No Chicks Allowed!

[wagegoth]

Valid and Invalid Points (Yep, it's a bit long)

Some businesses can discriminate legally; some can't.

To have a policy that you refuse service to someone based on gender is going to get you in trouble. To an extent, private clubs have been able to get around this because membership and regular fees and such are required, and they are "private."

The issue with women suing for admission to these clubs was that the women were being left out of the old boys network that was part of these clubs. They wanted the business and career opportunities that were to be had by being members of these clubs. If a company was conducting business in private clubs that excluded women (and non-whites and Jews, etc.) it was a valid claim. And there are still private men's clubs.

Colleges and universities had to become co-ed to keep government (tax-based) funding. If a school wanted to be male or female only, then they had to depend on private funding. I agree with this.

To deny service to someone in a public establishment based on gender is illegal. Hooters is definitely male-oriented, but they don't refuse service to women, although many women would not go there.

As to hair, my sister owns a salon and I lived with her while she was attending beauty school. I've always had very good stylists, although many years ago I occasionally went to a barber for a simple, straight cut.

Men's and women's hair is not different. Different races have different hair. I'm white with medium-fine hair. I would not go to a salon that is oriented toward African hair or Asian/Latino (the very straight, black, thick-shafted) hair. The texture of those types of hair is very different from mine. This means that haircuts, perms and color are going to be quite different.

My current stylist is from China originally, but she specializes in Caucasian hair. A few men go to my salon, but not many, as it is part of a day spa. She and I both have children and we like to compare the behavior of our children based on Chinese astrology. We talk about our families, plans, etc. No real gossip, although I know that is often more the case in small towns and beauty shops.

My previous stylist was Chinese-American, born and brought up here. She ended up opening her own salon, and there were male and female stylists and male and female customers. Didn't bother me. One of the male stylists was straight and a complete slut. I loved to watch and listen while he worked on good-looking women. It was such a game of flirt, withdraw, flirt, maybe, flirt, etc.

Anyway, the barber shop is in the wrong. If the barber shop had been inside a private men's club, that would be different. It's not. They are discriminating based on gender, and they will lose.

[AFpheonix]

And if women's gyms are so they don't feel ogled and judged, what about us poor guys who are out of shape? I should get my own gym too, because every time I've set foot in a gym I've felt weighed, measured, and found wanting by the guys who spend a ton of time in there.
It's gotten to the point where I feel I need to get in shape before I could go back there.

Heh heh heh....so I guess there should be a "Fuzzy Curves" then?

[Banrion]

What I don't understand is why people try to force themselves upon places that they are clearly not wanted. Even if this goes to court and the woman wins, her going back to that shop is just going to breed animosity and hostility. I could understand if there were NO other options and therefore someone was unable to get said service at all, but in this case the simple answer is to go somewhere else. I really would not let anyone near my head with a set of clippers after I sued their boss and got a court order allowing me into the establishment. Just doesn't seem like a good idea.

I am also tired of hearing people use the term "equality" to mean special treatment for any group other than white males. The whole discrimination issue is getting out of hand. It's no longer about being equal, it's about getting favortism because you belong to (insert group of choice here) and because 100 years ago things were different people should kiss your a** now.

Gym's are the perfect example of this. In my town, Gold's gym (formerly men only) was forced to open membership to women, yet right next door there is a Curves that is still women only.

[Boulder_Bear]

barber=guys

a barber is a person that cuts men's hair. That really is the definition. A hair stylist is someone that does women's hair. and if the shop you go to does both it should say Unisex. Here in Utah, USA there is a place called bikini cuts. It is a barber shop for guys ONLY. The hair cutters are all hot chicks in Bikini's. I've been wanting to go, but I don't think the wife would like it much. There also seems to be a lot of talk about private/public. From what I know and what common sense tells me, is that inside a place of business it is private. If someone that is not the government is paying the rent, than it is not public, therefore it is private.

[digilight]

You also have to remember that we are all looking at this from the aspect of our own countries. Could there also be a differing attitude about this type of thing in that particular area of Austrailia (that was Austrailia right?).

On first glance I was in complete support of the barber shop, heck it should be there right to be able to deny service to anyone. But then again why would any business really want to shoo away any sales period. Could it be that the whole reason for not allowing women to get there hair cut is because not all of their barbers are trained on womens hair/hair styles and they don't want to get their asses handed to them if one of their barbers messes up a womans hair. That would mean that they have banned all women so that they don't have to make a determination as to whether or not they can do the haircut correctly. Sure anyone can cut hair using clippers with a guard, but the management doesn't want the barbers/staff to make any type of determination or think for themselves.

So to make a long story short, I agree with the fact that they should be able to deny service to whomever they want to. I do think that its stupid to lose sales for a blanket banning when its a simple cut that a monkey could do in 5 minutes.

[LostMyMind]

I just like to point out a snip from the article.

Swan Barbers' owner Jane Kennedy

I somehow don't think Jane is a man's name. So, a woman is suing another woman. Man, you gals spare no blood do ya

[wagegoth]

To the Mods, this is the last argument I'm going to make

Once again, you're missing the point. If you have a business, you can't deny services to anyone without cause.

I doubt that woman will go back there, whether she wins or not, but the point needs to be made.

It all falls under discrimination. What if they said they didn't serve blacks or Jews? Yes, it's the same thing.

It's the slippery slope. You get to deny service to 51% of the population. Is that smart? No, but some people are stupid. All the shop had to say was, "We aren't stylists. We don't normally cut women's hair." To which the customer could have said, "I want a #3, not a style."

In some cases, anti-discrimination has become discrimination against the majority (who really aren't), but the pendulum swings one way then back, and we try to keep it in the middle. I know about favoritism in college admissions, hiring guidelines, etc. I used to work in labor litigation, and I've seen it. I've also seen the cases where harassment and abuse were common, and women that didn't want to put up with it were happily chased away. I'm not talking girlie calendars, I'm talking screaming abuse, threats of rape injury, rape, exposing genitalia, pulling clothes off of victims in front of the department, and that list just goes f**king on.

You tell me, is that woman just supposed to go find a (usually) lower-paying job somewhere else, because obviously she's not wanted, or does she deserve protection. And I've heard of abuse as bad on a racial basis.

Does the grocery store get to say that they won't serve minorities? No. The business has to show a valid reason for discrimination. The barber shop doesn't have one.

[LostMyMind]

wagegoth, apparently you've never seen the sign "we reserve the right to refuse service."

She was trying to cause problems. She knew the place only cut mens hair and she went there anyway. As someone else said before, it's no different than an women's gym. I'm male, I don't try to force my way into a place that don't serve males.

We're not talking about jobs, or "need" services such as grocery. We're talking about a d*mn haircut. There isn't a slippery slope here. This is pure anti-male bashing.

The fact is, women want to keep their places male-free but want to have access to all the male places. The fact of life is men and women are different, the mens have accepted this why is this a hard thing for some women to accept?

Playing that old game is tiring and a waste of time. A barber shop has a perfectly good reason for not cutting women's hair, it's called a barber shop not Unisex or hair stylist.

[theredbaron47]

I doubt that woman will go back there, whether she wins or not, but the point needs to be made.

That sounds like a troublemaker to me, as lostmymind pointed out. She well knew that the place served men only, but she went there anyway, for the purpose of causing trouble. If she would actually continue getting a haircut there, and giving the shop her business, that would be different, but to create such an uproar and then not go back? Come on now.

[Boulder_Bear]

services provided

This shop is providing certain services mainly "Barber" services. Which means male haircuts and caring for male hair(all facial hair). This is not sexism it is simply the services provided. By taking this to court the lady is making the company go into another avenue of business that they are not in, nor interested in going to. It is not sexism. It is just a simple case of services provided. The services provided are not for women. When a person goes to school to cut hair their are two separate avenues to take hair styling, and barbers. So if the schools make a big enough difference to teach completely separate courses for this then maybe there is a difference.

[trunks2k]

The fact is, women want to keep their places male-free but want to have access to all the male places.

I don't think that's the issue, as I don't think it's right to say women want something. It's not correct to categorize women as a single entity, it is much more complicated than that. What I think we have instead is that in the past women had been barred from places/actions to such an extent that complaining about it is more than reasonable. That opression has become engrained in our phsyche such that for some women, when they see "men only" places consider it a step backwards, and I don't think they are entirely incorrect. I don't see any sort of conclusive evidence that the girls wanting to get rid of the few remaining "men only" places also want to have "women only" places. Sure, there may be a few as there are hypocrites among every group, but I doubt they are very prevelent.

So if you look at the history of the women's movements, women were being kept from things that they wanted to be able to get into or be able to do. Men, on the other hand, haven't had this issue. Besides the fact that men could have some good version of whatever they wanted, for example, a mens only country club, the few places that were considered "women only" have been things that the majority of men would not have wanted to be a part of anyways. So there was no movement to do so.

[toolbert]

It all falls under discrimination. What if they said they didn't serve blacks or Jews? Yes, it's the same thing.

You're right, they would have been in the wrong in the same situation. But, what I think most of the guys here are talking about is more similar to reverse discrimination. If a said buisness can be sued for saying no women allowed, but another can't for no men isn't that a little hypocritical? I'm not saying places like Curves aren't a bad idea (I know how horndog those gym men can be >.>), but if a guy doesn't feel comfortable being in that environment and feels that working out in a place like Curves fits him...then why shouldn't he be allowed to go there? It sound ridiculous, but he may not be a straight man and being around guys who are very homophobic beefcakes might make him uncomfortable. Being around women who he would have no attraction to might make him more comfortable. This is an extreme, but it's still valid (especially here in SF) point to be made. So, does that give me the right to sue Curves? Some would say no because its meant for a place for women to feel better about their surroundings. Its the same like saying if Curves didn't allow anyone but Latinos and said no Whites, Blacks, etc allowed. Would they still be able to keep it?

All I'm saying is don't let it become a double standard. Either keep private and public places on the same wavelength or allow a private places its own rules and a public with society's standards

[trunks2k]

This shop is providing certain services mainly "Barber" services. Which means male haircuts and caring for male hair(all facial hair). This is not sexism it is simply the services provided.

In this particular case, I would say that the barber should have given the women a haircut. But she has no right to complain about it if it looks like crap. That's what I would have done. If my business caters mainly to men, and you are a women, well be prepared to be treated like the rest of my clientel.

[Banrion]

Once again, you're missing the point. If you have a business, you can't deny services to anyone without cause.

Every retail establishment I have ever worked at has had a sign to the effect of "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason." I don't know where you are, but where I am a business is a private property and I have seen these signs exercised on more than one occasion from something so little as management didn't like the way someone was loitering near the cash desk to aggressive and violent patrons. In fact we would stop selling tickets well before a theatre was sold out to ensure those with tickets would get seats. This is NOT discrimination.

I doubt that woman will go back there, whether she wins or not, but the point needs to be made.

No it really doesn't. All the shop is going to learn to do is to refuse women based on something else then. Instead of being honest and saying they prefer not to serve women, they are gonna tell them that they are booked, or that the clippers are broken etc. People need to pick their battles, and getting your haircut in a different shop is not going to be the end of the world.

It all falls under discrimination. What if they said they didn't serve blacks or Jews? Yes, it's the same thing.

Yes the same thing, but again why force yourself into somewhere you are not wanted? A haircut is NOT the end of the world. Give your money to someone who appreciates it.

I've also seen the cases where harassment and abuse were common, and women that didn't want to put up with it were happily chased away. I'm not talking girlie calendars, I'm talking screaming abuse, threats of rape injury, rape, exposing genitalia, pulling clothes off of victims in front of the department, and that list just goes f**king on.

That has nothing to do with this. This woman was looking for what many people would consider to be a luxury service. And there were absolutly no threats of physical bodily harm.

You tell me, is that woman just supposed to go find a (usually) lower-paying job somewhere else, because obviously she's not wanted, or does she deserve protection. And I've heard of abuse as bad on a racial basis.

This story has nothing to do with anyone's livlihood other than the shop owner (also female) who made the consious decision not to serve women. The woman looking for a haircut loses nothing and gains a bit of insight into the business practices of the shop.

Please explain to me why it is OK to have women only salons, but men cannot enjoy the same themselves?

[gundam40]

I think this isn't the last of men's sanctuary to be breached... I can imagine it now, a woman suing a store because she couldn't go into the men's washroom!