PDA

View Full Version : Poll: gender imbalance at weekenders



David Bailey
17th-November-2005, 04:29 PM
With all the witter about this, and considering Stewart38's "economics" post, I thought - Poll Time!

Don't be shy now.

TiggsTours
17th-November-2005, 04:35 PM
With all the witter about this, and considering Stewart38's "economics" post, I thought - Poll Time!

Don't be shy now.
Why should only women have to pay extra? Would you like to start a debate on sexual inequality?

MartinHarper
17th-November-2005, 04:51 PM
Why should only women have to pay extra?

Given that there is more demand for weekender places from women than men, there are essentially three options:
1) Make it less enjoyable for women (huge gender imbalance)
2) Make it less convenient for women (booking system "controlling gender")
3) Make it more expensive for women

TiggsTours
17th-November-2005, 04:54 PM
Given that there is more demand for weekender places from women than men, there are essentially three options:
1) Make it less enjoyable for women (huge gender imbalance)
2) Make it less convenient for women (booking system "controlling gender")
3) Make it more expensive for women
So, women who already get paid less than men, and have to pay more for haircuts, and get stung for VAT on our "luxury items" (meaning tampons), now have to pay more for dance weekenders too!? We already have to pay the same price as men, for less dancing, and less tuition at standard dance nights, its just not right, I for one would like to stand up and say, "No more, its time for us women to...........................................




OK, I'll stop.


(Option 2 really is the only fair one, and, as women are more organised, we will book well in advance anyway, it really isn't that big an inconvenience)

stewart38
17th-November-2005, 04:54 PM
With all the witter about this, and considering Stewart38's "economics" post, I thought - Poll Time!

Don't be shy now.


I cant vote as you need an option "needs to be about 10% extra women "

David Bailey
17th-November-2005, 04:57 PM
Why should only women have to pay extra? Would you like to start a debate on sexual inequality?
Hey, I like to start debates on anything... OK, maybe not the first move footwork.

The reason I put that in, was because the problem could be stated economically, in terms of supply and demand, and one possible economic method of achieving more even numbers could be to increase the price differential. It's an interesting idea, I think, and it's a slightly different approach to the standard "stop women booking" model commonly used - call it the Easyjet pricing model :)

And the reason women would be asked to pay more is because they're at the "wrong" end of the ratio. There's nothing chauvinist about that, if there were too many men it'd be the other way round; as in many nightclubs, where the situation is reversed, and where they do discounts for women on entry price.


So, women who already get paid less than men, and have to pay more for haircuts, and get stung for VAT on our "luxury items" (meaning tampons), now have to pay more for dance weekenders too!? We already have to pay the same price as men, for less dancing, and less tuition at standard dance nights, its just not right, I for one would like to stand up and say, "No more, its time for us women to...........................................

Of course it's unfair; but is it more unfair to pay money and only get to dance a fraction of the time, fighting other women for the opportunity to dance with, basically, a warm body? In other words, would you pay more to ensure a better dance experience?

I don't know, but it's an interesting question, and that's why I put the option in.

LMC
17th-November-2005, 05:00 PM
Why should only women have to pay extra? Would you like to start a debate on sexual inequality?
You must be joking... but maybe Stewart would :devil: - my money is on you for that one TT, you're way more scary than he is.

*looks at poll options*

Aw, I'm so touched you remembered DJ... and someone else has clicked on that option already - not me :rofl:

MartinHarpers' Option 2 of being more organised for me too - I would also resent paying more, but would rather have numbers regulated.

Stewart -what's wrong with "extra women fighting over your manly bod"? - the percentage isn't specified...

stewart38
17th-November-2005, 05:13 PM
Stewart -what's wrong with "extra women fighting over your manly bod"? - the percentage isn't specified...

That could imply I was not sympathtic to womens needs

Ok back to economics

Fact --- Most or all weekenders sell out
Fact---- Most or all have more women often a lot more

Fact-- Best way to deal with this is to regulate this

However this will lead to more women to book early so they dont miss out (e.g Southport June 2006 if i was a lady id book now, as a man ill book in May)

I hear there not taking any more women for Southport Sept 2011 :sad:

TiggsTours
17th-November-2005, 05:16 PM
That could imply I was not sympathtic to womens needs

Ok back to economics

Fact --- Most or all weekenders sell out
Fact---- Most or all have more women often a lot more

Fact-- Best way to deal with this is to regulate this

However this will lead to more women to book early so they dont miss out (e.g Southport June 2006 if i was a lady id book now, as a man ill book in May)

I hear there not taking any more women for Southport Sept 2011 :sad:
Fine by me, I can always book way in advance, then sell my place on to one of the many women who couldn't get in nearer the time, I'd far rather do that than get penalised for being female!

As for nightclubs, yes, some do offer cheaper entry to women, but having more of one sex than the other doesn't stop you dancing, or drinking, so doesn't spoil your enjoyment.

Women also pay less for car insurance, because we're better drivers.:D

LMC
17th-November-2005, 05:18 PM
Fine by me, I can always book way in advance, then sell my place on to one of the many women who couldn't get in nearer the time, I'd far rather do that than get penalised for being female!
:yeah:

Might even make a profit, who wants a STORM ticket? :whistle:
(NB kidding, I'm def going and spare is spoken for now sorry)

David Bailey
17th-November-2005, 05:35 PM
Fine by me, I can always book way in advance, then sell my place on to one of the many women who couldn't get in nearer the time
Exploiting your sisters? :eek: :whistle:


, I'd far rather do that than get penalised for being female!
No, you're "penalised" for being a majority, which just happens to be female - there's a difference. Supply, and demand.

In fact, you're not being penalised at all, it's just a flippin' option on a silly poll, let's get a little perspective here...

LMC
17th-November-2005, 05:37 PM
... let's get a little perspective here...
Who are you, and why are you using DavidJames' identity?

Zebra Woman
17th-November-2005, 05:51 PM
FWIW I'd happily pay 10% more for a controlled gender balance on a weekender.

After paying that premium I would expect a maximum of 10% more women than men.

I don't really feel victimised by the gender imbalance. In general women love to dance more than men do - that's life. I just try to avoid some of the situations where I get to feel the true impact of that imbalance.

doc martin
17th-November-2005, 05:51 PM
I think that the economic argument supplied has one big problem. The ends that would met by the proposed solution are not those wanted by those putting forward the argument.

What is the ultimate aim of the market forces being applied here? If it is to maximise the profits made from the weekender, then increasing the price to women will work. In fact you would increase the price charged to women up to the point where the event is not quite fully booked to get the maximum profit.

However I think that the aim (of those debating here, maybe not of the organisers) is to increase the enjoyment of those attending. Controlling the number of women attending will do this. It may also, as a byproduct, lessen the profits made if the event is not then fully booked.

Why is allowing market forces to regulate the number of women attending a bad thing? Because if the women have paid more they will be feeling that they should get more. Woe betide any man who refused a dance. So the women will go around looking irate and demanding satisfying and the men will be tiptoeing quietly past the doors of the dance rooms hoping not to be noticed. Net result: even though the ratio would be better, the level of satisfaction would not increase.

So my argument would be that increasing the cost to the women would maximise profits in the short term and maybe provide an improvement in equality of numbers, but at a cost to the atmosphere of the evenet. In the longer term causing tension among the attendees would lead to a drop off in attendance, which would eventually decrease the profitability, so negating the main gain from increasing the cost in the first place.

Dreadful Scathe
17th-November-2005, 05:52 PM
Women also pay less for car insurance, because we're better drivers.:D

People with red hair are better drivers than people with other hair colours but they dont get cheaper car insurance ? tis unfair i say :)

under par
17th-November-2005, 05:56 PM
I would really like for there to approximate even numbers between genders.

I say approximate because I would like two ladies over at each venue for the times when one of them wants to go to the ladies room.

I would really like it though for all you ladies out there who turn out every venue beautifully dressed and are forced through no fault of your own or the fellas to sit/stand out for many dances.

It doesn't seem fair, it causes much annoyance and hurt and goddammit it shouldn't be allowed.

Come the revolution ladies you will all have two leaders to choose from for every track!

Zebra Woman
17th-November-2005, 05:59 PM
Why is allowing market forces to regulate the number of women attending a bad thing? Because if the women have paid more they will be feeling that they should get more. Woe betide any man who refused a dance. So the women will go around looking irate and demanding satisfying and the men will be tiptoeing quietly past the doors of the dance rooms hoping not to be noticed. Net result: even though the ratio would be better, the level of satisfaction would not increase.


???

I don't think so DM.

Paying 10% more doesn't entitle you to anything at all.

If I'd paid 10% more and been refused a dance (which is fine BTW) I would simply ask someone else. And because numbers are even it would be no problem to find another partner.

No irate looks at all.:grin:

stewart38
17th-November-2005, 06:03 PM
I think that the economic argument supplied has one big problem. The ends that would met by the proposed solution are not those wanted by those putting forward the argument.

What is the ultimate aim of the market forces being applied here? If it is to maximise the profits made from the weekender, then increasing the price to women will work. In fact you would increase the price charged to women up to the point where the event is not quite fully booked to get the maximum profit.

However I think that the aim (of those debating here, maybe not of the organisers) is to increase the enjoyment of those attending. Controlling the number of women attending will do this. It may also, as a byproduct, lessen the profits made if the event is not then fully booked.

Why is allowing market forces to regulate the number of women attending a bad thing? Because if the women have paid more they will be feeling that they should get more. Woe betide any man who refused a dance. So the women will go around looking irate and demanding satisfying and the men will be tiptoeing quietly past the doors of the dance rooms hoping not to be noticed. Net result: even though the ratio would be better, the level of satisfaction would not increase.

So my argument would be that increasing the cost to the women would maximise profits in the short term and maybe provide an improvement in equality of numbers, but at a cost to the atmosphere of the evenet. In the longer term causing tension among the attendees would lead to a drop off in attendance, which would eventually decrease the profitability, so negating the main gain from increasing the cost in the first place.

Interesting but fundamentally flawed

Let’s assume there are 15% more women that want to go to weekenders. If they 'sell out' then by controlling numbers you are denying 15% of the women a place. It doesn’t matter if women book early etc etc 15% WON’T BE ABLE TO GO PERIOD

How do you address this, you can’t say women should book even earlier

you can make nos even and let 15% miss out

Apart from price differential or some promotion (they were knocking £25 off the price of the jive Barcelona holiday in August for men if they took up that offer, the weekend that promostion run)

If you don’t do that you are not addressing the 'issue' of surplus women

doc martin
17th-November-2005, 06:04 PM
I would really like for there to approximate even numbers between genders.

I say approximate because I would like two ladies over at each venue for the times when one of them wants to go to the ladies room.
So you need 3 ladies over then. You know full well they never go to the ladies room on their own.

I would really like it though for all you ladies out there who turn out every venue beautifully dressed and are forced through no fault of your own or the fellas to sit/stand out for many dances.

It doesn't seem fair, it causes much annoyance and hurt and goddammit it shouldn't be allowed.
I agree, if they've decorated the venue they should be given the opportunity to dance to every track they want to.


Come the revolution ladies you will all have to leaders to choose from for every track!
Don't mention revolutions. Next thing you know you'll be arrested under the prevention of terrorism act and deported for having a foreign sounding name (are you from the French branch of the Pars or the Dunfermline branch?)

TiggsTours
17th-November-2005, 06:08 PM
Exploiting your sisters? :eek: :whistle:

I'd never do that, I wasn't planning on selling at a profit, I'd just be supplying where there is demand.

LMC
17th-November-2005, 06:08 PM
The brutal truth is that it doesn't matter how even the numbers are, some people will always find it difficult to get dances. Because they are yankers, stinkers, grippers or bouncers. Or even, dare I say it, beginners... I freely admit that there are a very few favourite favourite tracks which I would rather sit out than ask a beginner to dance (although if they ask me then I will - I was a beginner once too :) ).

Even if the numbers are balanced, some people are always going to be more popular. That's life. Expecting to have a fantastic dance every dance is unreasonable. But like ZW, if it starts getting to be no fun trying to track down someone to dance with? - I'll avoid those situations in the first place or call it a night, rather than going home depressed.


Let’s assume there are 15% more women that want to go to weekenders. If they 'sell out' then by controlling numbers you are denying 15% of the women a place. It doesn’t matter if women book early etc etc 15% WON’T BE ABLE TO GO PERIOD
That's our tough luck. It's not fair, but neither is life. Sure I would be disappointed. But I'd be even more disappointed if I'd spent £100-odd on a weekender and spent half of every freestyle anxiously looking for my next partner, worrying about whether I should approach them to ask for a dance or whether I should let them rest/pick their own partner, standing on the sidelines.... blah blah blah. I was way more p***ed off after the 20+ women over night at Chesham on a regular freestyle night than I was about not being able to go to Greenwich because I'd left it too late - I've learned my lesson for next time :)

doc martin
17th-November-2005, 06:21 PM
Interesting but fundamentally flawed

Let’s assume there are 15% more women that want to go to weekenders. If they 'sell out' then by controlling numbers you are denying 15% of the women a place. It doesn’t matter if women book early etc etc 15% WON’T BE ABLE TO GO PERIOD

How do you address this, you can’t say women should book even earlier

you can make nos even and let 15% miss out

Apart from price differential or some promotion (they were knocking £25 off the price of the jive Barcelona holiday in August for men if they took up that offer, the weekend that promostion run)

If you don’t do that you are not addressing the 'issue' of surplus women
Whatever method you use to control the ratio, it is mainly going to have to be done by decreasing the number of women as no one seems to have a strategy for getting more men to attend. If you decrease the number of women, it doesn't matter what method you use, the number of women disappointed in not going will be the same.

Increasing the price to women will not do anything for those that do not go and may mar the enjoyment of some that do. It seems to me that you have to balance the happiness of the organisers and that of the attendees. To my mind charging the ladies more leans too far towards the organisers benefit.

What I am getting at is that the economic argument alone is not sufficient. Of course you can price a portion of the women out of the weekender market. But we are talking about people here and not the supply of a utility. The negative sentiment caused by using these market forces would have repercussions that would, in the long term, be detrimental to the quality of the weekenders using these forces.

MartinHarper
17th-November-2005, 06:39 PM
To my mind charging the ladies more leans too far towards the organisers benefit.

What if an organiser were to address the gender imbalance by offering a special reduced price, or a free weekender DVD, or some other inducement, to men who book well in advance?


If the women have paid more they will be feeling that they should get more.

They do get more. Women are permitted to rotate in workshops as either a leader or a follower, whereas in many workshops men are not.

Zebra Woman
17th-November-2005, 06:48 PM
If the women have paid more they will be feeling that they should get more.


I still feel that you are wrongly assuming how a lot of women will feel DM. :confused:


Anyway, when the numbers are balanced - they do get more.

On average they get a lot more dances.

doc martin
17th-November-2005, 06:52 PM
What if an organiser were to address the gender imbalance by offering a special reduced price, or a free weekender DVD, or some other inducement, to men who book well in advance?
I like that. I know it is illogical, but seeing someone else get a discount feels different to people than paying more themselves, even if they know that they are effectively subsidising that discount. Human nature :rolleyes:

They do get more. Women are permitted to rotate in workshops as either a leader or a follower, whereas in many workshops men are not.
OK, but I think that is a weak argument as many only act as leaders to avoid the 20 round problem.

I think you are on to something with incentivising the men to book well in advance. I am not sure that on it's own would get more men to book in total, but it may give the organisers a better idea of the ratio at an earlier stage and allow them to make a decision on a strategy to improve the ratio at an early enough stage to make a difference.

Maybe the organisers could also incentivise the ladies to encourage men they know to book early. Something along the lines of "If a man makes a booking more than x time before the event, citing as his reason for booking that he is being nagged lots by Mrs/Ms/Miss Y, then Mrs/Ms/Miss Y will get something bright and shiny". Could work?

doc martin
17th-November-2005, 06:56 PM
I still feel that you are wrongly assuming how a lot of women will feel DM. :confused:
Probably. I am only going on how I would feel and I'm not a very representative woman.

Anyway, when the numbers are balanced - they do get more.

On average they get a lot more dances.
True again. But even at the best only as many as the men, who are paying less. Perhaps it is not sensible for me to compare men and women here?

MartinHarper
17th-November-2005, 08:43 PM
Even at the best only as many as the men, who are paying less.

The number of dances will be similar, but the women will get approximately 20% more enjoyment out of each dance, as following is more fun. A mere 10% higher ticket price is still a bargain.

In the meantime, I shall continue to exploit the gender imbalance by offering to even up the numbers on a weekender application in exchange for flowers and chocolate.

Minnie M
17th-November-2005, 08:50 PM
FWIW I'd happily pay 10% more for a controlled gender balance on a weekender.

After paying that premium I would expect a maximum of 10% more women than men.

:yeah:
Can't we turn it round -

"To attract more men, there will be a 10% reduction for them"

Sounds so much better :D

David Bailey
17th-November-2005, 09:03 PM
The brutal truth is that it doesn't matter how even the numbers are, some people will always find it difficult to get dances.
You missed out pervs... :whistle:


But like ZW, if it starts getting to be no fun trying to track down someone to dance with?
If ZW finds it difficult to get a dance, that's a pretty solid ratio-overkill indication to me.


Probably. I am only going on how I would feel and I'm not a very representative woman.
Unfortunately, neither is ZW (and I mean that in a good way, ZW!)


What if an organiser were to address the gender imbalance by offering a special reduced price, or a free weekender DVD, or some other inducement, to men who book well in advance?
That's just price-differentials by the back door - discounts to men is the same as higher prices to women. If it's more "socially acceptable" (doubt it), fine, but it's the same mechanism.

Feelingpink
17th-November-2005, 09:05 PM
Interesting but fundamentally flawed

Let’s assume there are 15% more women that want to go to weekenders. If they 'sell out' then by controlling numbers you are denying 15% of the women a place. It doesn’t matter if women book early etc etc 15% WON’T BE ABLE TO GO PERIOD

How do you address this, you can’t say women should book even earlier

you can make nos even and let 15% miss out

...I would rather be one of the 15% who missed out than get a place and be 'fighting' for partners, which for me, equals a rubbbish time. When I missed out on going to a weekend west coast event because I'd left it too late (& didn't have a bloke to book with), I was disappointed, but perfectly content. The organisers were taking responsibility for relatively equal numbers and, while I was disappointed, agree totally with their decision.

Lory
17th-November-2005, 09:32 PM
I would rather be one of the 15% who missed out than get a place and be 'fighting' for partners, which for me, equals a rubbbish time. .:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:


When I missed out on going to a weekend west coast event because I'd left it too late (& didn't have a bloke to book with), I was disappointed, but perfectly content. The organisers were taking responsibility for relatively equal numbers and, while I was disappointed, agree totally with their decisionI would also have much more respect for an organiser who took this decision. :worthy:

When booking/paying for a weekender, one has certain expectations and then when you arrive to find a room filled with hoards of extra women standing round the edge, all wanting the same thing as you, you can't help experiencing that sinking feeling, as you know that to enjoy the weekend and get the most out of it, your going to have to put in a lot of hard work.:sick:

I for one can accept that.....Once a decisions been made that a weekender is fully booked, you simply move on and concentrate on something else!:clap: :waycool:

And next time, you make sure to be quicker off the mark when booking, having the reasuring knowledge, that it'll be worth it!:nice:

JonD
17th-November-2005, 09:38 PM
Can't we turn it round -

"To attract more men, there will be a 10% reduction for them"

Sounds so much better :D
You've got to charge the women more in order to fund the discount for the men. Plus the organiser has increased administrative fees that have to be paid for. So, the best you're likely to get is a 15% premium for women and a 10% discount for the men - with the odd 5% covering admin and an element of additional profit as recompense to the organiser for the additional risk they are taking by not selling all the places as quickly as possible.

I don't have any stats to back me up but my belief is that the dance market is growing and with it the market for weekenders. As long as demand outstrips supply there will be little incentive for businesses to offer a premium product at a non-premium price. (We've just seen Storm sell out 4 months before the event, as far as I am aware Southport & Camber were also sell outs).

As to the trend over the next couple of years - well, I'd guess at something like this:

Ceroc's marketing expertise will bring the weekender phenomenon to the attention of a greater percentage of the MJ population thus further stimulating demand that will drive sales for their competitors as well as their own branded weekend offerings. As it seems that there are few venues larger than the Butlins/Pontins camps currently used this will mean more frequent large gatherings through the winter months, together with more "premium weekends" on the Rock Bottoms model.

While different branded weekenders (Jivetime / Ceroc / Jive Addiction etc.) will seek to differentiate themselves there will inevitably be a smaller percentage of attendees clamouring for technical classes at a bog-standard event. However, the need to differentiate combined with the growing MJ population may well create a niche market for the "advanced weekender" (though I shudder at the thought of trying to design a model to vet attendees).

All in all, it's probably not a bad time for someone to set up their own weekender and move into the premium market. So, get out there and sign those personal guarantees, stick £50k or so on the line (that's a pure guess) and put together a weekender with all the things that we'd like to see. You can balance numbers, provide gallons of free water and really decent temporary dance floors. To be honest, I think it would work (and there isn't a MJ event at Butlins in Minehead). But I already run my own business and, having survived the terror and pure fatigue of a start-up, I'm not about to do it again!

Minnie M
18th-November-2005, 12:11 AM
I was thinking on the lines that, if the organisers raised the advertised price 10% (some do :whistle: ) and then give the men & couples 10% discount

- it sounds so much nicer than charging the girls the extra 10% :blush:

Lory
18th-November-2005, 12:35 AM
Why do I suspect that the three men who've voted for option 3, haven't actually got, manly bodies :devil: :wink:

JonD
18th-November-2005, 12:57 AM
I was thinking on the lines that, if the organisers raised the advertised price 10% (some do :whistle: ) and then give the men & couples 10% discount

- it sounds so much nicer than charging the girls the extra 10% :blush:
Good marketing brain! Why not? As long as you achieve the same net effect. If you emphasised the benefits for men & couples (10% discount) and the benefit for single ladies (balanced gender split) that would probably offset the raised headline price.

Mind you, we might see some pressure on headline prices in the near future. I can't believe that Ceroc got their sums sufficiently wrong to offer a really cheap weekender and sell-out 4 months before the event. I suspect that the price point they decided on for Storm is motivated by a desire to achieve market penetration and put pressure on the other weekender operators whose business relies, to a larger extent, on healthy profits from their events. After all, Ceroc are well positioned to roll-out weekenders across the country in the next year or so. Perhaps that's another reason for independents to look at the premium option.

I'm "parlour talking" - I have no knowledge of Ceroc and haven't even been to one of their classes (though I did dance at Chesham on a Friday recently for a couple of hours - good fun). I do have a lot of respect for what seems a highly professional operation and I'm sure they will continue to recognise and exploit opportunities in a growing market.


Why do I suspect that the three men who've voted for option 3, haven't actually got, manly bodies
Phew - I'm glad I didn't vote for option 3!

MartinHarper
18th-November-2005, 01:20 AM
Why do I suspect that the three men who've voted for option 3, haven't actually got, manly bodies :devil: :wink:

I can show you my manly body, if you like, but I'll need a spade first.

MartinHarper
18th-November-2005, 01:26 AM
I suspect that the price point they decided on for Storm is motivated by a desire to achieve market penetration and put pressure on the other weekender operators whose business relies, to a larger extent, on healthy profits from their events.

I thought we had established in other threads that Ceroc(tm) would never run an event at a loss in order to drive out competitors who are unable to cross-subsidise their events, and that any instances where this may have happened in the past were solely the fault of individual anti-competitive franchise owners, rather than being a national policy.

philsmove
18th-November-2005, 05:04 PM
Perhaps tickets could be sold “on line" using one of the programs that change the price according to demand; easy jet pioneered this idea

To start off with Male and female tickets would be the same price

But if the were to many men the ticket price for ladies would rise

And visa Vera

Tickets for couples would not change until the event was nearly sold out when the all prices would rise

If sales were poor prices would fall

bigdjiver
19th-November-2005, 01:10 AM
"Market Forces" have spoken. That number of excess women is what the women will tolerate at that price.

Russell Saxby
19th-November-2005, 01:14 AM
But if the were to many men the ticket price for ladies would rise

wouldn't that discourage ladies from booking :confused:

surely if there were too many men the ticket price for ladies would fall...

but then again when is there ever too many men???

It is more likely to be the other way round.. too many ladies, in which case you are trying to encourage more men... so you lower the price... this will only lead to men getting wise and leaving it even later to book their tickets i.e they wait for the price to go down... looks like one of those vicious circles to me

Dreadful Scathe
21st-November-2005, 04:08 PM
So, women who already get paid less than men, and have to pay more for haircuts, and get stung for VAT on our "luxury items" (meaning tampons)

Women dont need to pay more for haircuts, they chose to - you can go to the barbers like me ;) As for VAT - it has long ceased to be a "luxury tax" when have lighting and heating been "luxury" items :)

I'd celebrate the fact that we now leave in an equal society ;)
Pity some elements of society are more equal than others :)

TiggsTours
21st-November-2005, 04:23 PM
Women dont need to pay more for haircuts, they chose to - you can go to the barbers like me ;) As for VAT - it has long ceased to be a "luxury tax" when have lighting and heating been "luxury" items :)

I'd celebrate the fact that we now leave in an equal society ;)
Pity some elements of society are more equal than others :)
I think you'll find that, if I were to try to make an appointment at a barbers, they would tell me its just for men. However, all the unisex salons charge women more than they do men, even though short hair actually takes more styling than long hair. When I used to have waist length hair, I got charged even more!

However, the only reason I put in the bit about hairdressers was to try to show that, once again, I was stressing something serious, in a light hearted fashion!

I did once hear the suggestion that for one month of one year (alone) all women should choose not to buy the "luxury items", I bet the resulting furore that would be caused by that would cause VAT to be dropped immediately! But, like the martyrs we are, we will continue to suffer in silence, in order to save your (meaning men in general) discomfort and embarassment.

MartinHarper
21st-November-2005, 04:42 PM
All the unisex salons charge women more than they do men, even though short hair actually takes more styling than long hair.

It's interesting that the huge sexist conspiracy against women you're describing takes place in a profession which is largely run by women.

I've got shoulder-length hair myself. Perhaps at the next weekender with a hairdresser, we could run a quick experiment to test out this theory?

TiggsTours
21st-November-2005, 06:10 PM
It's interesting that the huge sexist conspiracy against women you're describing takes place in a profession which is largely run by women.

I've got shoulder-length hair myself. Perhaps at the next weekender with a hairdresser, we could run a quick experiment to test out this theory?
Are you suggesting its not true? Its a very widely known fact! How much do you spend to get your hair cut? For me, around about £35 - £40, and I don't go to really fancy salons!

http://www.clericalmedical.co.uk/Business/Media/MZDisplayRelease.asp?id=MZ2005_012

Dreadful Scathe
21st-November-2005, 06:17 PM
Ive had female friends that have gone to a barbers and got charged the same as a man would have - if thats not the case in other places you are right to be outraged. One time I couldnt find a barbers and went to a "salon" and got charged 27 quid...eeek its usually 8. So I assumed its the quality of the establishment and the kind of "style" you want. My style request of "cut some of it off please" is what cost the 27 pound in the salon :) I assume a more fussy cut costs you extra.

Saying that, I am of course aware there are imbalances in the world - hopefully most of them can be addressed or they balance themselves out. Any more examples anyone ?

ducasi
21st-November-2005, 06:38 PM
I'd celebrate the fact that we now leave in an equal society ;)
... Freudian slap?

David Bailey
21st-November-2005, 08:50 PM
I think you'll find that, if I were to try to make an appointment at a barbers, they would tell me its just for men. However, all the unisex salons charge women more than they do men, even though short hair actually takes more styling than long hair. When I used to have waist length hair, I got charged even more!
I agree, female hairdressing is indeed a rip-off, if you compare it "haircut-for-haircut". £30-50 quid for a women, £6-10 for a man, slight difference...

However, I suspect female hairdressers would defend their prices on the basis of selling an "experience"; the theory being that women often get their hair done to feel good, whereas men just want shorter hair. Additionally, women can take an hour or two; men usually get done in £15 minutes.

I don't say I agree with it - and certainly if you're a woman and "just want shorter hair", you're being ripped-off. But that's the argument.

Dreadful Scathe
21st-November-2005, 11:04 PM
Freudian slap?
I left the equal society. I have my own society now :)

MartinHarper
21st-November-2005, 11:08 PM
If you compare it "haircut-for-haircut". £30-50 quid for a women, £6-10 for a man, slight difference...

If a woman goes into a barber's and asks for a grade 4 all over, she'll pay the same price as a guy, and get some funny looks for free.

TiggsTours
22nd-November-2005, 11:55 AM
I agree, female hairdressing is indeed a rip-off, if you compare it "haircut-for-haircut". £30-50 quid for a women, £6-10 for a man, slight difference...

However, I suspect female hairdressers would defend their prices on the basis of selling an "experience"; the theory being that women often get their hair done to feel good, whereas men just want shorter hair. Additionally, women can take an hour or two; men usually get done in £15 minutes.

I don't say I agree with it - and certainly if you're a woman and "just want shorter hair", you're being ripped-off. But that's the argument.
I hate going to the hairdresser, the only nice bit is having your hair washed by someone else, and I'm usually in the chair for about 25 mins.

In my hairdressers, last time I was there, there was a man in there having his done, his was already being cut before mine was even washed, and he paid at about the time they started drying mine (which takes about 10 mins), his haircut was £11, mine was £35.

You can tell me to change hairdressers if you like, but they are all the same, if you ask for a quote for a haircut, without them even seeing you, they will quote far more for a woman than for a man.

Anyway, this has all come out of a throw away, light hearted comment! Why is everyone making a big deal out of it! Why is everyone determined to make me look like the big bad monster in all this!

stewart38
22nd-November-2005, 12:15 PM
That's our tough luck. It's not fair, but neither is life. Sure I would be disappointed. But I'd be even more disappointed if I'd spent £100-odd on a weekender and spent half of every freestyle anxiously looking for my next partner, worrying about whether I should approach them to ask for a dance or whether I should let them rest/pick their own partner, standing on the sidelines.... blah blah blah. I was way more p***ed off after the 20+ women over night at Chesham on a regular freestyle night than I was about not being able to go to Greenwich because I'd left it too late - I've learned my lesson for next time :)


Well chesham is more even now and over all nos are way down on Monday

Its not 'tough luck' its a imbalance that needs to be addressed, its done on dance holidays so why not weekenders ?

It would get worse, i bet 3 times as many women have already put a deposit for Southport June 2006 . I bet my feb wont be any more women places till a few come up by May following cancellations ?

stewart38
22nd-November-2005, 12:18 PM
I think you'll find that, if I were to try to make an appointment at a barbers, they would tell me ............



your having a laugh, what hair :sad:

David Bailey
22nd-November-2005, 12:22 PM
I hate going to the hairdresser, the only nice bit is having your hair washed by someone else, and I'm usually in the chair for about 25 mins.

In my hairdressers, last time I was there, there was a man in there having his done, his was already being cut before mine was even washed, and he paid at about the time they started drying mine (which takes about 10 mins), his haircut was £11, mine was £35.
For what it's worth, I don't agree with it, but those are just the arguments I've heard.

If you're a woman, and you go to a hairdresser's, you'll be ripped-off.
But then, if you buy perfume, you'll be ripped-off.
If you buy expensive clothes, you'll be ripped-off.
If you... Notice a pattern here?

Bottom line; lots of women spend lots of money on "image" products and services, and a lot of that money is spent on "intangible" feel-good factors. Or, from a male perspective, you're being ripped-off.

It's a con, I agree. But as it's not me being ripped-off, I'm not so steamed-up about it.


Anyway, this has all come out of a throw away, light hearted comment! Why is everyone making a big deal out of it! Why is everyone determined to make me look like the big bad monster in all this!
I'm not, I'm supporting you - I think you're being ripped-off. In case you missed that... :innocent:

Admittedly, the difference between me supporting someone and me attacking someone may be a little unclear, what with all the auto-sarky-comment mode I normally operate in :whistle:

And we should all be used to threads being mutated out of shape by now - sit back and enjoy it, that's what I say.


your having a laugh, what hair :sad:
:yeah: - one benefit of being follically-challenged is the money you save by using clippers.

TiggsTours
22nd-November-2005, 12:33 PM
If you buy expensive clothes, you'll be ripped-off.
A-ha! Now this is one place I feel we get our own back, women's suits, always cheaper than mens!

LMC
22nd-November-2005, 12:36 PM
Its not 'tough luck' its a imbalance that needs to be addressed, its done on dance holidays so why not weekenders ?
I don't understand what the "it" is that you are referring to.

If you are saying that gender is balanced on dance holidays but women and men are still charged the same, then that's the same as Storm or Southport - some women who want to go may not be able to go. If gender is not balanced on dance holidays then I certainly wouldn't want to spend upwards of £500 to spend time on the sidelines.

Dancing is a hobby of choice, not something that is forced upon us. So I maintain that if a woman is unable to go on a dance holiday or a weekender - or to the Greenwich freestyle - because the organiser wants to gender balance then that is tough luck - she should have booked earlier. That includes me.

As I said, it's not fair - but neither is life. More women dance than men. So we either have to a) learn to deal with the consequences - which may mean not being able to go somewhere or b) get more men dancing.

TiggsTours
22nd-November-2005, 12:46 PM
I don't understand what the "it" is that you are referring to.

If you are saying that gender is balanced on dance holidays but women and men are still charged the same, then that's the same as Storm or Southport - some women who want to go may not be able to go. If gender is not balanced on dance holidays then I certainly wouldn't want to spend upwards of £500 to spend time on the sidelines.

Dancing is a hobby of choice, not something that is forced upon us. So I maintain that if a woman is unable to go on a dance holiday or a weekender - or to the Greenwich freestyle - because the organiser wants to gender balance then that is tough luck - she should have booked earlier. That includes me.

As I said, it's not fair - but neither is life. More women dance than men. So we either have to a) learn to deal with the consequences - which may mean not being able to go somewhere or b) get more men dancing.

:yeah: The only thing I don't think we should have to do is, PAY MORE!

David Bailey
22nd-November-2005, 01:02 PM
:yeah: The only thing I don't think we should have to do is, PAY MORE!
Yes, I think that's pretty clear from the poll results - interesting, because I'd generally pay more for a higher-quality experience. So all thse cunning varying-price models are pretty much pointless, as it looks like women don't want that method. (Small-and-unrepresentative sample caveats apply).

But yes, it looks like the "number-restriction" route is the most popular. Assuming the organisers don't get sued to smithereens for sex discrimination of course :whistle:

TiggsTours
22nd-November-2005, 01:11 PM
Yes, I think that's pretty clear from the poll results - interesting, because I'd generally pay more for a higher-quality experience. So all thse cunning varying-price models are pretty much pointless, as it looks like women don't want that method. (Small-and-unrepresentative sample caveats apply).

But yes, it looks like the "number-restriction" route is the most popular. Assuming the organisers don't get sued to smithereens for sex discrimination of course :whistle:
Maybe your poll isn't clear, I would say that a weekender without a gender imbalance is a better weekend, if that takes more work for the organisers, and so puts up the administration costs, I'd be happy to pay more to get it, but, I wouldn't be happy to pay more than the men that are there, which is how your poll reads (to me, at least).

As for them being sued, that wouldn't be possible, they are purely controlling numbers, not discriminating. If more men booked than women, they would have to put out announcements that they are not taking bookings for men.

stewart38
22nd-November-2005, 01:16 PM
I don't understand what the "it" is that you are referring to.

If you are saying that gender is balanced on dance holidays but women and men are still charged the same, then that's the same as Storm or Southport - some women who want to go may not be able to go. If gender is not balanced on dance holidays then I certainly wouldn't want to spend upwards of £500 to spend time on the sidelines.

Dancing is a hobby of choice, not something that is forced upon us. So I maintain that if a woman is unable to go on a dance holiday or a weekender - or to the Greenwich freestyle - because the organiser wants to gender balance then that is tough luck - she should have booked earlier. That includes me.

As I said, it's not fair - but neither is life. More women dance than men. So we either have to a) learn to deal with the consequences - which may mean not being able to go somewhere or b) get more men dancing.

The reason why more women want to go to Greenwich is men find the music a little too 'different' :whistle:

As I said before the Barcelona holiday promoted men places by offering a £25 discount for men if they booked during a promotional period, which i think lasted a week ? (The fliers were at Bisley at the time)

So instead of addressing the issue by saying tough qu) how do you get more men dancing (at weekenders)

How ?? mmmmm economics !

Its ok for women on this forum who account for 3 or 4 % of all female dancers who have all inside info and lets face have probably book for Southport 2012 already. I'm looking at a praticle solutions for my 'fellow' sisters who come to me with sad little faces and say they didnt 'hear' about Southport June 2006 until April 2006 and by then it was too late :sad:

stewart38
22nd-November-2005, 01:19 PM
As for them being sued, that wouldn't be possible, they are purely controlling numbers, not discriminating. If more men booked than women, they would have to put out announcements that they are not taking bookings for men.


Positive sexual discrimination, i had though about this :whistle:

LMC
22nd-November-2005, 01:22 PM
So instead of addressing the issue by saying tough qu) how do you get more men dancing (at weekenders)
Until we find an answer to that one, it IS tough luck.


How ?? mmmmm economics !
I'm not arguing with you on that one, TT is. Pick on her for a change.


Its ok for women on this forum who account for 3 or 4 % of all female dancers who have all inside info and lets face have probably book for Southport 2012 already. I'm looking at a praticle solutions for my 'fellow' sisters who come to me with sad little faces and say they didnt 'hear' about Southport June 2006 until April 2006 and by then it was too late :sad:
So why are you not telling them about it now?

David Bailey
22nd-November-2005, 01:29 PM
Maybe your poll isn't clear, I would say that a weekender without a gender imbalance is a better weekend, if that takes more work for the organisers, and so puts up the administration costs, I'd be happy to pay more to get it, but, I wouldn't be happy to pay more than the men that are there, which is how your poll reads (to me, at least).
I just threw in that option as a last-minute option after something Stewart38 said, so it's all his fault. But yes, it's not exactly comprehensive.


As for them being sued, that wouldn't be possible, they are purely controlling numbers, not discriminating.
Franco seems to have taken advice (here (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=173183&postcount=190)) that says there may indeed be legal risks in controlling numbers.

I think that advice is rubbish - but saying "it wouldn't be possible to be sued" is a bit strong. "Highly unlikely to be sued", I'd be happy with. :D

MartinHarper
22nd-November-2005, 01:41 PM
All thse cunning varying-price models are pretty much pointless, as it looks like women don't want that method.

On the other hand, several women have said they'd be happy if men got a discount, in order to get more men dancing, and more even numbers. It could be a discount for first-timers, or for men who book early, or a discount for women who get men to book. Whatever.

I'm glad that stewart is raising attention to the plight of those women who want to go to a weekender, but are either less informed about what's available, or are unable to organise their lives several months in advance. It's a shame that, because of the way many weekenders are now sold, these women find it very difficult to experience the joy of a dance weekend. It sounds like the only words of comfort we can find for them are "tough luck". Surely we can do better than that?

Everyone talks about encouraging beginners. It's not very encouraging if I start dancing, and the next available place on a weekender is over a year away, because all the female places have already been snaffled.

TiggsTours
22nd-November-2005, 02:54 PM
I just threw in that option as a last-minute option after something Stewart38 said, so it's all his fault. But yes, it's not exactly comprehensive.


Franco seems to have taken advice (here (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=173183&postcount=190)) that says there may indeed be legal risks in controlling numbers.

I think that advice is rubbish - but saying "it wouldn't be possible to be sued" is a bit strong. "Highly unlikely to be sued", I'd be happy with. :D
Franco is only interested in money, he doesn't care on how the numbers are divided, just getting the numbers in.

Plenty of other organisations limit the numbers, they make this plainly obvious that they are keeping a balance, once the limit for either sex is reached, limits are brought into play, this is not discrimination, positive or negative, discrimination would say that there are more spaces for one sex than the other, not equal numbers. If it was against the law to set up limits on numbers (and we're talking an equal balance of the sexes, remember) don't you think the other dance organisations, Ceroc included (which, incidentally, has a number of solicitors and lawyers witting on the board of directors, who I think possible understand the laws better than you or I) would be concerned about being sued for trying to get an equal balance in the numbers?

The legal quotes Franco has used here speaks about discrimination, which is, of course, against the law, there is no discrimination in trying to keep numbers equal!

How many companies have been caught out in having to offer a job to the second choice person, because they need to ensure they are complying with equal opportunities, and the 2nd choice person is equally as qualified as the first, but they need to employ someone of the right sex in order to keep the legal balance in the office? Equal opportunities gone mad, I know, but still the same principle.

Lory
22nd-November-2005, 03:11 PM
Everyone talks about encouraging beginners. It's not very encouraging if I start dancing, and the next available place on a weekender is over a year away, because all the female places have already been snaffled.
I fail to see how exposing a new and inexperienced dancer to the ordeal of having to either fight for a dance or sit out all together, is encouraging either? :sad:

alex
22nd-November-2005, 03:11 PM
it might not be illegal now, but it appears it might be by 2007



Equal treatment for men and women – end of “Ladies’ night”!

The Council adopted, on 13 December 2004, Directive 2004/113 on gender equality in the access to and supply of goods and services. Previously, a number of EU Directives dealt with equal treatment of men and women in the labour market. The new Directive, however, takes EU anti-discrimination legislation beyond the area of employment for the first time.

Under the Directive both direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of sex are prohibited. The Directive applies to all persons who provide goods and services which are available to the public. The only exceptions cover the media and advertising industries as well as public and private education. Member States can, under certain conditions, opt-out of the Directive as far as the provision of insurance and related financial services are concerned.

Member States have until 21 December 2007 to bring their laws and regulations in line with the Directive.

Although it is not explicitly declared in the Directive, the Commission claims that the new legislation spells the end to certain practices in the hospitality sector (Commission newsletter “Social Agenda”, N°10, December 2004). For instance, hotels and restaurants would not be able to close their doors to single male or female guests. ”Ladies’ nights” in bars and clubs – where women are offered lower prices – would be banned for discriminating against men.


more details can be found at http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/cha/c10935.htm

there are exemptions:

Differences in the treatment of men and women may be accepted only if they are justified by a legitimate aim, such as the protection of victims of sex-related violence (in cases such as the establishment of single-sex shelters) or the freedom of association (in cases of membership of single-sex private clubs). Any limitation should nevertheless be appropriate and necessary.
im not sure that "wanting to have a few more dances" would be regarded in the same way. maybe we should go back to the original name of 'french jive', as the french can get anything they want from the EU.

Zebra Woman
22nd-November-2005, 03:14 PM
I'm glad that stewart is raising attention to the plight of those women who want to go to a weekender, but are either less informed about what's available, or are unable to organise their lives several months in advance. It's a shame that, because of the way many weekenders are now sold, these women find it very difficult to experience the joy of a dance weekend. It sounds like the only words of comfort we can find for them are "tough luck". Surely we can do better than that?


There is nothing stopping women booking their place on a weekender well in advance before they are certain they can make it, and then selling on their ticket closer to the event. As I'm sure some canny individuals will be doing for Storm.



Everyone talks about encouraging beginners. It's not very encouraging if I start dancing, and the next available place on a weekender is over a year away, because all the female places have already been snaffled.


With the number of weekenders around I think it's unlikely a newbie woman would have to wait more that 6 months to get a place on her first weekender. I don't see that as a huge problem. Most people would expect to book a specialist short holiday at least 6 months in advance. Plus as some of us keep saying, the experience when she gets there would justify the wait.



If it was against the law to set up limits on numbers (and we're talking an equal balance of the sexes, remember) don't you think the other dance organisations, Ceroc included (which, incidentally, has a number of solicitors and lawyers witting on the board of directors, who I think possible understand the laws better than you or I) would be concerned about being sued for trying to get an equal balance in the numbers?

:yeah:

I'm smelling a rat.

David Bailey
22nd-November-2005, 03:15 PM
On the other hand, several women have said they'd be happy if men got a discount, in order to get more men dancing, and more even numbers.
:confused: It's funny how much the way you market things matters, isn't it?

To me, "discounts for men" is the same as "extra for women", but I'm probably too right-brained or whatever it is.


Franco is only interested in money, he doesn't care on how the numbers are divided, just getting the numbers in.
Well, let's not get into people's motives here, I'm going to take people's comments at face value.

I totally agree with you about the ridiculousness of any legal advice, but if he says that's his concern, we should address it - as we're doing, by giving the many counter-examples of ratio-controlling out there.

For example, the very front page of the Storm site (http://www.ceroc.com/storm/) says:
Gender Balance 47% men 53% ladies
(we are anticipating that this will be at 50/50 by March 2006)
and:
We have restricted female only bookings as we are managing the gender mix at this event

So I presume Ceroc aren't too worried about this area.

(The site then goes loopy about these dumb wristband things, but no-one's perfect. Hmmm, I wonder if colour-coded wristbands are discriminatory... ? :devil: )

TiggsTours
22nd-November-2005, 03:34 PM
it might not be illegal now, but it appears it might be by 2007



more details can be found at http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/cha/c10935.htm

there are exemptions:

im not sure that "wanting to have a few more dances" would be regarded in the same way. maybe we should go back to the original name of 'french jive', as the french can get anything they want from the EU.
Ah yes, but this IS discrimination. Giving a discount to one sex, regardless of any prior knowledge (other than experience) to who would be most interested is discrimination. However, if they were to say "There will be a 50-50 limit on the sexes, and then turn the guys away when the male ratio limit is reached, this is not discrimination. This is the same as dance weekenders limiting numbers by sexual ratios. They are not limiting the numbers of women that can go, any more than they are limiting the number of men that can go. If they hit the upper limit on men first, announcements would go out that no more men are allowed (which I said ages ago!) so no discrimination has taken place at all!

AAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

stewart38
22nd-November-2005, 03:34 PM
Until we find an answer to that one, it IS tough luck.


I'm not arguing with you on that one, TT is. Pick on her for a change.


So why are you not telling them about it now?


Ive given you solutions you have chosen not to listen , more of Im alright Jack approach which is against the founding principles for our fore farthers and sounds like you are now a hotshot :mad:

contrary to popular believe i have not slept with or know personally the 27,000 other women out there who this may effect or affect

Zebra Woman
22nd-November-2005, 03:38 PM
I'm glad that stewart is raising attention to the plight of those women who want to go to a weekender, but are either less informed about what's available, or are unable to organise their lives several months in advance. It's a shame that, because of the way many weekenders are now sold, these women find it very difficult to experience the joy of a dance weekend. It sounds like the only words of comfort we can find for them are "tough luck". Surely we can do better than that?


There is nothing stopping women booking their place on a weekender well in advance before they are certain they can make it, and then selling on their ticket closer to the event. As I'm sure some canny individuals will be doing for Storm.



Everyone talks about encouraging beginners. It's not very encouraging if I start dancing, and the next available place on a weekender is over a year away, because all the female places have already been snaffled.


With the number of weekenders around I think it's unlikely a newbie woman would have to wait more that 6 months to get a place on her first weekender. I don't see that as a huge problem. Most people would expect to book a specialist short holiday at least 6 months in advance. Plus as some of us keep saying, the experience when she gets there would justify the wait.



If it was against the law to set up limits on numbers (and we're talking an equal balance of the sexes, remember) don't you think the other dance organisations, Ceroc included (which, incidentally, has a number of solicitors and lawyers witting on the board of directors, who I think possible understand the laws better than you or I) would be concerned about being sued for trying to get an equal balance in the numbers?

:yeah:

I'm smelling a rat.

LMC
22nd-November-2005, 03:42 PM
Ive given you solutions you have chosen not to listen , more of Im alright Jack approach which is against the founding principles for our fore farthers and sounds like you are now a hotshot :mad:
Now you're getting personal - again. I'm outta here.

Lory and ZW are arguing the case far more ably than I am and I fully agree with both of them.

MartinHarper
22nd-November-2005, 04:04 PM
If it was against the law to set up limits on numbers ... don't you think the other dance organisations ... would be concerned about being sued for trying to get an equal balance in the numbers?

It may be that they have received different legal advice. Lawyers can come to different opinions on these matters.
It may be that they have taken a different business decision, based on how they feel about the legal risks involved.
It may be that they are ignoring the law, or have not considered the issue.

DavidB
22nd-November-2005, 04:06 PM
They are not limiting the numbers of women that can go, any more than they are limiting the number of men that can go. If they hit the upper limit on men first, announcements would go out that no more men are allowed (which I said ages ago!) so no discrimination has taken place at all!You don't have to prove that everyone has been discriminated against - only yourself. If you get a couple of lawyers trying to book two places the week before, and they are told "We can only let the male lawyer in. The female lawyer can't come in just because you are female". How long do you think it would take for a law suit?

It doesn't matter that she could have bought a place the week before. It only matters that when she did try to buy her place that she was discriminated against purely on the basis of her sex.

(Of course if they were both told "we don't allow lawyers" then no-one would have a problem with that.)

David

LMC
22nd-November-2005, 04:10 PM
Guess you're going to McDonalds for your supper then David?

I think STORM, SP and other 'gender balancers' cover themselves on this by saying single men or couples - on the basis that an additional one of each gender won't make any overall difference to the existing balance - and even marginally improves it...

Russell Saxby
22nd-November-2005, 04:22 PM
It may be that they have received different legal advice. Lawyers can come to different opinions on these matters.
It may be that they have taken a different business decision, based on how they feel about the legal risks involved.
It may be that they are ignoring the law, or have not considered the issue.

err no advice sought :eek: so I guess you could say we are not considering the issue :innocent:

As far as I am concerned it boils down to good old common sense i.e. partner dance = equal numbers (oh and of course more work for the orgainser :rolleyes: )

... but then again I guess we all know common sense no longer applies to the world we live in :mad:

spindr
22nd-November-2005, 06:00 PM
err no advice sought :eek: so I guess you could say we are not considering the issue :innocent:
Gosh, you'll be saying you haven't worked out how to provide disabled access next?

SpinDr

TiggsTours
22nd-November-2005, 06:07 PM
Gosh, you'll be saying you haven't worked out how to provide disabled access next?

SpinDr
Meaning?

bigdjiver
22nd-November-2005, 06:40 PM
If we are so concerned about the 1:1 ratio do we bar same sex dancing, or multiple follows?

Could we compensate for the gender imbalance at weekenders being generally unfair to women, and so a worse deal, by offering hairdos and nail treatments to all attendees?

spindr
23rd-November-2005, 01:26 PM
Meaning?
IANAL :)

A quick google (http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/layer?r.l3=1073990013&r.l2=1073859248&r.t=RESOURCES&r.i=1073792013&r.l1=1073858799&r.s=m&topicId=1073990013) suggests:

You must not discriminate against disabled people who use your goods or services or disabled people whom you employ, or who apply to you for employment.

Since 1 October 2004, all businesses that provide goods and services to the public have been legally required to take reasonable steps to tackle any physical features of their premises that act as a barrier to service for disabled people. This is in addition to other duties not to discriminate that already apply.

If a dance class is a service, then organisers would need to consider the above.

Immediate thoughts are:

physical access to the dance floor (toilets) -- especially if the venue has a large number of steps and limited lifts.
are radio mikes / discos are linked to any induction loop system.
flashing lights might be problematic to epileptics
smoke machines might be problematic to asthmatics.


Possibly also:

access to information, e.g. non-flash (text) versions of websites -- not just scanned images of brochures.
are forms are available in clear, large print editions.


SpinDr

TiggsTours
23rd-November-2005, 01:56 PM
IANAL :)

A quick google (http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/layer?r.l3=1073990013&r.l2=1073859248&r.t=RESOURCES&r.i=1073792013&r.l1=1073858799&r.s=m&topicId=1073990013) suggests:


If a dance class is a service, then organisers would need to consider the above.

Immediate thoughts are:

physical access to the dance floor (toilets) -- especially if the venue has a large number of steps and limited lifts.
are radio mikes / discos are linked to any induction loop system.
flashing lights might be problematic to epileptics
smoke machines might be problematic to asthmatics.


Possibly also:

access to information, e.g. non-flash (text) versions of websites -- not just scanned images of brochures.
are forms are available in clear, large print editions.


SpinDr
Oh right. I have no idea what "IANAL" means, but I thought you were suggesting that there is no need for a dance company to think of the needs of the disabled, as they wouldn't be dancing, I was just going to come back and tell you of the 2 deaf people, the 1 partially blind person, and the 2 people in wheelchairs that I know, I'm sure there're loads more!

I apologise for assuming you were going to say something that you weren't.:flower:

spindr
23rd-November-2005, 02:31 PM
Oh right. I have no idea what "IANAL" means
IANAL == I am not a lawyer (*)

SpinDr.
(*) there is an implicit silent "Hallelujah!" at the end of that acronym.