Sexual descrimination

Geordie_bear

robpw2 wrote: »

this is not a case of sexual discrimination but is about "safe" space
in the case of women only gyms they are there to allow women to workout without the fear of having men checking out their Bean bags or in the case of some their dumbbells

It is not illegal to have safe spaces ,

oh I see so there's no women who go to gyms and check out mens 'lunchboxes' right & if you're say homosexual you may not want the attention, right?

So let's turn this on it's head, would you say that not allowing some women in certain golf clubs. Is that discriminatory or not discriminatory?

Geordie_bear

BugglyB wrote: »

I dont think it is, because its not a public service and its not covered by employment law, its just a product they are selling.

Someone may correct me, but I think its similar to Saga over 50s holidays, or Clubs 18-30.

well it's wrong, as far as I'm concerned it's discrimination plain & simple.

Geordie_bear

robpw2 wrote: »

this is not a case of sexual discrimination but is about "safe" space
in the case of women only gyms they are there to allow women to workout without the fear of having men checking out their Bean bags or in the case of some their dumbbells

It is not illegal to have safe spaces ,

Oh and btw you're implying that all men are dodgy & go to gyms to harrass & ogle the opposite sex. That in itself it's discriminatory & a huge generalisation. Safe spaces indeed!

Idiophreak

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

You can discriminate in jobs if there is an objective justification for the discrimination.

So, for example, M & S can advertise a bra-fitter job vacancy, an specify "women only".

Or a Church can specify on Christians for vicar jobs.

So can I get away with seeking women only for my secretary/bra model vacancy??

BugglyB

Geordie_bear wrote: »

well it's wrong, as far as I'm concerned it's discrimination plain & simple.

Erm, alright. I was only attempting to answer your question...

robpw2

Geordie_bear wrote: »

oh I see so there's no women who go to gyms and check out mens 'lunchboxes' right & if you're say homosexual you may not want the attention, right?

So let's turn this on it's head, would you say that not allowing some women in certain golf clubs. Is that discriminatory or not discriminatory?

They have gay only gyms too .. again "safe space"

Geordie_bear wrote: »

well it's wrong, as far as I'm concerned it's discrimination plain & simple.

Geordie_bear wrote: »

Oh and btw you're implying that all men are dodgy & go to gyms to harrass & ogle the opposite sex. That in itself it's discriminatory & a huge generalisation. Safe spaces indeed!

i am not implying anything , this is an area for women who feel that going to a gym with men and women would make them feel uncomfortable and so thats why they have them .

I am very intrested in your point of view , i am doing my independant study on the equality act and wehter or not it will mean the end to women only gyms and other such defined safe spaces so its very intresting to get a different perspective, i was just explaining why they exist

robpw2

Idiophreak wrote: »

So can I get away with seeking women only for my secretary/bra model vacancy??

you would have to proove that the job would be unable to be completed by a man ,.

for example if your looking for a person to work in a battered womens shelter , you could in this case advertise to only employ women because of the sensitive nature of the work and the fact that many women in this position (battered wife) would not feel comfortable.

G_M

If women (or any other group) want to feel 'safe' the answer is not segregation. It is to change attitudes to agressive/threatening behavior so that women and others feel safe anywhere.

The 'safe place' arguement about gyms, if taken further, would lead us to set up women-only streets in the town centre so that those who dress as sluts (not my description: see the !!!!!! walk campaigns) can do so 'safely'.

And how about women-only carriages on trains (or do men never eye up women on public transport?).

Over the last hundred years, women have rightly fought for, and won, equality on many fronts. The right to go where men go, do jobs men traditionally did etc etc.

Segregation is just a huge step backwards.

BugglyB

They do have women only trains in Japan, to combat something called 'upskirting' which is apparently becoming more and more common here.

d.ross_2

G_M wrote: »

And how about women-only carriages on trains (or do men never eye up women on public transport?).

I'm sure men and women both eye each other up on public transport, after all it is human nature.

And I suppose there are also women who eye women up, and men who eye men up. So would this mean that there would also be segregation for lesbians and gay men??

Like you said segregation is a step backwards. It isn't people eying other people up that is the problem, it's people who can't control their urges.