Problematic Stuff

[pErvinalia]

An interesting example which has caused some angst was the decision (possibly since reversed) by a Melbourne council to set aside on morning at a local pool as a woman-only session, at the request of local muslims, who argued that there women were forbidden by their religion to swim with males present...

Would that raise the same concerns if the pool set aside a disabled-only session, or parent-and-toddler sessions? Would the childless non-disabled consider that an affront and a discrimination - unfair because childless non-disabled people would be being 'excluded' when they might want to swim at that time? And if so, would that say anything about Melbourne society or just those particularly annoyed childless non-disabled people?

Actually, there is a subgroup in society of childless people who DO rail against discrimination against them. I think the lesson from this is that there really are some uptight jerkwads in our societies.

Leading the pack of uptight jerkwads are the social justice warriors. Not sure why anyone who sympathizes with one group of whining douches would be upset by another group of whining douches.

You just love making shit up, don't you? How do I sympathise with "one group of whining douches"? Ironically, it's you who is all over the shop, given how much you whine about these sorts of non-issues. Whiners unite!

[Forty Two]

The basis of Forty Two's angst about this issue is that he seems to believe that, because of feminist politics, in the US today a female only class (of yoga or any other voluntary activity) would be regarded as perfectly acceptable, but a male only class would not. I doubt this is true, but if it was, it would be a form of sexual discrimination against men.

If that is his view, and I'm not sure that it is, then it's clearly bunkum - a form of special pleading. It would mean that, for example, classes which taught women how to examine their breasts for lumps,

Since men and women both get breast cancer, it is discriminatory to exclude men from an examination class that is open to the public for a fee.

or a classes which taught men how to examine their balls for lumps,

Anyone with balls can examine their balls. Anyone without balls would be admitted to the class and not be physically able to participate. Men are physically able to examine their breast for lumps.

would fall foul of his definition of discrimination while, presumably, the women-only class would be considered perfectly acceptable (socially or culturally, thanks to feminism) and the men-only class would be considered unacceptable (socially or culturally, thanks to feminism).

Indeed - feminism and other social justice types do support and advance that kind of rationale.

Services or products aimed towards a target gender are not necessarily discriminatory, but if and where they are or might be the charge should be justified rather than simply asserted.

The reality is that the justification "feel uncomfortable" is the one that is generally used to support women only things - women feel uncomfortable if the work out with men, ride the train with men, etc. if men claim to "feel uncomfortable" around women, that's never been taken seriously. Shit, nobody takes the objection seriously that men don't want females walking into the men's room when they're standing at the urinal with their dicks out. That's phobia against trans and/or male identifying female body persons, if you were to say they shouldn't use the men's room. Feel uncomfortable? Tough shit.

[Forty Two]

An interesting example which has caused some angst was the decision (possibly since reversed) by a Melbourne council to set aside on morning at a local pool as a woman-only session, at the request of local muslims, who argued that there women were forbidden by their religion to swim with males present...

Would that raise the same concerns if the pool set aside a disabled-only session, or parent-and-toddler sessions? Would the childless non-disabled consider that an affront and a discrimination - unfair because childless non-disabled people would be being 'excluded' when they might want to swim at that time? And if so, would that say anything about Melbourne society or just those particularly annoyed childless non-disabled people?

Actually, there is a subgroup in society of childless people who DO rail against discrimination against them. I think the lesson from this is that there really are some uptight jerkwads in our societies.

Leading the pack of uptight jerkwads are the social justice warriors. Not sure why anyone who sympathizes with one group of whining douches would be upset by another group of whining douches.

You just love making shit up, don't you? How do I sympathise with "one group of whining douches"? Ironically, it's you who is all over the shop, given how much you whine about these sorts of non-issues. Whiners unite!

I don't know, how do you? If you don't, then fine. You don't. I could swear you defended whining douchebags on other threads. But, alas, perhaps you did not consider them to be douchebags. A douche by any other name....

[Brian Peacock]

The basis of Forty Two's angst about this issue is that he seems to believe that, because of feminist politics, in the US today a female only class (of yoga or any other voluntary activity) would be regarded as perfectly acceptable, but a male only class would not. I doubt this is true, but if it was, it would be a form of sexual discrimination against men.

If that is his view, and I'm not sure that it is, then it's clearly bunkum - a form of special pleading. It would mean that, for example, classes which taught women how to examine their breasts for lumps,

Since men and women both get breast cancer, it is discriminatory to exclude men from an examination class that is open to the public for a fee.

Well, this was only an example. Nonetheless, while men's physiology is different to women's you're happy for men to attend the classes for women, and vice-versa, and nobody has any grounds to object. E.G...

or a classes which taught men how to examine their balls for lumps,

Anyone with balls can examine their balls. Anyone without balls would be admitted to the class and not be physically able to participate. Men are physically able to examine their breast for lumps.

would fall foul of his definition of discrimination while, presumably, the women-only class would be considered perfectly acceptable (socially or culturally, thanks to feminism) and the men-only class would be considered unacceptable (socially or culturally, thanks to feminism).

Indeed - feminism and other social justice types do support and advance that kind of rationale.

Citation required re feminism necessarily entailing that view, plus some qualification re what 'social justice types' encompasses.

Services or products aimed towards a target gender are not necessarily discriminatory, but if and where they are or might be the charge should be justified rather than simply asserted.

The reality is that the justification "feel uncomfortable" is the one that is generally used to support women only things - women feel uncomfortable if the work out with men, ride the train with men, etc.

Nice attempt to shift the burden there, but the justification I was referring to was for your charge that any single-sex event is necessarily a discrimination. What you have provided here is just another in a long line of assertions that it is.

... if men claim to "feel uncomfortable" around women, that's never been taken seriously. Shit, nobody takes the objection seriously that men don't want females walking into the men's room when they're standing at the urinal with their dicks out. That's phobia against trans and/or male identifying female body persons, if you were to say they shouldn't use the men's room. Feel uncomfortable? Tough shit.

'Anecdote' is not the plural of 'data', as they say - so let's get back to the issue eh? Single-sex events.

Do you think that any single-sex event is necessarily a discrimination?
Additionally, do you think that, for example, gender segregated educational establishments are a discrimination, that is; should boys be allowed to attend girls schools and vice-versa?

[JimC]

The single sex school thing is an interesting one. I teach at an all boys school, and I went to one; clearly, I am happy with the concept (and, of course, all girls schools). Both have advantages and disadvantages, but both have a place in the market, as a certain proportion of parents favour them.
In Victoria, most of the single sex schools are private (although interestingly, the private school I went to as a lad went co-ed a while back). Most government schools are co-ed, with a handful of girl's state high schools remaining for historical reasons (no new state school would be other than co-ed, I'm pretty sure...)

[Scot Dutchy]

The single sex school thing is an interesting one. I teach at an all boys school, and I went to one; clearly, I am happy with the concept (and, of course, all girls schools). Both have advantages and disadvantages, but both have a place in the market, as a certain proportion of parents favour them.
In Victoria, most of the single sex schools are private (although interestingly, the private school I went to as a lad went co-ed a while back). Most government schools are co-ed, with a handful of girl's state high schools remaining for historical reasons (no new state school would be other than co-ed, I'm pretty sure...)

Single sex schools dont happen here. All schools are multi sex.

[Forty Two]

The basis of Forty Two's angst about this issue is that he seems to believe that, because of feminist politics, in the US today a female only class (of yoga or any other voluntary activity) would be regarded as perfectly acceptable, but a male only class would not. I doubt this is true, but if it was, it would be a form of sexual discrimination against men.

If that is his view, and I'm not sure that it is, then it's clearly bunkum - a form of special pleading. It would mean that, for example, classes which taught women how to examine their breasts for lumps,

Since men and women both get breast cancer, it is discriminatory to exclude men from an examination class that is open to the public for a fee.

Well, this was only an example. Nonetheless, while men's physiology is different to women's you're happy for men to attend the classes for women, and vice-versa, and nobody has any grounds to object. E.G...

I'd have no issue, if the sexes were treated the same in this regard, without the constant bellyaching by "feminists" that male only things are sexist and misogynistic.

or a classes which taught men how to examine their balls for lumps,

Anyone with balls can examine their balls. Anyone without balls would be admitted to the class and not be physically able to participate. Men are physically able to examine their breast for lumps.

would fall foul of his definition of discrimination while, presumably, the women-only class would be considered perfectly acceptable (socially or culturally, thanks to feminism) and the men-only class would be considered unacceptable (socially or culturally, thanks to feminism).

Indeed - feminism and other social justice types do support and advance that kind of rationale.

Citation required re feminism necessarily entailing that view, plus some qualification re what 'social justice types' encompasses.

"necessarily" entailing? I can't say feminism logically NECESSITATES that view -- it's simply a very common feminist view -- http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/ap ... dmit-women

Article describes the effort to get women into the club as "painful," and the complain that a club with lots of QC's and judges in it that doesn't admit women just ought not be....

Services or products aimed towards a target gender are not necessarily discriminatory, but if and where they are or might be the charge should be justified rather than simply asserted.

The reality is that the justification "feel uncomfortable" is the one that is generally used to support women only things - women feel uncomfortable if the work out with men, ride the train with men, etc.

Nice attempt to shift the burden there, but the justification I was referring to was for your charge that any single-sex event is necessarily a discrimination. What you have provided here is just another in a long line of assertions that it is.

Because if it's single-sex, then it excludes a sex because of sex. That's by definition "discrimination based on sex." If you're asking whether it's "bad" or not, well, that's a judgment call. But, if I say you can't walk through my front door unless you're a woman, then that's discrimination based on sex. I am making a distinction and it's based on sex. Sex discrimination. Women can walk through, men can't.

So, if a gym is men only, then it's discriminating against women. If a gym is women only, it's discrimination against men. It doesn't make it "not discrimination" if there are both women only and men only gyms. It makes it separate but equal, but it's still discrimination. Like if men and women had separate water fountains.

... if men claim to "feel uncomfortable" around women, that's never been taken seriously. Shit, nobody takes the objection seriously that men don't want females walking into the men's room when they're standing at the urinal with their dicks out. That's phobia against trans and/or male identifying female body persons, if you were to say they shouldn't use the men's room. Feel uncomfortable? Tough shit.

'Anecdote' is not the plural of 'data', as they say - so let's get back to the issue eh? Single-sex events.

It's an example. is there a circumstance where a man "feeling uncomfortable" is given credence or weight at all? Where? What issue?

Do you think that any single-sex event is necessarily a discrimination?

By definition, yes. I don't think it's necessarily bad, of course. But, it is discrimination. The fact that a golf club does not accept women as members is discrimination, for example. The fact that a book club does not accept men is also discrimination. Both based on sex.

Additionally, do you think that, for example, gender segregated educational establishments are a discrimination, that is; should boys be allowed to attend girls schools and vice-versa?

Yes, it is discrimination. What else is it? You think a school can say "no girls allowed" and it's not discriminating based on sex?

I can see you concluding that it's not bad or evil or undesirable. But, how can you possibly say it's not discrimination? What definition of discrimination are you using?

[pErvinalia]

I think it's time to inject some reality into this debate. I think Brian has been too scared to say it, as we all know it will start a shitstorm of victimisation by Forty Two and any of the MRA's of the forum who happen to come across it. Technically, it is without doubt discrimination by sex if only one sex can partake in an activity that could reasonably be assumed to be doable by both sexes. But reality is different from this. Using the segregated gym example, it's really not functional discrimination to exclude men from some gyms. As a general rule, men "sexually" pester woman at gyms more than women pester men. So providing a gym were women can exercise without being ogled and hit on constantly is not in aim of discriminating against men, it's in aim of overcoming some of the negatives women face that men don't when it comes to going to a gym.

This of course is the same principle behind the concept that, say, blacks in a predominantly white society can't be racist but whites can. Technically blacks can. But functionally it's a totally different dynamic. And liberals' failings to understand this is the same class of naive thinking that leads them to believe that equal access to a market means that everyone in that market has equal opportunity. It's nonsense thinking.

[Forty Two]

I think it's time to inject some reality into this debate. I think Brian has been too scared to say it, as we all know it will start a shitstorm of victimisation by Forty Two and any of the MRA's of the forum who happen to come across it.

Another Progressive trait of yours -- scared of saying something because someone might respond...lol. You may be projecting. I have little doubt that Brian has the fortitude to withstand a responsive argument written on a forum message board.

Technically, it is without doubt discrimination by sex if only one sex can partake in an activity that could reasonably be assumed to be doable by both sexes.

Indeed. Agreed.

But reality is different from this. Using the segregated gym example, it's really not functional discrimination to exclude men from some gyms.

It is discrimination. You just think it's justified or "ok" (as do most people) because it's not a big deal. It's still discrimination. You just are afraid to say that you think it's "ok discrimination."

As a general rule, men "sexually" pester woman at gyms more than women pester men. So providing a gym were women can exercise without being ogled and hit on constantly is not in aim of discriminating against men, it's in aim of overcoming some of the negatives women face that men don't when it comes to going to a gym.

LOL. As a general rule, a man feeling uncomfortable about being pestered or looked at by women is not taken seriously. So it's unclear how much of this distinction you report is a function of women being put on a pedestal, and nobody really caring if a man is uncomfortable. If a man hits on a woman when she isn't open to it, it's "pestering." If a woman hits on a man when he isn't open to it, it's no big deal. Yours is a sexist position on this issue -- it's like when people suggest that men cheat more than women (which they don't), or are more sexually uncontrollable than women (which they aren't).

This of course is the same principle behind the concept that, say, blacks in a predominantly white society can't be racist but whites can. Technically blacks can. But functionally it's a totally different dynamic. And liberals' failings to understand this is the same class of naive thinking that leads them to believe that equal access to a market means that everyone in that market has equal opportunity. It's nonsense thinking.

Having equal access is the very definition of equal opportunity. The outcome may not be exactly proportional to racial populations, but equal outcome and equal opportunity are two different things. Asians tend to make more money than white people (the wage gap) -- does that mean whites don't have equal access or equal opportunity?

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, this is why no one wants to bring it up. You totally miss the point (or do the MRA thing of denying that there is any inherent discrimination against power minorities in our societies).

[Forty Two]

Yeah, this is why no one wants to bring it up. You totally miss the point. As usual.

Your point was rather dull.

[pErvinalia]

It's a point that makes sense if one can distinguish between dictionary definitions and how the real world operates. That's why I distinguished between "technically" and "functionally". You didn't even seem to notice that distinction.

[Forty Two]

It's a point that makes sense if one can distinguish between dictionary definitions and how the real world operates. That's why I distinguished between "technically" and "functionally". You didn't even seem to notice that distinction.

Of course I noticed that distinction. It's a nonsense distinction. It's just a way to approve of discrimination a person thinks is o.k. or no big deal. That way, you can say that discrimination in favor of some people is o.k.

[pErvinalia]

But it has a body of reasoning behind it. It's not based in prejudice, although with some of you people and your empty rhetoric like "virtue signalling", it seems that you might have trouble believing that.

[Forty Two]

But it has a body of reasoning behind it. It's not based in prejudice, although with some of you people and your empty rhetoric like "virtue signalling", it seems that you might have trouble believing that.

No, it's based on prejudice. It's just prejudice you think is justified or no big deal. it's like "I drink male tears" and "kill all men" movements in the feminist circles -- they think it's o.k. to do that, when if men did it towards women it would be a major scandal of advocacy of violence towards women, and how you can't even joke about such serious issues. "kill all women" - sexist and misogynistic -- "kill all men" -- it's not "functional" sexism because of the reasoning behind it and the special issues women face.... right?

It's a nice way to build in permission to be sexist or discriminatory without having to own the words.