A SINGLE-sex travel company for women who want to avoid boozy, bed-hopping mixed tour groups has been grounded.

A judge ruled yesterday that former tour guide Erin Maitland cannot advertise women-only holidays because it could breach the human rights of men.

http://www.news.com.au/comments/0,23600,26366101-5014090,00.html

I really don't think this is breaching any 'human rights'. In fact if anything it enhances the tours for mixed groups who want to drink and get laid, by eliminating the prudish judgemental kill-joys (Just how other people 'bed-hopping' affects a women is beyond me.)

Many of the comments on the article are from men bemoaning the fact that many male only clubs have been closed and female-only gyms are thriving, and it's about time someone stopped the female-only stuff too.

But what kind of attitude is that. If you're pro-freedom for men to have their own space and don't want it closed down, you should be pro-women to have their own space, and fight for that too.

It's what I criticise a lot of feminists for this kind of tit for tat stuff. Like criticising men for years for their boozing and bed hopping, but then when women start to do it call it liberating girl-power. Either you approve of or disapprove of the behaviour. I would also expect many feminists should be agreeing with this ruling, but I'm not holding my breath that's for sure.

I would love a world where women and men could be mature enough to handle mixed company, but obviously there's always going to be girls who are timid, shy, and threatened by all men, and there's always men who want the freedom to let one off without comment and talk about cricket all night without women interrupting and asking what silly mid on is.

The only grounds I can see for starting to curtail all these women-only gyms and clubs is the fact that a lot of women already have their whole house to get away from men, while men have to build sheds in the back yard and invent DIY jobs to do just to get some peace.

It reminds me of the anti-smoker in a way. Many pubs, especially in rural areas were almost dead and hanging on only by the patronage of visiting bikie gangs, nicotine stained men in worn out cowboy hats and toothless solvers of all the world problems. So they ban smoking and so more rural pubs close down. The non-smokers never did forge a revival in patronage so there were telling a few fibs when they suggested the smoking was keeping them away. They had no intent of going to the local anyways. So for some old lonely people a lifeline to some human contact was lost to please a few well patronised pubs in the main cities. Why not allow business to make the decision on who they want as customers?

So if the lady runs the tours will the men actually go or are they just dummy spitters? Are men really screaming out they really want to do a tour that visits rose gardens, tea houses and factory outlets?

I would like a range of business to appeal to a range of people. If it excludes ladies that want to travel in the company of women then it is discriminatory and many will prefer to stay home along with the otthless nicotine addict marginilising people with non mainstream needs.

It is a lot different from days gone by when men only clubs were the only clubs. Women went to knitting clubs or some such trivial nonsense. If women can have women only clubs where politics is discussed, business plans hatched, too much champagne consumed an a bit of gambling thrown in I would love it. It was never about women not being invited to the mens clubs, it was because only men could enjoy such fun.

Ah Missus, you always seem to make sense.

'are they just dummy spitters? Are men really screaming out they really want to do a tour that visits rose gardens, tea houses and factory outlets?'

I reckon they're dummy spitters. Got their nickers in a twist because the feminists lobbied to have their men only pubs shut, and crying 'it's not fair!' now women can have female only stuff.

What they really should be doing is being consistent, and arguing for the right for both men and women to have their own clubs. Ditto the feminists. They should have been outraged that women want to exclude men from their travels if they're interested in equality, not just 'equality for women'.

The Judge is a spastic. Human rights? pft. Like you say it's not as if the men cant go with one of the other zillions of tour companies.

This is the kinda stuff we'll see all the time once we get a Human Rights Act.

BTW: 'If women can have women only clubs where politics is discussed, business plans hatched, too much champagne consumed an a bit of gambling thrown in I would love it.'

Try your local Mother's group;-)

Hi Houellebecq,

"Ah Missus, you always seem to make sense"

Yes must surely qualify for disability pension:)

Missus and Houellebecq, I couldn't agree more! What a load of tossers those male objectors must be.

I have no objection to male only tours- or male only clubs. Good luck to them! Let's not let gender equality spoil the little pleasures of life.

Maybe the tour operator could omit the 'women only' part of her advert next time, and list the activities of this tour as extolling the virtues of a tour of a feminine hygiene factory, and in small print the usual exciting activities that women enjoy, such as winery tours, shopping or whatever else rocks your boat!

Yes I am with you lot - you ratbag retrobates. :)

I don't give a tinkers if women or men want exclusive clubs. Or gay people who want to joint a like-minded group, or bookclubbers, or fishermen, origami or bonsai enthusiasts. Let 'em all do their own thing.

Gawd isn't there enough other worthy causes one can pin their hat on, without creating a ruckus about absolutely nothing.

If women want to start an exclusive women's club to discuss politics, business and snort a bit of champagne they, like men, are perfectly free to do so.

Houlley someone in your link above made a valid comment that men and women should have equal rights but we are not equal. It is not abnormal to wish to spend time with one's gender group if one should choose to do so at times. Mixed company is more fun, but why should this be the only acceptable social setting in law.