Discrimination

SLUSK

A while back a golf club was allowed to be men only. Does this mean that anyone is allowed to start their own golf club with no memberships for blacks, dogs and Irish?

This would be very discriminatory and racist but if you are allowed to discriminate based on gender why should you not be allowed to discriminate based on ethnicity?

imme

Maybe you might want to read the judge's judgement.

there is a legal forum on here, maybe a more appropriate place mods;)

anymore

The men only golf clubs are probably a hang over from less enlightened times. As we become more enlightened we tend to agree not to do things which are discriminatory or divisive.

Laminations

Although there should be gender equality, men and women are not the same. Thats why there are lads nights out, ladies teabreaks, all female gyms, male and female toilets, and this golf club. Frankly i dont see a need to play golf without women (not that i play golf) so i'd never be a member. Some stuffy old men are more comfortable playing golf that way the same way some women are more comfortable in an all female gym. Do you think because we have unisex toilets and hair salons and sports teams that we can make the same distinction on colour or race?

maggy_thatcher

Laminations wrote: »

Although there should be gender equality, men and women are not the same. Thats why there are lads nights out, ladies teabreaks, all female gyms, male and female toilets, and this golf club. Frankly i dont see a need to play golf without women (not that i play golf) so i'd never be a member. Some stuffy old men are more comfortable playing golf that way the same way some women are more comfortable in an all female gym. Do you think because we have unisex toilets and hair salons and sports teams that we can make the same distinction on colour or race?

Left handed people and right handed people are not the same. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Atheists, etc. are not the same. Athletic people vs nerdy people are not the same. Everybody is different/unique, and divisions can be created any which way you choose. Presently, society is accustomed to differentiating along gender lines, but that's purely a social construct.

Daftendirekt

imme wrote: »

Maybe you might want to read the judge's judgement.

there is a legal forum on here, maybe a more appropriate place mods;)

Do you have a link? I'd like to have a look.

Even if you can legally make your golf club exclusive to men, it's still a stupid thing to do. Any golf club that does so is going to lose potential female members to other clubs with less daft policies. It's just bad business.

Laminations

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Left handed people and right handed people are not the same. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Atheists, etc. are not the same. Athletic people vs nerdy people are not the same. Everybody is different/unique, and divisions can be created any which way you choose. Presently, society is accustomed to differentiating along gender lines, but that's purely a social construct.

Recognising gender differences is fine once there is not an implicit superior-inferior suggestion. I agree its a social construct. Sometimes men like to hang with men and women like to hang with women. Unisex toilets are very different from black/white toilets or christian/muslim toilets. On most occasions, i agree gender discrimination is unfounded. 'Not the same' doesn't mean either is better

Red_Marauder

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Even if you can legally make your golf club exclusive to men, it's still a stupid thing to do. Any golf club that does so is going to lose potential female members to other clubs with less daft policies. It's just bad business.

Not really. Many men join golf clubs to get away from their wives. Then old wifey joins and suddenly you're having lunch with her and the friends she has brought along with her.

Obviously there are some people who simply love golf, and you can see that from an early age. But I really don't think that male membership of golf clubs tends to indicate a late-life surge of interest in irons and putters and bunkers.

Some men just want some time away from the wife in peace and quiet, and actually I think what Portmarnock have done is quite a clever business move in that respect.

maggy_thatcher

Laminations wrote: »

Recognising gender differences is fine once there is not an implicit superior-inferior suggestion.

There's a difference between recognizing there is a difference, and applying different rules based on that difference.

Laminations wrote: »

I agree its a social construct. Sometimes men like to hang with men and women like to hang with women.

And sometimes black people want to hang around with black people and white people want to hang around with white people. What's the difference?

Laminations wrote: »

Unisex toilets are very different from black/white toilets or christian/muslim toilets.

How so? Not so long ago, the US had different toilets for colored[sic] and whites, and didn't think anything was wrong with that. Many places have muslim-only toilets (e.g. all Greggs bakeries in the UK). Other than its the way you were raised, what is the difference between segregating toilets based on gender vs skin colour/religion?

Sleepy

I don't actually see anything wrong with associations of clubs discriminating on any grouds tbh.

I'm not going to scream discrimination if I'm not allowed be a member of the Irish Countrywomen's Association, the National African American Association or the local Catholic Prayer Group.

I will challenge discrimination if someone is prevented from participation in the governance of the country, access to education or from applying for a job because of race, gender or creed.

Daftendirekt

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Not really. Many men join golf clubs to get away from their wives. Then old wifey joins and suddenly you're having lunch with her and the friends she has brought along with her.

Obviously there are some people who simply love golf, and you can see that from an early age. But I really don't think that male membership of golf clubs tends to indicate a late-life surge of interest in irons and putters and bunkers.

Some men just want some time away from the wife in peace and quiet, and actually I think what Portmarnock have done is quite a clever business move in that respect.

Good point. I suppose it depends on the target market they're going for.

I was really getting at the point that it isn't that big a deal. If they want to refuse women membership, leave them to it. Plenty of other golf clubs out there.

dsmythy

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

How so? Not so long ago, the US had different toilets for colored[sic] and whites, and didn't think anything was wrong with that. Many places have muslim-only toilets (e.g. all Greggs bakeries in the UK). Other than its the way you were raised, what is the difference between segregating toilets based on gender vs skin colour/religion?

The majority of both men and women agree with seperate toilets is the difference.

maggy_thatcher

dsmythy wrote: »

The majority of both men and women agree with seperate toilets is the difference.

The rise in co-ed toilets in more and more places would seem to disagree with that assessment. Also I don't remember ever being asked?

silverharp

Laminations wrote: »

Recognising gender differences is fine once there is not an implicit superior-inferior suggestion.

Discrinimation is a rational strategy in certain circumstances. A parent for instance would be perfectly rational to discriminate based of class in relation to their kids. House prices reflect discrimination in different parts of a city? or the example from another thread of a taxi driver that doesnt pick up "****" ie 20 something black males in Harlem or some such place is a perfectly rational safety based strategy.

Laminations

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

The rise in co-ed toilets in more and more places would seem to disagree with that assessment. Also I don't remember ever being asked?

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

Laminations

Silverharp2 wrote: »

or the example from another thread of a taxi driver that doesnt pick up "****" ie 20 something black males in Harlem or some such place is a perfectly rational safety based strategy.

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

Liam Byrne

SLUSK wrote: »

A while back a golf club was allowed to be men only. Does this mean that anyone is allowed to start their own golf club with no memberships for blacks, dogs and Irish?

This would be very discriminatory and racist but if you are allowed to discriminate based on gender why should you not be allowed to discriminate based on ethnicity?

I always have to laugh at this whole argument.

While I can see both sides of the issue with membership and clubs, it's ironic that there's a "Women In Business Network"...

I mean, can I join ? And is it discrimination if I can't ?

maggy_thatcher

Laminations wrote: »

Ok I'll ask you. You want co-ed toilets?

I don't care either way, as long as it's private.

Laminations wrote: »

Assuming you are female, you dont mind being patted down in airport security by a man?

Bad assumption (I picked the username based on how I think strikes should be handled ). However, I've no objections for a professional to do their job -- do you want women to only have women doctors, and men to only have men doctors (the logical extension to the security guard)?

Laminations wrote: »

Do you mind me joining an all womens gym or running in an all womens marathon or sitting in on a mothering class?

For private businesses (e.g. womens gyms), I've actually no issues with them being discriminatory (including this golf course), provided they make it clear that way. I've a live-and-let live policy -- if you want to make your own little walled garden of only allowing particular groups in, then that's fine by me - personally I long for the day when the field "Gender" is removed from any application form, but I don't want to force anybody to do things they are uncomfortable with.

Laminations wrote: »

Gender differences are not easily equatable to race/colour differences.

Because our society makes it that way, yes.

Laminations wrote: »

Discrimination on any grounds (like Sleepy says above) is fine once there is no implicit superior-inferior message.

That sounds closer to segregation (treating differently but equal) rather than discrimination (rejecting based on class or group).

Laminations wrote: »

The thing with gender differences is that sexuality is involved.

Gender != Sex, Otherwise there would be no such thing as homosexuality.

Laminations wrote: »

No problem allowing children play nude in a paddling pool in the summer but I'd be sure you'd have a problem letting your significant other play naked with members of the opposite sex (or same depending on orientation).

She can do what she likes if she is happy (I'd be fine as long as it didn't become sexual, obviously).

Macha

Liam Byrne wrote: »

While I can see both sides of the issue with membership and clubs, it's ironic that there's a "Women In Business Network"...

I mean, can I join ? And is it discrimination if I can't ?

Count yourself lucky that you probably don't need to join.

In the Four Courts, the women have set up a female networking organisation to artificially mirror the men's one that has been going on for donkeys years.

Having said that, I'm really not bothered by a men's only golf club - if they feel that uncomfortable with female company, then they're probably best left to themselves.

Re comment about men playing golf to escape wives: newsflash this is 2010 not 1950.

Laminations

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

For private businesses (e.g. womens gyms), I've actually no issues with them being discriminatory (including this golf course), provided they make it clear that way. I've a live-and-let live policy -- if you want to make your own little walled garden of only allowing particular groups in, then that's fine by me - personally I long for the day when the field "Gender" is removed from any application form, but I don't want to force anybody to do things they are uncomfortable with.

I agree, so whats the issue?

maggy_thatcher

Laminations wrote: »

I agree, so whats the issue?

Just that as far as I'm concerned, there is no difference between discriminating based on gender and discriminating based on any other characteristic. If an organization wants to be discriminatory on who they want to do business with, let them (as long as it doesn't affect employment, etc.). I don't see any reason why gender discrimination should be put in a special category.

Laminations

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Just that as far as I'm concerned, there is no difference between discriminating based on gender and discriminating based on any other characteristic. If an organization wants to be discriminatory on who they want to do business with, let them (as long as it doesn't affect employment, etc.). I don't see any reason why gender discrimination should be put in a special category.

Grand, sexuality aside, would you speak to your female friends the same as you speak to your male friends? I'm quite sure you are guilty of gender discrimination at some level.

maggy_thatcher

Laminations wrote: »

Grand, sexuality aside, would you speak to your female friends the same as you speak to your male friends? I'm quite sure you are guilty of gender discrimination at some level.

On occasion, I may speak differently, but if I do it's only because society has ingrained in me that it is inappropriate to discuss a particular topic with a particular person. This would be very rare though.

I never said I was innocent, just that it was a goal that I believe we as a people should aspire to.

Laminations

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

I never said I was innocent, just that it was a goal that I believe we as a people should aspire to.

And sports teams should be gender-neutral?

Pittens

Democratic theory, largely lost in this "enlightened" age would suggest that people, or private associations, should be able to associate on any grounds whatsoever. That's what freedom of association implies: the freedom to disassociate.

The club, by the way is Portmarknock. Portmarknock is going to be a discrimatory club anyway, since it discriminates on the basis of class - and not just wealth either, but on "names" i.e. old wealth, and status. It would never let me in.

The Orwellian claptrap of the Equality Agency - which is non-constitutional in general ( and Protmarknock won in court, unlike others, because it could afford to go to the real legal systsm) - is all about the identity politics beloved of the new Left. The old left would have asked Portmarnack why ordinary or poor people could not join, the new left cares about the feelings of the upper middle class "named" women who cant get into a club. All 0.1% of the population.

Why should the rest of us give a siht?

SLUSK

I think private clubs and businesses should be able to discriminate any way they want.

Pittens

By the way Maggy_Thatcher, the actual Margeret would believe in none of what you are espousing.

maggy_thatcher

Pittens wrote: »

By the way Maggy_Thatcher, the actual Margeret would believe in none of what you are espousing.

Yeah I know -- the only thing we have in common is that I think that except in exceptional circumstances strikers should be fired (it was a discussion on that that caused me to open an account ) -- oh and terrorists should be treated as terrorists and not given special political prisoner status in prisons

I've a live-and-let-live attitude to life - if you want to do it, and it doesn't harm anybody else, go ahead and do it.

maggy_thatcher

Laminations wrote: »

And sports teams should be gender-neutral?

Ideally, yes, but I know that's not going to happen. It's the same as the fact that short people can't join basketball teams, but there's no separate division formed for them...

Pittens

I've a live-and-let-live attitude to life - if you want to do it, and it doesn't harm anybody else, go ahead and do it.

Except open a club for men only.

I just read the supreme court decision, they allowed Portmarknock to win because it was a Gentlemen's club, and not just a golf club. So they accept that genders can associate, regardless of what the ( quasi judicial) equality agency.

Pittens

Ha! I also disagree with you on strikes - again why cant people organise and withdraw their labour? Of course they can get shut out too. Thats in line with theory.

maggy_thatcher

Pittens wrote: »

Except open a club for men only.

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

Riskymove

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

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

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

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

anymore

Laminations wrote: »

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

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

Laminations

anymore wrote: »

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

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

anymore

Riskymove wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

maggy_thatcher

anymore wrote: »

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

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

silverharp

Laminations wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

anymore

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

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

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

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

maggy_thatcher

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

anymore

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

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

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

maggy_thatcher

anymore wrote: »

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

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

anymore wrote: »

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

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

anymore

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SLUSK

anymore wrote: »

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

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

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

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

maggy_thatcher

anymore wrote: »

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

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

anymore wrote: »

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

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

anymore

SLUSK wrote: »

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

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

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

anymore

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

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

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

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

maggy_thatcher

anymore wrote: »

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

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

anymore

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

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

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

maggy_thatcher

anymore wrote: »

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

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