Tory Maguire, stupid is as stupid writes, and girls only thank you kindly

(Above: just as The Punch illustrates its story with a gratuitous shot of women with the line 'Men- this is a breach of your human rights' so we provide a gratuitous shot of bikini clad women with the feeble justification that Italy has declared a stretch of beach between Rimini and Riccione as 'girls only'. Yep, there's nothing like a bit of offensive sexism to illustrate a story about offensive sexism. The Italian controversy noted here).

As the infallible Homer Simpson once noted, when banned from Moe's and then kicked out of every bar in town, and then wandering into a bar that happens to be full of women:

Homer : Wait a minute, there's something bothering me about this place. I know! This lesbian bar doesn't have a fire exit! Enjoy your death trap ladies!

(Exeunt Homer)

Woman : What was her problem?

Well that helps explain our very own Tory Maguire, known around these parts affectionately as our very own bubble headed booby, gets so hot and bothered herself, as she explains cogently in Sometimes principle is stupid.

Tory's bothered because the media has just picked up on one of those "oddspot" moments involving the VCAT in Melbourne rejecting a woman's bid to wet up a women-only travel service.

Erin Maitland, a former tour guide, applied to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for an exemption under the Equal Opportunity Act to set up her business, Travel Sisters.

She argued some women would feel more comfortable travelling in women-only groups and safer than travelling alone.

Ms Maitland said her tours would also be tailored to common women's interests including cooking, shopping and crafts and that women's partners would be more supportive of them travelling if they knew they were with other women.

Ms Maitland relied on a ruling two years ago in which VCAT granted an exemption to a woman, allowing her to arrange tours for women only. (here).

Uh huh. Women doing it for themselves. Where's the fly in the ointment?

But the tribunal must now assess exemption applications in line with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

Oh no, it's the charter of human rights and responsibilities, conducted by lawyers and bureaucrats and elites and judges, and only yesterday, Greg Melleuish was warning how these elites would ruin everything for everybody, including, so it seems, those women who prefer the company of women. And now it's come true, on the very same day he issued the dire warning (consult the side bar for details of Mr. Melleuish's sage advice).

The foolish interfering prattling judge then proceeded to rule against the sisterhood, and her a woman too. Is there no end to these elites and their interfering ways?

VCAT president Judge Marilyn Harbison refused Ms Maitland's application, saying she had not shown enough evidence that limiting a human right is reasonable or necessary.

"The grant of an exemption may well be convenient and practical to assist Erin in the establishment of her business but it cannot presently be justified on human rights principles,'' she said.

Judge Harbison said there were other steps that could be put in place to ensure women feel safe and comfortable travelling in groups, without having to exclude men.

The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, which argued during the hearing that the evidence provided was "weak'', said Ms Maitland could enforce standards of conduct, select facilities with separate male and female change rooms, ensure privacy for her clients and encourage people to report safety concerns.

The commission said that even without an exemption, market forces could result in Ms Maitland's business being successful because men would not be interested in it.

Oh I don't know about that. As soon as I made the pitch to my partner about going on tour with a bunch of lesbians, there was a rush of men, a herd of stampeding elephants only too keen to get on the bus.

But back to our philosopher queen, Tory Maguire, who thinks it's all a storm in a teacup:

Are there any men out there who feel genuinely aggrieved at the idea that a travel company might offer packages specifically for women?

And no, I’m not talking about those of you who wish you could significantly increase your strike rate by being the only bloke on the Contiki bus. I mean men who really feel your human rights are violated by a group of women planning a chicks-only trip.

Um, actually that's because - via the wonderful concept of freedom of association, which even allows people to join unions, filthy leftie socialist havens that they are - there's no human rights violation involved where a group of women plan a chicks-only trip. And they can turn up at a travel agent and announce they're doing a chicks-only trip, and they'll have offended no one's rights, and probably be less offensive than a bunch of men hiring a bus to do a piss-up in Kings Cross, as a way of avoiding a nominated driver when all get legless and start to paw and grope the strippers, before getting thrown out and rioting in the street.

Whatever turns you on.

But for years, men discriminated against women - I still remember standing in the hot noon day sun drinking a sarsparilla, and my mother a shandy - while my father drank inside in the public bar, which was a 'no female go zone', as vigorously enforced as a ducks on the pond trip to the shearing shed. If my father had been a gentleman, he would have sat with my mother in the lounge bar, but then he would have been mocked as a weakling and a pussy, and he preferred the approval of his peers.

Well they broke down that barrier, and more besides, and what's good for the gander is also good for the goose.

So when Tory gets on her high horse, she entirely misses the point:

So if men are unlikely to be interested, and also have myriad other options available to them for arranging travel, how exactly is it that Travel Sisters “cannot presently be justified on human rights principles.”

Put it another way in relation to my Travel Brothers tour of male only outback public bars:

So if women are unlikely to be interested, and also have myriad other options available to them for arranging travel, how exactly is it that the Travel Brothers men only tour of outback bars “cannot presently be justified on human rights principles.”

Because I've been there, done that, and it stank to high heaven. Praise be to the women who tore off their bras and sank a schooner in full view of the indignant men. Would that I had the strength of mind.

But back to the righteous Tory:

It’s terribly important that we use our courts wisely to protect humans rights. In my view they include things such as the right to be considered for a job no matter the colour of your skin, the right to a fair trial, and the right to access the same services as everyone else - if they’re harder to access than the Flight Centre on every corner.

Insisting on a “human right” such as this undermines the whole principle.

Um Tory, you goose, you bubble headed booby, there's a human right involved here, and it's not just skin. It's discrimination on the basis of sex, and for years women have copped discrimination. It's entirely appropriate that the shoe fit the other foot, and that exemptions are few and far between for either sex, or interim genders in a stretchy sense.

Sure the same body in May provided a three year exemption to an inner western suburbs gym for women-only swimming and related programs, and in May granted dance events organizers the right to ban men from their lesbian and bisexual events. But let's not have a rush of blood to the head in a legal way when the idea's not to have society divided into ghettoes, even though in an informal way nobody's stopping anyone from associating with whom they chose (unless it's Mike Rann and cohorts trying to treat bikies like pariahs).

You see, before we know it, with the women only thing established and proliferating, we could end up like Saudi Arabia, which just loves the idea of 'women only' hotels and spas so women can't get up to hanky panky.

Saudi Arabia of course requires women to obtain the permission of male authority figures to do almost anything, including driving a car or going anywhere, unless in company with a male figure or other women.

The 'women's only' hotel idea is a way around current Saudi laws which don't allow women to check into 'mixed hotels' without a written permit, or in company with a male family member, or the cops.

In some countries, 'women only' is a catchword for the most profound kinds of repression.

Well I don't mind women getting off together, just as I don't mind men bunging on men-only events. But in general let the market take care of its own.

The notion that women are so trapped that they can only go on women's only tours sounds offensively patriarchal to me, at least if it's on the basis that their partners would be more supportive if they knew they were travelling with other women, rather than being exposed to temptation. Sounds like the old Muslim hanky panky motif to me.

Surprisingly, though clearly trawling for response via what Tory thought was a lay down misere argument, designed to appeal to women, the punters produced a mixed reaction, and one Eric played a cruel two of clubs card:

Let’s rephrase a quote from your article:

“Erin Maitland reckons some women feel safer and more comfortable traveling in womens-only groups, rather than alone or with a group including men.”

“Joe Bloggs reckons some white people feel safer and more comfortable traveling in white-only groups, rather than alone or with a group including blacks.”

Ouch.

Well of course if you want to go on a quiet women's only weekend, there's plenty of ways to organize it. If you're looking for the perfect getaway, why not go to Lesbians on the Loose, LOTL, who provide a qbeds listing on their front page. If you're inclined the other way, you might head off to the Sydney Star Observer for the best travel tips, and a way to spend your pink dollars.

And if heterosexual bonding is your thing, how about you just sidle up to a travel agent, and say 'there won't be any men on this trip, will there? I've arranged a hen's night in Spain, and Manuel the waiter said things would go more smoothly if we left the men behind.'

Once you've established that you hate the company of men, they'll know what to do with you.

Of course you could make sure it's a tour about cooking, shopping and crafts, and you'll probably find that men are nowhere to be found. This should reassure your partner, who only lets you travel in the company of women so you won't fuck around, because you're generally considered exposed meat and the cause of all the troubles of the world.

(Below: your choice of 'women only'. While some might choose the first image, and some the second, should such customs be blessed by the full weight of anti-discrimination laws? You do think discriminating against women is a continuing, ongoing problem, don't you?)