|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Religious Freedom Laws
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Actually its price, if you look in a unisex hairdressers you'll see cuts priced by gender. Men's are nearly always cheaper, regardless of cut. Barbers are generally cheaper than unisex hairdressers. Frankly, I don't know how the hairdressers get away with gendered pricing in this day and age.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Actually its price, if you look in a unisex hairdressers you'll see cuts priced by gender. Men's are nearly always cheaper, regardless of cut. Barbers are generally cheaper than unisex hairdressers. Frankly, I don't know how the hairdressers get away with gendered pricing in this day and age.
Fair enough. Around here I don't see that: the cheap unisex places I go to all charge per haircut (there might be a surcharge for long hair, but not for female hair).
I'd think that average women (even with shorter hair) want more styling than average men - to take a political example, I'd expect Nicola Sturgeon's haircut to be more difficult to do than Ed Miliband's, so it seems reasonable to charge Ms. Sturgeon more. OTOH, I'd expect her to be able to ask for a Miliband-cut and pay the same price as a man. I also don't know how they can get away with charging men and women different prices for the same haircut.
[ 17. April 2015, 20:49: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I have on occasion asked why its more expensive, they generally look embarassed and mumble it always been like that. i try to make a point of going to places that price by cut not gender, but it is annoying not to be able to use a barber who would be quicker and cheaper.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
My wife has short hair, and having lived on military bases as a kid and gotten her hair cut by Navy barbers, generally prefers a barber to a hairdresser. It's true that some guys hanging around shop feel uncomfortable retelling their hunting and fishing stories when she is there, but I don't consider that to be her problem.
The new barber (a woman) asks that she make an appointment to come in at a time when business is slow - I don't know whether this is because it takes longer to cut her hair, or to reduce the discomfort of the men.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
This is the sort of thing I mean, it is very common - though not universal.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
.(Gee D: There's no structural difference between male hair and female hair. The differences are in typical male styles vs typical female styles, and in the fact that women don't usually grow beards. I see no reason why a barber trained and qualified to cut men's styles couldn't successfully give a man's style to a woman.)
As you say, the training is in the styling. I thought that was inherent in what I was saying. By and large, men do not want the shampoo, the tinting, the dyeing, all the other bits and pieces. If they do, and go to a place that offers them, they pay, as does a woman. My barber does not offer those services, but does offer a range of prices for a range of work. Children's cuts are cheaper; school boys less than adults, save at peak times. Those who want a cut which takes more work pay a higher price than those who just want clippers run all over. Because I have an appointment rather than just walk in, I pay for that. Bu with the one exception I mentioned, Greg will not cut a woman's hair.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As you say, the training is in the styling. I thought that was inherent in what I was saying.
Which seems to be contradicted by
quote:
Bu with the one exception I mentioned, Greg will not cut a woman's hair.
If Greg would cut any woman's hair in an array of traditional male styles, and has only one taker for this service, then that's one thing, but that's not the impression you give. You suggest that he cuts the hair of one specific woman as a favour, but would refuse the custom of any other short back-and-sides requiring woman who happened to present herself at his establishment.
"I cut hair in male styles" and "I cut men's hair" might be pretty similar in practice, but they're pretty different in principle.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
<tangent>
In this part of the world, hairdressers and barbers have significantly different levels of training and skills. That's why hairdressers charge more, regardless of what they're doing. But no amount of money will convince a hairdresser to shave your beard or singe the hair out of your ears, and no matter how much you offer the barber, s/he won't colour your hair or give you a perm.
ETA: It's like the difference between having oh, say, Renee Fleming sing at your wedding instead of the soloist from the church choir. They're both professionals, but if you ask them to sing the same song, Renee will charge more. </tangent>
[ 18. April 2015, 00:56: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
That's why hairdressers charge more, regardless of what they're doing.
Fair enough, and if you require the services that only a "hairdresser" offers, you're going to be paying "hairdresser" prices. If, however, you require services that are offered by both a "barber" and a "hairdresser", the fact that you have a uterus shouldn't force you to choose the more expensive service.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
How often do women seek out male barbers to do their hair?
...
It only takes one.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I don't see any contradiction. And yes, Greg does it as a favour. The woman is a local identity, not much money, and a women's hairdresser would charge triple what Greg (and his father before him) do.
Local practice here seems much different to that you experience. There are good numbers of men cutting women's hair in hairdressing salons, and women working in barber's shops. And yes, the distinction continues.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
[And what if the requested writing on the cake was offensive in a non-religious way - for example, "Obama is a @$!#$@#!" Would it be allowed to refuse to provide such a cake?
During Dubya's presidency, the existence of such a cake might have resulted in a visit from some sort of Fed (FBI, Secret Service, etc.). Here in California, a man's car had a bumpersticker telling Dubya to go to hell. Didn't threaten to send him there. Some woman saw that, freaked out, and reported him to the Feds!
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The man was gifted with a little visit. Afterwards, the Feds said that they didn't think the man was out to hurt Dubya--he just didn't like him.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I don't see any contradiction. And yes, Greg does it as a favour. The woman is a local identity, not much money, and a women's hairdresser would charge triple what Greg (and his father before him) do.
You say, and I agree, that the training required to provide "traditional female" hair services is different from the training to provide "traditional male" hair services. We agree that these services can be and are provided by hair people of any sex. Soror Magna said that "traditional female" hair services require more training and skill, which is why providers of "traditional female" services charge more money. I won't argue with that either.
You say that if men want shampooing, tinting, and the other bits and pieces, they go to other, expensive places, but if they just want a traditional male haircut, they go to Greg.
Then you say that Greg will not cut the hair of a woman who wants a traditional male haircut. This isn't an issue of training and skill - our hypothetical woman wants exactly the same haircut that Greg provides many times a day to his usual male clientele, and women's hair doesn't grow in some magically different way from men's hair. Greg is perfectly qualified and capable of giving a woman a short back and sides - he just doesn't want to.
I'm not sure you can get a more clear-cut case of sex discrimination.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
So...are we saying that single-sex customer environments are never allowed?
I'm struggling with the barber scenario--and a good chunk of that is because this is closer to real life for me. I haven't been to any sort of salon for a long time; but I used to go, off and on. As I mentioned up thread, salons were woman spaces, and barber shops were man spaces. That was deeply engrained in the fabric of society, and it gave both groups fairly safe spaces. (Provided you didn't have a problem with the way your hair was done!)
Thoughts? Thx.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
So...are we saying that single-sex customer environments are never allowed?
Or gay bars and nightclubs? I don't think it's legal to deny entrance to straight people in the UK. I don't think I see a stronger case for a single-sex haircuttery than a single-sexuality nightclub.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht, I simply cannot understand your argument, and I very much doubt that whatever tribunal hears such cases here would either. Greg is a man's hairdresser and only cuts men's hair. He cuts that of one woman as a favour and that is that. What if he did so on his back verandah at home on a Sunday afternoon?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
I think it is different to have spaces or services segregated on the basis of gender than race no matter how close the parallels are because there are more significant differences between men and women both physically and in the way we think than there are between different races (and the male/female difference is also more fundamental than the sexual orientation difference that it is also being compared with).
That doesn't mean there aren't lots of situations when segregation on the basis of gender is wrong but it isn't always wrong.
To throw another example in there the fact that girls schools and boys schools exist, (while I personally don't think they are necessarily healthy in terms of social development of teenagers) strikes me as something very different to having black or white only schools.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
significant differences between men and women both physically and in the way we think
Would you care to explain to me how men and women think differently? Or indeed why minor physical differences should lead to segregation?
I am also inclined to think that the physical differences between, say, an American of West African descent and a Scot of Irish descent might be more noticeable than the difference between, say, a man and a woman of white German descent.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
Arethsomeyfeet:
Male/Female toilets, Male/female segregated sport (especially contact sports), Male/Female changing rooms, Male/Female prisons, Male/Female schools, Church - Women in leadership conferences, men away weekends or women away weekends, female friends only hen-dos, male friends only stag-dos are all example of male/female segregation that many people find acceptable; all of these would be completely beyond the pale (obviously) if applied to race.
In terms of differences in the way men and women think I am not knowledgable but in every day experience there seems to be some differences; what is controversial is the degree to which these are innate and to what degree they are socially conditioned.
Having said that and focusing on the negative as I am more familiar with negative statistics (while the positive would be more anecdotal) the fact that men commit more crimes and especially violent crimes; and also commit suicide more often and are more likely to be isolated and struggle to express their feelings; while women are more likely to be depressed, worried about their weight and body image; suggest some differences in the way women and men experience and perceive the world.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Racial segregation being beyond the pale is a relatively recent phenomenon, and a lot of the defences of segregation read rather like the opposition to the provision of unisex bathrooms. I didn't bother with a stag do and neither did my wife a hen do, but I think both of us would have found it absurd to only invite a subset of our close friends. Stag dos tend to be male only because most, if not all, of the groom's close friends are male. What you will also notice is that if the groom is white, most or all of his close friends are white too, so de facto racial divisions are considered acceptable in that context.
Regardless, just because some things are currently culturally acceptable is pretty much orthogonal to whether there are more or less substantial differences between different groups. For example, it seems fairly obvious from recent athletic events that people from a small region of East Africa have a definite advantage in long distance running events; and people of West African descent in sprinting events. A lack of difference (at the elite sporting level) is not the reason we don't segregate racially. We don't segregate racially because that leads to some very nasty places. The thing is, so does gender segregation. Take, for example, the fact that when grammar schools were a major feature of English education, more places were available for boys than for girls, so boys got into grammars with lower marks than girls. "Separate is not equal" was true when the US Supreme Court said it about racial segregation, and it's true about gender segregation now.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
So which forms of gender segregation that currently exist and are commonly accepted in western democracies when similar racial segregation would be seen as evil do you think should be outlawed?
Do you draw the line at women's changing rooms? single sex sports teams? Women only swimming sessions? Barbershops that only cut men's hair. Boys and girls schools? Church events that are aimed specifically at men or women?
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think a lot depends on the purpose of the division. Separating changing rooms is simply a matter of cultural mores and prudishness, and nothing to do with intrinsic differences between men and women. Replacing gender divided changings rooms with a unisex changing room and a few private cubicles for the easily embarrassed or prudish would be a more efficient use of space and make more sense for children visiting with one parent. Segregating schooling has pretty much no advantages and lots of problems, so quite easy to ditch that. I think churches should have groups for a purpose. For example a group meeting in the day time for stay at home parents and their young children is fine; there is no reason for it to be a mother and toddler group. The only exception is to talk about, say, the experience of giving birth which would naturally be an all-female setting. Equally, though, there are socially acceptable settings for all-black meetings too, as with the NUT Black Teachers' conferences.
My rule of thumb is generally that any form of segregation has to be a result of needing to address a demonstrably different need arising from a marked difference between the two groups being segregated.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Greg is a man's hairdresser and only cuts men's hair.
My argument is that there's no functional difference between Greg, who only cuts men's hair, and a shopkeeper who won't serve women, or a baker who won't bake a cake for a gay couple, or whatever else.
"Cutting men's hair" isn't a set of skills. "Cutting hair in traditional male styles" is the skill. The fact that Greg will not provide a traditional male haircut for a woman who wants one is, precisely, sex discrimination.
I'll grant that there aren't likely to be many women asking Greg for a short back and sides means that a complaint may well never arise, but that's a different question.
If Greg cuts hair at home as a business, he's still a business. If he cuts a few friends' hair, he's not a public accommodation, so can discriminate as he chooses.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I doubt that many of the customers ask for a short back and sides. But despite everything you say, I cannot see Greg's act of charity in cutting this woman's hair as a clear-cut act of sex discrimination.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
significant differences between men and women both physically and in the way we think
Would you care to explain to me how men and women think differently? Or indeed why minor physical differences should lead to segregation?
I am also inclined to think that the physical differences between, say, an American of West African descent and a Scot of Irish descent might be more noticeable than the difference between, say, a man and a woman of white German descent.
What you say makes a lot of sense at first read. There was however a lot of work done here 30 years ago into why boys did much better than girls in the final high school exams. The conclusion reached was that both the subjects, their teaching and their marking favoured boys. Both were changed and the performance of the girls improved dramatically; the sad correlation was that that of the boys dropped.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I doubt that many of the customers ask for a short back and sides. But despite everything you say, I cannot see Greg's act of charity in cutting this woman's hair as a clear-cut act of sex discrimination.
No, it's not the fact that Greg cuts one woman's hair that is the discrimination - it's the fact that he won't cut other women's hair.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I understood that was what you were arguing. Would you say that he was discriminating on a religious basis against Muslims and Jewish people because he is open on Fridays and Saturday mornings, but closed Sunday and Monday? Is a restaurant that includes pork, ham and shellfish dishes discriminating against Jewish people because it does not maintain a separate kosher kitchen, chinaware and cutlery?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What you say makes a lot of sense at first read. There was however a lot of work done here 30 years ago into why boys did much better than girls in the final high school exams. The conclusion reached was that both the subjects, their teaching and their marking favoured boys. Both were changed and the performance of the girls improved dramatically; the sad correlation was that that of the boys dropped.
Looking at educational outcomes tells you very little about any supposed intrinsic difference because education is very much a cultural process. Additionally looking at differences between average performance tells you nothing about any individual. There may well be differences where you can say that "on average, women are more likely to..." but that cannot be grounds for segregation. If there are particular approaches that favour particular temperaments (and the jury is very much still out on that one - learning styles do appear to be utter hokum) then segregated on the basis of those, not some vague correlation they might have with gender. I could point out that there are racial and class disparities in educational attainment, but I don't think many outside the far right would claim those are down to intrinsic differences in how different ethnic groups or social classes think.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Replacing gender divided changings rooms with a unisex changing room and a few private cubicles for the easily embarrassed or prudish would be a more efficient use of space and make more sense for children visiting with one parent.
I don't like the implication here that not liking communal changing, whether unisex or not, is a fault of the person who doesn't like it, whether identified as easily embarrassed, or the more critical prudish. What's wrong with being modest - whether for religious reasons or simply personal preference?
Further though, and based purely on one incident with school children, there are people (in the incident, male) who take pleasure in causing, at the very least, embarrassment in those around them, and to give them more opportunity to do so seems inappropriate.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Segregating schooling has pretty much no advantages and lots of problems, so quite easy to ditch that.
There has been research which shows that in subjects seen traditionally as male, such as maths and physics, girls perform better in a single sex environment. That is one pretty hefty advantage.
[ 20. April 2015, 07:08: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I can understand what you're saying, but there is this:
In 2001, the Australian Council for Educational Research after six years of study of more 270,000 students, in 53 academic subjects, showed that boys and girls from single-sex classrooms "scored on average 15 to 22 percentile ranks higher than did boys and girls in coeducational settings. The report also documented that boys and girls in single-sex schools were more likely to be better behaved and to find learning more enjoyable and the curriculum more relevant.'
Admittedly from Wikipedia, but it confirms my understanding. The ACER is a highly respected body and does not push barrows. It may only be relevant here and other countries, societies, or cultures different. Earlier studies along the same lines led to substantial changes in the curriculum when they found that girls were disadvantaged by those then existing. The changes saw an improved performance from girls.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
What Penny said, re comments on changing rooms. I found the original comments very offensive. What, anyone who doesn't want to strut their stuff in front of the opposite (binary) sex while changing clothes is warped???
Cultures have different ideas about privacy and nudity. Most (broad brush), AFAIK, aren't for everyone routinely being in the altogether. Plus there are safety concerns. I worked some place where the ladies' room had a combination lock, because there'd been problems. (The men's room did eventually get a lock, too.) Plus many individuals have had very bad experiences with the opposite (binary) sex, so sharing a dressing room or rest room would be scary, stressful, and disturbing.
TMI:
I worked where there were about 12 men and 2 women. We all shared a one-stall bathroom. I will just say that there was a *very* strong smell that wasn't (IME) a female smell. Testosterone? If the situation were reversed, a strong estrogen smell would probably bother guys, too. (Not to mention taking care of our montly needs. And breast-feeding moms sometimes use a breast pump in the restroom.) Give me a women-only restroom and changing space any day.
/TMI
I know this can get very complicated for trans people. I've heard that some US public schools (here in California, anyway) are putting in restrooms just for them, so they don't have to deal with being hassled.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I'd 'third' the comments about mixed-sex changing: I would be very uncomfortable at female strangers catching sight of my 'nads and I would imagine they would too (catching sight of me, never mind about me catching sight of them!); that's not 'prudery', it's basic human decency and respect.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
<tangent>
ETA: It's like the difference between having oh, say, Renee Fleming sing at your wedding instead of the soloist from the church choir. They're both professionals, but if you ask them to sing the same song, Renee will charge more. </tangent>
And the church soloist probably isn't a favorite, repeat guest on "Prairie Home Companion"! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Apologies for any offence caused; the reference to embarrassment and prudery was not meant to be an exhaustive list of reasons why people might not be comfortable changing in mixed company (that would be a whole other kettle of fish).
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'd 'third' the comments about mixed-sex changing: I would be very uncomfortable at female strangers catching sight of my 'nads and I would imagine they would too (catching sight of me,* never mind about me catching sight of them!); that's not 'prudery',
Yes it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
it's basic human decency and respect.
This is also true.
Much of what affects our comfort is cultural and that can change. This is not to say that even if we all walked around starkers that there would be no sexual notice of genitals. This is how we are wired. But much of what we think of as "decency" is more tightly linked to the subjective.
*It is good to remember that simply because their are no women it does not follow you have not been ogled. Same for women.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
What I don't get is the assumption we are comfortable hanging around naked in front of our own sex - what is wrong with cubicles ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What I don't get is the assumption we are comfortable hanging around naked in front of our own sex - what is wrong with cubicles ?
Obvious - it's the expense.
Our pool started off with things which looked like cubicles, but weren't. Little niches entirely occupied by a seat, with no curtains, so changing happened in corridor space. It was in this layout that the middle aged man who had been harassing our lessons in the pool by trying to swim lengths through them paraded in front of our lads, who knew he was up to no good. (The fact that he got out when we did gave the game away really.) We had no staff in there, because we only had women, and there was no pool attendant around. I was rather cross that my superior decided not to report the issue. Now, I think something would be said.
They now don't even have that privacy, but do have family/school changing rooms for groups, with doors. But not walls down to the floor.
And I went on a Quaker activity weekend at a local centre for that sort of thing, where it turned out the showers had no curtains. One of the women said forcefully that that it was all right as she had been to a Quaker school and was used to it. None of the rest of us had or were, and showers were not taken.
[ 20. April 2015, 19:46: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I understood that was what you were arguing. Would you say that he was discriminating on a religious basis against Muslims and Jewish people because he is open on Fridays and Saturday mornings, but closed Sunday and Monday? Is a restaurant that includes pork, ham and shellfish dishes discriminating against Jewish people because it does not maintain a separate kosher kitchen, chinaware and cutlery?
No, not at all, but that's not a parallel. Your examples here are of the service provider not providing some different service which is wanted by a particular group. Serving kosher food is different from serving non-kosher food. Being open on Friday is different from being open on Sunday. If the restaurant turned away Jewish customers, because it didn't want to cook kosher food, but actually said "we don't serve Jews", we would say that it was discriminating on religious grounds.
In Greg's case, providing a traditional male haircut is different from providing a traditional female haircut. "I don't cut women's styles" is the equivalent of the restaurant not serving kosher food, and isn't discrimination.
"I won't cut a woman's hair" is the same as "I won't serve a Jew". Probably there aren't many Jews that would order a bacon sandwich, but a bacon sandwich salesman who refused to serve a Jew would still be discriminating.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
So I won't serve skin head customers who I suspect are neo-nazis is discrimination but I won't decorate a cake to celebrate Hitlers birthday wouldn't be.
I won't serve an orangeman would be discrimination but I won't decorate a cake to celebrate a specific controversial date in Irish history would"t be.
Or is decorating cakes different because basically its the same service provided?
What if the thing people want to celebrate or promote is viewed as good by most people in society but not by the cake shop owner, is that different then?
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht, I think that if you follow your line through to its logical conclusion, you'll abandon you earlier assertion that Greg is guilty of sex discrimination.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Leorning Cniht, I think that if you follow your line through to its logical conclusion, you'll abandon you earlier assertion that Greg is guilty of sex discrimination.
Here's the end of my reasoning:
quote:
In Greg's case, providing a traditional male haircut is different from providing a traditional female haircut. "I don't cut women's styles" is the equivalent of the restaurant not serving kosher food, and isn't discrimination.
"I won't cut a woman's hair" is the same as "I won't serve a Jew". Probably there aren't many Jews that would order a bacon sandwich, but a bacon sandwich salesman who refused to serve a Jew would still be discriminating.
To clarify my conclusion, Greg, as reported by you, does not say "I won't cut women's styles", he says "I won't cut women's hair" - with the exception of the one poor local character you mention.
Greg is free to say that he won't do traditional female styling - whether he's no good at it, or just doesn't want to do it doesn't matter. This isn't discrimination - this is your restaurant not serving kosher food.
But that's not what you describe. You say that he will refuse to cut a woman's hair, even if that woman wants some traditional male style which falls within the regular repertiore that he offers to his male customers. This is the same as the bacon sandwich salesman refusing to sell to a Jew. It is discrimination, against a customer who is likely to be rare.
Most women don't want a man's cut, and most Jews don't want a bacon sandwich. Until a haircut-seeking woman or a bacon-seeking Jew shows up and requests service, there's no active act of discrimination, so probably no crime, but if a woman were to show up at Greg's shop and ask for the same haircut as the man in the next chair, and Greg were to refuse on the grounds that he doesn't cut women's hair, he would be guilty of sexual discrimination.
This has been my consistent picture throughout. How is it that you think my logic should persuade me otherwise?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
So I won't serve skin head customers who I suspect are neo-nazis is discrimination but I won't decorate a cake to celebrate Hitlers birthday wouldn't be.
I won't serve an orangeman would be discrimination but I won't decorate a cake to celebrate a specific controversial date in Irish history would"t be.
Yes, exactly that. (With some caveats. In the first case there is no legal prohibition against discriminating against Neo-Nazis - not serving Neo-Nazis would be legal discrimination. In the second case, if you decided that an Orangeman as a member of a protected religious class, and the baker routinely made cakes celebrating the IRA, he might also be required to make a cake celebrating King Billy.)
quote:
What if the thing people want to celebrate or promote is viewed as good by most people in society but not by the cake shop owner, is that different then?
No, it's not different. It perhaps makes it less likely that the purchaser is a member of a legally-protected class (and if he wasn't, it would be legal to discriminate against him). But, for example, a baker who refused to bake a cake for a black man marrying a white woman because he was opposed to interracial marriage would be guilty of racial discrimination, even though his particular prejudice is relatively rare these days.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'd 'third' the comments about mixed-sex changing: I would be very uncomfortable at female strangers catching sight of my 'nads and I would imagine they would too (catching sight of me,* never mind about me catching sight of them!); that's not 'prudery',
Yes it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
it's basic human decency and respect.
This is also true.
Much of what affects our comfort is cultural and that can change. This is not to say that even if we all walked around starkers that there would be no sexual notice of genitals. This is how we are wired. But much of what we think of as "decency" is more tightly linked to the subjective.
*It is good to remember that simply because their are no women it does not follow you have not been ogled. Same for women.
Good point. And I'm not entirely happy with being in the alltogether in front of other blokes - not particularly because some might be ogling me (I should be so flattered!) - but because it brings back unpleasant memories of all-male school changing rooms. (No, nothing untoward ever happened to me; I can just identify very well with David Baddiel's comments about boys' communal showers - something about at least one boy being prodigiously endowed, not just for a teenage boy but for a baby elephant. Anyway, enough TMI about me...)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht, you said:
This has been my consistent picture throughout. How is it that you think my logic should persuade me otherwise?
I'm not too sure that what you have said is logic, but I did see a substantial change in your position, from which you are no back-pedalling. I do not accept your assertion that Greg's behaviour is illegal sex discrimination. It's not an area I practise on, nor does anyone else on the floor, but whatever the position may be where you are, I'd be very surprised if your point were to be accepted by the relevant tribunal here.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'm not too sure that what you have said is logic, but I did see a substantial change in your position, from which you are no back-pedalling.
My position hasn't changed at all. If you think it has, my language must have been unclear.
To pare it down to the most basic level, if you provide a particular service to male customers, and refuse to provide that same exact service to female customers, you are discriminating on grounds of sex. By definition.
There are, as various people have pointed out, some cases in which it is legal to discriminate on grounds of sex, such as where modesty / privacy is concerned. I don't think having a haircut qualifies.
Which part don't you agree with? Is it that you contend that providing a traditional male haircut for a man is different from providing a traditional male haircut for a woman, that you contend that there's a modesty / serious embarrassment argument that would mean that some men wouldn't want to have their hair cut in a room containing a woman, or do you have some other reason why this particular instance of sex discrimination should be legal?
Perhaps the change in position you find in my posts is due to my poorly expressed difference between what I think the law is, and what I think the law should be. My understanding (and IANAL) of the law in the UK and the bits of the US that I am familiar with is that Greg would find his position hard to defend. I am much less certain that I should want Greg to be placed in that position. There's a tendency to think that Greg isn't doing any harm, except that from your evidence, the places that will cut women's hair near you charge three times what Greg does, so Greg is clearly harming any woman who wants a haircut that falls within Greg's normal repertoire.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
Is the harm being done by Greg or by the other hairdressers charging 3 times as much and not being prepared to cut simpler styles?
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
A pity - I thought that you were coming to see that Greg's behaviour (and Greg is in RL his name) did not amount to sex discrimination. I can't think of any further argument that may assist you to this conclusion. I've not been convinced by anything you've written that I'm wrong.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
A pity - I thought that you were coming to see that Greg's behaviour (and Greg is in RL his name) did not amount to sex discrimination. I can't think of any further argument that may assist you to this conclusion.
You haven't made any arguments at all. You keep repeating some variation of "Greg is a man's hairdresser and only cuts men's hair" without explaining why you think this isn't sex discrimination.
You have also talked about how segregated hair-cutting facilities are normal, with the implication that Greg isn't doing anything unusual. I believe you. I am by no means trying to claim that Greg's behaviour is unusual for your part of Australia. But that can't make a difference - there's nothing in either the law or in any concept of justice that says that discrimination isn't discrimination if everyone does it.
You have also talked about how it's common for men to work in women's hairdressers, and for women to work in men's barbers. As far as I can see, this completely removes the "modesty" argument for why a men-only barber might be sex discrimination. A barber can't claim that he needs to maintain a male-only environment for the modesty of his male clients if he has female staff - that makes no sense at all. One of Greg's employees is a woman.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
And I see you as simply repeating a position, without taking the matter further - that's why I attempted to bring this aspect of the thread to an end.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And I see you as simply repeating a position, without taking the matter further - that's why I attempted to bring this aspect of the thread to an end.
I have been trying to break my position down into small chunks, so we could investigate which piece of my logic you disagreed with, but we seem to keep talking past each other. I think we must be meaning different things by "sex discrimination" - that's the only way I can make any sense of our impasse.
At any rate, I'm to leave things here.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
