silverharp wrote: » El_Duderino 09 wrote: » I know why you think that. Same as why you thought I switched sides earlier. All immdoing is looking for a consistent standard to determine if there is sexism at play. Allow me to explain. There's a men's club in a government organisations. Women want to join and the group refuses to allow them. The group has a choice to either allow women join or disband. There are also women's clubs in government organisations. If a man tried to join and was allowed, there would be no sexism issue. If a man tried to join and was not allowed, the group should have the same options - allow the man to participate in the club or disband. What could be simpler? I can't see why you think that's silly I think you are reaching, not knowing anything about the police women's group, realistically no policeman would try to join it and given that its a group set up specifically for women to help women odds are men cant join. I see no good in trying to sabotage these groups by trying to infiltrate them and demand that they mix, that's just being a d1ck? or to put it more nicely why would you? in this case by wanting to join a male choir they essentially want to end it. Also it tends to be one way traffic, men would consider it rude to try to slope into female clubs , yet possibly politically motivated women want to get access to every male space even when they aren't part of some elitist setup. Why don't women just setup their own groups?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » I know why you think that. Same as why you thought I switched sides earlier. All immdoing is looking for a consistent standard to determine if there is sexism at play. Allow me to explain. There's a men's club in a government organisations. Women want to join and the group refuses to allow them. The group has a choice to either allow women join or disband. There are also women's clubs in government organisations. If a man tried to join and was allowed, there would be no sexism issue. If a man tried to join and was not allowed, the group should have the same options - allow the man to participate in the club or disband. What could be simpler? I can't see why you think that's silly
silverharp wrote: » El_Duderino 09 wrote: » If they're allowed to join and take part then there isn't a sexism issue. Provided there is a similar State involvement like the police choir. your arguments are getting silly now
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » If they're allowed to join and take part then there isn't a sexism issue. Provided there is a similar State involvement like the police choir.
iptba wrote: » El_Duderino 09 wrote: » There's a women's network in my work too. All it would take is a man to try to join the network and we would find out if it's a sexism issue or not. A man doesn't need to be refused entry to an entity like the Metropolitan Women Police Association for somebody to claim it is a single gender group. That is the default unless they say otherwise. And even if they are let in in the odd case, they are unlikely to feel very comfortable in it given the title.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » There's a women's network in my work too. All it would take is a man to try to join the network and we would find out if it's a sexism issue or not.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » That would be the roundabout way of doing it. If a man tried to join and was refused your have your kick of Outrage.
silverharp wrote: » why childish? im not a child, a male choir is part of British culture so the state should support or not hamper it and they didn't "get away with it" This is just using equality ideas as a blunderbuss in a very unthinking way. Lord knows at this stage a lot of government departments and NGO's have all kinds of female subgroups and networks at this stage exhibit A Welcome to the Metropolitan Women Police Associationhttps://www.metwpa.org.uk/
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » The fact that it was a state choir makes it difficult to make the case for having a choir that excludes one gender or another. A private club on the other hand can do what it likes. So they can now do what they like. I think it's childish to expect the state to support a club that excludes one gender or the other. They got away with it for 60 years is that it was challenged it didn't hold up to scrutiny. Hey set up their own private men only choir. Everyone should be happy.
givyjoe wrote: » El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Was boyzone a state club like a police choir? Not really analogous then, is it? It was clearly a joke :rolleyes:. I do enjoy your wonderful contributions (that's sarcasm in cased you missed it).
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Was boyzone a state club like a police choir? Not really analogous then, is it?
silverharp wrote: » but women cant be part of a male choir its in the name, and here it comes "big meany-guts girls"
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Ok I acknowledge your answer. It’s not really like a maternity hospital though. Because men can’t possibly give birth but men and women can sing. Sooooooo ya know. In any case they did the most sensible thing. They changed from being a associates with the state by becoming a community men’s choir rather than a police men’s choir. So they didn’t have to let those big meany-guts girls into their club in the end. They left the state in an unfair position. Now as a private club they can do as they like. Problem solved I should think.
silverharp wrote: » I did answer a couple of times now, I said I don't see a problem , in this case you might as well ask are men excluded from a maternity hospital?the "excluded" doesn't make sense, its a feature of the activity "a male choir". I believe you are trying to use "excluded" in a loaded way to make it sound bad.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » It’s attacking men? Seriously? I’m still wondering if you’ll answer the question above. Do you think in a state club, women should be free to exclude and be excluded by men?
silverharp wrote: » its attacking men for being part of a male choir, its saying their group has to end by becoming something else.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » But allowing women into the police choir is sexist against men? Could I just see if you have an answer to the above?
givyjoe wrote: » Boyzone = sexist
silverharp wrote: » I don't see the problem, they could invite a mixed choirs to use their facilities to open it up if they wished but you cant have a mixed male choir, its in the name and I don't see that they should shaft the group using their facilities at the moment. There is nothing sexist about a male choir.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » I imagine a male choir has its own sound. But that’s not really what I asked. “Do you think in a state club women should be able to exclude and be excluded by men?” I know a private club can do what it likes so I’m asking about it a state club because the choir you brought up is a police choir.
silverharp wrote: » A male choir is its own thing with a unique sound , if there are women in it , its just a choir. There is no discrimination that I can see. if we were talking about an all male state theatre group one might well that isn't a thing as there is no usp involved.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » My opinion is straightforward enough. It’s a police choir is a state club so it’s difficult to make the case that it should be allowed to discriminate on grounds of gender. A private choir can do what it likes. Do you think in a state club women should be able to exclude and be excluded by men?
silverharp wrote: » take it as code for rolleyes, what a surprise , even on the British news they had comments in "political correctness gone mad", so did you chuckle to yourself and think one more male space confined to history , the struggle continues ? or do you have another opinion
Sleepy wrote: » I'd think the main thing that should be coming out of the Jackson case in terms of Mens Rights is that the UK should look at following our policy of not naming the accused in such cases until a guilty verdict is announced.
iptba wrote: » I post gender-related hashtags that trended. I find it interesting to see all the women-only events and initiatives that only help women.
tigger123 wrote: » Why are you quoting the LF Aurora programme?
