Women only sessions at the Dulwich Leisure Centre pool

[Alan Dale]

No one says pot-ar-toh. That's the problem with that song.

[buggie]

Alan Dale Wrote:

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

> No one says pot-ar-toh. That's the problem with

> that song.

... isn't that the way Lloyd Grossman pronounces it? :)

[Domitianus]

Let me ask a simple question. If Southwark Council introduced a men-only session due to the fact that they were aware that some Muslim men found it shocking and offensive to have to bathe in the presence of scantily-clad western female "hussies', how long do you think it would be before that provision was torn to shreds (and rightly so!)?

[Keef]

Or what about the blokes that feel a bit self conscious about getting their kits off in front of women? Not that I'm one you understand, I'm a stud :-S

[buggie]

Wouldn't offend me.... maybe it'd give men chance to splash lots and dive bomb into the water like the ones I went to school with use to try and do during our swimming lessons!!

[beth]

At Hampstead Heath, there is a men's only pond and a women's only pond as well as a mixed pond and they all seem quite popular, well used and I believe supported with public money! I loved the women's pond when I lived up north London - except for the saddo men who used to hide in the bushes around the edges for a glimpse of some flesh! Personally, if the solution to this issue is to give the men one hour and a half a week of men only time, I'm all for it!

[Keef]

I genuinely think that would be a popular solution with users, and it would mean an end to this bloody arguement! ;-)

[Domitianus]

Or just completely get rid of any single-sex sessions and thereby require people to grow up and act like adults in a dual-gender world??????

[snorky]

Domitianus Wrote:

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

> Or just completely get rid of any single-sex

> sessions and thereby require people to grow up and

> act like adults in a dual-gender world??????

I humbly suggest several completely closed sessions a week - where no one can go in and no swimming can be done - this way no-one get distressed by the sight of others of a different sex in the water.

[Domitianus]

Little consideration is being shown to those with water allergies or, indeed, those who cannot swim. The pool should be drained and opened to such individuals on a weekly basis - one dry session for the men, one for the women, one for the Muslims, one for the Jews, one for the Gentiles, one for the gays?lesbians, one for the straights etc etc

[karter]

In fact, I may even begin to teach a class in Non-aquarobics! We all stand on the bottom of an empty pool and engage in rhythmic exercise. It will be the next Big Thing! I am off to trademark the concept.

[ednerd]

I am intrigued by these sessions and the debate they have prompted.

Today is Thursday, and I am therefore going to go and check out these male-avoiding swimmers. I am more than a little afraid of what I might encounter.

I will report back.

[ednerd]

PS All that 'woe is us' ranting from some ladies (er.. sorry, womin) really winds me up. I'd like to throw something controversial out there: in my opinion, the most severe discrimination that still exists in the workplace is against men who would love to spend more time with their families , but fear being ridiculed as 'soft', lazy or not serious about their careers if they ask to work flexibly, or god-forbid actually leave work on time (and not work the unpaid overtime so women can work part time or shoot out the door at 5pm on the dot). Although working mothers, in my opinion, love to play the martyr (yes, it is true, women do carry out most of the domestic chores, even if they work.. so what? I reckon they secretly love to hoover), the reality is they would never swap lives with their blokes. Why would they - they get to actually see their kids grow up as well as demanding the working pattern of their choice.

Controversial!

Over and out...off to prepare for laydeez-only swim time.

[trinity]

Yeah - because just think of all those men queuing up to do low paid low status part-time jobs just so that they can change more nappies.

[snorky]

trinity Wrote:

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

> Yeah - because just think of all those men queuing

> up to do low paid low status part-time jobs just

> so that they can change more nappies.

Do you think We weant to be successful, high flying, rich and handsome over achievers all the time ? Its very stressful you know

it would be nice to do something less taxing sometimes - like looking after the kids - how hard can it be ?

a few DVDs, a couple of litres of Lidl coke, a kilo of gelatine based candies and a family bag of tortilla chips is all you need to keep the kids happy all day.Its not rocket science

you ought to try getting a proper job like men do - then you will know what work is like.

[trinity]

Oh I do hope you are better at your job than you would be at bringing up kids with those ideas. ;-)

[ednerd]

Snorky,

Are you available for babysitting on Thursday nights? My daughter is currently breastfed, but I am sure her palette can extend to whatever is on special at Lidl.

[Domitianus]

And, as previously mentioned, let's not forget the fact that blokes had (at least until recently)to work an extra five years before being able to retire on a state pension. Clearly evidence of a paternalisticaly biased society.

[trinity]

Do you want to swap Domitianus? - 30% of women currently receive a full state pension because family commitments make it so difficult to build up contibutions. There is your evidence of a paternalistically biased society.

[Domitianus]

That may be a de facto inequality as an unanticipated and undesired consequence of circumstances but it is hardly of the same nature as a deliberately enacted, legally enshrined inequality such as the retirement age which directly and unambiguously discriminates against men and has done so for decades. Furthermore, like it or not, the decision to raise a child rather than work is just that - a decision! People do have that choice, it is not forced upon them, unlike the situation with retirement age about which no man or woman has a choice. I cannot choose to retire at 60 and claim a full state pension, whereas a woman is (or at least was until recently) entitled to retire at the age of 60 and claim a full state pension. Furthermore, a man who had made the choice to stay at home and look after children would find himself in exactly the same situation as a woman in that situation - there is no inherent bias against either gender.

[trinity]

Hi Domitianus

Let me deal with the points you raised

The inequality I pointed out was completely anticipated by Beveridge but his ideas for tackling the acute problem of poverty in older women were not implemented.

The differing retirement ages were introduced in 1940 to address the fact that rates of employment for spinsters over the age of 45 were markedly lower than those of men of the same age. This did not discriminate against men as they, on the whole, had the opportunity to work until 65 but women did not. It merely attempted to address the clear inequalities that existed in the workplace.

You will note that reduction in the retirement age was brought in primarily to tackle the problems of poverty for unmarried working women and therefore nothing to do with raising a family.

I agree that individuals make the decision to raise a child but that decision is made within a society structure which loads the decision in favour of the mother taking on primary responsibility for caring for children. This therefore reduces her potential for making NI contributions. For example - availability of affordable childcare, women?s earnings being 77% of men?s. This means that a pension system based on individuals contributions is biased against anyone (man or woman) who enables her(/his) partner to work by staying at home to raise their family. In the real world this results in a distinct biase against women as supported by the fact that so few women are entitled to a full state pension.

I think what our discussion highlights is that a pension system devised 70 years ago does not fulfill the needs of a modern society. Good job its being sorted! (By the way I don?t know anything about the new system ? I just hope its better than this one).

[beth]

Hear! Hear! Your calm, measured and clear arguements are wonderful - fully referenced and solid. Discrimination against women has a long history - I grew up with a mother was a lifelong supporter of women's rights. She went to Radcliff College, which is now part of Harvard University in the early 50's. When she went to the careers officer in her final year, she was told that a best career for someone with her degree from Radcliff was to be an administrator in an art gallery! That turned her into a feminist there and then - she went on to do her MA and then Phd, then became a leader in her field, while being a mother to two children as well.

Despite leaps and bounds that have happened discrimination against women still exists in many forms - we shouldn't even have to have these arguements in this day and age. There is still a pay gap, violence against women including domestic violence is still prevalent, etc. etc. The Fawcett Society is an important and valuable campaigning body around these issues that we all should support http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk

By the way, I also support organisations such as Men's Health who work to re-dress inequalities with so many men not accessing health care. That's an example of a men's organisation that works alongside women's groups such as Women's Health and makes their legit arguements without trying to have a go or not acknowledge discrimination against women.

[ednerd]

At the risk of drifting even further off the topic of possibly hairier than average women wanting to take over a crumbling Victorian bath for a couple of hours a week, I'd like to add my two pence worth about why women earn less.

There is a multitude of academic theory around the gender pay gap (I, briefly, was one of those sad academics), which, though interesting, mostly misses the real point. I have lost track of the number of women who have openly told me that now they have had children 'they just want a nice little job, and, as long as they get to work the hours they want, they're not too bothered about their career'.

You can theorise all you like about societal structure and the painful legacy of patriarchy, but until women do a better job of at least pretending they take their careers seriously after having children, they will continue to earn less.

[Red_Cat]

Edneerd,

The reason women don't take their careers seriously after they have children is probably because they're too knackered from looking after the kids. Also, noone else seems to takt their 'career' seriously either. in my workplace i have the husbands ringing up to say their wives have to go home 'cos the school called to say the child is sick, if you ask why the husband can't be the one to leave work to go get the kid you're told it's because his job is more important and he earns the money!

Also, Dominatius, if you think the pension scheme has been unfair to men - well it was men who made that decision in the first place so you only have yourselves to blame.

If you feel discriminated against by women having their own sessions in the swimming pool then you have some idea of how it feels for women who always have been, and remain, discriminated against in many aspects, some of which are a bit more serious than not being able to swim on a Thursday evening

[ednerd]

Ahh, the old "my child is sick excuse": code for "I need to be home in time for Richard and Judy".

But seriously, there are several reasons why it may be the mother being the one to leave work to tend to sick little 'uns:

1. Many women still subscribe to traditional gender roles and actually prefer to be the one soothing little Tommy's fevered brow.

2. To my earlier point, it is still largely socially unacceptable for men to be seen to be willing to compromise their job to tend to domestic responsibilities.

3. Some women choose to procreate with sexist t-w*ts who genuinely believe themselves to be far too manly to get involved with such tasks.

4. The nature of their respective jobs may simply make it more practical for the woman to step in.

Anyway, the bottom line is I don't care whether there is women's only splash time at Fusion - a much more important concern is its grottiness. You are more likely to be scarred for life by an infected verucca than by having some random bloke inadvertently catch an eyeful of your wobbly bits.