There is a gym in our main street which has, in letters over a metre high, the words 'Ladies Only' painted across the front.

I dont understand why if men want to have a men's only club it is sexist - if women want to have a women's only club it is a right. Can someone please explain what looks like an obvious case of double-standards to a poor old logician.

And it is not because the gyms are places for work-outs I remember a team from 60 Minutes going all the way to England to hassle the Lords Cricket Club about the sexism of their 'Men Only' policy.

Also the perv argument is weak because that happens whether the sexes are separated or not. A friend of mine who attended a Korean Bathhouse where the participants had to move around naked and the sexes were segregated said she had to walk past a whole line of lesbians who were blatantly checking out all the naked women as they walked past.

These stubborn and annoying people should leave these men's clubs alone. If these men want to have a club and they dont want to invite women then that is their business and choice. If you leave them be they will eventually soften and evolve, most already have, and even if they dont then so be it. Nobody likes to be told what to do.

There are many other clubs around why do these women specifically want access to this one?

If members of clubs dont have a right to run their business place as they choose then we do not have freedom of choice as our thoughts are being controlled.

Rob I think it is a matter of feeling comfortable as well as a touch of the 'perv' argument. I think you will find that most woman that attend 'ladies only' gyms are trying to deal with weight problems and are probably hoping to avoid the types that turn out at gyms hoping to be looked at - both female and male. Not all of us look great in a skimpy gym outfit! There is certainly nothing wrong with men only clubs either.

Woops I said mens and it was womans. For sure there would have had to once been a mens Tattersals club for me to have become confused?

Thing is that it doesn't matter whether it is men or woman club. Why cant people running a service or buisness discriminate if it is for a reason that is not fueled by malice or spite? Why are we forced to treat everybody the same no matter what we think or feel?

No-one has actually answered the question - why is it accepted as sexist when men have a men's only club? And why is it accepted as a right when women form a women's only club? That is the discrepancy that needs to be explained.

Personally I would have no interest in being part of any club that excluded people on the basis of sex. While I feel it is obvious both sexes should be treated equally - either both sexes can have exlusive clubs or neither can - that is not the question that interests me. I want to know why this double standard passes without an outcry from the community and the media particularly that so frequently champions any discrimination against women so vehemently.

The weight argument is not relevant because it is more fundamental than that. The rationale for the exclusion is not an issue. If women have the right to exclude men on 'whatever basis women deem justified' - men should have the same right to exclude women on 'whatever basis men deem justified'.

So far as the law is concerned, it is quite legal to have men or woman only clubs/gyms. For example, the NSW Anti-discrimination Act 1977 provides:

“…Nothing …… renders unlawful discrimination by a registered club against a person on the ground of sex if membership of the registered club is available to persons of the opposite sex only.”

Can you give specific examples of where men only clubs have been barred from being established? Otherwise your belief about it being accepted as sexist when men have a men's only club is mere hearsay.

Personally I would have no interest in being part of any club that would admit someone like me as a member :)

When I met my second wife about 27 years ago she was a life member of a health club which had unsegregated sessions and also separate sessions for men only and women only. She preferred the women only sessions for various reasons. One reason was that nudity was optional in the pool and sauna and also for walking between these areas and the changing/showering areas.

For anyone who is comfortable with their own body and the bodies of others [and this has nothing at all to do with the imaginary concept of "perfection"], being nude in wet areas makes good sense, and wearing clothes for swimming, sauna or showering makes no sense whatsoever, but is a product of conditioning, or brainwashing, or whatever you want to call it. This concept should be able to be applied to mixed sessions also [and can be in some European countries] but, except for nudist sessions where people are comfortable with one another, it unfortunately wouldn't currently be appropriate in Australia.

Then the management, without any consultation with the members, decided to make the health club totally mixed sex, on the assumption that they'd make more money that way. Most of the women, including those who didn't choose to be nude, but accepted the rights of those who did, were not happy with this change of policy, but their feelings were ignored by management.

I would suggest that this concept alone would be an adequate reason for either "men only" or "women only" health clubs.

Can you give specific examples of where men only clubs have been barred from being established? Otherwise your belief about it being accepted as sexist when men have a men's only club is mere hearsay.
Posted by Robg, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 3:20:22 PM

Misrepresenting somebody else's position so you can criticize it is a very cheap trick - I never said that men-only clubs have been barred from being established. I said there is a huge outcry of 'sexism' when men have a men's only club but no objections or accusations of sexism when women want to establish a women-only club. It was this discrepancy for which I was seeking an explanation.

Did you actually read the original post? The example I gave was Tatersall's which has received huge press - do you live under a rock or something? There was also the case I cited of the 60 Minutes crew flying to England to hassle the Lord's Cricket Club over the sexism of their men-only policy. And perhaps you are very young but there was a huge controversy over the Melbourne Club's Men Only policy as Paul Keating was a member.

Still no-one has addressed the actual question - why is there a huge outcry and a branding of 'sexism' when men want to have a men only club but not a word of complaint or outrage from the media or the sex discrimination commissioner or anybody else, when women want to establish women-only clubs? All that has been posted so far is smokescreening and deflection.

Rob
Following on from the women’s only clubs argument, -are there still regular clubs that charge males an admission fee & allow women free entry?

And , I have noted, it is still very much the norm in office situations, where heavy, dirty or high objects needed to be moved -males are conscripted to do it.

My contention is that we have such enduring anomalies because the whole push to improve the status of women , at least on the part of many males in positions of authority , had more to do with good old fashion CHIVALRY than any genuine commitment to the principle of equality.

Posted by Horus, Saturday, 6 January 2007 4:46:33 PM
"where heavy, dirty or high objects needed to be moved -males are conscripted to do it."

After Pru Goward had been all over the media complaining that women do 15% more housework than men and that this amounted to sexual discrimination I did some research of my own and found some deeply hidden stats that showed that men are 3652% more likely to die at work than women because men still do all the really hard, dirty and dangerous jobs in this culture. I put it to Ms Goward that this discrepancy amounted to a sexual bias that needed to be addressed. Her office replied that it was not a case of discrimination because it was 'traditional' - and women doing the bulk of the housework apparently is not.

Perhaps this is the real reason why men, on average earn more than women, men still do all the dangerous work. In fact if Motor Vehicle Accidents to and from work werent included in the figures the authors of the report I read said that female deaths from working would be virtually non-existent. But there is a better reason: 87% of professional men support their wives - professional women demand men who support themselves. Men need more money because men support women much more than women support men.

"more to do with good old fashion CHIVALRY than any genuine commitment to the principle of equality."

I am consistently amazed by the way women successfully 'play the victim' and men fall for it.There are many examples, Warren Farrell's book The Myth of Male Power is full of them, but to me the most frequently encountered and obvious discrepancy is that women are FREQUENTLY allowed to blame men for their own violence but men are NEVER allowed to blame women for their own violence.

The growth of these women's-only gyms is phenomenal. There is a Fernwood in my suburb and soon a Curves and another women's-only gym opening in the next suburb. So if men are excluded from joining, presumably they are excluded from working there. Is that legal?

"So if men are excluded from joining, presumably they are excluded from working there. Is that legal?"
Posted by Nick Maddox, Saturday, 18 August 2007 5:46:07 PM

Men can work there but they have to pretend to be gay.