|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:02 PM August 10th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I guess we men should prepare to sit at the back of the bus, too.
We'll also have seperate drinking fountains, not be allowed in bars, taverns and shopping centers.
You probably think I'm joking around but I'm not. The way things are going all this is a very real possibility.
Who will be OUR Rosa Parks...?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Tirryb on 05:14 PM August 10th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Well said Thundercloud,
and it's getting there believe me. In both the UK and Australia certain clubs are refusing men entry because they don't want too many men inside (too many women is more than fine, of course). There are women-only health centres, training centres, hair dressers, social clubs, etc. Men are banned from all of them. It's really getting there....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:31 PM August 11th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I've removed this hotel already from our latest Corporate Hotel list.
No-one batted an eyelid - I simply explained that a hotel with a woman-only wing would not suit a company such as ours as we frequently sent teams to other cities to work. As these teams are comprised of men and women who frequently get together at night to work, the environment would not be ideal in such a hotel.
While they can't stop men going to women's rooms and vice-versa, I'm not having any of my completely innocent male staff being made to feel guilty for being in a part of a hotel.
Unless the women are paying extra for this privilege/service?
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 02:32 PM August 11th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
After sending a note to them regarding their "female-friendly" wing, I received the following reply. Before reading it, I'll mention that my reply to the author was simply this: "Thank you for your reply Mr. Wishart. Will you be opening a male-friendly wing any time soon?"
Dear Mr Campbell
I acknowledge receipt of your email addressed to the Grange City Hotel which indicated you were offended by an article providing a report on a new wing to be opened at one of our London properties.
Please find attached the only press release issued by Grange Hotels with respect to the this proposed wing. You will note that we have used the term 'female friendly' not 'female only'
By way of explanation, we were able to incorporate a number of requests which initially originated from guest questionnaire responses from our clientele into the new wing which had not been included in the design of the original Grange City Hotel. It is not fair to suggest that by including different bedding, bathroom facilities, toiletries and enhanced security this is to the detriment of any individual group of persons; simply an added range of facilities, services and amenities for those who might wish to take advantage of them following research into our guests' expectations.
Most importantly these areas are not deemed off limits to men despite any erroneous reports and controversial headlines printed by certain media. Reports you may have read might be best viewed together with the attached press release.
Yours sincerely
Barry Wishart
Assistant Sales Director
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Malcolm on 02:42 AM August 12th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I can't help thinking that they would be on dodgy legal ground if they turned a man away because the hotel was full when there was space in the women-only wing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:53 AM August 12th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I got the same form letter back after sending an e-mail letting them know how offended I was. Excuses are like a-holes, everyone’s got one and they all stink.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Tirryb on 05:23 PM August 12th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
What's the email address? I couldn't find it when looking to complain. I'd love to fire off an email complaint as well as the letter that went out...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:43 AM August 13th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, same here.
I'd also like to ask them if they are going to have racially segregated hotels, soon.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by n.j. on 08:57 PM August 13th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
In Germany, Hamburg and Berlin have "Frauenhotels" (women's hotels) that are also criticism free meeting places for feminist & women's rights groups. I sent e-mail to the one in Berlin explaining to them why I feel this is ordinary discrimination, but of course no one could be bothered to reply.
The one in Hamburg is called "Frauenhotel Hanseatin". If you consult Google you'll see that they're listed on hotel & travel websites with the remark that their cafe is also open for non-hotel guests, "as long as they're female". How nice of them.
So, if you want to fire out some e-mail, this is an ideal target. We also have a women's bookstore and a women's pub, by the way. The good news is they're struggling to survive financally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:05 AM August 14th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
"The good news is they're struggling to survive financally."
And the bad news , I'm sure, is that there will be plenty of feminazi funding available to ensure that that they will not only survive but also thrive.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:09 AM August 14th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
So, it appears that MRAs believe that corporations
should be bound by the constitutional protections we have in our democratic state.
Some people believe that corporations are constitution-free zones: if you own a corporation, you are a social institution with the freedoms of a private indivisible individual: you can force your employees and customers to give up their rights, as a condition of setting foot on your property and doing business with you. This belief that corporations absolutely must be constitution-free zones makes too much of the legal notion of corporations os "persons": like individuals, are residents of the state, but are more like governments than private individuals in their relations with their employees and customers.
Well, I'm certainly in favor of disallowing corporate immunity from the protections that free citizens in a democracy enjoy from their government.
Unless of course, you believe that corporations are private "citizens" who cannot be forced to comply with the constitution. I believe this is a disasterous political and economic policy, whose purpose is to concentrate the wealth of a nation into the fewest possible hands, and which ultimately negates the freedoms we believe we possess under the constitution. It is not to our credit that our animal territorial instincts overwhelm our capacity for economic logic.
Perhaps MRAs will be more sympathetic to Martha Burke's her protest against male only sports clubs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Tumescent on 01:26 PM August 14th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I believe there is a difference between corporations (public or private) that cater and do business with the public, and private clubs. I'm not a constitutional lawyer and you probably aren't either, but it seems to me that organizations that cater to the public should not be allowed to discriminate based upon sex or race. Private clubs can decide who they let into the club. As for the Martha Burke' thing, I don't think she has any business getting involved in how a private admits its members.
While men's golf clubs are diverse, their members have a common desire to create sustained bonds with other men. ... Men's golf clubs, through their enduring presence, offer a sense of rootedness, a common body of experience and knowledge, a sense of continuity. ... We are forever being told to give more energy, more time, to our marriage, our career, our children, our community. Men's golf clubs tell us to spend more time with our male friends.
What is wrong about this when applied to a private club?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:14 AM September 17th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Your blog is realy very interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:07 PM August 14th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
"Perhaps MRAs will be more sympathetic to Martha Burke's her protest against male only sports clubs"
The principle is equality. "Men only" facilities should be allowed to exist if "Women only" facilities exist.
Feminists want the former facilities banned on the basis of equality. Yet they want the latter facilities retained and expanded, claiming traditional female privilege.
Yet another example of the fraud of feminism.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:07 PM August 14th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Just occurred to me that this would be an excellent choice for an MRA campaign like the David and Goliath tee shirts campaign.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Tirryb writes "The BBC reports