Men-only barber shop controversy

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Why is it so difficult to understand that sometimes men just want to be left alone? It's a safe place for a man to just go and be a man for an hour, without worrying about anything.

Maybe it's a cigar and a glass of bourbon with your feet up and watching the ball game for an hour, while you're getting your hair cut in relative peace and quiet?

And what about having a woman there, or in this case, what might appear to be a transgendered person who identifies as a man would stop you from being able to enjoy this? Is it because "broads, man, you know how much they love to talk." The establishment is perfectly within its rights to create house rules pertaining to noise, conversation content, etc., etc. None of these things are illegal. Discriminating based on gender is.

Maybe it's a place to go for someone who's suffered some sort of abuse at the hands of a woman, and is now just thankful that there's at least one place he can go and feel completely relaxed, other than his own one-room apartment.

If someone wants to market their barbershop as a shelter for men who've been abused by women, then a judge might very well grant an exemption. Hell, if the barber in court were to say as much, he might well get that exemption.

Or it could be a small place where everyone knows each other and the clientele is really more like a large club where you'll some guys at a table playing cards, or some other guys watching a football game. A place where guys don't always go just to get a haircut, but can go just to hang out for an hour or two and socialize.

So then they would turn away all new customers, or just those who have vaginas? Again, what about having a woman there is going to ruin things, other than some pre-conceived sexist stereotypes about women?

The point being, men have the same equal right to feel safe as women do. End of story.

I agree, and if someone can demonstrate how cutting this woman's hair violated their feelings of safety, then I'm sure a judge would have no problem creating an exemption.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by AcGold

My guess is women just wanted a gym to be comfortable in, harassment is less common than being ogled which I could see being annoying as hell if you actually are there to workout. I've never seen harassment but ogling happens every 10-15 seconds if you're an attractive women.

It's also likely very popular with women who aren't as physically fit and don't get ogled at all. The gym in general can be an intimidating place for people trying to get fit, who aren't where they want to be in that regard.
I could see why women who aren't in the shape they want to be in, would feel less under the microscope at an all ladies gym too.

[pylon]

This thread will go in circles forever.

I will leave it at this.

I have zero issues with a womens only establishment personally. If I am unwelcome, why would I want to go? And I can understand the reasoning behind why such an establishment exists. Fair enough. Some dudes are total creeps, and I know guys that make me feel uncomfortable by just listening to them. And I am anything but a prude.

I just think people are naive to think that there is not a double standard, that is perpetuated by a stereotype that labels many men, as something they are not. It exists, and it cannot be denied. But like any stereotype, they are usually all based on some sort of truth or fact, be it a subtle one, or glaringly obvious one.

If I am at a mixed gender fitness facility, and I look in the general direction of a women working out, I am doing just that. I am not having sexual fantasies about her. I might be looking at a picture on the wall behind her, I might be looking at her headphones thinking "Those are slick, I should try and find a pair." But the assumption that just looking in the general direction of someone means I am contemplating raping them is not my problem, that is their problem by making that assumption. It is human to look at things, plants, animals, buildings and other humans.

If it was up to me, I wouldn't have gender exclusive facilities of any kind besides bathrooms and obviously certain health fields. But I guess I am making that assumption under the guise that every man thinks like me, and would never contemplate harming as much as a hair on a woman. So that may very well be the flaw in my logic right there.

So although I very well may be wrong about a few or many things. I fell I am right to assume a stereotype about men in fact exists that affects many men unfairly.

[Northendzone]

this discussion is epic.........

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by photon

For what purpose?

You seem very well informed in this threads matter. I assume it's out of wanting to understand the issue. So, it's just to understand that issue too. Which is also a heavily discriminated issue in western culture that needs addressing. That's all. The Divorce Corp Documentary is a useful way of peaking into it.

After the thread started by Jets4life where he talks on the issue I joined a few and saw a lot of anger and hurt and it seems like nobody cares. Or at least until it happens to them. It's mostly men but there are some women and they all need a voice.

I don't want to derail the thread. I was just bringing that up as a drive by.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by pylon

So although I very well may be wrong about a few or many things. I fell I am right to assume a stereotype about men in fact exists that affects many men unfairly.

There are a tonne of stereotypes about men, but in this particular circumstance that's not what's happening.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by photon

Because in Canada we have this thing called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The why is in there.

Ok, I'm going to ask this question because there's been a lot of back and forth about this but I haven't seen anyone definitively answer this. It is not meant to be sexist, misogynist, further derail this to Curves/SpaLady or provoke discussion either way. It is simply a question.

Does the why you reference say anything about why it's ok, legally, for a womens establishment to refuse service to men but not the other way around?

I understand the reasons for women wanting their own space and am totally fine with being excluded from SpaLady or whatever, but is it not against the law? I am just confused on this point.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Stanathan

http://www.slate.com/articles/double...assaulted.html

Men know what being assaulted sexually is like, it's not savd for women only.

I completely agree, but I wonder what percentage of the men were:

Man on Man vs Female on Man

I also wonder what the age of these men when the attacks took place.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Does the why you reference say anything about why it's ok, legally, for a womens establishment to refuse service to men but not the other way around?

Not to answer for photon, but he's already addressed that exact point earlier in the thread. There was a court case in Canada that determined that female-only gyms were discriminatory, but the discrimination was considered justifiable by the court, so their existence is not a charter violation.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by pylon

So although I very well may be wrong about a few or many things. I fell I am right to assume a stereotype about men in fact exists that affects many men unfairly.

In a funny sort of way, if straight white men are actually interested in equality... then hey, welcome to being stereotyped, a great introduction to dealing with the same things every single minority has ever dealt with.

Welcome to equality!

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Does the why you reference say anything about why it's ok, legally, for a womens establishment to refuse service to men but not the other way around?

I understand the reasons for women wanting their own space and am totally fine with being excluded from SpaLady or whatever, but is it not against the law? I am just confused on this point.

This has been addressed multiple times in this thread. The Charter is written in such a way that the court can determine that even if a part of the charter is being violated, that the reason it is being violated is legitimate and therefore they will grant an exemption to whomever is deemed to be violating whichever clause.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

It's also likely very popular with women who aren't as physically fit and don't get ogled at all. The gym in general can be an intimidating place for people trying to get fit, who aren't where they want to be in that regard.
I could see why women who aren't in the shape they want to be in, would feel less under the microscope at an all ladies gym too.

Probably both are true. I know the pressure people feel.

The issue with this debate is a business should be allowed to decide who it serves but that rides the line between free will and discrimination. Nobody really wins, force a company to serve women and you take away their free will. Allow the business to only serve part of the population and people feel discriminated against, no win win.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Not to answer for photon, but he's already addressed that exact point earlier in the thread. There was a court case in Canada that determined that female-only gyms were discriminatory, but the discrimination was considered justifiable by the court, so their existence is not a charter violation.

Thank you, I didn't see it anywhere (it's a pretty muddy thread).

Does that ruling give specific guidelines for what is deemed as "justifiable discrimination"? Seems like a pretty slippery slope, even if well-intentioned.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

dp

Which is also sexual harassment, unless she suggests it.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by pylon

This thread will go in circles forever.

I will leave it at this.

I have zero issues with a womens only establishment personally. If I am unwelcome, why would I want to go? And I can understand the reasoning behind why such an establishment exists. Fair enough. Some dudes are total creeps, and I know guys that make me feel uncomfortable by just listening to them. And I am anything but a prude.

I just think people are naive to think that there is not a double standard, that is perpetuated by a stereotype that labels many men, as something they are not. It exists, and it cannot be denied. But like any stereotype, they are usually all based on some sort of truth or fact, be it a subtle one, or glaringly obvious one.

If I am at a mixed gender fitness facility, and I look in the general direction of a women working out, I am doing just that. I am not having sexual fantasies about her. I might be looking at a picture on the wall behind her, I might be looking at her headphones thinking "Those are slick, I should try and find a pair." But the assumption that just looking in the general direction of someone means I am contemplating raping them is not my problem, that is their problem by making that assumption. It is human to look at things, plants, animals, buildings and other humans.

If it was up to me, I wouldn't have gender exclusive facilities of any kind besides bathrooms and obviously certain health fields. But I guess I am making that assumption under the guise that every man thinks like me, and would never contemplate harming as much as a hair on a woman. So that may very well be the flaw in my logic right there.

So although I very well may be wrong about a few or many things. I fell I am right to assume a stereotype about men in fact exists that affects many men unfairly.

I'm actually all for businesses having the right to market and model their business based on a certain demographic. If there is a market for gender exclusive establishments why shouldn't they exist? I don't see harm in a male or female only gym/hair salon/restaurant/bar/whatever because options for unisex establishments will always exist.

I don't view this matter in the nature of discrimination but rather freedom.

[110%]

The Charter doesn't apply to private businesses. The Charter applies to governments and in some limited cases, where government policy is carried out through some sort of intermediary, the Charter could potentially apply there.

For a barbershop, the Charter is a non-issue, as in the case of a women's only fitness facility.

I could be wrong, but that's my understanding.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

which is also sexual harassment, unless the reciever suggests it.

fyp

[pylon]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I'm actually all for businesses having the right to market and model their business based on a certain demographic. If there is a market for gender exclusive establishments why shouldn't they exist? I don't see harm in a male or female only gym/hair salon/restaurant/bar/whatever because options for unisex establishments will always exist.

I don't view this matter in the nature of discrimination but rather freedom.

I don't have much of an issue either, as long as an option exists the other way.

You can have men's night at the golf club, because there is usually a women's night as well, both parties get a fair opportunity to do their thing. That is fair.

But if you have the only business of it's kind, selling the only product of it's kind, then being unisex in my eyes is definitely discriminatory.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

So by your own admission an attractive woman at a co-ed gym will be harassed every 10-15 seconds because ogling is harassment! Have none of you ever had to take a mandatory workplace sensitivity training course?

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-prev...ual-harassment



Emphasis added.

The gym is not a workplace and women choose to wear revealing clothing on their own freewill, you don't decide where my eyes go in public. If a women chooses to show her butt and wear a shirt that barely holds in her chest it's not really harassment, she'd be chastised for wearing it at work so how can you chastise people for looking at women that choose to wear revealing clothing? I don't walk around in a speedo and get pissed off if people stare, that's silly.

Some serious over sensitivity and misplaced political correctness. Wearing revealing clothing around a bunch of men exercising and acting dismayed at being looked at is ridiculous. Go to Curves if it's that much of an issue, it's not against the law to look at women wearing revealing clothing in public. Just because men look doesn't mean their going to harass her, it's unreasonable to ask men not to stare at the one thing that drives their brain the most when flaunting it around.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by 110%

The Charter doesn't apply to private businesses. The Charter applies to governments and in some limited cases, where government policy is carried out through some sort of intermediary, the Charter could potentially apply there.

For a barbershop, the Charter is a non-issue, as in the case of a women's only fitness facility.

I could be wrong, but that's my understanding.

You're wrong.

A private business is not legally permitted to deny service on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. unless there is a legitimate justification in the eyes of the court for the discrimination (as photon noted earlier). The Charter doesn't allow you to open, for example, a clothing store that refuses to sell to black customers or a private school that won't accept Asian students. You could open a business that you advertise as a "Jewish Deli", but you would not be allowed to refuse service to non-Jews.