Canadian women's gym gets OK to bar men

The judge's ruling said that the female members would suffer "adverse consequences" if he were allowed to join.

Wonder what these would have been... bearing the unbearable sight of a man? Or the sound of grunting perhaps as he went to lift weights they wouldn't even consider lifting? Would it make them feel "bad" or "uncomfortable" to the point that his own options must be limited?

Why stop there? Hell, let's just do what they are doing in Europe and Japan but let's go hog-wild! Let's have female-only everything with a "separate but equal" set of co-ed facilities for men and women who are "brave enough" to mingle with us: shopping malls, doctors, dentists, hospitals, etc., etc.

Ever been to the gyms inside Loblaws owned stores? They are all women only as far as I have seen in Ontario.

We already have 'women only' just about everything. There are women only doctors, dentists, hospitals etc.

Shopping malls are about 90% women at any given time...

Does anyone notice that whenever there is a case involving a man claiming discrimination, it is always thrown out. Even when you read about the story before the final verdict is in, you know by intuition that he is going to lose?

However, you also know by intuition that when a woman claims discrimination, no matter how sensical the opposing view is, no matter how far off her claims are, she will always win?

I'm not just saying this as a compalaint. I'm really trying to point out the fact that when a man claims discrimination, you KNOW he is going to lose. But when a woman makes a complaint of a similar nature, no matter how far reaching it is, she WILL win.

Rememer that story about the two women cops in the UK claiming discrimination over not getting extra money/incentives (danger pay) for working night shifts -- even though THEY CHOSE TO HAVE A FAMILY THAT WOULD'T ALLOW THEM TO DO SO? They won their case!

There is a case in the UK that has been going on for years. Basically, a woman who has cancer is unable to conceive naturally (because of the sickness). Earlier, while undergoing the early stages of the cancer, while she was in a relationship with a man, they chose to create embryos in a lab -- so that she could possibly have childern of her own one day.

Now, under UK law, she requires the man's consent to implant these embryos in her body so that she can become pregnant. The man, has since withdrawn his consent. Anyways, because te embryos (by law) must be destroyed after 5 years, she is running out of time to become a birth mother. She has been arguing all the way up to the European Court to have the man forced into giving his consent. (She claims that when these embryos were created, she did not read the fine print that said that it was required that the potential father gives his consent). Anyways, her case has been rejected all the way to the European Courts, but the court still gave her the go ahead to appeal the decision for a final time (which she will do).

Now, this is what I mean by intuition. We KNOW that on her very last appeal, the Court will rule in her favour. Despite the fact that the law says otherwise, despite the fact that the embryo is not in her body (therefore giving the man a say for once), despite the fact that all of the lower couts and even the European Court itself ruled against her, she WILL win. That's just the way it is, and we know it.

To learn about this case, google Natallie Evans (yes, Natallie with two Ls). Also, be sure to check out how the man is being called selfish by both her and members of the public.

Sorry about my spelling throughout, but I'm too tired to edit right now.

It's puzzling why feminists are fully in favor of "women only" gyms, loan companies, hotels, services, etc...

Except they have come out vocally to protest recent reforms in federal education laws that permit same-sex classes and even sex-segregated schools.

If "seperate but equal" benefits women, then that's good. However, if it even hints at advantages for men, it's discrimination.

Feminism lacks integrity at it very core, because women as a species have no inherent capacity for understanding the concept of justice.

When I took psychology back in college, I remember something in the text: There are those whose definition of justice, as attaining what is believed by them to be fundamentally right and fair; the concept of justice is transcendent. On the other hand, there are those people who consider justice to be, what seems fair to them in the cotext of a percieved situation; their view of justice is more subjective (this is not a direct quote - I don't have the book anymore, so can't look it up)

It is obvious that whoever wrote the above is a jackass relativist, but that asside, wouldn't you say that the first category is mainly men, while the second is mainly women? For example it seems to me (and I have seen more than a few examples) that a woman is more likely to lie, to attain what she feels is just in a given situation (of course she will not see this as "lying"). Note that I am not saying women lie more than men in general. There is probably no way to know that. What I mean is that when making a decision as to what is a just action or response, I observe that women are more likely to be dishonest or at least indirect a lot of the time.

-Axolotl