Men-only barber shop controversy

[photon]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

As a consumer you don't always get what you want.

And as a business owner you can't always do what you want.

But I was responding to you admiring someone standing up for themselves and their principles. Which is what the woman was doing, equality is a pretty good principle. So is freedom to do what one wants, but freedom depends on equality.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think you're using the wrong example. The female equivalent of that is the chick that does her hair and cakes on a tonne of make-up so she can leisurely use the recumbent bike for half an hour. I think Lulus and tight-fitting top is pretty standard for most women, or at least most women at the gyms I go to.

So is it different if someone stares or leers at the girl on the recumbant bike?

I'm having a tough time with this thread. I think most on here would attest that I am a very open minded person that is all for equality across all genders, sexuality, races, etc. But there are some double standards at play here that are bordering on ridiculous.

Oilstain mentions the "bro" with perfectly fine reasoning but is called "gross" for apparently being able to see into the minds of women, which is really what almost all of us are doing here (trying to figure out what women's reasons are) and what any woman is doing when she assumes that any guy that happens to look at her is at the very least interested in her sexually, and at the very worst, will try to rape her in the parking lot later.

Arguing about the difference between a look and a stare? Come on. If you plug either of those into a thesaurus, the other is right there. When does a glance become a look, a stare, a leer, or a predetermined rape-face? Is it a time thing or an intent thing? And now we're back to seeing into each others minds. What if a guy is daydreaming and a woman happens to be in his line of sight? Guessing at people's intentions is completely futile.

I know someone from any one of: The bro, the fat person, the girl there dressing "attractively" to work out, the girl dolled up on the recumbant, the girl there in shorts and a tshirt, and the guy there in shorts and a tshirt. The only thing we know about all of them is that they are excersising. In a public place people will stare at you for a number of reasons, regardless of who you are or what you're doing. How is it any better or worse that a guy assumes a girl staring at him is interested or a girl assumes a guy staring at her is dangerous? They're all unfair stereotypes.

I know a guy who was pursued into a parking lot by a gay man who became interested after noticing his (very feminine) tattoo in the locker room. Is that man now legally entitled to ask that his gym be a gay-free zone? My guess is most (including myself) would say no.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

No you see, it's okay because they're only discriminating on genitalia (as long as you were born with it, the owner already said trans-men aren't allowed), not on melanin content.

I'm not racist, I'm just melanin intolerant. It's kind of like gluten.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by GGG

How about if it was just for white men. Have a read and tell be what you think.

I could care less if they were only serving white men, Chinese men, Arab men, etc. That should be their own decision and if they feel as though that focus gives them some sort of advantage in the market they should go for it.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I could care less if they were only serving white men, Chinese men, Arab men, etc. That should be their own decision and if they feel as though that focus gives them some sort of advantage in the market they should go for it.

Libertarian/Pure Capitalist spotted.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I could care less if they were only serving white men, Chinese men, Arab men, etc. That should be their own decision and if they feel as though that focus gives them some sort of advantage in the market they should go for it.

Your personal feelings on this issue are completely irrelevant. What matters is that the law says that private businesses are barred from discriminating based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

Also this:

[photon]

Originally Posted by GGG

By the same token if there is a man who for whatever actual reason wants to join a womens gym (be it hours, location, not wanting to be judged by bros, etc) he should be allowed to.

In the cases I read where men were allowed to join or that the discrimination wasn't justified those were the scenarios, most boiling down to availability (be it proximity or no gyms in the area or cost etc).

Though one was funny as the guy was declined, and it read exactly like someone had done what was proposed here; go to a gym and go to court when denied. They denied his claim because after he was turned down he didn't go to any other gym, he had never had a gym membership before, the gym in question wasn't the closest one like he claimed, etc.. Was kinda funny.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

She really just wanted to see kids having fun.

Sorry that made me tear up a bit lol.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by MattyC

So is it different if someone stares or leers at the girl on the recumbant bike?

No, it's not. The argument was who is most like the bro and that was my response, because the original post was ridiculous and I'm not going to make any judgement calls on why a guy would wear what he wears to the gym, mostly because I couldn't give a ####.

Oilstain mentions the "bro" with perfectly fine reasoning but is called "gross" for apparently being able to see into the minds of women, which is really what almost all of us are doing here (trying to figure out what women's reasons are) and what any woman is doing when she assumes that any guy that happens to look at her is at the very least interested in her sexually, and at the very worst, will try to rape her in the parking lot later.

Well I'm not reading into women's minds. My experience comes from talking to women and dealing with gender issues on a daily basis through some of the volunteer work I do, and there are women who have expressed that they do not feel comfortable, safe, etc., in a gym with men. And that's not to say that all of the reasons women aren't comfortable in gyms with men have to do with assault and harassment. Some of it I'm sure has to do with how they feel about their bodies.

Arguing about the difference between a look and a stare? Come on. If you plug either of those into a thesaurus, the other is right there. When does a glance become a look, a stare, a leer, or a predetermined rape-face?

stare
ste(ə)r/Submit
verb
1.
look fixedly or vacantly at someone or something with one's eyes wide open.
"he stared at her in amazement"
synonyms: gaze, gape, goggle, glare, ogle, peer; informalgawk, rubberneck

I believe you are mistaken. There are some pretty distinct differences at play.

Is it a time thing or an intent thing? And now we're back to seeing into each others minds. What if a guy is daydreaming and a woman happens to be in his line of sight? Guessing at people's intentions is completely futile.

No, but having a women's only gym takes the guessing right out of the game. It becomes a non-issue at that point.

How is it any better or worse that a guy assumes a girl staring at him is interested or a girl assumes a guy staring at her is dangerous? They're all unfair stereotypes.

This has been beaten to death and I'm going to refer you to any of mine or photon's responses to pylon. I don't have the energy to go into it again. Let's just say you're looking at this from the privileged perspective of someone who very rarely if ever has to consider the possibility that they might be raped.

I know a guy who was pursued into a parking lot by a gay man who became interested after noticing his (very feminine) tattoo in the locker room. Is that man now legally entitled to ask that his gym be a gay-free zone? My guess is most (including myself) would say no.

No, because this is one incident and not representative of a larger societal problem. If your friend as well as a high number of other straight men were being pursued multiple times by multiple gay men, then they might have something to gripe about.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Libertarian/Pure Capitalist spotted.

More like white privilege spotted, although it's hard to indulge in Libertarianism without the privilege.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by photon

It could have just been the closest, or the one she found on the Internet (they are the first result for Regina Barber). Again to assume she targeted it to make a point is just that, an assumption. And an ultimately irrelevant one.

But that's not what makes her have a point. What makes her have a point is that the business can't discriminate based on gender.

She's targeting it now by launching a human rights complaint, which is why the shop should have just done the cut and that's end of story. She gets her man cut, and the victory/coolness factor of it.

The barber didn't need to change anything in terms of slogan, practice, etc. A mentally stable human would just move on to the next place if an establishment doesn't want their money.

Sure, she's got a point. Going to the extremes to prove said point and making this business and everyone else who question her walk on eggshells starts leading to questions of personality disorder. She just doesn't seem to be all there, and again, the shop should have just done the cut she asked for.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

She's targeting it now by launching a human rights complaint, which is why the shop should have just done the cut and that's end of story. She gets her man cut, and the victory/coolness factor of it.

The barber didn't need to change anything in terms of slogan, practice, etc. A mentally stable human would just move on to the next place if an establishment doesn't want their money.

Sure, she's got a point. Going to the extremes to prove said point and making this business and everyone else who question her walk on eggshells starts leading to questions of personality disorder.

Conversely, a "mentally stable" business owner would have just cut her hair and taken her money instead of denying her service for no good reason.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Also this:

Sorry for that mistake. In my attempt to keep up with the discussion and posts I have made a cardinal sin in terms of syntax.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Conversely, a "mentally stable" business owner would have just cut her hair and taken her money instead of denying her service for no good reason.

I don't disagree.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by rubecube

More like white privilege spotted, although it's hard to indulge in Libertarianism without the privilege.

You are right, my views and opinions are completely based on white privilege and a complete lack of understanding for minorities.

[Devils'Advocate]

If someone opens up a white only store and a some black asshat tries to go in and buy something is he just an attention grabbing a-hole? I mean, there are PLENTY of other stores willing to take his money. Why wouldn't he just pass by the store and go about his business?

What is people's take on business down south that want the right to bar homosexuals in their stores? Bet some f*ggot will try to ruin that. Attention whores.

[MarchHare]

I wonder how this discussion would have turned out if it had been a Muslim barber refusing service to a woman.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

You are right, my views and opinions are completely based on white privilege and a complete lack of understanding for minorities.

Pretty much. I think you're okay with discrimination because you yourself have never actually faced true discrimination.

"Hey, you folks want to go out for a nice, classy meal and that guy down the street won't let you in because you're Jewis? C'mon, it's not that big of a deal. Just take your business down the street. Oh that's off-limits, too? No worries, I'm sure there's a McDonald's that'll take care of ya."

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

If someone opens up a white only store and a some black asshat tries to go in and buy something is he just an attention grabbing a-hole? I mean, there are PLENTY of other stores willing to take his money. Why wouldn't he just pass by the store and go about his business?

What is people's take on business down south that want the right to bar homosexuals in their stores? Bet some f*ggot will try to ruin that. Attention whores.

This isn't an anti-semitic issue.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I wonder how this discussion would have turned out if it had been a Muslim barber refusing service to a woman.

This already happened before and there is/was a fairly lengthy discussion at RedFlagDeals:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11...liding-rights/

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

This already happened before and there is/was a fairly lengthy discussion at RedFlagDeals:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11...liding-rights/

How did the discussion at RFD go down? Were the majority of posters supportive of the Muslim barber refusing to serve a woman, or were more people insisting that he fit in with the norms of Canadian society where we do not discriminate based on gender?