These men's rights activists are using a 1950s law to shut down women in Tech (Yahoo! News)

v573v · 2015-09-03T03:10:13+00:00

[permanently deleted]

KonigInPreussen · 2015-09-03T04:15:46+00:00

Burns turned them away at the door, saying the event “was only open to women.”

“I was completely confused,” she [Burns] said. “Chic CEO does not discriminate against men.”

lunatictumor · 2015-09-03T03:40:29+00:00

It says they are looking into having the law changed so it can't be used against them anymore.

Let's write other groups we don't like out of it as well. What other classes of people should we back pedal on their rights too?

wisty · 2015-09-03T03:43:32+00:00

The surprising thing is how old that law is. It makes it look like the characters from "Mad Men" voted for equality in California.

Wait, Mad Men was set in the 60s, not 50s. So it's the older, more traditional characters in Mad Men who would have voted for that law.

Deansdale · 2015-09-03T11:24:14+00:00

These men's rights activists are using a 1950s law to shut down women in tech

They talk about the law against discrimination based on sex like it was some stupid relic of the 50's ready to be dismantled. So it's okay now to discriminate based on sex, or is it just okay when women do it against men?

bertreapot · 2015-09-03T10:53:18+00:00

Roxanne Pepe, a friend who attended Hoffman’s events in the past but was not present for the San Diego gathering, received a call she describes as “threatening” from Rava at her home, asking her to give a deposition for the case.

Any communication from a man to a woman that she doesn't like will be described by feminists as "threatening."

She was later served with a subpoena at her home on the morning of Super Bowl Sunday.

Guess what, if you get asked to testify for a deposition and you don't respond, you'll get subpoenaed. It's not some evil male power rape substitution, that's how the law works.

Tmomp · 2015-09-03T12:15:00+00:00

A variety of groups ... began popping up in the 1970s as a rebuke to feminism

To rebuke feminism? How about to promote equality!

Now let's look at the law:

a 1959 California law written to prevent discrimination against minorities and women

Was that its goal? Let's read the law:

The 56-year-old state law ensures that all Californians are “free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”

That's gender-neutral, race-neutral, everything-neutral. The law is to promote equality and prevent discrimination period. Equality isn't only for women.

What's wrong with preventing discrimination against men? What else do you call not letting us in the door while women enter freely?

enjoycarrots · 2015-09-03T15:58:42+00:00

I don't have a problem with groups like Chic CEO existing, unless they are leeching public funds in the process. But this case wasn't about attacking their existence. It's about ending some of the discriminatory practices they engaged in. I can't say I personally care much whether or not they hold a lady's only event, either, but it's ironic that a gender neutral equality law suddenly becomes inadequate when it means you can't exclude men.

The NCFM rebuttal to the aspersions cast in this article is worth a read.

Burns says, the “men came uninvited, we were already over capacity, and I got that weird feeling in my stomach. So, I turned them away.”

The men reserved spots at the event by prepaying in advance and received a confirmation email from Ms. Burns (see email receipt directly below). Ms. Burns knew the men were coming, she was “looking forward to seeing” them at the event, not only had they prepaid, their names were on the guest list. The men were clearly invited (see the next email below from Ms. Burns).

The event was not overcapacity. Women were entering while the men were there. There are pictures of one of the men standing at the entrance as other woman were preparing to enter the event. One of the men while talking with and being turned away by Ms. Burns watched another woman enter the event, two other women were in line behind him while another women signed something at the check-in table. The two other men watched two women enter the event while talking with and being turned away by Ms. Burns.

It's clear from her own statements that she turned them away because she didn't like the way they looked. She was trying to protect the women at the conference from the men who gave her a creepy feeling. Then she refused to refund their admission fee.

Legal issues aside, maybe somebody here can clarify a point? It may be in the articles but my reading missed it. Were the men attending the conference for the purpose of testing their tolerance for men? Or were they otherwise just interested in the conference, and only became interested in the legal issue after being turned away?

wanderer779 · 2015-09-03T13:59:11+00:00

wow, the hypocrisy with these people is astounding.

FastFourierTerraform · 2015-09-03T19:43:25+00:00

“That was the most ironic moment of my life,” she told Yahoo News. “I was just explaining how it’s important that men are on our side.”

Ah, yes, we've heard all about that from Emma Watson. How magnanimous of her to insist how important it is for men to support your female-exclusive venture.

Title	These men's rights activists are using a 1950s law to shut down women in Tech (Yahoo! News)
Author	eaton80
Upvotes	25
Comments	22
Date	September 3, 2015 1:30 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3jfond/these_mens_rights_activists_are_using_a_1950s_law/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/these-mens-rights-activists-are-using-a-1950s-law.972100 https://theredarchive.com/post/972100

Comments