|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 29, @01:24AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Would you be so incensed over a men's only floor complete with a heavy weight room and complimentary Kung Fu movies?
Bottom line is that it is a very successful program. Businesses aren't and shouldn't be in the gender fairness game. They are responding to what appears to be a legitimate marketplace desire and profitting. If women want special treatment why shouldn't the hotels respond?
Gotta make sure they have lots of room and, with the bigger peep-holes, they can keep an eye out for those evil, awful MEN that are lurking everywhere!!!
I can't understand your anger at this. Women think larger peepholes are safer. I bet the hotel even has the audacity to make sure the peepholes lowered to account for the smaller size of women! Ergo, they might have to be larger to get a view of the face of the person outside. Why wouldn't they respond to the desires of half of their customers?
You might say that they don't respond the the dsires of men but, when was the last time you ran out of counter space in a hotel? Have you ever cared about the drab browns and off-whites of your hotel room? Have you ever even noticed?
Ever started menstruating but didn't have a tampon? I would bet what they don't mention is that these rooms are even stocked with feminine hygeine products.
Do you want the hotels to stop? Or, should they make a Man Floor? Are you sure there is a market for a Man Floor? Make your desires for a Man Floor known to hotels. If the demand is as great as women's floors they might just respond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 29, @02:02AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
...or like a White-Only floor.
If anyone finds one of these in California, please contact us at ncfm.la@verizon.net. We will take legal action right away.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A google search on "women only" and "California" turned up this likely suspect.
They charge $20/day for shared rooms, but for women in groups of 2 or more it's only $15. Evidently no such discount for groups of men.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday October 31, @11:31PM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
Femerican Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal (but not quite as equal as women)............
Superseded the original declaration in the latter half of the 20th century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 29, @07:10AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"Make your desires for a Man Floor known to hotels. If the demand is as great as women's floors they might just respond. "
Ha! Ha! Ha! This is the best joke I've seen for a long time. You may be just a feminist troll, but you certainly have a good sense of humour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 29, @03:02PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
What I'd be interested in is this:
How is the provision of this accommodation funded? The conversion costs must be borne somehow, so are the room rates the same for everybody (i.e. men helping subsidise the cost for a women only service) or do women pay a premium for this option?
What about the larger counters? Or feminine hygiene products? Or even larger (and presumably more expensive peepholes)? Presumably these are extra over a standard room? I mean, what are the equivalents that a man might find use for and be able to take advantage of in his mixed and standard "floor"?
Every other hotel upgrade option comes at a price. Larger room? More money. Whirlpool Bath? More money. Sea View? More Money
Presumably women are paying more for this service? No?
Are we all paying through the room rates for the provision of a service for the minority? Yes - the minority. Women might be half or more of the population, but I seriously doubt that single women make up the majority of the hotel population. Once you've accounted for single men, single women, mixed couples, same sex couples and single sex groups, simple demographics tell us that single women would not be a majority.
I have no issue with a certain amount of women who feel so threatened by the existence of men in their close proximity (BTW, where do these women live? Single sex neighbourhoods?) that they choose to pay extra for the privilege of being segregated from us, but not when I may be helping subsidise it.
And if you ever wonder why some men can be secretive, or clique-ish or look out for each other, it's because women do exactly the same.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they charge the same amount to guests as they did before, and do not increase the price for women's room, you aren't subsidizing anything. Rather, the hotel is eating the extra cost of renovation in exchange for more business from women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 29, @05:37PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
HA! HA! HA! That's the SECOND funniest joke I've seen for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IF is the operative word there, Mbwuto. How much money you want to bet on it?
How much do you want to be that if they had to reduce their available rooms by "X" amount, the total cost of all rooms across the board went up?
It's like the haircut canard. I go in and get a haircut and if it takes twenty minutes the barbar is just fucking around. The average woman goes in and its an hour long ordeal, and yet she bitches because I pay $9, with just water and a trim, and she pays $45 for shampoos, and rinses, and conditioners, and feathering, and layering, and a bit of highlighting. But it's just unfair as hell, though.
Or my suit - dry-clean it, press it, hey, $35. The chiffon and silk dress, with the sequins and lace, and frills - which require a HELL of a lot more time and attention (Worked in a cleaners in high school, know for a fact!) - well it's just CRIMINAL and SEXIST that she pays more.
So how much you wanna bet? That's my issue. Hell, if they're funding it themselves, I say send all these dumb broads that want to go to their own little ghetto straight to it on the express. Give them their own concierge, retaurant, and gift shop too, so I don't have to put up with them.
I will be god damned - until it is proven to my satisfaction that they are paying their own freight - if I will spend a dime to fund their little She-Man manhaters tea and social club, but yeah, this hotel has the perfect right to do it. And I have the perfect right to disapprove it on travel vouchers - want the hotel, girls? On your dime, and yours alone.
It's not the idea of women having their own place - anyone who wants to define themselves as "X" should have a place where only "X" are allowed - it's the idea that if Straight men, or White men, or Christian men don't want to fuck with anyone else they're homophobic racist, bigoted sexists. Per se, I don't object - but the double standard, once again coddling women, is so glaring it just elicits a chuckle and a "there they go again." Men do it - BAAAAAD. Women do it - GOOOOOOD. Same old bullshit. One standard for men. Another, lower standard for so-called "Empowered, Strong, Independent Women who are the better of any man!" Same old same old.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 30, @09:52AM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This isn't being touted for its convenience or pampering. Let me be very clear on this. I am a subject matter expert. Want me to prove it? Not a prob. I used to work for Walt Disney World. Have YOU ever worked at a WORLD CLASS resort as an intern? We were taught, molded, and had pixie dust put in our eyes every day. We catered to whims of each Guest that were ABSURD, humiliating, and exacting every day. And we did it with a smile and a "of course sir/ma'am". I learned a TON there.
But THIS article specifically mentions "safety and security" as a quote. It's implication is NOT on pampering, the inference is NOT on special gendered service, the attitude is not one of separate but equal (hey, didn't we try that once? - get a CLUE!) but that men are somehow inherantly DANGEROUS. THAT's discrimination put right into your face and then handing you a bill for the "service" of being excluded and lack of protection that men may also desire.
Once again the question is: why didn't MEN ask for it. Well, gee whiz genius, while us "understood and beloved" MEN are at it why don't we ask for WHITE only floors? Or NO JEWS ALLOWED floors (doesn't even happen in ISRAEL!!!!!). Nice try to put frosting on a turd sandwich, but the point is: it makes men out to be dangerous and reinforces that stereotype. Tell you what, Anon, (nice how you "forgot" to get a freaking name) why don't YOU request a STRAIGHT WOMEN ONLY floor? That way you can get pampered, have that all important "counter space with fem hygene products", and keep away those women who might hit on you so you can feel secure. See how THAT goes over. THEN come and POST that malarky here when you get time away from the DISCRIMINATION lawsuit you will be busy defending yourself from.
Is it just me? Or did cupcake here miss "ETHICS and FAIRNESS 101" at her women's studies program?
Oh, silly me, they don't have it.
Arghhh .. pointing out the obvious discrimination just less friendly. Sorry for the rant. Its late. Night
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two posters above me "forgot" to get names. Please chastise them as well. Unless of course, you only are searching for a reason to rant because I don't agree with you. Since when does the Anonymous tag affect the content of my post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I read some Gonzo and Angry Harry and it infected me (but I do love their writings - and some Fred Reed does ya good too!!) and I ranted like a mad cow in my above post. If I was out of line I apologize. I do sincerely think it's blatant discrimination and its wrong. Even the hotels posted reasons make it clear that pampering, colors, peepholes, and "certain products" aside, the message of exclusion, stereotyping, and "separate-but-equal" make the idea repugnant.
Oh, I must add one thing: The poster stated that hotels are not in the gender fairness game. Ok, but chew on this "Anon": they are NOT into the insult and discrimination game either. They are into the service for all bar none. Not on color, gender, or religion. Even in our post Sept 11 world I cannot imagine a "NON MUSLIM" floor in a hotel being ADVERTISED for "safety". Let alone not sued into oblivion. Give it some thought Anon.
Exclusivity sounds good, until YOU are the one being excluded, and labeled as well.
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many of you defended Augusta golf club's right to exclude women? What is the difference here?
I can't help but notice that in all the replies no one ever seriously addressed my post. Your ad hominem attacks are out of line and worthless to the site and your arguments.
Myself, I have worked in a hotel. Guess what? I one two occasions had women come to the front because someone from another room was harassing them? Both men mind you. Women out of town and alone want and in some cases need extra security.
They aren't brawny and some, foolishly, don't carry personal protection.
Should a department store desegregate it's changing rooms? Many stores feature more mirrors in the womens area. A response to values. I would never have noticed until I went shopping with my girlfriend. It never occurred to me to want more mirrors. Or counter space. Or vogue magazine.
It was interesting that your only answer to my suggesting you make your desires known was, "NO WAY CANT DO THAT NO CHANCE IN HELL YOU MORON!".
Also did you read the article?
''Safety and security'' are top priorities of the increased number of women traveling alone, says Hamilton Crowne Plaza general manager Ralph Polanec.
The priorities of women. Half their customers. How dare they respond?
I found this site through Ifeminists, but the paranoia and general tone of the responders is a serious turn off. As for posting as anonymous, it gives you the same knowledge of me as before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mbwuto, your argument could be turned around... somehow I doubt you were standing in line to attack the NOW gang that was protesting at Augusta. I think that as long as women feel free to attack every instance of perceived male "privelege" in this country you should not be surprised when men return the favor.
Shouldn't small men, who would also be vulerable, be accorded the same level of security as women?
The changing room comparison is a red herring, in that case both men and women have equal access to privacy. In the case of these hotels only females are accorded the right to a gender specific floor. I travel a LOT, and would most certainly take advantage of a "no female" floor. The last thing I want when travelling is to hear the next rooms headboard banging my wall all night.
I think it's a clever marketing gimmick, and if they offered a male only equivelant I might be inclined to patronize them next time I'm in DC, but as it stands I would register my disapproval the old fashioned way... by taking my business elsewhere.
Heck, now as I think about it, I feel these hotels should have the right to configuring their accomidations however they want. They should have Christian only sections, Jewish sections, Black only or White only sections, maybe even Gay and Straight floors. A good one would be to have family and non-family sections. Keep those screaming brats away from the rest of us. The white floors could be customized with mayonaise in the mini-bars and the family section would have Good Housekeeping magazine and spray down bathrooms. The singles floor could get the nudie channels included, and the family floor could have them automatically locked out. Having non-Christian floors would allow those bible guys to save their money by only putting bibles where they're likely to be used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would you have written such a glowing review if the floor had been "white only" instead of "women only". After all... EVERY concern and benefit cited in your article would apply at least as much to a DC hotel for a white only floor.
If you can honestly say you'd have published the exact same review, then I'd say kudo's to you for standing by some extremely libertarian and anti-PC principles! If your article would have changed, well... that tells us something too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Dave, for an intelligible response.
For the record I feel that the rights of a private organization are essential to our nation. I didn't support Martha Burke's attacks on Augusta, nor do I support the author's attack on hotel chains. Rights are right.
You can't defend your right to use private property as you please while decrying someone elses use of it. You have the right idea. Don't like it, don't stay there. Simple as that.
What specialized services would this hotel offer whites? I hate mayonnaise myself. For that matter what kind of services are race specific? I can think of several that are gender specific.
You have a point about short men, I just never have noticed many 5'2" men in my midst. Although, I have noticed that I stand head and shoulders above most, if not 99.9% of all women I meet.
A white only floor? Sure, but I wouldn't stay there. Down here in Texas I would just be lumped in with the segragationists. No thanks. I wouldn't be benefitted by a white only floor. I think a family only floor would get an insane amount of business though. A room with two twins connecting to a room with a king. Television with parental locks already in place.
You might find more headbanging on a male only floor. A couple of gay men thrusting around can surely make as much noise as a man and a woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure many women would choose not to stay on a women only floor also, the key point is that a female only floor is a direct equivelant to a white only floor, and the reasons stated for desireing a female only floor are identical to what you'd hear from some whites staying in Washington DC on a white only floor.
One is seen as "forward looking", and one is racist... and therin lies a big bold statement regarding the status of men in this country.
I would as that you keep one thing in mind when you read what some of the guys here post... a lot of them have been burned bad by the system, and they're mad. I think the average guy would get at LEAST as negative a response for defending men on a feminist board as you got here. Doesn't mean I think it's right but I understand it. I personally wish we could take the high moral ground, but since morality has been turned into some relative judgement by feminism, that'd be some slippery ground.
In the US today there are still mysoginists, no doubt about it. At an individual level you'll run into guys that treat women like crap... BUT, in the US today mysandry is institutional. It's government and media condoned, supported and propegated. Little issues like this are just one red flag of many, but when you're looking at a mountain the best you can do is move a shovelfull at a time.
I've got a few gay friends, they tend to be very discreet guys. While there would be a noise risk in staying on a male only floor... I'd guess since the gay population is only about 10% I'd have better odds than in a mixed environment (given my luck), it'd be worth the risk. I especially remember the night when I got 2 hours of bang bang bang and then afterward they started screaming and swearing at eachother, eventaully the cops were called to break it up... and this was at a "luxury" hotel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 29, @01:19PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"I wouldn't be benefitted by a white only floor."
I think this is what it comes down to. You wouldn't be benifitted. So of course you can easily say you disagree.
I travel a lot to dog shows, and am Dave's wife. Because I have to pay for my own rooms as opposed to the company dime, I often stay in very cheap hotels in poor areas. I can honestly say that having a white only floor would have made me feel much safer in downtown Philidelphia, DC, and Toronto. However I would not have stayed at a hotel that offered this because it would be wrong.
Now I think one thing that no one has mentioned, and that shoots your arguement to the ground, is that NOW and other women's groups do not ALLOW male only privaleges of any kind. Clubs, schools, teams, hotels, when men try to gain anything of their own, the women's groups are right there claiming privilaged men are discriminating. If a women's only golf club opened up, men up until now would simply respect it. However, since men are so openly attacked for wanting privacy from women, they now are starting to call women on their hypocracy.
A men's only floor in a hotel would not be allowed to exist. Period. For you to flounce around pretending all is fair and equal is naive and silly. Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 30, @10:45AM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
"A men's only floor in a hotel would not be allowed to exist"
Exactly. For the benefit of Mbwuto let me repeat: A MENS ONLY FLOOR IN A HOTEL WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO EXIST.
I can't reply seriously to Mbwuto as he must either be a feminist troll OR he has been living on a desert island for the past 30 years. This is 2003, not 1953 or 1963 or 1973.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many of you defended Augusta golf club's right to exclude women? What is the difference here?
The difference is that Augusta National is a private club, and therefore can limit membership any way it sees fit, and hotels are public accommodations that cannot legally discriminate.
Women out of town and alone want and in some cases need extra security.
I’ve spent approximately 100 nights alone in hotels over the past year. I’m not a large man, I’m not trained in martial arts, and a bullet or knife can penetrate my body as easily as a woman’s. How is it determined who needs extra security? Am I deserving of extra security or does my sex exclude me from that? Why should I (or any traveler) choose to stay at a hotel that considers my security secondary to that of other customers?
In fact, men are more likely than women to be assaulted. I’m troubled that so many people believe that men are invulnerable to assaults (or just don’t care).
Should a department store desegregate it's changing rooms?
Poor analogy. Changing rooms are not a service provided for a fee. Segregation of changing rooms, like restrooms, is to assure temporary gender-specific semi-privacy. Users of both sexes accept that a member of the same sex may enter uninvited. It’s not analogous to a hotel room where absolute privacy is assumed.
The priorities of women. Half their customers. How dare they respond?
The problem is not that hotels listen to their customers, it’s that the hotels are providing unequal services based on the customer’s sex. As I read it these rooms are absolutely unavailable to some customers because they’re men. Men who have the same security and creature comfort concerns as the women that asked for it are excluded, because they’re men. But yet it’s available to the women who didn’t ask for it, because they’re women. I could go into racial, religious, and reversed-sex analogies of this one but if it’s needed to get the point across it’s a hopeless cause anyway.
It’s mind-boggling how double standards are so staunchly defended when used to discriminate against men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Women out of town and alone want and in some cases need extra security. "
This is quite a farce, considering that men are 4 times as likely to be the victim of a violent crime than women are. But society programs men to "take it like a man" and not to be a "wimp". Therefore the idea of a man looking for security is beyond anyone's thinking.
"It’s mind-boggling how double standards are so staunchly defended when used to discriminate against men."
During the early days of feminism, there was absolutely NO justification for discriminating against a woman whatsoever. Women fought for the same rights and privileges that men were suspected to have (I say "suspected" because men have extremely few true rights and privileges). Yet, society seems to have NO problems with discriminating against and segregating men.
This is one of the biggest hypocrisy of human society.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 02, @09:37AM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
I defend Hootie. Finally a man who didn't kowtow to screaming hissy female fanatics. Rules are rules. Unfortunately in todays society we just keep filing appeals until someone caves in.
However the men did gave the top women a chance to play on our courses. The top in the Womens league finished 94th. The other didn't even make the cut and that is playing almost every day on the course. Maybe we should introduce some Title IX edict here so that women get a 60 stroke advantage or something to level the playing field.
I like the seperation issue. Vote with your feet or dollars. Does it really make a difference?
By the way what man played on the womens courses this year?
"Security and safety are their top priorities." As a crack smoking convicted mayor runs that town that leads this country in murder rates ....Oooh what he looked out of his ivory palace and realized that the streets weren't so safe?
I like his thinking though. Maybe he could introduce shoe shining machines in mens rooms. I've always been keen to a air freshner system since us beastly men have so much more gas.
As much as I applaud his or her marketing idea the same type of thinking just got a whole lot of businesses out in California in a whole lot of trouble with the "Girls drink free" lawsuits. It's just a matter of time before this door gets slammed in their face here too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a bit of wordsmithing (for illustrative purposes) of a recent article:
TRAVEL Forward-thinking hotels yield the floor to whites
Solo white travelers are floored by the welcome they're getting at some hotels.
White-only floors, a fixture in South Africa, now are offered by Western lodgings such as the xxxx xxxx xxxxx Hotel in London and yyyyyy yyyyy yyyy in Washington, D.C.
At the xxxx, the 22nd floor has been turned over to whites. Its rooms are decorated in more anglo-european style and fitted with larger peepholes.
In Washington, the yyyyy gives guests on the white's floor extra bathroom counter space, more bath amenities and magazines such as White Supremicist Monthly.
''Safety and security'' are top priorities of the increased number of whites traveling alone, says yyyyyy general manager Zed Zeeee. He says the program is so successful that it is expanding to a second floor.
Hmm... does the idea still seem "FORWARD THINKING" to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I have read the posts and will be the first to blink. MBWTUO (man is THAT hard to type right) is obviously TRYING to lsiten. I am the first dude who flamed you, so let me be the first one to say: sorry for jumping down your throat. I think you are dead wrong, but I could have typed THAT instead of what I did. An informed and passionate answer will often get a better response than a rant. But WBWTUO we get a lot of Anon Trolls who post once and are blatantly sexist. You are not and did not. So, I must acknowledge this. I still think you are dead wrong, but I will apologize for MY actions.
I think that one of the posters (I think it was Dave K - Hey, I didn't know Jen was your lady - cool, but I digress)pointed out that men today have very little in the way of redress in the infringment of our rights. We have few places of sanctuary where we can speak (this being one of them), and almost EVERY GUY here has been burned multiple times by the systems of laws, the press, and society for having our reproductive organs mounted on the outside. Me? I was falsely accused of rape. Twice. I wont go into specifics here (I have in the past, its a long story - but you can E-mail me if you wish - I will be cordial and open to you also) but the men here get very defensive. I want you to consider why. If after you wish to rebut in a post: cool, I will collect my thoughts and try to be polite and helpful in my posting afterwards.
Most, if not ALL, the men who are in the men's rights movement have been burned by the systems that are now in place by those who wear the mantle of "feminist". Legally, economically, socially, and family-wise. Not usually once, but on several occasions. We are even punished by back door attacks when we try to speak in public, even 1 on 1, about our experiences. We are derided, made fun of, and told that we deserve it solely due to our gender. Her on this site and a few others are the few sanctuaries we have left where we can discuss our issues; we have been driven underground.
So I hope this helps explain why you got the responses you did, especially posting "Anon". Now that you have a handle and can be addressed the posts you put up will define your ideas and can be reflected against. I know you got jumped on, and for that, for myself, I apologize. I still think you are dead wrong on this issue (wink - had to toss that in), but we can agree to disagree. Maybe after reading some of the stories here you may understand some of our frustration. Give it a chance, you may realize why we get together online to talk and share stories of injustice. You will like some of us and dislike others. We can all agree to disagree. I appreciate you taking the time to read this post (I tend to run off at the mouth - lol). Please keep reading and posting.
Peace to you
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Steven. I really appreciate that.
but we can agree to disagre
Agreed. I'm more than certain there are other topics we agree on vigorously. Rape laws and divorce reform come to mind.
For the record concerning myself: I am very libertarian and very much for gender equality in terms of law.
Once again, thank you Steven. That changes my opinion on the forums a lot. I look forward to having more discussions with you all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I appreciate you giving a man to act as a gentleman and thank you for reading my apology.
=)
Peace
Steven
(notice I corrected the mispelling of your "name" this time - lol - WHAT does MBWUTO stand for? - if I may ask?)
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just my pseudonym for internet use. Muh-bwoo-toe is how I usually say it.
I had an argument with someone in which African Bushmen came up. I thought of a name which sounded suitably backwater african(which Im sure it isn't) to use as a person in my argument and the name stuck as a unique internet handle. Its nice not having to be Andy12312 on every site I register at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The opposition to this sort of thing has nothing to do with "fre marketing" or that companies should cater to whome they want, where the business is. The social impact here is starggering.
While men are constantly being told to accept women for who they are and tolerate the differences between the genders, women are told the opposite. Women are being told to NOT tolerate what men do and to segregate themselves. Instead of finding a way to solve the gender problems, women are being instructed to enforce the problems an just blind themselves to the problems.
Years ago, it was considered discrimitive to have a "mens only" *anything*. Even these days, anything that is considered "men only" is frowned upon and challenged by "womens rights". However, society seems to have no problems with men being excluded from "womens" things.
Women-only clubs, Women-only spas, Women-only taxis, Women-only bars, Women-only hotels only enforce the differences and therefore the problems with the genders
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geez.
It's not like these businesses were being forced to do this stuff. They'll do whatever it takes to get more clients/higher paying clients, just like any business.
And it probably costs a lot less than making their hotels handicap accessible or rewiring for internet access. Hell, nice hotels change their decor at least every 4 years, with updated fabrics and carpet. It cost a fortune but it must be worth it or they wouldn't do it.
They also have smoke-free floors, and entire smoke free hotels now.
When I book a room I always ask for the following: 3rd floor or higher, smoke free, near a fire exit, internet access, pool hours that start earlier than 8 a.m., and extra pillows. I shop around for these.
I also am careful about the how secure the hotel looks. Some hotels will also call you a cab and then call your cell phone to make sure you made it to your destination if you ask them.
These are just nice services to provide and to bring back repeat businesses. I don't necessarily want my own woman-only floor (don't know what that would do for safety), but I think hotels have to be sensitive to the demands (and perceived fears) of their clients. If they don't, someone else will, and get the business.
It's not like having to pay higher taxes to fund humongous sports stadiums when you're not a sports fan. If you don't like a business, you don't have to patronize it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, there are some cases where locking some wimmin in their own little private gulag might be cheerfully said of, "Hey, this one is on ME!"
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday October 31, @10:08AM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Who is going to pay? Everyone will pay, because I bet there is not an extra charge for those floors. So the men and families who are not on the women's floor get nothing extra, but their rates are raised just the same. Nothing is free.
In the South during segregation, I am sure businesses would say that it was simply marketing to not allow blacks in their establishment. Doesn't make it right.
Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's right. Prices go up with demand. It's called capitalism.
Who do you think paid to retrofit hundreds of thousands of buildings to be more handicap accessible? That's right, you. And everyone else through higher lease rents on private buildings, higher taxes for public buildings, and higher costs for hotel stays.
Ditto any upgrade a business does to "attract" more or higher paying paying patrons. Most businesses are not vying for the business of the lower paying patron (though that is a niche market). Most want either more quantity of patrons, or higher paying patrons. To attain that goal they have to upgrade and market.
It must be worth it financially, or businesses wouldn't do it.
To me the women only floors is just a marketing gimmick. I don't see that it adds any security in itself (all hotel employees are not female).
Non-smoking floors at least make some logical sense. Having non porn rooms might be attractive for some women who might not like to see it offered even on the ledger. In European business hotels they have trouser presses but not a conventional iron or hairdryer in sight. I guess they still haven't caught on that there are business women now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday October 31, @01:57PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
So since there's not haircurlers for women in Europe, that makes everything okay?
That's dumb as hell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday October 31, @02:00PM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
There's all kinds of private clubs like the Jaycees and private schools that previously have been all male but have been forced to admit women through the club of the law. So I'd like to ask you if you believe those lawsuits that forced them to admit women were wrong, as keeping consistant with your apologetics on this issue?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know of any private schools who don't receive any government funding that have been forced to admit girls. Can you name one.
No I think private clubs are fine (legally) in excluding any group they wish.
And as I said, I don't think women-only floors is an especially "safe" idea. Its more of a marketing gimmick, as would "boys night" or "girls night" or "lesbian night" in a club or restaurant would be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know of any private schools who don't receive any government funding that have been forced to admit girls. Can you name one.
I know plenty of schools which recieve public money that haven't been forced to admit men....
But that's different, I'll bet.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 01, @08:32AM EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
Ooh, high five Gonzo!
Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And to forestall the (predictable) bleat of "Like Who?" I'll present this list.
Do note carefully your distinction between "Private" and "Recieve Public Money." All the fillowing do indeed recieve public money, and some of them are indeed state sponsored in toto.
Judson College
Mills College
Scripps College
The Women's College of the University of Denver
Hartford College for Women
Agnes Scott College
Brenau University
Midway College
Newcomb College
Hood College
Bay Path College
Lesley University
Mount Holyoke College
Pine Manor College
Regis College
Simmons College
Smith College
Wellesley College
Mississippi University for Women
Cottey College
Douglass College
Georgian Court College
Barnard College
The College of New Rochelle
Marymount College
Wells College
Bennett College
Meredith College
Salem College
Bryn Mawr College
Carlow College
Cedar Crest College
Chatham College
Moore College of Art & Design
Rosemont College
Wilson College
Columbia College
Converse College
Texas Woman's University
Hollins University
Randolph-Macon Woman's College
Sweet Briar College
Trinity College
Brescia University College
Alverno College
Blue Mountain College
Lexington College
Mary Baldwin College
Russell Sage College
Stephens College
Westhampton College
William Smith College
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 01, @10:09AM EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
Now name one men's only college recieving public funding. Kinda shot yourself in the foot there, Lorraine.
Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzo,
Where can we find this info for reference?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's all over the net, if yoiu care to go looking for it. Go to google.com, enter the name of a college as a search term, and see for yourself.
I long ago gave up on putting specifics in such as "They recieved this funding here" or "That program was paid for by" because it's self limiting; a couple of "That's different" objecteds are weakly offered, and they consider me rebutted.
Go look it up for yourself. Everything from publicly funded scholarships to grants from tax money for new buildings. Don't argue with me. Better, don't led me feed you "propaganda." Go see for yourself.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday October 31, @02:11PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
Um, women wear trousers too, and ironing boards and hairdryers are hardly exclusive preserves of travelling business women. I get very annoyed at the lack of an ironing board in a hotel.
Tongue in cheek implication or not, it just goes to show that you can find "discrimination" in almost any scenario you want if you're a woman.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday October 31, @07:53PM EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorraine, Very few places retrofitted for handicapped until the LAW made them do it. Also, the handicapped physically could not manuver in a normal establishment, ie doors too narrow or no hand bar next to the toilet and tub. This was complete exclusion on the basis of being handicapped. I would be more than willing to pay a little extra to assure handicapped could have access. There is no handicapped floor which exludes non-handicapped, there are just rooms in which the handicapped can function.
Women can function just fine in a normal hotel. They are in no more danger than anywhere else, and lack of counterspace is not a handicap. Same for no ironing board or hair dryer.
While this is a marketing scheme, I believe the issue we have, which you have completely failed to address, is that it is excluding a group, ei men, and that a similar plan for men would be met with hostility and lawsuits. It is another example of how women feel they should be privilaged, and men should not.
Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't like a business, you don't have to patronize it.
And in 1955 the Montgomery, Alabama bus system was practicing free marketing and Rosa Parks should have been kicked off the bus for disorderly conduct and never heard from again? Should she have chosen to not patronize that bus system again? Ditto the restaurants that refused to allow blacks seats?
I’m a raving free-market capitalist and believe it’s legit ACADEMIC question to ask whether a private business should be allowed to offer different services to different groups of people. But legally it’s not like this is a new issue. If you believe that businesses should have that right then you’ve got decades of civil rights law to overturn. If that's your goal then you'd better get started.
Personally I don’t view 1950’s Alabama as the ideal society, but to each his/her own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 30, @08:18PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
If I ever see any more money come in from suits I've filed against companies, etc. that discriminate against men, I'm going to buy a Susan B. Anthony dollar necklace to wear around my neck. It won't be the 1st dollar I've ever made for suing someone for discriminating against me just because I'm a man, but it will have to do.
I'm not going to gold plate it or anything. It's not primarily about the money. I'm not into that kind of ostentation. It's more the sentiment associated with necklace that matters to me, than any dollar value.
I like being paid at least partially in Susan B. Anthony dollars, when I get a settlement for being discriminated against just for being a man. I find it somehow, liberating.
As someone wrote earlier, it is better to live a day as a Free Man, than a lifetime under the jack boot heel of militant feminism.
Men and women may not be getting equal justice yet under our constitution, but we men are certainly working on it, and will continue to.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
