28 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

http://victoriagoddess.com/

The Victoria Goddess Run is a Women’s Only walk and run with the What’s Up Media 5km, Westhills 10km, and Frontrunners Half Marathon.

Sunday, June 3, 2012 at City Centre Park in Langford, BC.

The Victoria Goddess Run is an opportunity for women to come together, celebrate the power that we can embrace when we work together to reach our goals.

I'm not sure if I don't actually have an issue with this event.

I can't see any good reason why it should be exclusive to women.

Anybody?

I mean, it's a run, it's not even a competitive event. Even if it were, both genders could run together, like they do in other races.

Boston Marathon:

Women were not allowed to enter the Boston Marathon officially until 1972. Roberta "Bobbi" Gibb is recognized as the first woman to run the entire Boston Marathon (in 1966). In 1967, Kathrine Switzer, who had registered as "K. V. Switzer", was the first woman to run with a race number. She finished, despite a famous incident in which race official Jock Semple tried to rip off her numbers and eject her from the race.[8] In 1996 the B.A.A. retroactively recognized as champions the unofficial women's leaders of 1966 through 1971. In 2011, about 43 percent of the entrants were female.

Incident in bold above:

[Sparky]

^ Nice work VHF. It's hard for me to believe that human segregation could be so cruel.

Today Donald Trump allowed a man (tran) into the women's Miss Universe Pageant.

http://news.national...trump-steps-in/

[Mike K.]

A celebration of woman or a marketing bonanza?

Think about this. Does this run really empower women or is it an attempt at branding and selling something to a single sex? After all, if you promote products and services through traditional media they reach both sexes, usually equally. Segregated events like this goddess run allow sponsors (Frontrunners in this instance) to promote products aimed at women only to women. I'm sure this event will be laden with advertising -- a goldmine for advertisers, both local and national.

[VicHockeyFan]

Seriously, though. I know a lot of things don't stand up to the often-voiced opinion "they'd never let them have a man's-only version of XYZ". Like women's-only fitness places, I understand that.

But this is just a run/walk, through the streets. It supports women's issues (although of the potential $66,000+ in entry fees, a maximum of $7500 goes to the charities), but men support women's issues too.

Even the "take back the night" thingy does not exclude men from their march.

[davek]

If it's on public property, it should be non-discriminatory. And it shouldn't be on public property unless all expenses pertaining to it are covered by the event organizers.

[HB]

The reason things like this can take place without any problem is because it is a woman organizing it.

It is like when a girl decided she wanted to join the Wolf Cubs or Boy Scouts because mommy said it was alright. As far as I am concerned it wrecked the whole organization because now there are women teaching boys how to be boys ( or dare I say how to be they way the women want the boys to be)
That is the main reason I never put my son in that.
My kid thankfully learned how to be proud of a good room clearing fart...and other things that can only be learned from other guys.

Now with this woman run/jog thing and all the other women only things that take place (take back the night)......
The easiest way to explain what is going on is by having you all look at a photograph which will explain it very very clearly.......


If men beached about being left out of things that are advertised for women only they are called gay...or if a boy for some unknown logical reason said he wanted to join the brownie he would be called gay...If men organized an event on public property and advertised it as for men only...women would get their &86%4## in a knot and go to the media claiming gender discrimination...

Now pay attention...

[D.L.]

It's freedom of association which allows groups to pick and choose their members. Since the Goddess Run is taking place in public space I don't think they can prevent a man from physically locating himself within the group, but any man doing so should know very well that he is not one of them and ask himself what he is trying to prove.

I recall an incident from several years ago in Vancouver where a man thought his rights were being infringed upon by being excluded from a women-only gym. It went to trial and it was decided that women-only gyms are fair because they are private groups. There is nothing stopping men from having their own groups, and indeed there are such groups around.

[spanky123]

I wouldn't be suprised if the "woman's only" bit is just a marketing ploy to get media attention. I am sure that if men showed up they would be allowed to run if they wanted.

[gumgum]

Ploy or not, it's a regressive move. Not to mention insulting to men.

A men only run would never exit the mouths of anyone in a boardroom let alone make it this far.

[Greg]

Compare this to Augusta National's male-only policy drawing complaints from everyone up to and including the President.

[HB]

Is it still for men only did the courts rule way back when that women were allowed to join after a wife complained

[Greg]

Is it still for men only did the courts rule way back when that women were allowed to join after a wife complained

http://www.cnn.com/2...rss_igoogle_cnn

[Phil McAvity]

Ploy or not, it's a regressive move. Not to mention insulting to men.

A men only run would never exit the mouths of anyone in a boardroom let alone make it this far.

It's not just regressive, it's hypocritical because i'll bet a significant number of women who want these kind of women's only events are the same women who would howl about discrimination against women, yet are now all in favour of discrimination against men. Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of who it's against. The problem is, men have acquiesced to this kind of BS for too long so I don't see too many men standing up to it now.

[D.L.]

Ploy or not, it's a regressive move. Not to mention insulting to men.

Hey guys, there is such a thing as Freedom of Association which makes this type of event perfectly fair. This is a private group and if they want it to be women-only then they have every god given right to make it that way.

There is nothing stopping you from forming your own men-only group.

[VicHockeyFan]

Hey guys, there is such a thing as Freedom of Association which makes this type of event perfectly fair. This is a private group and if they want it to be women-only then they have every god given right to make it that way.

Wrong.

This event, if they did not allow males to take part, would be a clear violation of human rights laws. Very clear.

It would be akin to me having a men's-only movie theatre, store, airline, car-dealer, restaurant, housing development etc.

HOWEVER, I have been informed that indeed men are free to enter this event. They get the same gifts as the female participants will receive, which are arguably feminine in nature, but the organizers have indicated that they are open to men taking part.

[D.L.]

I myself am a member of a men's-only organization which has thousands of members across the country and has existed for hundreds of years. We know full well that a private group can select it's members based on sex.

Show me the law which is against this.

[VicHockeyFan]

Show me the law which is against this.

I think this covers it off fairly well:

http://www.mapleleaf...hts-legislation

Definition of Discrimination

The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discriminatory practices by employers and/or service providers that fall within federal jurisdiction. Generally speaking, the term “discrimination” is understood to mean “treating people differently, negatively or adversely without good reason” (Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2004). In other words, the Act prohibits any practices or conduct that involves treating people “differently, negatively or adversely,” unless there is “good reason” to do so.

In this context, the Act deals with discrimination in a wide range of forms:

Employment: A person cannot be denied a job, or released from employment, due to some personal characteristic, such as race or disability, that does not affect job performance or that can be accommodated.

Equal pay: Persons must be paid the same for jobs of equal value. In other words, an employer cannot pay a female employee less than a male employee for performing a job of equal value.

Provision of goods and services: Businesses cannot refuse to provide a good or service to an individual simply on the grounds of some personal characteristic. In example, a bank cannot ask a married woman for her spouse’s signature when applying for a loan, on the grounds that she is a woman...

In basic terms, these defences allow an employer or service provider to engage in conduct that treats persons differently, but can nevertheless be adequately justified. In other words, the Act’s prohibition against discrimination is not absolute. Instead, one may engage in discriminatory practices if they can show good reason or cause for doing so.

The legal tests for the BFOR and BFJ defences were clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada in two cases in the late-1990s: the Meiorin and Grismer decisions. In those cases, the Supreme Court concluded that employers and service providers were obligated to accommodate all persons to the point of undue hardship. As such, the notion of “undue hardship” is an important threshold. If an employer or service provider can show that accommodation would cause undue hardship, then an employer or service provider is permitted to treat persons differently.

In order to meet the threshold of “undue hardship,” an employer or service provider must prove a number of things...

The test for BFJ defences, which are related to the provision of services, is very similar. A service provider must show that the policy or practice is rationally connected to the service provider’s function. Moreover, one must show that it was adopted in an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary, and that the particular policy was the least discriminatory way to achieve the service provider’s goal or purpose.

[D.L.]

I'm not convinced. "the Act’s prohibition against discrimination is not absolute"

Anyways, sounds like the Goddess Run has changed it's requirements for inclusion anyways.

[Bob Fugger]

It's not hard to figure out. If the good, service, event, etc. is generally accessible to the public, you cannot discriminate. If it is exclusive and not generally open to the public - like a private club - you can.

That's why you can have a ladies-only fitness club but not a ladies-only shopping mall.

[VicHockeyFan]

^That's saying it pretty clearly.

I myself am a member of a men's-only organization which has thousands of members across the country and has existed for hundreds of years. We know full well that a private group can select it's members based on sex.

But does your organization advertise events (events that happen on public property, with the participation of public bodies to accommodate them with road closures etc.) open to the general public, with the only qualifying criteria for participation that the attendees be men?

There is nothing about a run, with all the attached organization, that in any way makes it a hardship for them to include men, or for the run to be uncomfortable for women to participate in alongside men.