Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    The difference is whether the purpose of the club is for private
    entertainment or for some public or professional service. My beliefs
    are:
    
    o In your own home, you may be as exclusive as you wish. You can
    invite anybody you like to your parties, and exclude anyone you
    like, regardless of race, sex, age, physical appearance, IQ, eye
    color, etc.
    
    o Private social clubs - *small* private social clubs - seem to
    me the next step up from this. If you and several of your friends
    decide to meet at a club instead of in somebody's house, I'd think
    you ought to have the same privileges of including or excluding
    whoever you like.

    o Once a club becomes large enough that the members do not all know
    each other and are not friends, or (as was mentioned in a news report
    the other day) when a club becomes commercial, as in commonly serving
    meals, business lunches, etc. to guests of members, then I feel that
    excluding people due to sex, race, etc. becomes highly questionable. 
    
    I freely admit that it can be difficult to draw the line. I also
    admit that I'm rather fond of the image of the oak-panelled old
    Victorian men's clubs, and it wouldn't particularly bother me to
    have a Victorian womens' club to belong to. But I'd want such clubs
    to have strict rules *against* negotiating business deals on the
    premises!
    
    (Side note: It occurs to me that there is a category of exclusive
    organization that doesn't seem to be as controversial as the
    male/female or race/race clubs: the "novelty" groups. There's the Jim
    Smiths, I believe, open to anyone whose name is Jim Smith. And clubs
    for redheads, obviously discriminatory to blondes. Do these bother me?
    Nope. Why? Because these are just for fun, in which case anybody who's
    excluded can go start their own club!) 
    
    -b

    
    I believe they are totally within their rights to have private
    clubs. Private clubs are just that private, they offer a member
    some escape from the hub bub of the world. What right do you have
    to infringe on someone else's privacy, as to stipulate what goes
    on with an organization ? Do you see men crying about not being able
    to join women's organizations ? No !! What goes on behind those closed
    doors has no effect nor bearing on your life. 
    
    So why are some women so insistent on affecting a group of men right
    to privacy ? does your privilege to know about things outweight
    anothers right to privacy ? I doubt it.  So aside from making a name 
    for herself and trying to put another notch in the feminist war against
    men why is this woman fighting to get in a mens club ? What real
    purpose does it serve ?

                                  Bob B

    re .2   I agree. You can't mix the sexes on everything.
    
            Maybe one reason why women want to get into men's clubs
            is to meet men.  Also to share the resources in such clubs
            that might not be available elsewhere.
    
            Still, such desires to intrude Men's clubs are just that
            -- intrusions. God knows we don't have enough of our "own
            space" already. The laws that have forced "fairness" are
            ludicrous.  Women can't leave us alone.
    
            As Men we can form our own clubs. We just have to watch
            out for those people who want to be troublemakers. They
            often stoop so low as to "force entry" by getting the leg-
            islators involved. When communication fails run to the law-
            makers. Run to the lawmakers. Run to the lawmakers.
    
            Of course I am just talking out of my teeth again for no
            group of people has ever done that to men. 
    
    
                                                     Russ

    Re .3: "to meet men" - well, it isn't a reason *I'd* do such a thing.
    "To share the resources in such clubs that might not be available
    elsewhere" - now *that* certainly qualifies. Even so, if it truly is a
    private club, demanding to share the resources is like demanding to use
    a neighbor's swimming pool; it's nice if they offer, but you have no
    right to demand it.
    
    If it *isn't* really a private club, that's different. So, before this
    goes any further, could you please define what you mean by "private
    club"? I tried to do so in .1, because that's where I see the problem
    occurring. Very few people (that I know of) want to force their way
    into somebody's truly private social gatherings. 
    
    So. Is there an upper limit on the number of members in a private
    club? "I'm going to have dinner with 10,000 of my most intimate
    friends..." Is there a limit on the purposes such clubs could have?
    "All the stockbrokers in my company have a little club that we attend;
    it's for men only, of course, but we do discuss most of our business
    there." Is there a limit on the sources of funding for such clubs?
    "We demand that the government subsidize our attempts to keep from
    having to associate with <name your favorite group>."

    Please define your terms...
    
    -b

	I don't think that size has anything to do with it (see .1).

	It has to do with excluding someone from opportunities not provided
	elsewhere, especially when there are business concerns involved.

	Examples:

	All-male chess club, which contains elite players (read: best in area/
	country/world) who play almost exclusively at the club. Women players
	(assuming there was not a separate women's division in chess) would
	be being discriminated against since they would not have the same
	opportunity to play against the best, and to learn and improve from
	that experience.

	All-male Harvard B School grad club. Women would be restricted in their
	networking/making and maintaining of business contacts by their absence
	at the club and its gatherings.

	Just another man's opinion.

	Eric

    
    At first I didn't see anything wrong with exclusive clubs. But
    the more I think about it the more worried I become.  Carried to
    the extreme I worry about society becoming more fragmented with
    less social interaction and possibly as a result less tolerance
    of one another. So I guess I'd like to see everyone have an
    equal opportunity to join whatever clubs or organizations
    that may interest them. 

    re .3   I agree. You can't mix the races on everything.
            
            Maybe one reason why blacks want to get into white's clubs
            is to meet whites. Also to share the resources in such clubs
            thatn might not be available elsewhere.
            
            Still, such desires to intrude White's clubs are just that
            -- intrusions. God knows we don't have enough of our "own
            space" already. They laws that have forced "fairness" are
            ludicrous. Blacks can't leave us alone.
            
            As Whites we can form our own clubs. We just have to watch
            out for those people who want to be troublemakers. They
            often stoop sol low as to "force entry" by getting the leg-
            islators involved. When communication fails run to the law-
            makers. Run to the lawmakers. Run to the lawmakers.
            
            Of course I am just talking out of my teeth again for no
            group of people has ever done that to whites.
    
    Let's keep those women in their places, at home, barefoot, and
    pregnant. Damn uppity women, don't know their place.
    
    	-- Charles

        re .7   Considering that you embrace the ideological foundations
              of radical feminism, I can't imagine any 'male' spaces
              that your focused group won't be able to intrude.
    
    
      Russ_who_knows_a_poor_excuse_for_an_analogy_when_he_sees_one,_or
    
      let's_have_unisex-bathrooms_haircuts, boy-girl-scouts, locker-rooms
     
      shared_Kingsize-for-sis+brother_bed,_Tort_laws_WITCH_ads_sexism
    
      in_DEC,_pests_for_librarians,_words_put_in_other's_mouth's,_no
    
      *real* feminists_say_"you're_right"_,NOW_controling_Media's_
    
      'Women's_Issues"_,Mary_Daly_sez-so_DO_,'Child_vs_Childfree"_
    
      Abortion_cause_my_career_over_his_wish,Afirmative action_legis-
    
      lated_for_all_Corp_ladder_positions_since_MCP's_are_MCP's,Goddess
    
      over Jesus,Earings_and_make-up_for_men,and,and....................

    
    uh oh, you guys with the earings... you might want to do
    a gender sanity check...-;
                                                      
    Hey Mr T, what's that in your ear there, big guy? 

    Re: .8
    
    Excuse me Russ, I claim to be a "radical feminist". You clearly have
    chosen to let some other self proclaimed radical feminists define what
    *you* mean by the term. I choose to stick to a strict constructionist
    definition. Feminsim, according to the dictionary I keep on my desk is
    "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the
    sexes". I realize that you have chosen, for your own purposes, to use a
    different definition, but this is the one I, and the majority of self
    proclaimed feminists that I know use. I claim to be radical because I
    actually act based on my beliefs, and try to convince others of their
    correctness. I understand that not everyone believes that that is what
    makes a radical, but if you can define "feminist" to be "man hater", I
    can define radical to be activist. You of course are free to disagree
    with my definition of myself, but please don't use *your* definition to
    define what *I* believe. 
    
    By the way, I don't believe you'd know an analogy if it came up
    and bit you. (Apologies to Frank Zappa). What I posted was not an
    analogy, it was a satire.
    
    As for your list:
    
    	Unisex Bathrooms    
    	Unisex Haircuts
    	Boy-Girl-Scouts
    	Shared Locker Rooms
    	Kingsize beds for brothers and sisters
    	Tort laws (equal rights laws)
    	WITCH ads
    	Sexism in DEC
    	Pests for librarians
    	Words put in other's mouths
    	No *real* feminsts agree with me
    	NOW controlling media's "Women's Issues"
    	Mary Daly sez, so do
    	Child[less] vs Childfree
    	Abortion because my career is more important that his wish
    	Affirmative action applied to the entire corporate ladder
    	Goddess over Jesus
    	Earrings and make up for men
    	and, and ...
    
    It seems to be a tactic of yours to mix lots of appeals to emotion
    with hyperbole and a small amount of substance. I'm going to reply
    to the substance, and ignore what I think is hyperbole. If you feel
    I've left anything out that deserves a reply, please let me know
    and I'll get back to it.
        	
    Unisex Bathrooms
    
        This is a straw man argument, and has been dealt with adequately
        before.
        
    Unisex Haircuts
        
        I support the idea that men and women should be allowed to wear
        their hair however they like. I personally wear my hair straight,
        in a ponyt tail, and approximately waist length. A very good
        friend of mine wears her hair approximately one inch long. You
        have a problem with this?
    	
    Boy-Girl-Scouts
        
        I don't have any fundamental objection to this. Do you?
    	
    Shared Locker Rooms
        
        You wish. Another straw man.
    	
    Kingsize beds for brothers and sisters
        
        Some brothers and sisters aren't rich enough to have even a
        king sized bed to share. They make do with a cot. What's your
        problem? Or do you automatically assume that they would have
        sex with each other? What does that say about *you*?
    	
    Tort laws (equal rights laws)
        
        Fine idea.
    	
    WITCH ads
        
        Equal time, I'm all for it.
    	
    Sexism in DEC
        
        I hate it. I'll fight it wherever I see it. How about you?
    	
    Pests for librarians
        
        Hello? How did this sneak in here?
    	
    Words put in other's mouths
        
        "Aggravatin' ain't it." [anyone wanting the full text of the
        joke to which this is the puchline, let me know. I should warn
        you, it's dirty... it has to do with being put in the same
        situation you put others in.]
    	
    No *real* feminsts agree with you
        
        Hello? Who set Russ Pollitz up as the "Feminist Purity Board"?
    	
    NOW controlling media's "Women's Issues"
        
        Straw man. Cite evidence please.
    	
    Mary Daly sez, so do
        
        Hello? I haven't the slightest idea *what* Mary Daly has to
        say about this argument, so it seems hardly relevant.
    	
    Child[less] vs Childfree
        
        Ahhh... I begin to see what you're driving at. Being Childfree
        is evil? Sounds suspiciously like "barefoot and pregnant" to
        me... What's wrong with choosing not to have children? Next
        thing you know he'll be wanting to outlaw birth control...
    	
    Abortion because my career is more important that his wish
        
        Damn right, except I'd say "my right to control my body is more
        important than his wish for me to have a baby". I'm afraid we'll
        just have to agree to disagree about this one, the abortion
        issue has lots of other topics devoted to it, I propose we don't
        clutter this one further with abortion arguments.
        
    Affirmative action applied to the entire corporate ladder
        
        What's the problem? I prefer to say promotion on merit not on
        race, creed, color, sex, national origin, or sexual preference.
        But if you want to lump that all under "affirmative action"
        that's ok with me. Do you favor allowing discrimination in hiring
        or promotion based on sex?
    	
    Goddess over Jesus
        
        Goddess as well as Jesus and Allah and Ahura-Mazda and Ra
        and Adonai and I don't know and none of the above. I support
        your right believe "Jesus over The Goddess" just as firmly as
        I insist you allow others to believe "The Goddess over Jesus".
    	
    Earrings and make up for men
        
        Yes, I wear an earring, and sometimes I wear make up. Does this
        threaten you in some way?
    	
    and, and ...
        
        and! and!
    
    "But to have a full kit of auditory patterns curved to real emotions we
    do need to listen. We need to listen, with inside matching on our own
    part, to those whose phrases match their inner state. We are lucky if
    we listen less to lecturers and experts, more to farmers, mechanics,
    truck drivers ... laundresses, and children out of school." 
    
    	-- Sidney Cox "Indirections"
    
    "He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that."
    
    	-- John Stuart Mill "On Liberty"
    
    Despite all this, I don't believe that Russ has replied to my implied
    criticism of his earlier note. In what way are all-male clubs different
    from all-white clubs? I respect the right of people to free association
    but I agree with the trend of recent rulings to say that when a
    club becomes more than a social institution, and begins to confer
    political, legal, or financial advantages to its members then civil
    rights statutes apply.
        
        -- Charles

    Re: .10
    
    Thank you, Charles.  We needed that.
    
    				Steve

re: .10 <OPHION::HAYNES >
>    Boy-Girl-Scouts
        
.10>        I don't have any fundamental objection to this. Do you?
    	
Not as long as the girls stay in their organizations.  And the same applies to
Scout leaders.. what kind of role model is a woman for teenaged boys?  None.

>    Affirmative action applied to the entire corporate ladder
        
.10>        What's the problem? I prefer to say promotion on merit not on
.10>        race, creed, color, sex, national origin, or sexual preference.
.10>        But if you want to lump that all under "affirmative action"
.10>        that's ok with me. Do you favor allowing discrimination in hiring
.10>        or promotion based on sex?
    	
There already are instances of hirings and promotions based on race, creed,
color, sex & national origin, with very little to do with merit.  This will be
the downfall of our nation.  Giving away the store is not the way to gain more
customers.

"Sexual preference" is a bogus term.

>    Earrings and make up for men
        
.10>        Yes, I wear an earring, and sometimes I wear make up. Does this
.10>        threaten you in some way?
    	
Threatened is not the term.  Try disgusted.

Private clubs are just that: Private.  If a man chooses to socialize with his
own kind (read those with whom he identifies) then leave him alone.  He will be
more apt to get along with those who would desire to interfere with his right
to privacy.

Kip

    
    ref .4
    
    From what I remember from a Boston Globe article yesterday, a 
    "Private Club" in Mass. is defined as follows:
    
    1) Less than 100 members
    
    2) No accomidations for regular meals
    
    3) No meeting rooms, etc. available for hire by outside groups
    
    4) Most membership fees not paid by corporations
    
    Any club that does not meet the above MAY be covered under the new
    law. At the present, liquor licenses are being granted to clubs
    that do not follow the above, provisional to (or maybe just "pending?")
    a case being heard in the Supreme Court.
    
    The legal theory being argued is that any time an organization makes it's
    accomidations available to the public for profit, it comes under the 
    antidiscrimination laws.
    
    Ed E.

> what kind of role model is a woman for teenaged boys?  None.
    
    Right. Boys should be taken away from their mothers as soon as they
    enter their teens. They need strong masculine role models lest they
    become contaminated by feminine values and turn out less than the
    masculine ideal they could be. Women are clearly unsuitable as scout
    leaders because they have breasts and lack penises. Clearly some
    women are *physically* capable of everything required of a scout
    "master" but their low testosterone levels mean they are spiritually
    unsuitable.
    
> There already are instances of hirings and promotions based on race, creed,
> color, sex & national origin, with very little to do with merit.

    I personally think that what you say is factually correct, and I
    personally feel that it is bad. Unfortunately I believe that in
    the past there have been grave injustices in this area and that
    affirmative action, while "wrong" in the abstract and the steady
    state is needed to correct the past history of injustice.

    On the other hand, I believe that perpetuating discrimination against
    these groups is completely unacceptable, regardless of the merits
    of giving them preference. Don't you agree?

> This will be the downfall of our nation.  Giving away the store is not
> the way to gain more customers.
    
    I'm glad to see that the Pope isn't the only one infallible when
    speaking on doctrine. Personally I feel that intolerance and an
    obsession with imposing our way of life on others will be the downfall
    of our nation.

> "Sexual preference" is a bogus term.
    
    Wrong.
    
    Now that we've established the high moral tone of this discussion...
    
> Threatened is not the term.  Try disgusted.
    
    [Please picture me sitting here with a tolerant and slightly
    patronizing smile on my face.]
    
    How sad. You must spend a lot of your life being offended and disgusted
    by things you see around you. Do you speak any foreign languages,
    or just english?

> Private clubs are just that: Private.  If a man chooses to socialize with
> his own kind (read those with whom he identifies) then leave him alone. He
> will be more apt to get along with those who would desire to interfere with
> his right to privacy.
    
    As I said, I strongly support people's right to associate freely, this
    is guaranteed by the constitution (The right of peaceful assembly). The
    problem is, that civil rights (equal protection under the law) is also
    guaranteed by the constitution, and I happen to agree with our courts
    balance of free assembly and equal protection. You seem not to, that's
    your right, and your choice, I doubt either of us is going to convince
    the other on this subject.
    
    The "right to privacy" (freedom from unreasonable search and seizure)
    however is being fairly narrowly interpreted. I personally think that
    it's too narrowly interpreted, witness Harwick vs Georgia and the
    potential challenge to Wade vs Roe.
    
    By the way, the courts did NOT find that "separate but equal" was
    inherently unconstitutional, merely that implemetation of it was
    being used to systematically discriminate. The objection was not
    to the theory of "separate but equal" but against the practice of
    "separate and unequal". It was a triumph of pragmatism over theory,
    a concept foreign to strict constructionists like some of the more
    recent Supreme Court nominees.
    
        "It is a fact of history that in every age of transition men
        are never so firmly bound to one way of life as when they are
        about to abandon it, so that fanaticism and intolerance reach
        their most intense forms just before tolerance and mutual
        acceptance come to be the natural order of things."
        
        	-- Bernard Levin "The Pendulum Years"
    
    	-- Charles
                                                     

    I agree that people have a right to form whatever social groups
    they want, inclusive or exclusive of whomever they want.
    
    But only for social groups.  If I am holding a dinner party in my
    home, I can invite or not invite whomever I wish.  However, if I
    essentially open a bar, call it a private club, and deny membership
    to (blacks, women, men, Chicanos, etc.), this is a narrowly disguised
    attempt at discriminating against a certain group.  I believe this
    was tried in the south after the "separate but equal" laws were
    proclaimed illegal and discriminatory.  Just open a bar, call it
    a private club, and only issue memberships to whites.  This way
    you don't have to serve blacks.  This is what much of the so-called
    men's clubs are - an organization that meets for business oriented
    dinners and excludes women.  That is discriminatory.  On the other
    hand, a small group of men who start a club, buy whatever they want to
    have in their clubhouse, and COMPLETELY FUND IT THEMSELVES, are
    well within their rights - not much different than my private dinner
    party analogy.
    
    I think there are several keys here that make the difference.  For
    me to consider it a truly private club, it must be
    
    1) Small.  .14's definition including less than 100 members sounds
    reasonable.
    
    2) Self-supporting.  If a small exclusive group is going to form,
    I don't want to see it funded by the government, a college or
    university, or a corporation(s).
    
    3) Club facilities only available to club members, and possibly
    their guests.
    
    The only difference between this and what .14 posted as printed
    in the Boston Globe is "no accommodations for regular meals".  If
    a small group forms, buys a clubhouse that includes a kitchen, and
    serves their members meals, it could still be a private club.  For
    that matter, my home has accommodations for regular meals.  I maintain
    that I have the right to invite or not invite whomever I choose
    for dinner.
    
    Elizabeth

re: .16
>             -< Small groups=privacy, large groups=discrimination >-

>    1) Small.  .14's definition including less than 100 members sounds
>    reasonable.
    
I can agree with you on all points except this arbitrary number someone has
picked out of the air.  Why should there be a limit on how many members
constitutes a private "club"?

Anyone can use semantics and not refer to their organization as a "club", if
there's a problem with that term.

Simply put, Private is Private.

Kip

    
    ref .17 (100 member criteron):
    
    True. The 100 member limit IS arbitrary. I think the more important
    things are not allowing member's dues to be paid by businesses,
    and/or not allowing meeting rooms and other facilities to be rented
    by outside groups. Also, I thought the legal point 
    that once one invites the public to use the facilities the club
    comes under public accomidation laws, was interesting and might
    have some applications to discussions on property owners' rights
    (in other conferences).

    
    	You folks are nibbling around the real issue, but haven't put
    your finger(s) on it yet.
    
        The problem is the erosion of rights by governments.  The
    government should have NO say about whom someone does or does not
    associate with.
    
    	The Anytown White_Racist_Bigots_And_Males Association should
    have every right to determine its own membership.  I wouldn't
    want in, but a club I'm in might want to limit membership based
    on, say, income, or blood-type or any of a hundred other factors.
    
    	A club designated as Men Only needn't be a bastion of anti-female
    sentiment.  It might be un-interesting to as many men as were
    attracted to it because of the men-only status.
    
    	The point is, whether one subscribes to such a club's values
    (or any club's values), it's their business, and involving the
    government to force the membership in one direction or the other
    is wrong.
    
    
    My  $.02  worth....  :^)
    
    
    Steve h
    

    Re .19
    
    I agree - the government should have *no* say in whom someone
    associates with, or does not associate with.  Thus I agree that
    the Anytown White_Racist_Bigots_and_Males Association has every
    right to exist and determine membership.  If they want to have such
    a club, that's ok with me, even if they want to restrict it to AB
    positive blood types as well.  Just keep it out of other people's
    way, and don't expect other people to pay for it.
    
    The problem comes in when they are being used for buisiness purposes.
    If membership in a club determines your success in your job, buisiness,
    or schoolwork, *then* it is a form of organized discrimination against
    a particular group.
    
    The other problem comes in when it is a narrowly disguised resturant
    or bar.  If they are opening their doors to the public, they have
    to obey the laws regarding public establishments.  However, if they
    keep it truely private, they can do whatever they wish.
    
    Elizabeth
    
    BTW, the 100 number is arbitrary.  The idea is "keep it a small
    group".
    

re: .20
>    The problem comes in when they are being used for buisiness purposes.
>    If membership in a club determines your success in your job, buisiness,
>    or schoolwork, *then* it is a form of organized discrimination against
>    a particular group.
    
Not necessarily so.  When people congregate to further their success(es) it
can still be done so "privately".  You can't tell me who I have to associate
with or share my expertise with.  I don't think it should be considered
"discrimination against a particular group" if members of my group choose to
not include you or anyone else.

>    The other problem comes in when it is a narrowly disguised resturant
>    or bar.  If they are opening their doors to the public, they have
>    to obey the laws regarding public establishments.  However, if they
>    keep it truely private, they can do whatever they wish.
    
We are in agreement 100% on this aspect.  The key word here is "private".  Yes,
they can do whatever they wish.

>    BTW, the 100 number is arbitrary.  The idea is "keep it a small
>    group".
    
Again, putting any limit on the number of people allowed is in itself
discriminatory.  (The government should also have no say in this.)

Kip

    I agree that there are some operations (clubs) that do some damned
    shady things that are destructive, sexist, racist etc.. but for
    the most partI dont believe this is the case.  The thing that worries
    me is sooner or later the one's (clubs) that do produce good results
    and are not deviant will be exploited.  
    
    I did not start this disscussion to produce arguments about sexism,
    
    just to findout what feedback was available on the topic.
    
    thanks
    
    jim

    There are two issues involved here: the legality of sexist private
    clubs, and the morality of belonging to a sexist private club.  These
    issues are related, but nevertheless distinct.
    
    As for the morality of joining such a club, consider what someone said
    on the MacNeil-Lehrer television program a few weeks ago. He was asked
    why anyone would want to join an all-male private club.  He gave a
    completely sexist response.  Suppose, he suggested, someone wanted to
    light up a cigar; if there were women around, he would have to worry
    about offending her.  As a man who finds cigar smoke offensive (or
    cigarette smoke, for that matter), I am amazed at that statement.
    Gender has nothing to do with courtesy, nor does it have anything to do
    emitting foul and unhealthy odors.  I cannot conceive of a legitimate,
    non-sexist reason for joining this type of club. I happen to enjoy the
    company of women, and would never consider excluding women from any
    social activity merely because of their gender. 
    
    As for the legality of such clubs, no one is trying to prevent anyone
    from associating with whoever they wish in private, even sexist clubs.
    The issue is that certain "private" clubs are not really private, and
    in fact participate in discrimination against the excluded group in an
    arena far beyond the club per se.  What is complicated is determining
    when an association is truly private, and when it is not.  If there is
    a valid set of criteria for determining this distinction, then I am
    totally in favor of banning discrimination by the pseudo-private clubs. 
    
    -- Mike

    Re: .24
    
    	"So prejudicial hiring procedures are good, as long as the basis
        for the bias is acceptable?"
    
    Right. Would you like to know if I've stopped beating my wife?
    
    I did not say anything about "prejudicial hiring procedures". If you
    follow recent supreme court rulings on affirmative action, you will
    discover that they are treading a very fine line. On the one hand,
    racial discrimination in any form is unconstitutional. On the other
    hand, affirmative action to redress past injustices has been repeatedly
    challenged, and upheld. Rightly so, I believe. Recently the court has
    been seen to encourage affirmative action that does not directly harm
    the other party. For example, in hiring, rather than just saying that
    you must hire 40% blacks until racial equality is acheived, some cities
    have said, we will hire the same number of whites as we have been, but
    we will increase TOTAL hiring by hiring more blacks. Current
    affirmative action policies are much more complex than your simplistic
    "prejudicial hiring policies" would imply.
    
    It's absolutely trivial to point out the injustices in the current
    system, and NO solution is perfect. What is difficult is choosing
    among all these hard alternatives.
    
    There are no simple answers.
    
    	-- Charles

    I think it would be helpful to look at one of the more obvious but
    previously unstated reason all-male clubs came into existance. 
    I have no figures to support my guess, so feel free to disagree.
    
    A husband is about to go out of the house to have a few drinks with
    his buddies.  He loves his wife and doesn't want her to worry about
    his seeing other women.  So, he meets his buddies at an all-male
    club.  She isn't worried about competition, and is more supportive
    of him going out.  
    
    One might argue that wives are not that jealous, and men are not
    that considerate of their feelings.  Maybe not today, but in the
    past I bet there was more of this.  As for my wife, she does have
    a jealous streak, and I can assure you she would feel more comfortable
    if any club I joined was "male only".
    
    DRC
    

    re: .27
    
    Sounds good ! Has anyone convinced their wife or SO of this ' so
    very plausible ' rationale (opinion) ?
    
    I, too, can make some guessesm except that the firstpart is based
    on facts (as best as I can recall).
    
    Not too very long ago in Massashusetts, their were several classes
    of liquor licenses. ONE of those clases was a "Bar" (still is).
    And Tavern (where they also served food; license was cheaper than
    a bar).
    
    The major impact for women, is that they were not PERMITTED in the
    bar, but they were permitted in a  Tavern (if escorted by a man).
    After all, no DECENT woman would be seen alone in those places (I
    guess it was assumed that any that were alone, weren't decent, and
    thus 'fair game').
    
    If movies are any guide (probably wrong as heck); they portray the
    old "tribal days" of men sitting around discussing village business
    drinking "holy water" made by the medicine men to help them "enhance"
    their abilitiy to make rationale decisions (???) for the rest of
    the tribe.
    
    Another aspect, which carries over to 'modern mens clubs', is that
    women are simply regarded as being good anough for the "Auxiliaray"
    whatever, who do the cooking, cleaning, caring while the menfolk
    attend to the business at hand.
    
    So much for historical guesses. Any more ?
    
    Today, a different form of "Men's Group" is forming (I'm in my second
    one; and both were initiated in very liberal church -UUA). The
    difference though, isn't to run business, but to understand -or
    attempt to understand- our thought/feeling/rationalizing process
    without the other sex being there.
    
    But then, this group isn't a drinking group, either.
    
    Another aspect of the modern "mens group" is that some groups MAY
    be simply a "mens social club", for, by, and limited, to men. As
    close as my SO and I are; there are things I need to know that other
    men won't share if a woman is present.
    
    RWE