In New Mexico, among Latino, Indian and Anglo alike, the norm is multiple households of relatives and in-laws, often on the same rural property that has been owned without lien for generations. Issues like day care, transportation, planning activities, and unforeseen emergencies and setbacks, are all handled within the larger family structure and not considered the realm or the problem of the public sector. Interestingly, everything from public employment to every imaginable form of public assistance are much more widespread than in Oklahoma, and yet the idea that the State has a compelling interest in family life is practically sacrilege.

In SE Asian countries also. "Family" Is a holy word.

There are no state benefits unless you work for the government. Your extended family is your refuge and your strength.

It's a good system in domestic terms but it's bad for western men of single-household mentality, that marry Asian women. They think they're getting a beauty at a bargain price, which they are, but they're also looked upon as a cash cow for the extended family. If you go looking for family values that's what you get. Be careful what you wish for.

Quote from Yan Yan

In SE Asian countries also. "Family" Is a holy word.

There are no state benefits unless you work for the government. Your extended family is your refuge and your strength.

It's a good system in domestic terms but it's bad for western men of single-household mentality, that marry Asian women. They think they're getting a beauty at a bargain price, which they are, but they're also looked upon as a cash cow for the extended family. If you go looking for family values that's what you get. Be careful what you wish for.

Very well put as always.

Curiously, my own position in all this is that I grew up single-household and hardly know any better. Those imprints are very deep, and I have nothing like the tolerance for always having a house full of people and never being alone that extended family requires, plus my own family is very much a diaspora of single households all over the US while my daughter's maternal family is much more regional, active and networked. But, two things: 1) the activity and networking are still basically adjunct to the single household model, and much of it consists of gossip and meddling and sustaining feuds, and very little of it goes to getting anything done as a family, and 2) because of the work/income/provider mindset defining men's mandatory role, I have little status in her maternal family other than as uninvited guest and insignificant curiosity.

And, I am shamelessly a sociopathic, iconoclastic outsider and loner and have been all my life (all except the shameless part. That I had to learn and earn). My argument about fatherhood has always been that nothing about those qualities in me disqualifies me as a parent if I do not impose them on my children.

I see civilized life as a thing I am willing to live on the frontier of, and as Bob Seger put it:

"I can go East

I can go West

It's all up to me

To decide."

Arrogant? maybe. But what goes on in town looks pretty damn threatening to me, and it seems I am seen as that to it.

It's practically a cliche, the whole pattern of young couples "getting back to the land" to escape the burbs, and then divorcing soon after the kids start school because Her Majesty wanted town stuff back, and His Marginality didn't.

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

Looking over this post I realize I have strayed from the topic. What it looks like to me is happening in Birmingham is very much like the situation in New Mexico and across the Soutwest US: an extended family cultural setting simply overwhelms an environment not designed to absorb it, and looks to remake institutions and take full advantage of their offerings according to its own values. I oppose this in theory, but it is also a historic process. Longer-term local populations leave themselves essentially defenseless against these encroachments by having fewer children and sending them off to careers and distant real estate opportunities, and when more family-centered and more reproductively prolific peoples come in to the vacuum this leaves, by weight of numbers they expect to have it their own way.

The situation in Birmingham illustrates how anthropological and demographic issues inflame passions and invite politics simply by being what they are.

Quote from Dylan MacVillain

Who built the center? The gubment or the Muslim community? Private organizations can do whatever they want, but they should still be shamed and boycotted for inappropriate things.

Private organisations in most western nations can NOT do whatever they want. Quite apart from the multitude of safety, employment, insurance, etc. laws, they are usually covered by non-discrimination laws, too.

In the UK, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 outlawed discrimination based on sex. The law was to have only covered women but a small group of Lords managed to get an amendment into the Act so that it covered men almost as equally. The Equality Act 2010 covers the issue much better but the relevant sections, that would replace the 1975 Act, have not yet been enacted as far as I can tell.

If Kids Go Wild doesn't change its tune soon, I would hope to see a public prosecution under the Act. (The majority of sex discrimination prosecutions lately are apparently to provide equality for men.)

Sex Discrimination Act 1975:

2 Sex discrimination against men.
(1) Section 1, and the provisions of Parts II and III relating to sex discrimination against women, are to be read as applying equally to the treatment of men, and for that purpose shall have effect with such modifications as are requisite.

...

Part III
29 Discrimination in provision of goods, facilities or services.
(1) It is unlawful for any person concerned with the provision (for payment or not) of goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public to discriminate against a woman who seeks to obtain or use those goods, facilities or services—
(a) by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide her with any of them, or
(b) by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide her with goods, facilities or services of the like quality, in the like manner and on the like terms as are normal in his case in relation to male members of the public or (where she belongs to a section of the public) to male members of that section.

Kids Go Wild | About Us

Kids go wild is what you’ve all been waiting for, the UK’s first ladies and children’s only soft play centre!

Clearly it is not what we have 'all' been waiting for! Indeed, since most children like to have Dad involved and all Dads along with some proportion of Mums won't like the idea of banning men and older boys, I would think that this group is trying to cater to a minority of misandric women.

Quote from dinohip51

Let's work this perceptions thing. Okay, a man goes to the park or finds a play facility that serve his kind, or takes part in daytime school activities.
In the eyes of the legions of women surrounding him, he is (tell me if I miss anything):

- a creep

- a loser

- probably abusing his kids

- not welcome in parent chat

- probably on welfare

- exploiting some woman, somewhere, somehow, he must be

- talked about behind his back, and as we have seen, ruled against at times for his gender

- tolerated with fake etiquette until further notice

Yep, pretty much it.

Just like, if a man is out of work, he is a useless layabout at home. If a woman is, nobody cares. Equality eh!

I propose you pose the following question near feminists/manginas when you sense tension:

"Don't they say being a full time mother is the hardest job in the world? That's why I decided to be a full time parent, do the hardest job in the household and let my lady have the career she's always wanted."

Not only are you seen to be empowering women and acknowledging feminists POV, you may be able to gain acceptance. That way, you can integrate and at least provide a good friend network for your kid.

Either that, or go on the attack and wish cancer upon them all. Then they will probably try making fake child abuse reports once they have an axe to grind.

Added after 17 minutes:

Quote from Douglas

It's not only the Dads that are being banned. Only girls have full access: boys have to be under ten to be allowed.
Fathers are banned by play centre's women-only decree | Mail Online

I thought according to Harriet Harman and other shrill feminists, that all males are rapists and as soon as a boy learns to talk, he'll rape you?

Surprised that they don't lock all the little boys in cages and prod them with sticks calling them rapists because they see Thomas The Tank Engine like Freud did. Might as well start indoctrinating them now so they get used to it.

It remains to be seen whether the so-called 'Equality and Human Rights Commission' will take action against these man-haters.[/QUOTE]

It remains to be seen whether the so-called 'Equality and Human Rights Commission' will take action against these man-haters.


when the new gals ( collectivists that sit down to pee) talk about equality and human rights, equality = unearned advantage and superiority ; human rights ! waaaal they only regard themselves as human- men are chauvinistic pigs by the pernicious feminit ideology they order their and our lives by

Quote from wh666

Yep, pretty much it.

Just like, if a man is out of work, he is a useless layabout at home. If a woman is, nobody cares. Equality eh!

I propose you pose the following question near feminists/manginas when you sense tension:

"Don't they say being a full time mother is the hardest job in the world? That's why I decided to be a full time parent, do the hardest job in the household and let my lady have the career she's always wanted."

Not only are you seen to be empowering women and acknowledging feminists POV, you may be able to gain acceptance. That way, you can integrate and at least provide a good friend network for your kid.

Either that, or go on the attack and wish cancer upon them all. Then they will probably try making fake child abuse reports once they have an axe to grind.

Added after 17 minutes:



I thought according to Harriet Harman and other shrill feminists, that all males are rapists and as soon as a boy learns to talk, he'll rape you?

Surprised that they don't lock all the little boys in cages and prod them with sticks calling them rapists because they see Thomas The Tank Engine like Freud did. Might as well start indoctrinating them now so they get used to it.

Excellent points all, and since this entire discussion is about the needs of children, or should be, I can add another point to the list:

- his children almost always are left to play alone, and the mothers will actually take the other children away from them

And regarding doing the hardest job in the world in hopes that it will make a difference?

I have, it isn't, and it doesn't.

Just voted...

Honestly, this is just more stupidity at it's finest. This is a play center, not a religious building...I don't see the problem for the majority of women, and surely any Muslim father who is going to take his child here will realize that a woman being completely covered makes it more difficult to play with her children. I think the center tried to be PC and went overboard.

Quote from Traveler

Just voted...

Honestly, this is just more stupidity at it's finest. This is a play center, not a religious building...I don't see the problem for the majority of women, and surely any Muslim father who is going to take his child here will realize that a woman being completely covered makes it more difficult to play with her children. I think the center tried to be PC and went overboard.

This is a new and unpredicted example of the oozing, tentacular nature of feminism. There is no guiding ideal or altruism behind feminism, it is a self-generating and self-reproducing set of correct ideograms that people use because they do not feel their careers and relationships will be safe if they do not.

Here is a small-time administrator trying to do value judgments that are clearly just out of her league.
But, I'll see if I can chart the process here.


Women/girls: Good, good, good. Always good.

Exceptions: Inappropriate query

Children: Made by and for women's fulfillment. Good

Exception: Boys (bad, but under ten more like girls, so, less bad if no men present)

Men: Bad

Exception: Fathers, until women point at and say "BAD"

Job: Good. Pays bills, helps career

Exception: some of the moms (good) are unhappy about the men (mostly bad) and boys (if men present, definitely bad)

Law: Good, protects home, safe roads, etc

Exception: laws protecting men (see above) equally with women (see above), definitely BAD

Islam: Bad. oppresses women. bad, bad, bad

Exception: Islamic women. oppressed/victims, must be good

Decision-making: Unknown prior, looks/feels bad

Exception: Let Islamic women (oppressed, good) tell how to do job (favors women, good) at expense of men (bad) and older boys (bad)

Attention: Bad, not getting enough of it

Exception: things that win approval (good) from women (good)

Job duties: babysitter with desk and keys. Easy, so Good. Double Good Good

Exception: reacting to feelings about men (bad) and boys (bad)

Common knowledge: Men bad, women good

Exception: Inappropriate query

Resolution: Ban men, older boys (bad, bad), pander to feminists (good) and Islamic women (kinda good), ignore law (bad), get attention (Triple Triple Good Good)


See how easy it is to wave away half the human race?


It's painful seeing how some folks' minds work.

Quote from felixblue

I have got used to looking at headlines and expecting contextual discrepancies from what is being "suggested".. Id say its just shit stirring for the sake of it.. If they want women only, whine hot? Its a cultural thing. I would say men should have the right to men only kid play too.. Whine hot?

Well, the cultural argument is a dispelling tactic used by the feminist/leftist brigade to impose their own disjointed worldview without conducting a democratic vote.

I remember during the last World Cup, liberal councillors across the UK, took it upon themselves to be offended on behalf of the immigrant population, because the St Georges flag was flown by taxi drivers in Leicester and summarily banned it. It turns out many of these drivers were actually Muslim, attempting to integrate into the festivities. The 'outrage' didn't originate from them!

It's the same old story, white middle-classed ideological women arrogantly seeking to speak on behalf of all women and minorities to push an agenda! The twisted irony is that the less discerning element of the population will use this as fuel for immigrant animosity and violence, where it isn't deserved.

Also, a Christian bed and breakfast owners refused to accommodate an openly gay couple into their private home, yet still they were prosecuted in the courts? Why should this play centre escape the same legal scrutiny, particularly if they are funded by taxpayers in any way?

Here's my response in a Daily Mail thread which, men and women, overwhelmingly opposed the banning:

Fathers are banned by play centre's women-only decree | Mail Online


This is misandry as much as it is sexism. This apartheid-esque policy has been adopted from radical feminists in domestic violence shelters, where surprise surprise: men and boys over the age of nine are also banned. If this intolerance goes uncontested, it will become a template for bigots to discriminate against males up and down the country. There already exists women only days/spaces in public swimming pools/libraries/sports centres, and even fathers with children are often confronted or arrested by police in parks and play areas, solely because they are male, such is the anti-male hysteria. The acid test here, is that undeniably it wouldn't be acceptable to impose the same injustice on females, therefore a double-standard must not be allowed to exist in an age of 'supposed' equality. I would urge the fathers to unite and protest the centre. If the discriminatory policy isn't withdrawn forthwith, then these fathers should remove their children and place them elsewhere.

Personally, I'd like to see a number of facts relevant to the story brought into the light:


Who is/are the person/people who opened the facility only recently, then changed their gender policy as a reaction to local conditions?

Didn't they know anything about the community's demographics before opening, or being granted a license, or acquiring financing? Wouldn't revenue projections be based on that information, and possibly creditworthiness as well?

What are the specific duties of the management representative that issued the decision to ban males?

Do the charter, or license, or franchise owner, or public funding source, or any other party to the business's existence, grant the authority to the person in that position to make policy changes of this nature while in operation? (I'm not talking about the equality laws here, but whether the person who made the new rule had the vested authority to be the one to do so)

On whose property is the facility, and what position on or involvement in the Centre's operations does the owner maintain, if any?

As the facility is new to the community and the need for child care presumably is not, what other resources may be in the area, and what is the story regarding women and men under one roof (under supervision, of course) in any other similar facility?

And the Celt makes a good point about this action being a stencil of the refuge setting. To what extent is a perceived need on the part of women and girls to have refuge from male company the guiding principle here? By the manager's own words, she as much as says that's the whole point. What corroborates that?


Prior to assigning myself the role of online media analyst, I had been under the impression that journalism was a presentation of relevant, corroborated facts, credibly obtained, and presented to an audience as an information source. I suppose that was naive of me.




And, an overlooked point by all parties including the Centre itself:

Has anyone seen what a nine-year-old boy without his Da around is capable of, in a room full of girls and women?

...have fun with that one while you enjoy the limelight, ladies.

Context is indeed everything. And this is a piece of sensationalist journojunkalism in my opinion.

Father 'play centre ban' probe in Birmingham

The Kids Go Wild soft play centre opened in June
Continue reading the main storyRelated Stories

• Homes closure consultation begins
• Race 'issue' in stop and searches
• Male boards 'recruit other men'

An equality watchdog is looking into claims a Birmingham play centre is excluding men.
Kids Go Wild on Fernley Road, in Sparkhill, advertises itself as "the UK's first ladies and children's only soft play centre".
The centre, which opened in June, said boys were allowed only up to age nine.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission said it was looking to contact the centre and find out the reasons for the policy.
In a statement, the watchdog said: "The Equality Act does allow for services to be just for women or men only, but this is the exception not the norm and must pass a strict test to be justifiable."
It added that all organisations were advised to seek legal advice before excluding any group.
Councillor Mohammed Fazel, who represents the Springfield ward where the centre is based, said he was surprised men were excluded and that fathers should be able to take their children there as well as mothers.
Managers at the Kids Go Wild play centre were unavailable for comment.

BBC News - Father 'play centre ban' probe in Birmingham

This is but one of the many rejecting men outright.
Have you ever tried to apply for a job as a primary school teacher?, or in a nursery as a qualified nursery nurse as a male?
Just reaching the CV. submission stage is an achievement!

NEVO

I have a reply to my latest Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). I think their replies are lucid without my questions but if anyone wants a copy of my FOI request, I'll post it. They did not directly answer every question but did make a substantive response.

Our Casework and Litigation department wrote to the Kids Go Wild play centre
and had a follow-up meeting at the Commissions Birmingham office with the
owners.

The Commission advised that changes needed to be made to the centre,
therefore at the meeting it was agreed that they would open the centre to
some mixed sessions and monitor this. They later contacted the Commission
advising us of the times they were proposing to open the centre for the mixed
sessions. The Commission were unhappy with their suggested times and we
are currently waiting for them to come back to us with revised times.

We are continuing to work with Kids go Wild on a satisfactory resolution to
this matter. If the matter is not resolved the issue will be discussed further at
the Commissions Regulatory Decision Making Pathways Meeting for further
consideration.

So, things are plodding ahead with inevitable bureaucratic slowness and if we keep our eyes on this situation, we should see some decent changes. The law does not prevent any organisation from having sessions which ban one sex or the other so long as such sessions can be justified (what constitutes justification is defined in statute but inevitably will require common law on grey areas). It is possible, if we keep up the media and legal pressure, that any sessions with women-only will have to be balanced by sessions with men-only. Regardless, the campaigning so far is working and I suggest we await the outcome of the EHRC activities before pressing for more 'equality.'