• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

dgul

gender neutral voice choir

Recommended Posts

Great story this.  Seems that the Derbyshire police force male voice choir is sexist because there aren't any women in it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-43646802

So, they've got to change; they're clearly sexist.

We seem to be expending every possible effort to destroy society as we know it.

 

Edited by dgul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess that women should be allowed to join if they have a male voice. How you would define that, I don’t know. They are clearly not being sexist as they don’t say it is a men only choir, just that it is a male voice choir. A distinctive difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet... the (Boy) Scouts is open to girls, and the (Girl Guides) not open to boys!

It is a shame, there are very few single sex schools now, so it is not a bad thing for sexes to have different hobbies, particularly where physical strength differences might be evident - bet that neuters any competitive activity.

Gender equality actually only seems to go one way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the choir is under the name of the police force, so should be available to all. I don't think anyone has an issue with there being an all male choir - just had to change the name.  Not sure if calling it "derby police male voice choir" would have helped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NewryH said:

I think the choir is under the name of the police force, so should be available to all. I don't think anyone has an issue with there being an all male choir - just had to change the name.  Not sure if calling it "derby police male voice choir" would have helped.

The Derby & Joan Police male voice choir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel a certain conflict here.

In my twenties, when I met my partner (and before that) I used to go clubbing with two groups of mates. Mostly separately.

The straight ones (well, most of them). Nights at Freedom @ Bagleys and Peach @ Camden Town. Open to all. Fantastic nights I shall never forget. Driving through London with three Mini Coopers following. Parking up at the Goods Yard. Amazing times. These aren't clubs where you go to "pull". You go to dance.

And the gay ones. G-A-Y @ The London Astoria. (no longer exists)

Back then, being gay was a little more of an issue than it is now. It was an "escape". And, because you had something in common with everyone else, there was, shall I say, a certain sense of "togetherness". The most violent scenes involved a spurned date throwing a vodka-Red Bull in someone's face. You bitch. The party atmosphere was genuinely unique and like nothing else I've ever experienced. It is difficult to describe.

The promoter, a man called Jeremy Joseph, would stand on the door and vet those coming in. All-straight groups were refused. Of course you might question quite how he made this determination. But back then, it was partly, maybe largely, about preventing homophobic attacks in the club. I do wonder how well a group of (apparent) Muslims would be welcomed in this day and age. They might be gay.

We did indeed take straight friends along including one of my effeminate mates (had to be seen to be believed) who was obsessed with Steps and wanted to see them live. Not my thing, but they had a cracking night. Since we went every week, we were waved through. Mixed groups were fine.

As I've posted before, I do not think that "being gay" is my defining characteristic. And yet, still, I suspect that snogging another bloke in the local Wetherspoon's might not be received so well by everyone. Actually, I'd still do it anyway, and sod everyone else. If it bothers you then look away.

In these "enlightened" times, should "gay clubs" be allowed? Genuine question. What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course gay-only clubs should be allowed, as should male voice choirs, women's choirs etc.

Everyone spends the vast majority of their time mixing with all types so being able to spend a small amount of it in the company of people very similar to themselves is not a thing to be condemned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely choirs are elitist, as they usually only want people who can sing?

But @DTMarks question raises an interesting side-question here:

If it had been the Derbyshire Police Forces Gay Male Voice Chior, in these enlightened times would anyone have dared to suggest banning it?

Or...

Better still, what if the men all self-identified as Pre-Op Butch Trans-Lesbians? They wouldn't even have needed to buy frocks.

This is the problem with this endless fragmentation of society into ever-smaller competing ideological factions due to the madness of identity politics.

To get to the point where a gay person asks whether gay clubs should be allowed tells me that there's something disturbing about the current political climate.

Just to mix my metaphors in a really patronising way. I see the gay community (whatever that means) as the canary in the coal mine here. I may be irritated by its singing, but if it falls silent I know there's something far worse about to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birds of a feather flock together.

Obviously that' must be because the birds are all terrible racists.

xD

Freedom of association is one of those basic fundamental natural rights that the modern fascists want to take off us.

If you dictate that everything has to be for everybody then everything is reduced to the lowest common denominator, and is lessened or destroyed in the process. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Picking up @unregistered_guest's point about the gay "community" there is a very strange thing happening on the left with regard to both Jews and gay men.

On face value both are minorities who suffer oppression so you would think they would be given favoured status.

However each minority is also allocated a class rating which, for these two groups, is seen as high and therefore they switch from being a group to protect to being part of the "enemy".

Labour's (or rather Steptoe / Momentum Labour's) anti-semitism is well known but I have also read of gay men being excluded from university LGBT groups as being not sufficiently oppressed and the radical trsnsexuals attacking gay Conservatives on Twitter.

Stir in the muslim views on Jews and gays into the Steptoe / Labour mix and you have a fairly toxic mix bubbling up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

Of course gay-only clubs should be allowed, as should male voice choirs, women's choirs etc.

Everyone spends the vast majority of their time mixing with all types so being able to spend a small amount of it in the company of people very similar to themselves is not a thing to be condemned.

By definition a club is exclusive and not open to all and sundry. Traditionally a club is an extension of one's own home. 

This meaning has been muddied by the use of the term 'club' to describe what used to be called a discotheque, so that people now think that clubs are public places, which they are not. 

The reason there is such a hoo-ha about men only clubs or clubs which are exclusive in some way is mainly, in my opinion, due to feminism. Women tend to have horizontal hierarchies, ie, everyone is nominally equal and on the same level, but in practice, they form cliques on the same horizontal plane. Those left out of the perceived better cliques feel excluded, bitter and resentful. Some women then extend this to the idea of clubs and desire to be part of them or at least be allowed to be part of them. They can't stand the idea of something going on that they are not allowed to be a part of. 

Men by contrast tend to form into vertical hierarchies with clearly defined ranks, eg, Freemasons - but most men couldn't care less if there's a group of men down the road playing around with trowels and rolled up trouser legs in an old church hall. They don't feel 'excluded', and if they do, it's because they like the concept of exclusivity and want to be a part of it because of the challenge of being accepted. If they really want to be accepted, they can work their way up the hierarchy in a series of clearly defined and rational steps.

Women's hierarchies by contrast tend to be vague and ill-defined and you can be best friends with the 'queen bee' one day but not the next, so there is no rational progression up the steps. So they tend to see male hierarchies as 'false' and 'impersonal'. A similar example is the idea in  male hierarchies one respects the office, not the office holder. (Salute the rank, not the man, as they say in the army). This is a distinctly un-feminine concept because it is impersonal. This is why there is such a fuss over Donald Trump's state visit; people cannot distinguish between respect for the man himself and respect for his office. 

Edited by Austin Allegro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, unregistered_guest said:

Surely choirs are elitist, as they usually only want people who can sing?

But @DTMarks question raises an interesting side-question here:

If it had been the Derbyshire Police Forces Gay Male Voice Chior, in these enlightened times would anyone have dared to suggest banning it?

Or...

Better still, what if the men all self-identified as Pre-Op Butch Trans-Lesbians? They wouldn't even have needed to buy frocks.

This is the problem with this endless fragmentation of society into ever-smaller competing ideological factions due to the madness of identity politics.

To get to the point where a gay person asks whether gay clubs should be allowed tells me that there's something disturbing about the current political climate.

Just to mix my metaphors in a really patronising way. I see the gay community (whatever that means) as the canary in the coal mine here. I may be irritated by its singing, but if it falls silent I know there's something far worse about to happen.

These are the very same people who continually tell us we are all the same. 

Someone needs to tell them to make their mind up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cunning Plan said:

Next we'll have a fifth person demanding the right to join the barber's shop quartet.

Madness I tell you.

There were seven people in Madness.

9 hours ago, DTMark said:

We did indeed take straight friends along including one of my effeminate mates (had to be seen to be believed) who was obsessed with Steps and wanted to see them live.

They're playing Darlington Arena shortly. You should let him know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ccc said:

These are the very same people who continually tell us we are all the same. 

Someone needs to tell them to make their mind up. 

Leftists are the ones who feel the need to virtue-signal in all directions and assert that "diversity is good".

Without specifying what that actually means.

To stick with just one example (related to the thread so far and not because I have some personal axe to grind), homophobia is far from dead - indeed a young man was viciously attacked recently just walking home in Manchester and ended up in hospital in what was believed to be such an attack.

But then you can't legislate for what goes on inside peoples' heads, only their actions (to the frustration of people who like to call themselves "progressive"). And such things are really rather rare now. Get with the current day. The climate is radically different to how it was thirty years ago. 

Since diversity means, by definition, difference, if you want more diversity then you want more homophobia, right? The current situation is "not satisfactory as it is".

Well, no. Actually, that's not what modern diversity means, is it. What it actually means is "people who aren't white". Who must still obey the rules of our society, the culture of which, and it does indeed have one, has been long-fought for and built up over a long period.

That culture became one of, among other things, accepting homosexuality. Nobody ever "embraced" homosexuality. What a ludicrous assertion. We just learned to get on with our own lives and spend a little less time worrying about what other people are doing.

I presume that the idea is: if someone arrives here from, say, for the sake of an example, Somalia, they automatically leave behind all their mental baggage and culture and achieve the higher plane of Progressivism. We have some sort of "mission" to "fix the world and save it from all the nasty people". What is that if not a form of sanctimonious, self-serving "white privilege" in action?

"Progressives" therefore are caught in a position whereby if, for example, Islam is to be openly (forcibly?) embraced and taken for what it is - we Must Not Judge - they are therefore supportive of an increase in homophobia. By definition, no? Owen Jones's nightmare moment on Sky TV. "QED".

Except that's what Progressives do. They judge. Acting like a group of small children pointing fingers. Making loud noises and offering nothing particularly constructive. A bit like the robin in our garden.

Their mission is to "find fault with others". The analogy involving a dog chasing its own tail springs to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DTMark said:

I feel a certain conflict here.

In my twenties, when I met my partner (and before that) I used to go clubbing with two groups of mates. Mostly separately.

The straight ones (well, most of them). Nights at Freedom @ Bagleys and Peach @ Camden Town. Open to all. Fantastic nights I shall never forget. Driving through London with three Mini Coopers following. Parking up at the Goods Yard. Amazing times. These aren't clubs where you go to "pull". You go to dance.

And the gay ones. G-A-Y @ The London Astoria. (no longer exists)

Back then, being gay was a little more of an issue than it is now. It was an "escape". And, because you had something in common with everyone else, there was, shall I say, a certain sense of "togetherness". The most violent scenes involved a spurned date throwing a vodka-Red Bull in someone's face. You bitch. The party atmosphere was genuinely unique and like nothing else I've ever experienced. It is difficult to describe.

The promoter, a man called Jeremy Joseph, would stand on the door and vet those coming in. All-straight groups were refused. Of course you might question quite how he made this determination. But back then, it was partly, maybe largely, about preventing homophobic attacks in the club. I do wonder how well a group of (apparent) Muslims would be welcomed in this day and age. They might be gay.

We did indeed take straight friends along including one of my effeminate mates (had to be seen to be believed) who was obsessed with Steps and wanted to see them live. Not my thing, but they had a cracking night. Since we went every week, we were waved through. Mixed groups were fine.

As I've posted before, I do not think that "being gay" is my defining characteristic. And yet, still, I suspect that snogging another bloke in the local Wetherspoon's might not be received so well by everyone. Actually, I'd still do it anyway, and sod everyone else. If it bothers you then look away.

In these "enlightened" times, should "gay clubs" be allowed? Genuine question. What do you think?

I don't think the gay clubs were ever that bothered about being exclusive. I used to go to gay nights at Heaven and Turnmills from time to time, as several of my mates were gay, but often  arriving at the door with just a couple of straight friends and it was never once remotely a problem. I think the promoter was primarily excluding troublemakers, rather than straight people. In fact, I would say the atmosphere in gay "dance music" clubs to be tremendously friendly and inclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DTMark said:

Leftists are the ones who feel the need to virtue-signal in all directions and assert that "diversity is good".

Without specifying what that actually means.

To stick with just one example (related to the thread so far and not because I have some personal axe to grind), homophobia is far from dead - indeed a young man was viciously attacked recently just walking home in Manchester and ended up in hospital in what was believed to be such an attack.

But then you can't legislate for what goes on inside peoples' heads, only their actions (to the frustration of people who like to call themselves "progressive"). And such things are really rather rare now. Get with the current day. The climate is radically different to how it was thirty years ago. 

Since diversity means, by definition, difference, if you want more diversity then you want more homophobia, right? The current situation is "not satisfactory as it is".

Well, no. Actually, that's not what modern diversity means, is it. What it actually means is "people who aren't white". Who must still obey the rules of our society, the culture of which, and it does indeed have one, has been long-fought for and built up over a long period.

That culture became one of, among other things, accepting homosexuality. Nobody ever "embraced" homosexuality. What a ludicrous assertion. We just learned to get on with our own lives and spend a little less time worrying about what other people are doing.

I presume that the idea is: if someone arrives here from, say, for the sake of an example, Somalia, they automatically leave behind all their mental baggage and culture and achieve the higher plane of Progressivism. We have some sort of "mission" to "fix the world and save it from all the nasty people". What is that if not a form of sanctimonious, self-serving "white privilege" in action?

"Progressives" therefore are caught in a position whereby if, for example, Islam is to be openly (forcibly?) embraced and taken for what it is - we Must Not Judge - they are therefore supportive of an increase in homophobia. By definition, no? Owen Jones's nightmare moment on Sky TV. "QED".

Except that's what Progressives do. They judge. Acting like a group of small children pointing fingers. Making loud noises and offering nothing particularly constructive. A bit like the robin in our garden.

Their mission is to "find fault with others". The analogy involving a dog chasing its own tail springs to mind.

This is really just a modern form of colonialism. We expect people from all corners of the earth to come to Britain and somehow, suddenly, they will adopt our values and customs. It's little different to the Victorians who did it the other way around by imposing their values and customs onto those people in situ. 

Colonialism always had two forms: 1, those who did it to make money and trade and 2, those who did it for ideological reasons to impose their values on others. 

Today we have exactly the same thing with mass uncontrolled immigration. Some are in favour because it makes money for them (by keeping down wages, training costs etc) and others embrace it because they think that they can 'convert' third worlders to  western liberal enlightenment values, or that their numbers will eventually cause the collapse of western capitalism ushering in a new era of socialist utopia.  

Edited by Austin Allegro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Austin Allegro said:

This is really just a modern form of colonialism. We expect people from all corners of the earth to come to Britain and somehow, suddenly, they will adopt our values and customs. It's little different to the Victorians who did it the other way around by imposing their values and customs onto those people in situ. 

Colonialism always had two forms: 1, those who did it to make money and trade and 2, those who did it for ideological reasons to impose their values on others. 

Today we have exactly the same thing with mass uncontrolled immigration. Some are in favour because it makes money for them (by keeping down wages, training costs etc) and others embrace it because they think that they can 'convert' third worlders to  western liberal enlightenment values, or that their numbers will eventually cause the collapse of western capitalism ushering in a new era of socialist utopia.  

Very good. I hadn't expanded my thinking along those lines and to that extent, but your point is powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diversity in investment means investing in a bit of everything.  It evens things out - you have far less chance of making big gains but you also have far less chance of making big losses.  

Fair enough but you'll never really catch up with those people who risked all on say single companies/projects and are now at the top of the pile.  Actually they'll probably like you investing in a diverse way as you won't ever threaten their position.

Investing diversely also risks one of your investment companies taking over the other companies you've invested in and then you're back to lack of investment diversity.  That's a risk in society as well and these days there's at least one example of how one group might possibly in time take over the rest resulting in lack of diversity.

There are probably several other drawbacks to diversity and diversity in society is similar in many ways to diversity in investment.

Diversity is not all good.

 

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, twocents said:

Diversity in investment means investing in a bit of everything.  It evens things out - you have far less chance of making big gains but you also have far less chance of making big losses.  

Fair enough but you'll never really catch up with those people who risked all on say single companies/projects and are now at the top of the pile.  Actually they'll probably like you investing in a diverse way as you won't ever threaten their position.

Investing diversely also risks one of your investment companies taking over the other companies you've invested in and then you're back to lack of investment diversity.  That's a risk in society as well and these days there's at least one example of how one group might possibly in time take over the rest resulting in lack of diversity.

There are probably several other drawbacks to diversity and diversity in society is similar in many ways to diversity in investment.

Diversity is not all good.

 

Diversity in cultural/racial terms appeals to the New Left because it fits in with their postmodernist ideas that there should be no over-arching ideologies or dominance of any one cultural group. 

What they fail to understand is that that in itself is an 'over-arching ideology'. 

This is why surface 'diversity' in race, 'gender', sexuality, etc is promoted but deeper forms of diversity, ie in political or religious outlook, are forbidden; this results in situations like the banning of Lauren Southern from the UK. 

The New Left also fails to understand that if you deliberately create a cultural vacuum, something will come along to fill it and it will not be something fluffy and pretty.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.