When i go to the leisure center, i'm sometimes told I can't go swimming or in a certain class because it is "Woman only night". Correct me if I'm wrong but this is actually against EU discrimination laws?

I wonder why you pick out the Sun. Is it because the women's bare breasts are being shown. If they were just in a sexy outfit like you see in most magazines you wouldn't have a problem with it? In that case, perhaps you have a problem with nudity?

Maybe you are trolling but women only nights at the leisure centre aren't sexism.

If men and women had equal status in society, in might be, but they don't, so it isn't.

The Sun Page 3 reinforces gender stereotypes and increases sexist attitudes in society. It's not the nudity that is the problem, it is the whole way it is presented, with the fake quotes from them about how great capitalism is or how bad immigrants are.

Women-only nights are there so women can feel comfortable without the presence of the half of society who has so much more opportunities and power than them. That's why you don't need men-only nights.

Its a genuine question on an issue that annoys me. If you can't answer the question, just say "i don't know". If you call me a troll, I will assume that you cannot answer it, but your ego won't let you admit that fact.

I didn't mention sexism - I referred to discrimination. The law is to protect people from discrimination based on their sex, race etc.etc. If i arrive at a swimming pool and are turned away because it is woman only night, then I am being discriminated against (in my opinion).

>> Women-only nights are there so women can feel comfortable without the presence of the half of society who has so much more opportunities and power than them. That's why you don't need men-only nights.

So basically there is "good" discrimination and "bad" discrimination based upon a subjective viewpoint. One rule for us, another rule for them so to speak. This attitude just goes to show equality, although good on paper, will never actually work because will not abide by it.

Ladies' bare chests on page three bringing the downfall of civilisation? P*ss off back to the Victorian days, please. The human body is natural and an inspiration to artists for centuries.

Page three may be banale, perhaps sexist if you are REALLY touchy, but it's probably the LEAST offensive part of Murdoch's nasty rag. How does this BEGIN to compare with the relentless xenophobic garbage about "bogus asylum seekers" and "economic migrants", the hounding of "celebrities" with psychological, medical or substance-abuse problems, the nauseatingly hypocritical attitude to members of the royal family (putting them on pedestals so they can throw stones at them, but never questioning whether the institution of monarchy itself is necessary), homophobic headlines like "Pulpit Poofs Can Stay" and the persecution of gay copper Paddick, hysterical support for failed drug prohibition laws, the general bollocks about animal-rights campaigners, trade unionists, Moslems, squatters, Labour councils, anarchists, anyone even vaguely left wing ....

I wouldn't even reclassify it as a gossip magazine, it's just garbage, you should be 'boycotting' it already based on the fact that it's a crap 'newspaper'.

I don't think they're really going to give whether the pictures upset you or not - they've had plenty of people complain in the past, and to be honest half the 'news' stories in it are way more sexist than nudy pics. I also don't think this article is really 'news' - we already know the Sun is poorly written, relies on sensationalism and hypocrisy to sell and 'is a business interested soley in profit' - did this really need to be put on the newswire?

> I didn't mention sexism - I referred to discrimination. The law is to protect people from
> discrimination based on their sex, race etc.etc. If i arrive at a swimming pool and are
> turned away because it is woman only night, then I am being discriminated against
> (in my opinion).

You certainly are being discriminated against, but there is nothing wrong with discrimination per se. It just means to distinguish between two different things.We discriminate between men and women regarding smear tests, for example. Or against different ethnicities regarding certain diseases that some are genetically more susceptible to.

Discrimination is only a problem if it causes more problems than it solves; if it is unjust discrimination. You being inconvenienced from using the leisure centre on a women only night is trivial compared to the goal of reducing the power imbalance between the sexes.

> So basically there is "good" discrimination and "bad" discrimination based upon a
> subjective viewpoint. One rule for us, another rule for them so to speak. This attitude
> just goes to show equality, although good on paper, will never actually work because
> will not abide by it.

Yes there is good and bad discrimination, but I think it is based on an objective viewpoint. Unless you think everything is subjective, in which case it is pointless arguing!

The point is that we don't have a level playing field at the moment. Society is biased massively in favour of men and women get the shitty end of the stick. Discrimination that seeks to remove that inequality is fine in my opinion. If we went along your way of thinking, equality would be much slower coming, if it ever came at all.

Gregory Beetle said:

> Page three may be banale, perhaps sexist if you are REALLY touchy, but it's
> probably the LEAST offensive part of Murdoch's nasty rag

What about the football news or the showbiz gossip? I think you may be missing the point though: it isn't that nudity or sex is offensive in itself; it is just the context in which it is used - of promoting and prolonging sexism and inequality, and commodification of women. And they always seem to make up some silly bigoted quote that the person is supposed to have said, but it is always so incongruous it clearly just comes from the minds of the public school educated scum who run the Sun.

Gregory Beetle you may well be trolling but your comment angered me so much that I had to respond. As someone who has campaigned for migrants' rights I find the lies printed in the Sun about asylum seekers appalling. However I find p3 equally sickening. Dismissing those who oppose these kind of images on display in/outside newsagents everyday on the grounds that they are 'prudish' and 'Victorian', is completely insulting and belittles the struggle against objectification which women face. These images say 'you can have it' anytime you want. Women are there for the sexual gratification of men. If you can't see the bleedingly obvious links between the prevalence of these kinds of images and the mysoginstic culture and attitudes they engender then you're about as sensitive as a brick wall.

i'm sure all brickies, labours and white van drivers will support your views in the democratic process of bycotting the paper.

As women I find your attitudes insulting, you act as though you represent the majority of women when in truth your outdated view of feminism lies in the past. If as a women I choose to show my body for money or the gratification of others that is my choice and mine alone. You can keep your wrinkly hands and victorian views away from me.

'm proud of my body and can show it to whom I wish and for whatever reason!

Oi, I milked this debate dry twenty years ago...

"You certainly are being discriminated against, but there is nothing wrong with discrimination per se. It just means to distinguish between two different things.We discriminate between men and women regarding smear tests, for example."

It's not discrimination. Men don't have a cervix so can't get cervical cancer. Having a "women only night" at the guy's local pool is discrimination, but it just happens to be discrimination that you agree with.


"Yes there is good and bad discrimination, but I think it is based on an objective viewpoint. Unless you think everything is subjective, in which case it is pointless arguing!"

Good and bad are subjective judgments. There's nothing objective about your viewpoint - you're the self-appointed arbiter of discrimination.

Do they still have the page 7 fella?

> It's not discrimination. Men don't have a cervix so can't get cervical cancer."

Exactly. Here's a dictionary definition: "to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately"

> Having a "women only night" at the guy's local pool is discrimination, but it just happens to be discrimination that you agree with.

Yes, sure.

>> "Yes there is good and bad discrimination, but I think it is based on an objective viewpoint. Unless you think everything is subjective, in which case it is pointless arguing!"

> Good and bad are subjective judgments. There's nothing objective about your viewpoint - you're the self-appointed arbiter of discrimination.

In that case, it logically follows that your statement that there is nothing objective about my viewpoint is neither good nor bad. It is just as likely that my viewpoint *is* objective. Reductio ad absurdum! As I said, that kind of reductionist relativism gets us nowhere and makes this discussion pointless.

"Sarah" said:

> If as a women I choose to show my body for money or the gratification of others that is my choice and mine alone. You can keep your wrinkly hands and victorian views away from me. I'm proud of my body and can show it to whom I wish and for whatever reason!

In an equal society, yes that is fine and I have no problem with sex or nudity. But we don't live in that equal society yet. Don't you think though, that if your actions serve to make things worse for women in general, that you should take that into consideration? You may gain fifteen minutes of glory, but at what cost? If you want to show off your body there are far better ways than doing it for a scummy rag like the Sun that will use it to promote their own sexist bigoted agenda.