Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, May 21, 2003.
Wed did and amen. That's a keeper. I'll bet it comes in handy all the time.:thumbsup:
Doesn't anybody want this guy for an avatar?
Gym...thats a sexist term. Any women only health clubs should be called.....Janes. Or Jillians or Judiths or Joesephines or .....
Just like Jackeroos and Jilleroos. Get it?
Thirty years ago when I was at Uni we had 3 showers in the Gym err the Jane. One for males one for females and you guessed it, one mixed. System worked well. Everybody was happy with it. Why can't it work now?
But only because the Ref was a man...
And the winner is.........freedom of choice.:thumbsup:
This is sad. I am not sure what is sadder, Bob's list of white's only organizations or the misunderstanding that has lead to this thread being so long.
I agree that a womens only health club is a good idea. I think I can confidently say that all of the men who have posted in this thread agree as well. I also agree that some women feel more comfortable working out in an environment without men. I understand that from years of trying to get my wife to work out. I understand that more from the fact that I understand, for whatever reason, women tend to be more self conscious about their bodies than men do. But, I can tell you from a fat mans perspective that a large number of men are self conscious about their bodies too. I would have loved a men only swimming pool growing up. I rarely went to the pool because I was too embarrassed to take my shirt off. The pool, the beach, or the river, I would have preferred places where no women were allowed.
But that is irrelevant. The point is, two wrongs don't make a right and paybacks are not right. Woman and minorities had a tough time many years ago. It is not going to change anything making it tough on white men today.
My stance on this, in a nutshell.
Who is making it tough on white men today?
You evil women are. Leave us alone!!!
or was it those damn Liberals?
15 years ago, when first looking for police work, I applied for a job. I tested second out of about 80 candidates, and in the physical exam, I aced it. I was first in overall points for the position.
My application was bypassed because "We're looking to satisfy EEO requirements."
Last year, I was first after written testing for our department's promotional exam. The interview board, which was made up exclusively of women and minorities, bypassed me for two minority candidates who by comparison had made so little contribution to the department that fellow officers were incredulous, and told me I should sue. I'd add that one of the candidate's literacy is poor - there's no way they can say he did better on the board than I, and expect those around to keep a straight face.
In that interview, white males systematically scored lower than all other races or sexes. It was diametric to the exam scores. White males who scored high on the exam scored low on the interview board. Blacks and women who scored low were rated highly by the board, universally.
Don't for a second say that nobody is keeping the white male down. Right now it is fashionable and even accepted to discriminate against the white male and write it off as just "making amends for oppression".
We saw some of that here in this forum, people more than happy to spread a bunch of misinformation about standard conduct of white males in order to justify their very wrong points.
Can't you sue? Are there no laws protecting you? If you did sue and win, would you be ostracized? Can you men sue as a group?
This alone is a problem... who decides who is on the interview board?
Well, since the equal rights amendment, you can't sue (and win) for being skipped over due to employent equity, since its legal.
That situation has to do with equal rights and employment equity?
They did the scoring or reviewing this way in order to make a quota in other words? Or was it bias on the part of the interviewers?
The employment equity laws let a company do anything from simply assigning different weights to minorities than white males on test scores or application requirements, up to and including simply saying "we're only hiring women/people of colour to comply with equity regulations", as Cop mentioned.
Basically, as long as a company ends their explanation with "to comply with equity", a white male will always legally lose out. Should someone get a good lawyer and sue, the company can always rationalize the decision in hind-sight for the courts... hiring qualifications are pretty subjective.
Look it's a sin that anyone get skipped over for any job, when they are more qualified. I know this has affected my husband in a few positions he held already. It's just plain unfair.
I'm sorry to hear of your ordeal Copzilla. That's just not right. Women or minorities should be given jobs because they are better qualified and that's it. I also have to note that this type of descrimination isn't exclusive to men...women are unfairly passed over at times and it's not because they aren't qualified. It's happening all over. If it wasn't for the fact, that at one time women were considered second class citizens, this wouldn't be an issue. We have to point blame at people who aren't even alive anymore...because they left the world in a shambles with their crazy thinking. The world just sucks sometimes. It doesn't help when people need to be reminded that qualifications are what it's all about...not one's race or gender...or looks even. Just a messed up world we live in
What equal rights amendment? Is this some Camadian thing? In the US an equal rights amendment was passed by Congress in the '70s but not ratified by enough states to be added to the Consitution. And as I recall it, it would not have legalized this sort of thing.
This sort of deiscrimination case might not lead to a winning lawsuit anyway. There have been lots of suits over discrimination in favor of minorities promotions, admission to medical and law schools, and the like, and I believe very few have won by the white guys. A suit over admission to the U. of Michegan is being considered by the Supreme Court now. Some white applicant to one of the schools was rejected and blacks with lower scores on the entrance exam were admitted. (Or maybe it has been decided already -- I haven't been following it.)
Incidentally, I was once fired from a very good as head of a State agency so a woman coiuld be given it because, as the Governor's appointments officer told a friend of mine, "The Governor's been getting a lot of complaints from womens groups for not appointing enough women to senior positiions." I am not sure that is the sole reason -- the appointments officer was a liar anyway, and she hated me for other reasons, mainly that I would not hire all of the incompetents and slimbags she wanted me to take on.
As Violet pointed out, "The world just sucks sometimes.." Jphn F. Kennedy made the same point a bit more eloquently once when he simply pointed out the "Life is not fair."
But none of these cases is particularly relevant to whether women should be allowed to have their own health clubs.
Sorry, I generalized the name. The laws/commisions involved are the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and associated laws in the US and the Employment Equity Act in Canada, and the Human Rights Commission
But you're right... employment equity has little to do with discrimination at gyms... maybe we need a new thread?
I am completely gobsmacked by this forum. *shrugs* There is nothing more i can say.