Sometimes principle is just stupid

Fed Up says:

09:26am | 18/11/09

Great piece Tory-

For god sake who cares - there are men only clubs and women only gyms - There are plenty of alternatives -  What a watse of time - If I as a man I want to travel with blokes why shouldn’t we have Travel Brothers as well… - If a travel agent dedicated to women suceeds .. more power to them

This is taking us back decadesd.

BPobjie says:

09:32am | 18/11/09

Now, does this prevent her from offering any women-only tours, or just from making her entire business women-only?

There’s a difference there, I think - the difference between providing sex-specific products, and denying service to customers based on their sex.

Richard says:

09:34am | 18/11/09

Can we assume, Tory, that you would have written the same article if the agency had wanted to be men only?  Somehow, I doubt it.

Eric says:

09:36am | 18/11/09

For decades, feminists have been forcing men’s groups to accept women as members. Now that the same rules are being applied to women’s groups, they’re all upset.

Let’s be consistent, and apply the same rules to both sexes.

SM says:

09:41am | 18/11/09

Perhaps she might have to market a little differently but the absurdity of regulations like these is that she’ll be able to find a way around it.  Just as someone who doesn’t want to hire a women for a job just because she’s a woman can get around that legislation.  It’s simply the tribunal trying to justify its taxpayer funded existence

Eric says:

09:42am | 18/11/09

Let’s rephrase a quote from your article:

“Erin Maitland reckons some women feel safer and more comfortable traveling in womens-only groups, rather than alone or with a group including men.”

“Joe Bloggs reckons some white people feel safer and more comfortable traveling in white-only groups, rather than alone or with a group including blacks.”

Hmmmm .....

Bel says:

09:42am | 18/11/09

Yes I couldn’t believe the stupidity of this when I read it this morning.  I reckon there are times when I might like to go on a women-only tour, just as there are times I’d like a mixed tour.  It’s the travel equivalent of a girls night out.  Who cares?????  Perhaps the owner’s mistake was in saying that it could be for women who had been victims of abuse etc.  If she’d just said it was for girls’ trips, it might have been allowed to pass.  Political correctness wins over common sense, yet again.

Justin says:

09:55am | 18/11/09

As much as I would never have taken this matter to a court (and put it firmly in my ‘who really caresl’ bin) I do say if someone takes the legal road, then the rules are the rules.  The whole point of a legal principle is to have something that applies regardless of circumstance - and sorry, if it doesn’t happen to suit today.
Sorry, Human Rights principles are too important to be applied on a whim.
Oh, and as for the there’s lot of Flight Centres argument..um, didn’t we fight to overturn the ban on women in public bars, and Australia has LOTS of those.

Zeta says:

09:56am | 18/11/09

Contiki Tours are bad enough, and a blight on human civilisation. I’ve never been on one, obviously, but I’ve heard the horror stories. I once worked with a guy who came back from a Contiki Tour and every - single - day he’d get in the car and play the same insipid songs from some mix tape that was apparently their ‘song of the day’ on their tour bus, and he’d talk about how ‘pumped’ everyone would get, and what a family they were by the end of his month cavorting around European tourist traps, and I’d lean out the window, projectile vomiting into the bus lane while curious bystanders at the traffic lights would mutter to themselves ‘someone’s talking about their Contiki Tour’.

The only thing that could be worse than a Contiki Tour, would be a Contiki Tour comprised exclusively of women. Don’t get me wrong, I love women. I work better with women. I like talking to women. I like looking at them, not in weird way, but like, in the way David Attenborrough looks at herds of especially attractive gazzelles.

But Christ just imagine it, there you are on some island paradise, alone with a ridiculously expensive cocktail, contemplating the serenity, perhaps reading Proust, when in the distance, you hear their thunderous hooves, the stomping of inappriate footwear, the shrill, maddened barking, the howls. They stampede into your bar, a melee of glitter, beads, ridiculous plastic things that dangle, the unpleasant organic smell of long chain monopolymers from spray tan lotions, ‘Oh my God! Oh my God! Oh my God!’ They’d heave and exclaim evangelically,  demanding bigger and ever more fruitier drinks. You’d shrink into a booth, praying they wouldn’t see you, but eventually they would, and they’d descend like hungry buzzards, circling at first ‘what you reading? for?’ before coming for your very soul.

Eventually, a passing end of season footy trip might be your escape, but the damage is done.

It’s not just women of course. It’s tourist groups in general. Why is it that Asian tourist groups in Australia can be so damn polite, but Australians across Asia are like barbarian hordes? Japanese and Chinese and Korean tour groups are like mormon locusts that appear, consume everything, say thank you, and leave without making a mess.

In comparison, Australians overseas are like Saxons taking Britania, raping and pillaging, tossing the local women over their shoulders, drinking copious ammounts of ale and starting fights, before burying their dead at sea in flaming long boats (that last part might have been a hallucination). Sure, it’s great that we’re giving women the opportunity to do it to (after all, Northern European berzerkers had a proud tradition of sending women to fight, which properly frightened the Romans), but is it good?

These tour groups are the end of civilisation as we know and I challenge the Punch to prove me wrong.

Joel says:

09:59am | 18/11/09

To quote the great philosopher Homer (J. Simpson): “I’m a white male aged eighteen to forty-five… Everyone listens to me!”.
Why is that simply because I am a white male aged eighteen to forty five that discrimination which specifically excludes me from something is any more acceptable than that which exludes women, ethnic minorities or anyone on any arbitrary criteria? If you want a women-only travel group, advertise it with lots of pink and frangipani petals. To answer your initial question - yes, I am offended. I thought the feminist movement was about equality, and this is starting to sound amazingly hypocritical.

AFR says:

10:00am | 18/11/09

As a man, I really couldn’t care less that a company was offerring women-only tours. Big deal. The chest beating of many of my fellow males is quite gringeworthy.

hoofman says:

10:02am | 18/11/09

Gee, Eric, we white, middle class men in a wealthy country are so lucky we have you on our case to fight against the discrimination and oppression that’s been keeping us downtrodden for so long.

Steve Smith says:

10:04am | 18/11/09

Great excuse… Human Rights!!! The only people’s rights that are being protected are those young men who travel half way around the world with Viagra in one hand and a box of condoms in the other!!

At least our human rights record remains in tact, tackling one important issue at a time! Next on the Human Rights agenda… Fernwood!!

Eric says:

10:14am | 18/11/09

Hoofman, why do you hate equality?

Max says:

10:25am | 18/11/09

And here it is again,  a perfect example of what the Australian Men’s Rights activists get up to in their a ‘war against oppression by women” .

You won’t find them raising money and setting up domestic violence shelters for all the supposed male victims.
You won’t find them raising money and making the effort to try and stop the forced recruitment of boy soldiers in Africa.
You won’t find them campaign for the health and welfare of aboriginal men.
You won’t find them at a soup kitchen offering food and support for homeless men. 
You won’t find them helping to set up support networks for returned soldiers or emergency services with PTSD.
You won’t find them out their actively raising money for prostate cancer research.
You won’t find them actively encouraging the use of condoms to protect men’s health.

But god forbid a few chicks want to go on a girly holiday and they are OUTRAGED enough to go to the human rights commission on that one. Yes Siree.

Saddened says:

10:30am | 18/11/09

What about the tour groups that market gay men only? Isn’t this the same thing? Who cares if there are women only tour groups or gay men tour groups? This is just getting silly.

AdamC says:

10:40am | 18/11/09

Yet again, we have ‘human rights’ being invoked to actually reduce someone’s freedom. Good to see that Victoria’s rights charter is protecting our rights, indeed, the most important right of all – being told arbitrarily what we can and can’t do!

This isn’t a battle of the sexes issue, it’s an issue of creeping totalitarianism. Why are we so sanguine about giving the state ever more control over the most personal and, in this case, trivial aspects of our lives?

AFR says:

10:41am | 18/11/09

Eric, most people want to know why you hate women so much? You’re embarrassing the rest of us.

Sadhbh says:

10:43am | 18/11/09

I think it’s unfortunate that the law has to be applied in broad brush strokes to be fair, but it does need to be done consistently.

There was a huge fuss in Ireland, when I was growing up, over men-only golf clubs. People argued that it wasn’t doing any harm - as Tory does here - but lots of business deals etc were made on golf courses and connections in the club, and by excluding women from golf, you removed their chance to take part in networking.

I’d rather have a right to equal social, political and legal rights, and a system to ensure that it’s enforced, than women-only travel agencies and gyms.

hoofman says:

10:48am | 18/11/09

I don’t ‘hate equality’, Eric. My point is that I and others like me already have a pretty good deal. If you feel that you don’t, I suspect that’s just you and your feelings/attitude that need some adjustment. Who cares if a group of men-only or women-only want to go on a holiday somewhere? At least it’s not compulsory to join them.

I also agree with what Max at 10:25 said. What, apart from splashing some of your bile around here, do you do to improve the lot of others, assuming they need your assistance?

G says:

10:48am | 18/11/09

Your comment:Tory,

Personally, I couldn’t care less if there are ‘women only’ groups or organisations, however.

I will say though, if this was a male only tour group and a woman wanted to join and she could not, then there would be a furore.  So it’s the hypocrisy I don’t like. 

We can all agree in strict terms it is discriminatory (minor as it is), but you can’t have equality when it suits, and always on your terms. 

The principles of equality need to be consistent across the board no matter who it is, man, woman, gay, white, black.

Tim says:

10:49am | 18/11/09

Feminists can reap what they sow.
Or are some people more equal than others?

casey says:

10:52am | 18/11/09

Eric, did just compare racism with women’s safety? If you’re sick of hearing about sexual and physical abuse cases against women on vacation, this is definitely a good solution. It’s not a ruling that women and men ought to travel separately, this is merely the option for it.

I have no interest in using a womens-only travel service, and I am quite comfortable in going on a mixed tour (except for the fact that I hate tours, which is muchly beside the point). However, I am sympathetic to those other women who do not share my comfort zones.

If it does not effect men, there really isn’t any problem. I can hardly imagine a situation where by a bloke rocks up to a womens-only travel centre to sign up to a vacation. No, really. Why would you want to be confined to typical women behaviour anyway? Bitchiness; cattiness; the completely irrational insistance that make-up be applied before going to the beach. If you’re only willing to put up with it to maybe get some, then you’ve just identified the reason for this idea being so valid and required.

Budz says:

11:03am | 18/11/09

What if a flaming gay guy wanted to travel only with women because he felt threatened travelling with hetro men?

SR says:

11:10am | 18/11/09

If a business wants to operate it should not be permitted to provide all its services to a specific sex, race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation etc alone. However it should be permitted to offer options to specific a race, sex, religion, nationality or sexual orientation. Simple as that!

tina says:

11:24am | 18/11/09

Budz, there are plenty of gay tours for said gay guy to avail himself of.

tina says:

11:33am | 18/11/09

Max @10.25: Exactly.

Caitlin says:

11:46am | 18/11/09

This reminds me of a resort set up in WA a few years ago. It was marketed as an adults only retreat (no kids allowed) and when some woman got wind of it she got offended because she would not be able to take her daughter there (even though she was never planning on going). All this because she believed it infringed her daughters human rights; so she took it to the courts and the business was closed down. Now at the time it really seemed unnecessary just because of this one woman took offence that the owners should suffer financially. When tours like contiki are offering holidays to specific ages why is it such a human rights violation to only cater for one sex? I think you’re spot on Tory on the fact that most men wouldn’t give a hoot about not being able to use this travel agent and I’m sure if it was reversed there would be a few feminists up in arms about the inequality of it but in general the majority of us couldn’t care less. Maybe this woman should set up both a male and female travel agent

john,tlc says:

11:55am | 18/11/09

Eric, what the bloody hell is wrong with you, you should be happy that ladies want to go on holidays by themselves.Sometimes I go with my friends without my partner and when I come back our relationship is stronger and the sex is better after few days of missing her. Also there is need sometimes for man and woman to be in their on company.
I am not suggesting that all the time they should go separate only a each person know what they need.Guys and girls do what you like as long as you respect each other and don’t do anything stupid that you might regret later.To impose a law and courts in it shows only how childish we are, and as a adults still can not live without supervision.
I suggest to Eric to go home to mama and have a good cry, if your mama is back from her holiday.

Richard says:

11:58am | 18/11/09

Simply from experience, Tory.  The usual thing is that a great fuss is made of women only cases, as though women were a “minority group” which needs protection, while “men only” of any kind usually attracts abuse.  Frankly, I couldn’t care less about either.  I wouldn’t bother with anything which left all women out,  but don’t care if others do, as long as its not something which affects fundamental rights, like employment, accommodation etc.  If I’m wrong, Tory, I apologise.

Tim says:

11:58am | 18/11/09

@Max,
what i think you don’t get is that the Men complaining don’t actually care. They want things to go back the way they were, when you could have a single sex club, company or group. Why then would they want to do any of the things you said?
If we’re all equal now, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

GM says:

12:00pm | 18/11/09

I totally believe in equality, I think we should all be equal but not to the extent we make it worse in a different way. We have men’s clubs, women’s clubs, gay clubs and all that is fine. Except when a woman feels aggrieved then its ‘an old boys only club of a bygone age and should be eradicated in this day and age’ buts its okay for women to have women only clubs and if men complain they are to be laughed and ridiculed. Equality is just that equality. A business or organisation should be allowed to market to whomever they feel they can cater (and maintain their business) for. We must except we are all equal and whatever comes out of that should be allowed - discussed - but allowed. If true discrimination then occurs its a court matter and to be treated as such.

DG says:

12:01pm | 18/11/09

Sadly, and I do this reluctantly, I agree with Eric.

Either it is appropriate to discriminate on gender or it’s not - and if gender, why not race, religion or sexuality?

Having said that I have no problem with a group getting together some friends and having a girls night out, or the boys having a night out. But when it comes to a facility that only offers its services to one gender I have a problem*. Whether it be men’s clubs that exclude women or vice versa, or clubs that exclude hetrosexual individuals (as some clubs have proposed). Either segregation is acceptable or it is not. I argue that it is not.

A smarter option would be to only advertise in places that are ‘female’ in nature - i.e women’s magazines and to follow the precedent that they have done - create a product that include things that are likely to include things of interest to women, but not generally of interest to men. I can’t imagine that many men would want to go buy into a holiday package that included daily facials/massages and the likes. Without discriminating you have managed to create a product that men are unlikely to attend.

Now if it is an issue of safety (rather than one of comfort), why not employ security to ensure safety? Surely that would resolve the issue quite well.

Now if it’s a comfort issue - separation on gender is no different to having “White Only” water fountains on the street, white only schools or any of the other methods that the whites kept the “coloured” people segregated. It perpetuates the gender divide for no reason other than ‘fear’. Security on the tours should appease that fear, and hence the problem is solved.

As an Aboriginal man I certainly wouldn’t he happy if a facility opened up that offered it’s services to non-aboriginals on the basis that the whites were more comfortable without the Aborigines around. I find it no less offensive to be excluded because of my biology than because of my genealogy.

In conclusion, I agree with Judge Marilyn Harbison, convenience and practicality are NOT grounds for discrimination. A person should not be able to deny any person the opportunity to use their services because of some arbitrary barrier such as sex, race, or a disability because it would be convenient. We, as a community, have decided against segregation. To make such a decision would allow individual service providers to have “White only” seating on busses… that truly would be heading back in time - Rosa Parks would be rolling in her grave.

* whether it be a counselling service that is only available to men, or a medical center that is only available to women.

Julia says:

12:19pm | 18/11/09

This group started out as a woman who wanted to teach other women to surf. She actually wanted to create a supportive environment to learn a sport which can be a bit embarrassing.

At the very least, if you don’t own a wetsuit and your bikini comes acropper, you want to be around people who won’t stare at you.

So what started out as a good idea, a bit of information sharing or teaching other women a new skill, has grown into a business for her. That’s great, but now she has to work to the same rules as the rest of the business community.

G says:

12:37pm | 18/11/09

@ DG, very eloquently put.  It either is equality or it isn’t, there is no room for a grey area.

@ Tory, I think the commenter’s have it.

You surely must agree that equality has to be consistent.  Even though you consider this a insignificant issue.  The point is if you allow a small amount of leeway to one group to discriminate, then you open the gates to other discriminatory activities.

Margaret Gray says:

12:45pm | 18/11/09

I love the fact that I get cheaper car insurance.

Is that discrimination?

Dan says:

12:47pm | 18/11/09

Is there any evidence to suggest women are safer on tours without men ?  If there is, I think they have case. Otherwise we shouldn’t create laws based on hypothetical possabilities. Next they will want non-muslim tours incase one of them is a terrorist.

John A Neve says:

12:58pm | 18/11/09

I hate to admit it, but I still fail to understand how male or female clubs etc, contravene equality legistlation?

I see men and women as equals, but we should be able to mix with who we like, when we like and how we like. If he or she wants to go on holiday on their own, why not? If they want to go with a girl friend, why not? If he wants a night with the boys, why not?

This court’s decision is not good.

Greg says:

12:58pm | 18/11/09

The decision is trash.. but this is equality at work.. blame feminists.

AdamC says:

01:18pm | 18/11/09

I disagree with DG. There is nothing wrong with people discriminating, as such. Where discrimination is a problem is where, one, it results in either segregation along ethnic, religious, gender, etc lines or, two, where particular people have a materially lower access to services or opportunities and thus a reduced standard of living as a result of discrimination.

This women-only travel agency business does not do either of these bad things. Nor do men’s only clubs or ladies only gyms. Legal sanctions and rules should be employed only where there is a public interest to be served in doing so. In this case, the outcome has clearly been oppressive and ridiculous.

T.Chong says:

01:32pm | 18/11/09

Max: arent you being a touch absurd? Which “Mens Rights activists” are you refering to? are you saying all men never do anything ultristic while all women are all caring, all sharing all the time?
That type of bigotry was to be found 1980s-90s at our Ivy unis. in Feminism 101
There are plenty of men who care and share, and there are plenty of women who are absolute selfish pig prats. (not you or anyone you associate with, of course)
PS How many evil bludging blokes will be assisting with the varios volunteer bush fire brigades today?  How many eligible women?

DG says:

01:32pm | 18/11/09

@Margaret Gray (12:45pm | 18/11/09)

I would suggest that it is not discrimination because it is based on “justifiable” risk factors, linked to the number of accidents with people having the relevant risk factors, rather than only being available to one gender or the other.

Strange side note: I wonder if glasses/contact lenses are a risk factor?

@John A Neve (12:58pm | 18/11/09)

What is the difference between the Male/Female clubs and the “Coloured only” drinking fountains or “White Only” seats on the bus?

I would argue that there is no difference.

No one is saying that women can’t get together an go on holiday together. What is being said is that a business should not be permitted to deny any person the opportunity to use their services because of some arbitrary barrier such as sex, race, or a disability.

No matter how eloquently it is proposed - the division of society on the grounds of gender is segregation.

But it does get messy:

What if a company decides to offer:
(a) a free holiday to ______, with your $1500 pap smear.
or
(b) a free holiday to ______, with your $1500 prostate exam.

What if the same company offers both, but the trips are to different locations or the same location but at different times?

Lisa says:

01:39pm | 18/11/09

I’ve never understood why social groups should be forced open to both genders, as having a mix of the genders encourages a completely different dynamic. Men should be able to congregate freely in men-only groups, and women should be able to congregate in female-only groups. It is authoritarian to prevent single social gender groups!

Helen says:

01:45pm | 18/11/09

*Gets out Eric Bingo card: tick, tick…*

Matt R says:

01:58pm | 18/11/09

The fact that women want to go on women-only tours is probably more a reflection of how much they enjoy spending time with their men anyway.  If my wife felt the need to take a trip without me, then I’d have to take a look at myself, rather than jump up and down about the fact that someone offered her the opportunity to go away without me.  And as for all the single ladies going on these holidays, why would you want to go on a holiday with a bunch of men you don’t know…I might be cynical but what are those guys really there for anyway - engaging conversation?

John A Neve says:

01:59pm | 18/11/09

DG @ 1332hrs.

In answer to your questions:  Mens or womens clubs are to the best of my knowledge not racialy specific.
As to coloured water fountains, I and many of my friends drink coloured water most nights after work and yes, there are women there.

DG says:

02:03pm | 18/11/09

@AdamC (01:18pm | 18/11/09)

To address your two prong plan:

“it results in either segregation along ethnic, religious, gender, etc lines “

That’s exactly what this organisation proposes to do. They propose to segregate the community along gender lines. Only those of the appropriate gender are welcomed as clients. The others are excluded. Simply it segregates the community and treats each side differently. That’s what segregation is. Mens Clubs, Ladies Gyms and the like define the world in “Us” and “Them” terms, based on gender.  Were it not for the my understanding that religious schools allow students that are not of the faith, I would include them in the same list.

“where particular people have a materially lower access to services or opportunities and thus a reduced standard of living as a result of discrimination”

The bus services in Montgomery were available to both black and white people. Both could use the bus to get from point A to point B, not only they they had other means of getting from point A to point B. Do you propose that this segregation is acceptable?

There were both “White only” and “Coloured"water fountains - does this equality of service justify the segregation of the community? I would argue that it does not. The problem is not only an issue of disadvantage, it is one of division*.

Gender, race, religion or sexuality is not an appropriate manner for segregating our society. When we segregate community on any grounds we create an “Us” and a “Them”. That segregation is the start of discrimination - it is the enemy of a co-operative, inclusive and compassionate society.

*It is part of the human condition that we have sympathy and empathy for “us” in a higher degree than we have the same sentiment towards “them”. This psychological trait is exploited in the Military where troops are trained to think in that segregated manner - us and them - so that they feel no empathy for the enemy as another human being. Throughout history It has gone further than that, the enemy is deprived of all human qualities and referred to as animals or monsters, to enshrine the belief that “they” are the enemy, they are inferior and they are without value - and most importantly - “they” are not the same as “us”. The bigger that division, the more effective the segregation, the less empathy is felt towards “them”.

Razor says:

02:11pm | 18/11/09

If they bring in a Federal Human Rights Act it will only get worse.

thatmosis says:

02:14pm | 18/11/09

Fortunately or unfortunately we ahave been told that discrimination is a bad thing and must be erradicated. Whoopee Doo. For years the feminist movement caused a stink about everything male orientated and got away with it but now the shoes on the other foot its a different matter. What a joke, lets go the whole hog and just have sports, no womens sports or mens sports just sports as that would be non discriminative wouldnt it. Men and womenwould compete as equals in all sporting endeavours. The same goes for womens magazines and mens magazines, just magazines and the list goes on. Just imagine the furore if that was to happen in the name of nondiscrimination and political correctness but thats exactly what should happen. Unfortunately the Feminists etc want their cake and eat it too.

KM says:

02:16pm | 18/11/09

Eric, please surprise us one day by seeing both sides? Honestly… if you really think you’re oppressed, you clearly look no further than you’re backyard.
The whole thing is ridiculous. Sometimes, travelling in mixed company is the best option. Sometimes women & men like having girls or boys trips away (bucks nights/holidays for example??!?) Why shouldn’t a company be able to market towards that? Honestly. this is getting way past ridiculous. I’m so appreciate of my partner & my male friends when I read the comments on this site sometimes!!! thank god.

Tim says:

02:40pm | 18/11/09

@KM your not seeing the whole picture,
This is not about holidays, it is about a business which wants to refuse service to a group of people based on their gender.
Imagine the feminist uproar if a man tried to open a general store in the city that refused service to women.
You either have equality or you don’t, there is no inbetween.

AdamC says:

02:41pm | 18/11/09

DG, perhaps I should have clarified my use of the word segregation. I was referring to institutionalised separation of people based on race or other characteristic, such as the type you cite in the mid (last)-centuy deep south. I believe this is what most people mean when they use the term segregation, rather than referring merely to a particular instance where people are separated. For example, while having male and female toilets necessarily separates the genders while they are using the bathroom, this does not amount to segregation in the sense that I was using it. Nor, indeed, does the women-only travel business we are talking about.

I hope that clears-up what I meant by segregation. And my two prongs regarding discrimination are ‘or’ not ‘and’ ones. That is, even if services and opportunities are equal, that they be segregated is still undesirable and should be prevented. Of course, in real life (such as Montgomery Alabama circa 1955) the two, segregation and reduced living standards for the minority, go hand-in-hand anyway.

SR says:

02:45pm | 18/11/09

@KM “The whole thing is ridiculous”

Negative sexism, racism, ageism is not ridiculous. If you find negative mandatory exclusionism based on a persons sex, race, age, sexuality etc, ok that’s fine, but don’t complain when you find yourself forbidden to be served as a customer because of your sex, race, age, sexuality etc.

I imagine many tanty’s and threats to sue if that should happen!

This case is not about anything other than a “BUSINESS” that refuses to serve people of a specific gender based with the reason being that they don’t want to serve a person because of their gender alone – that’s it.

Lexi says:

02:49pm | 18/11/09

So who else will chuck in to send Eric on the “ladies only” holiday that he desperately wants? Twenty bucks each should get him to Perth at least…

iansand says:

03:14pm | 18/11/09

Men can have holidays.  Women Can have holidays.  At the same places, at the same times.  No discrimination.  So if there is a viable market niche why can a person not fill it? 

If a business managed completely to ban one or the other sex from a place for a period that may amount to real discrimination.  But this ain’t it.  People should be allowed to choose with whom they associate.

jack says:

03:17pm | 18/11/09

what is really wrong with this outcome is that the tribunal was involved in the first place, it is madness that judges make decisions like these, but this is what comes from the human rights industry.

it has bugger-all to do with real human rights, but is merely a method of making judges part of priestly cast with special powers over us lesser beings.

Jan says:

03:22pm | 18/11/09

To make you all happy they should offer service open to all, SPECIALAISING in man, woman, child,girl,boy,gay,strait,white,black,yellow,and in between colour,people with faith and atheist, communist,liberals ,Nazi,KKK,hare Krisha,kindergarten age, smart people and stupid people,vegetarian, meat eaters,seafood lovers,dog lovers,gardeners, teachers, etc only tours.
They would be the most successful travel agent in Australia if not the world.
I will be the first one to go on tour for open minded, good humor and life enjoying people.

DG says:

03:28pm | 18/11/09

AdamC (02:41pm | 18/11/09)

I can understand your point. I agree that there is no harm done by sending women on a trip together - there are regular “Shopping trips” filled with women, not a man in sight, and the world still turns.

However I am unwilling to accept that discrimination on ground of convenience and practicality is appropriate. There should only be one ground for segregation - necessity. 

This is where I think it runs in to trouble. If one were to run a business that exclusively caters to one gender, not because of a policy of discrimination, but because that’s the clientele they attract, good on ‘em. But when private organisations are permitted to flout anti-discrimination laws on the basis of convenience we are on our way to creating that institutionalised segregation.

I appreciate that there is little harm in this business, but I do feel that this is a potentially dangerous situation. If it’s OK to have women only travel services, why not male? Why not while only? why not allow bans on Aborigines or Jews? And if travel services, why not busses, and bus stops, trains and train stations?

It is at this point that things go too far, and while no person is being denied the chance to get from A to B, or to get a haircut or get a job, they are being treated as a separate class of citizen - with their own services and facilities.

Will this one service change the world? No, would 10 such services change the world, probably not. But when you live in a town that has the segregated supermarket, butcher, hardware store and school - you have created a segregated community. It is inevitable that such a segregated community will result in a ‘poor’ side - it has happened again and again around the world (the reasons are rather complex and are related to things such as land ownership and the quality of the relative services).

As I said, I agree that there is little harm by providing a gender specific service, but doing so on the grounds of “convenience and practicality” is a dangerous principle and, at least to me, encourages an “Us” and “Them” view of the world. Were there a a genuine benefit or purpose to such a segregation, I would have little trouble supporting it.

As a side note I have often wondered why we bother with segregated toilets. The basis for segregation seems to be one of divisiveness rather than one of convenience or necessity.  In particular, it is not uncommon for women to complain that the line up for the “ladies” is must longer than that for the “Gents” this inequality could be resolved in one stroke - unisex toilets.

The biggest protest I hear from ladies about this is that they consider the ladies bathroom a “refuge”. From what? I ask awaiting the inevitable reply. “Them”

DG says:

03:41pm | 18/11/09

Jan (03:22pm | 18/11/09)

This years “tour for open minded, good humor and life enjoying people” is going to [Destination censored]. Unfortunately we have clashed with the Closed-minded Lobby annual stand-off (who will be digging their heels in on the beach) and the Politically-Correct tut-too (who will be disapproving of all proposed humour in advance of our arrival).

There are still places available on the packages for “people who read the dictionary for fun” and “people who judge you for using poor grammar” - both are spending two weeks in the departure lounge of Sydney terminal correcting the spelling and typographical errors on the visa applications of incoming tourists.

Best to hurry as places are filling fast.

Kind regards,
DG’s Travel Package Plus

tina says:

03:42pm | 18/11/09

“There should only be one ground for segregation - necessity. ” - DG

Does that mean single sex schools are next on the list? If this woman wants to market her business as female-specific, to cater to only women, that is not harming anyone. There are plenty of surfing tours which are dominated by men. What should be weighed in these cases is benefit / harm. This business, is catering to women only because there is a market and a reason for it. More harm is done by not allowing it. Surfing is a very male dominated sport and women may not feel comfortable learning how to surf with men around. Not allowing it is contributing to exclusion moreso as many women may choose not to learn to surf in a mixed group, whereas men have other avenues than this one specific tour company. Women will excel more when the pressure isn’t there from the male gaze (even if imagined). The same way each gender can excel in different ways in single-sex schools.

T.Chong says:

03:52pm | 18/11/09

I think we’re largely being had by this lady.  She asks for an exemption,gets denied-(her solicitor should have seen the problem of asking to discriminate was nevr going to work under the Discrimination Act(s)), and, many people are discussing this in many other sites.;  FREE PUBLICITY - a small business persons dream come true!!!!!!!
She’ll get business ,and good on her, while grinning like The Cheshire Cat.

tina says:

04:26pm | 18/11/09

DG:

re- unisex toilets. You may not understand this but going into a unisex toilet can be incredibly intimidating for a woman. For example, lady walks into toilet, four men chatting at the sink, all stop to look at said lady, lady runs the f-k away. Especially in pubs where people are drunk and men get rowdy and by the end of the night this becomes an unsafe space. A person should be able to pee in peace.

I’m thinking the same thing makes this woman’s business viable. Having said that, does the ruling mean she can’t market to women specifically or just say that if a dude wants to join in she can’t refuse him? If the latter, I doubt many dudes would want to go on a mostly female tour.

DG says:

04:39pm | 18/11/09

tina (03:42pm | 18/11/09)

“Does that mean single sex schools are next on the list?” Yep. Well, not necessarily next, but they are up there.

If she wants to AIM her business at a female clientele, go for it. When she wants to be able to discriminate - there is, in my mind, a problem. Yes surfing is dominated by males, are you suggesting that women can’t compete? that they are somehow inferior or are you suggesting that they are afraid and embarrassed?

I get the feeling that your policy is ‘protectionist’ rather than simply convenience and practicality. “Women will excel more when the pressure isn’t there from the male gaze (even if imagined)” suggesting that the intention is not one of equality, but to allow women to perform better than they would otherwise.

Perhaps, instead of encouraging discimination, this is a case in which we should be encouraging and educating people that it’s OK to fail at something in front of the other sex or to be seen when you aren’t at your best. Perhaps, rather than perpetuating this division between the genders and hiding them away from the real world, the push should be to increase comfort an understanding - instead of keeping this veil of mystery we could have a world of mutual understanding and respect.

The effect could be two fold - perhaps it can do something to address body image and peer pressure issues (including stress and depression) that appear, from the last week’s articles, to be destroying the lives of young people and at the same time help the delinquent component of the male half of the species (which does exist) can be trained to understand that women are people with lives, hopes and dreams, strengths and weaknesses and the right to go through the day without being harassed.

Perhaps with less segregation and less secrets, we can move forward into a world that really is based on equality rather than an artifical simulation of that world.

Maree says:

05:00pm | 18/11/09

I’ll pitch in for that Lexi Maybe Eric will meet a nice lady on the trip and not be such an angry little man anymore…

Chase Stevens says:

05:09pm | 18/11/09

If not many men are going to be interested then there will be no problem.
She should just promote the tour towards the demographic she wants.

Like everybody else that does business.

Discrimination for any non-justifiable reason (How do I define justifiable? Well if someone is incompetent or it endangers someone then that’s obviously justifiable) is something that shouldn’t be tolerated in today’s society really.

Then again people should have the choice with whom they associate. You have to find the balance between liberty and equality.

julia says:

05:10pm | 18/11/09

@ Margaret Gray - yes it’s discrimination. The only industry allowed to do it with their products. It’s just a pity the feds won’t introduce it to health insurance. Might encourage people to make better lifestyle choices

davido says:

06:10pm | 18/11/09

Amazing how some people think only they deserve equality.

Eric says:

06:47pm | 18/11/09

This issue illustrates the reason I despise feminism. It’s all a big lie.

Feminists claim they are for equality, but they are not. They are only against discrimination if it is against women. They actively discriminate against men themselves.

Just look at all the wailing and gnashing of teeth when the principle of equality is applied to a business that discriminates against men! Feminists are hypocrites of the worst kind.

iansand says:

07:21pm | 18/11/09

DG - You have to look at means and ends.  Men cannot travel on her tours, but they can go to exactly the same places at exactly the same time.  It is only discrimination if they are excluded from the place and time.  They can get to the place - the end - using a different agency - the means.

Any discrimination is invented.  I can always choose to whom I sell for whatever reason I want.

DG says:

11:00pm | 18/11/09

tina (04:26pm | 18/11/09)

I nearly laughed out loud at that post. In all my years I have NEVER seen 4 guys chatting in the bathroom. If I walked into the bathroom and there were 4 guys in there chatting I would turn and walk out too. Communication in the bathroom should be limited to a nod of the head if someone opens the door for you or you see someone you know - a sigh of relief may be appropriate but should be quiet.

It is a place for the disposal of bodily substances, not a meeting room.

Now the muppets that you are talking about, causing trouble and the likes, are going to be causing trouble any way - whether it be storming into the ladies’ room, waiting for them in the car park or harassing people on the train. These people are, I have no doubt, a problem but this is a matter of policing not of segregation. Having a person on security duty just outside the bathroom door should resolve this issue.

Liz says:

08:36am | 19/11/09

She needs to get smart,offers trips for both with smart advertising that gets round the legislation which is unwieldy.Of course people should have the freedom to be with single sex tours if they want…bet Diane Brimble would wish they’d been available.

Tony says:

03:10pm | 19/11/09

There you go Maree make fun of Eric but don’t address his point especially that made at 9.42 am whereby Ms Maitland says that it is acceptable for some women to say they don’t feel comfortable travelling with men and therfore want women only tours whereas if anyone said that as a white person they would feel more comfortable only with other white people ,and they would like to go on a tour which specifically excludes blacks ,that would be abhorrent

Tell me why the former is less discriminatory than the latter .Why is itr legitimate to attempt to discriminate against white males

Ginger says:

06:02pm | 19/11/09

I think the fact that this has been so heavily commented on reflects that this is not an issue for the “who cares basket”

Sadhbh says:

10:39am | 20/11/09

Eric, I’m a feminist. As you can see from my earlier comment back on the 18th, I agree with what you said. As I said, I’d rather have a right to equal social, political and legal rights, and a system to ensure that it’s enforced, than women-only travel agencies and gyms. As would - I’d hope - anyone with actual feminist principles as opposed to a knowledge of feminism picked up through reading the Herald, Ralph and comments on news.com.

If you are going to tar a whole group with a huge brush and call them hypocrites without actually taking a word of what they say onboard, don’t be surprised when no one takes you seriously. If you want a discourse, stop grinding your axe every chance you get and discuss things.

That said, you are achieving an amazing level of notoriety on here, so if that’s what you are after, congrats.

Luke says:

01:20pm | 20/11/09

More Power to women and honestly good on them Im a male but having witnessed the piggish acts towards women from my own species Im all for this they can have a trip girls only and not have to put up with piggish behvaiour by men 24/7 of the trip

woppadingo says:

02:29pm | 20/11/09

All in favour of women having holidays together, but blocking men from certain package deals is discriminatory.  I am offended by this discrimination and hypocrisy. 
Whilst women are taking mens clubs to court for the right to join,  they are setting up women only gyms and women only vacations. 
The most aggravating thing about it is the hypocrisy, and the acceptance of it by some men, who stand there and call the rest of us neanderthals.

B says:

07:58am | 21/11/09

I think the point is being missed by most people here.  The fact is if this lady is allowed to (theoretically) be exempt from this law because some women feel safer in women-only groups(sorry but too bad), then what is to stop someone from making a non-muslim allowed travel agency?  Same principle.  Some people feel safer not travelling around Muslims.

You women wanted equal rights and opportunities, stop trying to undermine them.  Because you are just alienating young men who think women have way too much power in society these days already.  And guess what?  Young men were one of the main advocates for womens rights, then you alienate them.

Stop with your feminist bull crap and just accept that the EOA applies to WOMEN who want to go around it too.

Good on you VIC for putting these feminist, hypocritical woMEN in there place.

Eric says:

08:32am | 21/11/09

Sabdh, you did not identify yourself as a feminist in your earlier post.

Further, I would consider that you might not be a feminist, because inequality is inherent to feminism. It’s even in the name, FEMINism, a movement for the benefit of women.

In my opinion, feminism and a desire for true equality are mutually exclusive.

Sadhbh says:

01:07pm | 26/11/09

@Eric,
I consider myself to be a feminist, having studied the movement and its history and living the principles I have learned from it. Don’t throw a half-assed semantically-leading defination at me (based on using the word “benefit” as a opposed to say “equality”) and think that proves your point and follow it with a blanket statement based on your own ideas with no proff.  Also, spelling my name correctly would have been a nice touch.

In my opinion, your opinion is wrong.

Helen says:

03:15pm | 26/11/09

*ticks off another square in Eric Bingo card*

Did any of you who are yelling, “Youse feminists have gotten equality and look where it’s got you, huh, HUH?!” have a look at the women-on-boards thread? We haven’t exactly penetrated into the bastions of male prifvilege, have we? Moreover, where’s the outrage about the men-only clubs that survive and thrive here in cities like Melbourne?
Not to mention the single-sex schools - of course, no one here complaining about the single-sex holidays seems to be complaining about them. But then, they reinforce privilege too, don’t they! So there you go.

To your claims of “hypocrisy” I’d note that feminism still has problems to overcome and part of that is-
-The male gaze - ogling, making comparisons, making audible comments on someone’s body shape or desirability;
-Harassment - from low level pest to overt stalking and/or sexual harassment;
-More serious stuff like drink spiking and the rape culture - ref. Diane Trimble, post-Footy season kneesups.

Some sensible women would like to make sure that when on holiday they’re free of these hazards. When men have the same level of problems from women singly or in packs, then single sex anything will be less desirable. But that requires more feminism, not less.

cats says:

05:27pm | 26/11/09

Men - you do not treat us like equals. Stop saying that you do. I agree with what Helen has said. Women still need to overcome the constant sexual harrassment that we get from men. You don’t do that to other men, do you?