In message <0vudnZgNUMHo-sPVnZ2dnUVZ8uGdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, Marjorie 
 writes
[]
>I think men are quite eligible to be midwives - after all, it's taken 
>for granted that the obstetricians and gynaecologists may well be male.
>
>But I'd imagine that many women would simply not want to be measured 
>for a bra by a male. Having a baby is an important event and most women 
>are glad of skilled and sympathetic help from a suitable person of 
>either gender. But having a bra fitted is not that important, and I

We are led to believe that it is ...

>think I'd rather just sort it out for myself than look to a man for.... 
>err.... support. I can understand why a man might want to be a midwife, 
>but a man who wanted to fit bras - well, I'd find that a bit creepy.
>Whether it's illegal to exclude men from such positions I have no idea.

I suppose you're right - and most places probably can't keep two. 
(Though perhaps a gentleman's tailor could do both - I don't see why 
not; doesn't have to be _just_ corsetry.)
>
>What I can't understand is how the Church gets exemption from 
>equal-opps legislation on sex discrimination. I also fail to understand 
>why

It was probably the only way the legislation could be got through in the 
first place. One of the ways the upper house does _not_ do us any 
favours - though I'm fully aware that it means my attitude to them is 
ambivalent (their moderating influence on reflex* legislation normally 
being something I'm thankful for).

>"faith" schools are allowed or even encouraged to select on the basis 
>of religious beliefs, whereas when these same young people move on to 
>employment, it's illegal in most jobs to discriminate on the grounds of 
>religion.
>
>
* reflex = knee-jerk, lest there are any meeja folk here who only know 
the latter word/phrase.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

All I ask is to _prove_ that money can't make me happy.