Reply #86: I didn't say anything about wealth or power. [View All]

[CanuckAmok]

I'm talking about societal approval of organizations which specifically prohibit membership based on gender.

If you're looking for examples, I can cite many. The first one which comes to mind is the YWCA versus the YMCA. Specifically, the Vancouver YWCA, which is the best gym in the city. It has not just areas, but entire floors (and it's not a residential facility) which are female only, while the YMCA is required, by law, to allow access to the entire facility by women and men.

Another example in a similar vein is my own gym, which is a priovate club. The downstairs is co-ed, and the upstairs is women only. Men are not allowed to participate in more than half of the fitness classes which are covered by membership fees. So, male members are forced to subsidise classes they are not aloowed to benefit from. If that were reversed, it would be in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to the extent that they gym would have been prosecuted by now. But, because the 'advantage' is in womens' favour, society allows this discrimination to continue. I understand the argument about women not feeling comfortable exercising in front of men (as if we're all leering...), but the same can be said about mens' comfort, but we're told that's not rational.


I can cite more.


But the point of my post was that, just as it is important for women to socialise in an environment in which men aren't invited, and in which the pressure to behave 'a certain way' around men isn't an issue, men need time to be with men, without feeling a need to behave a certain way.

My post was about social equality on an individual level, and meeting friends/role models who are gender-specific. I'm not bringing wealth or power into it.

on edit: by the way, thanks for dismissing my statement of opinion as a 'little rant'. Would you care to disparage my view any further?