Tatts is for tough guys

Queensland’s ultimate “boys club” – Tattersalls – is under the gun for once again voting to prevent women taking full membership. The PC police are out in force decrying the move as a backward step in the anti-discrimination movement. How dare they keep women out of a men’s club. How dare they indeed. I’m all for it. A better question is “why shouldn’t men be allowed to have an exclusive club?” The feminist led push for Orwellian “equal” rights (in the Animal Farm sense – some being more equal than others) has gone far enough. Look through Beattie’s cabinet and you’ll see a Minister for Women but no ministry for men. I understand that historically women have been held back on the basis of gender – but based on the male/female ratio in universities this has been thoroughly eradicated with women set to hold their own in the future – the fact that the aging population of corporate executives are predominantly male is just the last vestige of a bygone era. The aging gentry may have some inherent bias towards male candidates but that will soon die out. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks – and later generations have been thorgoughly whelped and weaned on the doctrine of gender equality.
Men have the same rights to associate with who they choose (ie men only) as women do. Why would Sarina Russo and co want to be part of Tattersalls if they so thoroughly oppose the patriachy – there are plenty of other networking opportunities for business women – and there are plenty of specifically female business networking groups. In fact there’s a “businesswoman of the year” award – imagine the outcry if there was a businessman of the year award that was gender exclusive. Men and women are different. No one is foolish enough to suggest otherwise. We have different wiring, different social requirements, and often a very different outlook on life. Boys will, and should, be boys – and require a space to do it in in much the same way that women on university campuses require their “women’s space.” Why should Tattersalls pander to the outrage of a select group of angry women still fighting as if it’s 1969. There are plenty of places for those without a y-chromosone to vent their spleens – they can join a women’s only gym life Fernwood and lift weights until they look like this if that makes them feel better… In the meantime Tattersalls should just work at being less appealing to the fairer sex. Reintroducing spitoons to the bar area would be a start – having toilets without a seat would be another winner – any other suggestions are welcome.

Stay tuned for my blogged “Christmas letter of doom” in the next few days. If you’re anything like me you love reading pages and pages of other people’s “achievements” at this time of year…


miriam says:

Well said. I reckon that Affirmative Action; discrimination etc. all needs to be readdressed, because, in my humble opinion, the trend has been reversed and it is now men who are suffering more ‘inequality’ than women.

i.e. How is it fair that two equally qualified, experienced etc. people apply for the job but the decision to hand to the woman is based purely on the fact that she is, in fact female.

Twisted world we live in.

Joel says:

There is a women’s only golf club in Brisbane. I think we men should kick up a stink about that.

AndrewF says:

Yes, very well said nathan… this really bugs me too; not specifically the tatts, but the enequality that comes from a supposedly equality driven mindset.
I can understand that it is positive discrimination that is designed to help minorities overcome prejudices etc. that can often hold people back, but as you point out, I don’t think women are a minority in the workplace so much now.
I think positive discrimination has it’s place, I mean, just look at what happened in Paris about 12 months ago, where there is no such thing…

Stewart says:

What do you think about gender issues in sport – e.g. difference between sponsorship, $$$ etc and also when women competed against men in golf? Interested to hear opinions

Joel says:

Salaries in sport are dictated by the audience they draw. Men typically draw a larger audience because they typically play a higher standard of sport. They don’t get paid higher simply because they have a Y chromosome, they get paid more because 1. Men tend to play more sport and 2. men tend to watch more sport, hence they drive up market demand.

Anonymous says:

my understanding is that women are allowed in ‘gentlemen’s clubs’

Leah says:

To anonymous- read up on your topics ;P

Of course women are allowed in to the club. They just aren’t allowed full membership.

Which is perfectly fine with me. Blokes can have their clubs, women can have theirs, and the earth keeps spinning.

Sara says:

I think anon may be implying that the sort of women who are allowed into gentlemen’s clubs are the sort that don’t wear any clothing…

Leah says:

Well, 1) anon made a very simple statement without any kinds of insinuations and 2) the post was about women’s membership… so really, a comment about them being allowed *in* is redundant.

Nathan says:

I believe the ” were being used to create the double entendre in the anonymous post.

Leah says:

Nathan… stop being boring and update this :P

Tim says:

Clearly you can’t have a Christmas message of doom after Christmas. Although it would be un suspected… Dum Dum Dum “No nobody expects a spanish inquisition”