Whole article is here.

First, notice, that yet again, it's all about women. Anyway, can someone please explain to me, just what the hell do they mean by this:

How can you "not prevent people from setting up clubs exclusively for one gender" when you intend to "force men's clubs to give full access rights to women"???

With articles such as this I really don't know - is it the author who selected the most weird and incompatible sentences and put them together in the worst way possible, or are ministers really saying such so obviously contradictory things? Not that I would be surprised, of course, but still.

having only recent awoken, I haven't read the article in full. However, judging by the quotes you've highlighted, it sure seems like a case of double speak.

I wonder what they would make of female-only shops, districts, trains, identified by a no-males sign in Japan? Or the Marriot Hotel in Michegan having "women only floors", totally unopposed by Government and civil rights groups there? Or a piece in the Style Magazine of the Sunday Times entitled "Women-Only" which referred to the "growing wave of women-only gatherings — from social clubs and networking groups to e-groups and festivals"?

I know what they would make of it: Nothing. Why? 1. The Woman's Constant. 2. Feminist Double Standards.

Remember, in the West: always allow Female-Only Sisterhood, but always prevent any opportunity for Male-Only Brotherhood.

I'm not sure what to think of this. On one hand, I think that "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a business owner's right. But on the other hand, that opens the door for a lot of unfair discrimination. I don't know how a "golf club" works but as I understand it, women are restricted access to the course. It would be silly and inefficient to have to build another course so the women can have one of their own. I see there is a double standard and whatever policies the community decides on about discrimination should apply to both sexes equally. But I don't understand why the sexes want to segregate themselves so much in the first place. :shrugs:

Is it similarly "silly and inefficient" for men to have to build much more widely used and expensive public services such as trains and buses? You mentioned golf clubs: for one thing very few golf clubs operate a male-only policy and many in fact have a "Ladies Day" which gives privilages to female users of the club. What is your position on female-only sessions or indeed general policies at swimming pools? Or female-only gyms? Most women don't seem to have any problem with either of those, even though it's basically the exact same principle as the golf club scenario: leisure facilities being offered or orientated to one sex over the other.

To quote Kumogakure's Blog (I gave the wrong link above) who was quoting an article in the Scotsman:

[quote]AT THE time, most people agreed it seemed a good idea: carriages on Japanese commuter trains set aside specifically for females would dramatically reduce the number of women being molested by the chikan who get their kicks by having a sly fondle among the tightly packed bodies. And it worked.

The idea was so effective that it was quickly adopted by numerous train companies across the country, with pink signs adorning certain carriages warning men to keep their distance.

What is less welcome, however, is the sudden embracing of an entire male-free environment by whole sectors of the Japanese service industry.

It has become so common to see "no males" signs outside stores, restaurants, hotels, spas and even entertainment outlets that the victims of this policy are beginning to grumble that they are becoming second-class citizens.

"I completely supported the whole thing with women-only train carriages, even though it made my commute more difficult because there always seemed to be room in those carriages while us men were squeezed together tighter than ever," one Tokyo businessman said.

"But now it's just getting silly. I couldn't even get into my gym at my regular time last week because they have introduced a 'women-only' hour in the early evening."
Responding to a survey in the weekly news magazine Aera, 55 per cent of men said matters have gone too far. Perhaps surprisingly, 40 per cent of women agreed, saying the complete exclusion of men amounts to sex discrimination.

Men turning up at restaurants are being turned away because the women-only lunch special is on the menu, while convenience stores, cinemas and even pachinko parlours - the pinball gambling game that is the staple for the weary workers - are out of bounds for the boys, either permanently or for parts of the day.

"All these other establishments are simply jumping on the women-only bandwagon because they see an economic opportunity in it," says Toshiko Marks, a professor of multicultural understanding at Shumei University.

"It's well-known that single women today have a lot of money, so companies are exploiting that. Men are definitely starting to complain."

One Japanese resident commented, partly in response to a mangina who denied the existence of this anti-male development:

This goes way beyond leisure facilities and "golf clubs", myce.

Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile.. That's the way it is with women. As my Don't Get Married Board sig says:

The biggest mistake men ever made was to assume women would use power fairly once they had relinquished it to them.

MRN I also wrote this: and NO discrimination in public facilities.

But this stuff you are telling me about is frightening. It conjures images of "Whites Only" signs and burning crosses and sinister white hoods. This has to stop or next there will be lynching in the street. Anti-discrimination must trump business owners rights.

Welcome aboard the jolly ship of the awakened few!

Many times the analogy you perceive above is precisely what others are perceiving too - self included. How long before seperate drinking fountains, so as we lowly men may not offend the superior ones by contaminating theirs.

Yeah as Robert Rebadow has pointed out:

This is again all for women.

Yet they force men's clubs to give full access rights to women. In other words they only forcefully open up men's clubs for women, BUT they don't forcefully open up women's clubs for men.

Only a female would say that.