but the idea that their enjoyment of their club would somehow be ruined if they happened to see a - gasp! - woman in their midst, is ridiculous, anachronistic, and objectionable.
I think the men's-only exclusive clubs, for example, are offensive. I would never want to join one anyway, but the idea that their enjoyment of their club would somehow be ruined if they happened to see a - gasp! - woman in their midst, is ridiculous, anachronistic, and objectionable.
I also don't get the concept of women-only gyms, diet clubs, etc. If you're that paranoid about any man seeing you working out, then I think it'd be more productive to seek counselling for your excessive concern about the opinions of others, than to seek out a women-only gym.
Agreed, but I don't see why some men socialising together would be completely ruined by a woman in the vicinity. Just as when I go to a coffee shop with a group of girlfriends, I don't feel my experience is ruined if there are men sitting at another table. I have no problem with groups of men or women participating in male or female bonding, but I object to the idea that this necessarily requires vehement exclusion of the "other".blokes socialise differently than women
Yes, hypocrisy is a wonderful thing, isn't it?lizzie said:but i do get cranky when "women's only" clubs and gyms are springing up at the same time that some women are trying to tear down the "men's only". imagine the uproar if there was a "men's only" gym set up!
Agreed, like many gender-segregated organisations, they're a bit anachronistic now.They were probably a good idea years ago when gyms were really blokey but most gyms now are really nice and a women doing weights now doesn't even raise a look (used to be different a while back though).
Have to disagree with you on this one, BC; I think that some traditions are worthy of killing off, and that allowing morally repugnant practises on the basis of "tradition" is the dangerous precedent.you can't retrospectivelyplace new laws over old foundations.
that would open up all kinds of awful doors for precedent.
a NEW mens only club would be sexist though, because we have NEW anti-discrimination laws. much the same as NEW women's gyms and NEW women's diet clubs should be outlawed based on NEW anti-discrimination laws.
(My emphasis added)But people don't get it.
I love women, but there are times when I just want to be with the boys, have a few sherbets and talk boy stuff.
(My emphasis added)
Sorry, BV, but I think you're not getting it, and you need to get over yourself!
If you want to go to a mate's house and have a blokey experience, fill your boots!
But when you have a club - even a "private" club - if you invite members of the public to participate, then you have to comply with society's anti-discrimination laws.
I might want to never be near a tall person, or a blonde person, or somebody not wearing deodorant, or people earning less than $40K pa, or people from the northern hemisphere, but guess what? It's not all about me.
Yeah, I know, and I don't really think that you are self-centred. I was picking up on your example and extending it. My point is that men who defend their gender-segregated clubs by saying "I don't want women around", are expressing a view that they may be entitled to, but which isn't defensible under law.Oz, you've bot me wrong here. I was talking about all people, but using myself as the example.
I agree. The "live and let live" position would be to open the doors to both genders, so I'm assuming you're agreeing with me.NOT 2 L8 said:Personally I think it is a moot point and subscribe to the live and let live credo.