4 ms·

It's only legal and socially acceptable in one direction. If there were a house for men only, in the current bizarre culture in the US, that would be considere

It's only legal and socially acceptable in one direction. If there were a house for men only, in the current bizarre culture in the US, that would be considered misogynist, and Twitter would set about getting the founders fired from their jobs for even attempting it. However, an all female house is considered "progressive" and widely applauded. The argument is that underrepresented groups (e.g. women in tech) should be allowed to discriminate because they are underrepresented. It's a very short-sighted argument, as the inevitable result is in an ever-increasing cycle of backlash and further discrimination on all sides. But Twitter mobs aren't known for their ability to think long-term.

exporectomy 5y ago
Pretty sure the law is symmetric wrt sex/etc. Those human/civil rights laws were written at a time when disadvantaged groups were just gaining political clout and only bold enough to demand equality, not supremacy. Nowadays, it's different, and they're asking for more than equality but the laws are outdated.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  Where on earth is it illegal to choose people you live with any way you like? How would that even work? Housing discrimination law in the US, to my knowledge, apply only when you are not sharing living quarters. The alternative seems unthinkable to me.
MyHypatia 5y ago
Your statement that "it's only legal and socially acceptable in one direction" is factually incorrect. There are hundreds of examples of male-only clubs in the US. Every Free Mason lodge, all Catholic seminaries, golf clubs, the list goes on. For example,just a few weeks ago Pine Valley (the number one golf course in the US) just voted to allow female members for the first time in its 108 year history. They aren't legally obligated to allow female members, as a group they just finally decided to open the club to women. It took them 108 years. If that's allowed, I don't see why this women-only group shouldn't exist. Maybe in 108 years they'll decide to allow men. https://www.golfdigest.com/story/pine-valley-women-members https://www.golfdigest.com/story/pine-valley-women-members

exporectomy 5y ago

Pretty sure the law is symmetric wrt sex/etc. Those human/civil rights laws were written at a time when disadvantaged groups were just gaining political clout and only bold enough to demand equality, not supremacy. Nowadays, it's different, and they're asking for more than equality but the laws are outdated.

perl4ever 5y ago
Where on earth is it illegal to choose people you live with any way you like? How would that even work? Housing discrimination law in the US, to my knowledge, apply only when you are not sharing living quarters. The alternative seems unthinkable to me.

MyHypatia 5y ago

Your statement that "it's only legal and socially acceptable in one direction" is factually incorrect. There are hundreds of examples of male-only clubs in the US. Every Free Mason lodge, all Catholic seminaries, golf clubs, the list goes on. For example,just a few weeks ago Pine Valley (the number one golf course in the US) just voted to allow female members for the first time in its 108 year history. They aren't legally obligated to allow female members, as a group they just finally decided to open the club to women. It took them 108 years. If that's allowed, I don't see why this women-only group shouldn't exist. Maybe in 108 years they'll decide to allow men. https://www.golfdigest.com/story/pine-valley-women-members https://www.golfdigest.com/story/pine-valley-women-members