Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not unless there's an economic advantage to joining.
I have no problem with a group of highly educated, professional women forming an exclusive women's only club that caters to their professional interests and goals.
Why would you?
There are no shortage of the aforementioned powerful women in the West.
In fact, I'm of the viewpoint that, unless they're either married or related, males and females should not be intermingling with each other in large capacity.
Last edited by Taggerung; 02-12-2022 at 11:58 AM..
Do you think there's anything inherently wrong with male/female only clubs and the like?
No
NGA (no girls allowed) was a common practice when I was 8. I built the fort, so I make the rules.
Forward 60 years
NLA (no ladies allowed) is STILL a practice, although much less common. I belong to multiple men's groups. At our ages the men and women are happy to have their own time apart from each other.
If it isn't too large, I would argue that the freedom of association is more important than the freedom from discrimination, but if the group got too big and too important, then it might become objectionable. For example, imagine if AAA was for men only.
If you think that is acceptable, what about an even more extreme case - suppose that Google decided to be membership-only and require you to be male on your birth certificate to use it. Surely we could all agree that would be unacceptable?
Admittedly, like on many social issues, there will inevitably be gray areas where reasonable, intelligent, and ethical people can disagree.
And yet, male-only country clubs and gyms have been sued to force them to open their doors to women. Now, we don't have any female-only gyms do we?
They were sued because they wanted to get the benefit of being considered a public accommodation. In other words, they could have continued their discriminatory ways but they didn't want to be called on it or be unable to get tax advantages. This is what happened with the Bohemian Club in California and Augusta National in Georgia.
What has been legally upheld is female-only boarding houses. I think you mistake the law as to discrimination based on sex.
Ah, but a public accommodation has public responsibilities.
You ever been far away from home looking for a place to eat and been turned away from a public restaurant due to being the wrong category? I have.
I believe this premise of this thread is about people forming a private association based upon their shared interests or characteristics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
