Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    As usual, I'd love to know the source of this information, so I
    can check out the editorial slant.  Could you provide a quote or
    something?  And what is the Chilton Club, anyway?
    
    DougO

    I'm all for having seperate mens and womens clubs.  I believe in freedom
    of being able to associate with who you want.  I hope they get the
    exemption so as men's clubs can get the same exemption.  I can't
    really see the reasoning behind wanting to join a club where your
    presence is not wanted.  If I'm not wanted, then I'm not going to
    stick around.  As far as I'm concerned, these people are not hurting
    anyone, so what's the big deal.  Sometimes men like to associate
    with other men and sometimes women like to associate with other
    women. 
    
    I know that this topic is on double standards, and I agree that
    there shouldn't be any.  I would venture to say that the majority
    of the women out there have no desire to join a mens club just as
    most men have no desire to join a womens club.  It is always the
    squeaky wheel that gets the grease and it was the few women who
    belong to a few womens groups who pressed this issue.  What a great
    motto, "Let the masses suffer so a few can have their way."  What
    a spoiled brat philosophy.  
    
    Please note that I think that this should apply equally to both
    mens and womens clubs.
    
    OINK OINK :'),
    
    Mike

    re 286.0   From the Boston Globe 10-5-88
    byline-Peggy Hernandez( Globe Staff)
    
    The club holds social events related to gardening activities, The
    Boston Symphony and the like.
    
    The Chilton Club is the last of 4 clubs targeted by the licensing
    board, to address single-sex membership policies. The ALL-MALE
    St Botolph and Somerset clubs changed their membership policies
    during the past six months.
    

    
    	What about womens only health clubs? Do they fall under the
    same guide-lines as discrimination? If not why?
    
    Todd

    RE: .3
    
    > The club holds social events related to gardening activities, The
    > Boston Symphony and the like.
    
    Gee, and I thought the club was devoted to car repairs, that once
    a week or so they reviewed techniques mentioned in the Chilton
    Motor Series books. :-)
    
      Alan

    Hey guys, isn't this an issue we've been around and around on
    before? Most women that I know agree that clubs that are
    purely social can invite whomever they please. The fourth
    club of those being challenged may well be allowed to keep
    its exclusive status, bucause the main purpose of the club
    was to put on theatrical performances that were entirely
    by men. The courts to date appear to find this reasonable.
    
    The reason that women challenged the men only clubs was
    that the clubs had become places where business not related
    to the clubs but to the larger commercial and legal world
    outside was being conducted. Further that the majority of 
    the support of these clubs was from renting out space to
    non club functions that still excluded women.
    
    The courts have said, that *if* the club provides its support
    entirely from its members, and *if* the club doesnot rent out
    x amount of space and time to outsiders and yet still discriminate,
    and *if* the club does not have a clear purpose that can be filled by
    only one sex *then* they have to open the club to the general
    public.
    
    So the Chilton club should indeed open their doors to men who
    are interested in gardens and the symphony or change their support
    structure and their club rental policies *just as the mens clubs
    have had to*....
    
    Of course people should have the right to form private clubs
    based on interests...that isn't the issue here, and it is unfair
    to keep writing as if it were, when most of you are well educated
    sensible people who can read the newspapers and determine the facts
    better than most.
    
    Bonnie

    re:7
    Well, that ain't the whole picture. The Leominster Sportsmens CLub
    was forced into allowing women members. The club doesn't have anything
    to do with outside business, does not rent out its facilities, doesn't
    server lunch's, etc.
    Two women went to a club meeting demanding membership. One of the women
    disrupted the meeting and was forced to leave. The other women had
    no intention of being an active member, but applied in order to be
    turned down, so she could proceed with legal action, as she has done
    at other all male clubs.
    The club knowing the court results of the Concord Sportsmens Clubs, 
    was advised not to fight it and change the bylaw excluding women,
    which it has done. If not for the Mass. Supreme Court rullings and
    the US Supreme court rulling, the Leominster Sportsmens Club would
    have remained an all male club, until its members wanted to change.

    Jim

    so lets do the same thing...
    Why not???  Whats good for the goose.....

    last I heard, chilton club members claimed that it could not be
    even remotely considered as being anything but social since most
    of the members don't have jobs (and aren't looking for ones).

re: .7
>    Of course people should have the right to form private clubs
>    based on interests...that isn't the issue here,

Sorry, but it *is* the issue here.  This is MENNOTES, remember, not the
"other one".

Kip

re .11
    
    Yo Kip!  This sounds like one of those "It's my ball and you can't
    play with it- so nah nah" replies.  I think she was merely pointing
    out that the courts were considering this request to keep the club
    all-female because of it's claims that the club has no involvement
    with business, etc.  
    
    You may feel that is the issue here.. but say why- not "oh yes it
    is, besides this is MENNOTES not the other one, so who cares what
    you say anyways- nah nah nah nah nah".
    
    You seem like an intelligent educated individual, so say something
    that shows why you think it *is* the issue here.                
    
    Terri
    
------------------------------------------------------------------------    
    >    Of course people should have the right to form private clubs
>    based on interests...that isn't the issue here,

Sorry, but it *is* the issue here.  This is MENNOTES, remember, not the
"other one".

Kip        
         
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    in re .12 in re .11
    
    Thanks, that is exactly what I meant. I meant that the issue
    involved in the court case is one that has to do with issues
    of free access to business and other career advancing opportunities.
    I haven't seen any serious arguements from men that expound
    a philosophy that women should be excluded from chances to advance
    in the business world or in their professional careers. This is
    what I believe is the central issue in the club integration ruling.
    
    It is my personal feeling that most women have no problem with
    gender exclusive clubs that are for social, personal, or relational,
    needs for private space. I am quite willing to support this.
    If a minority of women feel that they want to challenge this also,
    then while I respect their personal choice, I do not feel that it
    is far to say that "all" women want this or are trying to take
    men's space away but keep their own. It isn't fair or reasonable
    to argue that since many women want access to business related 
    clubs and some or a few women are also arguing that any kind of
    gender separate associations are wrong or any kind of male separate
    assoication is wrong that *all* women are hypocritical because some
    want womens personal space. Women are not all of one mind any more
    than men are. To say that a wants b and c wants d and e wants f
    therefor a is denying d because of e is a logical fallicy.
    
    However, every time this issue is brought up it seems that the
    issue of private associations for purely social purposes gets
    focused on, not the fact that the so called private clubs that
    are being forced to integrate were nothing of the sort.
    
    My personal feeling was that the real issues in the case were
    not being addressed, and instead there were cries of 'women
    want to insist that we can't even play poker with the guys' (made
    up example), hence my comments 'that's not the issue here'.
    
    Bonnie

    
    p.s. and Eagles, if you or any other man can prove that his career
    has been limited by lack of access to the Chilton club then I support
    your desire to become a member.

    RE: .0 thru .14
                       I feel that both sides of this question has merit.
    But how far do we go in either direction? On one side,the point
    can be made in favor of seperation. We see this very fact in public
    restrooms. There is no reason (health wise) to seperate the two
    sexes with the single exception of preference. Now I would doubt
    that very many of the readers would be in favor of sexless restrooms.
    I know that this might be a silly example but none the less this
    very question (if it hasn't already) WILL be brought up. The other
    side of the coin is.... Why in a country that is trying to show
    the world how great and free it is, do we still insist on excluding
    specfic segments of society. This question goes far beyond the "sexes".
    It goes as far as race,creed and yes even color(as abhorent as that
    is). It even goes as far as "what part of the country are you from".
    
     *If you are looking for an answer in this reply you are out of
    luck. This question, among others, is what makes this country(yes
    even world) an interesting place to LIVE.

    Bonnie, Can you honestly say that the "select few" of women who
    have pushed to gain entrance in all male clubs WERE, if fact, limiting
    their careers by not being members??
    
    I find this hard to believe.  I thought they said something to the
    affect that the wanted access to **POSSIBLY*** ecxel thier careers
    by making the proper business contects in these clubs.
    
    In essance, the were **POSSIBLY *** loosing out on good contacts...
    
    This is alot different than, "their careers have stalled due to
    the fact that they are not members of the ******* club.

    Al,
    
    If a person cannot go where the deals are being made, cannot go
    where their peirs in the professional world meet and network
    and make contacts, can you honestly believe that they didn't
    loose out in the process? You know as well as I do that a lot
    of deals can be made in less than formal situations. 
    
    And for heavens sake, what is wrong even if it was only that they
    were being denied the right to excel? Are you proposing that
    it is okay to deny women the chance to excel as long as they can
    progress in their careers? (I find it hard to believe that is what
    you intended, but that is how your note sounds.) This reminds me
    an awful lot of the arguements I heard growing up in the south,
    that it was okay to deny access to Blacks as long as they had
    separate but equal facilities. The Supreme court decided that separate
    is inherantly unequal in that case.
    
    Bonnie
    
    

    RE:.14  Bonnie,  
    
    I understand what you are saying, however, I don't agree. (Surprise,
    surprise :'))  The reason you state has validity if this was the
    REAL reason some women try to invade mens clubs.  Some women have
    used this as a tool to get into mens clubs just for the sake of
    getting into mens clubs.  They think that if they allow men to have
    their own organizations, that they are "giving in".  There was a
    golf course here in Maryland that has been an all mens course since
    its beginning in the early 1900s.  Just recently they were forced
    to let women play there or else their tax break (for being open
    land) would be taken away.  Now there are probably 100 golf courses
    in the area without this restriction.  Why did the NOW make such
    a big issue of this?  It just seems to me that if I am not wanted
    somewhere, I am not going to frquent the place.
    
    Mike

    RE: .17  This is an issue about gender not about race.  It is by
    no means the same thing, so please let's not confuse the two.
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    You are again using the fallacy of logic that because some a want
    b because of c then all a who want b want it for reason c.
    
    The reasons that *some* women use were not the reason that the
    court used to decide that *some* clubs were indeed public
    and discriminating. The court made a clear distinction between
    such clubs and clubs that are for social purposes only, or
    clubs that have a valid function that can be served only by one
    sex. 
    
    >This is an issue about gender not about race. It is by no means
    >the same thing, so please let's not confuse the two.
    
    Could you please explain this further? Are you saying that it
    is okay to discriminate by gender when it isn't okay to discriminate
    by race? Why is discrimination by gender 'by no means the same
    thing'?
    
    As I said before the reasons I am hearing sound an awful lot like
    the ones I heard in my grade school and teen years to the effect
    that "those 'nigras' shouldn't push themselves into places where they
    know that they aren't wanted."
    
    
    Bonnie

    To be honest, I think that if we started a note on racial
    discrimination, we would see very few people in favor of it (I would
    hope none but I know better) .  I am totally against any kind of
    racial discrimination.  Men have the same instincts (and body parts) 
    as do women whether they are black or white.  The fact is, I don't
    consider having a mensclub or womensclub discrimination.  Men have
    common intrests with other men and women have common interests
    with other women.  Why then should they be FORCED to let men or women
    intrude on this socializing without the others being present.  If
    you are a man and don't want to belong to a club that doesn't allow
    women, then don't join.  There are plenty of organizations out there
    that allow both men and women.  By the way, I don't belong to a
    mens club nor do I have a desire to join one (at this time).  I
    just feel as though the person should have that right if they please.
    The problem of trying to equate the two (race and gender) is that
    you try to make the men racial bigots, or Archie Bunker's, and that
    simply is not the case (in this instance anyway).
    
    As far as your algebraic equation goes, It's true that they don't
    join for the same reason, one has a valid reason and the other has
    a bogus reason, that being so as men don't have any of their own
    clubs.  The women with the bogus (or without any) reason, uses the
    valid reason to get their way.  
    
    The big problem with the womens movement is that it doesn't encompass
    the ideas of all women or even the majority.  The fact is that the
    majority of women would like to stay at home and raise their families
    and not be forced to go out into the workplace to make ends meet.
    But this is another note altogether and a subject which has been
    revisited many times.
    
    Mike

    Bonnie, So what you are saying is that if business deals are made
    in an all male club, then women should be allowed to join and have
    the same chances... Ok, I can deal with that.
    
    So, if the Chilton (?) club holds meetings without men thats ok,
    cause they are non business like right?
    
    And, the golf club that Mike was refering to was discriminating
    to cause we all know that some great deals can be had on the golf
    course...right?
    
    I have but ONE question.....
    
    How can you (meaning anyone) determine/proove that these "deals"
    are being had???  How can you (again) proove that chilton (?) club
    does NOT have these sort of deals??? Who decides that they are or
    are not??  
    
    Possibly me note came out the wrong way, so what else is new?  All
    I am saying is that men AND WOMEN should have their own private
    clubs without the wqorry of some radical PERSON pushing their way
    in cause the club MIGHT be holding back that PERSON from exceling
    or making "DEALS".
    
    So by your standings, I should be allowed to enter the Chilton ?)
    club cause I COULD be missing out on some deals .... wether or not
    they are there to be made is not the point, noone cane honestly
    prove that a SPACIFIC DEAL was in FACT made at that club.  I jes
    dont buy it.  BTW:  I also DO NOT belong to a club of this sort...I
    might though.               
    

Re:
>    consider having a mensclub or womensclub discrimination.  Men have
>    common intrests with other men and women have common interests
>    with other women.  Why then should they be FORCED to let men or women
>    intrude on this socializing without the others being present.  If
     
   I find this justification of single-sex clubs hard to give credence
   to. What interests do men have that NO women have, or even relatively
   few women have? Sports? Wrong. Cars? Wrong. Hunting? Wrong.
   Business? Wrong. Politics? Wrong. Attraction to women? Wrong for
   Lesbians, at least.

   By the same token, we shouldn't assume that men aren't interested
   in things like gardening, fashion, child-rearing, etc.

   Perhaps twenty years ago women's and men's interests were as
   restricted to the traditionally "gender-appropriate" areas, as
   you seem to believe, but that's simply becoming rarer and rarer,
   and not a valid reason to restrict club membership to a single
   gender.

    	I can't believe that the "real" reason for women forcing themselves
    into an all male club is for equal access to business because by
    forcing the doors open, they become a piriah. They do not become
    part of the membership, they become a member of the club. Deals
    or anything else will not be discussed around them, nor will much
    else. The reason for forcing entry is pure payback or revenge from
    a small idealist group that uses the excuse of "equal access" to
    disrupt a tradition that they were never privvy to.
    	I'm waiting for a man to force his way into the D.A.R. and then
    watch the fur fly. They lose their tax exempt status if they deny
    equal access. Those women have tons of contacts and usually an excess
    of bucks. I can't wait to hear all of the reasons that men should
    not be allowed to join this club and change the sexist name from
    Daughters of the American Revolution to the Descendants of the American
    Revolution........
    	As to restrooms. When I was in Japan, I went into a public toilet.
    I was made of beutiful marble mosaic. There was a fall of water
    along the inner wall approx. 15 ft. in width, with 5 troths of water
    flowing to a drain. Men walked to the wall to urinate, everyone
    squatted over the troths for other business. It was unisex, sort
    of uncomfortable by western standards, no paper, just a little fountain
    for cleaning. Never got used to them. I can't picture men and women
    doing the same here.
    
    Ken

    Al,
    
    The standards used in the court case were (once again) that
    the club was not self supporting and that a significant
    percentage of their space was rented to non members. The courts
    said that a self supporting club that doesn't rent to outsiders
    (I hope I'm not getting this muddled by repeating it so many times)
    that has a valid purpose that will be only served by being a single
    gender organization can be single gender. *and* as I have said before
    I have *no problem* with this. I firmly support the right of
    individuals to freely associate with similar individuals.
    
    I did not say, if you will reread my notes, that the making of deals
    in a club was a reason to make it open to all. I assume that such
    deals will go on when two persons gather in the rest room...so what?
    What I was saying was that women who were barred from what amounted
    to professional societies...clubs where all the male lawyers of
    the city gathered....these were/are large clubs(!) would/could/did
    suffer in their career advancement as a result. You appeared to
    be arguing that the women's career advancement wasn't impaired but
    that she only missed chances to *excel* in her job then it was okay.
    That was what I was questioning.
    
    I fully support the rights of men to gather together in all male
    groups that abide by the guidelines described above.
    
    *and* if you want to or if any man wants to try and make a case
    that he should be allowed to join the Chilton club....go right
    ahead. If you feel any group is unfairly discriminating against
    you, I fully support your right to do what ever you wish to protest
    against it.

    Bonnie

    RE:.24   I think that the women in these situations could start
    their own club if they chose.  The majority of women are not interested
    in guns and some of the other traditional male interests and vica
    versa.  Why should the majority have to give up their rights for
    the few?  
    
    Mike

    Re .27
    
    I dunno Mike, can you explain to me why the few have to give up
    their rights to the majority?
    
    So there are a small number of women who like to shoot, they don't
    have the financial resources given their numbers to start up a club,
    so if the local shooting club won't let them in as members or guests
    then they loose out on the chance to enjoy their sport.
    
    But if it is a truely private club the men have the right to bar
    them. My feeling is that in so doing they could miss out on a chance
    to get to know another person who knows a good deal about something
    they are interested in...so they loose something in the interests of 
    maintaining a private atmosphere, but they have a right to do so.
    
    Bonnie
    
    p.s. I am going to answer your earlier reply in a bit when I have
    the time... it was rather long.

    	Why can't you just have a Men's club for men and a WOMEN'S Club
    for women. Just to have a club for like gender. Why does anyone
    have to worry about what takes place when the doors are closed.
    Who really cares? Only those who are afraid that they are missing
    something. 
    	Here's my example:
    	A club is formed by teammates of the 1964 X high school varsity
    football team because they won the state title and they haven't
    been together for 25 years. The clubs becomes successful and they
    expand it to all high school state championship football teams from
    X HS. (Champs in '36, '44, 50 etc.) Almost everyone who played on
    a team will gain entry, but not all. Some men will never get in
    because they never played on a champ. So What??? The men who are
    excluded because they don't share the same linking factor, the
    championship ring or whatever. Now, along comes Ms. Cheerleader
    of the 1973 squad that were cheerleaders for the champs in '73 and
    says that she believes that she is being denied equal access because
    she runs a sporting goods business and deals are being made by ex-jocks
    that she's not privvy to. Also the argument goes on to say that
    as a cheerleader she was an intregal part of the championship through
    support, fund raising etc.... Now the club has lost the the one
    thing that linked all of the men who belonged, the state championship
    of football.  Is it so wrong for this group to be exclusive unto
    themselves? My bet would be that the club would die shortly thereafter
    and the women's business would suffer immeasurably.
    
    Ken

	RE:  .28
    
       	Bonnie, I agree with you completely on this one.  If a group
    	is purely social (i.e., abides by the criteria that you mentioned
    	earlier,) I have absolutely no objection at all to the idea that
    	they remain 'all men' (or 'all women.')

    	RE:  general comments about how we should treat women because
    	of what the majority of women want or don't want ...
    
    	The majority of women do not want to become lawyers [neither
    	do the majority of men in our culture, for that matter] but
    	why should those who DO become lawyers be barred from "Lawyer
    	Clubs" (where important and distinctly professional contacts
    	are made) simply because there are fewer women than men in
    	that profession?
    
    	Here in the Springs, a woman district attorney was the first
    	woman to join some big male organization here (and I can tell
    	you that they treated her VERY NICELY!)  I've met her and she
    	is a very congenial person.  There wasn't a reason in the world
    	for the men in her organization to act hostile toward her
    	when it was OBVIOUS that she only wanted to be there because
    	she is an attorney and needs to make certain contacts to be
    	successful.
    
    	Not all men are fortunate enough to have the insight that these
    	particular men had.  But then, these men really *were* members
    	of an all-male professional club that was challenged (resulting
    	in their being forced to allow professional women to join) and
    	there men really *got to know* the professional women who joined
    	them (so they were in a better position to know that the women
    	who wanted to join had legitimate reasons.)  These men responded
    	accordingly (and didn't risk hurting their OWN careers by being
    	known as people who were willing to openly discriminate against
    	their own professional women peers because of some mistaken
    	notion about why all-male professional groups are challenged
    	in the first place.)

Mike,

I found the juxtaposition of your title and your opening
lines somewhat ironical to say the very least. The quote
from Ricky Ricardo could be considered by a person of
Hispanic origins to be of a racist nature.

>              -< As Ricky Ricardo would say, Let me splain. >-

>   To be honest, I think that if we started a note on racial
>   discrimination, we would see very few people in favor of it (I would
>   hope none but I know better) .  I am totally against any kind of
>   racial discrimination.  

I'm not accusing you of being racist, but I do think that you
showed a degree of lack of sensitivity with that title.

Now to return to the original topic.

Your dicussion that followed pointing out that men have the same
body parts whether they are black or white (and that women do also)
is a statement of fact. Was this meant to be an explaination of
why it is not okay to discriminate by race but it is okay to
discriminate by gender? Because of body parts? 

>   The problem of trying to equate the two (race and gender) is that
>   you try to make the men racial bigots, or Archie Bunker's, and that
>   simply is not the case (in this instance anyway).
 
By pointing out the similarity between arguements used to justify
discrimination by race and those used to justify discrimination by
gender, I was in no way calling men who discriminate by gender, racist.
To say that two things are alike is not to call them equivalent.
My question still stands: why is it wrong in one situation and okay
in another? 

   
>   As far as your algebraic equation goes, It's true that they don't
>   join for the same reason, (to pick a nit, it wasn't an algebraic
    equation it was more of an attempt (abeit a poor one) to represent
    a statement in a logic problem, as I said it was at the time.)

>   one has a valid reason and the other has
>   a bogus reason, that being so as men don't have any of their own
>   clubs.  The women with the bogus (or without any) reason, uses the
>   valid reason to get their way.  
 
Do you mean by this paragraph that to prevent any person with a bogus
reason from joining that no one with a valid reason should be able to
join either?

   
>   The big problem with the womens movement is that it doesn't encompass
>   the ideas of all women or even the majority.  The fact is that the
>   majority of women would like to stay at home and raise their families
>   and not be forced to go out into the workplace to make ends meet.
>   But this is another note altogether and a subject which has been
>   revisited many times.

So since women would rather stay home and raise families does that make
it okay to discriminate against them when they have to go out and earn
a living  to make ends meet? Does that make it okay to discriminate against
women who choose to join a profession or have some sort of career?

(and I'd be interested in where you get the numbers that show that the
majority of women would like to stay home and raise a family. I agree
that this is off this topic, but if you'd like to send me mail showing
me where you got the information I'd enjoy discussing this further with
you.)



>>                                           Are you saying that it
>>    is okay to discriminate by gender when it isn't okay to discriminate
>>    by race?
    
 >   	Yes.  In certain non-professional/non-business situations.
    
 >  -mike z


Mike,

It is also okay to discriminate by race in non-professional/non-business
situations; it is okay to form *private* clubs that exclude people by race,
gender, religion what ever. My impression of the previous arugement by
Mike Wannamacher was that he was saying that it is wrong to discriminate
by race in public/business oriented situations but that it is alright to
so discriminate by gender. I'm still not sure if that is what you and or
he means by your statements or not.

Al,

Tho I answered this already I want to stress my answer to this line.

>   So, if the Chilton (?) club holds meetings without men thats ok,
>   cause they are non business like right?
 
WRONG!  It isn't okay. If the Chilton club cannot meet the previously
        mentioned guidelines in re what consitutes a truely private
        club then they should admit men. Period.

   
note .25  Ken


>   	I can't believe that the "real" reason for women forcing themselves
>   into an all male club is for equal access to business because by
>   forcing the doors open, they become a piriah. They do not become
>   part of the membership, they become a member of the club. Deals
>   or anything else will not be discussed around them, nor will much
>   else. The reason for forcing entry is pure payback or revenge from
>   a small idealist group that uses the excuse of "equal access" to
>   disrupt a tradition that they were never privvy to.
    	

Well first off, I believe that you are wrong, but I support your right
to believe as you choose. I think that you have put a distorted intrepretation
on the situation, but I rather doubt that I'll convince you otherwise.

I do have one comment to make on the above paragraph, however.This is that
I was interested to read the reactions of many of the men interviewed
who belonged to clubs that were now going to have to admit women. There
were a signficant number who welcomed the women, and who seemed pleased
that the barriers had finally fallen. My feeling is that some of the
men in the club will not regard the women joining the clubs as piriahs.
So if Ms Corporate Executive or Ms Senior Lawyer or Ms Bigbucks joins
those clubs, there will be men willing to discuss deals around them,
and to use their knowledge and expertese...after all they are peers
and collegues. So Mr Iwon'tbudge may well find that he is the one left
out because of his old fashioned attitudes. Again may I point out that
nearly identical arguements were used against racial minorities gaining
entrance to exclusive clubs in the past and today you will find few
white business men refusing to deal with someone who is a club member
and has access to something they can use just because of the color
of their skin. Once the women can get inside it is up to them to
prove that they have something valid to contribute as members. I would
agree that acceptance cannot be legislated or forced by courts.


As to the DAR, if they are challenged and cannot provide a valid
reason that the courts will accept why they do not admit men
as members then they should allow men as members. Period.

Personally I wouldn't join the DAR (and I think I am elligible) because
I regard them as racist. But that is my personal choice.

Finally where in this entire discussion have I mentioned toilets?
Persons have a right to privacy according to how our consitution
is interpreted and that should include the right to bodily privacy
in the toilet area.

If you can show me that separate toilets violate the court rulings
on what makes a club private (income, space rental, clear single
sex purpose) then I will agree that it is a valid arguement to
bring up here. Tho, in my opinion they clearly fufill a function
that is gender related and thus have every right to be separate.
I sure as heck wouldn't like to use the kind of toilet that you
described and was not advocating it.

Bonnie

    in re .29
    
    You can have a Men's club for just men and a Women's club for
    just women as long as it meets the guidelines that have been
    mentioned in previous notes.
    
    And in your example, I don't believe that the excheerleader should
    be allowed as a member of the club since she had not played football
    nor been a member of a championship team. I think that
    the guys might be wise to have her as a guest frequently if
    she runs a sporting goods store, since they have mutual interests
    in common, but that is all. What if a girl plays on the football
    team (it has happened, my daugher started for her eighth grade team
    - before the boys all grew taller and heavier than her) and the team 
    wins the championship? Should she be allowed to join the club you mentioned?
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie,
    I am a little p*ssed at your insinuation that the title was racist.
    Did you ever see I Love Lucy?  Is that what he said?  Its known
    to most of us as humor.  By the way, a colleague of mine (who is
    black) has been reading along with me and he couldn't see where
    you got the idea of that comment being racist.  He thought I was
    just trying to bring a little levity into the discussion.  He also
    said that it seemed like you were using the race argument to try
    and detract fromt the validity of my point.  His feelings, not mine.
    (The characters name was Ricky Ricardo, the actors name was Desi
    Arnez.  My colleague said that if I would have used the actors name
    as opposed to the character name, then it might have been construed
    to be racist)
    
    The figures are all over the place.  Talk to mothers of infants
    in your office.  I can't remember where I ead it, but out of 1000
    mothers who work outside the house who have children between the
    ages 0-5, 93% would rather be home with their children.  I will
    try and find out where that figure came from.  
    
    Out of that gobbledegook and back to the topic.  I agree that trade
    organizations and clubs should be open to both sexes.  Clubs such
    as Knights of Columbus, Jaycees, etc should be able to be all mens
    clubs and designated womens clubs should be able to be all womens
    clubs.
    
    Mike

    why not Bonnie??  the scenerio does go a little outside of the
    guidelines that oyu have mentioned so many many times...
    So in essance, she should be allowed to enter...
    
    and now I shall leave this inevitable rathole.

    in re .33
    
    Mike,
    
    I *did not* say or insinuate that you were racist. I said that your
    remark showed a degree of insensitivity. I did watch I love Lucy
    as a child, and I also know Hispanics today who find the protrayal
    of Ricky Riccardo disturbing and steryotypical. Would you ask your
    Black collegue if he is entirely comfortable with the old Amos
    and Andy humor shows?
    
    and I did not bring up race to take away from the validity of your
    arguement. I brought up the fact that the remarks were very similar.
    I have asked you several times to explain why it is wrong to
    discriminate by race but okay to discriminate in a very similar
    fashion by gender.
    
    Why should Jaycees be all men? Isn't it an association of local
    businesses to improve the local business climate and the local
    community? What would they gain by excluding businesses owned
    and run by women in the community?
    
    Al,
    
    The scenerio is way outside of the guidelines that I have mentioned.
    The exchampion football players club was apparently self supporting,
    it did not earn money renting the rooms of its clubhouse to the
    general public (in fact it didn't even seem to have a club house.)
    The criteria for membership were that a person had to have *played*
    on a championship team. So the excheerleader clearly does have any
    valid reason to claim membership. 
    
    What about the exfemaleplayer on a championship team tho?
    
    Bonnie

    
    

    	RE:  .33
    
    	Mike, please supply your source for the figure you gave (about
    	how 93% of working women with small children would rather be at
    	home.)  That number is too high to accept at face value without
    	knowing the source (AND the methods they used to arrive at such
    	figures.)
    
    	Having employers worrying about women becoming pregnant (and that
    	the women would subsequently choose to stop working and stay home) 
    	is something that women have had to fight in the workplace for a 
    	long time.

    	The 93% figure sounds like a 'stereotype' to me, especially
    	in the way you have used it.  (It sounds to me like you are
    	trying to say that since most women don't really want to work
    	anyway, it is OK to continue practices that discriminate against
    	the professional advancement of women in the workplace.)
    
    	Is that what you are trying to say here or not?

    in re .35
    
    Mike I have to agree with Suzanne here that it sounds very much
    like you are saying that since most women (or at least most women
    with small children which isn't really most working women) want
    to stay home that it is okay to discriminate against women in the
    work place. I also asked you previously if that was what you meant
    but you haven't asnwered my question.
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie, YOU show me a champion female football player and ill answer
    your question...
    
    I do recall seing a story on the news of a female player but she
    was a kicker and didnt get hit by guys my size.  Maybe it was because
    they were being filmed, i donno.  
    and now I shall curl up in me mud and waddle a bit.

    	RE:  .39
    
    	There was a female quarterback on a team in Oregon that had
    	a very good season some years back (I'm not sure what their
    	exact standing was for their High School, but I remember it
    	was all over the news that she was both an excellent quarter-
    	back on a winning team and was also voted Homecoming Queen.)
    
    	They made a movie about it on TV as well.
    
    	It does happen.

    
    	Hey, I know a couple of women the could easly START for
    OSU! :^)
    
    Todd

    Do you see how these notes digress? I stated that these "MEN"
    won the championship. I guess one must be extremely explicit as
    to not leave the door open an angstrom. You very well knew that
    I was trying to put it in such a manner that no "females" had ever
    belonged to the football team. What was evident was that these were
    champions only!!!
    
    What you gave me were added facts:
     If a female played on the team.
     They should invite her as a guest etc.
     
     That's what muddles the point.
    
    In the opposite:
     
    All women who have had mutiple births form a club. No single birth
    mothers allowed. I as a male who participated in a trplet birth
    say I should be able to join the club since I was there, I helped,
    I cried, I paid etc., so on, whatever. Should be let in the club??
    Of course not!!!!!! Neither should the woman down the road who's
    had 9 single births.  Can't some things just be left alone.
    
    Ken

    Ken,
    
    I don't think the notes are digressing, and I did not understand
    that you were trying to put it in such a way that no females had
    ever belonged to the football team. I am very much aware that
    football teams have been male ever since the sport began. So I assumed
    that the original group that founded the club were men. You went
    on, as I recall your note, to have members of subsequent champion-
    ship teams be granted membership in the club. However,
    some highschools today are allowing women to play football. My
    question was simply if such a woman was on a championship team
    would she be allowed to join the club? i.e even tho it was founded
    by men, she fit the criteria under which the club was founded or
    would they rewrite the club rules at that point in time to exclude
    women who had played on championship teams. It seems to me that
    the hypothetical club could do either. I think they would be well
    within their rights to exclude the excheerleader, as far as inviting
    her as a guest, I was just interjecting what seemed to me to be
    a bit of common sense.
    
    Bonnie

    RE:40
    They had a follow up story on that girl last year. She quit and
    said that the football team was not a place for a girl. She said
    she got sick of taking the beating she was taking just to prove
    for others that a girl could take it. By the way it was a JV
    team, she played third string halfback. 
   
    
    No I don't have the article, so don't ask.
        
    Whether a woman can shoot a shotgun or do anything as well as a
    man, isn't the point. Some women can't seem to understand that there are
    times when men don't want women around. There are times women don't 
    want men around I'm sure, so why should anyone force it ? I agree
    that some clubs had business dealings, in fact companies would buy
    memberships for their salesmen to these clubs in order for them to
    meet clients. These are the clubs the US Supreme Court was talking
    about, however the Mass Sumpreme Court carried it to all clubs.

    Jim

    RE: Do I think that women should be discriminated against in the
    workplace?  No I don't.  I didn't imply anything of the sort.  The
    two of you (Bonnie and someone else, sorry, I forget the name) drew 
    this conclusion because I said that I read that 93% of women with
    small children would rather be at home raising their own children.
    I wish you would stop putting words into my keyboard.  I would support
    any mother who wanted to stay at home.  I also am understanding
    to cases of a single parent or a situation where as both parents
    have to work.  
    
    I think Jim is reinforcing what I have been saying all along.  Some
    women have used the discrimination law as a tool to invade all mens
    clubs, regardless of what their function is.  These women don't
    want men to have the freedom to have their own clubs.  I have no
    idea why this is, but it happens all the time.  Its interesting
    that men have never pushed to enter into womens clubs until the
    women pushed first.
    
    Mike

 Re:   
>    The figures are all over the place.  Talk to mothers of infants
>    in your office.  I can't remember where I ead it, but out of 1000
>    mothers who work outside the house who have children between the
>    ages 0-5, 93% would rather be home with their children.  I will
>    try and find out where that figure came from.  
    
    Even if these figures were true (which I seriously doubt),
  how can you claim that this proves that most women would rather
  be home keeping house than pursuing careers?
  If these facts were true, then it's still 93% of working MOTHERS,
  not working WOMEN who feel this way. So unless more than 53.76%
  of all working women are mothers of young children, your 93%
  figure does not support your arguement that most women would
  rather be home.

 

    Mike,
    
    I asked you if that was what you meant by your remarks, I did
    not put words into your keyboard.
    
    You have said that you think (apparently) that it is okay for
    clubs that have business/professional functions to discriminate
    against women. Even if it can be proved that the women suffer
    career wise because of this. This would mean that women are
    being discriminated against in the work place.
    
    I asked you if that was what you meant and you didn't answer me
    at first, so I repeated my question.
    
    I've further asked if you meant to imply that it is okay to
    discriminate by gender using the same reasons that people used
    to discriminate by race. In fact I asked that one twice.
    
    Bonnie

    	RE:  .44
    
    	You're talking about a completely different person than I was
    	talking about.  (The clue *should* have been when I told you
    	that she was a quarterback on a winning High School team.  Third
    	string halfback on a JV team is a description of someone else.)

    	However, even if one High School girl *did* say that she felt
    	that the football field was no place for a girl, that doesn't
    	mean that *all* girls should be prevented from playing if they
    	have the ability (and are willing to take the blows.)
    
    	If one woman said that a courtroom is no place for a woman as
    	an attorney, do you think that all other women attorneys should
    	be encouraged to quit their jobs?  One woman's opinion about
    	what is "the place" (or "not the place") for women is just that:
    	one woman's opinion.  The rest of us should be given the chance
    	the make the decisions for ourselves about what fields we want
    	to join (or not join.)

    RE:47
         Bonnie,
                 I don't know you except by reputation(Jerry Beeler
    and Charlotte Craven) but what I have read I must say that I agree
    with most of what you have said.
       
        My great concern is that the womens movement(which I agree with)
    seems to be treating the symptom instead of the cause. These clubs
    (masons is a good one) have long established histories of keeping
    the women of our country in a back seat. To attack the clubs is
    a little like a doctor prescribing a pain killer to a broken leg
    victim with out setting the leg. The leg is the real problem. Change
    the ideas of the "old fogies" and the rest will take care of itself.
    
    
    looking forward to your ideas,
    Dave

    re:Bonnie, back a few
    
    If a female played on a championship team......she should be allowed
    to be a member. That's the criteria, that's the interpretation.
    She played, she's in.
    
    No argument on that point.
    
    Ken

    RE:50
    Good idea, except when women sue, they get the financial backing
    from NOW, the ACLU, and other feminist groups. The reason why many
    male clubs have recently changed their status is becasue they can't
    afford the fight. If you want to sue the chilton club, you better
    have the finances behind you first.
    
   Suezanne,
    	you mentioned the movie of the girl who played QB. That movie
    was based on the true story of the girl I was talking about. I
    also saw the movie and the next day the Worcester telegram had the
    story of the real girl. Like most movies the story was dramatized.
    
    I wonder if they'll do the story of the boy who wanted to play on the girls
    field hockey team ? I don't remember what school or where it was. 
    The league was trying to prevent him from playing, because he was
    over powering compared to the girls that he'd be playing against.
    I never heard who won the court fight. In my opinion he should not 
    be allowed to play, its a girls league. 
    
    
Jim

    re:52
    
    He won, He played. The team won the championship. His goal is to
    play in the Field Hockey World Cup. Most of its players are men.
    
    Field Hockey is very popular in the far east and mid east.
    
    Ken

    The problem with having co-ed athletic teams is that AS A GROUP
    males are larger, stronger, and faster than females.  Thus, while
    some females may be more qualified to play on a team than some males
    currently on the team, in almost every case the BEST male will be
    better than the BEST female.  Now, the goal of a sports team is
    to achieve victory on the athletic field, and the best way to do
    this is to have the best players.  Given that participation is open
    to males and females, it is concievable that the best candidates to
    fill a roster on a traditionally male team will contain some females.  
    These females will be the best female candidates.  
    
    The flip side is a traditionally female sport being open to males.  If 
    the same criteria are used, then the best males would be recruited,
    and there could be several males on the team, with the best players
    quite possibly being males.  Thus, the males could come to dominate
    the sport, or at the very least prevent the degree of participation
    by females as in the past. 
    
    As an example, take a Men's and Women's high school basketball
    program.  Basketball is a sport played by both sexes, thus there
    is no "inherent" skill attributed to one over the other.  It is
    quite possible that the star of the women's team is a better player
    than some of those on the men's team.  However, if participation
    is no longer exclusive to gender, and one or two of the females
    cross over to the men's team, what is to stop eight or ten of the
    males from joining, and thus displacing, most of those on the women's
    team?  For practical reasons, there would no longer be a "men's"
    team or a "women's" team, just one co-ed team, dominated by males. 
                        
    Thus, for the benefit of the majority (and perhaps moreso for women
    than men), having segregated athletic teams serves for the best.
    
    								TonyP
    

    re:54
    It happened. A boys high school baseball team was forced to allow a girl
    to play on the team who was not that good. The boys on the team
    protested by going out for the girls softball team. The boys all
    made the team leaving only seven girls on the team. The boys team
    ended up with an inferior  boys team with the one girl still on
    it. The school board got involved an convined the boys to drop their
    protest and return to the boys team. That was the last I heard of
    it.
    
    Jim

    re: .52
    
        If you can convince the ACLU that your constitutional rights
    are being violated by not being allowed in a club, they will come
    to bat for you.  They don't only support liberal groups.  They have
    fought for the KKK and Nazis to guarantee their right to free speach.
    
    ASP

    RE: .57
    
    -<The ACLU is interested in EVERYONE"s constitutional rights>-
    
    Everyone EXCEPT gun owners, who they won't help!!!!
    
    Eric

    RE:.57  Yeah, the ACLU wants to protect the child pornographers
    rights also.  What a worthwhile organization.
    
    Mike

    So this is going to turn into an ACLU-bashing note, is it?

    First of all, to set the record straight, the ACLU fully supports laws
    that send child pornographers to jail. 
    
    Second, it is not necessary to agree with every stand the ACLU takes
    to support the organization to understand the important role it
    plays in defending the Bill of Rights.

    The ACLU is committed to supporting the rights of free speech, freedom
    from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a fair trial,
    etc. This so-called "liberal" organization has defended the rights of
    Nazi's, the KKK, and conservatives such as Ollie North.
    
    -- Mike

    re: .60
    
    Fer cryin' out loud, Mike!  What're you trying to do?  Muck
    up this "discussion" with nasty things like facts?  I always
    knew you were a radical.
    
    Steve
    
    

         Similarly, I've seen no evidence that they are against gun
    owners.  The ACLU goes to bat for some people who I find distasteful
    (i.e., american nazi party and ollie north), but the principles
    on which they operate seem to be the spirit of the constitution.
    
                                     Greg

    There is an article on this subject in today's Boston Globe beginning
    on page 85.
    
    Bonnie

I wrote this quite some time ago and then never entered it in this string
    of replies because the conversation had died down. However, since
    the issues seem to have revived again in the 'slogan' note I thought
    it appropirate to enter it. I've removed names and most of the specific
    references to individual notes since the original conversation is
    so old...but I would really like some of the men who we so vehiment
    about women not being allowed to join male only organizations to
    try and answer these questions.
    
    thankyou
    
    Bonnie
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    
    
    These are questions that have not been answered that I would appreciate
and answer to in this discussion.  I asked these questions honestly,
desiring an answer out of an on going conversation/discussion. I have
no intention of putting any of the male writers in this diaglogue
underpressure or on the defensive. These are simply questions that
their points of view have raised in my mind.

    
>>This is an issue about gender not about race. It is by no means
>>the same thing, so please let's not confuse the two.
    
 >   Could you please explain this further? Are you saying that it
 >   is okay to discriminate by gender when it isn't okay to discriminate
 >   by race? Why is discrimination by gender 'by no means the same
 >   thing'?
    
 >   As I said before the reasons I am hearing sounds an awful lot like
 >   the ones I heard in my grade school and teen years to the effect
 >   that "those 'nigras' shouldn't push themselves into places where they
 >   know that they aren't wanted."
    
This is really important to me..I am not trying to put anyone on the
defensive or accuse anyone of racism. What I want to know is why
it is not okay to disbar a person from a club on the basis of race
but it is okay by reason of gender. Infact, since Mike W wrote to me on this
basis...I never meant to imply that he is a racist...I think he may
lack a degree of sensitivity on such issues, but I do too, sometimes.
However I hearby formally apolgise if anyone thought I was calling Mike 
a racist. That was not my intention.

What I am hearing from many men who write in this notes file is that
women are invading their private space. What I think and what I think
other women are saying is that men are using the arguement for private
space as one to promote private clubs that are not just for social
purposes, but to keep women out of the business world. I know that
just as men seem to think that women are going after membership
in mens clubs for spite, my impression of this conversation is that
men are excluding women from their clubs for no other reason than
gender...how is this different?   The questions I have asked
so far, assume that some of the men feel that there are valid reasons 
to discriminate against women because of biological differences. That 
was one of the questions that I asked previously was f body parts mean 
that men of any race had a common cause....are body parts a valid
reason to make discriminations? And do men feel that commonality
of interests is less important that commonality of sexes? i.e. if
a person is interested and has common knowledge/interest in your
club, does the fact that the person is female over ride the common
interest? 

I think that women look to common interst first (at least
I do, and other women I know do).  What I am gathering here is
that men look for commonality of gender first and regard women
who want to join a club on commonality of interest as attacking
their commonality of gender for spiteful reasons. It is my take that
most women who try to push membership in previously all male clubs,
assume that the men knew that the women were equal and equivalent
and were excluding them entirely out of spite...essentially the
same reasons that guys in this discussion give for women trying
to get into mens' clubs for 'no good reason'. To my mind women
are only turning men's excuses back on them. If men hadn't excluded
women who were lawyers from lawyers clubs for no reason than the
persons were female, or had not excluded women sharp shooters from
shooting clubs not on their skills, but on their gender..or kept
women small busines owners from the Jaycees.. only because of their
gender...then perhaps some women would not have decided that they
were sick of this silliness and they were going to reverse the situation.

Sure men never tried to get into womens clubs before all of this started,
but they sure as heck excluded women for some pretty silly reasons.

in note 27 it was  asked why the majority should give up their rights
to the minority. I asked...


"    Re .27
    
    I dunno, can you explain to me why the few have to give up
    their rights to the majority? "

I would still like a clear answer to this in re women..We seem to have
decided that as a society that the majority (white) should indeed
protect the rights of the non white minority..so again I ask..
how is gender different?
  


>>   The problem of trying to equate the two (race and gender) is that
>>   you try to make the men racial bigots, or Archie Bunker's, and that
>>   simply is not the case (in this instance anyway).
 
>By pointing out the similarity between arguements used to justify
>discrimination by race and those used to justify discrimination by
>gender, I was in no way calling men who discriminate by gender, racist.
>To say that two things are alike is not to call them equivalent.
>My question still stands: why is it wrong in one situation and okay
>in another? 


This has still not been answered. Men who write in this note use
freedom of associationg and the arguement that they would not try
and associate in a place where they were not wanted. I brought up the
point that the same arguements were used to keep people of color
out of schools swming pools, clubs, etc 30+ years ago. 

*Why* is in *not okay* to discriminate in such fashion by race but
 men are saying that is is okay to dicriminate in such a fashion by
 gender?

Please explain to me why it is okay to exclude a person from a non
social club soley on gender. (and I think if one more person responds
that I am trying to keep men from having private associations, I may
show up in his office and give him a dictionary).
   
>   As far as your algebraic equation goes, It's true that they don't
>   join for the same reason, (to pick a nit, it wasn't an algebraic
    equation it was more of an attempt (abeit a poor one) to represent
    a statement in a logic problem, as I said it was at the time.)

>   one has a valid reason and the other has
>   a bogus reason, that being so as men don't have any of their own
>   clubs.  The women with the bogus (or without any) reason, uses the
>   valid reason to get their way.  
 
Do you mean by this paragraph that to prevent any person with a bogus
reason from joining that no one with a valid reason should be able to
join either?

   
>   The big problem with the womens movement is that it doesn't encompass
>   the ideas of all women or even the majority.  The fact is that the
>   majority of women would like to stay at home and raise their families
>   and not be forced to go out into the workplace to make ends meet.
>   But this is another note altogether and a subject which has been
>   revisited many times.

So since women would rather stay home and raise families does that make
it okay to discriminate against them when they have to go out and earn
a living  to make ends meet? Does that make it okay to discriminate against
women who choose to join a profession or have some sort of career?

(and I'd be interested in where you get the numbers that show that the
majority of women would like to stay home and raise a family)


In one note a man said that he felt that the Jaycees should be all
men, I asked...
    
    Why should Jaycees be all men? Isn't it an association of local
    businesses to improve the local business climate and the local
    community? What would they gain by excluding businesses owned
    and run by women in the community?