Women Only Time at a Public Pool
At the same time that every men’s only club is harangued, threatened and denied funding unless and until it allows women to become members, numerous women’s only groups are operating and more are being created. Here is another example, this time using an Auckland Council owned (i.e. publicly owned and paid for by men and women) swimming pool admitting only women for 2 prime hours per week. The female centre manager Sarah Clarke justified this by saying “It isn’t wrong to ask for public facilities to be responsive to the needs of the community”. She hopes to expand this service.
We might have no problem with the exclusion of men if an equivalent, prime time were set aside excluding women. But of course that isn’t done. Men-only clubs and services are considered sexist while women-only is fine; typical femaleist duplicity and sense of entitlement.
Some may argue that men don’t have the same need to swim without women around. Whether it’s a need for women is debatable; we see it as a preference but not a need. There may well be white NZers who are uncomfortable swimming in the pool at the same time as some other races and who would not swim there because of that. Their reasons will be at least as valid as the reasons women want to exclude men. We wouldn’t see it as appropriate for a public facility to meet the preference of those white NZers in order to encourage them to use the pool and learn to swim.
We’re sure some men will prefer to swim when women are not there, and that their preference is as valid as that of the women. Some men may be embarrassed about their bodies or shy to look awkward learning to swim while being watched by women. Aside from that, men might enjoy the use of the pool with fewer people to have to share the space with and that in itself would be a good enough reason to have a men’s only evening.
Will men-only pool time happen? Ha ha, of course not. Feminism means gender equality, yeah right.
Apparently men who support the idea of female only….everything are still bad.
If we say this is wrong we are bad.
If we say this sexism is good, we do it for ego and reward.
If we say nothing were ignorant and need to read Clemintine and friends rhetoric to become informed.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/life/90578425/clementine-ford-the-problem-with-rewarding-men-who-support-feminism
“It’s no secret that boys and men are rewarded for speaking out about gender equality where girls and women are punished.”
What a load of crap.
What male MPs have spoken out about bigotry against males and not been ridiculed if not punished.
How have the declared female feminist MPs been punished?
No! Promoted to spokeswomen for women’s affairs etc.
The girls and women implied to be punished, are for simple reasons. They talk about non existent things like rape culture or the pay gap implied as every workplace pays females less, or even education bias in STEM subjects while everybody knows it’s the boys being systematically failed due to bias.
The fruitcake feminists deserved to be saddled back on the unicorns that they rode in on.
Just to show how much this man hater lives in La La Land.
“4. Commit to giving up your privilege
Equality means a loss for those who experience privilege and power. It isn’t just about talking a good game. Look around at the structures you exist in – your workplace, school, home life etc – and ask what you can do to help make your environments more egalitarian. You did not earn your gender privilege but you can definitely be a part of dismantling it.”
I look forward to Clemintine Ford protesting outside the family court against female privilege.
What male privilege in schools? She’s clearly dillusional.
I wonder if she will write an opinion piece about this pool subject.
Nah, probably buy a membership.
It’s the world she wants to live in.
No men!
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 18th March 2017 @ 6:42 pm
Women only must be a trend.
She seeks common ground.
It doesn’t make sense of course.
Women and men is common ground.
She does show why she lost the election.
Presidents represent all the people.
Not just.
Sisters.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11820971
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 18th March 2017 @ 9:33 pm
And here’s another one: ‘More Money for Entrepreneurial Women‘. Imagine if an investment group offered to provide money only to men starting up companies! And even worse, if a government investment fund became financially involved to support that money-for-males-only group!
Yes, only a third of NZ start-up companies have women leaders, but does that justify sexist investment services? They call them ‘angel’ funds and groups.
This must be the male privilege the feminists keep talking about.
Surely it’s enough to make it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of gender? That’s equality. Angel funds are gender discrimination, pure and simple.
Surely the femaleists can’t on the one hand complain about gender discrimination then practise, support and celebrate gender discrimination? Oh right, we forgot, girls can do anything including hypocrisy, and what’s more they get away with it.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Mon 20th March 2017 @ 7:31 pm
Men only pool sessions would remove any possibility of accusations of perving and child molesting, that would be a good thing.
But regarding Clementing Ford, the woman is a fruit loop who writes deliberately provocative nonsense because that’s what her employers want – a reaction, to sell papers and generate clicks. Not because her writing has any sort of merit. In case you hadn’t noticed there is a bit of a competition among “feminist commentators” to see who is the most outrageous – and only the most controversial get published. “Clem” once published some sentimental claptrap about her first child that was reprinted in stuff, I posted a comment expressing surprise that this was even possible given her track record but I doubt it got past stuff’s heavy censorship. I still think she probably ate the guy after mating.
Comment by Doug — Sat 25th March 2017 @ 7:34 am
And now a WOMAN ONLY taxi service in Wellington. You know the excuse – assaults. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/small-business/90837434/womenonly-taxi-service-to-protect-other-women-from-assaults
Comment by Jerry — Sun 26th March 2017 @ 6:38 pm
#5 Jerry
You know the excuse.
“I love guys, they’re awesome – but there’s a small handful of predators,” she said.
“A lot of girls told me if they got in the front or sat behind the front seat, the [taxi] driver would turn around and touch their thigh and ask them if they were having a good night.”
What?
She means one or two, if that.
“Denman said many women told her they were particularly scared of using the steps by Boyd-Wilson Field, in Kelburn, where a man assaulted a woman late one night in February.”
Probably car owners that never walk anyway.
Use irrational fears to create business.
A place once had a crime committed thier.
Let’s fear that place forever.
That’s for people walking.
Nothing to do with taxis.
“We need [lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-sexual] people to feel safer.”
Feeling safer is different from being safer.
Strait men don’t deserve to feel safe.
In fact her statement excludes strait women too.
“Just this month, two 19-year-old women spoke out after half a dozen taxi drivers refused them a short ride home from central Wellington late at night because the fare would be too small.”
They do it to males too.
The males go oh well, let’s walk, we’re not precious and lazy.
They could have offered a tip.
No not that, money.
“The Wellingtonian offering a women-only taxi service says she set it up to help prevent other women from suffering a sexual assault like she had.”
“Denman, a former Uber driver, said while her assault was not by a taxi driver”
1+1>2
Feminism is not a STEM subject.
We can forgive her for not being able to think rationally.
If she employs a new staff member.
Employment law?
Women only.
Service
Women only.
Finally the best part.
Clearly ignoring the large number of males violently attacked, and occasionally sexually assaulted on the way home.
Feminist violates feminist rules!
“We’re starting it to just get GIRLS home safe.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/well-good/teach-me/90853984/mayim-bialik-tells-men-why-they-shouldnt-call-women-girls
Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 26th March 2017 @ 7:54 pm
Jerry #5 I can see the benefit in this actually, I would prefer that my daughter didn’t get into a taxi late at night alone with a man from certain cultures where sleazy attitudes to women are common and where these attitudes sometimes lead to action.
Comment by Doug — Sun 26th March 2017 @ 8:12 pm
Doug @7; I recall a time when cab drivers were well vetted and were most trust-worthy and were all male. Race and culture aside, I see that stringent vetting of cab drivers is the answer – not gender discrimination. Now about sleezy people – women can be sleezy doubtful characters too. And I would hesitate getting in any situation {cab for example} with many women. But what about if your daughter andd boyfriend wanted to get home? – does he walk? or do they get two cabs and pay twice?
Comment by Jerry — Sun 26th March 2017 @ 8:30 pm
Gender discrimination, pure and simple. Feminists claimed to invent feminism in opposition to gender discrimination. Now they promote it. Gender apartheid.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 26th March 2017 @ 9:15 pm
D J Ward @6; another interesting contribution from you. What is it that somehow makes actors and celebrities become all knowing authorities on all issues effecting mankind, the planet and the universe? :-)? Your Kelburn example is quite interesting because both my daughters are living in that proximity. And sure they can be pestered for sex – but what has changed? Look at the earliest movies and people were naughty – maybe naughtier than now. When I was a kid the mating game was also in full swing from both genders. So what has changed – feminism?
We cannot cure this using one sided gender exclusive places and activities. If one gender has exclusive zones, then so must the other be free to choose ones for themselves too if they want them. My daughters went to an all girls school – I guess because that is where their grandma went decades before. But that was not a nice civilised respectful place unless you were of an elite chosen group the school could use to promote its own greatness. As for LBGT. rights, the only ones there without rights were my straight daughters. My letters to the local editor participating in current topics of Family violence and false allegations brought swift revenge upon my girls in school done by female teachers.
I remember a time long ago when women protested that there were too few female health professionsla and other professionals. They said women feel most comfortable with their own gender. Well the tables have turned – there are few places I can go to be able to deal with a male – I don’t mean a mangina – but I mean a man.
Comment by Jerry — Mon 27th March 2017 @ 4:54 am
I was just browsing Al Jazeera.com. Today, there ia a video on there “India’s ladycops”. It is a police station staffed by women and for women. Wow – when will we see such gender blindness here. Such police neutrality. .. . . . Isn’t it the way – its likely true that the women in India can be under protected by many police who do tend to be male – but is this the answer?
Comment by Jerry — Fri 31st March 2017 @ 4:28 am
I don’t have a problem with women only time in a public pool.
I have no doubt there are many women who for various reasons, age, pregnancy, medical conditions, for example, who are sensitive about using a public swimming pool.
The female of the species can be sensitive about their body, whereas men as we age, tend to become less concerned about such things.
My issue would be with first with the manager’s statement
“Responsive to the needs of the community”
Rather …
Comment by Evan Myers — Fri 31st March 2017 @ 8:10 am
Cont … Rather than the desires of the self entitled bitches of New Zealand society and her feminist ego.
Secondly if the media actually bothered to investigate that issue rather than, as they usually do, publish without hesitation, any percieved victory by women.
Comment by Evan Myers — Fri 31st March 2017 @ 8:15 am
You can see the attitude filtering down from parliament, and our MPs.
They operate the same way – is it any surprise to see this manager doing the same thing.
Look at the way the propossed Men’s Summit was treated.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 31st March 2017 @ 9:16 am
#5 Jerry, pertaining to Taxi services.
It seems there is a problem with taxi services.
A woman one.
Using and making false complaints of sexual assualt.
Unfortunately for feminist this female scumbag got caught out.
Moral of the story.
Video record or the accusation is believed.
Uber admits it.
Maybe taxi drivers have to for there own safety refuse to take female passengers if there dash cam stops working.
It’s a safety issue.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/uber-rewards-driver-who-suffered-passenger-from-hell/news-story/53719667ab1b18b7da49ee55c325ad15
Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 9th April 2017 @ 1:32 pm
D J Ward @15: Preaching to the converted. As someone twice falsely accused, I am only too aware of the reallity us men have and the precautions we have to take if we are to have reasonable safety. Even then, if we can’t specify what we were doing at some random time a decade ago, and back it up with evidence – then we are vulnerable to false allegations. But thats the thing – if we do remember and have the evidence just sitting there – then it will be assumed we are still guilty because what other reason would we possibly have for keeping evidence for so long?
Most often I am accused nowadays of being obsessive and paranoid regarding my “Keep myself safe”” policies. My definition of paranoia is “An irrational fear of anything one is very unlikely to ever encounter – Well I had to beat off two successive accusations and my life demolished – so I say that this is not something I am very unlikely to ever encounter again. To be very aware and cautious is simply good sense.
Much of what I post is not useful to those of us who have actually been embroiled in these injustices, but we have watchers who just watch and don’t comment. Many things I say is talking to them too.
But then, just maybe there is stuff of interest to the common contributors too.
Comment by Jerry — Sun 9th April 2017 @ 2:34 pm
16, That reasoning makes perfect sense to me. I was also falsely accused of violence and take very careful measures to reduce the likelihood of reoccurrence.
A charge should not have been placed upon me but basic intelligence to sort fact from fiction is not part of the victim identification process regarding domestic violence.
The ways society has become convinced – ‘woman = good, man =bad has become of interest to me after I was attacked by a female who was able to admit that she attacked me knowing that her violence (no matter how severe) would be inconsequential as long as she accused me of worse than she had done.
She knew no evidence would be required, that she would get to keep my apartment and my stuff and I would be put in a cell for days before being banished from my life as I knew it.
She knew that there would be no real requirement for her to front up to court to support her bizarre allegations and that no record would be kept of her assault or her false allegations so she could rinse and repeat with the next guy.
If anyone has 37 minutes free they might benefit as I did from this clip.
It does however contain horrible violence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSODY5n8abM
Comment by voices back from the bush — Sun 9th April 2017 @ 3:44 pm