Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

IS IT DISCRIMINATION???

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    o1s1n wrote: »
    It works both ways in this case though. Feel free to stick 'men only' in your next ad on daft. Nobody is going to stop you.

    "Good-looking men only" is another option.


  • Options
    #33
    Irish Guitarist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,736 ✭✭✭Irish Guitarist


    Don't worry. The woman advertising the room will get her comeuppance.


  • Options
    #34
    DoYouEvenLift
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,188 ✭✭✭DoYouEvenLift


    I'd say some landlords would have the impression that female tenants are cleaner and would take better care of the place. Could be true, compare the state of any of your male friends places to the state of your female friends places.


    smash wrote: »
    Place your own ad

    "Male looking to rent a room in a house or apartment where other occupants are female and hot!"

    Let us know how you get on.


    Don Danbury, is that you?


  • Options
    #35
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,718 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Gannicus wrote: »
    Then why is it not socially acceptable to put "straights only" or "whites only" on the very same advert.... leaving all legality aside.

    "gay friendly" :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #36
    o1s1n
    Registered Users Posts: 34,631 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    "gay friendly" :rolleyes:

    It's actually a pretty decent and inoffensive way of saying 'gay only' or 'you better be down with our male on male lovin', yo'


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Gannicus wrote: »
    Then why is it not socially acceptable to put "straights only" or "whites only" on the very same advert.... leaving all legality aside.
    Because putting in your ad that you're racist or homophobic ("I don't mind black people, I just don't want to live with one") is a sure fire way of getting very few responses, or the wrong responses.

    Saying that you only want to live with someone of your gender doesn't mean that you have a problem with someone of another gender; everyone recognises that there are various legitimate reasons why someone may not want to share with a person of the opposite gender, from reasons of privacy to simple things like being able to hang a frilly bra on a clothes horse in the kitchen.


  • Options
    #38
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    You're dead right OP. You should be in no way allowed choose who you live with - you should be assigned a bunk buddie at birth who stays with you till the bitter end!


  • Options
    #39
    Packrat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,171 ✭✭✭Packrat


    efb wrote: »
    I've seen Irish only - that should not be allowed I've never seen Gay only, gay friendly yes

    Of course it should. You're right on there.

    We the people who have occupied this country for thousands of years should be curtailed and constrained as much as possible. How else will the Africans, the Arabs etc get their 'rightful' amount of our country.

    In fact we should all stop having babies too to give them a 'fair chance' like.

    “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command”



  • Options
    #40
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,718 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    o1s1n wrote: »
    It's actually a pretty decent and inoffensive way of saying 'gay only' or 'you better be down with our male on male lovin', yo'

    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.


  • Options
    #41
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    It could easily be interpreted as a passive aggressive method of discriminating against a certain type of potential tenant.
    Actually I disagree. If I saw "gay friendly" on an ad, it wouldn't deter me from applying. What says to me is that it's a code word for "the current tenant is gay or has no problem with gay applicants".

    I'm sure gay people run this minefield when applying for house shares of trying to size up whether their potential new flatmate will suddenly turn into an asshole when they find out they're gay.

    "Straight friendly" is implied, in every single ad.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    padd b1975 wrote: »

    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.

    The terms "straight-friendly" is actually used quite a bit in house sharing ads, but almost exclusively in the context of "gay-friendly and straight-friendly".


  • Options
    #43
    o1s1n
    Registered Users Posts: 34,631 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    It could easily be interpreted as a passive aggressive method of discriminating against a certain type of potential tenant.

    Only if you view it that 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.
    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Could 'straight friendly' be classed as a decent and inoffensive way of targeting a potential room mate?

    Yes it could. People should be allowed to stipulate who they want to live with. I don't see the issue.
    padd b1975 wrote: »
    The "inequality mob" would be all over that one screaming blue murder.

    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'.


  • Options
    #44
    Sauve
    Registered Users Posts: 22,646 ✭✭✭✭Sauve


    I don't see the need for advertising 'gay friendly' or 'straight friendly' accommodation. It's not a potential partner that you're applying for.
    Like any sexual activity that a housemate of mine is having, be it straight, gay, or whatever you bloody well want, it's no business of mine as long as I'm not woken up at 3am or they're riding on the kitchen table while I'm eating dinner. If that's the case, then the issue is not with their sexual orientation but with the fact that they're an asshole.


  • Options
    #45
    o1s1n
    Registered Users Posts: 34,631 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Sauve wrote: »
    I don't see the need for advertising 'gay friendly' or 'straight friendly' accommodation. It's not a potential partner that you're applying for.
    Like any sexual activity that a housemate of mine is having, be it straight, gay, or whatever you bloody well want, it's no business of mine as long as I'm not woken up at 3am or they're riding on the kitchen table while I'm eating dinner. If that's the case, then the issue is not with their sexual orientation but with the fact that they're an asshole.

    Problem is, many people are far less accepting as yourself and would potentially freak out if they found out their new housemate was gay.

    I guess it's just a way of avoiding a massive headache down the line.


  • Options
    #46
    Sauve
    Registered Users Posts: 22,646 ✭✭✭✭Sauve


    o1s1n wrote: »
    Problem is, many people are far less accepting as yourself and would potentially freak out if they found out their new housemate was gay.

    "Oh no I'll catch the gay off him"
    :D


  • Options
    #47
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,718 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Donkey Oaty wrote: »
    The terms "straight-friendly" is actually used quite a bit in house sharing ads, but almost exclusively in the context of "gay-friendly and straight-friendly".

    Can't they just say "friendly housemate wanted"?


  • Options
    #48
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    "gay friendly" :rolleyes:

    Yes. It's not saying "gays only".
    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Can't they just say "friendly housemate wanted"?

    Sadly not. Gay people can be cnuts sometimes. Esp when they're dying of a hangover.


  • Options
    #49
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    efb wrote: »
    I've seen Irish only - that should not be allowed I've never seen Gay only, gay friendly yes

    I've seen "gay only" multiple times, rather than just gay friendly. Personally I've no problem with it, but I'd have no problem with "straight only" either, or "white only" or "Irish only" tbh, I certainly dont see any difference between "gay only", "female only", "straight only" or "Korean only" and don't think they should be treated any differently.

    I don't discriminate when it comes to discrimination.


  • Options
    #50
    messrs
    Registered Users Posts: 1,853 ✭✭✭messrs


    Gannicus wrote: »
    I am on daft at the moment looking to rent a room in the area I currently live as I know the locality and familiar with the area and like it here. The only problem is that when I put in all my criteria I found a few places I really like. However I have looked at the ads and they all say female roommate only.

    Are you allowed make statements such as "female only applicants" or "looking for female roommate only" or vice versa in relation to male roommates when it comes to advertising a room.

    If a job was advertised as only one specific gender is allowed apply it would be classed as discrimination. If I were gay and refused the room or refused it because I was from a different ethnic background there would be newspaper articles and radio shows etc about it.

    If we were to go by the book then definition alone then yes it is discrimination but at the end of the day is it just personal preference?

    You constantly hear about people looking for the government to do something about the fact that so many of the rental listings say "rent allowance not accepted" etc and there are loads of different groups canvassing the government to the same effect.

    In this day and age should people be allowed to refuse to rent someone a room based on the gender.

    Is it possible its all females living there already and they would just feel more comfortable living with another female?


  • Options
    #51
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Can't they just say "friendly housemate wanted"?

    I'm sure they could. Sometimes you see "open-minded housemate wanted".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,718 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #53
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #54
    o1s1n
    Registered Users Posts: 34,631 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    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...


  • Options
    #55
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #56
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,718 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #57
    Kim Kardashi Un
    Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #58
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #59
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    seamus wrote: »
    being able to hang a frilly bra on a clothes horse in the kitchen.

    You're un-necessarily overthinking this :pac:


  • Options
    #60
    Arbiter of Good Taste
    Registered Users Posts: 2,200 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement