Conference turris::womannotes-v2

                 <<< TAMARA::SYS$VTX:[NOTES]MENNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                         -< Topics of Interest to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 155.64           Male oppression of those other people             64 of 66
NZOV01::MCKENZIE "Set Mind/State=TAG"                28 lines  23-JUN-1988 03:58
                       -< and thoughts on this sucker? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I would be interested in opinions on the following situation...
    
    as a young lad Living in in a smallish city in New Zealand I did
    a bit of work with crippled children, problem teenagers and through
    my local dramatic society (I used to do the lighting and sound there)
    I got asked to help out behind a bar, serving drinks at a local
    "gentlemen's club". All the members were retired ex-servicemen or
    veterans who used to frequent this club on weekends for a chat,
    a game of pool and either a few drinks or a meal. All were either
    single or widowers and some had virtually nowhere else to socialise.
    
    A friend of mine (a woman) and I used to regularly prepare meals
    and serve drinks there. Then the local womens groups decided that
    the organisation was "sexist in the extreme" and put enough pressure
    on the council to have the club closed down.
    
    Fair enough - I suppose, but less than a year later a Womens Forum
    was held in the same place and men were FORBIDDEN from attending!
    isn't this just sexual discrimination in reverse??
    
    PS: a women-only club has opened up there now - They wont even let
    a guy work behind the bar!!

    what the hell is society coming to that the communication gap between
    men and women seems to be getting larger instead of smaller.
    
    Phil_who_belives_in_EQUAL_rights_for_EVERYONE!
    

    In light of the recent Supreme Court decision concerning private
    men's clubs, it will be happening here in the USA also.
    
    =Mike=

    My understanding of the US Supreme Court ruling is that female
    only clubs are as effected by the ruling as male only clubs.
    There are some female only clubs whose doors are/will now be
    open to men. The rule tend to be the same regarding the clubs
    that can and cannot restrict membership based on sex.
    
    		Alfred

    <--(.1)
    
    Phil, you appear to imply (please correct me if I'm misinterpreting
    you) that the club was supported privately by its members, and that
    they were retired ORs who used the premises purely for social support.
    If that was indeed the case, then my sympathies are *entirely* with
    those men; they should not have had to integrate their club and it was
    churlish (at best!!) to require that they do so.
    
    On the other hand, if the club was supported in part with public or
    quasi-public monies, or its members were in positions of influence (as,
    e.g., retired officers typically are) then I see the outcome in a very
    different light. 
                       
    						=maggie

       Those who favor prohibition of prestigious, male-only clubs often
       argue that women suffer a competitive disadvantage in business
       when they cannot join such clubs -- this argument would seem to be
       extremely well taken.  Those who oppose prohibition of male-only
       private clubs argue that the government has no business becoming
       involved with the goings-on of people who have chosen to form
       their own club.  The question seems to be whether the competitive
       disadvantage suffered by those excluded from the club justify the
       government becoming involved in the affairs of a private
       institution? 

       The question seems easy -- right?  Of course the government should
       have the right to prohibit privately-owned clubs from barring
       people because of their gender, just as the government has the
       right to prohibit privately-owned restaurants from barring people
       because of their race. 

       But shouldn't the same principles be applied to women-only
       colleges?  Some women's colleges are among the most prestigious in
       their region -- isn't it legitimate for a man to argue that he is
       placed at a competitive disadvantage because the most prestigious
       college in the area will not consider an application for admission
       from him, based solely on his gender? 

       In the case of private clubs, the issue of government support is
       muddled.  Although the clubs in question are supported and
       governed by their members and not the government, it's a good
       guess that many of the members' expenditures are in fact tax
       write-offs.  In the case of private, women-only colleges, the
       government support (grants, student loans, no property tax) is
       more direct and obvious.
       
       --Mr Topaz 

    re .7
    
    As a student at Wellesley College, I can assure you that men are
    not barred from taking courses at Wellesley.  Each semester there
    are approximately 20 coeds (men) living on campus and taking courses.
    While they did not apply directly to the college, they are students
    through the Twelve College Exchange or through the MIT exchange
    program.  I'm not sure of all of the mechanics of the exchange
    programs that allow you to enroll as a member of another college,
    but I do know about the other Wellesley-MIT exchange program.  Any
    member of either college may take courses at MIT or Wellesley.
    
    Wheaton College made the decision to go coed last year.  As far
    as I know, the decision to go coed was largely economic.  Applications
    were decreasing and the board of trustees felt that opening admission
    to men as well as women would benefit the school economically.
    
    Do you know of any cases where men have gone to court because they
    weren't allowed admission at a women's college?
    

    Re: .5
    
    > There are some female only clubs whose doors are/will now be
    > open to men.

    Did the court have anything to say about special case clubs such
    as rape or domestic abuse safe houses?  I would like to think
    these places have a very valid reason to exclude men.
    
    					MJC O->
    

    Safe house's for rape and battery victims can hardly be called a
    club.  I can't imagine anyone, no matter how anti-feminist, demanding
    equal access to such a place.  In any event I'm sure the courts
    wouldn't allow it even if someone were dumb enough to try.
    
    Mike

    Re: .5
    
    > I can't imagine anyone, no matter how anti-feminist, demanding
    > equal access to such a place. 
    
    Most safe houses have to stay secret precisely because the abusers try
    to seek out their victims.  I can imagine one of these jerks
    petitioning the local court for information about a safe house with the
    argument that it is his constitutional right to join the club. Does the
    supreme court decision tie the local judges hands?  If the court's decision
    does not have anything to say about it, then it remains a loophole to be
    closed. 
    
    							MJC O-> 

    The news reports I'd heard about this court decision stated that
    it only applied to "member-only clubs" where the membership list
    or registry is over 400 members long; ie, small private clubs for
    social purposes are permitted; ie, large, wide-open clubs where
    significant business is conducted can no longer use "social" cover
    for sexual discriminatin, to prevent women from participating in
    business lunches, networking, etc.  (At least I assume that this
    is the type of behaviour that occurs, and motivated the original
    lawsuit...)  .4's comment about all men's clubs shortly to be treated
    similarly to the basenote's case, does not seem to be warranted.
    
    I'd be very surprised should any local magistrate be petitioned
    to disclose the location of a "safe house" based upon this ruling.
    
    DougO (who is still mostly read_only but making progress)

    According to the report on "All Things Considered", many of the
    so-called private clubs derive a great deal of their income from
    renting function rooms out for corporate events.  If they choose
    to retain "private status", they will no longer be able to do that.
 
    ATC interviewed a number of men leaving one of the clubs that was
    going to be integrated soon, and a number of the men said that it
    was not a problem for them, and they were surprised it hadn't been
    done sooner.  A couple of men said that it was hard for them, but
    ATC either did not broadcast the hostile responses, or they did
    not talk to the men who felt particularly hostile and were willing
    to say so on the air.
       
    I think the purpose of the groups makes a big difference.  I can't
    imagine anyone would insist that all male or all female groups of
    survivors of sexual abuse would have to be run for both sexes
    simultaneously.  I think any group with a therapeutic purpose should
    be allowed to be single sex.
    
    For me the question revolves around why members of the same sex
    want to be together...for personal growth?  because they don't have
    the type of social skills that make interactions with the opposite
    sex particularly pleasant?  because they prefer the company of the
    same sex?  or to exercise influence and power?  or to put down members
    of the opposite sex?
    
    Few women have had the opportunity to join luxurious clubs where
    they exercised influence and power to the exclusion of men! 

    
    
    Your assumption that only females are 'antihunting' is invalid.
    
    Deb
    

    re .15  I go to such places to avoid antis of both sexes. I
    would bet AERIE::THOMPSON "He's An Old Hippy" Steve would
    agree. And all his reasons are true. 
    
    Sometimes we need a place to get silly, wrong, stubborn, and
    still be understood. 
    
    Dana

    re: .14
    
    But, Steve, I like to hunt and fish too.  And there are rod and
    gun clubs around here I can't belong to.  
    
    --bonnie

Eagles, I don't know what type of relationships you see between men
and women but from the tone of your note (.14), I can see why you
advocate separate clubs.  I really find it hard to believe that these
men are so harrassed and manipulated by women that they need a place
to get away from them.  I do think there are some good reasons for
1-sex only clubs, but I don't think you've listed any.


�    How many times must a hunter or fisherman or gun-owner listen to
�    the average female reaction to sportmen as killers before they can
�    generalize and say they'd prefer women weren't present while they
�    enjoy their time with other men doing traditionally male sports?
�    Face it folks ... many thinks are more fun with someone who shares
�    your enthusiasm for that sport.  Many of us are there to SHOOT and
�    just barely manage to contain our own seelfish interests enough
�    to spend time showing interested younger folks.  We aren't there
�    to "interact with the opposite sex" as much as to relax apart from
�    the "anti's" as we call those who oppose or argue about our interests.

	How many times must women be told they can't hunt or fish or
	participate in clubs that do so just because they are women?
	So maybe women would like to just shoot and talk with others
	who enjoy their enthusiasm for the sport.  So limit your
	club to people who like that sport.


�    When men have to suffer the presence of women everywhere except in
�    PUBLIC toilets ... sometimes "prefer" isn't the right word ... What
�    words are better ? experience the novelty of ? try hesitantly ?

	Oh, I'm so *sorry* you have to "suffer the presence of women
	everywhere".  I'm amazed you go out of your way to suffer in
	this conference.  It's a good thing you don't suffer when
	other men are around, 'cause then you'd be all alone.


�    For some of us males our fish and game associations are the only
�    place we really feel we even get to voice an opinion without some
�    voice of authority (supervisor at work or wife at home) telling
�    us what one _better_ think if one knows what's _good_ for one ...

	Why do you feel that women are the voice of authority?  Don't
	any of your fish and game associates have partnership
	types of relationships?  If that's true, your clubs are not
	the answer for that problem.  And even if women were members,
	why would you exclude them from voting rights when you
	don't exclude Joe Shmo.  Is the thought of being able to
	exclude someone else the lure?  You need to be able to be
	an authority over someone else?  How sad.

�    Maybe it just seems that the presence and assertive opinions of
�    women have become so omnipresent that it's relaxing for males to
�    be able to decide for themselves how they feel without anyone
�    there "coaching" them in the _politically_ correct answers.  Is
�    it a put-down when over-trained spouses find some joys in doing
�    things they don't get to do "at home" just to see how it feels?

	Your friends must all be wimps if none of them have any
	freedom of thought of their own except when they're only
	among men.  Heaven forbid some man joins and starts spouting
	his opinion which is different from yours.

�  ~--e--~  Eagles_Suspect_Men_Need_a_Male-Only_Club_2_ESCAPE_Sometimes

...Karen (suspects some men use excuses like that to allow them to one-up
	others - in this case women)


p.s. Late breaking thought:  Maybe these men who feel so put-down at home
could try marriage counseling instead of escaping.  I've always found
that escaping from problems never helps.  They're always there when you
get back.

    
    It seems to me any "club" that does notinclude women is not worth
    joining.
    

    
    re .19
          
    How did we make this big jump from the boys in the treehouse 
    to heavy philosophy? 
    
    If men are that flakey, why bother joining their escapist clubs?
    
    BTW - I generally favor the ruling - just wondering why we are
          being spanked so hard for having had the clubs (past tense)...

    Personally I like to have times with just women and I like to
    have times with jusmen and I like to have times with both. There
    have been times in my life when a conversation that was between
    women was derailed because a man walked into it. I am sure that
    men have had the same experience.  If I want to talk about female
    personal things I would just as soon not have a man around, unless
    he is my husband and it is a one on one or close friend conversation.
    I have *no* problem with men wanting to have time apart from women
    to let their hair down and talk about 'personal stuff'. If they
    want to have clubs to do so, that is also okay by me. My problem
    is with situations where women are excluded from situations that
    also exclude them from advancing in a business sense. I also have
    some problem with Eagle's shooting club...because it is defined
    as a shooting club...so that women who like to hunt and shoot and
    spit tobacco (as it were) should be welcome as 'one of the boys'.
    But if Eagle's club is really the 'men who want to get together
    and talk to each other and drink and shoot the sh*t and etc etc..
    and also shoot guns'...then go for it...I honestly think that there
    are definitely times when space apart makes for better space together.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .22
    
    I think that Bonnie is right.  There has been much extolling of 
    the virtues of "woman-only spaces" in this conference:  surely there
    must be some complementary virtue inherent in men-only spaces.  Perhaps
    the law should be specifically against the holding of business meetings
    in such "spaces" (with appropriately heavy penalties), rather than
    trying to generally outlaw sexually exclusive clubs?

I agree with Bonnie et al...  

But I can't imagine how such can be practically enforced.

However, I feel that this is one of the problems that will 'go away' as a
consequence of other actions eventually.  It may be necessary to bust into some
'power' clubs now to get the point across, but I don't see that in itself to
accomplish much.  If a woman forces her way into a power club that is dead set
against against women, she is not going to be any closer to opportunities for
power.

But eventually once the idea gets across that the issue is women being excluded
from opportunities for power, and stops coming across as 'there is no such thing
a men's space', that in itself will be the accomplishment desired. 

JMB

    Re: .22
    
    I thought that was what was happening.  I.e., the clubs that are
    considered discriminatory have to meet certain requirements that
    imply they are not really non-business private clubs.  I know I
    have this list wrong, but it's stuff like: over 400 members, derive
    substantial income from renting their establishment for public
    functions, etc.                                         
    

    Does all this strike anyone else as being very reminiscent of
    the "women sports reporters" problem of a number of years back
    -- that women reporters were at a disadvantage by not being
    allowed (for obvious reasons) into the locker rooms for after-
    game interviews.
    
    --- jerry

    re: .6
    
    Hi ... very sorry its taken me so long to get back to this conference
    but its been a hectic few months (getting married sure is a complicated
    costly business!)
    
    Ummm...to be quite honest I dont know whether the gents involved
    all paid for the rental of the premises etc or whether it was 
    partially paid for by local authorities. Since most of them had
    large amounts of pride and accepted charity from no one I would
    guess that they paid for the premise rental etc themselves...although
    they may have had help from the RSA (Return services association
    - an organisation that is made up of war veterans who run a series
    of clubs throughout the country where RSA members (male and female)
    can socialize together...at the time there was no RSA in Tauranga)
    
    Sorry I cant be of more help. 
    
    Phil