Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
'Women only' groups
Comments
-
The Corinthian wrote: »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.
+1 Perfect.
[I wish I could write answers like this.
] 0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Replace Curves gym with Portmarnock Golf Club and you have just given the same argument that was rejected as sexist fifteen odd years ago.
And?
Is that supposed to some how stop me from holding my position?
Are any of those women here today in this discussion?
Do you think any of the women here today in this discussion should be held to the standards these women set?
If not what the heck is the relevance of what campaigners against Portnarnock held as a view point?The Corinthian wrote: »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 point wasn't that only a minority are agitating for it so lets not do anything.
It was simply that I can't see anyone agitating for it. At all.
The way you put it made it sound like some loud vocal minority is being oppressed by the feminist majority?
Is there anything stopping mens groups campaigning to change the constitution and changing the constitution using the ballot paper (something at the time denied to the suffragets)?The Corinthian wrote: »Then why did women not set up their own golf clubs rather than demand that men's golf clubs admit them?
By "women" I assume you mean the specific group of women who took exception to the Portmarnock golf club?
Given I've never met any of them it is hard to say but at a guess probably because they were stupid or ignorant or both.The Corinthian wrote: »Because I am highlighting a hypocrisy that has been about for a long time and still remains.
And you are doing that by trying to make out that all woman kind share the same view point so if some women over here in 1995 do something and then some women over here in 2010 to do something else all of them are hypocrites.
It can't be that some of them are hypocrites, or some of them are stupid, or some of them are ignorant.The Corinthian wrote: »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.
Told by who exactly?
Name the individual posters and I will join you in denouncing them as hypocrites.The Corinthian wrote: »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.
But this prevailing notion that all women kind whether they be radical women in the sixties, bored upper class house wifes in the ninties or female posters on Boards.ie are hypocrites because all women share the same views is frankly bizarre.The Corinthian wrote: »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.
So the posters you are complaining about on Boards.ie are the same people that 40 years ago campaigned to close gentleman clubs and the same people that 15 years ago campaigned to close Portmarnock?
That is impressive, my mum can't even turn on a computer.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »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.
...
Can you imagine the outcry against a men only business association? Yet numerous women only business association exist.
...
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.
You can call a woman a hypocrite if her views (her actual ones, not the ones you assume she has) are hypocritical.
Picking two movements with people who probably have nothing to do with each other and using that to call women hypocrites is just an excuse for misogyny0 -
Yes. It's hardly a century ago that these arguments were being made and deciding that these standards no longer suit now is not acceptable.Do you think any of the women here today in this discussion should be held to the standards these women set?
Then you weren't listening as that is not the point I was making.The way you put it made it sound like some loud vocal minority is being oppressed by the feminist majority?
Actually I also cited a relevant piece of hypocrisy that was only three months old too. Nice of you to ignore it.And you are doing that by trying to make out that all woman kind share the same view point so if some women over here in 1995 do something and then some women over here in 2010 to do something else all of them are hypocrites.
That is the point. And some of them are here as highlighted by their views elsewhere.It can't be that some of them are hypocrites, or some of them are stupid, or some of them are ignorant.
Comparing the political quotas and this thread, you do come across some of the posters taking contradictory viewpoints, where men should get off their arses if they feel the need for redress, while when when women feel the need for redress, the the system should be changed to aid this. One example is Kooli:Name the individual posters and I will join you in denouncing them as hypocrites.
Imposed Political Quotas Good versus Imposed Open Membership Bad
Actually it's not all that bizarre. People will generally seek justifications for self-interest, be they male or female, it's just that our society has now developed an almost schizophrenic approach to the issue of equality and normal people are as a result, and understandably, picking and choosing what suits.But this prevailing notion that all women kind whether they be radical women in the sixties, bored upper class house wifes in the ninties or female posters on Boards.ie are hypocrites because all women share the same views is frankly bizarre.
That's not to say that all women think this, but it can hardly be denied that our society has been bombarded with propaganda telling us that equality means only womens' rights that it has become easy to fall into this hypocritical trap - indeed, see how the WEF measure 'Gender Parity'.0 -
That is the point if you'd bothered listening.You can call a woman a hypocrite if her views (her actual ones, not the ones you assume she has) are hypocritical.
Ahh, the label of misogyny - the post-Feminist answer to Israel's liberal use of Antisemitism.Picking two movements with people who probably have nothing to do with each other and using that to call women hypocrites is just an excuse for misogyny0 -
Deleted User wrote: »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 say that about anything.
Is it "fair" that I grew up in Ireland at a time when hardly anyone was into Games Workshop stuff so there was no store here and now lots of people are and there is a store.
When you appeal to "fair" who are you appealing to? Who is the arbiter of "fair"?Deleted User wrote: »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?
I don't run a gym but I would imagine because space is expensive. I'm sure every gym owner would like to run a super gym like David Loyd that has space for all sorts of areas so they can cater to every demographic, but that is some what impractical in the real world as they can't afford this.Deleted User wrote: »Now that women have had those same rights as men, they want to turn around and re-institute some of them again?
Who are "they"?
The same women who protested against inequality in the 60s and 70s? How old are these women? I'm surprised they find the time or the energy to continue to set up exclusive women only institutions. :pac:Deleted User wrote: »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.
Fair enough, that wasn't entirely clear given this post
How do you know they didn't?Deleted User wrote: »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.Deleted User wrote: »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.
Fair enough.
The equality you speak of doesn't actually exist though. It is not illegal to make a private group and restrict it to only men or only women. In a lot of ways the feminists you side with lost.Deleted User wrote: »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.
Again fair enough, your position was not clear at all. You said here about campaigners who wanted the same thing as you
It doesn't matter if I agree with them or not. They succeeded.
Which sounded like you resented them or something.Deleted User wrote: »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".
Many women are stupid. Many men are stupid. This shouldn't be news to you.Deleted User wrote: »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.
It hasn't been thrown away. The equality you speak of, where any man or woman can join a gender specific group doesn't exist.
So how can it be thrown away?0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »That is the point if you'd bothered listening.
If that is the point why are we discussing sixities feminists or 90s house wives as if they have any bearing on what any of the female posters here must believe?
Are any of these groups here today?The Corinthian wrote: »Ahh, the label of misogyny - the post-Feminist answer to Israel's liberal use of Antisemitism.
That isn't a response, just a deflection.
Do you agree that the views of any of these groups that you keep brining up are irrelevant to this discussion?
If so why do you keep brining them up?0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Yes. It's hardly a century ago that these arguments were being made and deciding that these standards no longer suit now is not acceptable.
I'm 23 years old ffs. Don't you dare hold me (or, frankly, anyone else) to the standards of a generation that had a completely different mindset and upbringing and way of looking at the world.
If that were the case then you should be held accountable for the oppression women suffered at the hands of men for centuries.
Sound ridiculous? Because it bloody well is! You obviously had no part in that, so thus it would be unfair to hold you to those standards and expect you to be that way.
Ironic that you're arguing against hypocrisy.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Yes. It's hardly a century ago that these arguments were being made and deciding that these standards no longer suit now is not acceptable.
Why? Maybe the standards were a bad idea to begin with? Why do you expect women today to have to agree with radical sixties feminists? Because they are women?The Corinthian wrote: »Then you weren't listening as that is not the point I was making.
Which was?
I'm not saying the posters here aren't hypocrites. I'm saying assuming they hold to the standards of sixties feminists or Portmarnock campaigners in order to call them hypocrites is stupid.The Corinthian wrote: »Actually I also cited a relevant piece of hypocrisy that was only three months old too. Nice of you to ignore it.
And before you say it, yes you were doing this. If you could make a case that they were hypocrites on their own posts why bring up all these other women's groups.The Corinthian wrote: »Actually it's not all that bizarre. People will generally seek justifications for self-interest, be they male or female, it's just that our society has now developed an almost schizophrenic approach to the issue of equality and normal people are as a result, and understandably, picking and choosing what suits.
It is only schizophrenic if you view all women as having one collective hive mind.
If you view it in terms of reality, individuals with differing opinions, it doesn't become schizophrenic at all. It becomes individuals with differing opinions.
If you meet a woman who says like Klaz no gender only groups should be allowed and then met another woman who says like me these should be allowed you have not meet a schizophrenic woman. You have met two individual women with two different opinions.
I would imagine you would be the first to complain if someone assumed you must hold a particular position because you are a man.The Corinthian wrote: »That's not to say that all women think this, but it can hardly be denied that our society has been bombarded with propaganda telling us that equality means only womens' rights that it has become easy to fall into this hypocritical trap
Then complain about the groups that do this, rather than "women"
What we are constantly bombarded with is different opinions. The idea that a woman says X and then another woman says Y we are being bombarded with a schizophrenic notion of what women want is stupid.
If a man told you he was a socialist and then another man told you he was a capitalist would that mean society is being bombarded with a schizophrenic notion of what men want?0 -
Advertisement
-
Actually, I don't think I mentioned the sixties anywhere, so please don't start inventing things I said. The only historical example I raised was from the nineties, specifically in student politics, and that certainly has baring on today, given many of these same people are politicians and trade unionist officials today.If that is the point why are we discussing sixities feminists or 90s house wives as if they have any bearing on what any of the female posters here must believe?
No, it was an outright rejection of an attempt to dismiss me using an emotionally changed label.That isn't a response, just a deflection.
I'm waiting on you to condemn Kooli btw, or were those just empty promises?0 -
Deleted User wrote: »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.
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.
"Normal" teams don't take exception to it, as far as I'm aware!
The Gay teams don't discriminate either, though I don't think there has been a huge uptake from Hetro players!
My point is, both approaches are useful. Gay Rugby teams highlight the issue and players like Gareth Thomas of Wales campaign for equal treatment after publicly coming out.Rev Hellfire wrote: »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
But men are free to set up their own book clubs if they so wish, or male gyms etc. From memory, was there a male weight watchers club at one stage?Mark Hamill wrote: »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).
Far from it, they recognise that it is a very long process and it seems to be one of the last taboos left for Gay men, openly coming out in the world of Rugby, Soccer, GAA etc. This is part of that process, highlighting the issue, as even highlighting it seems a taboo!
If it's a means to an end, yes. Probably more a Machiavellian approach that a morally absolute one!Mark Hamill wrote: »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?
I've seen that justification used for Portmarnock Golf Club, maybe even one or 2 posters from this very thread used that stance to justify the men's club there.
I think some of the objections on this thread are based on that, look over there at the wimminz clubs, not any particular moral stance on sexism!Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
None of us are free from earlier mindsets as they echo long after they are the accepted wisdom. And neither was I suggesting that all women have a hypocritical, cake and eat it, mentality either.I'm 23 years old ffs. Don't you dare hold me (or, frankly, anyone else) to the standards of a generation that had a completely different mindset and upbringing and way of looking at the world.
However it does exist and it quite prevalent.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Actually, I don't think I mentioned the sixties anywhere, so please don't start inventing things I said. The only historical example I raised was from the nineties, specifically in student politics, and that certainly has baring on today, given many of these same people are politicians and trade unionist officials today.
And suffrage.
Ok sixities cheerfully withdrawn. You want to actually answer the question now?The Corinthian wrote: »No, it was an outright rejection of an attempt to dismiss me using an emotionally changed label.
I'm not dismissing you, I'm tackling you head on. Your just like Israel and the I didn't mention the sixities comments are just attempt to dismiss my charge against you.
What the heck to the "standards" of a century ago or even the standards of the UCD women trying to close down Portmarnock got to do with any of the posters here or any other woman who didn't partake in these movements?
Are any of these women here on this forum?The Corinthian wrote: »I'm waiting on you to condemn Kooli btw, or were those just empty promises?
I haven't read Kooli's post but she is a horrible horrible hypocrite and no one should ever listen to her again.
Now care to actually answer the question rather that continuing to stall?0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »None of us are free from earlier mindsets as they echo long after they are the accepted wisdom. And neither was I suggesting that all women have a hypocritical, cake and eat it, mentality either.
However it does exist and it quite prevalent.
:rolleyes:
Me: 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?
You: Replace Curves gym with Portmarnock Golf Club and you have just given the same argument that was rejected as sexist fifteen odd years ago.
Me And?
Is that supposed to some how stop me from holding my position?
Are any of those women here today in this discussion?
Do you think any of the women here today in this discussion should be held to the standards these women set?
You: Yes. It's hardly a century ago that these arguments were being made and deciding that these standards no longer suit now is not acceptable.0 -
Where is it prevalent?0
-
Advertisement
-
Did I not? If not how did I fail to answer it?Ok sixities cheerfully withdrawn. You want to actually answer the question now?
You're not tackling anything, you're just flinging mud. If you want to accuse me of misogyny you need to point out why and all you've done is claim that I am accusing all women of something (which I have repeatedly denied doing) and have not bothered to prove how I hate them too, which is also part of the definition.I'm not dismissing you, I'm tackling you head on. Your just like Israel and the I didn't mention the sixities comments are just attempt to dismiss my charge against you.
It's a low blow, unwarranted and only designed to discredit me with a label rather than tackle my arguments. Shame on you.
Again, I have answered this. This a la carte equality is a prevalent attitude out there. That does not mean that all women (or men) ascribe to it, but it cannot be denied that it forms a large part of today's conventional wisdom.What the heck to the "standards" of a century ago or even the standards of the UCD women trying to close down Portmarnock got to do with any of the posters here or any other woman who didn't partake in these movements?
I really am not sure what other answer you want from me.
So it does exist.I haven't read Kooli's post but she is a horrible horrible hypocrite and no one should ever listen to her again.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Did I not? If not how did I fail to answer it?
You failed to answer it by not providing an answer. More stalling :rolleyes:
Let me ask again
What the heck to the "standards" of a century ago or even the standards of the UCD women trying to close down Portmarnock got to do with any of the posters here or any other woman who didn't partake in these movements?The Corinthian wrote: »You're not tackling anything, you're just flinging mud. If you want to accuse me of misogyny you need to point out why
I have already.
Picking two movements with people who probably have nothing to do with each other and using that to call women hypocrites is just an excuse for misogynyThe Corinthian wrote: »Again, I have answered this. This a la carte equality is a prevalent attitude out there.
Based on what? And with who?
Once again
Picking two movements with people who probably have nothing to do with each other and using that to call women hypocrites is just an excuse for misogyny
Hypocrisy? Yes TC, it exists.The Corinthian wrote: »So it does exist.0 -
You could say that about anything.
Is it "fair" that I grew up in Ireland at a time when hardly anyone was into Games Workshop stuff so there was no store here and now lots of people are and there is a store.
When you appeal to "fair" who are you appealing to? Who is the arbiter of "fair"?
Another example which isn't barring you based on your sex... If Games workshop were open and only serving males in your town, preventing women from purchasing/playing the games, then perhaps it would be a more comparable example...Who are "they"?
Duh. Women in general.The same women who protested against inequality in the 60s and 70s? How old are these women? I'm surprised they find the time or the energy to continue to set up exclusive women only institutions. :pac:
Why this focus on the women who sought equality 30/40 years ago? You seem to have no objection to enjoying the benefits like voting, workplace equality etc but when it comes to this one point, suddenly they're completely unrelated to women in general?Fair enough, that wasn't entirely clear given this post
Which you still haven't answered. What has changed?How do you know they didn't?
Since there's an obvious bias here whereby posters can see only from a female angle of what sexism entails.... This thread is rife with double standards regarding equality.Fair enough.
The equality you speak of doesn't actually exist though. It is not illegal to make a private group and restrict it to only men or only women. In a lot of ways the feminists you side with lost.
The feminists I side with? I love the way you seek to twist things. I'm not siding with them. I'm siding with the life I've had to grow up through because of the rules they saw fit to change...Many women are stupid. Many men are stupid. This shouldn't be news to you.
Stupid? Ignorant might be better. Or Biased. Or just plain sexist.It hasn't been thrown away. The equality you speak of, where any man or woman can join a gender specific group doesn't exist.
So how can it be thrown away?
Seriously? There aren't laws that seek to prevent gender discrimination? Actual question here... since I always believed that there were.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Another example which isn't barring you based on your sex... If Games workshop were open and only serving males in your town, preventing women from purchasing/playing the games, then perhaps it would be a more comparable example...
Well no, it is due to market forces. My point was that market forces aren't fair, there is no arbiter of fairness who says Wicknight wants a Games Workshop he should have one.
Equally no one said women should get a female only gym because that is fair, but it ain't fair that men get one. The reason men don't have these is because there is little to no market demand for them.Deleted User wrote: »Duh. Women in general.
"Women in general" are not a political group or ideology. Why would you assume women in general share any ideology. Men don't.Deleted User wrote: »Why this focus on the women who sought equality 30/40 years ago? You seem to have no objection to enjoying the benefits like voting, workplace equality etc but when it comes to this one point, suddenly they're completely unrelated to women in general?
Can you explain how they are actually related?
Why would a woman today be expected to hold to what a woman 30 years ago believed lest she be charged with being a hypocrite?
I've no idea if anything changed.Deleted User wrote: »Which you still haven't answered. What has changed?
For we know the women who believed that there should be no gender discrimination in clubs or societies still believe that.
Do you have evidence they don't?Deleted User wrote: »Since there's an obvious bias here whereby posters can see only from a female angle of what sexism entails.... This thread is rife with double standards regarding equality.
You claim they didn't spell out the same standards for men as for women and you seem to be basing that on what some women today are saying. Again how do you know these different women even subscribe to the same ideals?Deleted User wrote: »The feminists I side with? I love the way you seek to twist things. I'm not siding with them. I'm siding with the life I've had to grow up through because of the rules they saw fit to change...
You are siding with the life you had to grow up through (sounds like a happy time for you :pac:). What does that mean?
Are you saying you don't have an intellectual position on this, you were simply bread to have a particular opinion? That seems unlikely. From everything you said you have the same principles as these feminists in the sixties. Yet for some reason you seem to think they have gone back on these principles, I'm not sure why.
Yes all those things.Deleted User wrote: »Stupid? Ignorant might be better. Or Biased. Or just plain sexist.
People seem to think it is shocking that a woman can be ignorant, or biased or sexist.
This is a some what odd position since women are just humans. Through out this entire thread there seems to be an inability to think of women as individuals, which individual opinions and positions. Instead there are all these notions of "women" as some sort of ideological blob having done this, "women" having done that, "women" being hypocrites, "women" given up their own principles.
I can only imagine what such an idea must be like for a woman to be faced with that sort of nonsense, as if merely being a woman had signed her up to all these political movements and ideologies before she was even born.
I know I would find it insufferably insulting if I was met with a similar attitude with regards to "men".Deleted User wrote: »Seriously? There aren't laws that seek to prevent gender discrimination? Actual question here... since I always believed that there were.
There are but the do not make it illegal to form male/female only private clubs.
If they did you could close down Curves tomorrow with a ten a penny lawyer.0 -
And suffrage.
I haven't read Kooli's post but she is a horrible horrible hypocrite and no one should ever listen to her again.
Oh no I've been exposed!!
So one of my quoted posts said I understood why women went to women's groups, and another, from an old thread in a different forum, was clarifying what my understanding of affirmative action was (the post actually contained no opinion on it).
I actually don't see where the hypocrisy is, but there ya go!0 -
Advertisement
-
Well no, it is due to market forces. My point was that market forces aren't fair, there is no arbiter of fairness who says Wicknight wants a Games Workshop he should have one.
Equally no one said women should get a female only gym because that is fair, but it ain't fair that men get one. The reason men don't have these is because there is little to no market demand for them.
"Women in general" are not a political group or ideology. Why would you assume women in general share any ideology. Men don't.
Can you explain how they are actually related?
Why would a woman today be expected to hold to what a woman 30 years ago believed lest she be charged with being a hypocrite?
I've no idea if anything changed.
For we know the women who believed that there should be no gender discrimination in clubs or societies still believe that.
Do you have evidence they don't?
You claim they didn't spell out the same standards for men as for women and you seem to be basing that on what some women today are saying. Again how do you know these different women even subscribe to the same ideals?
You are siding with the life you had to grow up through (sounds like a happy time for you :pac:). What does that mean?
Are you saying you don't have an intellectual position on this, you were simply bread to have a particular opinion? That seems unlikely. From everything you said you have the same principles as these feminists in the sixties. Yet for some reason you seem to think they have gone back on these principles, I'm not sure why.
Yes all those things.
People seem to think it is shocking that a woman can be ignorant, or biased or sexist.
This is a some what odd position since women are just humans. Through out this entire thread there seems to be an inability to think of women as individuals, which individual opinions and positions. Instead there are all these notions of "women" as some sort of ideological blob having done this, "women" having done that, "women" being hypocrites, "women" given up their own principles.
I can only imagine what such an idea must be like for a woman to be faced with that sort of nonsense, as if merely being a woman had signed her up to all these political movements and ideologies before she was even born.
I know I would find it insufferably insulting if I was met with a similar attitude with regards to "men".
There are but the do not make it illegal to form male/female only private clubs.
If they did you could close down Curves tomorrow with a ten a penny lawyer.
There is an awful lot of selective abstraction going on in some of the arguments. It would be an awful disservice to men everywhere if women reading this would reciprocate with the same selective abstraction and perceived all men to hold some of the cuckoo views held by what is said by some posters on this thread. In fact if I were a man I would cross my fingers that some of what is spoken here is not the views of androgists' platforms or spokesmen [persons].0 -
And again, I demonstrated that these militant standards persist with posters here, as evidenced by their views elsewhere, while calling for a hands off approach when it does not fit their agenda. It makes it very relevant.What the heck to the "standards" of a century ago or even the standards of the UCD women trying to close down Portmarnock got to do with any of the posters here or any other woman who didn't partake in these movements?
But I did not call women hypocrites, I called some people (of which a majority are women) who hold such double standards hypocrites. That our society presently seems to condone such double standards adds to the problems - however, that certainly cannot be blamed on any one gender.Picking two movements with people who probably have nothing to do with each other and using that to call women hypocrites is just an excuse for misogyny
You're getting carried away with your mudslinging.
Which is my point and one you seem loathed to admit.Hypocrisy? Yes TC, it exists.
You don't see the blatant double standard in what you wrote?I actually don't see where the hypocrisy is, but there ya go!
In one case market forces are good enough and it's up to men to sort their own problems out. In the other market forces are not and women need quotas to sort out their problems.
That's called hypocrisy.0 -
There are mens groups starting emerge on campus in the US.
I think its a lot to do with the "politically incorrect" status of males and the feminised education system which is clearly letting males down.0 -
Far from it, they recognise that it is a very long process and it seems to be one of the last taboos left for Gay men, openly coming out in the world of Rugby, Soccer, GAA etc. This is part of that process, highlighting the issue, as even highlighting it seems a taboo!
If it's a means to an end, yes. Probably more a Machiavellian approach that a morally absolute one!
But how does it highlight the issue by removing the gays from the regular rugby and putting them in their own league? It means the people with issues will encounter gays even less, which will hardly drive the people with issues to change. It will also lead to some of them saying (when challenged on their issues with gays) "why would they want to play with us when they can have their won league". Segregation just leads to more segregation.I've seen that justification used for Portmarnock Golf Club, maybe even one or 2 posters from this very thread used that stance to justify the men's club there.
I think some of the objections on this thread are based on that, look over there at the wimminz clubs, not any particular moral stance on sexism!
Portmarnock mens only golf club was set up in answer to all the womens only clubs excluding men?
Look my point is that by setting up a discriminatory group or service to cancel out another discriminatory group or service, all you end up with is two discriminatory groups or services, you dont end (or combat) the discrimination. Discrimination doesn't magically become acceptable just because the discriminated side gets to discriminate back, two wrongs dont make a right.0 -
metrovelvet wrote: »It would be an awful disservice to men everywhere if women reading this would reciprocate with the same selective abstraction and perceived all men to hold some of the cuckoo views held by what is said by some posters on this thread. In fact if I were a man I would cross my fingers that some of what is spoken here is not the views of androgists' platforms or spokesmen [persons].
metrovelvet, personal digs directed at other users, no matter how indirect, are not acceptable.
I advise everyone to take a deep breath before posting on this thread again, and to show a little more respect towards their fellow users. Less of the silliness please.
/mod0 -
Well no, it is due to market forces. My point was that market forces aren't fair, there is no arbiter of fairness who says Wicknight wants a Games Workshop he should have one.
Equally no one said women should get a female only gym because that is fair, but it ain't fair that men get one. The reason men don't have these is because there is little to no market demand for them.
Market demand can be created, its got nothing to do with what people need, its to do with what marketing companies, with billions of euro of advertising, can convince you that you want.
Besides, all else aside, market demands shouldn't entirely decide what actually gets offered - there is market demand for evolution to be removed in schools in some districts in America, doesn't mean we should listen to these people."Women in general" are not a political group or ideology. Why would you assume women in general share any ideology. Men don't.
Tell that to the women here who have claimed that mixed groups are boistorous and womens only groups are more thoughtful, that men are two competitive in their arguments while women are more about listening.Can you explain how they are actually related?
Why would a woman today be expected to hold to what a woman 30 years ago believed lest she be charged with being a hypocrite?
I think whats expected is that the equality a woman today wants should be the same equality that was wanted 30 years ago.People seem to think it is shocking that a woman can be ignorant, or biased or sexist.
This is a some what odd position since women are just humans. Through out this entire thread there seems to be an inability to think of women as individuals, which individual opinions and positions. Instead there are all these notions of "women" as some sort of ideological blob having done this, "women" having done that, "women" being hypocrites, "women" given up their own principles.
I can only imagine what such an idea must be like for a woman to be faced with that sort of nonsense, as if merely being a woman had signed her up to all these political movements and ideologies before she was even born.
I know I would find it insufferably insulting if I was met with a similar attitude with regards to "men".
+10 -
The Corinthian wrote: »And again, I demonstrated that these militant standards persist with posters here
Even by your own arguments that isn't what you are trying to doThe Corinthian wrote:Yes. It's hardly a century ago that these arguments were being made and deciding that these standards no longer suit now is not acceptable.
So you have apparently demonstrated that posters here still hold to the "militant" standards of previous generations and the problem today is that they are abandoning these standards because they no longer suit.
WTF are you talking about?The Corinthian wrote: »But I did not call women hypocrites, I called some people (of which a majority are women) who hold such double standards hypocrites.
You called the women here hypocrites despite being unable to actually demonstrate they all are.
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.
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.
Yes. It's hardly a century ago that these arguments were being made and deciding that these standards no longer suit now is not acceptable.
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.
These comments aren't about anyone in particular, just the women posters on this forum, or this unidentified blob of women in society.
You aren't saying post X is a hypocrite, or poster Y is contradicting herself.
You expand out to the general and then when called on it retreat to the specific.The Corinthian wrote: »That our society presently seems to condone such double standards adds to the problems - however, that certainly cannot be blamed on any one gender.
There you do it again. "Our society"? Who in our society, specifically?
You say in society men are being told that this behaviour is not acceptable? Told be who exactly? And why do you think that those who tell them this felt it was acceptable when it was being done for women (thus making them hypocritical)
And you get carried away with your generalizations.The Corinthian wrote: »You're getting carried away with your mudslinging.
When did I seem loathed to admit that hypocrisy exists?The Corinthian wrote: »Which is my point and one you seem loathed to admit.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »Market demand can be created, its got nothing to do with what people need, its to do with what marketing companies, with billions of euro of advertising, can convince you that you want.
Besides, all else aside, market demands shouldn't entirely decide what actually gets offered - there is market demand for evolution to be removed in schools in some districts in America, doesn't mean we should listen to these people.
The market demand was simply in relation to the charge that it is "unfair" that women get Curves and men don't, as if that was the reason Curves exists was because the fairness fairy is a misandrist.Mark Hamill wrote: »Tell that to the women here who have claimed that mixed groups are boistorous and womens only groups are more thoughtful, that men are two competitive in their arguments while women are more about listening.
Ok. Where are they and I will tell them this.Mark Hamill wrote: »I think whats expected is that the equality a woman today wants should be the same equality that was wanted 30 years ago.
Why?
30 years is a long time in terms of ideology, I don't see why ideology isn't allowed change.0 -
The market demand was simply in relation to the charge that it is "unfair" that women get Curves and men don't, as if that was the reason Curves exists was because the fairness fairy is a misandrist.
And my point was that it would be unfair for any sex to get their own Curves just because of market demand. Market demand is not the same as fundamental need, no amount of market demand for one would make a whites only gym anything but racist.Ok. Where are they and I will tell them this.
Kooli did it here and here (men are boisorous, women are thoughtful), several posts talked about women liking having discussions from a female point oview (such as this one from liah) and there was that tangent a few pages back were some claimed that women and men fundamentally debate different to each other (a post from Thaedydal and one from metrovelvet)Why?
30 years is a long time in terms of ideology, I don't see why ideology isn't allowed change.
It is allowed to change, but the ideology 30 years ago was equality for women and men. If that has changed, and women dont really want that equality anymore, then its hypocritical for the them to say they do.0 -
Oh look. The ladies have left the building. I wonder why.0
-
Advertisement
-
The Corinthian wrote: »
You don't see the blatant double standard in what you wrote?
In one case market forces are good enough and it's up to men to sort their own problems out. In the other market forces are not and women need quotas to sort out their problems.
That's called hypocrisy.
Well you didn't seem to hear me before so I'll say it again - I didn't actually express an opinion about affirmative action in the post you quoted. I just gave my understanding of what the purpose of affirmative action is. No actual opinion on it.
But let's say I did give an opinion, and that I did say I agreed with affirmative action. (I'm actually not sure where I stand on it).
I've never really seen the value of just switching the genders in an example in order to show the hypocrisy of it. It totally ignores the power imbalances in society which exist.
Now I'm pretty sure you don't agree there are any power imbalances between the genders, so I can't really take this line of argument any further with you.
But for those of us who do see a huge power imbalance in society between genders and races (and usually it is only the people who are a member of the disempowered group who see this, the members of the group who hold the power just try to argue that we're wrong), it makes no sense to say setting up a women's group that excludes men is the same as setting up a men's group that excludes women. I'm not saying men can't do it (I think they should be able to if they want to), I'm simply saying it's not the same. Doesn't have the same connotations in our society.
If a group of black women wanted to set up a book club and said I couldn't join as a white woman, I admit I would probably find that hard to understand. But I would accept that it is something I don't understand because of my position as a white person. If they told me that they experience a lot of discrimination and racism as black women that I couldn't possibly relate to, and they just want a safe space where they are free from this, I wouldn't try and argue that no in fact they don't experience discrimination. I wouldn't tell them that the discrimination they experienced from some white people was because those white people were a**holes, not that they were white. And I wouldn't blame them for the racism they've experienced, just because they have chosen to segregate themselves in this one area of their lives. And I wouldn't say it is their duty to ensure they are in mixed book clubs, because it is their responsibility to undo the mistreatment they receive. And I wouldn't say 'What if I had a book club that only allowed WHITE people? Would that be OK?' because I recognise that the white community are in the position of power in our society, and I accept that I do not understand AT ALL what it is like to be black in that type of society. (And if anyone mentions how 'racist' the MOBOs or Black History Month are in response to this, or other ways white people are 'discriminated against' I'll scream!!)
Obviously I have no idea if any black women would feel this way or would want their own book club, I'm just making a point.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »And my point was that it would be unfair for any sex to get their own Curves just because of market demand. Market demand is not the same as fundamental need, no amount of market demand for one would make a whites only gym anything but racist.
Kooli did it here and here (men are boisorous, women are thoughtful), several posts talked about women liking having discussions from a female point oview (such as this one from liah) and there was that tangent a few pages back were some claimed that women and men fundamentally debate different to each other (a post from Thaedydal and one from metrovelvet)
It is allowed to change, but the ideology 30 years ago was equality for women and men. If that has changed, and women dont really want that equality anymore, then its hypocritical for the them to say they do.
Actually I think that this thread have proved that men do argue in the way the women here have described - the socratic arguments, the picking apart of every point, the demanding of evidence for every utterance, the quoting of previous utterances to demand consistency.
Some women (including myself) have admitted they occasionally like that type of argument too, but occasionally they like to discuss things another way.
Most men have responded that there actually is no other way to discuss an issue. Literally, there is no other way. Or if there is, it is a sign of some sort of weak-mindedness or low self-esteem, and is not actually a discussion.
So did that not actually demonstrate the point that there are gender differences in the way people discuss things?0 -
This thread has demonstrated exactly why women want to bring back the drawing room.0
-
Mark Hamill wrote: »And my point was that it would be unfair for any sex to get their own Curves just because of market demand.
And as I pointed out the market is often very unfair. Why would I not have a Games Workshop store just because I live in Ireland, for example.Mark Hamill wrote: »Market demand is not the same as fundamental need, no amount of market demand for one would make a whites only gym anything but racist.
Depends on the reason for the gym. If the reason is that people wish to be some where where they don't have black people because they don't like black people because they are black that would certainly make it racist.Mark Hamill wrote: »
Poor old Kooli, taking the weight of all woman kind on her shoulders :pac:
Anyway Kooli and liah and Thaedydal listen up you hypocritical she-devils.
Men are not a political group or ideology. Why would you assume men in general share any ideology. Women don'tMark Hamill wrote: »It is allowed to change, but the ideology 30 years ago was equality for women and men. If that has changed, and women dont really want that equality anymore, then its hypocritical for the them to say they do.
"Women" don't want anything. Some women want equality, some women what inequality, some women want to rule the world. Some women have clever articulate arguments, some women have stupid hypocritical arguments. Some women want sensible things, others want radical things.
Discussion women or men as a unified group is silly unless you are discussing psychical biology.0 -
Poor old Kooli, taking the weight of all woman kind on her shoulders :pac:
Anyway Kooli and liah and Thaedydal listen up you hypocritical she-devils.
Men are not a political group or ideology. Why would you assume men in general share any ideology. Women don't
Don't worry I can handle it!!
While I agree that men as a whole or women as a whole DEFINITELY do not share any ideology, I don't agree that men and women are not different.
There are always exceptions, but no one grows up without the influence of biology, society and culture. All three of these things have something to say about gender. We don't exist in a cultural vacuum.
From a very, very early age, people interact with boys and girls differently. People have different expectations of them. Different qualities are valued and promoted in each. Men and women have completely different experiences of interacting with the world. I'm sure both genders would be equally shocked if they could walk a week in the other's shoes and see how different it is. It is the PRIMARY, most fundamental way we distinguish people. Before age, race or anything else.
Now I'm not saying this has the same effect on everyone. Of course it doesn't (I hate the fact that I even have to say that, it's so obvious!!) But to say it has no effect and that most men are as much like most women as they are like other men just is not true.
One difference (which is evidence based!) is that men are more likely to derive self-esteem from success or achievement, whereas women are more likely to get it from approval and acceptance. So that influences how they interact with other people. And it might be one of the reasons why discussions go a different way. Neither is right or wrong, or better or worse. Just different. But society tends to value the male way. Success and achievement are our cultural values. Relationship-building is not given the same kind value.
OK maybe I've gone on a tangent here....
TL:DR women and men are different!!0 -
Don't worry I can handle it!!
While I agree that men as a whole or women as a whole DEFINITELY do not share any ideology, I don't agree that men and women are not different.
There are always exceptions, but no one grows up without the influence of biology, society and culture. All three of these things have something to say about gender. We don't exist in a cultural vacuum.
From a very, very early age, people interact with boys and girls differently. People have different expectations of them. Different qualities are valued and promoted in each. Men and women have completely different experiences of interacting with the world. I'm sure both genders would be equally shocked if they could walk a week in the other's shoes and see how different it is. It is the PRIMARY, most fundamental way we distinguish people. Before age, race or anything else.
Now I'm not saying this has the same effect on everyone. Of course it doesn't (I hate the fact that I even have to say that, it's so obvious!!) But to say it has no effect and that most men are as much like most women as they are like other men just is not true.
One difference (which is evidence based!) is that men are more likely to derive self-esteem from success or achievement, whereas women are more likely to get it from approval and acceptance. So that influences how they interact with other people. And it might be one of the reasons why discussions go a different way. Neither is right or wrong, or better or worse. Just different. But society tends to value the male way. Success and achievement are our cultural values. Relationship-building is not given the same kind value.
OK maybe I've gone on a tangent here....
TL:DR women and men are different!!
You are right and its reflected in dialogue styles too. Traditionally men have sought mastery and women have sought to work collaboratively.
There is an awful lot of sticking heads in the sand when it comes to what you are talking about. This morning taking my three year old to playschool he hurt himself openning the gate and he started to cry and the creche worker cooed a little and told him he was 'a brave boy.' I remember thinking to myself if he were a girl she'd probably compliment him on his shoes.0 -
Don't worry I can handle it!!
While I agree that men as a whole or women as a whole DEFINITELY do not share any ideology, I don't agree that men and women are not different.
You are not allowed not agree. You must fall into line with the collective, all praise the hive mind. We are one*
I have a serious reply to this but right now I'm off to the cinema. Ladies <tips hat/>
(I'm not even a woman, though some days I wish I was.... boobs)0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
I wasn't mocking. I was making a point. Just because you dont like the point being made, does not mean it vioates the 'norms' which are not written in stone btw and can always be modified and should be modified if they are obstructive to constructive dialogue.0
-
Advertisement
-
metrovelvet wrote: »I wasn't mocking. I was making a point. Just because you dont like the point being made, does not mean it vioates the 'norms' which are not written in stone btw and can always be modified and should be modified if they are obstructive to constructive dialogue.
The main obstructions to constructive dialogue on this thread have been silly and unneccesary comments that have done nothing to further the debate. As donegalfella said, Humanities is a forum for civil, rational and intellectual discussion, not for flippant remarks. Caring passionately about something, as you do about the topic in hand, does not give you a right to throw discussion standards out the window.
Now, moderation is not to be discussed in-thread, as you know, and I don't appreciate you breaching that. If you have a problem you can PM myself or donegalfella.0 -
That is untrue.Even by your own arguments that isn't what you are trying to do
No, that's not what I said. They're not abandoning them, they're simply employing them selectively.So you have apparently demonstrated that posters here still hold to the "militant" standards of previous generations and the problem today is that they are abandoning these standards because they no longer suit.
Are you intentionally attempting to misrepresent me? How many times do I need to repeat that I am not accusing 'all' of anyone of anything, before you actually acknowledge it?You called the women here hypocrites despite being unable to actually demonstrate they all are.
Irish society. Please stop the pointless pedantry.There you do it again. "Our society"? Who in our society, specifically?
Then, and asking for the third time, tell me what would likely happen if a men-only business association were to be set up tomorrow? What would be the likely reaction in the media?You say in society men are being told that this behaviour is not acceptable? Told be who exactly? And why do you think that those who tell them this felt it was acceptable when it was being done for women (thus making them hypocritical)
When I had to ask you multiple times to acknowledge its existence.When did I seem loathed to admit that hypocrisy exists?0 -
In your first post you are not in favour of quotas, but still feel that some form of intervention was required. This is the closest you come to a neutral stance, and already is hypocritical.Well you didn't seem to hear me before so I'll say it again - I didn't actually express an opinion about affirmative action in the post you quoted. I just gave my understanding of what the purpose of affirmative action is. No actual opinion on it.
As the discussion progressed, you seemed to move more and more in favour of quotas, first by giving a one-sided understanding or opinion of affirmative action, then you went on to defend its use two posts later and even thanked the posts of others more openly supporting the policy.
So you'll forgive me if I am skeptical of your neutrality, given that at the very least you favour some means of affirmative action - something that you rejected here for men in a similar scenario.
But let's say I did give an opinion, and that I did say I agreed with affirmative action. (I'm actually not sure where I stand on it).
Oh, I agree there are power imbalances between the genders, but at this stage they favour women more than men. For example, as I have repeatedly asked people, what laws exist that discriminate against women? I'm not sure any do any more, but even if they did I could easily name two that exist discriminating against men for every one that discriminates against women.Now I'm pretty sure you don't agree there are any power imbalances between the genders, so I can't really take this line of argument any further with you.
To date, no one has responded to this challenge.
This is not to say that discrimination against women, tacit or otherwise, does not still occur. However, what you are doing is only looking at the power imbalance, as you call it, when it disadvantages women and ignoring any that disadvantages men. If you did this, the picture is not as clear cut as before.
This is the hypocrisy of modern equality politics, and can be seen all over the place, including organizations such as the WEF and the laughable manner in which they measure 'Gender Parity'.
And in this regard you decided that what was good for the goose was not good for the gander. Men who are excluded from clubs need to get off their butts, but women who are not even excluded, but simply do not get selected as often to run for political office, need intervention. The excuse of 'power imbalance' has become just that, and excuse or justification for validating such double standards.0 -
Actually I think that this thread have proved that men do argue in the way the women here have described - the socratic arguments, the picking apart of every point, the demanding of evidence for every utterance, the quoting of previous utterances to demand consistency.
Here is another post for Wicknight to see that some women are convinced that all men argue certain ways and women dont.
Tell me Kooli, why do you assume that because you want to be told if you are right and wrong, why no other woman should care either?
Seeing as you dont care if about right and wrong, why do you bother having any discussions at all? Do you just like having people support what you do regardless of what you say? DO you thin you are above being contradicted.Some women (including myself) have admitted they occasionally like that type of argument too, but occasionally they like to discuss things another way.
There is no other way.Most men have responded that there actually is no other way to discuss an issue. Literally, there is no other way. Or if there is, it is a sign of some sort of weak-mindedness or low self-esteem, and is not actually a discussion.
I did, just above this bit.So did that not actually demonstrate the point that there are gender differences in the way people discuss things?
Em, 4 or 5 men saying that the 3 or 4 women here who claim there is a fundamental difference in male vs female debating does not actually support the idea that men and women have significantly different debating modes, especially on a thread discussing the equality of women only groups, you are going to have skewed representations of men and women.0 -
"Women" don't want anything. Some women want equality, some women what inequality, some women want to rule the world. Some women have clever articulate arguments, some women have stupid hypocritical arguments. Some women want sensible things, others want radical things.
Discussion women or men as a unified group is silly unless you are discussing psychical biology.
I see what you are saying. I suppose I should be more exact in what groups I am talking about. When I say "women dont really want that equality anymore, then its hypocritical for the them to say they do", I'm only talking about the women who claim that they want gender inequality (not necessarily all women everywhere). There are plenty of women who claim to want gender equality, the same equality that was wanted by the first women who fought for women voting and equal pay (or, at least, the women today have not explained how the equality they are looking for is different from what was looked for in the past, and yet still counts as equality).
If these particular women claim they want equality, but in actual fact, just want equality when it suits them, then they are hypocrites. You cant have an unequal equality, it cancels itself out and you just end up with inequality again.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
As far as Curves is concerned, can you recognise that a lot of women across the generations, including our mothers and grandmothers were raised to show modesty around the body in front of the men. It does not assume leering pervy eyes but a self conciousness that is bred into women. Can you not see how they might need the privacy to be able to excerise?
As far as book clubs are concerned, no I cant say I have ever been in a book club with pervy men in them but I can see how one might want to be able to discuss things through a female lens, without being interrupted, talked over, or told to get over it, etc. I can see how gay book clubs might like be able to talk about books through the gay experience of living in and among heterosexual paradigms, etc.
I can also understand how men might want a poker game where they can talk as freely as they like without worrying about offending women.
I dont have a problem with this. Why is this such an awful thing for women to do? Seriously, the mind boggles.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Then, and asking for the third time, tell me what would likely happen if a men-only business association were to be set up tomorrow? What would be the likely reaction in the media?
There you go again
You want me to judge "the media" as hypocritical? Who specifically in "the media".
There are thousands of individual people employed in media in Ireland. Are all of them hypocrites? Or just the women? Or just the women in power? Or just some of the women in power?
Would all of them give the exact same opinion to a men-only business association? Or would some of them be for it and some of them against it, you know almost as if they were all individuals with different opinions.0 -
metrovelvet wrote: »As far as Curves is concerned, can you recognise that a lot of women across the generations, including our mothers and grandmothers were raised to show modesty around the body in front of the men. It does not assume leering pervy eyes but a self conciousness that is bred into women. Can you not see how they might need the privacy to be able to excerise?
That is a good point.
I never actually thought Curves was about women thinking men were pervs, more a response to women and their hang ups about their body.
You can see this from the About page on Curves, and the unofficial motto "no makeup, no men, no mirrors", ie all the things that women worry about looking bad in front of.0 -
What would you suggest then as a credible alternative?Yup case closed!!
More pedantry to hide behind.You want me to judge "the media" as hypocritical? Who specifically in "the media".
As opposed to all the criticism in the media for women only business associations. Oh wait, there's none.Would all of them give the exact same opinion to a men-only business association? Or would some of them be for it and some of them against it, you know almost as if they were all individuals with different opinions.
And that really is the point, the bias in our society does not mean there are no dissenting voices, and suggesting that because some exist does not invalidate what I'm saying.
The reality is that a men only business association would receive criticism in the media, even if it is not universal, and arguably would receive a lot of it. A women only business association would and does receive none.
But I suppose unless I start listing out every journo who would do this, you're not going to accept that. If so, it's probably time you waste someone else's time with your pedantic nonsense, Wicknight.0 -
-
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement