Marriot Hotel to have "women only" floors

Comment submitted

... or two or three or ten...

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/robertsarticle.html

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Q&A10-05_115445_7.pdf

"Michigan law prohibits
discrimination in
employment, education,
housing, public
accommodation, law
enforcement or public
service based on religion,
race, color, national
origin, age, sex, marital
status, height*, weight*,
arrest record*, familial
status** or disability."

Atleast its nice to see them actually charging more money for the extra service. Sadly that's a step up from the usual 'give women more and charge them less for it, after all, they're women'.

... they were charging white patrons extra to stay on white-only floors?

There's nothing good about this-- nothing.

I just sent my comment to Marriott:

I recently read of plans to build a Marriott hotel in Grand Rapids MI with a floor and lounge for women only. Please confirm that the story is just phony propaganda spread by your competitors to ruin your reputation. What will they do next, claim that you plan floors for whites only?

I travel frequently and, in case the accusations are true, will actively avoid any hotel chain that practices segregation and shameless preferential treatment based solely on a person's sex, regardless of how fashionable that particular type of discrimination might be.

Say it ain't so!!!

...by Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Something about not being able to deny someone access because of various indelible characteristics? After women screamed to have gender included as a prohibited grounds for discrimination in various parts of the Act, I see that they conveniently left "sex" off the list of reasons one cannot discriminate when it comes to hotels, restaurants, etc. Too bad, it would be really nice to be able to beat Marriot up in court using the Civil Rights Act.

Of course, given that society considers being male a huge negative (we're all stupid rapists and wife-beaters and child molesters, the TV and the newspaper said so), and that men now face major barriers in society, we could very easily argue - using society's own misandry - that we're "disabled" relative to women because we're male ;) Oh, wouldn't it be beautiful to watch NOW foam at the mouth and convulse as we made their case for them and then proceeded to beat them senseless with it? NOW's own propaganda proves our case for us - we could put that lying bitch Gloria Steinham on the stand as a character witness!

Legal issues aside, has the campaign to propagate the "men as monsters" myth been so successful that businesswomen now think that every man alive must be out to get them? Even if it's not illegal, this type of marketing approach (similar to AA's women's services/site) is the most blatantly sexist nonsense I've heard in years.

Or have women become so petty that they need to have their asses kissed before condescending to do business with someone today? Have we raised that many spoiled, useless princesses?

If so, I've run businesses and customers like that are simply not worth keeping. You give them premium service at a loss to attract them (charging the additional costs to your customers who don't receive the premium services), and not only do you lose the customers you're short-changing, you can't keep the ones you "spoiled" because their list of demands just keeps growing and growing and growing.

Let me ask American Airlines and Marriot this: how do you think people would be reacting if they were creating Christian-only floors, or black-only floors, or Jewish-only floors, or WHITE-only floors? Is "male" this century's "black" or "Jew"? Unlike Marriot hotels, I don't consider "male", "black" or "Jew" to be derogatory terms, because I consider all human beings to be of equal value. It's really a shame that they don't.

Not that it will affect me - I'll go to a hotel where I'm considered a HUMAN F*CKING BEING. I thought we did away with this kind of discriminatory nonsense in the 60's. Guess I was wrong. Thank you, Marriot and AA for rolling back the clock on society by about 45 years.

Just letting you guys know.
-ax

Here is my letter:

I recently read about the decision to have a women's only floor at the Marriott in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I think this a misguided choice by the management of the Marriott. While it may seem as if the management is merely trying to court female travelers, you are also extending privileges to female travelers that do not exist for male travelers.

As a male customer and frequent traveler, I have enjoyed staying at Marriott's many times in the past. However, I will make a point of choosing NOT to go Marriott's in the future.

Your company has made a conscious decision to court female customers at the expense of their male customers. I will make a conscious decision to give my money to a company that does not discriminate against me because I am man.

The rationale behind the hotel chain's marketing logic is either that women are fearful of men being on the same floor with them or it is a stealth and clever pitch to lesbians.

And, it's really funny that they picked the 19th floor.

Anybody recall the Rolling Stone's ancient song "19th Nervous Breakdown?"

From the mouths a baby boys ---

19TH NERVOUS BREAKDOWN (lyrics) --

"You're the kind of person
You meet at certain dismal dull affairs.
Center of a crowd, talking much too loud
Running up and down the stairs.
Well, it seems to me that you have seen too much in too few years.
And though you've tried you just can't hide
Your eyes are edged with tears.
You better stop
Look around
Here it comes, here it comes, here it comes, here it comes
Here comes your nine-teenth nervous breakdown.
When you were a child
You were treated kind
But you were never brought up right.
You were always spoiled with a thousand toys
But still you cried all night.
Your mother who neglected you
Owes a million dollars tax.
And your father's still perfecting ways of making sealing wax.
You better stop, look around
Here it comes, here it comes, here it comes, here it comes
Here comes your nilne-teenth nervous breakdown.
Oh, who's to blame, that girl's just insane.
Well nothing I do don't seem to work,
It only seems to make matters worse. Oh please.
You were still in school
When you had that fool
Who really messed your mind.
And after that you turned your back
On treating people kind.
On our first trip
I tried so hard to rearrange your mind.
But after while I realized you were disarranging mine.
You better stop, look around
Here it comes, here it comes, here it comes, here it comes
Here comes your nine-teenth nervous breakdown.
Here comes your nine-teenth nervous breakdown
Here comes your nine-teenth nervous breakdown...
Take it easy baby.... take it easy..."

(Ironically, this tune is followed by "Under My Thumb" on the classic 2 CD "Forty Licks" release.)

I'm thinking about a new line of tee-shirts:

Feminists are funny... throw jokes at them!"

Its not just the women's only floor that burns me, its that horseshit about 'a place where women can go to relax without being hit on by the guys'. Whole-ly shit, who still believes that nonsense? Oh yeah, every woman out there.

I agree with Scottie. The chance of a man hitting on a woman in a hotel corridor, is about the same as the chance of a child being molested on an airplane.

Here is my suggested fix to the problem: to compensate for the women-only floor, have another one for "prostitutes only" (female ones). Then the men know what floor to go to, to hit on available women; and the hotel can take a cut of the "fee". (Note that also, this provides quality temporary housing for street prostitutes. This is truly a "win-win-win" situation!)
-ax

The more society creates women-only institutions, male-only institutions will be forced into existence as kind of a cause-effect result. This may prove to be very beneficial for men. Here's how.

If women use female-only institutions more than co-ed institutions, co-ed institutions will become predominantly male because of a massive shortage of women using "joint-gender" institutions. Consequently, this may allow men to distinguish male-hating women from male-tolerant women because women who have negative stereotypical views of men or who have a hatred for men will presumably avoid co-ed institutions. In addition, such discrimination may enable men to come together as a group of dauntless warriors, steadfast in vehemently fighting against reverse sexism in today's society the same way blacks fought against racism in the past. Both would be immensely beneficial to men.

For now, men should avoid any institutions that have female-only accommodations without a male-only equivalent. Since the Marriot hotel wants to make women-only floors, let's help them a multi-aeon and make the Mariott a women-only hotel.

My complaint, just registered with them (and it's on the nose - none of my team will be staying in a Marriott again if this goes ahead):

I have just read with interest your intention to open a new Marriott hotel in Michigan with a women-only floor.

I am an IT consultant for a new media company, and travel regularly for business. I have stayed at Marriott hotels on numerous occasions and have always rated your service and hotels highly.

However I must inform you that should you take this action I will refuse to stay at any Marriott until this gender discrimination is rectified. Further more I will ensure that all members of my team (currently 8 employees who all travel regularly) will also stay at alternative hotels.

Were you to open a Jews-only floor, or a whites-only floor, I believe you'd understand the streams of complaints you'd receive - but as it is men who are excluded, you seem to think we will just take this discrimination against us and keep on spending - wrong. I will refuse to stay in any hotel that treats me as less than human and bars me from areas based purely on my gender. I will instead stay with other hotels that treat me with respect.

The way it's being setup, men are forced to tolerate women but women aren't forced to tolerate men. Men won't be allowed to have services or clubs to call their own - somehow THAT would be discrimination according to the PC types. Still, I agree with you wholeheartedly about boycotting any hotel or other business that offers a female-only flavor. Notice that I said business, not "private social club".

Ironic isn't it? 100 years ago women were screaming to get into the "old boy's clubs" all around the world, and male-only clubs, associations and activities were more or less outlawed because segregation was seen as evil. Ditto for racial segregation. I thought this was a great idea - we're all human beings, so how can one person hold another person's birth against them?

Now we have all-African-American fraternities and sororities demanding racially segregated affairs at their racially integrated, publicly funded colleges. We have women demanding gender-segregated affairs everywhere, even while they're perfectly happy to sign up and workout at the local YMCA while the YWCA remains closed to men.

Why is segregation only evil when straight, white, healthy Christian men do it (or when any subset thereof does it)? Are they not a minority too, given that they only constitute about 25-35% of most European and North American populations? Why is this minority automatically "bad", and every other minority (including the 51% majority of women) "good"? It occurs to me that segregation is evil whenever ANYONE does it. Every man or woman of every race should see this as an affront to human dignity, as a disgusting anachronism from the age of slavery, lynchings and valuing human beings differently because of their birth. All human beings are equally valuable until proven otherwise on an individual basis!

(For the record, fair market value on a human being when broken down into their component elements is about $10 - my statement is true no matter how you look at it ;)

Nobody should suffer discrimination because of the way they were born or what they believe unless those beliefs are proven to be directly harmful to others. Nobody has the right to treat an entire race, gender (including homosexuals), religion or nationality differently only because they're part of an arbitrary group sharing some indelible characteristic.

Let me guess, they're going to market it as a rape-free and domestic-violence-free floor, right?

From a business standpoint, you have to question whether it's a really good move. What if there's a conference in the area for an activity that only men would tend to be interested (say, All Terrain Vehicles, whatever) and they end up needing to put men in the Women's only floor? Would they prefer to have the empty rooms or would they fill them with men?

It seems like they're almost putting themselves in a position where single women will end up on the women's only floor since they'd want to fill the special rooms first to make sure they don't run out of normal rooms for men.

"Nobody should suffer discrimination because of the way they were born or what they believe unless those beliefs are proven to be directly harmful to others. Nobody has the right to treat an entire race, gender (including homosexuals), religion or nationality differently only because they're part of an arbitrary group sharing some indelible characteristic."

This is the only part I would love to hear an expanded explanation of because one part raises questions for me and that is 'directly harmful to others'

The question that I would pose there is how to deal with issues that are accepted norms within one group and not seen as harmful in anyway within the group, but are taboo beliefs and/or practices within another group who view the very existence of the beliefs or practices of the other group as directly harmful to them.

I say this because nothing has has seen more people slaughtered throughout history then slight variations in religious beliefs that lead to crusades, and wars, and slaughter of 'heretics' etc...

The thing about beliefs is, if you don't believe them to be harmful they aren't harmful, but if some one else thinks that same belief (or practice) is harmful then it is.

Example of practices - homosexuality was a criminal offense 35 years ago in Canada. It was seen as directly harmful behavior to the general public.

Naturism or nudism are practiced by some groups and still to this day seen as harmful practices by other groups despite most studies showing the people practicing these things are as sane and well adjusted as those who are not.

There's murky waters there in directly harmful to others.

About the only place I can reconcile a reasonable place to draw the line is beliefs by one group that another group should cease to exist and beliefs that it is ok to enact the idea that the other group should not exist. Because whenever you delve into 'accepted beliefs or practices' you'll always find another group that views those accepted beliefs or practices as harmful to them.

Live and let live are nice words to say and a nice ideal to strive for, but much more problematic to get to work in the real world.

I'd love to hear what you think, and where you see an acceptable place to draw the line of 'directly harmful to others' while allowing diverse beliefs and practices within socioeconomic racial groups.

Maybe I just ponder shit like this to much but when wars are fought over slight differences in interpretations of the same stories it just makes me wonder if it's ever really doable at all to have everyone retain freedom of thought, expression and social customs and practices while at the same time getting along with people who don't share the same ideas.

There shouldn't be segregated anything except for very clear, fundamental reasons having to do with human biology, such as men's and women's restrooms being separate. Other than that, no segregation sanctioned, required, or condoned by any gov't agency or entity privileged to operate under gov't sanction (ie, such as a corporation like JW Marriott Hotels).

I agree this trend of "self-segregation"-with-institutional-support is VERY disturbing indeed. It only creates the boundary lines for the next internecine/civil war. Think it can't happen? Check back in 50~100 years. Amazing in a country that has spent over 100 years trying to undo the effects of sanctioned segragation of all kinds (race, class, sex, etc.), it now sees a huge movement to do the opposite invoking the same goal it did before: "equal justice". Good grief.

I wrote about this on my blog. We need to get the word out so more people know about this injustice.

http://petepatriarch.blogspot.com

This is the only part I would love to hear an expanded explanation of because one part raises questions for me and that is 'directly harmful to others'

I thought about that when I wrote that comment, i.e. the fanatics who claim that men are somehow directly harmful to others, just as people once claimed that blacks and other races were somehow harmful to white people, or that Jewish folk were somehow harmful to gentiles. Those claims were used to exclude blacks, Asians and Jews from all sorts of places despite the fact that they were NOT any more harmful to anyone than whites and Christians.

Let's be clear:

Deprivation of life, liberty or property = harm

Hurt feelings or people believing/thinking differently than you != harm

Included in what is "harm" are things like so-called "hate speech", i.e. inciting others to deprive a person or group of people of life, liberty or property on the basis of their membership in a group. Pretty simple stuff.

Homosexuality? Doesn't harm me unless I'm being forced to participate.

Religious activity? Doesn't harm me unless I'm being forced to participate.

Nudism? Doesn't harm me unless I'm being forced to participate.

Will this be easy to achieve as a mass movement? No. But it's worth the effort. We men can set an example for everyone else to follow.

I submitted this through their website:

I trust that you will also be opening white-only floors and gentile-only floors.

No?

Why not?

Apparently segregation and discriminatory business practices are the only characteristics that set you apart in the market so I'll look forward to those white-only, gentile-only floors in the very near future!

Until then, I'll just have to assume that you don't want my business, since I'm a man who happens to be white and a gentile.

Or the business of my clients.

Or the business of their clients.

Do we see why segregation is such a bad idea yet?

How many million men would you like us to ask NOT to stay in your properties? I will personally be spreading the word about your despicable, segregated services to every human being on this planet and I will be pleased to inform your competition why I am doing business with them.

Today I lodged a complaint with my medical facility. They have a women's clinic, but no men's clinic. I think at the root of it, is not so much health itself as that it shows they value women's privacy (and therefore their dignity) more than that of men. Why is it okay for a female nurses, radiologists, etc to handle partially-clothed (or even fully unclothed) male patients, but not the other way around?
Also, I am going to request a change to a male doctor from my current female one, like I did at my previous facility.

-ax

It's the pervasive myth of men as monsters at work again, ax. It spread like wildfire in the 70's and 80's and now it's just assumed that male = dirty, nasty and ugly and female = sugar and spice (and a whole lot of other fictional stuff).

One thing about the women I've dealt with in the medical community - most of them have always done everything possible to be respectful of me and my privacy, just as male doctors are of their female patients. There are exceptions of course (for instance, one female doc who couldn't understand why I'd be uncomfortable undressing right in front of her who I told to get stuffed), but for the most part I've been very impressed with the women who have taken care of me. Not that this in any way diminishes your right to be treated with the same dignity and respect a female patient would receive, ax, or to request a doctor you're comfortable with. I've just had the good fortune to run into mostly decent women in the medical business.

Still, to be honest, all of my docs are men these days. That being said, their nurses do most of the work, and I can't think of one that isn't a complete professional in every way.

I guess I did not make it clear, but I am saying they should allow male nurses etc. to handle female patients, if they are going to be consistent. All my female medical staff have been professional, like yours.

-ax

Since it's not about male comfort, it doesn't work out in practice.

A male nurse could be completely professional - as far as he's concerned - with a female patient and if she has a hang up about men, he ends up charged with sexual assault, fired, on the sex offender registry and living under a bridge in Florida.

It's all about how SHE FEELS. Reality, facts, objectiveness, fairness and all those principals that you would like to see in practice never enter into the equation.

Men are taught two things, they can't be victimized by a woman, and that if they are victimized by anyone to simply suck it up. Men tend not to file frivolous charges because they thought the female nurses exam was actually sexual fondling.

However, women do file such charges.

Plus women are more prone to group think. In my city a local male doctor was charged with sexual assault after a female patient of his claimed he fondled her. It was plastered all over the news and a few weeks later 21 of his other female patients filed charges as well. He was acquitted of all charges after 5 years and several trails. He no longer practices medicine and despite being acquitted he is still referred to around town as a monster.

The problem is male have to take ALL THE RISKS when dealing with females.

Although, instead of direct criminal charges, most of it would probably be along the lines of formal complaints to the hospital administration, with some employees even being disciplined; and if there were enough complaints, someone could sue, either patients, or say, staff who had been fired.
"This would be a tar Baby of immense proportions", as John McCain would say.
-ax

I was just extrapolating to the furthest possible outcome which would not be the norm. You're 100% correct that most complaints would be minor and likely not result in any formal proceedings against the person against whom the complaint is filed.

There are problems there as well - in this case they could also be referred to as feminist solutions. Employees who've had complaints - and arguably the most damaging complaint these days is one of sexual impropriety of any kind - tend to get passed over for promotions, raises, better opportunities etc. Hence why I called it a potential feminist solution. Since it would affect almost exclusively males, it would lead to more females getting ahead in an already female dominated profession (feminist ideal).

Plus, again since it's not about facts or what the male nurse thought of the situation - no one's ever going to ask him - he is still vulnerable to his career being impeded by one hyper sensitive person who interprets every action of every male as some form of sexual advance towards her (perhaps even things she saw on TV while watching David Letterman. See my point? That crazy nutjob was still granted a restraining order in a court of law on that story).

The problem is, all it takes in one crazy woman amongst the tens of thousands of women he's worked with in a professional manor and irreparable damage to his job can result with no one taking his past impeccable behavior into account.

Until the day comes that all men are not 'potential monsters waiting to strike' there are very real risks.

I would love to see the kind of equality you're talking about and you are absolutely right to want it and demand it. There just has to be big changes in how men are viewed compared to women for much progress to be made on that. As long as the fear of such complaints - be they criminal, civil - nothing will stop an employer from hiring from a particular group then if they fear lawsuits, or just complaints to the employer that are never pursued formally, there simply won't be enough men in that profession to help out even all the male patients let alone work equally with the female patients.

Honestly it seems like women just become more and more childish. To tell the truth I blame women AND the men that refuse to make women accountable for what they do. You always have the dumb dad that will chastise the son for not winning an after school fight, yet be ready to destroy the world should his daughter ever receive a thrashing in a fight. This is the beginning of female privilege.

Young girls are told to find a "good man" that is willing to take care of them and who respects women. Young men are told to provide for women, respect their wives, hold the doors for women, give up your seat for women, let the woman tell you when she is ready for sex, listen to the woman when she talks, love women don't be a dog, and thousands of other slave-like responsibilities men are shouldered with while women are given fairytales of luxury and basically taught that withholding affection is the way to enslave men.

It was the mothers, and overly chivalrous fathers, of old whom helped plant the seeds of female privilege. Mothers told the daughters that they were special and told the sons that they would "meet" someone special. This is the beginning of discrimination against her own sons and of course the dad is so browbeaten by women that he simply agrees behind a mask of control. Knowing that what mother says goes in all reality. Women are angry because the manipulation that works in the bedroom is not working as well in the real world men are waking up. Women felt when they were ready to work that men would just hand over their jobs. Instead women found out they had to actually work to get high-paying positions. What the??!!!! Why the patriarchy, the discrimination, the evil, the "not being willing" to bend over for me day in and day out!!!

Why can't we have 6 babies and then come back and make the same salary as the MAN who has been breaking his neck working 80 hours a week?

Men contributed to the grown babies we now have to live with. Men are waking up and and yet still men are letting the brats run wild in the playhouse instead of putting them in check. Until men stand up and put their foot down women will never mature. Never.

Join No Feminazis!