No Men — or Even Boys Over Age 9 — Allowed at Indoor Playground (via Free-Range Kids)

Wednesday, August 8th, 2012

Folks — It’s Lenore Skenazy from Free-Range Kids again, where we are sick of a world distrusting all men as potential perverts. On my blog I’ve written about a parenting magazine that endorsed not allowing your kid to sleep over at the home where a divorced dad lives with his kids, because without a mom a dad could attack! And I’ve written about day care centers that don’t trust males to change diapers, because men are never to be trusted around bare baby bottoms! But here’s one of the wildest stories yet:  An indoor play space in Birmingham, England has restricted itself to women and children only. Dad cannot bring his kids to play there. Even 3rd grade boys and up are banned. Sorry, little buddy. Get out.

Here’s the piece.

Are we really supposed to not trust any sons, husbands or dads around kids?  Are you cute at age 8 and a predator at age 9 if you’re male? What if a kid has a dad (or two!) and no moms? No can play? — L.

Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark

22 Responses to “No Men — or Even Boys Over Age 9 — Allowed at Indoor Playground (via Free-Range Kids)”

  1. #1 |  Brian | 

    I think you need to read the piece more closely, Lenore–this one isn’t about predator fright, it’s about Muslim gender segregation. It appears to have been set up because the local Asian (In Brit terminology, Middle Eastern and South Asian) women are uncomfortable around men. It bears more resemblance to, say, my local Jewish neighborhood pool having women and children only hours so that Orthodox Jewish women can swim without violating their modesty rules.

  2. #2 |  gill | 

    I really find myself wanting to agree with you and we care about the same issues, but this article is more about creeping Sharia than the demonization of men.

    Of course if Islam does manage to conquer the would, as it plans, we won’t have to worry about men being discriminated against anymore.

  3. #3 |  GeneralGarbage | 

    Try showing up at Chuck E Cheese as a single man going to your nephew’s birthday party. I expected Chris Hansen to emerge from the ball pit and begin questioning me.

    The comedian Bill Burr has a funny bit about the presumption that all men are predators.–FjGgAig

  4. #4 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    How DARE services be tailored to the community!

    @2 – Right after the ZOG stage a takeover via the UN.

  5. #5 |  johnl | 

    It’s a private business. Let them make whatever rules they want. If there is a market for boys indoor “soft play”, then someone will build one of those.

  6. #6 |  Reformed Republican | 

    No one here is suggesting they cannot make what rules they want. The article seems more concerned with the mindset that “men are predators who should not be around other people’s children.”

  7. #7 |  Personanongrata | 

    No Men — or Even Boys Over Age 9 — Allowed at Indoor Playground

    Remember it’s for the safety of the children.

  8. #8 |  liberranter | 

    But here’s one of the wildest stories yet: An indoor play space in Birmingham, England…

    The location of this travesty is all I needed to see. As f***ed up and sick as the USSA is, Britain is orders of magnitude more diseased.

  9. #9 |  En Passant | 

    #4 | Leon Wolfeson wrote August 8th, 2012 at 12:12 pm:

    How DARE services be tailored to the community!

    Riiiight. Just like Ollie’s Barbecue was “tailored to the community” of Birmingham, Alabama.

    @2 – Right after the ZOG stage a takeover via the UN.

    That’s not even a stupid distortion of what #1 Gill wrote. According to the linked article, even some Muslims joined in opposition to the play centre’s policy. At best, the owners of Kids Go Wild have presumed far more extreme “cultural reasons” than the locals themselves consider in their interest:

    Bosses at the centre, which opened less than a fortnight ago, claim the policy was instigated for ‘cultural reasons’ and was in the interests of the ‘predominantly Asian’ local community.

    Even so, yesterday Muslims in the Sparkhill suburb of Birmingham were among those who condemned the restrictions, which were advertised on a poster outside the centre.

    It reads: ‘Ladies and children only. No boys over nine allowed.’

    Councillor Habib Rehman, a Muslim father-of-four, said it was a ‘worrying situation’.

    He added: ‘There’s something wrong when a dad can’t take his kids to a play centre.’

    Ruksana Ayub, a Muslim mother-of-one, said while Muslim women may feel ‘more able to relax’ in a setting where they don’t ‘feel they have to cover up’, she thought it ‘quite shocking in this day and age that men aren’t allowed in’.

  10. #10 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @9 – No, it’s a direct link to the same of conspiracy theory.

    And yes, it’s caused bemusement in the local Islamic community. It’s quite amusing from my POV.

  11. #11 |  En Passant | 

    #10 | Leon Wolfeson wrote August 9th, 2012 at 7:47 am:

    @9 – No, it’s a direct link to the same of conspiracy theory.

    Let’s see:

    A. #2 Gill pointed out that the Kids Go Wild play centre has instituted gender discrimination consistent with extreme Islamists’ interpretation of Sharia, but not desired by many ordinary Muslims who live nearby the centre and would be its clientele; and

    B. You consider his pointing out that fact to be a recital of conspiracy theory about Zionist Occupied Government.

    You have enlightened all of us who didn’t realize that real flesh-and-blood current radical Islamists are actually fictitious 19th century Jewish Elders.

  12. #12 |  Inkberrow | 

    How long before this type of thing is enforced in Dearborn? That’s the nearest American equivalent to Birmningham, England, which already has Islamic courts presiding over domestic relations matters involving Muslims.

    As soon as we see it in Dearborn, and elsewhere, proggie Muslim apologists will segue immediately from “Impossible: that’s wacko conspiracy thinking!” to “Gosh, why shouldn’t we all be culturally accomodating?.

  13. #13 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @11 -I see, you’re a ZOG believer. Well, next!

    @12 – You mean civil issues? Well, let me tell you something absolutely shocking. In UK civil law, if two people decide to use the Flying Spagetti Demon’s laws to settle a case…they can! Or if they’re Jewish and want to use Beis Din, or Muslim and want to use a Sharia court…they can!

    BUT. If the result isn’t within the range of options found in British law? It’s unenforceable. Period.

    Why precisely are you spinning a conspiracy theory (which will require the state to intervene in civil cases?)

  14. #14 |  Inkberrow | 


    Yes, I realize the British shariah courts in Birmingham, Bradford, et al, preside by voluntary subscription. Guess which option Muslim women and children tend to “vote” for at every stage, even if it means rather rough religious discipline for them? Meanwhile, Birmingham authorities as a practical matter won’t even enter Muslim residential areas for much less than overt proof of riot, arson, or murder.

    A “conspiracy” is a meeting of the minds between two or more folks to do something illicit. Britain’s simply making more of this quite licit indeed, and the transfer of creeping precedents to the States is certain and already underway. The point isn’t “takeover”, as the avoidant ad hominem arguments assert, but ever-burgeoning enclaves of “cultural accomodations” in a variety of spheres, from dom rel to footbaths.

  15. #15 |  johnl | 

    In the USA, we have baseball courts adjudicating certain contract disputes between ballplayers and owners. But there is no need to worry about MLB taking over the USA, or even the world. The sharia courts aren’t even going to take over MLB, let alone the USA.

    I wonder what LS says to her son about situations like this. The fact is that adult women tend to congregate into groups and then shun men and boys. Do you tell him it’s unfair and he should protest? Or that he should not let it bother him too much when women pretend not to like him?

  16. #16 |  Warren | 

    Women are allowed in our lockerrooms, but we are not allowed in the playground.

    Okay, when women pushed, protested, worked, and laboured to gain equality, is this what they were hoping to get. Because by banning men, from places such as this, are they not freely admitting that raising kids is women’s work?

    Things are getting way out of hand. Next male paramedics won’t be allowed to do CPR on female victims, as it will be misread as the pervert copping a feel.
    How bout this, round up all the men, and exile us to the far reaches. Only release us to mate under strict controls. It is the only way to be completely safe.
    Or once a male reaches a certain age, harvest some DNA for breeding purposes, and the execute him. Better safe than sorry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  17. #17 |  En Passant | 

    #13 | Leon Wolfeson wrote August 9th, 2012 at 5:19 pm:

    @11 -I see, you’re a ZOG believer. Well, next!

    Actually I am a retired lawyer in the USA, and I’ve represented criminal defendants who demonstrated better reasoning skills than those which you have demonstrated here.

    Regina can do whatever she wants about this “play centre” that advertises itself for all children and parents, but discriminates against some children and some parents based upon combinations of gender and age.

    But here in the USA such public accommodations are subject to various anti-discrimination laws regardless of whether their discrimination is “tailored to the community”. As I pointed out above, the racial discrimination of Ollie’s Barbecue was “tailored to the community” in which it operated, and Ollie’s lost its case almost fifty years ago.

    However, your reading comprehension appears limited to jumping to bizarre conclusions, so I see no point in explicating further details or varieties of American anti-discrimination statutes.

  18. #18 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @17 – Which of course has no bearing on what I said, given there are American lawyers who believe in the ZOG.

  19. #19 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    #17 El Passant

    Leon’s reading comprehension skills are limited, but his real M.O. is making fantastic claims about other commenters and then repeating them over and over again. When you try to debate him or correct him, he just repeats the prior claim without providing any evidence. In my professional opinion, he is likely a sexually frustrated Stalinist. See, I can play this game too. Leon is a sexually frustrated Stalinist. Ooh I did it again. Now I’m cool like Leon.

    Anyway, El Passant, I won’t address Leon directly anymore, since he has shown himself to be a worthless little troll. He can’t have a legit argument. So, like a child, he should be spoken ABOUT, not spoken to. Just FYI.

    And furthermore, Leon is a sexually frustrated Stalinist.

    Which again proves that Leon is a sexually frustrated Stalinist.

  20. #20 |  En Passant | 

    @ #19 Helmut O’ Hooligan —

    Thanks for the heads-up. I was a bit slow figuring it out. I’ll remember next time, DNFTT.

  21. #21 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    En Passant-
    No worries. You probably weren’t slow. I’m sure you just wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt like I did for awhile. We express pretty strong opinions on this blog and sometimes the debates get intense. Due to some of my anti-capitalist beliefs, I’ve had a few knock down drag outs while trying to explain where I’m coming from. It happens. But I finally figured out that Leon doesn’t really disagree with anyone, per se. He’s just here to interrupt the grown-ups because he doesn’t get enough attention outside the interwebs.

    Which again proves that Leon is a sexually frustrated Stalinist ; )

    Take ‘er easy and have a nice weekend.

  22. #22 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @21 – I’m no sort of stalinist, of course, you’re once more spraying automatic fire at anyone who disagrees at you. “GUNS SOLVE EVERYTHING”!

    You immediately call anyone who disagrees with you disabled or mentally ill like all good totalitarians, and when I use 10% of your hyperbole (as above), you copy/paste the same crap over and over to try and cover everything up.

    Of course you need to speak ABOUT anyone who’s not a good stateist peon like yourself.