Ja: Jamaican men want equal rights

Three weeks ago Local Government and Sports Minister Portia Simpson Miller challenged the Kingston Cricket Club to admit women.

Should only women be allowed to join single-gender groups? Can a man join the PNP Women's Organisation? We are all happy that Jamaica has changed with much of the world to the point where women can rise to any height. But why should this include the dismantling of men's organisations?

Is this something that we should expect if Simpson Miller becomes prime minister? Are Jamaican men to be even more hen-pecked than we already are if Simpson-Miller leads the country?. Before she bids for high office, I think we all have a right to know what she intends to do where this matter is concerned.

There are many women who object to men even playing a game of dominoes by themselves. Are you one of them, Mrs Simpson- Miller? Is it equal rights or superior rights that you want for women? Do you believe that there should be equal rights for men?...
...
But if we want the men to act masculine, then they should have equal rights. Equal rights for women now means more rights for them than men, which is unfair. And the men are beginning to fight back

.
Interesting article that drifts a bit in the middle.

I'm very much a proponent of freedom of association, and I am also a proponent of the individual's right to access as long as the exercise of that right does not conflict with national security or the integrity of the entity.

For instance, the Church has the right to determine the criteria for membership. If the Church is not free to do this, then Muslims, for example, may join at will without conversion, and, in if their numbers become greater over time, they may eventually alter the doctrine and practice of the Church such that the institution may no longer be regarded as Christian. Furthermore, the Boy Scouts have the right to establish criteria that excludes homosexuals from troop leadership also because they wish to preserve the integrity of their organziation. Those who object must explain how if homosexuals and paedophiles could not control themselves in the Roman Church, on what basis might one conclude that they'll be able control themselves in the woods.

Consequently, while I see nothing wrong with a woman wishing to become a memeber of an all-male club, I see nothing wrong with that club retaining its all-male identity. Now, which right trumps the other? It would have to be the right to freely associate with whomever one wishes without being compelled to accept those who do not meet one's membership criteria; for, the criteria are essential to the group retaining its integrity. Were respect not paid to the right of the group to define itself as it sees fit and to congregate with whom it wills, then the group has no freedom to be and to do; moreover, the individual within the group would be constrained to belong to an organization that does not satisfy his need to belong. If the character of the group is rooted in its maleness or in race, then we must suffer it to be so and let the group alone without mounting challenges to its existence. In order to alter the identity of the group, there must be a compelling state interest in admitting those whom it regards as not desirable. Such compulsion is, also, to some respect, a denial of the freedom of the group to be, even if that being is perverse. We who are excluded may rail against the group, but we ought not to infringe on its freedom to be because its existence conflicts with our notions of how the world ought to be.