Supreme Court says no women need apply to Golf Club. Mod warning post 119

If you re-read the post you'll see that I never said there was anything wrong with having an opinion or having feminist views, I was very careful to ensure that this was not the case, as I believe everyone's entitled to their opinion.

I was talking about that small minority of people who have to nit-pick at every little thing, things such as 'why is it called a manhole, that's just sexist'...an actress has to be called an actor now....I just don't see how these things benefit women and it just appears petty to me.

It was only a general opinion as I'm sure you'll agree, I am entitled to have. And I am only expressing my views from my own personal experiences with the minority mentioned.

The only thing I would say with regard to windsock in this, is that her views seem (to me anyway) to be very hypocritical and very biased towards women.

WindSock wrote: »

Sure. What if there were gays in the club though?

Couldn't the same be said of the pole dancing classes? and Curves?

WindSock wrote: »

I don't campaign to have names changed for man holes etc. I merely stated that the club should be clear that it is a mens club or a mens golf club and not a golf club. Because it is the latter, they have now made it a law that women don't get in. That is what sucks, imo.

At least make it clear on what it is.

I wasn't referring to you with that comment windsock, again just a general observation directed at the minority I mentioned.

WindSock wrote: »

Ditto. Except I get called every name under the sun.

I don't remember at any point calling you names so I'm hoping this isn't referring to me:(

WindSock wrote: »

Do you mean toward men? That would be fairly counterproductive for a 'feminazi'

Where am I hypocritical, I'd like to know. Baring in mind, gyms are not like with social clubs, imo.[/quote]

This is merely a difference in opinion, I can't really see how a gym is very different to a social club. How can it be ok for one form of gathering to be allowed have female only members but another to not be allowed have male only members??

Warfi wrote: »

I've noticed this also. It makes what would have been a very interesting debate a very uncomfortable experience, especially considering the topic at hand.

This backslappery is laughable. Only one warning was given out for people getting personal, and it wasn't someone getting personal towards you or WindSock. It was someone getting personal at me. It was also WindSock who resorted to the personal slights towards me!

...however, I don't mind, I understand it's an emotive topic. Don't feel too persecuted ladies.

WindSock wrote: »

It looked like you were referring to me as a crazy extreme feminist type that acts like a spoilt child. A bit immflammatory, tbh, seeing as I try my best to be fair minded when giving an opinion from a different point of view.
If you weren't, fair enough. (or hairy muff as we milli-tants say )

I did get a bit carried away in that but the extremists just boil my blood as (again from my own experience) they just won't seem to even listen to an opinion other than their own. I most certainly was not referring to you in terms of that but once I started typing my mind started to wander.

WindSock wrote: »

A gym is a place to work out physically. I said before, you aren't going to have your breasts bouncing up and down at a bar in a social club.

I can think of many times I've seen breasts bouncing up and down in social clubs and the ladies involved don't seem overly concerned about it.:D Thats assuming a nightclub is considered a social club???

p.s how do you do the multi-quote thing??

WindSock wrote: »

I don't know. Ask the women that use these gyms. They may tell you they feel less threatened by gay women than by men too. I don't know for sure....

I'll just accept that if people feel bothered by having the opposite gender present during their social/sporting/whatever activities the they will set up and join men only or women only clubs.

WindSock wrote: »

Which clubs have I said are acceptable for women but are not for men?

You're fine with women only gyms on the grounds that women might feel insecure with men around, and that men might give women unwanted attention in such a situation. You're ok with women only pole dancing classes. But when it comes to a men only golf club we start getting these vague arbitrary notions that it's ok when it comes to things you've decided are solely physical in nature, such as a gym (totally ignoring that there is often a social aspect to gyms), but not a golf club.

WindSock wrote: »

And it was the equality authority who believed it wasn't in the confines of the law to to have the law exclude someone based on one of the 9 grounds there are for discrimination in this country.

And it was decided by our Supreme Court that they were wrong, so hopefully the state will keep it's nose out of issues that shouldn't concern it in future.

WindSock wrote: »

Did any women want to join? Don't know. If it was clear that it was a mens club and not a golf club would they? Probably not.

I'm not sure what the name has to do with any of the issues.

I think theres a good bit of sexism on this thread. Disappointing, ideally it should be possible to discuss this stuff without resorting to very sexist positions.


Lets say that it makes sense to have a law that says "its not allowed for a club to discriminate membership on the basis of sex, because sexual discrimination is just wrong, across the board".

Surely, then, a womens rugby club would also have to allow men to be members of the club?

Now, you might say that men are bigger than women, and the purpose of a womens rugby club is to allow women to play the sport without getting crushed by men. But this would as easily be accommodated, while not having the rugby club be sexist, by instead requiring that the members be below a weight, or muscle-mass, threshold. It would also mean that men who just happen to be small or weak also have somewhere to play rugby. So I don't think the argument for a womens only club as a special case, because women are smaller, is a particularly good one.

On the other hand you might say that women wouldn't feel comfortable playing rugby on the same teams as men, because of the close physical contact and proximity between sexes. But this really comes down to 'the women wouldn't feel comfortable among the men' and isn't really any more of a logically based argument than 'the men of the golf club dont feel comfortable with women members'. Its sexist and subjective. Sure, some men might be rougher playing sport, or take advantage of the close contact with the women, but its still sexist to discriminate against all of the men because some might take advantage. Women that feel uncomfortable amoung all men, because some might take advantage, are being sexist. I think if you go down this route, and allow the private rugby team to be women only, you have to allow the golf club to be men only too. Because it both cases you are letting the sexist personal preferences of the members stop the other sex entering the club.


You might argue that women are somehow the minority, or weaker party, in society, and that as a result, its ok for women only clubs to to discriminate against men, but not ok for men only clubs to discriminate against women. An argument similar to this has come up on this thread.
I have difficulty accepting this argument. I don't particularly think women need more protection from sexism than men do. I think both sexes need equal protection, by society and by the law, from sexism. Now, it might be the case that women are more sexually discriminated against at the moment; but even if that is the case, its not an argument that the law should protect them unequally.

By way of analogy, if women were being robbed more often, it would not make sense to penalise a robber more because they stole from a woman, as opposed to from a man; in much the same way as if black people were being robbed more often, the penalty for robbing someone should still not differ depending on their race.
I think the society must try treat its citizens equally, even if they are not all treating each other equally; and as such I think an argument that says one sex has more right to discriminate on the basis of sexism than another, because one happens to be more suppressed currently, is fundamentally flawed.


So, I see no argument to force a male golf club to allow female members to join, while not forcing a womens rugby club to allow male members to join.
Similarly for women's book clubs (google it, they exist), country womens association, etc.
I think if the state is to decide that one private organisation such as a golf club is not allowed discriminate on the basis of sex, then it must apply that consistently across them all, or point out why that one organisation is particularly special.


Now, perhaps we should have a rule that nothing in the state is allowed be discriminated on the basis of sex?
So, sporting events not allowed be segregated by sex (have to use something else, like weight class, muscle mass, vo2max etc), schools not allowed be segregated by sex (probably should be the case), priesthoods, marriages, legal rights, parental leave, insurance etc.
It'd be a very far reaching change, but I dont see a way of ruling on just the golf club and logically stopping the change from going further.


Separately, (and it is separate, this shouldnt distract from the argument above) while I understand the supreme court is ruling about points of law, I find the argument they used bizarre. That a club whose primary purpose is golf isn't allowed discriminate, but one whose primary purpose is being a gentlemans club, that just so happens to play golf, is allowed to discriminate? I'm sure its legally sound and everything - its the supreme court - but it seems a bit daft to me. Its basically saying a private club can discriminate on anything it wants, as long as it plays with its definition a little bit. 'Oh, we are first a mens club and second a golf club - not the other way around, we promise.' - How very arbitrary.

Also, some people have mentioned the insurance thing on this thread. Insurance companies aren't private clubs. Discriminating by sex on insurance is wrong and shouldnt be allowed, imo. Whether its rational or not (and I'm willing to believe the actuaries have done their homework, so that it is rational) doesn't change whether its sexist, and the sexism shouldnt be allowed. (Even if sexism in the workplace was rational, for example, it also shouldnt be allowed.)

Warfi wrote: »

You're right! Just seems to be me and you!!

Want to go burn some bras?

WindSock wrote: »

Click this little fella here (see I called it a he, even though it's multi-tasking :pac:)

It is the first icon after the 'quote' at the of bottom lhs of every post. When you click the posts to quote, the + will become a -

Edit: The icon image I have shown you there may differ from what you see, as I am using the 'Cloud' skin.

Nice one, I'm now gonna multi-quote the sh*t out of it!!! Lol.