Sex Discrimination or justified anti-Harrassement measure?

Post Reply New Topic

Where I live, since the refugee crisis, I've been seeing this rule in pools and other sea activities:






I dunno what incidents may have happened to make those owners to put a such rules, but does it help to suspect any guys-only groups? is it justified?
What if one only has male friends or male siblings?

This has been applied to many pools in Europe and a select few in the UK since the "refugee crisis" (as you put it!).
And IMO with good reason.Most (if not all) of the perpetrators of reported incidents involving migrants or refugees at pools were groups of men and boys.

A mixed group shows that the visitors can be trusted with the opposite sex at least on a surface level.
I don't think it applies to say, a man and his friend visiting. More a case of 3+ guys.

Discrimination. Period.

But it's not my pool.

If it was the other way and groups of women weren't allowed you'd see tons of outcry

I have no female friends in person so guess I couldn't swim there

It's to stop taharrush I expect. Which means they could exempt groups of non-migrant men from this rule. But imagine the size of the can of worms that that would open...

Yup.

Where did you get that term?

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9022056

You should direct that at the person who said it rather than myself.

Furthermore, Huffpo explained the origin and meaning of the term. They then went on to express an opinion and agenda they have. The actual meaning and their interpretation of use of language are two separate things.

It seems more reasonable to a couple of posters, calling it taharrush rather than sexual harassment? You'd nod approvingly if the policy applied to men in general? Or does it seem like a more reasonable policy if applied to certain men?

You're manufacturing an argument here.

I am of the impression this is an anti-harassment measure because of taharrush, and to be PC it is being applied to men in general. If it must apply to all men in general, so be it. I at no point legitimised or endorsed the idea of using such a preventative measure to exclude certain ethnic minorities.

By calling it taharrush rather than harassment, it sounds like something different. Is there a difference other than the ethnicity of the men involved?

Did you not read the second line in the post you are quoting me on? Along with previous items I've said which state I see them using it as an anti harassment measure? Do you not know how quoting works?

Also, me assuming how and why someone does something doesn't necessarily mean I am projecting something or I agree with the reasoning.

taharrush is a form of harassment so I don't know why you are so quick to delegitimise anyone who brings it up. You were the one who just the other day made a thread in L&D venting to people about consent and how we must clear up consent with a partner every-damn-time, which taharrush is anything but.

May I ask what you are hoping to achieve by doing what it is you are doing in this thread, and may I also ask why you are focusing on this rather than looking to address Boo's OP?

EDIT: Second line, not first line!

There is discrimination but there is reasonable discrimination and unreasonable discrimination...or discrimination without just cause.

For example, preventing severely obese person from boarding a helicopter, because it would put the helicopter over the weight limit and would prevent it from flying safely, would be reasonable or just discrimination. Refusing a job to someone because of their race, and you just don't like people of their race, would be unreasonable or unjust discrimination.

Barring only all male groups from these facilities is discrimination. The question is, is it unreasonable or unjust discrimination? I understand there have been incidents in Europe of groups of refugee men who are not familiar with western culture, harassing and assaulting women. Perhaps this was a problem at these places. Though personally I think it would have been better to allow groups of men but have a zero tolerance policy for harassment.

The first rule of taharrush is that there is no such thing as taharrush.

This, for example, is merely a vibrant cross-cultural interchange.

Spectrum, I think giving harassment by an ethnic group its own special foreign sounding name will put a fan onto a fire of chivalry on which people are pouring the gasoline of racial tension. It adds nothing good to the conversation.

Groups of frat boys will also be banned under this rule.

Robbery and groping are heinous. I would impose a harsh penalty for groping in the commission of a robbery, in fact*. Thanks for noticing my lack of a denunciation.


*20 days in the hole or 20 days of PC Awareness and Sensitivity Training

This is the same as banning black men from an event cause there were some incidents of black men harassing people in the past. Most if not all people would say that's clearly wrongful discrimination. But somehow banning all men who don't have gfs isn't. 0.o
But do they have descrimination laws where this happen? If in the us if file a lawsuit.