Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think it's good to have women only. I'd hate to generalise but I too feel the need to rant..... some of those male swimmers are just plain old bad drivers when it comes to lane etiquette. In the women only sessions you dont have to worry about male swimmers who think that loads of splashing amounts to good technique. You also dont have to deal with so many other swimmers with serious spatial awareness issues. Or overtaking right at the end of the lane when you may as well just wait. Or even one male swimmer overtaking another male swimmer overtaking a female swimmer...all at the same time in one lane! Seems like taking your kit off and getting in the pool really brings out the worst in (a very small group of some) men (who clearly dont represent all the rest). Hurrah for the groovy non competitive cooperative all female swimming sessions.

mightyroar Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it's good to have women only. I'd hate to

> generalise but I too feel the need to rant.....

> some of those male swimmers are just plain old bad

> drivers when it comes to lane etiquette. In the

> women only sessions you dont have to worry about

> male swimmers who think that loads of splashing

> amounts to good technique. You also dont have to

> deal with so many other swimmers with serious

> spatial awareness issues. Or overtaking right at

> the end of the lane when you may as well just

> wait. Or even one male swimmer overtaking another

> male swimmer overtaking a female swimmer...all at

> the same time in one lane! Seems like taking your

> kit off and getting in the pool really brings out

> the worst in (a very small group of some) men (who

> clearly dont represent all the rest). Hurrah for

> the groovy non competitive cooperative all female

> swimming sessions.


What utter rubbish. Im sorry, but it is

one last post from me - there have been plenty of solid academic research into the ways men and women use and experience public spaces different - I started googling the gender and use of space but too many references came up for me to trawl through them all and copy appropriate links for anyone who is interested (I'm supposed to be working really!) that I invite you do to the same. So it isn't surprising that men and women responding to this thread are reporting different experiences into use of the public space of the swimming pool. Also, sorry James if you felt I dismissed your experience as a single gay dad - I do know fathers who are just as much involved as mothers. But again, when we look at research into who does most of the child-care and domestic work what comes up again and again, is the majority of those who are spending more time with the kids and on the housework are women (Using a website recommended elsewhere on this by contributer to this thread (Monkey Piers) at www.Worldmapper.org I have a link which gives the stats to the hours the women worldwide spend in the home and the hours spent by men. Click on this link http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=137 for the hours spent by women and then go to next for the hours spent by men.) This of course has the cutting edge effect of meaning that men who do spend time with their kids experience discrimination in the workplace. However, longitudinal studies over the years do show men's involvement has increased significantly and flexible working patterns for both men and women are becoming more common. So let's all end on a hopefully note hey! Let's hear it for a utopian society here in East Dulwich sometime in the near future!

I am in full agreement with many of the recent postings - for different reasons or with different conclusions than the posters, however, I suspect. There is most certainly still gender inequality in society, no doubt, but this is not resolved by enshrining policies that simply reverse the direction of the discrimination. The 'positive discrimination' arguement is one of the most preposterous pieces of intellectual fraud I have ever encountered. Let us take this to its conclusion. For decades now men have had to work an extra five years of their lives before being able to claim a state pension, despite the fact that they have a shorter average lifespan. How do we deal with this appalling and inexcusable discrimination (probably the most blatant and bare-faced form of gender discrimination ever to exist and enshrined in law no less, a fact rarely mentioned in PC circles, strangely!, where women, those from ethnic origins, those with gay/lesbian lifestyles and the disabled are the only people 'allowed' to be 'victims'). If we took the 'positive discrimination' route we would turn this on its head and allow men to retire earier than women. That would obviously be an absurd proposition so we introduce a rationale response - remove any discrimination in favour of either gender and have a true level playing-field.


With regard to different perceptions of different genders as to their safety in public places - these findings may be true. They are hardly likely to be resolved, however, by perpetuating these special provisions that continue to re-inforce the notion that woman are fragile, powerless and in need of protection, as an earlier contributor observed.

Domitianus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am in full agreement with many of the recent

> postings - for different reasons or with different

> conclusions than the posters, however, I suspect.

> There is most certainly still gender inequality in

> society, no doubt, but this is not resolved by

> enshrining policies that simply reverse the

> direction of the discrimination. The 'positive

> discrimination' arguement is one of the most

> preposterous pieces of intellectual fraud I have

> ever encountered. Let us take this to its

> conclusion. For decades now men have had to work

> an extra five years of their lives before being

> able to claim a state pension, despite the fact

> that they have a shorter average lifespan. How do

> we deal with this appalling and inexcusable

> discrimination (probably the most blatant and

> bare-faced form of gender discrimination ever to

> exist and enshrined in law no less, a fact rarely

> mentioned in PC circles, strangely!, where women,

> those from ethnic origins, those with gay/lesbian

> lifestyles and the disabled are the only people

> 'allowed' to be 'victims'). If we took the

> 'positive discrimination' route we would turn this

> on its head and allow men to retire earier than

> women. That would obviously be an absurd

> proposition so we introduce a rationale response -

> remove any discrimination in favour of either

> gender and have a true level playing-field.

>

> With regard to different perceptions of different

> genders as to their safety in public places -

> these findings may be true. They are hardly

> likely to be resolved, however, by perpetuating

> these special provisions that continue to

> re-inforce the notion that woman are fragile,

> powerless and in need of protection, as an earlier

> contributor observed.



eh ?


R U 'dissin' me ?

Well I imagine he's supporting your view rather than tendering disrespect. ;-)


I'd find it a bit concerning however, Domitianus was historically a pretender to the Roman throne rather than the real thing. He even went so far as to having coins printed in his own likeness to reinforce the claim. Cheeky monkey.


To have his support is a bit like having a renowned bullsh*tter as your best mate. It rubs off..


I'm considering whether he's related to Incitatus whose major claim to fame, apart from being ridden by a Syphilite, was being an equine senator. It seems unlikely, given the penetration of latin scholars generally into society, that we have two on this forum. Admin, can you alleviate us of this pedantic burden?

I may be mistaken, but other than a worshipper of the great god Syphil, would a syphilite be a syphilis sufferer? If so, I may be mistaken, but wasn't syphilis a south american illness brought back by columbus' crew (and indeed by columbus himself)?

Women only bars perhaps, because men are loud and crude and push in.


Women only parks perhaps, because men do play those big physical ball games.


In fact why not special clothing that covers everything but the eyes, so men don't look at them in lewd ways?


Does anyone remember that Star Trek: Next Generation episode, you know the one I'm talking about...

Domitanius, what exactly do you mean by "those with gay and lesbian lifestyles"? Are you suggesting that you can just sort of take on a lesbian or gay lifestyle as if it were a jacket or a new hairstyle? Do you have a "male" or a "female" lifestyle?


Incidentally, my point that positive discrimination separates people & causes grudges and resentment doesn't mean that we should forget that discrimination exists. It's a question of education and respectful free speech rather than dubious acts of enforced PC folly. I still often hear the word "gay" used as an insult or derogotary term, which proves we have a way to go in some respects. And let's face it, loads of men are crap with their kids (just as loads aren't).

Lol mightyroar. Perhaps we need a new kind of apartheid to separate everybody from everybody else so we stop annoying each other so much? We could all travel about in little hermetically sealed bubbles so we never have to deal with anyone who isn't like us. I think a primitive form of this already exists - the Range Rover.

Some very funny posts on this thread...


But just bringing it back to the pool for one moment - is Fusion's logical extension of the women only swimming sessions still in place? The "staff and surveyors" only session? Or are women and (occasionally) men allowed back in now?

  • 5 weeks later...

Domitianus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Historically, gender-discrimination in favour of

> men was supported by 'explanations' and

> 'justifications' that are much more plausible than

> those offered in support of this form of

> discrimination


So just what was that 'plausible explanation' preventing women with medical degrees from practising as doctors?


, yet it was recognised that such

> excuses just weren't good enough! It is a while

> since I looked at it but I believe that sex

> discrimination legislation outlaws discrimination

> in provision of goods or services on the grounds

> of gender.


I hear today that working men's clubs are finally to allow women to be members ;-) Maybe one of these days they'll let them join the gentlemen's clubs too...Though the very thought of all those old codgers is singularly unattractive :-S


Louisiana

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Yes, because of course there were no violent robberies in the olden days. Pretty much no crime happened at all I believe through the entire Victorian era.
    • Hi all, Im a Southwark council leaseholder and live downstairs in a ground floor flat, there is one flat above me, it's a house with individual front doors leading from the street into the shared pathway. My neighbour told me he has had a ring doorbell installed, no discussion as to how I would feel being on camera everytime I go in and out or in my front garden. I was told it's only for deliveries and doesn't record and only activates when pressed, however I don't know this and I feel really uncomfortable everytime I'm out in garden or on doorstep talking to people. Everytime I walk in/out, it lights up and in the eve it has a  infra red  light. Now I've read up that as he said its only for deliveries, he could set it so it only activates when pressed, however it activates with its motion sensor. Had he said to me about getting it installed, I could have had the opportunity to ask about it recording etc but nothing except it's being installed and when I arrived home it was there. I don't like being horrible to people however I feel I have not been considered in his decision and I feel very uncomfortable as, some times I have to stand on doorstep to get signal for my mobile and I really don't like the idea of being watched and listened to. Has anyone got any advice as I'm beginning to get angry as I've asked about it once and was told it only activates when pressed. I believe this is not true. I know southwark council say you need to ask permission to make sure the neighbours are OK with it, I don't really want to go down that road but I don't know how to approach the subject again. They also put a shed approx 3 foot from my back room window, these places are built so my window faces their rear garden and there upstairs window  faces mine. They said it's there temporarily, that was over a year ago and it does affect the light, plus I'm hoping to sell up soon and the view from window is mainly a dark brown shed. When I've mentioned this, I was told they have no where else to put it, whereas originally they said its only temporary, Also the floorboards above are bare and I get woke early morning and at night, the thudding is so bad my light shakes and window rattles, so I mentioned this and asked if they have rugs, I was told when they get the boards re sanded they will get rugs, I should have asked if they could get rugs and just take them up when boards being done, which I would have done had it been me living above someone, their attitude was I can just put up with it until they are ready. so they had the floor boards done, and the workmen was hammering screws, yes screws, in the floorboards, I spoke to workmen to ask how much longer and they said yes, are using screws to make less noise! I could hear the cordless screwdriver, not an issue but for every screw there were at least 8 whacks, the owners had gone out to avoid the noise  so I  spoke to workmen as the noise was unbearable, the sanding, not an issue at all, people need to get things done to their home and I'm fine that on occasions there will be temporary noise. now I have a nice crack on my bedroom ceiling, I mentioned this to owner but no response, he said there were alot of loose floorboards and it will be much better now, not so noisy, as though I don't know the difference between squeaking floor boards and thudding, and nothing was mentioned re the crack or that they now have rugs, which if it were me, I'd be trying to resolve the issue so we can get on with feeling happy in our homes. so I'm feeling it's a total lack of consideration. these places are old and Edwardian and I've lived here over 40 years, had 4 different neighbours and it's only now the noise of thudding is really bad and the people before had floorboards but nothing like this. As you can probably tell I'm really wound up and I don't want to end up exploding at them, I've always got on with neighbours and always said if there's a problem with my dog, pls let me know, always tell me, however I feel it's got to the point where I say something and I'm fobbed off. I know I should tell them but I'm angry, perhaps I should write them a letter. Any suggestions greatly appreciated and thank you for reading my rant. 
    • Sadly, the price we now all pay for becoming a soft apologetic society.
    • Exactly the same thing happened to me a few years back; they were after my Brompton. Luckily there were only 3 of them so I managed to get away and got a woman to call the police, then they backed off, but not after having hit me in the back of the head first. Police said next time just give them what they want, but I sure as hell wasn't just going to hand over my bike to them!
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...