|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 23, @06:59PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Albundy, please email me at ncfm.la@verizon.net. Tell me what area you live in. NCFM-LA may be interested in helping you on this. You might be amazed about what can be done.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...the thing is, people will defend the idea of a female-only area and stress how important it is that women have a place where they can work out in peace, but then if men ask for one of their own, those same people will say, "Why would you want a MEN-ONLY area? Are you nuts?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"'those same people will say, "Why would you want a MEN-ONLY area? Are you nuts?'" --boy genteel
for some of the same reasons that women use to justify all-female areas and organizations,ie, privacy, freedom from feeling self-conscious in the company of the opposite sex, the feeling that you can talk and behave in a way that you wouldn't in the company of the opposite sex, etc.
Of course, the gym business owners will provide female-only areas if female clients demand them and won't provide male-only areas if men don't demand them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 24, @12:27AM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Is a business allowed to establish white only areas for anyone who might want privacy from a different race? Is a business allowed to establish racial zones if someone wishes to talk or act differently than they might otherwise? Is a business allowed to reserve a special area in case someone doesn't feel safe in the presence of a different race?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"those same people will say, "Why would you want a MEN-ONLY area? Are you nuts?""
Or you would be accused of being a homosexual.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
""" I live in California. Is anyone aware of any laws against this blatant sexism?"""
I thought California had all kinds of laws that banned one gender only sales gimmicks like "lady's nights" etc. If this is correct then this case is a no brainer.
There may even be monetary compensation for the complaining party. Check it out and please keep us informed about this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 24, @09:24AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
In Cambridge MA (where anything that smacks of sexism towards women becomes a lawsuit and frontpage headlines) the healthclub right at the subway stop is for women only. I wouldn't mind if the local feminuts hadn't made issue with the few remaining men's clubs (social) that existed in Boston.
I personally say that any private compnay should have a right to hire and provide services to whomever they want...
keep the government out of our private lives (Patriot Act, VAWA, compliancy laws...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I personally say that any private compnay should have a right..."
"keep the government out of our private lives"
Perfect example of the fallacy of ambiguity. Private in reference to company refers to it's ownership. Certainly you're not advocating advantages for private companies over publicly traded companies here, but rather trying to link a government regulation of companies "doing business with the public" with a government regulation of people's private lives, and that just doesn't work.
The truth is that operating a business is not a right, it's a priveledge which requires a license. The market is owned by the people in this country, and that's something that cannot be stressed too much. "We the people" own the market. That means if a business wants to be a part of it, they are accountable to "we the people" and it is our elected representatives', (aka, the government's), job to insure that we the people are dealt with fairly by that business. That's why there are regulations against a business polluting the people's environment, engaging in certain procedures that realistically deny the people the ability to open their own businesses, (eg "dumping"), and discriminating in hiring and pricing practices against the people based on the accident of their birth, even if that birthgroup isn't popular to defend.
There is absolutely nothing immoral about telling a business that wants to operate in your community to get out if it's discriminating against members of your community. It's OUR market, why the hell should we just bend over and take it? Today it's women-only areas of health clubs, but not that long ago it was white-only seats on busses. At that time Martin Luther King, Malcom X, and Rosa Parks didn't sitting around saying "well they do own the business so we should let them operate it in our communities in whatever fashion they choose." Are we now saying they were wrong? Would it be better if the busses still had white-only seats today? If we continue to behave in this emasculated fashion whenever our rights not to be institutionally discriminated against are weighed against others desires to do whatever they please in our community then we should not be surprised that our rights are being systematically done away with. We MUST stand up for our rights, even if that means standing up to a business when it violates them.
PS - I agree with you about social clubs though, as well as the Patriot Act and VAWA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take your business elsewhere. If they want to have a wimmens-only workout area, fine. But they won't do it on your dime.
It is their business, and they have a right to run it as they see fit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take your business elsewhere. If they want to have a wimmens-only workout area, fine. But they won't do it on your dime.
It is their business, and they have a right to run it as they see fit.
I'd agree except the lawsuits that still keep a businessman from having a man's only health club are still in place. The sword of the government will still be there interfering, and nothing has changed. It just selectively doesn't get enforced on women.
The minute some of these poisonous witches feel the bite of it cutting the other direction, there will then be a hue and cry to roll all that crap back. If I were in CA, the minute the lawsuit succeeded and let men into the "wimmin only" area, the first thing I'd do is join one and go piss on a couple of toilet seats so as to kickstart it, to boot.
That genie is already out of the bottle.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 24, @10:28PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
If I were in CA, the minute the lawsuit succeeded and let men into the "wimmin only" area,
the first thing I'd do is join one and go piss on a couple of toilet seats so as to kickstart it, to boot.
I got a good laught out of that. But dude, don't act like a vindictive womyn. As for me, I just make sure that I always leave toilet seats up as a matter of principle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I got a good laught out of that. But dude, don't act like a vindictive womyn.
Ya gotta allow me a little hyperbole to make a point, mate.
Okay, true story - back in the late 70's, it was announced at my High School that girls were going to be allowed to join the boy's intermural softball because the girls leagues were dying, and they couldn't even form two teams. So of course, to accomodate a dozen girls, the rules were changing, you know the usual, slow pitch, ball over the fence is an out, all that crap.
So, a bunch of us guys decided we were going to go try out for the girls modern music choir. (We boys had no such choir) We were met with some attitude, but after a while our arguments prevailed. With the proviso, smugly stated, that we had to wear skirts at practice and performances. (The old lace curtain - want to keep men out of your club? Paint it pink and put out doilies.)
Now one of our mates was a guy called Richard, who was from England, and who we called Richard the Bloke. His Da owned a tuxedo rental shop, and we hatched our nefarious scheme.
That Friday, when practice was beginning, I can only imagine what they must have been thinking. Suddenly the doors to the gymnasium were opened, and in strode 15 of us, in rental Kilts, with Richard playing "Cock of the North" (The irony of which I am sure was lost on them, as we were ________ North High School) on his Bagpipes.
The hubbub that ensued when it was realized that we had complied with the hoop, and were now officially invading the girl's formerly sacrosanct turf, was amusing in the extreme. Practice was canceled, many tears were shed, and several meetings ensued the next week begging us not to go through with it. I'm proud to say we stuck together to a man, and said that as long as their was no "boys" softball, there would be no "girls" choir - we had a deal: If we wore skirts, we could sing. We expected them to keep it.
Needless to say, rather than have the sharp knife of "Equality" cut both ways, the girls opted to have their intermural league go across four schools in the district. I have to say, this was my first lesson that pheminist equality means "No stuff for boys, and girls keep their stuff." And in how to deal with it.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That was an outstanding answer. Personally I would have gone in full drag (yes, I am hetero, but DAMN it would have been funny to see) and to have been the most masculine dress wearer there. Strutting and scratching with my hairy legs all askew and wearing makeup that would have done Liberace proud. God it's good to be an American. Hoo Ahh.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 24, @10:48PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"The minute some of these poisonous witches feel the bite of it cutting the other direction, there will then be a hue and cry to roll all that crap back."
Upon settlement, there's often a strict confidentiality agreement where one does not discuss the monetary figures, and the party sued does not admit to discriminating. Thus this news often does not reach the general public.
The majority of the time the discrimination stops, but sometimes certain businesses persist, because it is just that lucrative for them. Eventually most of them stop discriminating. Businesses that discriminate against men in CA are getting more and more rare.
Some people think that it is nit picking to sue businesses that discriminate against men, but others feel that excusing this practice is the basis of acceptance for more egregious forms of discrimination against men. "if a little discrimination against men is O.K., why not a little more or a lot more?" Some say that the smallest discrimination against men is an insidious evil that opens the flood gates of discrimination and is responsible for the virulent misandry that plagues so many men in society today.
What say you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What say I?
I say that if men were welcome to have their own space and clubs, I wouldn't have a problem with any of these "Ladies' night" and all that crap.
But so long as I don't get to have it because "I'm a man" women don't get it either. Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find I am compelled to agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It is their business, and they have a right to run it as they see fit."
That's false. See my post in this thread entitled "Women only seats on busses" for a detailed explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should not be so curt as to dismiss my entire argument as "false" as though you have some objectively superior stance. It reeks of overconfidence. I do not agree with your explanation. If the dames want to have their own part in the gym, as long as we men have the same right to have our own parts in our own gyms, I say let them have it. It is important for groups of people to have places where they can go to congregate with like people, even if you find these people reprehensible and wish to act peevishly towards them.
This is only problematic if we as men can't have our own separate places, and they can. If they can have their places but we can't have ours, the remedy is to make it so that we can have ours.
There may be some merit in ensuring equal treatment on busses, but it seems to me the best thing to do in that situation is to have bussing taken care of by the public sector, in which the boss is ultimately the taxpayer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"You should not be so curt"
I may have been curt in the post referring you to the more lengthy explanation, but I wasn't curt in the explanation itself. Regardless, it was not my intent to seem dismissive.
"as to dismiss my entire argument as "false" as though you have some objectively superior stance."
Please keep some perspective here. Your "entire argument" was four short sentences, three of which I happen to agree with. Your fourth statment said they have a right to run their business as they please. That is false, they do not have that right. Maybe you think they should have that right, but currently they do not and there's nothing arrogant about stating as much. Much like driving, (which also isn't a right), they need to be licensed and obey the laws of the community where they intend to operate their business. Some might feel that people should be able to run their cars on our streets however they see fit because its their car, or that they should run their business in our community however they see fit because its their business, but for now at least that isn't the case, (to which I would add, fortunately).
"This is only problematic if we as men can't have our own separate places, and they can. If they can have their places but we can't have ours, the remedy is to make it so that we can have ours."
If we're talking about social clubs sure. But I disagree when it comes to businesses. Businesses owe it to the community not to discriminate against them.
"There may be some merit in ensuring equal treatment on busses, but it seems to me the best thing to do in that situation is to have bussing taken care of by the public sector, in which the boss is ultimately the taxpayer."
That sounds a lot like not letting a bussing company do business if they're going to have white only seats, which is what I had suggested, except I'd rather just have laws preventing discrimination than not allow people to own bus companies. Saying we don't want businesses to engage in that practice so we should have the government own the only business in that market is a little too close to communism for my tastes. (Not that I'm calling you a communist, I'm just suggesting you might want to consider it from that point of view.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...on the point that, whatever the rule is, both sides must adhere to it. I've read on this thread that women fought to end male-only gyms, while remaining silent on female-only gyms. Therein lies the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your fourth statment said they have a right to run their business as they please. That is false, they do not have that right. Maybe you think they should have that right, but currently they do not and there's nothing arrogant about stating as much. Much like driving, (which also isn't a right), they need to be licensed and obey the laws of the community where they intend to operate their business.
What law are they violating exactly?
Saying we don't want businesses to engage in that practice so we should have the government own the only business in that market is a little too close to communism for my tastes.
I am not saying the government should initiate a forced buyout or pass a law to the effect that only they can run bussing systems. I am saying that the solution might be for the government to run its own bussing system, in competition with with the privately held firm. And that's if the private firm is showing preferential treatment in the first place.
What strikes me as communistic is this idea that you think it's right to go into a private business and demand access to the business owner's resources on your terms. I'm sorry, but I can't help thinking of hammers and sickles when I read this stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 26, @02:28PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
They already do this to Men's only clubs and such. You won't be eliminating that particular problem, just insuring that such restrictions apply only vis-a-vis males.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"What law are they violating exactly? "
Discrimination laws, presumably. You'd have to ask Marc for the statute numbers.
"I am not saying the government should initiate a forced buyout or pass a law to the effect that only they can run bussing systems. I am saying that the solution might be for the government to run its own bussing system, in competition with with the privately held firm. And that's if the private firm is showing preferential treatment in the first place. "
Ok, I misunderstood you then. I'd still rather just see anti-discrimination laws than have to pay to support a government run business to compete with all businesses which choose to discriminate.
"What strikes me as communistic is this idea that you think it's right to go into a private business and demand access to the business owner's resources on your terms."
Don't you see that as spin doctoring my position? I'm not demanding access to anything. If any business owners don't want to operate by the rules of our community they are perfectly free to take their resources elsewhere. But as long as they want to operate their bus in our community, then I demand Rosa Parks be allowed to sit in any spot regardless of her color, and the poster who brought this to our attention be allowed to work out with any equipment regardless of his gender.
"I'm sorry, but I can't help thinking of hammers and sickles when I read this stuff"
Well I also know an anarchist named Chris who can't help but thinking of totalitarianism whenever he hears about the speed limit. He feels he has a right to operate his car however he pleases, and who the hell is the government to tell him what to do with his resources. He can't see the difference between having ANY laws to control those "evil citizens" as he mockingly calls them, and having EVERY aspect of a person's life controlled by the government. He says the government putting limits on his use of his car is the equivalent of them actually owning it. A lot of people sound a lot like Chris when they bitch about the government having laws that those "evil corporations" must follow, and for that I blame our uber-right wing media. In both cases I disagree.
Lawlessness actually leads to totalitarianism because one person or a small group of people end up gaining control of everything and having nobody to account to. Laissez faire capitalism, (or "allowing businesses to do anything they wish with their resources"), leads essentially to communism for the same reason, nobody is stopping them from taking over. You end up with one or a few people owning everything and telling everyone else, (who must live in their company towns), what their job is, how many hours they'll work, and for what wage. The only difference is the sign on the door says "Private Property" instead of "Public Property". Like communism, business anarchy has been tried and came up lacking.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with creating and enforcing laws designed to keep citizens or businesses from violating the rights of others, including the right not to be subject to institutionalized discrimination. As the avante guard for men's rights, it's up to us to take the lead in standing up to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discrimination laws, presumably. You'd have to ask Marc for the statute numbers.
Marc, you reading this?
Ok, I misunderstood you then. I'd still rather just see anti-discrimination laws than have to pay to support a government run business to compete with all businesses which choose to discriminate.
Plenty of bible bangers think that public schools "discriminate" against them by teaching "heretical" ideas such as the theory of evolution. It doesn't entitle them to have schools teach "creation science" in the name of "equality." So they send their kids to private religious schools, and they pay for it. It just isn't practical for every last group of people to expect it will never be discriminated against, especially since some groups have mutually exclusive interests and it would be impossible to legally shield some without stepping on others.
Don't you see that as spin doctoring my position? I'm not demanding access to anything. If any business owners don't want to operate by the rules of our community they are perfectly free to take their resources elsewhere.
All you did there was take my logic and rotate it 180 degrees. It's still the same argument, but with different words. I have not spin-doctored your position, I have called you out for demanding the right to tell a business owner how to run their show, regarding aspects of same that are not absolutely necessary to protect the public. If this person is running a restaurant, and they are dropping the hot dogs on the floor and then cooking and serving them anyway, we have an overriding interest in putting a stop to this. If, however, this person is serving pork franks in a Jewish neighborhood, and not chicken franks, and the Jewish contingent feels discriminated against for same, shall that business then be expelled? By your logic, it seems that it would, because they are violating a community standard (i.e. only selling hot dogs that are by definition not kosher). Or perhaps there are some militant Muslims that think a pig is a filthy animal and they feel discriminated against by the very presence of hot dogs.
I would say to them, "Do not go into that restaurant." It seems you would say to them, "File a lawsuit and force them to stop serving pork products."
You might think these are silly examples, but they're not. Some idiot working for L.A. County felt that the labels "master" and "slave", which are commonly used in computer systems (in which they accurately describe the relationships between various devices) were somehow discriminatory. He wants zillions of computer components to be relabelled. Personally I don't care whether a hard drive feels that an IDE controller is discriminating against it.
Well I also know an anarchist named Chris who can't help but thinking of totalitarianism whenever he hears about the speed limit.
Roads and freeways are built and maintained with public funds. If Chris has a private road, he is free to drive 200MPH on it if he sees fit. Drag strips are private, and people often speed down them at velocities that would get their cars impounded if they did the same on the freeway.
Lawlessness actually leads to totalitarianism because one person or a small group of people end up gaining control of everything and having nobody to account to. Laissez faire capitalism, (or "allowing businesses to do anything they wish with their resources"), leads essentially to communism for the same reason, nobody is stopping them from taking over. You end up with one or a few people owning everything and telling everyone else, (who must live in their company towns), what their job is, how many hours they'll work, and for what wage.
There are some extreme cases where the government has felt compelled to step in on such matters. Insider trading is illegal, and there was the trust-busting business a hundred years ago (approximately, I don't remember the exact dates.) I do not see how the government has an overriding interest in regulating gymnasiums.
As for people who live in company towns, etc. Why don't they open their own businesses or move somewhere else if they don't like it? The answer is that they're too unmotivated to do it. It is so easy to bellyache about a poor condition, and to harp on and on about how "there ought to be a law."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to harp on some same old.
Go. Open up a club in LA. Announce "Men's Night" for whatever conditions - free drinks, free entry, reduced prices. Put a sign on a few doors saying "Men Only" or "No Females."
I won't have to stand there with a very expensive stopwatch to see how long you get slapped with an injunction, or have Sheriffs - armed and ready to shoot you and/or clap you in irons if you resist to close up, or demand you cease and desist.
The oft repeated cry of "not sinking to their level" is naive in the extreme. Bravo for principles. The end result is that you are still not allowed to run your business any way you want. You just wind up with a privileged class able to get away with flouting this law, however unjust it may very well be.
Is your goal to change these laws? I know mine is. I fail to see how allowing the status quo to remain, though, can have a hope of changing them. Unchallenged, these things will persist. Why change the law? So a few malcontents are complaining. Big deal. They're just men, not like they're anyone important or anything.
Referring back to my earlier post, my ancedote from high school, it was ultimately by calling the girls on their crap - nothing exclusive for boys, that's wrong. Exclusive for girls gooooooooood. - and showing that that having their cake and eat it too was not an option, they backed off in a hurry once someone stood up and said "If you're going to use that knife on me, I'm going to use it against you." Yep. Cuts both ways, sister. The minute mud was tracked into the little pink "Girls Only" clubhouse, and beer and pretzels went on the table with the tea and crumpets, suddenly the pld "No Girls Allowed" sign they made us take off the boy's clubhouse became a lot less fucking offensive to them.
Is it tit-for-tat? Yep, sure as hell is. And there isn't a damn thing wrong with that, either. The whole idea of a free market works only if anyone can hang their shingle out and peddle their wares, and it's consumer driven. Keep people out, and any claim of a "free market" is sheer pretense, and a sham.
These women only and ladies night crack ho's are not competing. They've been granted a monopoly, and are not exercising freedom but operating under license and exemption. Men's _______ doesn't exist not because it's unsupported but because it has been supressed. This isn't a free market, and failing to challenge it will only perpetuate this.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 28, @12:02PM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, not true... one of the few places men do like to congregate with other men - private golf clubs - is allowed legally... they were trying to guilt and shame Augusta into admitting women, but had no legal bais to challenge a private club. It is true that there is a double standard from a feminist perspective (though NOW has been against laws protecting single-sex clubs because they know the same laws can be used to exclude women from other things (like golf clubs))...
People forget about "Curves" when they protest Augusta, or at least the outcry against "Curves" is mute. In fact they are growing in every state!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Plenty of bible bangers think that public schools "discriminate" against them by teaching "heretical" ideas such as the theory of evolution. It doesn't entitle them to have schools teach "creation science" in the name of "equality." So they send their kids to private religious schools, and they pay for it. It just isn't practical for every last group of people to expect it will never be discriminated against, especially since some groups have mutually exclusive interests and it would be impossible to legally shield some without stepping on others."
Some people might think saying hello is murder, does that mean we shouldn't have laws against murder? Just because some people file might file ridiculous lawsuits doesn't mean that a law or set of laws shouldn't exist. And no I'm not talking about "every" group or "never" having to be discriminated against, I'm talking about birth-groups and institutionalised discrimination.
"I have called you out for demanding the right to tell a business owner how to run their show, regarding aspects of same that are not absolutely necessary to protect the public.'
I disagree, I think it is absolutely necessary to protect the public from all forms of institutionalized discrimination.
"Roads and freeways are built and maintained with public funds. If Chris has a private road, he is free to drive 200MPH on it if he sees fit. Drag strips are private, and people often speed down them at velocities that would get their cars impounded if they did the same on the freeway. "
Chris can do whatever he wants to as long as he isn't on the public roads. Similarly a business can do whatever they like provided they are not doing business with the public.
"As for people who live in company towns, etc. Why don't they open their own businesses or move somewhere else if they don't like it?"
Let them eat cake, eh? Maybe those people in sweat shops can't afford to move, and could never get a loan to start a business because the banks know they'd have to compete with the owner of the company town, who can just order all the employees not to buy the competitors products. This kind of stuff is happening in Mexico today as a result of not preventing a few people from "that's just smart business" practices which resulted in them owning the country. I'd rather not see that happen to the US as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, boo hoo, poor people are poor and it's always someone else's fault. I don't buy it. I think you are a borderline socialist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 25, @03:24PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Gyms started going to hell in a handcart once they let women in. No swearing, no grunting. Sweating discouraged. No chalk, it might get on their spandex workout pants.
Oh yeah, we got rid of the bumper plates and power cage and have the thigh machines in to replace them.
Women are welcome in the gym so long as they realise it's a gym. As in, it's a place where people swear, sweat, puke and bleed, and if they don't like it, they can go to "Curves".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 26, @02:34AM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
"so long as they realise it's a gym. As in, it's a place where people swear, sweat, puke and bleed,"
That leaves me out. I think I get your point though. People should be allowed to reach their full potential when they work out, whether they are men or women. The law approaches gyms and sports in general from a "politically correct" point of view, and not from a perspective of what is the optimum for physical conditioning and health.
Physical fitness and sports are of high interest to most males, and lately to some females (generally not as much). Perhaps it is just because men were spending so much enjoyable time in the gym and in sports that those two areas have come under such targeted attacks from feminists.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
