'Women only' groups

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

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

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

As an example of this:

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

coffee_cake

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

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

Mark Hamill

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

Do they?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

So you support the 1 in 4 stat?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

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

Rev Hellfire

K-9 wrote: »

To women only book clubs?

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

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

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

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

Mark Hamill

K-9 wrote: »

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

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

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

metrovelvet

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

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

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

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

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

Biggest whinge fest ever on this thread.

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

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

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

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

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

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

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

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

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

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

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

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

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

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

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

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

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

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

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

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

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deleted User wrote: »

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

I'm not quite following your point here.

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

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

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

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Deleted User wrote: »

They succeeded.

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

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Forced by who?

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

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

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

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

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

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

metrovelvet

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

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

Zulu

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

The Corinthian

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

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

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

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

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

metrovelvet

Zulu wrote: »

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

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

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not quite following your point here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forced by who?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Corinthian

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. ]

Zombrex

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?

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.

Name the individual posters and I will join you in denouncing them as hypocrites.

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.

Zombrex

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 misogyny

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you think any of the women here today in this discussion should be held to the standards these women set?

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.

The way you put it made it sound like some loud vocal minority is being oppressed by the feminist majority?

Then you weren't listening as that is not the point I was making.

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.

Actually I also cited a relevant piece of hypocrisy that was only three months old too. Nice of you to ignore it.

It can't be that some of them are hypocrites, or some of them are stupid, or some of them are ignorant.

That is the point. And some of them are here as highlighted by their views elsewhere.

Name the individual posters and I will join you in denouncing them as hypocrites.

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:

Imposed Political Quotas Good versus Imposed Open Membership Bad

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.

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.

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'.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

You can call a woman a hypocrite if her views (her actual ones, not the ones you assume she has) are hypocritical.

That is the point if you'd bothered listening.

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

Ahh, the label of misogyny - the post-Feminist answer to Israel's liberal use of Antisemitism.

Zombrex

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

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.

How do you know they didn't?

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?

Zombrex

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?

liah

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.

Zombrex

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?

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.

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.

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?

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

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?

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.

That isn't a response, just a deflection.

No, it was an outright rejection of an attempt to dismiss me using an emotionally changed label.

I'm waiting on you to condemn Kooli btw, or were those just empty promises?