Australian Authorities OK Exclusion of Men From Cultural Events

This "cultural event" that went on sounds pretty ridiculous to me, at least the way it was written up. If it is for something significant men should demand equal rights to attend, but for all I care, these women can have their goofy-ass little shit events. Most men would and should be embarassed to attend something such as this.
-Axolotl

It's the principle of the thing. It starts with small things and eventually gets to the point where you are not allowed outside. Just ask women in sharia-law-controlled countries in the Midle East, and now, ask men in Australia when they wanted to go to a certain public place at a certain time, they weren't allowed to - for no other reason than that they were men. Same goes for men in Japan who are not allowed on female-only trains, men in Britain who are refused a room at a hotel when they have empty rooms because the rooms are on female-only floors, or men in Germany who are not allowed into certain women-only banks, or men who can't go to certain gymnasiums right here in America for no other reason than that they are men.

It starts small, then gets more and more intrusive. The problem with this event in Australia was that there was absolutely no reason to segragate the sexes or exclude one sex in favor of another. There is no reason for it involving necessity, such as with rest rooms. Public events that are open to all except for some people based on their indellible characteristics is simply a human rights violation, the kind women used to decry. Now, apparently, some are just fine with it. And remember that this little event is no small matter in the religious implications-- unless western people stand up to the impositon even in small amounts of sharia-like rules or principles that create a seriously segregated public community, even within parts of our countries (eg: in London, there is a Sharia Court, and one is being pushed for in Canada - see here) our patriae will be unrecognizable as democracies in 100 years' time.

Okay, let me get this straight, some religious hijab wearing women wanted to get together for a woman only fashion show, and not have men looking at them, because they are so religious and modest, and this is A PROBLEM?

Oh no, men must be allowed everywhere women are, and vice versa? And G-d forbid we have all female or male clubs or gyms?

Come on now people, do you really believe that men and women should never be able to congragate sepatately???

I think the good folks at the New Warrior and the Woman Within might beg to differ as well.

Welcome to the board, brendadenise! I am sure you will be a strong contributor. Get ready to rumble! :)

Actually this is a very interesting issue to me, that is men and women being able to congregate in separate places. If you word it that way, then in general they should be..it is even probably recommended in some cases.
But it does seem to me that whenever men try to do this, no matter what the reason for coming together, they are either prevented from doing so, or else it is demanded that there be a compensating womens [group, event or whatever]. I do know that in the 15 years that I was going to gyms, I never heard of a mens-only gym; even the ones where there was just weightlifting (no aerobics etc.) could not keep women out, by law. Yet there are many womens-only gyms. What I am getting at is that women are more 'protected' on this issue. Another thing that interested me that is related to this, is a case I heard of about a year ago, where a man was sueing a night club, challenging their right to have 'free drinks' for women a couple nights a week, but not for men. When I first heard of it I thought he was pushing the envelope, but then I thought about it later and changed my mind. What I suspect was going on, was that the intention of the free drinks for ladies night is to encourage women to come in, to mix with the men. But what I noticed was often the case in these clubs, during my partying years, is that the women take advantage of this situation and come in little groups of 3-5, then they sit at a corner table all night and talk amongst themselves, get drunk and leave - not only not mixing with any men, but giving dirty looks at any gent who approaches within 10 feet of their table. Of course one might say, "oh, so you should be able to force the women to mix!", to which my response would be, "no, but you don't have to give them free drinks either.".
I do know one thing, that is in places like hospitals and prisons, women have more privacy than men.(not that I have ever been to prison, but my brother and his wife are prison guards in Arizona and they can vouch for this). As far as hospitals, it is okay for a female nurse to come into the room while a male patient is undressing, for example (and I find this very annoying, as it has happened to me before)..but a male nurse, doctor or etc. dare not come into a women's room under the same conditions! The same thing has happened a couple of times, when I have stayed at hotels-the maid walking in without knocking. Just think what would be the result, if the male manager at the Ramada walked into a woman's room at 7 a.m., with her standing there in her underwear..he would soon find himself working at Motel 6. There seem to be a double standard.

Welcome to the board. does anyone have any more input on this issue??
-Axolotl

PS: What is the 'New Warrior'? Is that a lesbian establishment? Believe it or not, in Atlanta there is (or used to be) a place that touted itself as a lesbian club, but men were still allowed in!! (of course not some rednecks who wanted to get involved in some wierd sex or something, but men who the lesbians know and who were benign or themselves gay..i.e. not percieved as a threat by the lesbians). (I know about this place because I have a lesbian cousin, and her daughter told me about it!).
Also I have seen certain small groups of women come into Hooters (yes I used to go there, but only for the food;) ..they try to get picked up by the guys there. Need less to say these women are not 'Tens', maybe they were even lesbians hitting on Hooter waitresses!!

"New Warrior" is what is now called The Mankind Project. "Woman Within" is still called Woman Within. They are affiliated organizations that offer trainings to men (MKP) and women (WW). The trainings are gender-exclusive. I would reply to brendadenise that these are private events done by private organizations, and indeed, when MKP was first introduced (as NW) to the public, it was greeted with a great deal of derision and suspicion. No one said at all that WW was a bad idea because it was woman-only.

In any case, these are not public affairs that are being put on by a large group of people, but small, private gatherings held in private; the other events and institutions referred to in my first reply hold themselves out as public accomodations or services, but for women only. Standard public services such as public transit (think those woman-only subway cars in Japan), banks (Germany), and gyms (all over the place) that are for women only are, as I have said, the beginning of the end of mixed-sex public spaces. Just like the event in Australia, this is utterly contrary to the idea of equality in public life; it's wrong to allow it when practiced vs. women and is just as wrong when practiced vs. men. The difference in this case is geography; in the M.E., women get excluded institutionally from public life. Here in the west, men are beginning to get excluded from public accomodations of one or another kind-- slowly, like water getting warmer and warmer until it's boiling, and too late to stop it or it's past being noticed. Therein lies the danger. Just as with the "ladies' nights" free or half-price drinks phenom you mentioned, it sends a very clear signal to men and women both: boys bad, girls good. It simply continues to propagate misandry and helps foster the continued casual dismissal of men's rights and interests in many contexts.

So if Australians allow things like the woman-only scarf event in Australia to go unchallenged, what's next? Will there be men-only sporting events allowed too, in the name of religious freedom? Then will there be sex-segregated spaces in Australia allowed to exist, again, in the name of religion? There can't be more than one legal system for a country that subjects some to one and the rest ot the other standards. This is utterly contrary to the idea of a republic and uniformity of law: separate is inherently not equal. This is why I said in my first reply that the western world must recognize what is going on here for what it is and stand up against it resolutely and unequivocally. Otherwise a way of life that I daresay no one who frequents this site will be coming into being here in the west and it will be quite intolerable-- but it will be enforced at gunpoint. We have to take the long view and see how this move toward religiousification of public life must not be allowed ot happen; it entails the end of freedom as we know it. Slipping it in sideways with appeals to misandry is definitely one strategy that is in use.

You must be kidding, do they really have women-only subway cars and banks in other countries??? It seems like this would be patently illegal!
I myself wouldn't be concerned that they are doing away with mixed-sex services per se; I am more alarmed that most of these instances violate mens' rights in particular. It also contributes to pitting men and women against each other, as if we need any more of that. That is just my opinion.
-Axolotl

Plenty of 'reasons' for such things offered, all amounting to the same thing: women are being victimized by men and must be protected.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060503_female_subway_cars/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1915/is_200210/ai_n7248217
http://www.answers.com/topic/rail-transport-in-japan (search on "ladies")

http://www.toytowngermany.com/lofi/index.php/t26767.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4400097.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/hotels/2006-08-07-women-hotels_x.htm
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ci=108&ch=travel&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=14036&PHPSESSID=d2e1f398ba87cffa87cef13d048688a2

I could have missed something here, but was the exclusion for just this event, or is it common practice? The way the heading for this thread sounded, you would have thought they'd passed a new law or something.

While I do not think a fashion show is anything to get in a tizzy over, it would have been better handled by not having any exclusions at all and the fashion show's coordinators just calling it a Womens Fashion Show. When events clearly target one group of people it makes sense to open it to all while expecting the targeted audience to come--that is what it is all about, right? Those who are interested attend; those who are not, do not.

I really do not know of any men who would be interested in attending such an event anyway, but indeed take the exclusion out. I am sure the poor husbands who would've been roped into going by their wives could've gotten together and had some fun of their own?