Men-only barber shop controversy

[kirant]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

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?

Just observing this topic, but Google indicates this is the discussion he's talking about if you'd like to take a look:

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/woman...tario-1257806/

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

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?

From what I recall it was actually a pretty split discussion especially because it was rooted a little more deeply than the case of the Regina shop. In the Muslim case, the barber had a freedom of religion component in that he was forbidden to cut females hair while the female's equality right was being argued based on the same merits as in the Regina story.

Now that I look back on the National Post article there is an interesting quote:

“When we in Canada talk about human rights in foreign countries, we’re talking about rights like the right you have for the government not to kill you — that is a genuine right,” said the litigation director of the Calgary-based Canadian Constitution Foundation. “When we talk about rights in Canada we talk about rights [that require] someone to do things for you. I don’t see that as a right at all.”

It’s misguided to try to balance these competing rights —which, she says, should have been anticipated when human rights codes were created in the 1960s — because “genuine rights don’t conflict,” she said.

“It undermines the meaning of the word ‘right’ because if they say this woman has the right to force the barber to cut her hair, essentially they’re saying he doesn’t have the right to practice his religion.”

[FlamesAddiction]

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/

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/diane-b...b_2749510.html

[StrykerSteve]

I'll never understand why a business would voluntarily choose to limit its potential audience to only half of the population. Seems like a poor business decision.

That said, if a woman wants a certain type of haircut that only this type of business can offer, she should be allowed to get it.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/diane-b...b_2749510.html

This is very well put:

That Ms. McGregor came out of mediation with anything less than a sense of shame is to me intolerable. As a taxpayer, I helped cover her cost of humiliating a man for working for his family, while honouring his religion and doing nothing to harm her. Nothing.

If this is secularism, and humanism and tolerance - we are in a sad state of affairs.

This woman could have gone to any of the hundreds of salons or shops in Toronto but felt that it was more important to target one, small shop that in no way was harming her. Whatever happened to "live and let live." Instead people are trying to be crusaders and just want to ruffles feathers.

[Stanathan]

My apologies in advance ladies, and gentlemen who feel offended on behalf of ladies, I am going to stare at an attractive woman who is in great shape and is wearing tight yoga pants that make their curves look perfect and a top that squishes breasts out of them or creats glorious cleavage.

I am not going to stare at them for 30 seconds but probably 10 seconds and at least on 3 occasions if I'm so lucky. I am not going to stop working out while I stare and I'm not going to drool but I'll likely be breathing a little out of my mouth because I'm working out or running. I am also not going to get an erection, approach the woman, or say anything other than a hi if there is eye contact or maybe just a quick smile, nothing I wouldn't do given eye contact with any other person.

When I stare, it's not going to be anything different on my part then when I stare at an attractive muscle car that is in great shape and has a tight paint job that makes its curves look perfect and a hood scoop that squishes the engine out of it.

I don't think of molesting or assaulting the woman the same as I am not thinking of molesting or assaulting the car. I understand that I am the only one that knows what my motives are, but I assure everyone that in both cases I am simply appreciating and admiring something that is very well taken care of and should be admired.

My apologies once again for making a woman feel awkward and to all those car owners who want me on the "Sexual Offender of Automobiles Registry of Canada" because I was checking out their beautiful car.

Note: I hope no one gets upset that I seem to be taking this lightly because there are actual serious issues at hand but I'm a good guy who no one needs to worry about.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

From what I recall it was actually a pretty split discussion especially because it was rooted a little more deeply than the case of the Regina shop. In the Muslim case, the barber had a freedom of religion component in that he was forbidden to cut females hair while the female's equality right was being argued based on the same merits as in the Regina story.

Now that I look back on the National Post article there is an interesting quote:

That quote is completely inaccurate. Nobody is arguing for the "right to require somebody to do things for you". People are arguing for the right to not be discriminated against based on one's gender.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

She's targeting it now by launching a human rights complaint

After the business discriminated based on gender. If we're going to have equality, let's have equality. The whole reason the law and human rights thing exists in the first place is because we don't have equality yet. If we don't want equality, or we think wanting it is a sign of mental unstability, then why do we have the laws? Christmas decorations?

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

which is why the shop should have just done the cut and that's end of story.

Exactly. If equality truly existed she gets her hair cut he gets his money and even more word of mouth that he can do specialized cuts that are popular but difficult.

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

She gets her man cut, and the victory/coolness factor of it.

So wanting equality and standing up for it is a sign of mental unstability, but making up imaginary motivations to try and undermine someone's position isn't? Her motivation doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

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.

If I'm looking for something that is typically purchased by women or for women, I go to a store geared towards women. I don't try and find a store geared towards men that sell things for men that want to buy things geared towards women, because, to use your words, a mentally stable human doesn't anticipate that I wouldn't be able to buy something geared towards women from a store geared towards women because I'm a man.

She wanted a haircut that is typically given by barbers geared towards men, so went to a business that did that kind of thing. A mentally stable person would not anticipate that they would be denied based on gender.

And she probably did move on to the next business, unless you somehow think she's given up haircuts now for the rest of her life.

Identifying companies that are breaking the law is also a sign of mental stability. Standing up for equality is a sign of mental stability.

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

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

Nonsense, you're just making things up to make her look bad so your position looks better, which is both fallacious and mean.

All the judges and lawyers and lawmakers and anyone who's ever been involved with human rights all have personality disorders too right? All these laws are great, except the ones I don't like, those ones were written by people with personality disorders.

[Itse]

This episode is again the kind of gender warfare that I find extremely tiresome and unproductive.

On one hand you have a barber shop refusing service to a customer that really wanted it because of a pretty BS reason. There's no risk that "Ragged Ass Barbers for men" is suddenly going to get overwhelmed by female customers if they on occasion serve one.

On the other hand you have a person who chooses to turn a relatively minor personal problem into a really stupid public argument. There's no risk that without her making a ruckus women were going to run out of grooming services and hairstyle options.

If I was a judge handling this case, I'd try to find a way to make both parties feel miserable for wasting everybody's time.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

According to this site http://www.statisticbrain.com/sex-offender-statistics/

there are 747,408 convicted and registered sex offenders in the USA, out of a population of 317 million (48.5% male overall, or ~154 million). Lets say that out of those 747408 sex offenders, only 80% of them are male (likely a very conservative statistic based on incarceration rates), which leaves just under 600000 convicted and registered male sex offenders in the USA.

That is just under 4%, or 1 in 25 males, that are convicted and registered sex offenders. This is not counting the fact that rape is severely underreported, and even when it is, many rapists escape conviction. The numbers (even on the conservative side) are pretty horrific.

This isn't even adjusting population for those only over the age of 15.

~20.2% of the population is 0-14, so you can hack off 31 mil off the 154, and take that down to 123 mil, which raises the number of convicted males to 5%, or 1 in 20.

600 000/120 000 000 is 0.5 percent, not 4 percent. 4 percent of 120 million men would be almost 5 million sex offenders, which even in prison-happy America, would be insanely high and would bankrupt the country. 1 in 200 males is the correct ratio, not 1 in 25. However that is just offenders in prison, not those that have served their sentences, or gotten away with it, so the numbers definitely need some more context to be meaningful.

Now back to our regularly scheduled debate about how anecdotal evidence that you haven't witnessed harassment trumps other people's direct experience of harassment.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Itse

If I was a judge handling this case, I'd try to find a way to make both parties feel miserable for wasting everybody's time.

Find a way to get Michael Cicconetti to preside as judge? He has some interesting sentences. My personal favourite:

Two teenagers who scrawled 666 on a nativity figure of Jesus had to lead a donkey through the streets, with a sign saying: "Sorry for the jackass offense, but he is soooo cute!"

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

I'll never understand why a business would voluntarily choose to limit its potential audience to only half of the population. Seems like a poor business decision.

That said, if a woman wants a certain type of haircut that only this type of business can offer, she should be allowed to get it.

I used to easily make 6 figures while only serving men and not because of sexism but because I never trained to cut women's hair. Business is fine. Barbers make good money.

This is what the root of the problem unless you believe the man is so sexist he won't touch a women's hair.

The easier answer that he's just not trained to cut her hair can't be the answer. It has to be that barbers are sexist misogynist d bags.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

I used to easily make 6 figures while only serving men and not because of sexism but because I never trained to cut women's hair. Business is fine. Barbers make good money.

This is what the root of the problem unless you believe the man is so sexist he won't touch a women's hair.

The easier answer that he's just not trained to cut her hair can't be the answer. It has to be that barbers are sexist misogynist d bags.

It can't be when she wanted a men's cut.

What's the difference between a woman with long hair and a man with long hair, if they both want a men's cut?

[ExiledFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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."

You were doing so well. You made it a few pages without being a self righteous #######. And then you slipped back to your old habits.

Why are you assuming everyone who supports this business is a white non-minority? pylon has posted some very well thought out and valid views, yet he has mentioned he's a Jewish man on this forum (correct me if I'm wrong pylon). If anyone knows anything about discrimination and hatred in the past century it's that group.

On the other hand, as a white man yourself (I assume, since you've said you've discriminated against minorities in the past), how is your view more enlightened than everyone else?

You've made two logical fallacies. You think anyone who supports a male only barbershop is a white male and has never faced any discrimination in their life.

You also think that only people who face discrimination are allowed to have an opinion on this issue. Hence the white privilege snarky remark. If this is true, is your view then irrelevant if you are in fact a white male?

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

It can't be when she wanted a men's cut.

What's the difference between a woman with long hair and a man with long hair, if they both want a men's cut?

I've also not cut a man with long hair. It takes a special skill to not screw up long hair and I don't feel comfortable cutting long hair.

If a lady with already short hair wanted a hair cut then fine but I can honestly say not one women in my 10 years has ever asked for a short hair cut. Some have came in for a trim but I'd refer them somewhere else.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

I've also not cut a man with long hair. It takes a special skill to not screw up long hair and I don't feel comfortable cutting long hair.

Which is fine, if that was the case no one would say anything. She wasn't asking for a long hair cut.

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

If a lady with already short hair wanted a hair cut then fine but I can honestly say not one women in my 10 years has ever asked for a short hair cut.

Who cares about what you've seen in 10 years, it doesn't matter. This women went to a place that specialized in men's hair cuts to get a specialized men's hair cut.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

I've also not cut a man with long hair. It takes a special skill to not screw up long hair and I don't feel comfortable cutting long hair.

If a lady with already short hair wanted a hair cut then fine but I can honestly say not one women in my 10 years has ever asked for a short hair cut. Some have came in for a trim but I'd refer them somewhere else.

You're just trolling now, right? It was established about 12 pages ago in this very thread that she wanted a short, traditionally men's cut, the exact kind of style that this particular barbershop is perfectly capable of providing.

[MarchHare]

This is from the Star-Phoenix article linked in the OP:

After two years of operating and building a word of mouth reputation in Regina, the barbershop attracted the interest of Evie Ruddy, who told media she requested a "hard part" traditional men's haircut, but was refused.

Her rejection prompted about a dozen women to call the shop for appointments in protest.

"(Ruddy) has been wronged," Carter said.

"If she was coming in asking for what is traditionally known as a more feminine haircut, I think they would have more rationale (because) that's not the service they provide. But she was asking for a service that they actually promote."

Emphasis added.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by photon

After the business discriminated based on gender. If we're going to have equality, let's have equality. The whole reason the law and human rights thing exists in the first place is because we don't have equality yet. If we don't want equality, or we think wanting it is a sign of mental unstability, then why do we have the laws? Christmas decorations?

Surely this isn't the first case where Ragged Ass Barbers have informed female clientele that it's a men's barbershop. As I've said before, they should have just given her the service she asked for.

Exactly. If equality truly existed she gets her hair cut he gets his money and even more word of mouth that he can do specialized cuts that are popular but difficult.

It seems like a bit of a stretch to assume the shop's revenue/exposure amongst women would skyrocket though. From an economics standpoint, yes he's limiting his revenue streams. Are men's hairstyles really popular among women these days though?

So wanting equality and standing up for it is a sign of mental unstability, but making up imaginary motivations to try and undermine someone's position isn't? Her motivation doesn't matter.

It's not at all possible she may have a persecution complex or BPD? She didn't get the haircut she wanted at an establishment that doesn't normally cater to women.

If I'm looking for something that is typically purchased by women or for women, I go to a store geared towards women. I don't try and find a store geared towards men that sell things for men that want to buy things geared towards women, because, to use your words, a mentally stable human doesn't anticipate that I wouldn't be able to buy something geared towards women from a store geared towards women because I'm a man.

Well, if Victoria's secret denies you the right to walk into their store to try on and purchase their products I guess it would deserve a human rights complaint as well.

She wanted a haircut that is typically given by barbers geared towards men, so went to a business that did that kind of thing. A mentally stable person would not anticipate that they would be denied based on gender.

Agree here. I'm sure the barber was caught off guard as well.

And she probably did move on to the next business, unless you somehow think she's given up haircuts now for the rest of her life.

Obviously. If this goes the distance we'll see the sub-par cut she received elsewhere.

Identifying companies that are breaking the law is also a sign of mental stability. Standing up for equality is a sign of mental stability.

Again, I agree. They should have just avoided the issue entirely.

Nonsense, you're just making things up to make her look bad so your position looks better, which is both fallacious and mean.

All the judges and lawyers and lawmakers and anyone who's ever been involved with human rights all have personality disorders too right? All these laws are great, except the ones I don't like, those ones were written by people with personality disorders.

I'm not trying to be mean, honestly. I apologize if it comes across that way. The shop has existed for nearly 3 years in Regina without any media attention due to discrimination. I guess I'm kind of pulling an EE in this thread.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Are men's hairstyles really popular among women these days though?

According to wittynickname, who identified herself as professional hairstylist, the specific cut this woman wanted is now apparently very popular. I had to google it because I know literally nothing about hairstyles, but now that I know what it is, I definitely recall seeing both men and women with this style here in Calgary.