Jim Crow, Gender Feminism IS NOT Welcome in California

"Angelucci is president of the National Coalition of Free Men"

Go NCFM!!!

http://petepatriarch.blogspot.com

I have mixed feelings about this ruling. While on the one hand, it's outrageous that clubs routinely charge different rates for entrance and drinks to men and women, it's also true that men can easily vote with their feet and boycott the club. Let the hags have their lady's night. When men simply stop showing up for it would the drinks remain free for the only remaining patrons? I think not.

The flip side of this is the recent lawsuit by a Lesbian against eHarmony in California. Her claim is that she was denied access to the service which only serves unmarried heterosexual men and women.

If I can draw a comparison between these two "clubs", why isn't it that, with both of these being privately held businesses and presumably not receiving any government funding, they can't exclude or charge different prices to whomever they want to? After all couldn't this woman just go use one of the hundreds of other online dating services (Gayharmony anyone? :). I guess what I'm asking is, how similar or different are these two cases? I know that I think it's pretty lame if eHarmony can't choose to serve only the customers they want. Think of all the other dating sites that target a specific niche (gay men, jewish women etc... etc...). So, why can't a bar target women specifically with a ladies night? Of course I'd be far more likely to patronize a bar that offered a men's night. Does such a place exist?

I have found one bar, and one car wash, in CA that have a discount on one day for men and on another day for women. That is still illegal, but because they had it for both, I did not sue them.

We can disagree about whether private businesses should be able to discriminate against people based on race or gender. But I think most of us would agree that if it's enforced in one direction - which it is - it should be enforced the other way too. Otherwise we enforce anti-male double standards.

We're seeing a steady increase in businesses excluding men and treating them worse, including hotels and restaurants. In Oregon there are apparently restaurants that will not even let me in on some days. This is happening all over Japan, which even has front rooms on trains only for women. Boycots are not as effective as lawsuits for men's issues, largely for the same reasons we have trouble getting enough critical mass for fathers' rights rallies, etc. Warren Farrell explains the reasons in The Myth of Male Power and I don't see a need to into it here. I think most here know.

I'm all for these lawsuits even though I respect disagrement. In my opinion, even these small forms of anti-male discrimination feed into much larger ones. They spread anti-male stereotypes (like that men earn more, have more power, do not suffer discrimination, etc.) and they condition men to accept discrimination in both large and small forms. I believe it's good when men start to identify anti-male discrimination IMMEDIATELY and even in small forms, and to FIGHT it whenever it happens. Once when a judge's bailiff told only males to remove their hats in court I borrowed a guy's hat and put it on and stared down the judge and refused to remove it unless it applied to women too (a woman had a scarf on her head and he said nothing to her). It drew laughter, but one old man said, "I like that." Later they changed their policy to tell all people to remove their hats. I'm very happy I did that. Women would have raised hell if the judge told women to wear a dress, etc. Men need to learn to do the same thing, otherwise all forms of anti-male discrimination, large or small, will only continue. We need to fight ALL forms.

The biggest problem facing MRA's and men everywhere in getting their rights has to be the fact that too few men will express the desire to have them. If enough men would finally stand up and say, "No more." the government, and the people, would be FORCED to listen to us.