a woman tried to explain it.

It's not a perfectly valid analogy. You seem to think that segregation = TOTAL segregation and removal from all situations. This is not the case. Re-read the LGBT comparison; it's much more valid.

Zulu

liah wrote: »

It's not a perfectly valid analogy.

It is of course! Why isn't it?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

Is it wrong though?

I don't know, since in some circumstances it would be difficult to go up against men physically especially in games like Rugby where men become extremely powerful physically, and it is a rather rough game.

I can see the reason when its practical.

If there are areas where discrimination exists (eg male only rugby teams, or female only showers) and are ok then discrimination by itself is not automatically wrong.

It then becomes a question of judging why some are and some aren't and where the line is.

Fair enough, but the reasons behind it are whats important. Privacy of body or to protect a "weaker" physical type are different considerations to any club which does not have such considerations.

If on the other hand you believe that all discrimination is wrong by simple virtue of it being discrimination then that is a position that requires we revisit some of the most basic elements of society, such as segregated showers.

I don't believe that all discrimination is wrong. I just believe that the cases of female only groups in book clubs, gyms, etc are wrong considering the lengths by which feminists chose to fight against them, when it was men who were holding them. What has changed?

liah

liah wrote: »

Why is a women's only book club more disturbing to all of you than the idea that your gender is receiving such a bad name that it's become necessary? Why are you spending so much time and effort here berating women for retreating instead of berating the vocal, obnoxious minority who has taken it upon themselves to represent you?

Why has it come down to men (let's forget the women who might be objecting) berating women for hiding from the minority group of men you mention? Why can't this be about equality? That men-only clubs were shut down when feminists were in full swing as being discriminatory, and now you're seeking to justify women-only groups.

You're all arguing about how we should be "fixing" it and trying to make everyone "equal," well why the bloody hell aren't you doing the same?

Why make the assumption that we're not? By seeking equality for both sexes, we're doing just that.

The fact that women-only groups exist should be enough incentive to take action against the men who are giving you all a bad rep. You all know from discussing in this thread that each of the women here do NOT think badly of ALL men (no matter how many times you try to tell us we do). We just think badly of the vocal minority who love to make our lives hell.

The promotion of women-only groups promotes the belief that men-only groups are perfectly acceptable... until we have some female that cries discrimination because her rights are being infringed upon.

It appears to me that the fight for women only groups seeks to place women above men in the area of such "rights". I'm against the idea of any sex-only group that does not have very obvious practical considerations involved.

The problem with us women trying to "fix" those men's attitudes is that they're precisely the ones who wouldn't take it seriously from a woman's mouth.

Which is a reason to stop trying? I, typically, rip to shreds anyone making sexist remarks around me. Most of my male or female friends do the same. Simply put, because such sexism is retarded and usually opens itself up to easy criticism. But they'll shrug it off, and find a different audience to say such remarks to. Is knowing this a reason to stop? Nope. Because not saying anything promotes the idea that its ok to run your mouth off. Will it change things in the short term? Highly unlikely. TBH, I highly doubt all manner of sexism will ever be removed... but we can continue to condition people into thinking its wrong to do so.

So if you REALLY want this theoretical utopia you keep on banging on about where everyone is so lovely and respectful and recognizes one another as individuals rather than our respective genders (fat chance on that, by the way; it will never happen) talk to and berate them, not us.

I'll berate anyone that seeks to have selective equality. That women are entitled to certain things, but men aren't, and vice versa.

Treat the cause, not the symptom. 'Cause frankly, I'm sick of being forced to be the one to fight.

Whereas for many of us we see different causes... I get annoyed with the equality gig. I was raised to believe that equality meant that men and women would have the same rights in the workplace, in the home, wherever. And so, I live my life with the hope that I will indeed get the same rights as women, just as I provide the same benefit to women, as I have to men. But, equality does not really exist. We're not equal. Oh, the law makes great attempts at giving us the same legal rights, and yet men are penalised because of their sex on a regular basis in child custody cases, and other such issues. In the workplace, men are more likely to be seen as causes of sexual harassment, than women. And I could go on, and on.

Simply put, women got equality with all the benefits of what they received before equality. And men got shafted.

You say you're tired of being the one forced to fight? You really should try looking at life from a male perspective, and you'll understand there is no other choice but to continue fighting. IF you want a life worth living, that is. It does help not to feel bitter about it though.

Mark Hamill

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There are groups for specific races and ethnicities, for religions, political beliefs, local areas, parents, cancer survivers, etc, etc, etc - how is a womens club any different?

Who says it is different in a ll these cases? I would be against the ethnic segregation as much as gender. The other thing you seem to be missing is that a lot of these cases dont actually ban opposing/opposite beliefs or characteristics - you dont have to be a pagan to go to a pagan retreat etc, you just have to stick to discussions that are supportive of the group - ie go to a pagan group to talk about pagans respectively, go to a fianna fail group to talk about fianna fail repsectfully.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Right, so women weren't allowed to do something at all. Now they have the choice - they can work full-time, part-time, not at all. So it isn't about segregation anymore, it's about choice.

The choice should be in the hands of the person deciding wether or not to go, not the people running the group. 50/100 years ago, people like them decided that women shouldn't have the choice to vote, to go to certain clubs or play certain sports because they saw women as fundamentally different and in need of seperation from men. Today, womens clubs are allowing the women to do these things, but they still see women as fundamentally different and in need of seperation from men, the sexism has barely lessened at all.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There are no gyms or bookclubs or whatever that men can attend? They must be able to attend the groups that want to be women only?

Its not about what men want, its about what women want. If they want one gender to stop being sexist to another gender, then they have to do it as well.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, we're back to some men are unarguably dickheads and some women want to ensure they don't have to put up with it while enjoying a social activity. Some women enjoy the camaraderie and dynamics of women only groups. A woman can - and do, many bookclubs exist that are mixed - enjoy bookclubs with men. Is it really an issue that people have the choice?

Yes, because some women are, inarguably, bitches and nagging hags. What would happen if a man opened a mens club for men to get away from irritating women for a while. What if someone opened a club saying that some people of certain ethnicicities are unarguably criminal, therefore none are allowed in these doors?
You only need to ban the dickheads to get rid of the dickheads, banning all men is sexist.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Sorry? Where did I deny moderation is not possible?

If its possible then whats the problem? Moderate the dickheads out and you have no dickheads, no women only groups needed.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Or suggest I was ever uncomfortable for that matter? More words in mouth, great.

If you are not uncomfortable, then why would you be bothered by anything?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

In some cases it's proved either impossible or no motivation to police unwanted behaviour. That's the reality. Not that it cannot be moderated in all instances, just that it isn't in some - and when given an alternative where it's not even an issue where do you think those women will go?

How can moderation be impossible? Do you think no moderation is involved in women only groups, that women are all angelic to each other and never bitch to each other? Why did the women, unhappy with the lack of moderation in a service or group, go and set up their own groups and just ban men? Why didn't they set up their own group with the level of moderation that they desired? Why did they make the sexist judgement to outright ban all men?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I notice we still seem to be completely glossing over the horrendous fact that moderation, strict or otherwise is actually required.

Since when? I've been saying that you should desire groups with better moderation, not just ones which outlaw men. It seems that you seem to be of the opinion that once you remove men, you no longer need moderation in an all female enviroment. Lets try that in girsl schools and see how long before they burn down.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm finding it hard to believe you are arguing against women-only activities while accepting they are likely to have to complain or rules and moderation is going to be required by the group or establishment they frequent - would that not give you all you need to know about the motivation for some to attend women's only?

Do you think that no complaints are ever made in women only groups? Or in the mixed enviroments they leave behind? That women never argue or insult each other.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Where are you pulling this stuff from? Who said anything about mixed environments being impossible to be comfortable for women? Have you been to the gym recently? Have you been to your local bookclub? Most groups are mixed. It's about choice - for whatever reason women want that choice.

Have you not being paying attention to all those posts you have been thanking? All these women saying they want an enviroment to talk about women issues and complain about dickheads and that these enviroments must include the gym or the book club or the local protest group? That men are too boistorous, that they are too logical. They may only being projecting their own feelings on other women, but its the view they are espousing.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Going from a woman's book club to re-writing global employment legislation isn't getting hysterical?

No, where do you think the original womens rights activists met up? Did they just simultaneously stand up one day and start calling for equality, all at the same time, without realisng others where interested in this too. Besides, we are at the stage of women only protest groups for drug legalisation, so its hardly far off women only political parties.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Aren't convincing themselves?

Should be "are convincing themselves"

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Of course the alternative is that it isn't the women who are convincing themselves of anything, it could just be that women's groups do espouse certain dynamics that are attractive to some women and that some men are in complete denial over what they are.

I'm not in denial that they are attractive to women, its why they are attractive that I'm disputing. Its not that women fundamentally need what they are selling, its that they have convinced women that they need it.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Now we have sides? I thought this was a discussion not a school yard boys Vs girls thing?

All debates have sides, they have to. If people didn't disagree, then why is there a debate?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There are lots of reasons being put forward for different women either understanding or appreciating what women's only groups have to offer. That you choose to blindly dismiss them all isn't the same as all women having cloned thoughts on the subject.

I'm sorry, you tend to thank each others posts a lot, so i assumed you agreed on a number of issues, maybe the thanks are mistakes?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So you acknowledge that groups may well require heavy policing and yet can't see why that may be unattractive to some women? Seriously?

You seriously thin women only groups dont require heavy policing? Do you think that girl only schools have less rules than boys schools too?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And then in the same sentence dismiss men being boisterous and loud - what exactly is being policed?

The dickheads, of course, of both genders. I dismissed all men as being boistorous.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It wasn't confident women I was referring to no, you see I view women who have to to anti-women to try to pally in with sexist guys as being anything other than confident - quite the opposite in fact.

Maybe they dont see them as sexist? Maybe they have the confidence to see that the men will poke fun at anything and there is no reason (within limits, that should also apply to the men) that she cant either?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You know the number of women who have been assaulted, do you?

Do you?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I didn't say all, you do love puting words in my mouth.

You didn't say all, but you are certainly implying significant numbers.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If women want women-only groups then they are deliberately choosing to exclude men - I presume there is often a reason behind that. It would be a refreshing change to see men deal with those reasons rather than lambaste women for daring to have them.

We are, we just dont see why we should give special dues to one reaons when it hasn't been shown to be prevelent. More women on this thread have complained about men being too boistorous or dickheaded or just unaware of womens issues to mix with, than have claimed that men scare them because of psychological issues.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Some women have to work - some of them have to work with dickheads, I don't know where you are getting the idea that because it's a workplace that there is no dickhead behaviour going on or that it is adequately policed.

I pointed out dickhead behavour in the workplace before in this thread (as a reason for why someone might start discriminating hiring based on gender), and it was hand waved away as there being ways to deal with it in work place enviroments.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Not to mention it completely ignores the issues many women still encounter even in the heavily legislated world of professional employment.

The difference being we have (or at least I think we should have) a choice where we socialise and who we socialise with.

And what if someone demands that same choice where she works? Should workplaces be allowed to discriminate based on gender to suit the currently employed?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

liah

Klaz, I hate to break it to you, but I've stated multiple times throughout the thread that I also have no problem with men's only clubs, or any other "segregated" club, so long as an equivalent is created for the opposite end of the spectrum.

I'm arguing for equality, too-- but I'm also arguing for freedom of choice. If certain people feel it necessary to hide away, they should have the freedom and human right to do so, and the mentality that is forcing people to feel the need to hide away should be tackled via education and awareness, like I already stated.

Zulu, I'm dead tired of repeating myself; if you're still not getting it you never will so let's just agree to disagree.

EDIT: donegalfella, if there's a market for it and the same is offered for men, then fine. I'm sure there are such things and as long as they don't hurt anyone else people should be free to make the choices they want.

There's certainly many religions who operate in much the same way and don't like it when people socialize outside of their religion. I don't see anyone looking to ban them. It's their choice to live that way.

liah

liah wrote: »

Klaz, I hate to break it to you, but I've stated multiple times throughout the thread that I also have no problem with men's only clubs, or any other "segregated" club, so long as an equivalent is created for the opposite end of the spectrum.

And yet, you're missing the reality of the situation. That there is a different perception if men do something which excludes women because of their sex, versus if women exclude men because of their sex.

Or do you disagree that a men-only social club wouldn't be criticised and ultimately forced to open to women if it was created?

I'm arguing for equality, too-- but I'm also arguing for freedom of choice. If certain people feel it necessary to hide away, they should have the freedom and human right to do so, and the mentality that is forcing people to feel the need to hide away should be tackled via education and awareness, like I already stated.

Well, personally, I find that choice can be worse for people than not having it. Choice isn't all its cracked up to be. And choice leads to other problems especially when those choices place limits on entry or participation due to their sex.

EDIT: donegalfella, if there's a market for it and the same is offered for men, then fine. I'm sure there are such things and as long as they don't hurt anyone else people should be free to make the choices they want.

What if only two women want to join such a club or activity instead of the 30 participants needed to run such.. So, they should be discriminated against simply because they're female, and there isn't the demand available to have two clubs in a town? Even though there is a male-only club which has open spaces but can't let the women in because they're not, well, men.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

It is a form of discrimination.. and it exists in many contact sports.

But I'm curious about this line of argument... Because there are areas where discrimination still exists, you believe its ok to form new avenues for discrimination?

So gay only Rugby teams are discriminatory.

That's all nice and idealistic but it kinda ignores the very reason they exist, doesn't it? The high rates of Homophobia in Rugby, soccer etc. were coming out is still a big thing, exactly because of the way they would be treated by players and supporters.

In response to that, they set up gay only teams. The reason gay only rugby teams exist is because of discrimination and homophobia in male dominated team sports.

I wouldn't quite equate women only book clubs to the above, but I don't see the harm in them!

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

So gay only Rugby teams are discriminatory.

Damn right it is.

That's all nice and idealistic but it kinda ignores the very reason they exist, doesn't it? The high rates of Homophobia in Rugby, soccer etc. were coming out is still a big thing, exactly because of the way they would be treated by players and supporters.

In response to that, they set up gay only teams. The reason gay only rugby teams exist is because of discrimination and homophobia in male dominated team sports.

And removing gay players to form their own system is going to fix things? Hardly. The only way people get used to something is through exposure/further experience. I can still remember the first time I met a "camp" gay man.. shocked me to the core, especially when I found my desk at work to be beside his... Now, after meeting dozens over the years, I hardly bat an eyelid at their mannerisms.

If I actively removed myself from positions where I might meet camp gay men, then, how would i change my initial experience of them?

How does removing gay men from Rugby improve the straight players reactions to them in the future?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

Damn right it is.



And removing gay players to form their own system is going to fix things? Hardly. The only way people get used to something is through exposure/further experience. I can still remember the first time I met a "camp" gay man.. shocked me to the core, especially when I found my desk at work to be beside his... Now, after meeting dozens over the years, I hardly bat an eyelid at their mannerisms.

If I actively removed myself from positions where I might meet camp gay men, then, how would i change my initial experience of them?

How does removing gay men from Rugby improve the straight players reactions to them in the future?

I don't think it is going to fix things, but I don't think that is the main reason it exists. The thinking seems to be that if the Gay World Cup is taken seriously that eventually being gay wont be seen as an issue by some.

Gay players can still play in the usual teams and try and out the homophobic attitudes from within. The 2 ways can work and coexist without contradiction? No? Or is this a morally absolute position?

K-9

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, probably comes down more to the mens organisations, as they were the pre existing groups. You'd probably need to find out what happened before these sports established and see what efforts were made by men to accept them and women to join.

Rev Hellfire

K-9 wrote: »

Gay players can still play in the usual teams and try and out the homophobic attitudes from within. The 2 ways can work and coexist without contradiction? No? Or is this a morally absolute position?

Would you be equally supportive of a heterosexual only rugby team ?

donegalfella

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Women's chess? Really?

K-9

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Would you be equally supportive of a heterosexual only rugby team ?

No, but doesn't that avoid the issue, discrimination against gays?

Hetrosexuals aren't being discriminated against in Rugby, Homosexuals are.

Anyway, the point is, if they want a gay World Cup, what's the problem?

If women want a book club, so what?

Tbh, the notion of sex free policies on this thread seems rather artificial to me. It seems retaliatory and reactionary, rather than idealistic. Women campaigned against men only clubs so how dare they have their own clubs!

Rev Hellfire

K-9 wrote: »

No, but doesn't that avoid the issue, discrimination against gays?

Hetrosexuals aren't being discriminated against in Rugby, Homosexuals are.

Anyway, the point is, if they want a gay World Cup, what's the problem?

The problem is its a double standard.

Ickle Magoo

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Who says it is different in a ll these cases? I would be against the ethnic segregation as much as gender. The other thing you seem to be missing is that a lot of these cases dont actually ban opposing/opposite beliefs or characteristics - you dont have to be a pagan to go to a pagan retreat etc, you just have to stick to discussions that are supportive of the group - ie go to a pagan group to talk about pagans respectively, go to a fianna fail group to talk about fianna fail repsectfully.

What about single sex schools, faith schools, men's fooball teams, men's toilets?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The choice should be in the hands of the person deciding wether or not to go, not the people running the group. 50/100 years ago, people like them decided that women shouldn't have the choice to vote, to go to certain clubs or play certain sports because they saw women as fundamentally different and in need of seperation from men. Today, womens clubs are allowing the women to do these things, but they still see women as fundamentally different and in need of seperation from men, the sexism has barely lessened at all.

The difference is choice - it's the difference between not being allowed to do something at all and having the choice to do it with other women, other men, or both.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its not about what men want, its about what women want. If they want one gender to stop being sexist to another gender, then they have to do it as well.

We're back to utopia again. I think instead of harking for this never to be reached ideal, we should just accept that to have a choice is a good thing.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, because some women are, inarguably, bitches and nagging hags. What would happen if a man opened a mens club for men to get away from irritating women for a while. What if someone opened a club saying that some people of certain ethnicicities are unarguably criminal, therefore none are allowed in these doors?
You only need to ban the dickheads to get rid of the dickheads, banning all men is sexist.

I don't care if men want to set up men's only clubs - nor that I can't go into men's toilets, nor that the BNP can have a rally regardless of how much I despise their policies. I like living in a democracy. While I think it would be wonderful if everyone could live merrily together, nobody ever being horrible, no women ever having bad experiences with men but we can't and we don't so taking away that choice for women serves no purpose - it doesn't bring equality a single millimetre closer, it just denies some women the opportunity to partake in single-sex groups.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If its possible then whats the problem? Moderate the dickheads out and you have no dickheads, no women only groups needed.

Who moderates? Who has to complain? Who has to spend time and effort they would rather be giving to the activity into policing grown adults that can't police themselves?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you are not uncomfortable, then why would you be bothered by anything?

I'm not the one bothered here. I have no issue with single-sex clubs, I have no issue with mixed clubs - I think there is room for both.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How can moderation be impossible? Do you think no moderation is involved in women only groups, that women are all angelic to each other and never bitch to each other? Why did the women, unhappy with the lack of moderation in a service or group, go and set up their own groups and just ban men? Why didn't they set up their own group with the level of moderation that they desired? Why did they make the sexist judgement to outright ban all men?

Moderation can be impossible when those that are entrusted with doing the moderating are the problem. Why should they have to police anyone - why can't some women just choose to have women only activities just as men have been enjoying men's only rugby teams or football or cricket for aeons now.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Since when? I've been saying that you should desire groups with better moderation, not just ones which outlaw men. It seems that you seem to be of the opinion that once you remove men, you no longer need moderation in an all female enviroment. Lets try that in girsl schools and see how long before they burn down.

Burn down? What? A book club is now equivalent to children at school - straw and grasp, mark.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you think that no complaints are ever made in women only groups? Or in the mixed enviroments they leave behind? That women never argue or insult each other.

I don't for one second think that, no, but having a single sex group changes the dynamics and some people prefer that.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Have you not being paying attention to all those posts you have been thanking? All these women saying they want an enviroment to talk about women issues and complain about dickheads and that these enviroments must include the gym or the book club or the local protest group? That men are too boistorous, that they are too logical. They may only being projecting their own feelings on other women, but its the view they are espousing.

It's because I've been paying attention that I'm able to point out that the desperate attempts to assume we all think exactly the same are so feeble. There are certainly cases of women who get fed up with men, whether that be the way men choose to interact with them, aggression, fear or whatever and I see no harm in having groups for those women. There are plenty of women who are perfectly capable and enjoy going toe to toe with men in debate - and men and women do tend to debate differently, I would have to agree with that. As long as everybody gets catered for, then what's the problem?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, where do you think the original womens rights activists met up? Did they just simultaneously stand up one day and start calling for equality, all at the same time, without realisng others where interested in this too. Besides, we are at the stage of women only protest groups for drug legalisation, so its hardly far off women only political parties.

I've already suggested why that is, did you read the whole thread?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not in denial that they are attractive to women, its why they are attractive that I'm disputing. Its not that women fundamentally need what they are selling, its that they have convinced women that they need it.

And who are you to suggest why things may or may not be attractive to women? Or that they should be attractive? No two people are alike, we all have our experiences, wants, preferences - if someone wishes to have a social activity which is single sex then I don't see an issue. My husband plays in a sunday league football side - will I start campaigning to join? Or would I be better served by setting up a women's league? Would that mean that we are all sexist and hate each other? Of course not.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

All debates have sides, they have to. If people didn't disagree, then why is there a debate?

Because while people may agree with particular sentiments, they may not agree with everything, or to the same extent - we debate a lot on A&A, I've seen you agree with someone and still hold a slightly different stand/viewpoint. I'm not sure why you are being deliberately obtuse about it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm sorry, you tend to thank each others posts a lot, so i assumed you agreed on a number of issues, maybe the thanks are mistakes?

A number of issues isn't every issue - nor have I thanked every post by every poster making points for women's only groups. If women are thanking each others posts a lot then perhaps a common theme has emerged - perhaps that could be learnt from rather than just making catty remarks about it?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You seriously thin women only groups dont require heavy policing? Do you think that girl only schools have less rules than boys schools too?

Would you accept they have different rules for single sex schools and same sex schools?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Maybe they dont see them as sexist? Maybe they have the confidence to see that the men will poke fun at anything and there is no reason (within limits, that should also apply to the men) that she cant either?

If it were just poking fun at then they wouldn't be anti-women, they'd just be poking fun. I'm not sure if you don't know what I mean or are just trying to down play it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you?

I wasn't the one claiming to know the stats were wrong.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You didn't say all, but you are certainly implying significant numbers.

I think a significant number of women have been on the receiving end of awful treatment from men - how many of those now prefer women's only activities as a result of that or whether that factors into their decision, I can only guess at.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We are, we just dont see why we should give special dues to one reaons when it hasn't been shown to be prevelent. More women on this thread have complained about men being too boistorous or dickheaded or just unaware of womens issues to mix with, than have claimed that men scare them because of psychological issues.

I'm not sure it's men scaring them - we are trying to debate the popularity of women's only activities. I know of some, I hold a woman's only group, I know women who attend women's only groups and I have my own views on why they may prove popular from my own experiences. That's a world away from the "all men" this and "all women" this being personalised that seems to be getting thrown around. That's the second time in this thread you have tried to infer something about me personally and dragging the debate to the level of my interaction with men.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I pointed out dickhead behavour in the workplace before in this thread (as a reason for why someone might start discriminating hiring based on gender), and it was hand waved away as there being ways to deal with it in work place enviroments.

People do discriminate based on gender, people leave their jobs because of dickheads - why can't someone in their spare time chose whom to spend free time with? If that happens to be a guys pub quiz team or a men's rugby team or a woman's book club - is that really the end of the world?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And what if someone demands that same choice where she works? Should workplaces be allowed to discriminate based on gender to suit the currently employed?

Then that's a separate issue. I think there is a fairly obvious distinction between a woman choosing who her employers employ and who she spends her leisure time with.

K-9

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The problem is its a double standard.

Yes, but is that necessarily a bad thing? Gay only teams are highlighting the issue.

The idea seems to be that people may actually get surprised at the standard of rugby being displayed, shock horror, openly gay men can play Rugby quite well.

There's a homeless soccer World Cup as well. Suppose that is discriminatory as well!

Rev Hellfire

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, but is that necessarily a bad thing? Gay only teams are highlighting the issue.

The idea seems to be that people may actually get surprised at the standard of rugby being displayed, shock horror, openly gay men can play Rugby quite well.

There's a homeless soccer World Cup as well. Suppose that is discriminatory as well!

Such things imply it is acceptable to discriminate. How can you argue against something you practise yourself? Sauce for the goose is good for the gander.

K-9

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Such things imply it is acceptable to discriminate. How can you argue against something you practise yourself? Sauce for the goose is good for the gander.

But the point of their existence is to highlight discrimination they suffer, to publicise their plight. It is hardly harmful to Hetrosexuals, other than highlighting the issue.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem we are going to get loads of gay Rugby players coming out in the immediate future, so I can accept the double standard, if it achieves its long term goal.

Rev Hellfire

K-9 wrote: »

But the point of their existence is to highlight discrimination they suffer, to publicise their plight. It is hardly harmful to Hetrosexuals, other than highlighting the issue.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem we are going to get loads of gay Rugby players coming out in the immediate future, so I can accept the double standard, if it achieves its long term goal.

I'm curious is there an official 'gay' only policy on the gay rugby team, or does it rely on the fact few/no straight players would join such a team ?

K-9

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm curious is there an official 'gay' only policy on the gay rugby team, or does it rely on the fact few/no straight players would join such a team ?

Think they are open to all. Not sure how popular that policy is in practice however!

Rev Hellfire

K-9 wrote: »

Think they are open to all. Not sure how popular that policy is in practice however!

That makes it a very different proposition to what is discussed here then.

donfers

K-9 wrote: »

Well, probably comes down more to the mens organisations, as they were the pre existing groups. You'd probably need to find out what happened before these sports established and see what efforts were made by men to accept them and women to join.

No, it's not the organisations, it's the simple fact that sport is generally a meritocracy and the women can't compete at the same level as men, if you threw in a token female to pander to some agenda or another she would most likely be embarrassed at best and seriously hurt at worst (especially in more physical sports like rugby and boxing). Let's take an example, Michelle Wie who is considered the brightest young talent in female golf was allowed to compete in male events and she was a complete disaster, I think she made the cut once.

However when it comes to reading a book or going to the gym, we are not competing with each other, nobody can really argue that they are somehow better at reading or using the treadmill than someone else so the analogy with sports is nonsense...there are completely different parameters with regard to the reasons for segregation in sport.

I also think the whole "sexist men are driving the women to these places" thing is being overemphasised in this debate.

Having an opinion = not necessarily sexist

Being outspoken = not necessarily sexist

Shouting people down = not necessarily sexit

Questioning people's opinions = not necessarily sexist

However if you have some preconceived political agenda it must be so so tempting to label males who behave like this as sexist when the reality is they are like that with everybody.

In any case when these new womens only group form the same problems will invariably arise as they do in almost all groups with some voices being more dominat and overbearing than others,

The reality is the formation of these groups is often down to the insecurities of those involved and their failures to engage successfully in previous unisex groups (perhaps rather than lashing out at how they believe previous groups were operated unreasonably, they should look at themselves for the reason why this new exclusive group is necessary). Most of the men I know, rather than behaving like an idiot, walk on eggshells when in womens company, always wary of the acute possibility of causing offence and go way out on a limb to make sure the female members feel comfortable/unthreatened/supported. A lot of the examples of bad behaviour here seem to relate to the nightlcub/pub scene where of course with the sheer volume of people and sheer quantity of drink taken you will see loutish behaviour. I have seen seen awful hevaiour from men but also countless examples of disgusting behaviour from women. I could constantly refer to these examples to tar all females with the same brush but I realise that would be disingenuous and I instead choose to interpret the events within the context of that more drunken carefree environment. People, not men exclusively or women exclusively, can be duckeads at certain times in certain places - I think we can all agree on that. It's how much we let that behaviour affect us and how we choose to deal with it when it happens that is the test of us.

Running off and forming your own group is your right, it is not a solution.

K-9

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

That makes it a very different proposition to what is discussed here then.

To women only book clubs?

Not sure if it is very different. They had to set up gay Rugby teams to make a point. By the reasoning on this thread, it is automatically a bad thing.

As long as men can have a Gentlemen's club and hold a book club there, if they so wish, I don't see a problem.

liah

You're right, donfers. I agree largely with what you've said.

And it is a right; it doesn't always have to be a solution. If people want to join them, that's their decision. It still shouldn't be banned.

As I've said all along, with education and awareness eventually the need for them will disappear, although never completely. We haven't got far enough for that yet, though.

Truley

donfers wrote: »

Running off and forming your own group is your right, it is not a solution.

I think that sums up how I feel about it. Do I think single sex groups are sexist? Yes. In the sense that they make presumptions about people becasue of their gender. At the end of the day, even its members have to accept that organisations like this are based on the use of unfair discrimination, that's more or less objective. I would tend to avoid them personally, and I don't think I would encourage my children to get involved.

But ... I do respect people's rights to form them in a private or commerical setting.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

It's very difficult to ignore the apparent double standard being proposed here. For example, in the early nineties, the UCD Women's group held a meeting to discuss the sexism surrounding male-only golf clubs (which was in the news at the time). However, the reception that followed the discussion was women only - even the male guest speakers could not attend.

From what I am reading here it is apparently ok to practice sexual discrimination in associations, as long as there is an equivalent for the other sex. Of course this does not always happen - certain groups are very much biased to one gender or the other where equivalents for the other gender are few and far between.

As an example of this:

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Right, so women weren't allowed to do something at all. Now they have the choice - they can work full-time, part-time, not at all.

Men don't really have those same choices; socially a male homemaker is still largely a social pariah, and even our constitution only recognizes a woman's role in the home - not a person's.

So, with this in mind, one interesting organization that my mother was a member of for many years was the International Women’s Club of Dublin, that was - and possibly still is - largely made up of homemakers who were non-national or wives to a non-national. To the best of my knowledge, there is no equivalent that will cater to men in a similar position, and while far fewer in number, they do exist.

Should it be forced to open up its membership because there is no equivalent? Or should those men get off their arses and set something up themselves? And if the latter, then why did women not set up their own golf clubs rather than forcing men's clubs to admit them as members?

This is the problem with this topic, because it's about choice and about freedom of association and about equality, but apparently only when it suits women. When it doesn't then the rules get changed.

As with that UCD Women's group meeting, almost twenty years ago, it is very difficult to treat with anything other than contempt, such self-serving hypocrisy.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair enough, but the reasons behind it are whats important. Privacy of body or to protect a "weaker" physical type are different considerations to any club which does not have such considerations.

Agreed. Which is why I've no issue with women only gyms since some women feel uncomfortable working out in front of men. This would fall under privacy of body if people want to give it a term.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't believe that all discrimination is wrong. I just believe that the cases of female only groups in book clubs, gyms, etc are wrong considering the lengths by which feminists chose to fight against them, when it was men who were holding them. What has changed?

I'm not following. Why do you consider female only groups or clubs wrong?

Do you agree with the feminists when they fought against men only clubs (I don't) and thus want this applied universally?

Or is it that you think that all women should be made hold to the standard feminists set for them as some sort of punishment for feminism?

Or neither of those (in which case I'm not following your position at all)

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think it is going to fix things, but I don't think that is the main reason it exists. The thinking seems to be that if the Gay World Cup is taken seriously that eventually being gay wont be seen as an issue by some.

Except that you're making it the issue. Its no longer about playing Rugby, but now about gay rugby players. Even the people who don't have any issue generally with gay players will take exception to that, and eventually you'll be in a worse position than before.

Gay players can still play in the usual teams and try and out the homophobic attitudes from within. The 2 ways can work and coexist without contradiction? No? Or is this a morally absolute position?

Say if you have two friends. One gay, the other heterosexual. They both want to play on the same team. With the "normal" teams, there would be no problem there, however with the Gay team, one player is prohibited from joining because he is heterosexual.

Honestly, I don't see the problem with working out things with the mixed teams. They're going to have to eventually if they wish to change perceptions. The only thing that having separate teams does, is highlight that they want to be treated differently. And they will.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

Agreed. Which is why I've no issue with women only gyms since some women feel uncomfortable working out in front of men. This would fall under privacy of body if people want to give it a term.

Then have a separate room for those people to work out in, in privacy.. I'm extremely skinny and the sight of me working out has brought about chuckles and a few jokes from the more dedicated gym goers, never mind the weight lifters (male and female).

Should I be demanding a gym for weak skinny white males who are embarrassed by the athletic people in the world?

I'm not following. Why do you consider female only groups or clubs wrong?

Because men only clubs were broken up to suit the desires of women in the name of equality. Again... what has changed between then and now?

Do you agree with the feminists when they fought against men only clubs (I don't) and thus want this applied universally?

It doesn't matter if I agree with them or not. They succeeded. As for universally, I'd kinda like it to be applied equally.

Answer me this. If a male only social club was created, and prohibited female entry... and a woman wanted to join, but was refused... How long do you think before that club would be closed or forced to submit the women?

Or is it that you think that all women should be made hold to the standard feminists set for them as some sort of punishment for feminism?

Lol. Punishment? I'd rather like equality to be the goal.. I rather like having the choice to go to that one cooking class in my district without having to consider if I'm barred because I'm a man.

edit: oh, its worth noting that I am doing a cooking class, and its the only one on during the evenings in my town. Isn't choice great? - And on a side note, there are 12 people doing the class. 10 women, and 2 guys. Now wouldn't it be fair if women could make this a female-only class, and prevent us poor men from learning?

donegalfella

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I always played in mixed company when I was little
I think women's only chess sounds silly to be honest
We were told boys are taught to play aggressively and girls are taught defensively, but I think it's great to pit the two against each other !

Mark Hamill

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What about single sex schools, faith schools, men's fooball teams, men's toilets?

What about them? I dont agree with single sex/faith schools, sports dont need segregation according to gender (if its a full contact sport, then just have weight classes) and as for mens toilets? I never said biological differences dont exist and shouldn't be catered for.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The difference is choice - it's the difference between not being allowed to do something at all and having the choice to do it with other women, other men, or both.

What difference does that make? If societal norms raised you to be sexist or you became sexist when you matured, you still end up sexist, its still wrong in both cases. Choosing to do something sexist doesn't make it less sexist.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

We're back to utopia again. I think instead of harking for this never to be reached ideal, we should just accept that to have a choice is a good thing.

I think instead of giving up so early and declaring it to be out of reach for ever, we should actually keep trying.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't care if men want to set up men's only clubs - nor that I can't go into men's toilets, nor that the BNP can have a rally regardless of how much I despise their policies. I like living in a democracy. While I think it would be wonderful if everyone could live merrily together, nobody ever being horrible, no women ever having bad experiences with men but we can't and we don't so taking away that choice for women serves no purpose - it doesn't bring equality a single millimetre closer, it just denies some women the opportunity to partake in single-sex groups.

But giving women that choice stalemates the whole process (at the very least). You will never get perfection without actually trying to get perfection and if you aren't even going to bother to try for perfection, then why try at all?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Who moderates? Who has to complain? Who has to spend time and effort they would rather be giving to the activity into policing grown adults that can't police themselves?

In terms of publically run activities (book clubs etc). The same kind of people who volunteer their time to moderators internet forums. In terms of official businesses, then who ever owns them.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Moderation can be impossible when those that are entrusted with doing the moderating are the problem. Why should they have to police anyone - why can't some women just choose to have women only activities just as men have been enjoying men's only rugby teams or football or cricket for aeons now.

And you think there is no moderation in rugby clubs or cricket teams? Have you heard of a coach? If the moderation is the problem, then go over their heads, or if thats not possible, then set up your own group and moderate it properly.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Burn down? What? A book club is now equivalent to children at school - straw and grasp, mark.

You are under the impression that women only groups are perfect bastions of order and require no moderation. I pointed that any girl only school run with no moderation would get burnt down to the ground, because girls are just as unruly as boys, if left unchecked. Girls will be just as mean to each other as men will be, they just do it in different ways, dickheadedness is a human trait not just a male trait.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't for one second think that, no, but having a single sex group changes the dynamics and some people prefer that.

Having a single race group changes dynamics and some people would prefer that. Still racist though.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's because I've been paying attention that I'm able to point out that the desperate attempts to assume we all think exactly the same are so feeble. There are certainly cases of women who get fed up with men, whether that be the way men choose to interact with them, aggression, fear or whatever and I see no harm in having groups for those women. There are plenty of women who are perfectly capable and enjoy going toe to toe with men in debate - and men and women do tend to debate differently, I would have to agree with that. As long as everybody gets catered for, then what's the problem?

Because its counter to the goals of equality. People are getting catered for, but seperately, because of these false ideas that there are big fundamental differences between gender groups, as shown by some of the claims made in this thread (men are too boisorous for women to have discussions with etc).

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I've already suggested why that is, did you read the whole thread?

Must have forgotten it. So did they just jump straight away into politics, or did they socialise before hand and build up the motivation to fight for equality?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And who are you to suggest why things may or may not be attractive to women? Or that they should be attractive? No two people are alike, we all have our experiences, wants, preferences - if someone wishes to have a social activity which is single sex then I don't see an issue. My husband plays in a sunday league football side - will I start campaigning to join? Or would I be better served by setting up a women's league? Would that mean that we are all sexist and hate each other? Of course not.

Billions is spent each year by advertsing companies convincing people to buy junk they dont need, just look at the whole notion of brand loyalty. And seeing as we are in a culture which still discourages women from participating in contact sports, even with other women, it canhardly be denied that people lie to themselves about a lot of their limitations and desires.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Because while people may agree with particular sentiments, they may not agree with everything, or to the same extent - we debate a lot on A&A, I've seen you agree with someone and still hold a slightly different stand/viewpoint. I'm not sure why you are being deliberately obtuse about it.

I'm not being obtuse, I'm just being general. In the most general sense, there are two sides to this argument, those who support women only groups and those who dont. While the reasoning on either side may not overlap with itself that much (ie your reasons for support are totally different than someone elses for support) there is still two fairly distinct sides.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

A number of issues isn't every issue - nor have I thanked every post by every poster making points for women's only groups. If women are thanking each others posts a lot then perhaps a common theme has emerged - perhaps that could be learnt from rather than just making catty remarks about it?

Who is being catty? I said you tend to thank a lot of each others posts, the men are doing it too, I'm not denying that either. Maybe you could learn from that yourself?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Would you accept they have different rules for single sex schools and same sex schools?

Do they?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If it were just poking fun at then they wouldn't be anti-women, they'd just be poking fun. I'm not sure if you don't know what I mean or are just trying to down play it.

Anti women is a subjective point of view. You seem to think that the women who hang around with these men and arent bothered by the insults are anti women. I dont think they would see it that way.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I wasn't the one claiming to know the stats were wrong.

So you support the 1 in 4 stat?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think a significant number of women have been on the receiving end of awful treatment from men - how many of those now prefer women's only activities as a result of that or whether that factors into their decision, I can only guess at.

Lets put it aside for the moment that you dont need teh guess, the number is out there (someone quoted it as 1 in 30 a while back, I think) and lets just ask that if 9/10 of these women where on the receiving end of awful treatment from black men, would you support them setting up services or groups which ban black men from them?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure it's men scaring them - we are trying to debate the popularity of women's only activities. I know of some, I hold a woman's only group, I know women who attend women's only groups and I have my own views on why they may prove popular from my own experiences. That's a world away from the "all men" this and "all women" this being personalised that seems to be getting thrown around. That's the second time in this thread you have tried to infer something about me personally and dragging the debate to the level of my interaction with men.

So you aren't saying that women go to these groups because of psychological issues with men? Why then do they go?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

People do discriminate based on gender, people leave their jobs because of dickheads - why can't someone in their spare time chose whom to spend free time with? If that happens to be a guys pub quiz team or a men's rugby team or a woman's book club - is that really the end of the world?

And is it really the end of the world if someone has a no blacks pub quiz team, no gays darts or mens only chess?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Then that's a separate issue. I think there is a fairly obvious distinction between a woman choosing who her employers employ and who she spends her leisure time with.

Dont twist my words, I'm talking about an employer choosing who to employ, either a man who doesn't want the possible issue of dealing with women complaining about the mean she is working with, or a women doing the exact same thing for the exact same reason.

Rev Hellfire

K-9 wrote: »

To women only book clubs?

Not sure if it is very different. They had to set up gay Rugby teams to make a point. By the reasoning on this thread, it is automatically a bad thing.

The difference is assuming you are correct the gay rugby team does not have a prohibition on heterosexuals, the option to join is there should one wish.
Unlike the women-only clubs which actively discriminate by permitting no males to join.

Basically it seems to boil down to for some people here:

Discriminate against males = female empowerment
Discriminate against females = male oppression

Mark Hamill

K-9 wrote: »

But the point of their existence is to highlight discrimination they suffer, to publicise their plight. It is hardly harmful to Hetrosexuals, other than highlighting the issue.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem we are going to get loads of gay Rugby players coming out in the immediate future, so I can accept the double standard, if it achieves its long term goal.

But, assuming that these gays are like some here on this thread, they aren't doing it to highlight their plight, they are doing it because they dont ever accept that it could get better (some unreachable utopia). They are just saying, well if you are going to discriminate, then so will I. That kind of attitude is hardly going to help, is it?

metrovelvet

Segregation does not always mean inequality. In fact may integration means inequality in some cases.

For example, is it a case on inequality that Muslim students can take breaks from class to do their prayers but non - muslim students cant? Or would it be unequal if the Muslim students had to stay in class like the rest of the students. Is perhaps not accommodating difference forcing others to defer to your paradigm. Not very equal when you think about it.

Would you consider it inequality if a public school system built a Muslim only school in order to accommodate this?

Or what about the NYC high school that is specifically for homosexual students? You cant see how they might want an atmosphere where they can be more comfortable.

THe Irish Woman's Country Association, the American Woman's Club, blah blah, so start your own groups. Jesus Christ its not rocket science. IT's not like the military, where women were forbidden they could start their own army. FFS.

Biggest whinge fest ever on this thread.

I don't really see why posters keep introducing other aspects such as homosexuality, religion or other such differences. This is about the most fundamental of differences. The sex of a person. We have reams of laws introduced over the last century to protect the rights of either sex due to the social pressure to bring about equality for the sexes. To introduce acceptable practices which limit the membership of a person in a group, organisation, activity solely based on the sex of a person is sexist discrimination, and should be prevented. It doesn't matter if it is women wanting the restrictions or men wanting the restrictions, these restrictions should not be allowed.

Frankly IMO, any examples talking about sexuality, religion, etc are different issues and not relevant.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's very difficult to ignore the apparent double standard being proposed here. For example, in the early nineties, the UCD Women's group held a meeting to discuss the sexism surrounding male-only golf clubs (which was in the news at the time). However, the reception that followed the discussion was women only - even the male guest speakers could not attend.

How is something that happened in the early nineties considered something that is being proposed "here"?

The Corinthian wrote: »

From what I am reading here it is apparently ok to practice sexual discrimination in associations, as long as there is an equivalent for the other sex. Of course this does not always happen - certain groups are very much biased to one gender or the other where equivalents for the other gender are few and far between.

It seems silly to blame say Curves gym for the lack of male only gyms. So long as Curves are not stopping male only gyms then what is the problem?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Men don't really have those same choices; socially a male homemaker is still largely a social pariah, and even our constitution only recognizes a woman's role in the home - not a person's.

Do men want the same choices? How many men's groups are calling on a change to the constitution to recognize a man's role in the home?

The Corinthian wrote: »

So, with this in mind, one interesting organization that my mother was a member of for many years was the International Women’s Club of Dublin, that was - and possibly still is - largely made up of homemakers who were non-national or wives to a non-national. To the best of my knowledge, there is no equivalent that will cater to men in a similar position, and while far fewer in number, they do exist.

Should it be forced to open up its membership because there is no equivalent? Or should those men get off their arses and set something up themselves?

The second. There is nothing stopping the formation of a similar group for men, and so long as there is nothing stopping it then again what is the problem.

I'm not saying you are doing this, but if someone were to blame women's groups who were doing their own thing for the lack of equivilant mens groups when there is nothing stopping men starting their own group, I would consider that stupid.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's very difficult to ignore the apparent double standard being proposed here. For example, in the early nineties, the UCD Women's group held a meeting to discuss the sexism surrounding male-only golf clubs (which was in the news at the time). However, the reception that followed the discussion was women only - even the male guest speakers could not attend.

How is something that happened in the early nineties considered something that is being proposed "here"?

The Corinthian wrote: »

From what I am reading here it is apparently ok to practice sexual discrimination in associations, as long as there is an equivalent for the other sex. Of course this does not always happen - certain groups are very much biased to one gender or the other where equivalents for the other gender are few and far between.

It seems silly to blame say Curves gym for the lack of male only gyms. So long as Curves are not stopping male only gyms then what is the problem?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Men don't really have those same choices; socially a male homemaker is still largely a social pariah, and even our constitution only recognizes a woman's role in the home - not a person's.

Do men want the same choices? How many men's groups are calling on a change to the constitution to recognize a man's role in the home?

The Corinthian wrote: »

And if the latter, then why did women not set up their own golf clubs rather than forcing men's clubs to admit them as members?

Women should have set up their own golf clubs. The case against Portmarnock was lost as far as I know.

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is the problem with this topic, because it's about choice and about freedom of association and about equality, but apparently only when it suits women.

Really? From where I'm sitting this topic is about having a rant against women.

Blaming women because men have not formed equivilant groups such as male only gyms when they are perfectly entitled to is silly

Saying a woman cannot be interested in equality if she goes to Curves is equally silly.

Associating the actions of some women, such as those who took a case against Portmarnock or a group of UCD women in the 1990s, with all woman kind as if there is some sort of hive mind is beyond silly.

There seems to be a lot of anger directed towards women in a quite general sense, with really little to justify it. Are people really screaming hypocrite! at all woman kind because they don't have a male only gym, something they don't seem to want anyway?

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

Then have a separate room for those people to work out in, in privacy.. I'm extremely skinny and the sight of me working out has brought about chuckles and a few jokes from the more dedicated gym goers, never mind the weight lifters (male and female).

Should I be demanding a gym for weak skinny white males who are embarrassed by the athletic people in the world?

You can but I'm not sure who you would be demanding this from? Do you think women demanded a woman only gym? From who exactly?

You could attempt to inform gym owners that there is a market for gyms for people who do not like working out surrounded by really fit people. I myself would probably join one of these gyms as I'm a bit over weight and find it embarrassing only being able to complete a few minutes of each machine before having to stop.

Again the only thing in play here is market forces. If there is demand for a specific service it will be provided. If you think there is demand for it inform gym owners or open your own gym and make a fortune.

I've no idea who you think women demanded Curves from? The government?

Deleted User wrote: »

Because men only clubs were broken up to suit the desires of women in the name of equality.

I'm not quite following your point here.

Is it that because some women broke up some clubs in the past now women shouldn't be able to have clubs, irrespective of whether you think they actually should be able to? We should punish women in general because of what some women did years ago?

As I said to TC talking about "women" as if they are some hive mind collective is rather silly. There is no reason to assume any of the women here share the ideals or ideology of radical feminists from the past, or even to assume that the women here all share the same ideals to begin with.

Talking like women wanted this 40 years ago and want this now and it is really hypocritical is just silly. "Women" are not a single political or ideological group.

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesn't matter if I agree with them or not.

It does actually because at the moment it looks like you only want to stop women only groups and clubs as some sort of retribution for feminist groups who attempted to break up male only groups and clubs.

Now I could be wrong of course, which is why I'm trying to get you to clarify.

You could actually be against gender only clubs all together in which case you would surely be with the feminists groups who attempted to brake up clubs that didn't allow women.

But given the way you talk about them with distaste you don't seem to be with them either, so I hope you can see the confusion?

Deleted User wrote: »

They succeeded.

Is that a problem? Don't you agree with them?

Deleted User wrote: »

As for universally, I'd kinda like it to be applied equally.

You would like what applied equally? Which side are you on? Are you for or against gender specific clubs and organisations?

Deleted User wrote: »

Answer me this. If a male only social club was created, and prohibited female entry... and a woman wanted to join, but was refused... How long do you think before that club would be closed or forced to submit the women?

Forced by who?

The current laws allow for male only clubs, as the Portmarnock case demonstrates.

But don't you actually agree with this? Wouldn't you want a male only social club to be shut down because it is discriminating based on gender?

Deleted User wrote: »

Lol. Punishment? I'd rather like equality to be the goal.. I rather like having the choice to go to that one cooking class in my district without having to consider if I'm barred because I'm a man.

So you are against gender specific groups? Ok, so why are you complaining about women attempting to close down gender specific groups?

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Discriminate against males = female empowerment
Discriminate against females = male oppression

Only if you assume that all women share exactly the same political/social/economic views, and assume that if a women holds one of those views she must hold the other (and thus be a hypocrite)

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

It seems silly to blame say Curves gym for the lack of male only gyms. So long as Curves are not stopping male only gyms then what is the problem?

Replace Curves gym with Portmarnock Golf Club and you have just given the same argument that was rejected as sexist fifteen odd years ago.

Do men want the same choices? How many men's groups are calling on a change to the constitution to recognize a man's role in the home?

Actually yes, along with all other forms of sexual discrimination against us. Indeed, you are simply rehashing one of the same arguments that was being mooted by those opposed to universal suffrage a century ago - that women didn't really want the vote, and only a minority were agitating for it.

The second. There is nothing stopping the formation of a similar group for men, and so long as there is nothing stopping it then again what is the problem.

Then why did women not set up their own golf clubs rather than demand that men's golf clubs admit them?

I'm not saying you are doing this, but if someone were to blame women's groups who were doing their own thing for the lack of equivilant mens groups when there is nothing stopping men starting their own group, I would consider that stupid.

So the women who wanted the golf clubs to admit them were stupid?

How is something that happened in the early nineties considered something that is being proposed "here"?

Because I am highlighting a hypocrisy that has been about for a long time and still remains.

Blaming women because men have not formed equivilant groups such as male only gyms when they are perfectly entitled to is silly

No one is blaming women because men have not formed equivalent groups here. What is being highlighted is that in the last twenty years, attempts to force men's groups to accept women members took place in the name of equality and now men are being told that this behaviour is not acceptable when the shoe is on the other foot.

Saying a woman cannot be interested in equality if she goes to Curves is equally silly.

If I'd said that you'd be right, but I didn't.

Associating the actions of some women, such as those who took a case against Portmarnock or a group of UCD women in the 1990s, with all woman kind as if there is some sort of hive mind is beyond silly.

Not at all, because many (not all) of these same posters posting here have argued in favour of quotas in politics for women, while arguing that the onus is on men to set up their own associations here - market or democratic forces are apparently respected only when it comes to men, and this is the double standard that is being highlighted and criticized.

It is incredibly insulting to hear someone bellyache about how change needs to be forced for them, then hear the same people suggest that market forces need to be respected when it no longer affects them. No one is complaining about women, as some men (such as yourself) seem to share the same views - what is being criticized here is the double standard that is being pushed.

metrovelvet

Ok maybe they should have started their own golf club. Im sure some have, somewhere. Maybe they should have started their own military and governments and courts also, since they couldn't be soldiers, they couldn't vote, and they couldn't sit on a jury.

Curves gym. Big deal. Get a picket sign and protest outside. Go on.

Zulu

...that all changed though, didn't it.

The Corinthian

No one is suggesting that women should not have the same rights as men. Indeed, they do have the same rights now and have had them for decades - if anything women now have more legal rights than men, and if you don't agree with this, name one legal right that is denied of women and I'll name two denied of men.

The issue being discussed here is one of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want freedom of association on a gender basis, then you can't look for preferential treatment where it goes against you. If you want to stop association restricted to gender, then you can't complain when someone wants to stop you associating based upon gender. If you want to associate according to gender, then you can't complain when someone stops you associating based upon your gender.

Can you imagine the outcry against a men only business association? Yet numerous women only business association exist.

Now, personally I do agree that if men are unhappy with female only associations then we should get off our arses and do something about it rather than simply whine and seek preferential treatment. But by the same logic, neither do I have much time for calls to do things like introduce political gender quotas either.

You can't cherry pick your principles of equality and expect not to be called a hypocrite. That is what is so galling about such discussions, because it's one set of rules when it suits, then repeatedly another when it doesn't. And that is all that is being done here.

metrovelvet

Zulu wrote: »

...that all changed though, didn't it.

Well, like I said, get a picket sign and stand outside Curves with it and take your stand.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

You can but I'm not sure who you would be demanding this from? Do you think women demanded a woman only gym? From who exactly?

Again the only thing in play here is market forces. If there is demand for a specific service it will be provided. If you think there is demand for it inform gym owners or open your own gym and make a fortune.

I've no idea who you think women demanded Curves from? The government?

Sorry, perhaps demand is the wrong word to use in this instance. Women demanded equal access to male groups, gyms or such but nobody demanded a fully female-only gym. Market demand is indeed in play.

And as I have asked previously of others, what happens when that gym or class is in a town with no other coverage, turns male only (or female only), and everyone else is left out? So if there are only 4 women looking to join, there's no real demand to create a new female-only gym, is that fair to those women?

You could attempt to inform gym owners that there is a market for gyms for people who do not like working out surrounded by really fit people. I myself would probably join one of these gyms as I'm a bit over weight and find it embarrassing only being able to complete a few minutes of each machine before having to stop.

So why not a section within a gym to cater for those that would like to practice together in privacy rather than a complete gym for a single sex? Yup, I'm basically asking the same question again.

I'm not quite following your point here.

I can't see why not. Women demanded equality in many areas of life, and received those concessions. They argued & protested explaining how such things were sexist. Now that women have had those same rights as men, they want to turn around and re-institute some of them again?

Is it that because some women broke up some clubs in the past now women shouldn't be able to have clubs, irrespective of whether you think they actually should be able to? We should punish women in general because of what some women did years ago?

I have no problem with women having mixed sex clubs where there scheduling arrangements to give certain brackets (sex, religion, weight, age, etc) the ability to train or such in relative privacy.

I do have a problem with any organisation that prohibits membership or usage solely based on the sex of the person.

Those "women" from years ago set the basic definitions as to what is sexist. I guess they just didn't spell it out that sexism is applicable to both females and males.

As I said to TC talking about "women" as if they are some hive mind collective is rather silly. There is no reason to assume any of the women here share the ideals or ideology of radical feminists from the past, or even to assume that the women here all share the same ideals to begin with.

I don't share the ideals of Pearse, De Valera or many of the Irishmen that sought to create this country... I still follow the laws of the land, and seek to maintain a certain balance based on the spirit of the constitution (being their vision for Ireland).

I'm not expecting all women to share the ideals of feminists. Hell, I don't expect most people to share them. I know in many individual Feminists viewpoints, I don't agree with them. But I do believe in the equality that was introduced. Its here. And I'd rather not see it removed just because a new breed of women find it inconvenient.

It does actually because at the moment it looks like you only want to stop women only groups and clubs as some sort of retribution for feminist groups who attempted to break up male only groups and clubs.

Only if I was promoting that men-only clubs were perfectly acceptable, whereas women-only groups were sexist... then it would be obvious that I'm sexist, and looking for retribution.

Instead, I'm looking to remove such sexism equally.. Shame on me.

You could actually be against gender only clubs all together in which case you would surely be with the feminists groups who attempted to brake up clubs that didn't allow women.

But given the way you talk about them with distaste you don't seem to be with them either, so I hope you can see the confusion?

Nope. I don't see the confusion. I've made my stance rather clear. The Changes were Made. They're still being made. Women's rights has been a rather prominent movement in this country, and continues to be. Now, there is a growing interest by men for Men's rights.. since it appears many women don't mind trampling mens rights to get their own form of "equality". Equality is for both sexes, and something to be introduced and then improved upon. Not to be thrown away simply because some women find it inconvenient.

You would like what applied equally? Which side are you on? Are you for or against gender specific clubs and organisations?

I have said repeatedly that I am against any organisation or club which rests entry/membership solely based on the sex of the person...

Forced by who?

The current laws allow for male only clubs, as the Portmarnock case demonstrates.

But don't you actually agree with this? Wouldn't you want a male only social club to be shut down because it is discriminating based on gender?

Yes, I actually would. Just as I would want a female-only club to be shut down in equal measure.

As for who would do the shutting down, I would point towards the host of female rights groups which can be rather effective in using the media or the law to prevent such.

So you are against gender specific groups? Ok, so why are you complaining about women attempting to close down gender specific groups?

How am I complaining about women attempting to close down gender specific groups? :rolleyes: