Women only sessions at the Dulwich Leisure Centre pool

[mightyroar]

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.

[capt_birdseye]

God I hate swimming. Flapping around in other people's piss, no thanks.

[snorky]

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

[mightyroar]

You are indeed sorry. It's an on topic rant is what it is. not something you use the forum for perhaps?

[beth]

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!

[snorky]

mightyroar Wrote:

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

> You are indeed sorry. It's an on topic rant is

> what it is. not something you use the forum for

> perhaps?

Thanks you so much, I stand corrected.

[Domitianus]

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.

[snorky]

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 ?

[Huguenot]

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?

[mockney piers]

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)?

[Administrator]

No, we will not disclose details about members.

[Huguenot]

You mean you won't tell us if he's a horse?

Damn bureaucrats.

[Incitatus]

Huguenot,

Unfortunately I never quite made the Senate, the Guv'nor was done in before I got a chance to hold office, not sure about the syphilis but I do know he received a fatal blow (pun intended) to his knackers.

[mockney piers]

Swimming pools, love em or hate em they sometimes have women only nights apparently

[Huguenot]

Admin! Admin! Off topic! Off topic!

[brash]

We should have women only buses too I reckon. Give them more room for the push chairs and shopping It would.

[Domitianus]

Quite. And we wouldn't want women to be exposed to the traumatic experience of having to travel in the company of men, would we? A tongue in cheek point, perhaps, but it sums up the principle involved here perfectly.

[Huguenot]

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...

[James]

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).

[Domitianus]

"Guy or lesbian people" then. "Those whose sexual orientation is gay or lesbian". "Those whose sexual preference is for members of their own or both sexes". WHatever the appropriate phrase is, please feel free to substitute.

[mightyroar]

is that all men named Guy, and all lesbians regardless of their names?

On a women only bus, what if all the women were pregnant, who would give up their seat? It'll never work.

[James]

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.

[Bobby P]

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?

[Domitianus]

I have no idea. However, I intend to present myself for a swim during the women only period (no pun intended) and if I am refused access on the grounds of my gender I shall make a formal complaint of sex discrimination.

[louisiana]

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