Women-only facilities
In recent years we've heard claims by men that facilities for the use of women only are discriminatory against men, and therefore should be stopped.
In 1990 a senior officer in the Commonwealth Department of Health, Dr Proudfoot, lodged a complaint of discrimination with the Human Rights Commission when the National Women's Health Program was announced.
The successful campaign that ensued to keep the health centre open highlighted the facts: women see doctors more than men, suffer injuries due to sexual and domestic violence in numbers disproportionate to men, are more susceptible to drug addiction and depression than men and are on average poorer than men. However, Proudfoot's claims tied up a huge amount of public resources and took time and resources out of the health centre staff.
In 1992 the Equal Opportunity Board in Melbourne heard a case against the Brunswick Council swimming pool's plans for twice weekly women-only sessions. The sessions were planned predominantly to cater for the needs of the large Muslim community in the area.
It was pointed out that 80% of the council's recreational resources are used by men. Nevertheless, the EOB found that women-only sessions were discriminatory and forced the pool to abandon the plans.
Last week in Sydney a resident, who refuses to be publicly identified for fear of harassment, lodged a complaint with the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board against the Coogee women's pool. The man claimed he was making the complaint as a matter of principle.
The saltwater rock pool has been operating as a pool for women and children under seven years since 1922. It caters for the needs of older women, women with disabilities and nuns. It has been used for girls' schools water safety programs and by Muslim girls' schools.
The Randwick Council, which leases the facilities from the state government, supports the maintenance of the pool as a women-only facility and says it is prepared to mount legal action in defence of the policy. Clearly, many women who currently use the pool would not continue to do so if it was open to the general public.
All these cases highlight the limitations of reliance on current anti-discrimination legislation to protect the interests of those who have traditionally been discriminated against. Australia's anti-discrimination legislation does not recognise women as a disadvantaged gender. Because its stated aim is to prevent discrimination on the basis of sex, it is gender-blind. This means considerable time, money and resources can be expended defending the interests of groups that suffer no institutionalised, systematic discrimination.
Not being able to use one swimming pool does not constitute institutionalised discrimination. For the women who use the Coogee pool, its existence is vital to their ability to enjoy a swim in a saltwater pool, free from the never-ending discrimination and harassment which women are expected to put up with.
By Kath Tucker