Sexual descrimination

G_M

and that's a good thing? ( the women only trains, not the 'upskirting')

Errata

G_M wrote: »

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.

Wouldn't mind women only carriages on the underground where blokes don't stop at eyeing up but frequently indulge in groping women or shoving a stiff male member up against their backsides.

Idiophreak

d.ross wrote: »

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??

I think you'd find a worryingly large percentage of men in favour of gays having their own bathrooms, actually

BlueBlond

The provision of goods and services in the private sector is covered by discrimination law but I think the age strand is the last and not due in until October.

There is an exemption for "dignity and privacy" which could why gyms get away with it, though it is odd that it seems to assume we're all hetro. It used to be thought that "dignity and privacy" meant that those cleaning toliets had to be of the same gender as those using them. The notices warning that the opposite might happen appeared after someone brought a case to challenge that, and won.

Bra modelling would use the exemption for "authencity" which also allows resturants to match waiters ethnic background with that of the food (but not the staff behind the scenes).

Positive discrimination (ie choosing the woman or black person for the job or promotion) is unlawful in the UK. Positive action (ie sending the woman or black person on a training course) is permitted but the organisation first has to prove that the particular group it's trying to develop is significantly under-represented in that organisation. I've known organisations use positive action to support men (eg as nurses in the NHS).

I'm not a big fan of segregation either but there are times it can be liberating for a particular group. I know one man brought a case, and won, against a swimming baths for having a women's only session. He gained a few extra hours in week in which he could swim but the local muslim women (and there are a lot of them) felt unable to swim there again at all.

neverdespairgirl

Idiophreak wrote: »

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

As I said, "You can discriminate in jobs if there is an objective justification for the discrimination."

neverdespairgirl

BugglyB wrote: »

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

And in India, too. Women-only carraiges, anyway.

diable

Turn up to view in a slinky little number and a long flowing wig smelling of cheap perfume.......

rumdiddlyum

i think if you have a house/flat to rent out why shouldnt you say who or what lives in it i have seen plenty of posts that say
NO DSS
NO PETS
NO SMOKERS
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST NO CHILDREN that is definatley 'IST' especially when you have a three bed family house but they own it and its there choice. also you dont know if the last tennant was a man and if the landlord or lady is a lady he he if that man caused them grief its easier for a woman to say 'on yer bike' to a woman than to a man its up to them everybody nowadays is out for everything they can get all you want is money for sexual discrimination get a life they dont want you.
choose somewhere else instead of making a big deal about it if they can say NO CHILDREN they can say NO MEN ner ner ner ner ner

ps i dont rent out a house or flat

rumdiddlyum

pps why would you be bothered anyway next youll want to go to the ladys toilets just because you cant:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

G_M

BlueBlond wrote: »

I'm not a big fan of segregation either but there are times it can be liberating for a particular group. I know one man brought a case, and won, against a swimming baths for having a women's only session. He gained a few extra hours in week in which he could swim but the local muslim women (and there are a lot of them) felt unable to swim there again at all.

That seems even worse!
Britain is a secular nation, so segregation on religeous grounds seems to me even worse than segregation on grounds of sex.

One of the problems of our so-called multi-cultural society is the lack of integration. As long as disperate groups/faiths/nationalities etc remain ghetoised and unintegrated we will continue to see conflicts as those faiths/cultures etc clash.

I lived and worked in the Far East for many years and went to great lengths to 'fit in', both in terms of my clothing, attitude and lifestyle. That is how multi-culturalism can work.

OK - rant over. Back to sexual discrimination.......