CodyTalks at the...
140 conference smalltown 2011

"We Teach Them to Drive"

Read more
CodyTalks Public Speaking

CodyTalks Radio Show
Sundays at 7a.m. CST - Wednesdays at 10:30a.m. CST

Hot topics going on in your area

Read more
CodyTalks Radio Show

CodyTalks at the...
140 conference NYC 2011

"How the Internet is like a Small Town"
...Twitter is coffee shop of the world... the whole world can now know about the good or bad thing you did just like it's always happened at the small town coffee shop.

Read more
CodyTalks Public Speaking

Cody opens up the flood gates.



Let's do this....

NY Times has an article here... Go read it or at least get the jest of it.

I don't think they should have to (BY LAW) let women in the room.

I really and truly believe that!

What do you think?

63 comments:

  1. It's a private country club that cost tens of thousands of dollars a year to be a part of. Before you become a member, you are told of the membership policy's. I don't see what the problem is. If those people don't like it, then they should save their tens of thousands of dollars each year, and go out to eat in the public. This is not about right or wrong, men against women, this is about the the free will of going to a place, paying to go there, and not liking how they run things.

    Simple solution! Don't go and get over it. There are a lot bigger problems in the world that those people, that spend tens of thousands of dollars a year, could focus on and use their money that they are fortunate to have!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lizalde,

    I agree. I am gonna let the coversation brew a little bit but. I think you are right on. I think there is a good learning conversation/debate to be had here.

    I would ask anyone that reads this to forward the page out to folks who might want to discuss it.

    It is not a womens rights arguement. It is a right to privacy arguement.

    Washington DC no shit I want your opinion. I know we diagree a lot but I do let your opinion be a part of my decison making process.

    I have an opinion already and I am ready to pounce but want the conversation to grow a little and see a few other view points.

    ReplyDelete
  3. uh...you don't have to go that far to learn about a policy like this. Prairie Dunes is set up this way. There is a "Mens Card Room" and a like room for women. I wonder if this is more a norm for country clubs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh i forgot to add that I find it hilarious that the "elite" resorted to pissing on each others trees and called each others wives names. Aren't these the same people that are "civilized citizens".

    I wonder how they felt after pissing in their neighbors yard, calling their neighbors wife a whore, and got back into their $100,000 car.

    Too funny.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Aaron E,

    You never really said your opinion on the whole situation.

    Here is the question at hand....

    Should the GOVERNMENT get involved and force the Country Club to allow women into the Men's Grill??

    ReplyDelete
  6. If the government gets involved, then it's more proof in my eyes that they will care and go to bat for the "elite" than care about the "working man". If the government really wants to get involved, then they should do individual audits on all the members taxes and see how much money they are hiding!

    I do think it's funny that they did resort to pissing on a neighbors pecan tree! That just goes to show you, it doesn't matter how much money you have, you can always resort to being a backwoods retard.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ok Cody I will post a real comment :)

    I do not think that the government should get involved nor has the right to. What are they going to do next go after black tie eating establishments because I wear shorts in with money to spend? I would argue that I have the same right to eat there as someone in a suit and tie...my money is just as good. Will I argue that...no not worth my energy. Nor do I think it is worth the energy of the government to make that decision. It's a business. They have the right to establish policy and consumers have the right to give them business or not.

    If people of this country club really want to make a statement they should look to their board, get a bunch of their friends and cancel their memberships, and demand change if they want their business...or just piss on their trees (just kidding). I would be willing to bet if people really cared their memberships would decline to such numbers that in order to keep the doors open they would have to make a policy change. I just don't think it is that important and also think that a lot of people want to be angry about something and pretend to have a cause. I say pretend because these same people think that if they have some form of agenda others will think they are important when in fact the person that started the mess doesn't really care; in other words it is not the cause that is truly important only someones status. I am a social worker...I see it all the time. If political correctness was a tree I'd piss on it lol

    There you have it. better :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Aaron E is now the holder of the best comment ever trophy (there is no trophy and I can't ever keep track of the last title holder) but as of right now Aaron E holders the title of "Best comment ever on codytalks.com until a better one comes along."

    Congrats Aaron.

    Oh yeah your point in the comment is just how I feel. I might add that the government should keep their nose out of it unless there is a victim or tax dollars involved but saying that would probably lead to upset commenter s???? We will see.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Into the lions den...Where to start? I could go on and on regarding the legal arguments, but it is important to note that this is a "public accomodation" case, not a "freedom of association" case like the Boy Scouts Supreme COurt case in 2000 permitting them to exclude homosexuals. The difference is that there is no argument that the inherent mission of the Country Club association is to seperate the sexes.

    This thread, however, does not appear to address the legal arguments, but rather, whether the government should get involved.

    First, a complaint was filed, so yes, the government is required to investigate and apply the law, which the Attorney General did. The Country Club can now appeal and go to the Courts. That is the system we got.

    Second, just because it is in the membership policies or a known practice for years known prior to someone joining the club is a red herring, as that is not a defense to illegal discrimination. Aaron says that "they have the right to establish policy and consumers have the right to give them business or not." That is not necessarily true, as you can't have policies that are illegal. This club couldn't set up a policy to pay employees less than the minimum wage, not comply with environmental regulations or legalize gambling and prostitution (that would REALLY p.o. these members, as well as likely increase membership!)

    The law makes discrimination based on sex, race, etc. illegal. I think people's attitudes would change quite quickly if the Mens Card room was "whites only." Just because that was the club policy and accepted by the members doesn't make it legal, and a bunch of rich bully's tormenting someone who filed the complaint by peeing in their yard and writing threatening notes would be treated very differently.

    I agree that it would be best if the government did not have to get involved. People should not join or renew their membership out of outrage, no golf association should ever hold a tournament there, no politician or organization should speak or hold events there at all, no beer distributor, lawn care company, laundry service or food delivery should contract with this Club until there policies change. That has not happened, however, so the Courts are now left to sort this thing out.

    Just because this doesn't bother most of the members, or even female members doesn't matter whether the law should apply or not. Discrimination laws were put in to protect the minority and the less powerful.

    I could go on, but that is the gist of my feelings.

    My solution for them is simple, have a f#*king drink with your wives.

    p.s. it is nice to see that I continue to disagree with my old friends Aaron and Cody...the more things change...

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think it's interesting that the prevailing sentiment here (except for Dave) is that women should not be allowed in the dining room (or at least that the government shouldn't intervene to let them in).

    I see this as a larger issue than simply whether men can have a place to hang out and talk about boobies and cigars or whatever. In many communities (not so much Hutch, even though the Dunes is nice), country clubs are highly influential to the inner workings of a city. This article describes it as the "center of power dining in Phoenix". What this means is that it's where business gets done. It's not a place to get a good steak, it's where you take (male) clients, where business deals go down, where the political landscape is shaped.

    I see this as a glass ceiling issue. It's just an extension of an old idea, that the men get together and smoke cigars and make shit happen, while the women powder their noses or whatever. I assure you that very prominent women in the Phoenix community are discriminated against because they can't dine with the men in this "center of power".

    I'd like to hear more from the women on Cody Talks. It's fascinating to me that a bunch of guys on are talking about the extent to which it is ok to supress women. Hell, Aaron thinks that women's rights, at least in this instance, are akin to his right to wear cargo pants to the Blue Duck (is there still a Blue Duck? If there is you can probably wear cargo pants there, so bad example).

    Should the government intervene? I don't know. I would hope that they wouldn't have to, that we've come far enough along to respect the rights of women to participate at the highest levels of business and politics. We've still got a ways to go though. During her concession speech, Hillary didn't mention 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling because there isn't one. There is, and it exists in places like the Phoenix Country Club.

    William D.

    ReplyDelete
  11. William D.

    I put this comment up so more women would comment. None have... Probably just cause the blog sucks so much no women come to it!

    In reality (and you know it) the article has zero to do with suppressing women. i don't believe in suppressing women I think they should have the exact same rights as men. (no more! and no less).

    The argument is, does the Government, in any way shape or form have the right to intervene when people in a 100% private place want to be able to pick and choose who they let into their 100% private place.

    Now, we know (because of our incredible (and highly paid) codytalks legal council (Dave) that the government not only has the right.. but the obligation to get involved.

    I think that is wrong. Actually I know it is, it's not something I even feel like I could be swayed ever on. I have tried to open my closed off hard headed - right wing mind on this blog and I have and I have grown from it. Not on this point though.

    It's a private place. It shouldn't be treated any different from one of these people's homes. Someone formed a private club with rules, not rules that create victims, just rules that exclude people. Just like any club in High School or even just my daughters birthday party at our house. Not everyone is invited into this room. Not everyone is invited into the men's restroom either. Or for that matter the women's room.

    Dave brought up race and that's exactly what needed to happen. If this was an all white or all black or all gay or all women or anything (private club) but the meetings where being held at someones house, would there be an argument, no. Actually those meetings happen every single day and people are excluded because of any different sort of thing.

    Is it stupid or barbaric or old fashioned or sexist or racist or homophobic? Yes, yes it is in some ways. But they have that right to assemble in a private place and set there own rules and say what they want until they break a law. This country club is a big giant private place.

    I don't think they are cool for excluding women... I think they are silly for not Drinking with women... Drinking with women leads to better evenings then excluding them, always.

    The point (as William D knows,but, thanks for livening up the comments) is not that men should be able to exclude women!

    The point is that government involvement in creating and enforcing political correctness is worthless and intrusive.

    The guy who pissed on the tree, arrest him and fine him, he broke the law and is a criminal... The people who sent threatening e-mails/phone calls throw the book at them.

    I don't claim to know the law well... It looks like Dave is telling us that they are breaking the law by not allowing women in the Men's grill... If that is the case, Yes the government has the obligation to get involved...

    I just don't think they should have that power/right.

    Please don't come back with "What if the were stringing women up by their toes and tickling them til they died of tickling overdose if they tried to sneak into the Men's Grill?" we all know that I am not condoning any type of abuse in any way shape or form!

    If these guys built a barn in the back yard at their house would they have to allow women into the barn? No! right? If they then built a golf course around the barn, now they have to allow women? No it's on the guys private property, right?? I swear I am not being a close-minded prick about this, wait... yeah I am kinda but I am sticking to it.

    The good people of Phoenix... If they want to... could shut this down, just like Dave said. If they don't really want to shut it down, then they don't have to. Well they do cause Dave (codytalks counsel) pointed out that the law was broke... but they shouldn't have to.


    Thank goodness for Aaron E and Lizalde jumping in cause Dave and William D are real smart and kinda pick on me.

    lizalde said:

    "I do think it's funny that they did resort to pissing on a neighbors pecan tree! That just goes to show you, it doesn't matter how much money you have, you can always resort to being a backwoods retard."

    I am currently having that tattooed on my right pec.

    Great quote!

    Holy crap I just realized I use elipsesesesis' (...) too much, way too much, sorry...

    ReplyDelete
  12. I didn't realize that I was picking on you Cody. I have picked on you before though, and I will again probably. I picked on Aaron some in that post, but he picked on me some in sixth grade, so we'll call it even.

    What I am asking for is that you have some vision on this issue. Your business was founded and is co-owned by a woman. As far as I know, your business growth hasn't been hampered by her sex. But what if it was? What if you were competing for a multimillion dollar business deal that would change your lives but felt like you lost out because your business was co-owned by Tamara?

    My point is that Phoenix Country Club (and Birmingham Country Club for that matter), are places of very high influence. No one is arguing that men shouldn't be able to get together and play poker, but I am arguing that it's bad for a city to have an institution that accounts for billions of dollars in business deals closed off to women.

    It's easy for you to have an opinion on this topic because it does not touch you in any way. You live in Hutchinson, have enjoyed business growth limited only by your drive to succeed, and have chosen not to join the local country club (at least I don't think that you are a member of the Dunes... if you are will you take me to play golf sometime?) You have to ask yourself though, what if your ability for your business to succeed becomes impeded through blatant sexism? Would you feel differently?

    BD

    ReplyDelete
  13. BD,

    (who is also William D, for those of you that can't understand why he can't keep one name going on here! :))

    I agree one hundred percent no exceptions with the words you typed in your last comment. Minus the part about it being easy for me cause it doesn't touch me... I would make same decision if I was losing deals in Phoenix or Birmingham. I think you are right it is bad, it's not really fair, it's sad, it's stupid... lizalde said it best... it is "backwoods retarded".

    But it is those guys right to get together... In a private place! with whomever they want.

    If someone wanted to run a Ku Klux Klan meeting in the Men's Grill at the Phoenix Country, do they have to let them? If someone wanted to run a Ku Klux Klan meeting on the courthouse steps in Phoenix do they have to let them? Two different questions with two different answers.

    You can take Ku Klux Klan and replace it with any organization in the world and it works the same.

    Making this a sexist issue is close minded! Are this guys at the Country Club sexist... Who freaking cares?!?! Being sexist or racist or Gayist or Anti semitic or pagan or satanic or having a foot fetish or being a nudist or any other thing that doesn't create a victim is legal in a private place.

    I can go walk into any church in the US, they have the right to refuse to allow me in. In many Churches if you don't profess their beliefs they will refuse you communion. How many business post signs sayings professing the right to refuse to serve someone. They should have that right. If I don't want to do a website for you...no law should say I have to, period.

    If I am a Law Enforcement officer being paid by tax dollars, different story. Public dollars.

    If Dave and B.D. said they were going to Phoenix to get a permit and protest this country club or B.D. was gonna launch a website listing names of vendors and members who associate with the country club in an attempt to pressure change, I would throw my support behind it. I just don't want the government telling people how to live their private lives anymore than they absolutely have too.

    And no no one has really picked on me in here but now that i got Aaron E and Lizalde on my side...Noone ever will.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think that we would both agree minimal government intrusion into private life is best. You could have thrown out a lot of examples, and I would have been right there with you. You threw your weight behind country clubs though, and I think that there are situations that could arise where the government might be compelled to take a closer look at what is going on inside their dining rooms.

    The government dictates many of the allowable practices of a private business. You can’t discriminate on grounds of race, religion, sex, etc. I don’t think that you are arguing that these laws regulating private businesses, particularly in the arena of employment discrimination, are intrusive? Are you?

    Country Clubs, insofar as they are a proxy for a local business community, might deserve some scrutiny. You can't discriminate at work, but can you take your work to a club and discriminate there? It’s not insane (at least not to me) that this is a question that a court might want to take a look at.

    Dodovic

    ReplyDelete
  15. A year from now you will run out of different things to call yourself that still relate.

    Your last is a great comment that the world needs more of!

    Very intelligently said... you must have had some great debate partner that in the earlier years of your life helped form tremendous thoughts in your brain.

    Again not sure I totally agree, not completely sure about employment, either way. I don't think the government should be able to tell me who I can and cant hire and I really don't think the government should be able to tell me how much I have to pay them. I am open enough to realize that if there was no laws on this, people would get abused. People would get taken advantage of so we have to have some thing going on to protect folks who refuse to step up and protect themselves in this instance.

    Anyhow.. I know it's not cut and dry and as long as everyone else knows its not cut and dry as well, these discussions here can be very thought provoking and cool.

    I became a registered Republican cause I wanted as little Government influence in my life as possible, I thought the GOP at one time was fighting for that for/with me.... Not so sure anymore I think it is about bringing the government in to stop abortion and bad mouthing everything any democrat ever says, ever, period.

    Still a Republican cause noone else is any better but there you go.

    I don't know the answer but it is not getting the Government to force these guys to let women into a single room at a Country Club.

    I am sure of that.

    ReplyDelete
  16. A few small points...Although Cody talks up my legal abilities, I did not mean to imply that indeed what the Club was doing is illegal, but that (at this point) the Arizona Atty General found it was illegal...this could be found differently in a court or before a jury.

    Second, it is important again to note that this is not a freedom of association case, but a public accomodation case. Cody should feel more comfortable that under the law, private clubs can be exempt from certain complying with civil rights laws. However, a private club can lose its exempt status if it is sufficiently "public". Here, the state Atty General found that "although the club is private and not inherently subject to the state’s antidiscrimination laws, it is the equivalent of a public accommodation because it receives much of its revenue from nonmembers, in speeches, tournaments, Rotary Club meetings and the like." Truly private clubs are permitted to discriminate in certain ways, but lose that right if they become sufficiently "public." What is sufficiently public, of course, is all in the eye of the beholder.

    I think these distinctions, however, may make Cody and others who agree with him more comfortable. Our laws are nuanced and come in shades of gray (which makes me happy because it keeps people like me with plenty of work), and each situation and set of facts is different.

    Third, echoing Bill Dodo's concerns, I think that it is troubling (and telling that this policy has to go) that the Governor of Arizona could not go in to the Grill to have a martini and talk shop in this center of power, while the Senior Senator John McCain could, simply based on their chromosomes.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dave,

    Super comment... Thanks for taking the time.

    kinda weird but I feel like I agree with everything you said as well.

    What I should have said earlier was that you pointed out that since a complaint was filed the government had to get involved. Which is right and it's the way it should be. Not that you said it was illegal.

    I really appreciate the clarification on Private Club exemption stuff. I never knew that but I am glad that is the case.

    I don't like grey areas... (cause the give lawyers jobs...:) ) just kidding. I don't like them but completely understand they are here and always will be and that's why we need people to do interpretations. Hence the big fat legal fees check codytalks.com sends you every month:0


    The fact that the rules change if a Private Club get "too public", I don't like that either but... seems like the best possible scenario.

    I also think it is screwy that the Governor can't go but John McCain can. What I would like to see is a group of citizens get together and change it. They could, no doubt...

    I think we have developed a society of laziness that if people just plain don't like something, they will waste inordinate amounts of energy trying to get the government to change it instead of just taking a little bit of action to change it themselves. OK stop whole nother post...

    If we changed things Privately government could be smaller taxes could be less blah blah blah.

    People depend on the Government too much which in turn makes the Government have to get too big which makes more people depend on it.

    I honestly feel like I understand the whole thing (Phoenix Country Club thing) better.

    I still don't think the Government should get involved.

    I think someone should work to change the rules if they feel it's important enough. Just not with Tax Dollars and Government assets.

    And I hope the other people commenting here are having as much fun with it as I am.

    Thanks Guys.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Nora Jekyll and Mrs. Hyde..

    hehe

    I love the second comment really great, exactly my thoughts.

    First comment kinda made me want to call and warn your husband that you had snapped and he should go to the Country Club and stay in the all men's room for while.

    Great to hear from you.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nora, I'm sorry, but what a cop out. I was waiting for a woman to comment on this post, and you seem to be more than content to live in a man-run laser beam society.

    Sometimes forming your own club just won't do the trick. Sometimes the powers that be are just that. Sometimes you need the help of the state to step in and make things right.

    I have to admit, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that people that have never faced discrimination can so easily dismiss its effects. So easily make the "don't like it, just don't put up with" argument.

    We're talking here about an antiquated racist/sexist institution, that clearly wields a large degree of power. Is it so out of line with existing public policy to tell those dudes to cut that shit out?

    Just when you thought the post was dead...

    dodo

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Wouldn't it be a waste of political resources to attempt to impose rules on something as frivolous as a PRIVATE country club, to which membership is an ELECTIVE?

    In a capitalist society, if things go as they should, the country club's rules should be its own unmaking.

    People just don't go, if they have a problem. Then no money for the country club.

    Doesn't look like the case, as people continue to go.

    Sometimes it sucks living in a free country, eh?

    For the record, I would never be a member of that country club.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I've always been on your side of the argument, Cody. I thought it was ridiculous when NOW was protesting Augusta National and messing with the Master's (other than it got me commercial free golf for a couple years, which was nice). However, after hearing some of these arguments, I'm sorta changing my mind. I've never previously heard the argument about somewhere "private" becoming "sufficiently public," but it makes a little sense.

    I still agree with you that I'm not sure I want the government spending its time and MY money tracking down places like this. There are certainly better things to do. I'm not sure I trust the government or a judge or twelve of my peers to decide whether this place is "sufficiently public."

    I also think some of the other comments resonate. What if we found out that many of the biggest business deals in Hutchinson were happening in the men's room at Arby's? Does it then become sufficiently public that they would have to let ladies in there? I know it's silly, but I mean it as seriously as I possibly can while making a bathroom joke... Are we headed for unisex restrooms eventually, just so no one is left out?

    Gender is such a less cut-and-dry issue to me than any other discrimination issue.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Scott,

    Great points and because of learning things (like you) my mind is opening as well.

    and really isn't gender less cut and dry just because we can go to the bathroom argument. Seriously no joke there, if we could all stand together naked there wouldn't be a gender argument. I am not in favor of us all standing naked!

    I am also not in favor of the Government making us be politically correct. I would rather everyone be naked, ok njot everyone but if i could choose who had to be naked and who didn't and I didn't have to be naked... noone wants that.

    Sorry tried to stay serious. This is a great set of comments, thanks everybody.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I appreciate the comments...and think a lot of times a brief news article or soundbytes on TV paint a far different picture and cause knee jerk reactions much more than what the law actually states. Our legal system isn't perfect, but it isn't created or enforced in a vaccuum.

    I wanted to comment on the Arby's Men's Room point, as similar concerns are often raised. First, the purpose of the Men's Room at Arby's is for MEN to take care of their business (personal business, not business business). If a side product of that function is that some other types of business take place in there, that is tangental and not the primary purpose of the sex seperation and not an issue. We don't have to go unisex.

    The purpose of a Men's Grill at the Country Club is to have a drink, eat appetizers, watch sports or news on TV and socialize. There is nothing inherently MEN ONLY in that (unlike a restroom), thus the threshold is much lower on whether you can exclude people if it is sufficently public. The benefit of having "grayish" legal standards is that it can address situations where people try to skirt their legal obligations (for example, putting a tiny urinal in the far corner of the Men's grill to create a faux Men's Restroom, or adding lounge chairs, fax machines, and a full bar in the Arby's Mens Room. The purpose and pretext of the actions and functions can be analyzed.

    And Cody, tread lightly on nakedness...I recall you asking my opinion regarding sexual harrassment if you implemented "Naked Tuesday's" at the office when it was just you and Tamara starting out. My legal opinion was good for you, but cruel for her. :)

    ReplyDelete
  30. I understand the legal part of it. I don't understand why it needs to go to that. Sounds to me that this deal could be fixed by making the woman's grill comparable to the men's grill. I don't think their gripe was the separation, but more about the conditions of the 2. Throw in a full bar and a couple of HDTV's and it sounds like it's the same. I'm sure they were not in a 10x10 room sitting around cheap card tables.

    For this to be as big as an issue as it is shows how messed up our priorities are in our society. The rich and powerful have a separate room where men and women can eat. And all they have to do is pay tens of thousands of dollars a year to have that privilege!

    Mean while gas prices continue to climb. The average house hold income is stretching their dollar as far as it will go, and unfortunately they are putting it on credit cards that they will never repay! Our public school system as a whole sucks compared to other countries, and have you looked at how much your health insurance cost lately, and that's before you go to the doctor!!

    But the government should spend it's time on the few elite than can't eat in the same room as their spouse!!.........

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ok, Cody. I pulled all my first comments because of a few things. I wanted to take a little more time to think about it and make sure that my reaction to the issue was the same. Yep. I still feel the same. First of all, I do still think it's a man's world. Go ahead, Cody. Call my old man and tell him to stay away from his crazy woman-folk. I must have snapped to think that, despite the fact that women do play a part in policy-making and are active in the public sphere, the dominant hegemony is still patriarchal.

    While Dodo makes the point that it should be in a woman's interest to "tell those dudes to cut that shit out", my response to that is I think there are better battles to fight than to insist that rich men in Phoenix allow women into the Men's Grill. Know what, Dodo? I still think boycotting, as Dave mentioned, would be a better option than funneling valuable resources into such a small-scale battle. Why not make it a grassroots, social issue? A community issue? Why not make it a choice? The thought of people, who are offended by such practices, taking their custom elsewhere would get the club where they live far more than just acquiescing to a legal formality and opening their doors to women.

    What do you think will happen when the policy changes and the Men's Grill is legally bound to admit women? Don't you think that the deals that formerly were brokered in that room will be brokered elsewhere? That's not going to break the glass ceiling. It's only going to make the men roll their eyes and change the nature of the conversations that took place in the Men's Grill, all the while finding someplace else to discuss the "important" things that clearly are above the thought processes of the little ladies.

    Why do you think there are Women's Studies curricula in universities? Because regular curricula are based on the patriarchal tradition. "Women's" issues are seen as separate from "mainstream". Do I think there shouldn't be women's studies classes? Of course not. But the mere fact that they exist, and are populated by mostly women, underscore the fact that women do not have the same power that men do in society. Even in the "liberal" world of academia, trying to understand and then change the fabric of society is a separatist movement.

    Having said that, you might wonder why I "copped out" and said that I absolutely do not think that the government should legislate against having a Men's Grill? I believe Mitchell used the word "frivolous". I think it's a waste of tax payers' dollars and I think it flies in the face of our constitution to not allow private institutions to create their own rules. I do believe there are gray areas, too, and thanks to the Codytalks legal counsel, I feel much more aware of them. But I still feel in the case of such country clubs, which, by their very nature are private and exclusive, it's not up to the law to legislate who can sit in which room. I believe there are far more important issues to address.

    So, what's my solution? Drawing attention to the issue is a great first step. But as the laser beam is focused on this stupid, exclusive country club, which represents only the most minute fraction of the population, the fact that we still live in a society where patronizing women happens casually, naturally, unconsciously, is lost.

    My solution is for women to continue to carve out our place in the public sphere in all the ways that we have been for the last century-plus. My solution is for women to choose their battles wisely. The process is going to take time. It took thousands of years to create the modern world, and it's going to take some time to address its social ills. Women are still stoned to death in Muslim nations for speaking to non-related men. There are still women in our own country who have to sneak away with their children in the middle of the night so their abusive husbands don't kill them.

    You'll have to excuse me if I don't feel outraged by the fact that I'm not allowed to sit with the power-brokers in a Phoenix country club's Men's Grill. Not being allowed into that room certainly didn't seem to slow down the powerful women in Arizona, did it? Drawing attention to it certainly won't slow down progress, it might just draw attention to the plight of the terribly subjugated rich, white, country-club going women who don't even really represent the general female population of our country. Then again, why not point the laser beam at a "racist/sexist institution" that I wouldn't qualify as "antiquated" just yet, but in due time certainly will be?

    ReplyDelete
  32. There is a huge part of me that really agrees with the thought that it is a private country club and the government should just stay the h*ll out of people's business. But then I think about civil rights.

    What if people had taken that view about all the restaurants, stores, etc. that refused service to black people? We'd still have segregation of the worst kind. Just something to think about. Political correctness has already been legislated and in this country, despite our many freedoms, you aren't free to choose which laws you want to follow.

    On the other hand, this whole situation is stupid. Do most people in America really care if someone rich men and women can have drinks or eggs in the same room? Probably not. Unfortunately there are immature people everywhere who can't handle things on their own and want to waste tax dollars and government time dealing with ridiculous arguments like this.

    That's what I find most offensive.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Nora...

    First off I thought your first comments were great. I hope you didn't take my "Crazy Lady" type comments literally. (downfalls of typing instead of talking)

    Secondly I think this is one of the best comments I have ever read.... Please don't delete it.

    I think you are saying the same things I am saying.

    I also really enjoy and agree with the idea that having separate anything.. whether its Studies or History or holidays or anything does one thing more than any other: it leads to separation.

    I can personally speak for literally every person in this particular set of comments and tell you that they are people you would enjoy discussing things with.

    We got an very LEFT lawyer who will listen to anything you have to say. And then analyze it and spit out facts and mold our young impressionable minds

    We got a successful webdesigner who is a very LEFT lawyer in disguise, who also is very cool about not judging.

    We got a Banker (Credit Unioner?)who is very opinionated but will again listen and learn.

    We got a web programmer/Children's museum web programmer/Ball State Fan (it's a college in Indiana, hehe)who is very cool about the debate process.

    We got a Social Worker raised by a very (repeat very lot's of times) conservative Dad who was actually a Genius in my mind. He is very cool in a debate/discussion.

    We got me... I am really an idiot so just just leave it up to me to cause problems.

    We got Mitchell, you know him.

    Anyhow even if you get mad and let it roll nobody in here is really gonna judge, they may react to keep the dicussion going but (in this group right here) they wont judge.


    Your last comment is now the best on codytalks.com ever until the next one comes.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Jeez, Cody. I just pulled my comments because I wasn't sure I had articulated myself accurately. I initially reacted to the article and the previous comments, and when Dodo practically scolded me for not tearing off my mask to reveal an angry Gloria Steinem, I felt I had to reassess. I don't think it's a cop out to feel that this issues is sort of a time-waster, although the last "anonymous" post's comments about civil rights issues struck a nerve.

    (was that you, Dodo? He of many names?)

    I think I still have to go back to Lizalde's post, aka, the first comment:

    There are a lot bigger problems in the world that those people, that spend tens of thousands of dollars a year, could focus on and use their money that they are fortunate to have!

    ReplyDelete
  35. The last anonymous was not me. I'll always sign mine.

    I'm retired from this topic. What's next Cody?

    B.i.l.l.d.o.d.o

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ok I will definately come back to this debate when I get back from Estes Park (just got here today). I did see where someone accused me of going to the Blue Duck...what the hell is that and where do cargo pants fill in.

    I would be careful treading on my beliefs when if comes to womens rights. If you truly want to debate this then come on with it :) Just for the record (and not because I am trying to appease PC bullcrap) I am all for womens rights but I also think that the issue here has little to do with women's right and more to do with someone who wants to pretend to have an issue (see my previous post). You see it all the time with people that have too much money "I want to feel more important because no body thinks I care because I have more money than God...hey I have an idea lets go protest (insert the cause of the week here) or let me go down and feed some poor kids". Give me a break. Come see what I do for a living and then tell me about peoples rights.

    Ok I posted a heck of a lot more than I intended...I am going back outside to enjoy the mountains.

    We'll see where this is when I get back...and have more time to read more of the posts.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ok, maybe not retired from this post.

    I have to say, I found this whole discussion interesting. I've thought about it off an on for the last day or two, and here are the things that struck me as most surprising:

    1. You have some jerks in Phoenix discriminating against women, and the whole discussion is a referendum on the government. I was fascinated by the government bashing and mistrust of the system. There seems to be this notion that THE GOVERNMENT will wield its iron fist and trample our right to have a private club. That's not really how things will go down. Dave could give you a roadmap I'm sure, but I would guess that this is an issue that would go through the courts, maybe the legislature, and would be debated from many angles before a decision was made. This seems like something that our government is completely capable of working through, yet there is this incredible level of mistrust in its ability to deal with this situation. I think it's interesting that we're more willing to take up with a bunch of bigots than let the state apply civil rights, the constitution, applicable law, etc. to this situation.

    2. I was equally fascinated by a topic that came up again and again. Many of you seemed incredibly concerned that having the government look at this would be a complete misappropriation of funds. “It'd be too expensive!” was a cry heard several times. I guess that this goes along with #1, but it's hard to imagine that running this issue through the courts would be very expensive... at least in terms of other things we waste money on like, oh I don't know, Iraq. Also, at what price does defending an individual's rights become too expensive? I know what my answer to that question is (no price), so I found the price argument very puzzling.

    3. Nora, not to pick on you, but there was something that you said that I thought a lot about. You mentioned again and again how we live in a patriarchal society and that women aren't given a fair shake. The second I told you to take a stand though, you felt like to speak out would make you a raving, bra-burning, feminist. I wonder if many women don't think that there can be a middle ground, one where they can advocate for their rights without feeling like an extremist. It's weird to me when women, especially those that recognize the need for gender advancement, bash feminism.

    4.Finally, a theme that came up several times was that this “is just a golf club in Phoenix... who cares?” Every time I read something like this, I was reminded that stands for civil rights, for women's rights, often happen in very small spaces. A seat on a bus. A jail cell. A piece of concrete in front of a tank. You have a hundreds (thousands?) of years of white male dominated society still trying to flex its muscles in a country club dining room. Maybe the implications of breaking that up are small. Maybe they aren't though.

    Anyway, I thought that this was a good discussion. Overall, I don't find a place in our society for this crap, and I trust the system to evaluate it fairly. So Cody, the answer to your question is not that I think that the government should break this club up, but I would trust in its ability to check into things.

    bldd

    ReplyDelete
  38. One must consider (even though they don't seem to deserve such consideration) the rights of the owners and patrons of the Men's Grill.

    You can't go to a women's only gym and demand a membership.

    Perhaps it's slightly discriminatory to assume that men aren't allowed a place where only men may go. Honestly, as brash as I may sound, they're not really infringing on anyone's rights.

    It's bad business to not allow women, but it's their business to make that choice. And it's super easy to just boycott the damned place and, as I said before, let their policy be their own unmaking.

    ReplyDelete
  39. William f. Dodobird esq.,

    Point by Point,

    1. i am not afraid of the ironfist of the government. I am huge fan of the American government, think it is the best in the world. I do however think that civil liberties must be protected from it.

    This is the point we disagree on: Whose civil liberties are being trampled. I think people (no matter how ignorant and bigoted and backwoods they are, I agree with that in this case about these men) all have the same right to gather privately, in a private place, with no tax dollars involved AND... invite whomever the hell they want.

    I don't think the Government needs to come in and tread and that right of these morons in Phoenix.
    It's not that I am scared or think they are ironfisted or I am moving to remote parts Idaho to start stockpiling guns. We just have opposite views of who's civil rights are in jeopardy. I think the morons have the right to gather privately and invite whomever... You think the women have the right to go anywhere they want privatley or not.

    ***** I do have a disclaimer - - Dave, brought up the "Sufficiently Public" phrase (again , that's why we pay him) I can see that point. If the Government says they are sufficiently public then I give, let the ladies in cause then the whole argument is flipped and it is the Women's right being persecuted.

    If I had a party once a week at my house and put up a sign that said, no women, children, green people,white people, gays, straights, pets, smoking,allowed. I should be able to do that, I never would but I should be able too. Its private property.

    Your point 2 is a mute point (with me) because we disagree on point 1.

    I think it would be a completely waste of tax dollars to take this to court, you think it would be worth it, we just disagree.

    I don't like the "Look at the Money we are spending on Iraq" argument, that's weak, if the government is wasting 50 cents on something, it's a waste of 50 cents. Just because another bigger bad thing is happening doesn't mean we can say a smaller bad thing is not worth talking about.

    Again we disagree on it being a waste of Gov funds.

    You and I both know that a long protracted court battle could be very expensive... No... Not compared to the War in Iraq... But, that's not the point.

    3. You are misinterpreting and misquoting Nora. She not saying she is scared of being called a feminist, she is saying this dumbass cause isn't worth the battle, "Let the dumbasses have a private room, who cares." I think that's what she is saying, Nora???

    4. Taking this to a "Seat on A Bus" argument is naive... A bus is a public place and anyone denying that to anyone for any reason should be prosecuted, period.

    There are Black activist groups, Gay activist groups, Womens activist groups, Foot fetish groups, Ku Klux Klan meetings, moose lodge meetings, Mason Meetings happening all over this country in private places that will not let someone in for whatever damn reason they pick and thats ok. Until they come out and violate someones rights.

    If I say 'This is my barn and only men are allowed in, Kathleen Sibelius has no right to come in my Barn! Again, I am conceding on the Sufficiently Public" disclaimer but that has yet to be decided about my barn so she can't come in. I can't into her barn either if she says no people over 6ft allowed. It's her barn, her right.

    I don't really see a place in society for Men's rooms either, just like I don't see a place for porn videos that depict a fake rape and music that calls people racist slurs and midget sex sites on the internet (rumor, I heard). I would love more than anything right now for Fred Phelps and his band of happy dumb shits to just go away, I would rather noone ever burned the American Flag again (I will go to jail on that). I don't think there a place in our society for any of those things...

    But I joined the Marine Corps because I was proud to live in a country that didn't have laws against those things.

    99%+ of the country hates fred phelps, that guy is evil enough that his death will in fact be celebrated by some people. But he has a right to be that evil, until he breaks the law.

    So the Patriot Guard got together and shut the asshole down, he no longer interferes with veterans funerals, now because of him, Veterans have a incredible display of American Flags at their funerals. www.patriotguard.org if you don't know what I am talking.

    The people fixed it... When that jackass came to Hutch, the government had to do its job and defend his right to hold up signs saying that the Young Man whose funeral it was died because "God Hates Fags". The government had to pay for police to protect him from everyone else involved. Thousands of bikers, incredible site. But that was his right and the police did the right thing by protecting his right to be a moronic asshole.
    And the Patriot Guard exercised their right to build a wall of flags to block the boys parents from having to seeing this jackass.

    Just because you don't see a place in society for this stuff doesn't mean we need laws against it.

    I am proud to live in a country that the people have the right to change anything and get involved and make things happen... and the CAN do it without creating a law that can then be completely distorted and abused in a hundred different cases later.


    We just disagree on whose rights are being violated and we both have that right.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Yeah... we're completely arguing different things here. From the beginning I've had an uneasy feeling that the fact (in the article) that this is where big business gets done makes it potentially discriminatory to women, to a point that could be actionable. I'm in no way saying that unpopular speech or gatherings should be regulated, so long as they are legal.

    bd

    ReplyDelete
  41. Again, from a legal perspective, there are lots of oranges being compared to apples in these comments. I will try to provide a simplified response.

    First, Mitchell, the "women's only gym" isn't really an apt analogy, for several reasons: (1) I am assuming the stated purpose of the women's gym is to "create a women's only fitenss environment." The purpose of the Country club is not to have a Men's only cocktail experience (or else women wouldn't be admitted at all). This becomes a "freedom of association analysis; and (2) It probably isn't sufficiently public to pierce the presumed private club exemption from anti-discrimination compliance.

    Just because a place is private or privately owned does not permit discrimination. While it is true that most restaurants state that they have the right to refuse service to anyone, they can not refuse service to someone for an illegal reason: such as the color of their skin, disability or sex. Just like you can be fired for any reason, but not an illegal one (sex, race, etc.).

    Cody, you reference groups that exclude people all the time. You are right, that is ok, because the First Amendment guarantees our freedom of association. That freedom can be trumped and a private organization can be prohibited from excluding a person from membership if the state had a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination which outweighed the First Amendment right of freedom of association. It is a similar “sufficiently public” analysis the group.

    For example, the Jaycees were forced to admit women by the Supreme Court, because the state had an interest in eliminating discrimination and the Jaycees could not demonstrate any "serious burdens on the male members' freedom of expressive association" if women were admitted.

    That is not the case in expressive associational groups – such as several you mentioned. If the expressive purpose of the group would be compromised, that would have a heavy weight on whether they are exempted from compliance with anti-discrimination laws.

    This was most recently was addressed with the Boy Scouts (note they are not forced to admit girls, as the expressed purpose is for boys) which is a private organization and sufficiently public. The Court found that the Boy Scouts could exclude gays from their leadership, because the Court found the general mission of the Boy Scouts was "to instill values in young people." The Court continued that forcing a group to accept certain members may impair the ability of the group to express those views, and only those views, that it intends to express. Thus, "freedom of association ... plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate." The Court found that since the Boy Scouts takes an official position with respect to same-sex relationships, this exclusion was permitted.

    I happened to agree with the gist of this case, but disagreed with the outcome. I believe that it should be more then a stated official position but central to the core mission of the group. I was an Eagle Scout and in the Scouting context never had anyone tell me that homosexuality was wrong, or frankly even discussed. I did not think this position was central to main mission of the scouts. I realize that the court disagreed, and until that Court changes its mind or the Scouts change this absurd policy, I am forced to do what most people suggest in this thread, abstain from helping with, contributing to, or ever permitting any future sons I might have to join the Scouts, a group very dear to me.

    I state all this for two reasons: (1) to explain the differences between mere public accommodation and freedom of association and (2) to let the Courts and government do their job, you may not like the outcome, but at least by the end, the outcome is usually fairly well reasoned.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Agreed!!

    It think you have used "bd" before and am searching the website for it.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Ok my agreed was for bdodobirdie,

    Dave,

    If I ever need a lwayer I am coming to were you are at cause you got lotsa smarts.

    On the items that I care enough about to talk about on here, I really do want to know the legalities of it, even if I don't agree with those legalities.

    Thanks to everyone but especially Dave for coming in here and give us those legalities. I again can truly say I learned something and feel better about my grasp of it.

    (my head is spinning from reading Dave's last comment, but I will feel better after it done)

    Gun Rights/Supreme Courts recent decision and Concealed carry is next, but I think we all need a break.

    ReplyDelete
  44. 3. Nora, not to pick on you, but there was something that you said that I thought a lot about. You mentioned again and again how we live in a patriarchal society and that women aren't given a fair shake. The second I told you to take a stand though, you felt like to speak out would make you a raving, bra-burning, feminist. I wonder if many women don't think that there can be a middle ground, one where they can advocate for their rights without feeling like an extremist. It's weird to me when women, especially those that recognize the need for gender advancement, bash feminism.

    What's up, Bill? First of all, I'm not afraid of anything but my mother. I'm certainly not afraid to sound like a feminist, nor would I ever bash feminism. Besides, I think everyone on this thread is a feminist. Don't we all love women? And I never once said women didn't get a "fair shake" in society, I was only commenting on the fact that our society is based on a patriarchal construct, and that it's going to take some time to change deeply entrenched beliefs and, well, laws. Trust me, I'm not seething in bitterness that I get to stay home and care for my son, especially considering the fact that I'm qualified to teach at any time I choose. I'm sitting pretty high on the patriarchal hog, and that's part of the reason I pulled my comments originally--I wanted to give a little more thought to my response than my original off the cuff remarks. Fortunately, as impulsive as I may be, I find that my gut reactions are usually the ones I stand by.

    I suppose it wouldn't be a huge waste of time and money to argue the case in a legal capacity, but if so, I would hope it would be applied on a federal level. If the whole fanarcus only resolves how Phoenix or Arizona clubs are allowed to operate, that would be ridiculous. What would be the point? And as much as I do think exclusivity like that is obnoxious, I think stripping freedoms--even ones I don't particularly enjoy--is more obnoxious.

    However, I do think it totally sucks for those rich, white ladies that their facility in the club is separate but unequal. Give the ladies a proper bar, for crying out loud!

    Mitchell, you bring up a good point about the women-only type establishments, but I would have to say men in general just don't care about being excluded from our dealings. THAT, I believe, is also related to the fact that we're lower on the totem pole socially (at this time). I think our society has made incredible strides in a short time, and there's no way the progress is going to backslide, especially if every little real or perceived injustice is torn apart like a Chihuahua in Michael Vick's kennels.

    For real, this whole thing reminds me of how I spent most of my youth chasing after my older sister, trying to hang out with her and her friends, and being given the Heisman. When I'd tell on her and my mom made her let me join in the fun, the fun was over. I was the object of resentment. But in time, as I grew into my own person with my own strengths and interests, we became equals. I know it's kind of a simplistic comparison, but it has parallels. It takes time to break down barriers; it takes time to marshal the resources to compete on the same level as someone who has a higher "status". Yeah, it's still a man's world, but women have been doing a fine job over time of evening that playing field. It's going to take time, and you know what? Why not pick small battles, too? It probably can't hurt.

    Having said that, Bill, I don't think you're wrong in the least, but I think you missed my point--I think there are better gender issues to fight. For me, this matter is a case of proportion and perspective. I suppose, though, as my mom always says $#!t flows downhill. Rich folk always get the press, so if it's a high profile case, maybe it'll have more impact.

    ReplyDelete
  45. What the hell? I just found out they are letting women in the YMCA. Now I'm pissed.

    ReplyDelete
  46. OK. Where to begin. It's taken me days to keep up with comments but, aside from Nora, you were looking for a women's opinion.

    I agree with Nora that we still live in a mostly patriarchal society. I work in a industry that is probably 70% men nationwide (more like 95% on a local level). I've been called Dolly more than once (As in, "I don't want to deal with your Dolly" said to my male boss). Many of the men that enter my office think I'm the secretary. Some days, that's all I need to be. It's not worth the fight to prove that I know more about an industrial building than most of the men in town. Those that work with me on a regular basis know I am knowledgeable and good at what I do. That is enough for me.

    Am I compelled to vote for Hillary because she is strong women in a mostly male profession? A little, but what it really comes down to is the most qualified person for the job. Who is the best leader for our country? Gender shouldn't matter, nor should skin color, sexual orientation, height, weight or anything else but your knowledge and ability to complete the tasks the job requires.

    What am I getting at? Well, it seems that the people in Phoenix are a bunch of Dee-De-Dee's (to quote Carlos Mencia). If the men want to gather, get drunk, compare their muscles, cock sizes or whatever men do when they gather, so be it. I agree that the women of the club probably deserve adequate facilities and it sounds like they are getting them. It should be noted here that Pine Valley Golf Course not only does not allow women to be members but does not allow them on the grounds - ever. Not as employees, spouses or guests. If you want to drop your husband off you do it at the outside gate, not the clubhouse. (I've learned this second hand so don't berate me if I have the wrong course- but I do know at least one exists in this manner). Sounds suspiciously gay to me but hey, if that's your thing, that's where you should go.

    So ultimately, I side with the "Private place, private rules" concept. Mostly because it isn't really hurting anyone. The women complain that big business is being done in this room and they can't get their foot in the door but big business is done behind closed doors of corporations all over this country and those women may not be invited to join that either. If you are good at what you do then let your record stand. Again, it shouldn't be based on gender but the right qualifications for the job. If you don't think they know you are the right person then having a drink at the country club is not necessarily the right way to prove that either. If you really want the business, get creative. Bombard them at the office, send them emails, take out a billboard. They will eventually get the idea.

    My feeling on those type of men is that I really don't want to work for them anyway. They will constantly second guess what I am doing and revert to the man on my team to "get the job done" when in all actuality, I am probably doing it anyway. Sometimes that works too. Instead of "Good Cop/Bad Cop" we have man/woman teams. We split the commissions and can appease both sides of the argument. Sometimes, my title changes for the situation - I've even been the cleaning lady if someone called after hours. I may be doing work but I don't need anyone thinking I can be reached that late all the time. I have a life too.

    I've gone off on a rant. Sorry about that. Back to the subject. The more we resort to the government to resolve arguments like this, the more laws we have, the less freedom we have. I appreciate the steps we have made to recognize women, blacks and other minorities as equal human beings to white men. I am thankful that I live in a country where women can vote, own property, support themselves and not have to rely on a man to survive. I can go out in public in a bikini (I promise not to in my current condition!) and not have to be covered from head to toe like in some countries. But that doesn't give me the right to force those people to dress, think and act like me. We all have the right to choose.

    You may not like my opinions but I'm going to say them anyway because I have the right to free speech. It may hurt your feelings, like the jerk Phelps, but hey, that's my right. My only real prejudice is against ignorant people. We all have the same right to education but too many people just don't exercise it.

    If those men don't see the value of having a drunk woman or two at the party, let them have their boring grill. Sometimes, I don't want men around either - especially ogling me at the gym! - and I don't want someone forcing me to allow men to come to my barn party either.

    Ok. I think I've exhausted all my thoughts and this blog has gotten long enough that you probably aren't even reading this anymore. C'est la vie. That's your freedom. Cherish it. Thank the troops for continuing to make it possible!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Josie just actually used all the ink we had left here at www.codytalks.com so we gotta restock.

    Josie, do you really think height isn't a factor in who should be President, I mean what if they are REALLY Short... kidding, just kidding.

    Great comment, thanks for giving us another woman's perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Josie--can I come to your barn party? I bet it would be fun.

    ReplyDelete
  49. We would definitely have good food! All I really need is a barn! Hmm...I guess I might use a few men to build it for me, but none allowed after that. Kinda like the morman church. Here's a new tangent on allowed entrance. I lived a year in Utah, still can't figure out why, but learned a lot about the Ladder Day Saints. The real ones, not the crazies down in Texas. Now I do not belong to the LDS church but asked a lot of questions of missionaries and others that I worked with. They believe some crazy things in general but that is probably another blog.

    The point I bring today is the fact that they restrict access into their temples to people who have "gone through the church" which is a series of interviews and classes that qualify you as an actual morman. Not sure if they get a decree or membership card or what but somehow they know if you have or not. The rest of the world can enter during construction, can walk on the grounds, visit a tabernacle or ward (community) church but once the temple is blessed - it's restricted access. Tell me how the law handles that one, Dave...

    ReplyDelete
  50. the law handles that one completely different, again, thanks to the First Amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" ... and I am simply to tired to handle that one.

    ReplyDelete
  51. There was a time when I worked for the ERA and was an active member of NOW.

    I've always spoken against racial discrimination. Always stood againt those of my own race (white) who would harm others because of the color of their skin.

    That said, there comes a point when the "help" that is given with good intentions can become culturally self-defeating.

    Many in the black community are preaching that message loud and clear now. Instilling self-responsibility and action back into the culture that had largely abandoned them because of the standards of low expectations reaffirmed decade after decade by lower standards for minorities.

    We still have entrenched folks screaming at the top of their lungs because we can't expect teachers to teach black kids to learn to read as well as we can teach white kids to learn to read.

    But with reading and other basic skills, black kids won't need "lower standards" and for the first time they'll compete side by side in the world. Forget needing politicians to "even things up" for them.

    That is, if you can shake loose the entrenched I-can't-make-it-without-the-government-making-sure-every-situation-is-absolutely-controlled-for-minority-protection.

    IMHO, this article falls into the same arena.

    I've never liked the good-old-boy network. In fact, like most 47 year old women who have worked in corporate America, it has bit me time and time again.

    But the good-old-boy network has never defeated me and would never defeat me.

    I'd boycott these jokers (meaning the GOB network with their private dining room). I'd meet a specific instance of baloney with an equal reaction.

    But the whole entrenched women need the government to step-in-and-make-it-all-better-for-them I reject. There's too much of that already and it's theology leads to diminished self-expectations, individual ingenuity and lower standards for the group it supposedly "protects". In the long run, it's self-defeating.

    I say let the ladies kick the gents in the seat of their pants on their own if it needs to be done.

    If they can't do that, it won't matter a bit if they get to share that dining room or not. Corporate America is a tough world and not one where the timid of either sex survive.

    ReplyDelete
  52. The following quote cracked me up “You get into very difficult family issues,” said one woman who wanted to speak about the policy, but feared expulsion. “It becomes, ‘Mommy got Daddy kicked out of the club.’ "

    I see no problem with the stupid club and apparently it's members stupidity. I do have a problem with everyone thinking they have a sense of entitlement to everything. A private club however stupid is just that. Why get the government involved? I am writing in 2012 does anyone know how the case turned out?

    We have almost no if any male only colleges left. But we do have all female colleges. How is that? We have women Boy Scout Leaders. I refused to let one of mine be a scout when I found that out. Why you may wonder? Can you hear the roar of the Girl Scouts if their leaders on camping trips were men?

    I don't see women going back to the pregnant and in the kitchen days. I sometimes think we have forced our gender into thinking we had choices when really we don't.

    As for the comment on the LDS in Utah, I know a non LDS who went to all of the things that were supposedly banned. They have no plans on becoming an LDS.

    Yes I am a woman, mother of sons and ex wife to a career Army man. I have worked in all kinds of fields. I was taught how to hunt, fish and work in a man's world and still be a lady.

    I respect the current governor of AZ, Ms. Rice and Hillary Clinton et al but doesn't mean I would vote for them just because they are women. You vote for the person and their stand on the issues not the party or not gender or race.

    With so much going on I side with this is just a stupid issue.

    ReplyDelete

I love the discussion in the comments.. so... GO FOR IT!

Other CodyTalks posts you may like