Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
Australian gay pub bars heterosexuals
Submitted by n.j. on Mon, 2007-05-28 16:34
Melbourne's The Peel pub has won the right to ban patrons based on their sexual orientation. Story here.
The Victorian state civil and administrative tribunal's president said groups of straight women found homosexual men entertaining but that such attention was dehumanising.
But when was the last time you heard about a lesbian bar banning all heterosexuals, including women? Establishments for homosexual women are automatically associated with feminism and women's rights. It's sad that gays still seem to feel they have to defend themselves against other men.
Or was it an excuse to gain the right to ban those "groups of straight women" who are very hard to target for bans on their own as a group nowadays?
- Log in to post comments
Comments
Barring straights not the answer
Bad, bad. First off, tell me how you can tell if a person is straight? Ask at the door, "excuse me sir/ma'am, are you gay or straight?" Barring women is also a bad idea for the same reason barring men from a public place (such as the floor or lounge of a certain hotel or certain subway cars, or certain banks, etc.) is a bad idea.
If the management of the place wants only gay men to be there, or a limited number of straight men/women there, then it should turn itself into a private club with a membership committee and membership cards-- ie, sorry, no dropping in anymore, if they want only a certain kind of person, they should go about it the same way other private clubs go about it. Issue membership cards, collect dues or whatever. But to hang out a sign or defend a position that says we are only admitting people to an otherwise public place based on their sex or stated sexual orientation is simply wrong, period, regardless of the orientation or sex of the people involved.
Another step backward is taken...
It sure looks that way...
"Or was it an excuse to gain the right to ban those "groups of straight women" ..."
The article made a few key points...
1) heterosexual groups AND LESBIAN groups insulted, derided and physically assaulted homosexual patrons
(doesn't say if the heterosexuals are male,female or both)
2) WOMEN booked "hens nights" at the venue and used the gay men there as entertainment (specifically mentions women, not men.. doesn't say if they were straight or lesbian)
3) spokeswoman for gays and LESBIANS said that she thought the ruling made the venue one of the only MALE-ONLY establishments in Melbourne (note: not gay-lesbian only).
given, as has already been mentioned, you can't really card someone at the door on whether they're gay or straight; I think the real story here is that the men here wanted a way to keep women (straight and lesbian) out that were causing problems.
Good or bad is all in the spin.
Personally I took this as perhaps a positive move for these gay men. Women are going to the gay bar for the entertainment they find in gay guys. These gay men just want to be left alone. If it were possible, they probably would have moved for a "men only" bar, but we all know how that goes.
Of course, I don't think it's a problem for facilities to be made for men or women only, so long as it is okay to create a facility for the other gender as well. Everyone needs a break from the other sex from time to time.
Again, another story in the sidebar
Anyone notice this?
Schoolgirl plan to shoot students
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21813209-2,00.html
"...no charges..."
"So far, no charges appear to have been laid over the threat."
Seprate is inherently unequal, remember?
"Of course, I don't think it's a problem for facilities to be made for men or women only, so long as it is okay to create a facility for the other gender as well. Everyone needs a break from the other sex from time to time."
No. Separate facilities that are public except in that they do or do not admit people based on sex without a realllly good reason (bathrooms for example) is a violation of a person's human rights. For private clubs and institutions, it's fine, provided there is controlled access and membership (ie, it isn't a public place, but a private one). For public places (accommodations, services, etc.), it is not.
Separate is inherently unequal, period.
mcc99
Now get your government to believe that.
Besides, if, for example, a hotel decided to lay designate a female only and male only floor, would you think that is wrong of them?
Let's apply reason to this:
The "separate but equal is inherently unequal" phrase originated from Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas. This case dealt with race, a factor which most any reasonable cultural anthropologist will tell you, (including the one who taught me), "signifies no difference between human beings other than cultural differences."
What you are trying to do, is apply logic that deals with two groups of people who are no different from each other, to two groups of people who are quite different from each other. It's like saying separate but equal facilities for handicapped individuals are inherently unequal.
what about the stag nights though
The stag nights are about men. But the emphasis is on straight women, which made me wonder.
It's not clear but it is suspicious.
I agree with the comments that it's a bad thing. There are other ways to deal with the described problems, just like there are other ways of dealing with typical male behavior (men hitting on lesbians) than banning them.
bathrooms?
Why should bathrooms be segregated? I don't care if a woman or a man sits in the cubicle next to me. Pissoirs can have blinds on the sides.
Other than that, I agree. Frankly said I don't care if it's better for these gays. I also don't care if it's better for the lesbians who keep men out of their bars, cafes and even hotels. And if it's better for people like my gradma to have a hotel without foreigners (she didn't like Turks, the largest group of foreigners here). It's wrong and nothing can change that.
Stag and hen parties can simply be stopped and people thrown out if they behave inappropriately. Maintaining etiquette this way is completely usual for bars. Judge people by their behavior, not as what they were born.
yes, it's impractical
"Ask at the door, "excuse me sir/ma'am, are you gay or straight?"
Exactly. They will probably think that if a man comes there with a woman, they're both straight.
But what about bisexual people? It is presumed that most people have a homo-/bisexual side to them, although it is very suppressed in men since the rise of the monotheistic world religions (less so in women since their "liberation").
Now what if one night I want to bring my boyfriend, and the other night my girlfriend? ;)
Unfortuanately, bi-men often get flack from both sides
You might have a rough go of it if the club only wants truly gay men.
Yup, our society if messed up when so many people claim to either want tolerance or be tolerant towards a wider range of human sexuality but,
bi-woman = average woman these days
yet
bi-man = often rejected by both gay and straight communities
Sorry
Where did the article mention stag nights being a problem?
I also agree that it's probably not the best approach to the problem.
I don't think it's necessarily wrong to have male only or female only clubs, etc though.
I've got $.02 on this...
Let me tell you, that, as a gay man who just wants to spend some time with my friends, that this bar is really good. When I grow up, I'm going to make a male only bar (private, membership, of course, as you guys seem to think of that as better.) and if any woman tries to sue, I'll simply tell her that there are many girl only bars around town (there are, not only private ones either.)
EDIT: BTW; My fag friends over 18 HAVE experienced that "hen night" thing. These five B*tches came in, and tried to get them to entertain them. What they did wasn't as entertaining as the women would've liked, but, as they were regulars there and the women were newcomers, the WOMEN had to leave when they told the manager what happened.
Anyway, my friends and I read this story and we got this idea.
"Entertain"
Daemonic,
Sorry to ask a delicate question; and don't answer if it actually is very embarrassing, but can you shed some light onto what "entertainment" actually means in these cases?
The article kind of glossed over it other than saying that the men were being treated like zoo animals.
PS: Your plan sounds good. Good luck.
Hit the nail Right on the head
To be honest, my friends didn't explain it very well, so I don't know myself, but apparantly it was pretty bad. They said the girls were treating them like animals.
BTW: Glossing through the comments is hillarious. Personally, I'm for this, and if Straight guys wanted their own bar, I wouldn't mind either. It is quite amusing, though, to see some of the people's responses.
Here we go again
Apparently there's some some woman here in Canada who is whining to some human rights commission or another about not being let into a gay bar in Montreal. Given that this is Canada, I'm sure the owners of the bar will be pilloried and placed in stocks in front of their establishment (which will be awarded to the woman).
Remember the guy who filed a human rights complaint a while back in BC because he wasn't allowed to join a women-only gym? Not only did he lose the case, he was penalized for filing it and forced to pay the defendant's costs, a highly unusual move. The basic justification for tossing his case was that there were plenty of other gyms he could join nearby so there was no infringement of his human rights by the women-only gym when it refused him access.
Think it will matter that Montreal is full of bars this woman could go to? Or that the gay men using that establishment have a right to express themselves in a setting they find comfortable without being treated like some sort of sideshow by women?
If the women were simply attempting to visit the bar as patrons and not to be "entertained" by the gay men doing the same, I'd tend to agree with them. The fact that they are clearly looking for an opportunity to dehumanize gay men for their own entertainment makes this decision a "no-brainer".
Of course that won't change a thing. The complainant presumably has a vagina, so whatever is wrong it must be a man's fault. At least it will be nice to watch the human rights commission decide that being a woman makes you a bigger victim than being a member of a real minority. If they can explain away the fact that women are the majority of every society on Earth while still conferring minority status on them, and do it to my satisfaction without resorting to the special kind of philosophical asshattery reserved for women's studies classrooms, I think my head will implode.
PLEASE READ - article has changed
The original version said "stag and hen nights". The whole article was altered.
UPDATE: Reply from The Peel
I sent an email asking for clarification about the measure and if it was really more about banning women. Here is what I received as an answer, a mass reply. Now we still don't know..
---------------------------------------------
Thankyou for your email and I apologise for not being able to respond to each email individually. But as you can
imagine due to the way The Peel Hotel has been misrepresented with regards to the recent VCAT exemption, we have
had hundreds of emails and enquiries regarding this matter.
For this reason The Peel Hotel has decided to respond by sending the following statement to everyone that has taken
the time express their opinion, whether that be in support or otherwise.
If you would like further clarification, please feel free to contact me directly by return email and I will
endeavour to personally address your individual concerns.
HELLO! - It's NOT a "Ban" !!
The Peel Hotel would like to announce that on Thursday 24th May 2007, an exemption was granted at VCAT to allow the
hotel to legally limit the number of persons who are NOT Gay Males from entering the venue -
i.e. heterosexual males & females and also lesbians.
The Peel has always specifically targeted Gay Male clientele, and in order to protect the integrity of the venue,
as well as maintain the safety and comfort of those gay males, the Peel sought the exemption.
The Peel continues to welcome Everyone,- be they Gay; Straight; or Lesbian; - who respects the venue and its'
values.
However, the Peel will use the exemption as and when required to preserve the atmosphere; comfort; and safety of
its Gay Male patrons and their ability to freely express their sexuality without harassment or intimidation.
That's quite respectful
If someone shows up to enjoy the services of the hotel, they're welcomed. If they show up to dehumanize the men who frequent the establishment, they're asked to leave.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Thanks for posting that, n.j.