Men are getting second class treatment, solely because they are men, in some of America's most prestigious hotels: "Women-Only Hotels Heat Up." The Premier Hotel in Times Square is one of several major hotels with "women-only floors." The double "X" chromosome rooms are replete with oversized bathtubs, curling and flat irons, bath salts and loofahs, nail files, a vanity kit, yoga mats and women's magazines (O, Self, Cosmopolitan) -- all at no additional cost.Nice, eh, guys? Women get their own private "no men allowed" floors with rooms that have more amenities than the rooms men are permitted to stay in -- at no additional cost -- just because they are women. In places of public accommodation. Hmm. I wonder how that works from a legal perspective . . . .
"'These women work very hard, and this might be the only time they will get to soak in a big tub and read a magazine,' says Premier marketing director Maureen O'Brien."
Of course men don't work very hard, do they, Ms. O'Brien? And no man in America likes to take a bath, especially in a big tub; nor do we read magazines, especially magazines geared to men. (In the rooms that are not for "women-only," do they have Popular Mechanics, or Maxim or any number of car or men's health magazines? Oh, I would bet a sizable sum of money they don't.)
It gets better: "That doesn't mean safety doesn't play a factor. Most female-only floors have added extra security--usually a key-card door and a female-only staff. 'It's nice to know that you won't have a gentleman walking on the floor, and, if you do, you know he's not supposed to be there,' says O'Brien."
Thank you, Premier Hotel, for stereotyping all men as potential rapists. She might as well have said "it's nice to know that one of them isn't walking on the floor . . . ." You know, one of us sub-humans.
Let's think about this critically. When was a rape last reported in the Premier Hotel? Or any of these other hotels? I suspect . . . never. Even the article concedes that the hotel "wasn't getting too many requests from female solo travelers looking for protection from male guests . . . ." (Which, I would guess, means that the hotel has never received any such requests.) In any event, we're constantly told that the vast majority of rapes are of the acquaintance variety, so isn't it fair to assume that the women who are in the most danger in these hotels are the ones who happen to be staying with -- oh, no! -- a dreaded male? Perhaps that's the real solution here: erect cages in the rooms where women can lock up their men -- you know, while the women enjoy all those free feminine amenities.
I'd like to hear a mother explain to her son why some places are off-limits to men, his daddy included. "Well, Timmy, you see, men can't all be trusted around women, and people like your sister, Susie, and I need to be protected from them." Wow! I mean, do we care at all what message we send to our sons? Or our daughters? Or do we delude ourselves into thinking that maybe they won't notice things like this?
If you're not convinced that this apartheid for women is unnecessary, unfair to the vast majority of men who would never harm a woman, and a step in precisely the wrong direction for women after all the progress they've made kicking down gender barriers, then ask yourself this: how far must society go to placate the members of one group who harbor fears -- irrational though they may be -- about another group? Suppose, for example, that whites insisted on "whites-only" floors in hotels for security reasons -- since we're constantly told that blacks commit more crimes than whites on a per capita basis. What do you imagine the reaction to that would be? Or suppose women wanted to ban Mexican housekeeping personnel from their "women-only" floors -- due to fears that Mexicans supposedly steal more than whites. Wouldn't it be nice to know that "one of them" isn't walking on the floor?
Ridiculous you say? Unfair? Of course it is. And wholly unAmerican, too. It attributes to individuals the worst traits of the class he or she was born into; it's the worst kind of bigotry.
But it's no more ridiculous, no more unfair, and no more unAmerican than segregating the genders in a place of public accommodation due to exaggerated -- and, yes, dare I say it, irrational -- feelings of insecurity. One group's irrationality should never trump another group's right to equal access -- even if the former are women and the latter are men.
And, seriously, what other group in America, aside from males, would tolerate being unfairly stereotyped in this manner with hardly a complaint? For now it's relatively isolated things like hotel rooms, but many cities of the world already have women-only buses and train cars. Maybe that's what's needed to wake up those chivalrous men who have no problem with women-only segregation: just wait to see their reactions when they are forced to stand at a freezing bus stop for twenty minutes while two or three women-only buses stop to pick up the -- ah -- more deserving passengers.
Perhaps such segregation is needed in some cultures, I don't know. I do know that in this country, it is an hysterical overreaction based on irrational fears, and that it manages to accomplish the seemingly impossible by slandering two genders at once -- it unfairly says that men can't be trusted around women, and that women are defenseless and need to be protected from men. Mainstream feminism doesn't like these segregation attempts, either, precisely because they tend to reverse the gains women have fought to achieve tearing down these very barriers.
For those less progressive women who just want to keep the menfolk at bay, be careful what you wish for, because you can't have it both ways. Sometime, somewhere, some men are going to decide to exclude you from some place or event, like they used to, based on rationales every bit as hysterical or silly or irrational as the ones posited by these hotels. We all know how you'll react to that. And rightly so.
25 comments:
Well, I think that a gay floor would be simply FABULOUS!
So now we've got a gay floor, and a women's floor -- and I'm sure certain religions need to have a floor, too. Where does it end? And whatever happened to the notion that America is a big melting pot?
I've said it at Glenn's site and i'll say it here. I know you Americans dont like the word, but fact is that men are the new n***ers, it's that simple. Men of all colors now occupy the cultural and political spaces that once belonged to black people. It would be interesting to know who poses a greater risk- a white man to a black man or vice versa, and if the latter couldn't racists use that as a "justification" for racially segregated floors? That wouldn't- and shouldn't- be tolerated, yet this is. Like i said, the new n***rs.
Great post!! I just made a post talking about this same kind of Female Supremacy in my post "Flight 1549 - Women Get Life Rafts, Men Get The Shaft - Part 2" on the FWO blog. This is another every day real life example of the very thing that I wrote about.
--FWO
Just go ask for a men's only floor then.
I mean, from the sound of the lectures I get (Beware of men, they could get you pregnant, all they want you for is sex) then it would seem to make sense that they should be kept away in case-- they get me pregnant!!
Now...am I allowed to bring a guy up with me to my room? Because that'd be super awesome.
Just a thought.
-Agent Ska-
How do these guys get around the "no discrimination in public accommodations" part of Title II of the Civil Rights Act?
That's what I'd like to know.
what really pisses me off about this kind of garbage. is that just a few years ago women were filing lawsuits, demanding access to the mens locker room. any man who said women didn't belong there, were accused of being sexist. how many times have you read a story about parents suing so there daughter could play on the boys sports team. women are masters at demanding respect, but are completely incapable of showing respect.
While I think their public reasoning that women want to feel safe and all that is bull, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that more than likely the hotel is actually losing market share and sees its main contribution to guest rooms coming from male business travelers, so they hatched this little package to attempt to draw in more female guests at a time when bookings are slipping all around.
If they're simply doing this to try and gain market share, good try. I hope it works, but honestly, it seems pretty ridiculous to justify it by saying that women need/deserve some sort of extra treatment that meant don't.
Eric, I agree. Not only is it ridiculous, what the hell message is it sending to our children that men are to be feared? That's just not right.
i think it's stupid and silly and aggravating and more. tho i think eric's on to what might be the real reason behind this dumb idea.
me? i say oversized bathtubs with bath salts and loofahs for all!
now, i will admit that i have been in a few hotel rooms over the years and did get nervous but that's just me. i'm not a traveler and new surroundings make me nervous if i'm on my own BUT security locks should be for EVERYONE.
now, back to those oversized tubs... ; )
"women are masters at demanding respect, but are completely incapable of showing respect."
no, not all women. blanket statements about almost any group simply don't apply. and they tend to jusy make the people that should get the point of the issue turn a deaf ear and that helps no one learn. : )
Kaveman said: ". . . just a few years ago women were filing lawsuits, demanding access to the mens locker room. any man who said women didn't belong there, were accused of being sexist. how many times have you read a story about parents suing so there daughter could play on the boys sports team."
Absolutely correct. I don't want to deny women any opportunity, but a lot of boys have a difficult time playing contact sports against girls. Boys are taught not to hit girls, and then they are supposed to hit them hard in a game. And that's not conflicting for boys? And then they reach a certain age and they're supposed to wrestle girls -- some girl grabbing a boy's crotch in a wrestling move -- come on! Women must realize that's bound to cause a physical reaction, why do they want their sons put in that situation? But, again, if the kid expresses discomfort about that, he's viewed as sexist. So, yes, sometimes there are good reasons to separate the sexes. I see no evidence that hotels present a good reason.
I'm like Sherry -- I once was at a hotel for an hour before I checked out. Too creepy. Something not right about it. I do get the idea that some women think that men are more immune from the evildoers than they really are. Maybe those of us who played football in college, but the rest of us? I don't think so. The crime stats tell us we're more at risk to assault and other violent crimes than women.
As a black man whose father was told to leave a restaurant because some (white) women complained about him (and there are many other stories) and who knows that everybody blames black men for everything, I can not go along with any thing that keeps me out of any place. This hotel decision was directed at black men I am certain.
Charles, you said it, I didn’t. But I fear you are correct. These women-only efforts hide behind a blanket policy of keeping all men out, but I think we know who they are really afraid of. These efforts pander to our society’s worst racial fears.
You might be happy to know that these women-only policies are frowned upon by feminists. Jessica Valenti, who runs the biggest feminist blog in America, has written, quite astutely, that these things are a step back for women who have worked hard to break down gender barriers – now they’re saying they need to be protected from men? You’re a female CEO in a “man’s world,” but you need to extra security so the men won’t hurt you. Won’t fly. I agree with that blogger – go after the bad men and don’t be confining women to little corners of the world.
OK, so blacks don’t like it; feminists don’t like it; lots of men don’t like the idea of it . . . who’s left?
Charles,
Black women are benefiting, too, from this “deionization” of ALL men. This hotel policy is all about Female Supremacy, NOT White Supremacy… It's all about "Girl Power" NOT about "White Power".
--FWO
great analogy judge....
discrimination, is discrimination, regardless of the sex, color, religion, or social caste of the individual being discriminated against
OK, let's get serious about the purpose of this piece.
A fellow that I know who runs a giant father's rights Web site in California (he's a fan of Carbolic Smoke Ball) recently wrote about the folks from the "men have everything how dare they complain?" school: "My own view is that both genders have advantages and disadvantages, but while we're all very much aware of the disadvantages and problems women face, the disadvantages and problems men (and particularly fathers) face are largely ignored."
I can say this: most people would be amazed how men are treated as second-class citizens in family law court. I've even heard that from female attorneys.
As for this piece, the only rational criticism to what I have written will be from people -- mostly men -- who say this hotel policy isn't so bad; men are not inconvenienced by this. Men are not historically oppressed so who cares about minor instances of it?
Of course it isn't so bad. White men have never faced oppression along the order of black men. This is a blip on the oppression continuum. I would have to be insane not to know that (but I can tell by some of the comments I’ve received that it’s far from clear that some people realize I know that).
But of course that is sidetracking us from the point of the piece. I fear I have struck out in not driving this point home better. The point is to highlight with this little, tiny example -- albeit in a somewhat overblown and shrill manner – a disturbing trend that most chivalrous white men don't realize is happening, and some actually foment: it is at least a mild suspicion of men as a class as some sort of potential sexual predators.
Men have always been viewed as "wanting it" more than women, but in the past decade or slightly more, there has erupted a moderately hysterical undercurrent in our culture that regards men as not just oversexed, but as possibly criminally oversexed. This is new to our culture. Most men are not affected by it at all, but talk to teachers and priests (I have) -- they notice it. They have been affected by it. (And no, I won't print comments from people who suggest that pedophilia is rampant in the church -- it was a problem among a tiny group, and too many at the top ignored it, much to the Church's great shame.)
I have my theory as to why this hysteria has erupted. The news media feeds and survives on fear and isolated incidents of pedophilia are highlighted, underscored and exaggerated to keep and gain audience.
Society views male sexuality as something that needs to be kept in check, and there has been a discernible crackdown in the past few years on the criminal front. The addictive power of the Internet has created a new class of male sexual criminals (men are visual creatures). Much of the crackdown is good. But, let us be honest, some of it is overkill. We now have same-age teens, and teens only a couple of years apart, who had consensual sex -- but only the boy is charged and convicted of statutory rape. A lot of these teens end up on sexual offender lists – their lives possibly destroyed forever because they were doing what teens have done since Adam and Eve. They are not the reason those lists were invented, but they are nabbed by this overkill of zero tolerance. And, yes, even though the law is gender neutral, prosecutors often selectively prosecute only boys for this – they are deemed "rapists" while the same-age girls are "victims." (A Massachusetts appellate court recently signaled it won’t tolerate treating teen sexual participants different based on gender.)
And, of course, we have television shows where alleged child predators are nabbed for the enjoyment of Americans coast-to-coast. It is no exaggeration to assert that Americans plop themselves in front of their TVs with a bowl of popcorn in order to chortle at these terrified criminals. This is in no manner a defense of their crimes, but wouldn’t it be a nice balance to have a reality show reflective of the far more common average American male, doing what a lot of average men do – helping people in some way or other? Fixing the elderly neighbor’s roof, or driving halfway across the country because a daughter in college is having a tough time? Instead fathers at stores with crying little children are looked upon by strangers as possible criminals.
Yes, yes, yes, it's important to be cautious. But it's also imperative to maintain balance -- between caution and unreasonably restricting people’s rights or treating them differently based on a stereotype merely because of the class they were born into. And, no, the whiny plea "but it's to protect the children" doesn't cut it. Now or ever. Because if that were so, then keep the kids away from mom, too -- most child abuse is committed by women.
See, what I am talking about is hysteria, and overkill, and the need for balance. Some people are OK with overkill (they may have been OK with how we treated Japanese Americans during World War II, too, for all I know). And someday, the overkill may bite those same people in the ass.
This hysteria most vividly rears its ugly head in giving men serious pause about, and in some cases it actually dissuades men from, teaching. We are depriving children of male role models in schools because we allow men who want to teach to be regarded with suspicion. Men are staying away from the profession in droves, in part because of this fear of being falsely accused. See this great piece from a couple of weeks ago on restoring common sense when it comes to how we should treat men around children: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1126409/How-hysterical-mothers-driven-men-teaching.html
A couple of airlines have policies that they don't publicize that forbid male passengers – any male passenger, including President Obama and the Dali Lama -- from sitting next to an unaccompanied child passenger. In one well-publicized case an old man traveling with his elderly wife was moved away from a kid. Like the hotel floor, certainly this is not the most oppressive thing in the world. But it's stereotyping all men based on irrationally assuming that since some do bad things, we all could do it. It's the kind of prejudice that is routinely condemned when applied to any other group. When every man is regarded as a potential predator, what the hell are we telling our sons and daughters about men?
The suspicion of men with children spreads to men with women. People who ought to know better use phony stats to claim that one-in-four college women -- or in one-in-four freshman college women -- or one-in-four freshman college women before Thanksgiving (I’ve seen all of these and more) have been sexually assaulted. Did you get that? Our colleges would be more dangerous than Baghdad on a bad day if that were true. The fact that this stat is repeated with cult-like repetition at colleges across America ought to be seen as a sort of Rorschach inkblot of a culture in the grip of serious fear mongering about rape. To illustrate the absurdity of this, by way of example only, in 2006, University of Pittsburgh Campus Police received one report of sexual assault -- from a campus of roughly 18,000 young women. One. If the one-in-four statistic is correct, that is under-reporting of Biblical proportions. Chad Hermann blew the lid off this hysteria with this great piece:
http://pghmenbloggers.blogspot.com/2008/02/lies-damned-lies-and-statistics-on-rape.html This kind of thing vilifies an entire gender, yet colleges have sexual assault orientations that regard men as a class as rampant sexual assaulters. And the guys have to sit there and listen about what an evil gender they were born into. Again, I suspect the chivalrous men among us are OK with this nonsense.
These hotel floors play into this hysteria – the same as the women-only buses and train cars. And the gym at Harvard with women-only hours. And the policy some people have of never hiring a teen male baby sitter.
So, no, the policy about the hotel floor in itself is not a big deal. As noted in the piece, it's isolated. But it's part of a trend that ought to be considered a big deal and that is not nearly so isolated -- that regards men as questionable caregivers for children and as potential dangers for women.
"And, of course, we have television shows where alleged child predators are nabbed for the enjoyment of Americans coast-to-coast. "
i have NEVER understood this show.
i did the first time. it was a real eye opener but now, you are spot on, it's become a twisted sort of entertainment and any social warning, any point at all really, is lost. it makes me queasy.
as to the rest of your comment. yeas. i do agree and i understood your point when i read the original post.
sad too, that when a child needs a hug or even just a little one on one conversation with an adult that we(and this goes for women too. it really does)can't be as spontanious as we would normally be.
i was raised seeing my grandparents every day of my life and being italian , we hugged and kissed and touched people when we talked. i hae to be careful of that now. that's sad.
I couldn't agree more, Sherry. And yes, it's also a problem for women.
What do Captain Chesley Sullenberger (the hero US Airways pilot), Albert Schweitzer, the firemen who gave their lives rescuing people from the World Trade Center, and the young Allied soldiers who stormed the beach at Normandy have in common? If they were seated next to an unaccompanied child on a British Airways flight, they would have to move. They are all men, and that has been the airline's policy since 2001. At least one other airline has the same policy.
How did this hysteria start?
Well, certainly I think that some of our institutions (the Catholic Church, sadly is one of them) have let us down by allowing a handful of sexual predators to prey on children, but for as terrible as that was, one would think that the majority of priests were child molesters. I mainly blame the electronic media for blowing all of this way out of proportion -- by focusing on it so intensely, so relentless and with such an absence of balance. The handful of bad priests were a drop in the bucket compared to the many who serve people in countless ways every day, that we never hear about.
Men who play Santa Claus are now taught how NOT to interact with children. Teachers of both genders are wary about being alone with a child. Police officers make sure they have the video recorder when they pull over young women on a deserted street.
The hysteria, the overkill needs to stop. We should not be looking at our child caregivers with suspicion unless suspicion is warranted. We do our children a disservice when we teach them that men (and women) are to be treated as criminals.
Simple solution is men boycott this hotel chain and make a big deal of it to newspapers, travel mags and "Mens" mags, ect.
Truth is, all this outrage has no effect of any kind.
Blog about it all you want but until it's on Good Morning America or Al Sharpton shows up with his bull horn, nobody really cares to do anything about it.
Gunn,
Good Morning America is not about to talk about Female Supremacy any time soon (they were the ones who helped perpetuate the MYTH OF SUPERBOWL SUNDAY).
Most American women say that they only support the “Girl Power” aspects of the hate speech that Feminists/Female Supremacists preach, not the actual man-hating… Most American Women, and most American men outside of the MRA/MGTOW movement buy into the “Girl Power” myths. The huge problem with the mentality of most American Women, and even the mentality of most American men (outside of the MRA/MGTOW movement) is that they think only radical Feminist/Female Supremacy leaders are the problem. However, if someone were to belong to the KKK, and say that they only support the “White Power” aspect of the KKK (but not hatred of black people), they would still, rightfully so, be called out for their bigotry. If someone were belong to the Aryan Nation, but say the only support “Aryan Power” (but not the hatred of Jews) aspect of the organization they too would still, rightfully so, be called out for their bigotry. That’s why I’m calling out and rebuking American/Western women for their support of Feminism/Female Supremacy, and I challenge all men to do the same. I have no faith that American women will ever do it, and don’t ask them to do it, because most are anti-American cowards who will never stand up against evil as long as they reap the benefits of it.
So for now, it's up to bloggers to raise awareness, and educate one man at a time until more men are willing to bust out of the Fem-Matrix.
--FWO
If security is compromised, then the "evil doers" have an entire floor of women to themselves. It would seem to me that in a life-threatening situation, a floor with men scattered about would offer a greater chance of survival.
Modern Women probably want an entire orgy floor with a few criminal Bad Boys anyway. We know they don't want decent, honorable Men.
OOOOOOkay...
interesting.
James, my wife wanted a decent, honorable man.
ah judge, you left yourself wide open with that but you are so nice i won't tease. : )
Post a Comment