William Gruff’s comments on the women-only swimming sessions story

Our thanks to William for posting these comments on the story we linked to earlier today:

She posted: “You Sir, the complainant have now denied a large proportion of our community the chance to swim.

See what she’s done there? She’s turned reality on its head, completely. The truth is that a large proportion, approximately half, of ‘our community’ were actually denied the chance to swim at certain times for no other reason than that they do not have vaginas. Women are still able to swim during the hours previously reserved exclusively for them, however they cannot now do so as a uniquely privileged sex.

Am I alone in seeing ‘you sir’ as a misandrous micro aggression? The phrase certainly seems aggressively admonitory to me.

Many of them will no longer feel able to attend.’

Aaah, our old friend Mizzz ‘Feelz’ rearing her ugly head again. There is no practical obstacle to the continued attendance of women; some of them, ‘many of them’ allegedly, simply feel unable to attend (much as so many women who feel unable to go to work feel they shouldn’t lose financially thereby). That aside, how can this harridan possibly know how many of the previously uniquely privileged women feel unable to swim in the presence of men? Has she, as a councillor, actually asked each and every woman attending the swims? That aside, just how large a proportion of ‘our community’ (And who precisely are ‘our community’? Is ‘our community’ no more than that group of women who dislike swimming in the presence of men?*) do the women who feel unable to swim in the presence of men constitute?

*Do said women dislike swimming in the presence of men because we are hairy and smelly, and made of frogs and snails and puppy dog tails, or are they just androphobic or misandrous lesbians whose sapphic delight in the company of their own kind is overwhelmed by their hatred of us?

Loraine said: “Some women it takes a lot for them to be able to go swimming in the first place with being body conscious.”

The relatively tiny number of women whose ‘body conscious[ness]’ is so severe that swimming in public is mentally or emotionally challenging might more usefully seek counselling, at public – which is to say 72.9% male – expense, than deny approximately 50% of the population the right to enjoy the facilities they have preponderantly paid for.

As an aside, the fourteen uniquely privileged women shown enjoying exclusive use of the preponderantly male funded Dursley pool in 2003 don’t seem to have been so ‘body conscious’ that they felt unable to appear in the photograph.

However there are the more serious issues with women that have suffered a serious trauma in their lives as well and they need that swimming session.

I would ask what sort of traumas women suffer that require exclusive use of publicly funded facilities preponderantly paid for by men and reply firstly that men also suffer serious traumas, too often far more serious than those suffered by women, hence the disproportionately high male to female gender industrial accident and suicide gaps, and secondly that recovery from many of those traumas suffered by men can also be helped by swimming, which activity may perhaps help to reduce the alarmingly high number of male suicides and so close that gap. Why should women enjoy priority in the provision of that help?

The complaint should have been opened up to members of the public to have their say.

See what she’s done there? She’s attempted to make a matter of equality law into one of public opinion, which latter few can doubt is to formed by a handful of vociferous and well funded feminist and leftist pressure groups and activists, with emasculated and eviscerated public servants acceding to their demands.

This is political correctness gone mad.

sounds of choking and strangled mirth as coffee is splattered over keyboard<

See what she’s attempted to do there? She’s attempted to tap into popular cynicism about the process she herself exploits to achieve her ends, presumably in the hope of obtaining the unthinking support of the mob; she’s ‘damselling’. This woman clearly has no appreciation of her own irony. I would ask her whether she thinks penalising men financially for being more work centred than women or believing automatically women who make allegations against men or preventing men accused of rape or sexual assault from questioning their accusers in their own defence is ‘political correctness gone mad’ and then ask her how she can say that giving men equal access to facilities we preponderantly pay for is ‘political correctness gone mad’. I won’t describe her reasoning as warped, I shall simply write that it seems to me to be typical of women with a deranged view of life.

It is ridiculous. All people need is good manners and consideration in life.”

Yes indeed but what is that apropos of? Does she see equality of access for men as somehow ill-mannered and inconsiderate? Does equality for her mean a position of disadvantage for men? She certainly seems to be arguing for the creation and defence of male funded privileges for women, if she’s not just indiscriminately clutching at incoherent straws in her volcanically emotional tirade.

I need to look into the Equality and Sex Discrimination Acts as I do not believe … ”

Mizzz Feelz rearing her ugly head again. I think Mizzz Feelz actually means that she needs to see if those acts can be reworked to legalise and require further discrimination against men, and then to work away to achieve it, at public expense of course.

” … that they were made for this reason and are that pedantic … ”

I think we’re all fairly certain that they weren’t made for ‘this reason’ at all, however, they’ve been used ‘that pedantic[ally]’ for decades, in pursuit of feminist objectives, without ever having been described as such, as far as I can recall.

” … that is not why they were put into place.

The creation of ‘equality’ and ending of ‘sex discrimination’ wasn’t the purpose of the ‘Equality and Sex Discrimination Acts’? From the horse’s mouth gentlemen.

 The equality act was to give everybody an equal chance.”

sounds of choking and strangled mirth as coffee is splattered over keyboard<

Except where the bodies are male? I repeat, this woman clearly has no appreciation of her own irony. She certainly seems to be arguing for the creation and defence of male funded privileges for women, if she’s not just indiscriminately clutching at incoherent straws in her volcanically emotional tirade. I won’t describe her reasoning as warped, I shall simply write that it seems to me to be typical of women with a deranged view of life.

A spokesman for Stroud District Council said: … “We should add that we are in discussions with Sport England to see if their exemption guidelines would allow us to reinstate the sessions, however it looks very unlikely that we will qualify for this as exceptions only apply when groups are underrepresented, and at The Pulse, the majority of our swimmers, who come throughout the week, are female.”

You see? It’s not enough that they already enjoy more pool time than men when men are allowed to use the pool, they have to be given exclusive pool time to themselves.

That such a creature can be elected as a Conservative County Councillor beggars belief and I hope that those men who voted for her last time will not do so in future.

 

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Groan

    “Equality” when it suits. I was quite literally amazed that the Beeb published this : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40894089 Pointing out that the recessions have been mancessions and the real losers have been ordinary working men. Its not that this is any revelation at all as the closing of the “wage gap” has been down to stagnant wage growth in the private sector and continues wage growth in public services.
    Its just the BBC actually even putting the story out ! Someone missed the memo about Patriarchy and all men are privileged.