PDA

View Full Version : Gender balance control! for or against



under par
15th-March-2006, 12:40 AM
We have never implemented Gender Balance Control at our Jive Weekends based on the advice received from the Equal Opportunities Commission, EOC, according to which such practice would have been illegal under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Given that Gender Balance Control has been publicly exercised by a number of our competitors, we have asked the EOC to review once again the advice they previously gave us. The EOC has now written back to us stating that having equal number of tickets for men and women would not be direct sex discrimination. However, the EOC states that it might still be possible for a man or woman to bring a claim of indirect sex discrimination if they could show that the practice of withholding tickets (after the half set aside for that sex had been sold) adversely affected significantly more women than men (or vice versa) and if it was not justifiable on objective grounds unrelated to sex.

Our concern is that whatever justification we put in place for or against the implementation of Gender Balance Control, it might not be sufficient at a later date to defend our decision for or against such practice. In view of that we have decided to exercise a democratic process whereby all people within our e-mail database will have an opportunity to vote for or against the implementation of Gender Balance Control. The majority vote will determine which practice we will follow.

To vote, simply reply to this e-mail by close of business on Friday 17th March 2006. State your full name and either "Against Gender Balance Control" or "For Gender Balance Control". Only one vote per person per e-mail address will be accepted, if two or more people share the same e-mail address, only one vote will be accepted for that e-mail address. Please refrain from writing anything other than your name and "For Gender Balance Control" or "Against Gender Balance Control", as we will not have the material time or resources to reply to any of these e-mails, at least at this stage.

You might not vote if you are not the original recipient of this message and if your name and e-mail address is not already in our database. You might not vote if you are a member of staff, or someone in any way linked to the management or implementation of JiveTime, Hipsters and Jive Holiday Club business, or an organiser/owner of Modern Jive events of any denomination. Other than that, all the original recipients of this e-mail may vote.

In view of the above, we will now take no further bookings until close of business on Friday 17th March 2006. Votes will be counted soon after that, we do not expect this to take very long as we will use an electronic system. The result will be published on our web site by 9.00 am on Saturday the 18th of March 2006. We will then resume taking bookings as from 10.00 am on Saturday the 18th of March 2006, using or not using Gender Balance Control, as directed by the majority vote.

All casting vote e-mails will be archived and we will not disclose our archive to any third party unless otherwise requested to do so by law.

Finally, if you have already booked any of our forthcoming 3 jive weekends in May and November 2006 at Camber and in January 2007 at Bognor, please let us have the names of all the people in your party asap. If you have an existing booking, you can have any gender mix you want in your party, as the output of the above ballot will not affect anyone who has already made a booking.


This is an extract from the latest Jivetime e-mail re gender balance control out tonight your thoughts please?

JonD
15th-March-2006, 01:01 AM
I'm all for asking the customer. I replied with "For Gender Balance Control".


Our concern is that whatever justification we put in place for or against the implementation of Gender Balance Control, it might not be sufficient at a later date to defend our decision for or against such practice.
I'm not entirely sure if a producing a vote of registered customers as evidence of popular support for gender balancing would strengthen any defence but I guess it does no harm. Until someone brings a test case we won't know what the law is - but I hope nobody does so!

Spin dryer
15th-March-2006, 01:06 AM
No offence Under Par (for this is now an almost universal crime), but I must have a rant about the misuse of the word gender. Gender is the word correctly used to distinguish different kinds of noun. In English, the gender of nouns is "natural" but we are all of course familiar with, for example, the male and female definite articles in french (le and la).

What this thread is concerned with is not gender, but sex. That is why Franco's email (quoted by Under Par) cites the Sex Discrimination Act. I think it's some bizarre preciousness that makes people uncomfortable with using the word sex , perhaps because of its other meaning of coitus.

So forumites, please remember, you are not mere words and you do not have a gender; you have sex!

under par
15th-March-2006, 01:09 AM
No offence Under Par (for this is now an almost universal crime), but I must have a rant about the misuse of the word gender. Gender is the word correctly used to distinguish different kinds of noun. In English, the gender of nouns is "natural" but we are all of course familiar with, for example, the male and female definite articles in french (le and la).

What this thread is concerned with is not gender, but sex. That is why Franco's email (quoted by Under Par) cites the Sex Discrimination Act. I think it's some bizarre preciousness that makes people uncomfortable with using the word sex , perhaps because of its other meaning of coitus.

So forumites, please remember, you are not mere words and you do not have a gender; you have sex!


Please don't shoot the messenger.....:D

I understand your feelings though:hug:

El Salsero Gringo
15th-March-2006, 01:15 AM
This is an extract from the latest Jivetime e-mail re gender balance control out tonight your thoughts please?I think the whole thing's either a publicity stunt or a ****-take.

When are those weekenders again?

Andy McGregor
15th-March-2006, 01:17 AM
My own feeling is that any differentiation of favour based on sex is unacceptable. I believe that the number of leaders and followers should be balanced at events to ensure that people get plenty of dancing. The simple solution is to ask people if they will predominantly lead or follow at the event - after all, leading and following have nothing to do with sex. All we need is a leaders or a followers wristband and you know who to ask for a dance.

The consequence of this way of selecting who comes might be a balance of the sexes, but that is not what is being done when asking if people predominantly lead or follow. All you need is two boxes, one saying "leader" the other "follower" and the legend "tick only one box"

As an aside, I was confused by Storm having different wristbands to identify men and women - I can do that without even seeing their wristband.

Spin dryer
15th-March-2006, 01:18 AM
Please don't shoot the messenger.....:D

I understand your feelings though:hug:

Nice one Under Par. Incidentally, would be nice to know who you are as you are such a prolific poster. Is there a pic of you and Mrs UP anywhere on the forum?

Clive Long
15th-March-2006, 01:19 AM
<< snip >>
So forumites, please remember, you are not mere words and you do not have a gender; you have sex!
So, oh spinning one, the phrase

"you can have any gender mix you want in your party"

becomes

"you can have any sex mix you want in your party"

I'll vote for that. Where do I sign? :yum:


CRL

Andy McGregor
15th-March-2006, 01:20 AM
I think the whole thing's either a publicity stunt or a ****-take. IMHO Franco is trying to differentiate his weekenders. Unfortunately, there is a danger that people receiving his email will think there's too many women at his weekenders. This means that less women will book. Ahh, cunning :wink:

under par
15th-March-2006, 01:22 AM
Nice one Under Par. Incidentally, would be nice to know who you are as you are such a prolific poster.

mostly drivel I assure you



Is there a pic of you and Mrs UP anywhere on the forum?

Lots, apparently too many for some folks. please check out Storm Photos thread and also let me know where to see photo of yourself. Cheers U.P.

ducasi
15th-March-2006, 01:23 AM
... You might not vote if you are not the original recipient of this message ... As I am not the original recipient of the message, I certainly might not be voting... :)

Andy McGregor
15th-March-2006, 01:23 AM
The other thing to consider is the WOSL. Women Only Short List. This was used by the Labour party when selecting parliamentary candidates - and they, somehow, got away with it :confused:

If the people who run the country can get away with it maybe Mike Ellard (Prince of Darkness) can pull it off too.

El Salsero Gringo
15th-March-2006, 01:25 AM
IMHO Franco is trying to differentiate his weekenders. Unfortunately, there is a danger that people receiving his email will think there's too many women at his weekenders. This means that less women will book. Ahh, cunning :wink:Or else he's realised that balancing the sexes at Storm was a great success and he's now furiously trying to back-pedal on his previous policy while regretting having made such a pratfall as to announce to all and sundry that the whole thing is unlawful.

Or perhaps I'm just an ageing cynic.

Andy McGregor
15th-March-2006, 01:25 AM
Nice one Under Par. Incidentally, would be nice to know who you are as you are such a prolific poster. Is there a pic of you and Mrs UP anywhere on the forum?I had a lovely dance with UP tonight and I can confirm that he is prolific. So long as prolific means sweaty :sick:

under par
15th-March-2006, 01:25 AM
As I am not the original recipient of the message, I certainly might not be voting... :)

I support your right to might not vote..... :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:

Andy McGregor
15th-March-2006, 01:27 AM
I'm just an ageing cynic.:whistle:

under par
15th-March-2006, 01:28 AM
I had a lovely dance with UP tonight and I can confirm that he is prolific. So long as prolific means sweaty :sick:


Aw! I thought you enjoyed it especially the titanic/figurehead x 2.:what:

Clive Long
15th-March-2006, 01:28 AM
Nice one Under Par. Incidentally, would be nice to know who you are as you are such a prolific poster.

UP. He tried that line with me. Careful, and keep the Wet Wipes handy.


Is there a pic of you and Mrs UP anywhere on the forum?

Definitely stalker material I would say. Although I do have pride of place for the signed photos you were giving out after your triumph at Southport fancy dress.

Lots, apparently too many for some folks. please check out Storm Photos thread and also let me know where to see photo of yourself. Cheers U.P.
You wouldn't want to do that ...I have shared a room with him. He frightens innocent women whom I have invited to visit.

CRL

timbp
15th-March-2006, 01:28 AM
No offence Under Par (for this is now an almost universal crime), but I must have a rant about the misuse of the word gender. Gender is the word correctly used to distinguish different kinds of noun. In English, the gender of nouns is "natural" but we are all of course familiar with, for example, the male and female definite articles in french (le and la).

What this thread is concerned with is not gender, but sex. That is why Franco's email (quoted by Under Par) cites the Sex Discrimination Act. I think it's some bizarre preciousness that makes people uncomfortable with using the word sex , perhaps because of its other meaning of coitus.

So forumites, please remember, you are not mere words and you do not have a gender; you have sex!
But language does change over time. I work for a medical journal, and we make a distinction between "sex" (relates to what chromosomes you have, what genitalia you were born with) and "gender" (relates to your roles and identification in society). Thus, "sex" is biological; "gender" is sociological.
"gender" is a subjective cultural attitude while "sex" is an objective biological fact.

El Salsero Gringo
15th-March-2006, 01:31 AM
Thus, "sex" is biological; "gender" is sociological.
"gender" is a subjective cultural attitude while "sex" is an objective biological fact.Stop confusing Andy McGregor.

under par
15th-March-2006, 01:31 AM
Or perhaps I'm just an ageing cynic.


Surely we are all ageing, minute by minte second by second etc. ad nauseum

but as its your Birthday I'll let you off. You are getting old ESG. A wise OLD owl!:respect:

Clive Long
15th-March-2006, 01:31 AM
maybe Mike Ellard (Prince of Darkness) can pull it off too.
Would you care to rephrase?

Andy McGregor
15th-March-2006, 01:34 AM
Aw! I thought you enjoyed it especially the titanic/figurehead x 2.:what:The second time was better. The first time you finished before me...

Andy McGregor
15th-March-2006, 01:35 AM
Would you care to rephrase?The balance of the sexes in Mike Ellard's family is all wrong - I want his women :devil:

under par
15th-March-2006, 01:36 AM
The second time was better. The first time you finished before me...

You were stiffer the second time and a bit too floppy the first.:innocent:

Andy McGregor
15th-March-2006, 01:38 AM
Stop confusing Andy McGregor.I'm not confused. Sex=male gender=camp

Andy McGregor
15th-March-2006, 01:39 AM
You were stiffer the second time and a bit too floppy the first.:innocent:If I'd had more warning I'd have taken my Viagra earlier...

under par
15th-March-2006, 01:41 AM
If I'd had more warning I'd have taken my Viagra earlier...

Well the applause shows the audience couldn't tell the difference!:D

Spin dryer
15th-March-2006, 01:42 AM
But language does change over time. I work for a medical journal, and we make a distinction between "sex" (relates to what chromosomes you have, what genitalia you were born with) and "gender" (relates to your roles and identification in society). Thus, "sex" is biological; "gender" is sociological.
"gender" is a subjective cultural attitude while "sex" is an objective biological fact.

Interesting post, and I do not disagree with what you say. But surely the primary concern of Messrs Mike and Franco is the genitalia that dancers were born with rather than their roles and identification in society. If their concern were the latter, then they would presumably be looking at achieving balance by reference to the numbers of leaders and followers.

Andy McGregor
15th-March-2006, 01:47 AM
Interesting post, and I do not disagree with what you say. But surely the primary concern of Messrs Mike and Franco is the genitalia that dancers were born with rather than their roles and identification in society. If their concern were the latter, then they would presumably be looking at achieving balance by reference to the numbers of leaders and followers.And I don't think that carrying your genitalia on the inside or outside of your body makes you better suited to leading or following.

Andy McGregor
15th-March-2006, 01:48 AM
Well the applause shows the audience couldn't tell the difference!:DThey're trained to be kind :flower:

tsh
15th-March-2006, 09:28 AM
I voted for, but I do find the whole issue rather tedious. Franco seems to be obsessed by rules and making mountains out of molehills - which does little to put him on my (currently single element) list of favourite weekender organisers.

If he really cared about keeping his punters happy, he'd provide free water and an assurance that wristbands wouldn't be needed to distinguish between leaders, followers and people who hadn't paid..

Sean

Minnie M
15th-March-2006, 09:36 AM
With all this gender balancing at Storm there were still more women downstairs in the "Chill out /Swing Blues" area (sorry forgot the Storm name for it) :sad:
...... and there were often more men than women in the classes :really:

so although in theory the gender balance works - at weekenders it may need an extra tweek

I'm all for weekend dances being gender balanced (as much as possibile though) :clap:

LMC
15th-March-2006, 09:47 AM
Or else he's realised that balancing the sexes at Storm was a great success and he's now furiously trying to back-pedal on his previous policy while regretting having made such a pratfall as to announce to all and sundry that the whole thing is unlawful.
:yeah:

I voted 'For'. Let's not muddy the waters here by political correctness gone experiencing mental health difficulties. MOST leaders are men. MOST followers are women. Until they gender balance/sex balance/whatever the hell you want to call it I won't consider a Jive Time weekender even if every single one of my friends goes and I end up rattling round at Ashtons with only David James to dance with.

under par
15th-March-2006, 09:50 AM
:yeah:

<<snip>>> I won't consider a Jive Time weekender even if every single one of my friends goes and I end up rattling round at Ashtons with only David James to dance with.

You shouldn't mock one who can't answer back...:whistle:

Andy McGregor
15th-March-2006, 10:06 AM
I voted 'For'. Let's not muddy the waters here by political correctness gone experiencing mental health difficulties. MOST leaders are men. MOST followers are women.Absolutely right. But sexist. Speaking for myself, I believe that there are differences between men and women and that the two should be treated differently in certain circumstances. HOWEVER, we live in an age of "political correctness gone experiencing mental health difficulties". This means that you can not exclude someone from an event based on their sex. All it would take would be one person to complain to the Equal Opportunites people that they'd been told they couldn't go to Camber because they are female ...

IMHO, the organiser would be found at fault.

As I said, balance the leaders and followers and you take away the sex bias - even though most leaders are male and most followers are female.

LMC
15th-March-2006, 10:15 AM
As I said, balance the leaders and followers and you take away the sex bias - even though most leaders are male and most followers are female.
Yes, and then you're risking people complaining that someone is not dancing in the role that their wristband is for. A (female) friend of mine was told off by another follower recently for wanting to learn to lead in a beginner's class because there were men over (possibly because I wasn't there that night). We've had the discussion on choice of role here before too. There are very few men who only follow or women who only lead, so far easier/simpler just to say balance of men and women, end of - however much you want to, it's impossible to cater for every case.

EDIT: Afterthought - if someone does complain to the EOC, surely demonstration by the respondent (i.e. the organiser) that the overwhelming consensus is in favour of balancing would make the EOC tell the plaintiff to get a life (or whatever the legal term is) - democracy is supposed to cater to the majority after all. And it's only a dance weekender, not someone's life/job we're talking about.

ChrisA
15th-March-2006, 10:15 AM
Or else he's realised that balancing the sexes at Storm was a great success and he's now furiously trying to back-pedal on his previous policy while regretting having made such a pratfall as to announce to all and sundry that the whole thing is unlawful.

Or perhaps I'm just an ageing cynic.
Well you clearly are an ageing cynic... but that doesn't make you wrong.

Though I think all this talk of "furious backpedalling" is a bit extreme.

My speculation would be that any advice he got in the past happened to coincide with his wish to sell as many tickets as possible, so investigating the sometimes non-obvious differences between "unlawful" and "potentially leaving you open to loads of grief" never arose as a need.

Now the goalposts have moved, and a good thing too - and he's just doing what any businessman would, and responding to what the competition's doing. If it makes his product better, giving us a better time, it can only be a good thing.

Andy McGregor
15th-March-2006, 10:28 AM
so far easier/simpler just to say balance of men and women, end of - however much you want to, it's impossible to cater for every case.Yes, it would be far easier to balance the sexes. However, it's not fair in the eyes of those politically correct one parent, lesbian, Irish, vegan, one legged transexuals who seem to make the decisions about what is politically correct.

And, as an example of PC gone mad, we have a car designer locally who has had 2 staff members go through a sex change from male to female. The first one left and successfully sued his company for the distress of having to use the male toilets - the women complained when he used the ladies because whe wasn't a lady and they didn't like 'him' in their private ladies place. When the second guy decided to change his sex the company didn't want to get caught out and laid on a special toilet for staff members who were between sexes - it's a good thing the 2 sex change guys weren't there at the same time as there would have to be toilets based on the stage you were at in the transition from male to female.

Maybe we should apply to a weekender that balances the sexes and say that we're currently male but might be completely female by the time the weekender is staged :innocent:

LMC
15th-March-2006, 10:36 AM
So what you're basically saying is that whatever you do, you can't bloody win, so might as well make as much money as possible by doing what seems best at the time. Makes sense to me.

Andy McGregor
15th-March-2006, 10:41 AM
EDIT: Afterthought - if someone does complain to the EOC, surely demonstration by the respondent (i.e. the organiser) that the overwhelming consensus is in favour of balancing would make the EOC tell the plaintiff to get a life (or whatever the legal term is) - democracy is supposed to cater to the majority after all. And it's only a dance weekender, not someone's life/job we're talking about.The majority of people agreeing with something is no defence. We all AGREE that balancing the sexes at a weekender would be great. However, we also seem to agree that it's PC gone mad to say you can't do it - and I think the PC brigade say that you can't*.

*although I could, unthinkably, be wrong.

stewart38
15th-March-2006, 10:45 AM
The majority of people agreeing with something is no defence. We all AGREE that balancing the sexes at a weekender would be great. However, we also seem to agree that it's PC gone mad to say you can't do it - and I think the PC brigade say that you can't*.

*although I could, unthinkably, be wrong.

I voted against and then you have a CLEAR CHOICE

Book by 2006 for a 2010 event if your a lady (Gender control) or take your chance on a weekender where you know there wont be a gender control and book a week before

MartinHarper
15th-March-2006, 10:52 AM
Surely the primary concern of Messrs Mike and Franco is the genitalia that dancers were born with rather than their roles and identification in society.

I generally don't have to display the genitalia I was born with in order to get an appropriate coloured wristband, so it would seem not.

fletch
15th-March-2006, 10:52 AM
book a week before

If you are a lady and there IS gender control you carn't book a week before all the places will be gone. :sick:

LMC
15th-March-2006, 10:58 AM
The majority of people agreeing with something is no defence.
You're right.

So the alternative is for a woman to counter claim that the men have more opportunity to dance with a member of the opposite gender/sex than she does, and the organiser is therefore contravening her equal rights by not ensuring an even mix. Or perhaps a man could claim that his equal right for a rest from dancing is being denied owing to the ravening hordes of women who leap on him every time he tries to get off the dance floor and whose feelings he doesn't want to injure...

stewart38
15th-March-2006, 11:04 AM
If you are a lady and there IS gender control you carn't book a week before all the places will be gone. :sick:


Thats the whole point !!!


People like LMC etc can make an informed choice ,decide what events they want to go in the year and book early (Gender balance)

Those (women) who may find out about an event late or for what ever reason just come to book late can then go on events where there is no gender balance and book a week before

e.g Southport no ladies places (June event)

Camber still ladies places (May)

I guess if people vote for gender balance at camber May the first thing you will get is no more ladies places availible :sad:

Im not AGAINST gender balance im against restricted choice

Feelingpink
15th-March-2006, 11:08 AM
No offence Under Par (for this is now an almost universal crime), but I must have a rant about the misuse of the word gender. Gender is the word correctly used to distinguish different kinds of noun. In English, the gender of nouns is "natural" but we are all of course familiar with, for example, the male and female definite articles in french (le and la).

What this thread is concerned with is not gender, but sex. That is why Franco's email (quoted by Under Par) cites the Sex Discrimination Act. I think it's some bizarre preciousness that makes people uncomfortable with using the word sex , perhaps because of its other meaning of coitus.

So forumites, please remember, you are not mere words and you do not have a gender; you have sex!

I may be completely off with my information, but thought that sex was (generally) a male/female thing, but that gender was a politically correct term to cover other variations such as lesbian, bi, gay and transvestites.

Lynn
15th-March-2006, 11:34 AM
Gender balance, mixed sex parties (:really: :innocent: )... whatever...

Having experienced two weekenders in the same venue - Camber - one not sex/gender balanced and one that was - I know which I prefer.

Being a shy wee thing, although I'm getting better at asking men to dance I'll never be up there in the 'grab the good ones quick' category, I'm just not predatory enough. Weekenders are my only 'big' freestyle opportunities so I don't want to spend a lot of time standing/sitting at the edge of the dance floor. So although it means planning ahead (which I have to do anyway if I don't want to pay silly prices for flights and to arrange time off work) I would much prefer balanced events.

In fact if Jivetime does balance events following this email (and at least it shows Franco is trying to find out what his customers really want), then I would probably be much more inclined to go on another Jivetime weekender.

stewart38
15th-March-2006, 11:43 AM
In fact if Jivetime does balance events following this email (and at least it shows Franco is trying to find out what his customers really want), then I would probably be much more inclined to go on another Jivetime weekender.


Before we knock Franco too much lets not forget the 'BREEZE fiasco'

some people will pay 4 or 5 times more for the same event accomedation, if that is a joke what is

Weekenders ,very interesting times ahead for next few years

Lynn
15th-March-2006, 11:57 AM
Before we knock Franco too much lets not forget the 'BREEZE fiasco'

some people will pay 4 or 5 times more for the same event accomedation, if that is a joke what is OK there were some cheap deals available, but any really big price difference isn't comparing like for like - eg - sharing with more/less people, different quality of chalets. I think it was just a way of getting bookings off the ground and you need to compare weekender with weekender - ie 4 people in a 2 bedroom chalet for Ceroc, Jivetime, Jive Addiction - I think you will find there isn't that much cost variation.

Tazmanian Devil
15th-March-2006, 12:26 PM
Nice one Under Par. Incidentally, would be nice to know who you are as you are such a prolific poster. Is there a pic of you and Mrs UP anywhere on the forum?


Under Par (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4621&d=1141656482) Mrs Parr (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4625&d=1141656820)

I am all for the balance of the sexes :clap:

As I have said in many other threads, I really dislike standing around the edge waiting for someone to dance with due to there being too many ladies :sad: Also I absolutley hate feeling that I have to lead because there is a lack of guys. I do enjoy leading but when I feel like it no because I feel obliged to do so :flower:

Lory
15th-March-2006, 12:28 PM
Thats the whole point !!!


People like LMC etc can make an informed choice ,decide what events they want to go in the year and book early (Gender balance)

Those (women) who may find out about an event late or for what ever reason just come to book late can then go on events where there is no gender balance and book a week before

e.g Southport no ladies places (June event)

Camber still ladies places (May)

I guess if people vote for gender balance at camber May the first thing you will get is no more ladies places availible :sad:

Im not AGAINST gender balance im against restricted choice
I think what your talking about here Stewart, is different to the point I'm on about,

The two things....

1. Booking to get on an event

2. the reality of actually being on a non gender balanced the event

If there's no gender balancing at the booking stage, you'll inevitably end up with far more women! As simply, more women than men dance!:cool:

Yes, booking the event will be a pain for 'us' women, if we stand a chance of getting on one, we'll have no choice but to book early or miss out!

But the reality of being at an event where's there's a huge imbalance, is far worse.:sad:

Yes, it would be lovely to be equal to the men and have the chance to book right up to the last minute but I for one don't need a weekend of standing at the edge of a dance floor, ready to pounce, along with four other desperate women, just to dance with a poor bloke who, who'd rather be sitting this one out, having a rest, getting changed or having a much needed drink! :tears:

I'd rather just put up with the inconvenience of booking early, thank you!:flower:

So I clearly voted FOR!

under par
15th-March-2006, 12:30 PM
Under Par (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4621&d=1141656482)



:flower:

This photo does make it look as if Cruella and I are in the "CLONE E-ZONE" should I be worried:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Tazmanian Devil
15th-March-2006, 12:39 PM
This photo does make it look as if Cruella and I ar in the "CLONE E-ZONE" should I be worried:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Yes :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

DianaS
15th-March-2006, 12:42 PM
Okay haow about a test case
One woman books in an all male chalet and stating categorically that her gender is male.

IE she was born sexually female but her gender identity is male

Would that work Would any one care to try it:flower:

El Salsero Gringo
15th-March-2006, 01:04 PM
Before we knock Franco too much lets not forget the 'BREEZE fiasco'

some people will pay 4 or 5 times more for the same event accomedation, if that is a joke what is

Weekenders ,very interesting times ahead for next few yearsDo you object to people paying different fares for the same airline flight also? Apex Economy return to New York, say £300 - First Class return on the same aircraft: £5000 ???

Russell Saxby
15th-March-2006, 01:18 PM
You were stiffer the second time and a bit too floppy the first.:innocent:

I think he stepped back on the wrong foot

Lynn
15th-March-2006, 01:19 PM
Do you object to people paying different fares for the same airline flight also? Apex Economy return to New York, say £300 - First Class return on the same aircraft: £5000 ???Not just class differences. All the low cost airlines work on 'earliest = cheapest'. I have booked seats for £11 for a Southport weekender about 10 months ahead and been sitting with a friend who has paid £70 for the same flight, but booked 6 weeks ahead. (So now as soon as flights become available I text/email all my friends to let them get the early deals too!)

Lynn
15th-March-2006, 01:24 PM
Yes, it would be lovely to be equal to the men and have the chance to book right up to the last minute but I for one don't need a weekend of standing at the edge of a dance floor, ready to pounce, along with four other desperate women, just to dance with a poor bloke who, who'd rather be sitting this one out, having a rest, getting changed or having a much needed drink! :tears:

I'd rather just put up with the inconvenience of booking early, thank you!:flower: :yeah:

Spin dryer
15th-March-2006, 01:56 PM
I may be completely off with my information, but thought that sex was (generally) a male/female thing, but that gender was a politically correct term to cover other variations such as lesbian, bi, gay and transvestites.

Yes, your sex is dependent on the chromosones you were born with. Gender is indeed a politically correct malapropism for sexuality. I do not think there is any suggestion by anyone that there should be, or is, discrimination on the basis of sexuality. I can't really imagine Franco cross examining dancers on their sexual history or whether, in the case of guys, they have dresses in their wardrobe!

As I said in my earlier post, you are not mere words and you do not, fellow forumites, have a gender; you have sex. And you also have sexuality.

Cruella
15th-March-2006, 02:00 PM
you have sex. And you also have sexuality.
How do you know? Have you been watching?:eek:

El Salsero Gringo
15th-March-2006, 02:04 PM
:yeah:

I voted 'For'. Let's not muddy the waters here by political correctness gone experiencing mental health difficulties. MOST leaders are men. MOST followers are women. Until they gender balance/sex balance/whatever the hell you want to call it I won't consider a Jive Time weekender even if every single one of my friends goes and I end up rattling round at Ashtons with only David James to dance with.Is DJ not one of your friends? I don't know, he's been gone, what a week and already ...

Spin dryer
15th-March-2006, 02:05 PM
I think the whole thing's either a publicity stunt or a ****-take.

When are those weekenders again?

Absolutely. Franco obviously has a good sense of humour and, in exhibiting it, he's getting some good PR along the way. I'm sure he realised that his email would generate threads such as this and thereby alert the uninitiated to the joys of jivetime. The poll is pointless; 90% plus of the women will inevitably vote for balancing of the sexes and most of the guys with a healthy appetite for women will not bother to vote, or will vote against.

fletch
15th-March-2006, 02:10 PM
I guess if people vote for gender balance at camber May the first thing you will get is no more ladies places availible :sad:



Exactly, that's why I have voted FOR gender balance, us girls need all the men we can get :whistle: :wink:

Don't need any more compertition :rofl:

El Salsero Gringo
15th-March-2006, 02:21 PM
guys with a healthy appetite for women I'm worried now. Do I have a healthy appetite? Or an unhealthy appetite? How is one to know? What constitutes the equivalent of five portions of fruit-n-veg a day? Do I need to see a doctor!?

Tessalicious
15th-March-2006, 02:22 PM
I'm worried now. Do I have a healthy appetite? Or an unhealthy appetite? How is one to know? What constitutes the equivalent of five portions of fruit-n-veg a day? Do I need to see a doctor!?:whistle:

marty_baby
15th-March-2006, 02:47 PM
This is doing my head in... now
....how do I vote for this?

I received the Email, but the link only takes me to holiday/weekender adverts....


Martin :confused:

under par
15th-March-2006, 02:49 PM
This is doing my head in... now
....how do I vote for this?

I received the Email, but the link only takes me to holiday/weekender adverts....


Martin :confused:

Click the reply button!:whistle:

MartinHarper
15th-March-2006, 02:54 PM
As I said in my earlier post, you are not mere words and you do not, fellow forumites, have a gender; you have sex. And you also have sexuality.

You really should have made this post back in the 14th century, when people first started to use the word "gender" to refer to whether someone is male or female. It's a little late now. We've moved on. The language has changed. The dictionaries have been updated with the (relatively) new meaning of an old word. If you wish to speak solely using words and meanings coined prior to the 14th century, feel free, but don't inflict it on the rest of us.

Also, I find it hard to take seriously a guardian of the nation's language who uses the non-word "forumite". That's not something you'll find in the dictionary, unlike the perfectly valid use of the word "gender" to which you object.

marty_baby
15th-March-2006, 02:57 PM
Click the reply button!:whistle:

Ahhh.... thanks :nice:

Call me old fashioned....

But what works best for me (and anyone who is in a busy enviroment :whistle: ) is:

Bullet points
Highlighted instructions
legal long winded waffling >> all at bottom of email - out of the way.... as small print

under par
15th-March-2006, 03:02 PM
You really should have made this post back in the 14th century, when people first started to use the word "gender" to refer to whether someone is male or female. It's a little late now. We've moved on. The language has changed. The dictionaries have been updated with the (relatively) new meaning of an old word. If you wish to speak solely using words and meanings coined prior to the 14th century, feel free, but don't inflict it on the rest of us.

Also, I find it hard to take seriously a guardian of the nation's language who uses the non-word "forumite". That's not something you'll find in the dictionary, unlike the perfectly valid use of the word "gender" to which you object.

Is there a Harperlink to this 14th C dictionary....I'll put good money that "Harperlink " isn't in it either:rofl:

marty_baby
15th-March-2006, 03:04 PM
voted! :na:

I'm in the "for" camp - hell, equal numbers makes a more pleasant experience for everyone turning up :nice:

This isn't "USA - sue for anything." There is still an element of common sence in English Law. I also find the English, in the main, a reasonable kinda people. Long may it continue! :hug:


Don't know what all the fuss is about. :whistle:


Martin
:cheers:

Tiggerbabe
15th-March-2006, 03:18 PM
I also find the English, in the main, a reasonable kinda people.
And those of us who ain't English? :whistle:

El Salsero Gringo
15th-March-2006, 03:21 PM
You really should have made this post back in the 14th century, when people first started to use the word "gender" to refer to whether someone is male or female. It's a little late now. We've moved on. The language has changed. The dictionaries have been updated with the (relatively) new meaning of an old word. If you wish to speak solely using words and meanings coined prior to the 14th century, feel free, but don't inflict it on the rest of us.

Also, I find it hard to take seriously a guardian of the nation's language who uses the non-word "forumite". That's not something you'll find in the dictionary, unlike the perfectly valid use of the word "gender" to which you object.I'm with Spin Dryer. The words gender and sex are for two different things. My sex is male - my gender - except on certain Saturday nights - is masculine. Conflating the two meanings diminishes the richness of our language, and shame on you Martin, for so supporting it.

marty_baby
15th-March-2006, 03:22 PM
ooopppsss... forgive me... Living in England and all that.....


.....let me rephrase....


"....I also find the United Kindom-ese, in the main, a reasonable kinda people. Long may it continue!...."

Is that better? :D


Martin

Lory
15th-March-2006, 03:25 PM
My sex is male
My sex
Waits for me
Like a mongrel waits
Downwind on a tight rope leash

My sex
Is a fragile acrobat
Sometimes I'm a novocaine shot
Sometimes I'm an automat

My sex
Is often solo
Sometimes it short circuits then
Sometimes it's a golden glow

My sex
Is invested in
Suburban photographs
Skyscraper shadows on a carcrash overpass

My sex
Is savage, tender
It wears no future faces
Owns just random gender

My sex
Has a wanting wardrobe
I still explore
Of all the bodies I knew and those I want to know

My sex
Is a spark of electro flesh
Leased from the tick of time
And geared for synchromesh

My sex
Is an image lost in faded films
A neon outline
On a high-rise overspill

stewart38
15th-March-2006, 03:27 PM
OK there were some cheap deals available, but any really big price difference isn't comparing like for like - eg - sharing with more/less people, different quality of chalets. I think it was just a way of getting bookings off the ground and you need to compare weekender with weekender - ie 4 people in a 2 bedroom chalet for Ceroc, Jivetime, Jive Addiction - I think you will find there isn't that much cost variation.


Following Storm and the 1,700 on the weighting list , there was no need to offer cheap deals to get booking of the ground but thats their choice and nothing to do with me

However this doesnt concern me


Do you object to people paying different fares for the same airline flight also? Apex Economy return to New York, say £300 - First Class return on the same aircraft: £5000 ???

I dont think there should be price differentials by a factor of 4 (because you missed a dead line by 4 seconds) on what is the SAME Venue and accomedation

Ill pay the extra no big deal but it smacks of a them and us thats all :sad:

I know someone who plans to sell there £29 slot at a profit :sad:

stewart38
15th-March-2006, 03:31 PM
Yes, it would be lovely to be equal to the men and have the chance to book right up to the last minute but I for one don't need a weekend of standing at the edge of a dance floor, ready to pounce, along with four other desperate women, just to dance with a poor bloke who, who'd rather be sitting this one out, having a rest, getting changed or having a much needed drink! :tears:

FOR!


Yes and you clearly wouldnt go to a weekender that is Gender balanced

having them all gender balanced removes choice .

Franco e-mail is of little use as i guess most of the women that vote will already have booked

lets face it he has done as I assume there is fair imbalance of women going

Lory
15th-March-2006, 03:36 PM
Yes and you clearly wouldnt go to a weekender that is Gender balanced

:confused: I give up :rolleyes: :rofl:

ChrisA
15th-March-2006, 03:43 PM
Following Storm and the 1,700 on the weighting list ,

I thought the sexes were equally weighted at Storm.

Spin dryer
15th-March-2006, 03:59 PM
You really should have made this post back in the 14th century, when people first started to use the word "gender" to refer to whether someone is male or female. It's a little late now. We've moved on. The language has changed. The dictionaries have been updated with the (relatively) new meaning of an old word. If you wish to speak solely using words and meanings coined prior to the 14th century, feel free, but don't inflict it on the rest of us.

Also, I find it hard to take seriously a guardian of the nation's language who uses the non-word "forumite". That's not something you'll find in the dictionary, unlike the perfectly valid use of the word "gender" to which you object.

Hello there Mr Harper. It's interesting to see how language develops over the course of even a few years. Sex and gender are not synonymous and it's helpful for the latter to retain its primary meaning of a grammatical category used in the classification of parts of speech. As a secondary meaning, it's also helpful as referring to sexuality or sexual identity. I accept that gender is also now in common usage as also meaning sex, but my point is simply that it's better to keep the distinction rather than conflate concepts of sex and sexuality into one word (for these are very different concepts). I also believe in brevity, so why use gender when you can use sex? As I suggested earlier, the use of gender in, for example, job application forms strikes me as resulting from some bizarre overly zealous political correctness and preciousness about the use of the shorter word sex.

Andy McGregor
15th-March-2006, 04:01 PM
I thought the sexes were equally weighted at Storm.I'm guessing, but I predict that, on average, the men weighed more than the women.

Spin dryer
15th-March-2006, 04:03 PM
How do you know? Have you been watching?:eek:

Don't worry Cruella. I'm not a voyeur; I prefer to participate.

stewart38
15th-March-2006, 04:53 PM
As I suggested earlier, the use of gender in, for example, job application forms strikes me as resulting from some bizarre overly zealous political correctness and preciousness about the use of the shorter word sex.


Sex does it for me every time :yeah:

stewart38
15th-March-2006, 04:56 PM
:confused: I give up :rolleyes: :rofl:


ISNT i meant :blush:

I did get 'O' level English :whistle:

MartinHarper
15th-March-2006, 08:44 PM
I see some progression in spin dryer's beliefs in this thread. Here's the first quote:


So forumites, please remember, you are not mere words and you do not have a gender, you have sex.

In other words: people don't have genders.
Here's the second quote:


As a secondary meaning, (the word gender is) also helpful as referring to sexuality or sexual identity.

In other words: people do have genders.

So this is definate improvement. Thank you for raising this subject with us, spin, and for being so open-minded during the discussion. It's very rare to see someone on the forum changing their mind. I'd almost forgotten what it looked like.

Spin dryer
15th-March-2006, 09:08 PM
I see some progression in spin dryer's beliefs in this thread. Here's the first quote:



In other words: people don't have genders.
Here's the second quote:



In other words: people do have genders.

So this is definate improvement. Thank you for raising this subject with us, spin, and for being so open-minded during the discussion. It's very rare to see someone on the forum changing their mind. I'd almost forgotten what it looked like.

No inconsistency. My point, which is clear from my earlier posts, is that gender is not the appropriate word to use when distinguishing between men and women for the purposes of balance of numbers on the dance floor. This is because we are here concerned with sex. I repeat that nobody,not even on this thread, has suggested that we are concerned with issues of sexuality (where use of the word gender, though not to my liking, would be acceptable having regard to common usage).

I think we should now agree to disagree.

MartinHarper
15th-March-2006, 10:04 PM
No inconsistency.

Apparently, there was a fairly major inconsistency between what you meant, and what you actually said. Specifically, you said that people do not have gender, when you meant that they do have gender. You might consider choosing your words more carefully in the future, particularly in a post criticising the word choice of others.


My point (...) is that gender is not the appropriate word to use when distinguishing between men and women for the purposes of balance of numbers on the dance floor.

Well, there are two possibilities.

One might choose to have a sex balance control system. This would ensure that there are equal numbers of each sex on the dance floor. In other words, this would ensure that there are equal numbers of penises and vaginas on the dance floor.

Alternatively, one might choose to have a gender balance control system. This would ensure that that are equal numbers of each gender on the dance floor. In other words, this would ensure that there are equal numbers of apparent males and apparent females on the dance floor.

Therefore both words might be appropriate, depending on what one is attempting to achieve, and how one wishes to act in the extremely rare border cases. It is part of the elegance of the English language that it allows one to express such subtle distinctions such as this one, by changing just a single word.


I think we should now agree to disagree.

A splendid idea.

Yliander
16th-March-2006, 12:17 AM
I know someone who plans to sell there £29 slot at a profit :sad:THAT is SO WRONG!! :angry: :mad:

Lee
17th-March-2006, 01:39 PM
I think it's good to keep a reasonable balance of Males & Females.

The problem is that the ladies (being really organised) will book early and the Men will get round to it about 3 days before the event, so it must be tough doing the admin on this.

But overall, if the event organisers can keep a 60/40 limit on things it will work ok.

Lee

Lory
17th-March-2006, 01:58 PM
But overall, if the event organisers can keep a 60/40 limit on things it will work ok.

So, for every 40 couples, there's 20 women over, huh?

NO THANK YOU! :(

Lee
17th-March-2006, 02:02 PM
So, for every 40 couples, there's 20 women over, huh?

NO THANK YOU! :(

No, i said:

I think it's good to keep a reasonable balance of Males & Females.
But overall, if the event organisers can keep a 60/40 limit on things it will work ok.

That's 60% Men, not Women. :rolleyes:

My point (which i seemed to not have made yet) was that even if you do a 50/50 booking system, men being men pull out at the last minute leaving women over. So booking for 60% MEN, would ensure a better mix.

Ok maybe 55% Men. :whistle:

Lee

Lory
17th-March-2006, 02:17 PM
No, i said:

I think it's good to keep a reasonable balance of Males & Females.
But overall, if the event organisers can keep a 60/40 limit on things it will work ok.

That's 60% Men, not Women. :rolleyes:

My point (which i seemed to not have made yet) was that even if you do a 50/50 booking system, men being men pull out at the last minute leaving women over. So booking for 60% MEN, would ensure a better mix.

Ok maybe 55% Men. :whistle:


I believe you, thousands wouldn't :wink: :D

Lee
17th-March-2006, 02:21 PM
I believe you, thousands wouldn't :wink: :D

Well i got you from a :( to a :D

Lee

bigdjiver
17th-March-2006, 02:42 PM
...My point (which i seemed to not have made yet) was that even if you do a 50/50 booking system, men being men pull out at the last minute ...Not something that should be relied upon.

In my limited experience it is women that tend to be no-shows. If that is the general rule one factor may be their general habit of booking to far in advance.

Tessalicious
17th-March-2006, 02:51 PM
Maybe the solution would be to publish dates a few months in advance but not start selling tickets until 4-6 weeks before an event - near enough to the time for commitment phobes to be ok with booking (maybe) but with enough information enough in advance for those who really want to go to keep the weekend free.

I wonder if anyone is brave enough to try it?

Lee
17th-March-2006, 02:53 PM
Maybe the solution would be to publish dates a few months in advance but not start selling tickets until 4-6 weeks before an event - near enough to the time for commitment phobes to be ok with booking (maybe) but with enough information enough in advance for those who really want to go to keep the weekend free.

I wonder if anyone is brave enough to try it?

Then on the release date, system crashes as 1000 people rush to get their places. Nice idea though.

Lee