Sep 042012
 

In my previous post asking if it was possible to defend a male space without making it explicitly hostile to women, Dragnet asked if there had been actual examples of a private organization that had been forced to accept women instead of private organizations just caving to cultural pressure.  The problem with that question is that “cultural pressure” could also include government pressure.  For example, in the past the government had threatened the MPAA with more regulation if it didn’t create its own film rating system.  The MPAA film rating system is “voluntary”, but it’s “voluntary” in the same way that people/businesses who have to pay off the mob for “protection” is voluntary.

Beyond that, there are examples of the government explicitly forcing purely private organizations to admit women.  It’s happened to a lot of charitable/service organizations.  The Boys and Girls Clubs used to be the Boys Clubs until the government ordered them to admit females.  The same thing happened to the Jaycees, the Kiwanis, and the Rotary Club.  When this issue came before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court decided that these organizations were really “public accommodations” instead of the purely private organizations they actually were because their membership was “too inclusive” to be a private organization.  The Supreme Court also used reasoning that since these organizations could be used for business/career networking, anti-discrimination laws for employment also applied here to a degree.  What this means is that three guys having an ad hoc hunting club without women (for example) isn’t going to have to worry about the Supreme Court forcing them to admit women.  If it was a hunting clubs with thousands of members (or more), then the Supreme Court can and would order them to admit women.

The Supreme Court’s argument about business/career networking is particularly dangerous because business/career networking can happen anywhere where there is two or more people.  That reasoning gives the government carte blanche to order any organization regardless of size or its nature to admit women.  (For that matter, this reasoning gives the government an excuse to order any private organization to do what it wants.)

The Supreme Court also has not defined where the line between a truly private organization and a “public” one is.  At any time the government can come in and declare a private organization to be a “public accommodation”.  In theory it could define the three guys with an ad hoc hunting club to be a public accommodation.  That doesn’t happen because it isn’t worth the time of the government to do that.  The line between private organization and “public accommodation” is whenever the government wants to get involved with how a private organization runs things.

This tells us a lot about some of the problems that any mens rights organization will face in the future.  Consider a mens rights organization, which by definition is a private organization, that decides to exclude women.  That would make sense as we have seen women derail things as simple as blogs, and women disrupting the workings of (proto-)mens rights organizations.  As soon as that mens rights organization starts getting somewhere, the first thing the government will do will be to declare it a “public accommodation” because it is sufficiently large according to the government and business/career networking can happen there.  That will be the end of that mens rights organization.  Either the organization will disband to refuse to comply with the government’s orders, or it will admit women and grind to a halt.  Either way the mens rights organization in question is dead.

This isn’t an unsolvable problem, but it is a difficult one.  Completely decentralized solutions like MGTOW avoid this problem, but that isn’t going to get any laws changed either, at least not directly.  It’s the political equivalent of women invading a male space.  Once a male space gets big enough women are either going to want in or want to destroy it.

  8 Responses to “Redefining Private Organizations As Public”

  1. I wonder what the reaction would be if men tried to intrude into a women’s only space like this. I don’t think women or the government would be as understanding or accepting.

    • No, the government wouldn’t be so accepting of that. That’s why it would make a good protest. Imagine if a group of MRAs occupied the Curves chain of womens only gyms. It would be a good way to document the government’s hypocrisy in this area.

      • So that means the best way for a men’s only space to survive is to remain in obscurity by setting a limit on the number of men in any particular male space before setting up a new groups as well making it as unprestigious as possible. And networked through the internet as well as being decentralized.

        Actually the androsphere is pretty much very hard to shut down by the government due to its decentralised nature as well as the decentralised nature of the internet for now. Therefore to preserve male spaces is to also having to oppose the centralization of the internet.

  2. I must admit I was really surprised to find and read that article. I had to re-read it once again for the message to sink in: that the gov’t can tell a private organization who it can and cannot admit to its ranks so long as the eligible applicant are a sufficiently large demographic (ie, one that’s delineated by race or gender).

    A key point though–that this case concerned STATE civil rights law and NOT FEDERAL law. What this means is that this particular brand of egregious gov’t overreach has only the force of law in certain states (California, in this instance). This is why no one was able to sue Augusta to admit women to the golf club–the statutues in Georgia don’t permit this.

    That said, it isn’t hard to envision a future in which the federal gov’t–or an increasing number of states–become more coercive toward private entities…

    As for solutions they are difficult. I think that whatever the solution, in order for it to be effectively implemented and for male-only spaces to maintain their integrity, the guys establishing these spaces have to be red pill guys–full stop. The problem isn’t necessarily that women want to integrate an organization–it’s the changes they demand to accomadate their presence once they enter the organization. Only a red pill guy would know to resist those changes and not give an inch. Eventually, with their demands not having been met, the vast majority of the women would leave and the few remaining ones woould probably not be terribly unpleasant to have around–being fairly masculine themselves most likely. I think having a red pill guy in charge eliminates a great many of these problems because then it doesn’t matter if women are admitted or not—they won’t stick around.

  3. Then there are more gimmicky solutions. For instance, the legislation in California grants the gov’t broad authority to regulated any “business”. But what if the male-only space was also a residence? Or a dorm/university? It may be possible to avoid the gov’t strongarm if the male-only space cannot be classified as a “business”. I’m sure there are other loopholes in CA state law and other states as well that may provide opportunities for these kinds of end-runs.

    But I’m no lawyer.

    • None of that would work since there are anti-discrimination laws dealing specifically with employment and housing.

      What might work is setting up a “monastery”. Religions are exempt from these laws for the most part. (Otherwise atheists could sue the Catholic Church to ordain them priests and other such nonsense.) To pull it off, this thing would have to be a true monastery so a religion would have to be involved in some way.

  4. “None of that would work since there are anti-discrimination laws dealing specifically with employment and housing.”

    Quite right. But as I understand it, those are in place to prevent people from restricting housing or employment opportunities on the basis of race, gender, etc. But if someone sets up a male-only space inside his home, it seems unlikely that would be prohibited by anti-discrimination laws. Even if that home is a three story complex with a bar, weight room, etc.

    Another possible solution is to have gender-only nights at certain spaces. In some large cities, swimming pools are now having all-female swim nights for Muslims and other gender-segregated communities. A male-only space may admit women and comply with exisiting statutues but have male-only nights and female-only nights. Just throwing out ideas.

    Like I said, these are gimmicky solutions at best. The only real solution is having red-pill guys establish these spaces and then hold the line with regards to promoting traditional male interests and viewpoints while stifling the feminine.

  5. Good post on the law, which DOES mean it seems hard for large men’s organizations to develop. I’ll need to look into this to see if there are some bypasses.

    Anyway, the attack on the mostly male “gamer culture” continues apace:

    http://jezebel.com/5938972/a-call-to-arms-for-decent-men

    It isn’t even that I’m against games having more civil rules for everyone (but options to play less civally if you want) its the hatred and propaganda behind the whole thing.
    Oh, and I didn’t know that until *recently* gaming was a land of Unicorns and Roses, when a bunch of meanie misogynist racist ablest cissexists homophobes of the mostly white and male sex/race invaded and started insulting everybody. The rewriting of history here is disgusting and astounding.

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys
Translate »
%d bloggers like this:
Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys