IS IT DISCRIMINATION???

padd b1975

o1s1n wrote: »

Only if you view it that way.

It's not just me, lots of people could interpret it the same way.

Would you honestly want to live in a gay flat share as a straight male? If
anything, they'd be doing potential straight (and easily shocked/offended) new
house mates a favour.

I would want to live in a nice and reasonably priced flat share, I wouldn't want to be immediately put on the back foot by the wording of the add.

Yes it could. People should be allowed to stipulate who they want to live with.
I don't see the issue.

No black people?

No eastern Europeans?

No Nigerians?

No muslims?

No Jews?

OK....

Ah yes, the oul 'if this situation was reversed etc then 'they'd' be rioting on
the streets' argument. Do you really think that if someone put up a sign saying
'straight friendly' that 'the gays' would be out in full force, revolting? No,
they'd probably just move on to the next ad. You know, the one that said 'gay
friendly'.

It only takes one...

Have a read of the Gay Cake Controversy thread to see how something so trivial can build up a head of steam.

wonderfulname

padd b1975 wrote: »

It could easily be interpreted as a passive aggressive method of discriminating against a certain type of potential tenant.

Could 'straight friendly' be classed as a decent and inoffensive way of targeting a potential room mate?

The "inequality mob" would be all over that one screaming blue murder.

There's no interpretation about it, whilst it might be a new notion for you it is well established as a term, less to do with targeting a potential room mate and more to give lgbt people the option to househunt/let in peace without worrying if someone they come across will take offence to them. One of the most common questions that bring people to the LGBT forum is 'how do i find people to live with who are okay with my sexuality without running into people who aren't?'

Even someone who couldn't care less what people think of them has to come out to strangers, and that can be a difficult enough conversation sometimes, even if you're not dealing with a homophobe.

Are you really throwing a strop over other people being fearful in a manner you don't even have to think about?

o1s1n

padd b1975 wrote: »

It's not just me, lots of people could interpret it the same way.

I would want to live in a nice and reasonably priced flat share, I wouldn't want to be immediately put on the back foot by the wording of the add.

Technically 'gay friendly' does in fact mean more along the lines of 'we're open to gay people/possibly gay/hope our new house mate is open to this too' rather than 'gays only!' so yeah, I definitely see it as a nice way of approaching the situation.

padd b1975 wrote: »

No black people?

No eastern Europeans?

No Nigerians?

No muslims?

No Jews?

OK....

Remember though, there are a few different things going on here.

Being gay is something which has absolutely zero physical attributes. You can't look at someone and say they're gay. (obvious stereotypes aside)

Some people are incredibly anti gay. The thought of gay people turns their stomachs. I can see why a gay person may struggle and worry when trying to fill a room and would put something like this on an ad to avoid issues/hostilities etc.

Gender is another thing people may be uncomfortable sharing with due to issues previously mentioned, body image, underwear etc. Men and women are very different beings.

What reasons could someone have for not sharing with a black person? It does start getting a bit hard to stomach when you bring race into it, I agree.

However, I do still believe people should be able to discriminate when it comes to who they live with. If you're not comfortable living with a black gay Jew, then you shouldn't have to. As abhorrent as that may be to some people.

padd b1975 wrote: »

It only takes one...

Have a read of the Gay Cake Controversy thread to see how something so trivial can built up a head of steam.

I'm sure there are plenty of tenancy adverts out there which have 'straight' somewhere in them, has it been brought up as an issue by the gay community? I haven't heard anything about it...

Daith

o1s1n wrote: »

Technically 'gay friendly' does in fact mean more along the lines of 'we're open to gay people/possibly gay/hope our new house mate is open to this too' rather than 'gays only!' so yeah, I definitely see it as a nice way of approaching the situation.

Exactly. It's not even in the OPs case were female only is more definite.

padd b1975

wonderfulname wrote: »

There's no interpretation about it, whilst it might be a new notion for you it is well established as a term, less to do with targeting a potential room mate and more to give lgbt people the option to househunt/let in peace without worrying if someone they come across will take offence to them. One of the most common questions that bring people to the LGBT forum is 'how do i find people to live with who are okay with my sexuality without running into people who aren't?'

Even someone who couldn't care less what people think of them has to come out to strangers, and that can be a difficult enough conversation sometimes, even if you're not dealing with a homophobe.

Are you really throwing a strop over other people being fearful in a manner you don't even have to think about?

I lived in various types of rented accommodation from 1994 to 2006 (Dublin area).

The term would definitely pop up back then,not widespread by any means but visible all the same.

As regards coming out to people in a house and potential difficulties it may bring, I really can't see any reason why a gay person would feel somehow obliged to disclose their private business in a temporary and transient living arrangement.

Kim Kardashi Un

Dravokivich wrote: »

Maybe a female room mate only wants to share the room with another female?

That way they get tipsy one night and do feminism on each other and blame it on the drink the next day.

dark crystal

padd b1975 wrote: »

I lived in various types of rented accommodation from 1994 to 2006 (Dublin area).

The term would definitely pop up back then,not widespread by any means but visible all the same.

As regards coming out to people in a house and potential difficulties it may bring, I really can't see any reason why a gay person would feel somehow obliged to disclose their private business in a temporary and transient living arrangement.

Many of these tenancies have year long (or more) leases - hardly temporary or transient. If you are gay, unless you choose to be completely celibate for that period, you will probably want to bring home a partner back to the shared house at some stage. If it turns out your housemate has a problem with your sexual orientation, this could cause major issues, which you're stuck with throughout the rest of the tenancy.

Much easier to avoid that problem by eliminating the chance you're going to come across that particular issue by laying your cards on the table from the outset.

smcgiff

seamus wrote: »

being able to hang a frilly bra on a clothes horse in the kitchen.

You're un-necessarily overthinking this :pac:

Arbiter of Good Taste

OP can you clarify exactly your point please? Do you think people should be forced to live with people they don't want to live with, or should they only be forced to waste time meeting and interviewing people that they have no intention of living with?

RDM_83 again

Stating "X only" when its an owner occupied place or there is already tenants that want to feel comfortable in their home is fine.
What I've seen a couple of times however which is unarguably discrimination is landlords only looking for female tenants for an unoccupied place.

Gannicus

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

OP can you clarify exactly your point please? Do you think people should be forced to live with people they don't want to live with, or should they only be forced to waste time meeting and interviewing people that they have no intention of living with?

My point is why when everywhere else in Irish society is it wrong to be exclusionary based on gender but when its renting a room to someone its socially acceptable.

I've met some great people (male and female) who are really nice and friendly and I've met some awful troglodytes (both male and female) there's good and bad in each so to specify one is not welcome is just as wrong when it comes to a rental situation.

smcgiff

Gannicus wrote: »

My point is why when everywhere else in Irish society is it wrong to be exclusionary based on gender but when its renting a room to someone its socially acceptable.

I've met some great people (male and female) who are really nice and friendly and I've met some awful troglodytes (both male and female) there's good and bad in each so to specify one is not welcome is just as wrong when it comes to a rental situation.

Seriously, how can you not get this? Just because you are comfortable with strangers of either sex, not everybody is. Some people are very wary of men that are unknown to them.

It seems a reasonable precaution to me, and in no way should be taken personally.

Gannicus

smcgiff wrote: »

Seriously, how can you not get this? Just because you are comfortable with strangers of either sex, not everybody is. Some people are very wary of men that are unknown to them.

It seems a reasonable precaution to me, and in no way should be taken personally.

I get that much but what I don't get is If I was renting a room out and wrote "No blacks allowed" I'd find myself either up in front of a judge for racial discrimination or on the front of the papers for it.

o1s1n

Gannicus wrote: »

I get that much but what I don't get is If I was renting a room out and wrote "No blacks allowed" I'd find myself either up in front of a judge for racial discrimination or on the front of the papers for it.

Because there are socially acceptable reasons in wanting to live with your own gender.

Are there any socially acceptable reasons to not want to live with a black person?

Comparing women and men is not the same as comparing blacks to whites.

smcgiff

Gannicus wrote: »

I get that much but what I don't get is If I was renting a room out and wrote "No blacks allowed" I'd find myself either up in front of a judge for racial discrimination or on the front of the papers for it.

So, you're okay with this discrimination, you're just wondering how come you cant openly discriminate against, say, skin colour?

I'm not sure if it's legal or not. I'd say it wouldn't be, but the media may refuse to take your ad. Why? well... for historical reasons, such as in the not too distant past we enslaved and mistreated people based on their colour.

Same with homosexuals, we had it as an illegal act up to very recently, so sensitivity is in order.

As such, I'd imagine the mainstream media would be slow to allow it to appear in their paper.

Gannicus

o1s1n wrote: »

Because there are socially acceptable reasons in wanting to live with your own gender.

Are there any socially acceptable reasons to not want to live with a black person?

Comparing women and men is not the same as comparing blacks to whites.

Well maybe some people feel safer living with just white people or don't want to socialise with black people. similar reasons for a gender divide but still not socially acceptable.

smcgiff wrote: »

So, you're okay with this discrimination, you're just wondering how come you cant openly discriminate against, say, skin colour?

I'm not sure if it's legal or not. I'd say it wouldn't be, but the media may refuse to take your ad. Why? well... for historical reasons, such as in the not too distant past we enslaved and mistreated people based on their colour.

Same with homosexuals, we had it as an illegal act up to very recently, so sensitivity is in order.

As such, I'd imagine the mainstream media would be slow to allow it to appear in their paper.

I'm not okay with discrimination at all. I am curious as to why its is discrimination in relation to one section is okay but to others its not.

o1s1n

Gannicus wrote: »

Well maybe some people feel safer living with just white people or don't want to socialise with black people. similar reasons for a gender divide but still not socially acceptable.

It's not just from a safety point of view though, there are practicalities too.

Maybe some women aren't comfortable hanging out their underwear on a clothes horse sharing with a male tenant?

Maybe some men don't want to have women's toiletries all over their bathroom?

There can be big living condition variances such as this between genders.

You can't apply the same logic with skin colour. Maybe you can with country of origin, but once you start talking about racial profiles which cover billions of people (ie 'black people') then any form of justification goes out the window and you just sound like a racist.

end of the road

_Brian wrote: »

Seriously, they're renting a room in their house, they have every right to pick and choose based on whatever grounds they feel suitable.

they don't.

end of the road

Gannicus wrote: »

Why? If you were refused for sexual orientation, ethnicity/nationality its classed as discrimination.


If the ad said "whites only" there would be mayhem (rightly so).

i agree.

o1s1n

end of the road wrote: »

they don't.

How so?

So if I want to live in your house you can't stop me? Great, I'll pack my bags now.

One eyed Jack

end of the road wrote: »

they don't.

They do, and there are numerous ways in which an advertisement can be worded so that it's not directly discrimatory, but the conclusion wouldn't take a genius either.

smcgiff

o1s1n wrote: »

How so?

So if I want to live in your house you can't stop me? Great, I'll pack my bags now.

I'm waiting for the next thread to be along the lines of...

"I saw this ad. Room available - must pay rent of €600 per month.

What outrage is this - this is discriminating against those that don't want to pay for their accommodation. What's Joe Duffy's phone number?"

padd b1975

o1s1n wrote: »

How so?

So if I want to live in your house you can't stop me? Great, I'll pack my bags now.

Owner occupier situation is a totally different scenario to a group of strangers sharing a common space.

Triceratops Ballet

imo this is the op looking to find offence where none exists. Plenty of house share ads out there say professionals only, or no couples, is this discrimination too? no its not, none of it is!

o1s1n

smcgiff wrote: »

I'm waiting for the next thread to be along the lines of...

"I saw this ad. Room available - must pay rent of €600 per month.

What outrage is this - this is discriminating against those that don't want to pay for their accommodation. What's Joe Duffy's phone number?"

People pick who they want to live with shocker! :pac:

padd b1975 wrote: »

Owner occupier situation is a totally different scenario to a group of strangers sharing a common space.

Why can't people sharing a space decide who they live with?

Would a group of asthmatic non smokers not be able to reject a 20 major a day smoker, no?

Daith

padd b1975 wrote: »

Owner occupier situation is a totally different scenario to a group of strangers sharing a common space.

Why are they a group of strangers? I know people who have shared with each other in various accommodation since college. Or just friends.

I'd never want to view my living arrangements as a group of strangers who share a kitchen and bathroom.

efb

Kim Kardashi Un wrote: »

That way they get tipsy one night and do feminism on each other and blame it on the drink the next day.

???

padd b1975

Daith wrote: »

Why are they a group of strangers? I know people who have shared with each other in various accommodation since college. Or just friends.

I'd never want to view my living arrangements as a group of strangers who share a kitchen and bathroom.

I couldn't agree more with you, I was lucky throughout my house sharing experiences to always have a couple of friends in the house as well which really helped the atmosphere.

In reality though, it's totally different for most people, and it often is as cold as sharing a kitchen and a bathroom with little or no interaction outside of general housekeeping, bills etc.

padd b1975

o1s1n wrote: »

Why can't people sharing a space decide who they live with?

Would a group of asthmatic non smokers not be able to reject a 20 major a day smoker, no?

Ultimately, yes of course they can.


But a fair crack of the whip should be given to all when wording an add*



*Except smokers of course, nobody wants to be breathing in other people's unwanted toxins.

Gannicus

padd b1975 wrote: »

In reality though, it's totally different for most people, and it often is as cold as sharing a kitchen and a bathroom with little or no interaction outside of general housekeeping, bills etc.

A friend of mine was in a situation like that before. everybody just stayed in their respective rooms, the kitchen and the bathroom were the only communal area used. hell he told me how nobody wanted to use the living room in case some (any) noise irked someone else.

Riskymove

end of the road wrote: »

they don't.

they do

this isn't a service industry or an employment law situation, etc.

Riskymove

padd b1975 wrote: »

But a fair crack of the whip should be given to all when wording an add*

I don't get that view

isn't everyone better off being honest about it and not wasting time

end of the road

dottie_lottie wrote: »

imo this is the op looking to find offence where none exists. Plenty of house share ads out there say professionals only, or no couples, is this discrimination too? no its not, none of it is!

it is and it should be banned. in this current climate people renting should be glad of the money, its not the celtic tiger any more

Tordelback

Such nonsense. How does the OP feel about the fact that there are separate public toilets for men and women, separate changing rooms and so on? Is that discrimination? And yet there aren't separate toilets for non-whites (as there were right into the '60s in the US), or or non-heteros?

The latter are obviously skin-crawlingly discriminatory, the former something society expects and even insists on. And so it is with gender preferences in shared accommodation. It's a cultural and societal norm which essentially no-one objects to, hence it persists. Those other discriminatory practices, we've pretty much all had enough of, and hence they no longer exist.

end of the road

Riskymove wrote: »

they do

this isn't a service industry or an employment law situation, etc.

it is . it is the provision of a service, IE the paying of rent in turn for a room or a full house

RobYourBuilder

end of the road wrote: »

it is and it should be banned. in this current climate people renting should be glad of the money, its not the celtic tiger any more

You're mad for banning sh*t. In nearly every other post you make you are calling for something or other to be banned.

padd b1975

Riskymove wrote: »

I don't get that view

isn't everyone better off being honest about it and not wasting time

Common sense tells me you're right, and hopefully that's what kicks in when the final decision has to be made.

Unfortunately mountains will be made out of mole hills when some thin skinned offence seeker spots a poorly worded add.

reprise

Whether it's cheese or your housemate, to choose is to discriminate.

Triceratops Ballet

end of the road wrote: »

it is and it should be banned. in this current climate people renting should be glad of the money, its not the celtic tiger any more

in what climate? it's a landlords market, there are plenty of people looking to rent and rents are rising like crazy.

What exactly will banning it achieve? If my housemate (male) was to move out and I had to replace him, and I thought to myself well I'd like to have another bloke living here cos its handy for reaching things down of top shelves for me, and I just don't get on with girls, all that drama(I don't feel that way btw) so I think I'll look for a male, non smoking, professional housemate. Up goes the ad, without these specifications and I have to waste my time, and applicants time responding to people who are not the kind of people I want to live with ie: female/unemployed/smokes 20 a day/all of the above. How on earth does that benefit anyone?

end of the road

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

You're mad for banning sh*t. In nearly every other post you make you are calling for something or other to be banned.

no i'm not. on either count

end of the road

dottie_lottie wrote: »

in what climate? it's a landlords market, there are plenty of people looking to rent and rents are rising like crazy.

What exactly will banning it achieve? If my housemate (male) was to move out and I had to replace him, and I thought to myself well I'd like to have another bloke living here cos its handy for reaching things down of top shelves for me, and I just don't get on with girls, all that drama(I don't feel that way btw) so I think I'll look for a male, non smoking, professional housemate. Up goes the ad, without these specifications and I have to waste my time, and applicants time responding to people who are not the kind of people I want to live with ie: female/unemployed/smokes 20 a day/all of the above. How on earth does that benefit anyone?

smoking is a non issue, and i'm a non smoker. i've lived with smokers, plenty of room for both

RobYourBuilder

end of the road wrote: »

smoking is a non issue, and i'm a non smoker. i've lived with smokers, plenty of room for both

You might not have an issue living with a smoker but plenty of others do. Living with a smoker could affect ones health. Not to mention the wear and tear cigarette smoke can cause a houses furniture and fittings.

reprise

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

You might not have an issue living with a smoker but plenty of others do. Living with a smoker could affect ones health. Not to mention the wear and tear ciggerate smoke can cause a houses furniture and fittings.

Is it not worth lung cancer to boast of such a wildly cosmopolitan existence?

smcgiff

end of the road wrote: »

smoking is a non issue, and i'm a non smoker. i've lived with smokers, plenty of room for both

Thanks for the insight into personal life. Completely irrelevant to the topic though.

Triceratops Ballet

end of the road wrote: »

smoking is a non issue, and i'm a non smoker. i've lived with smokers, plenty of room for both

smoking is a huge issue, I would never under any circumstances live with smoker. I have no interest in having my home, or belongings stinking of smoke, not to mention the adverse health affects.

davidfitz22

The problem is,most females will not house share with a male and males are open to both, this gives women a major advantage looking for houses.

LenaClaire

end of the road wrote: »

smoking is a non issue, and i'm a non smoker. i've lived with smokers, plenty of room for both

I have severe asthma, living with a smoker would have a high likely hood of literally killing me.

smcgiff

LenaClaire wrote: »

I have severe asthma, living with a smoker would have a high likely hood of literally killing me.

That's a no, then?

Rabo Karabekian

end of the road wrote: »

smoking is a non issue, and i'm a non smoker. i've lived with smokers, plenty of room for both

Smoking's not an issue for *you* but clearly is for many other people. I'm a smoker and would rather not live in a house where people were smoking inside.

I think in a perfect world, there would be no specifications on people's gender/sexuality/culture when looking for a house share but these things are important to some people. Look at it a different way: if this stuff really annoys you, then it's a good way of weeding out places that you're definitely not going to be happy in.

Riskymove

end of the road wrote: »

it is . it is the provision of a service, IE the paying of rent in turn for a room or a full house

sharing your house is not a professional service

regardless of your insistence

if you can point to anything official to indicate wanting to live with someone of only one gender is illegal I'd be interested...