# Organizations Discriminating Based on Gender **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 26, 2004, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700 "2004-12-26T19:42:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/41 "2004-12-28T16:02:44Z")
> [@featherlou](#): > > This sounds a lot like circular logic to me. You’re using the fact that things _are_ a certain way to explain why things should _be_ that way. You don’t have a better reason for excluding women than “we’ve always done it that way”? > > \ > > Modified does not necessarily mean harmed. I can see that it would change them, but if the Freemasons modified their rituals, etc. to include women, how would that harm them? If we modified our rituals, they would be harmed and that is all I will say about that. However, why should we modify our rituals to suit your book? To my mind, what you are suggesting is what happens when the camel sticks its head into the tent----pretty soon, Masonry would be a woman run organization, to its vast detriment. In fact, it would probably be the end of Masonry and we would be forced to establish another fraternal society that excludes women. Why are you so insistent that you be allowed to disrupt a fraternal organization? Why would you want to go where you are not wanted and not welcome? Are you so controlling that you find being excluded from Masonry personally upsetting? Surely there are other, more needful, causes on which you might shine your light?l ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/42 "2004-12-28T16:14:24Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > As I recall , they weren’t exactly fighting for the right to go into male locker rooms. They were fighting for the same access to the athletes that male reporters had, and would have been content if there were no locker room interviews at all. Yes, but the fact remains that they won the right to lock room interviews, right? Just out of curiosity, can a male reporter interview a female athlete in a locker room? ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/43 "2004-12-28T17:04:26Z")
**Wrath** , basically, it’s sounding more and more like an adult version of the “He-Man Woman Haters’ Club.” And for the record, I do not think that the clubs should be forced to have icky girls in them. But that the reasons for keeping them out seem really silly. > [@Master Control](#): > > Yes, but the fact remains that they won the right to lock room interviews, right? Just out of curiosity, can a male reporter interview a female athlete in a locker room? No. But _neither can female reporters_. Female locker rooms are closed to all reporters. There are no locker room interviews. All reporters are locked out of locker room interviews. No one’s getting in. So, the men aren’t losing out on an advantage the way that the women used to be. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/44 "2004-12-28T17:08:55Z")
No. But _neither can female reporters_. Female locker rooms are closed to all reporters. There are no locker room interviews. All reporters are locked out of locker room interviews. No one’s getting in. So, the men aren’t losing out on an advantage the way that the women used to be. [/QUOTE] Sorry, but to me, there’s still inequity if women can enter men’s locker rooms but men can’t enter women’s. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/45 "2004-12-28T17:10:54Z")
Let me re-code that. > [@](#): > > No. > But _neither can female reporters_. Female locker rooms are closed to all reporters. There are no locker room interviews. All reporters are locked out of locker room interviews. No one’s getting in. > So, the men aren’t losing out on an advantage the way that the women used to be. Sorry, but to me, there’s still inequity if women can enter men’s locker rooms but men can’t enter women’s. ---
**Author:** ![Wrath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ee7513/32.png) [@Wrath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrath)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/46 "2004-12-28T17:17:29Z")
> [@amarinth](#): > > **Wrath** , basically, it’s sounding more and more like an adult version of the “He-Man Woman Haters’ Club.” And for the record, I do not think that the clubs should be forced to have icky girls in them. What in the world has anyone posted to give the impression that Masons hate women? To the contrary, again, it is obligatory that Masons care for the women in their charge. > [@amarinth](#): > > But that the reasons for keeping them out seem really silly. To expose this as an attempt to diminish the integrity of what Masons do, are all the other exclusionary clubs equally silly in their reasoning, in your opinion? ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/47 "2004-12-28T17:20:27Z")
> [@Wrath](#): > > What in the world has anyone posted to give the impression that Masons hate women? To the contrary, again, it is obligatory that Masons care for the women in their charge. Get ready to take some heat for that little remark. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/48 "2004-12-28T17:22:27Z")
Actually, I should of specified, this is the part that might get you in trouble. > [@Wrath](#): > > it is obligatory that Masons care for the women in their charge. ---
**Author:** ![pizzabrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e9c0ed/32.png) [@pizzabrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pizzabrat)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/49 "2004-12-28T17:23:22Z")
> [@Master Control](#): > > Let me re-code that. > > Sorry, but to me, there’s still inequity if women can enter men’s locker rooms but men can’t enter women’s. How? Both men and women reporters can enter male lockerrooms - that’s perfectly equal. And neither can enter female lockerrooms - again, perfectly equal. If you’re complaining that women can get the thrill of seeing men naked and men can’t get the same thrill from female atheletes - well that’s just how the sexes work. Apparently, male atheletes are alot more comfortable with female reporters seeing them naked than women are with male reporters seeing them naked - so the rules are set up to respect that. ---
**Author:** ![Wrath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ee7513/32.png) [@Wrath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrath)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/50 "2004-12-28T17:30:02Z")
> [@Master Control](#): > > Actually, I should of specified, this is the part that might get you in trouble. Really? You think Masons should NOT be obliged to care for their wives, mothers, daughters, or widows of other Masons? The key phrase is women _in their charge._ ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/51 "2004-12-28T17:42:22Z")
> [@pizzabrat](#): > > How? Both men and women reporters can enter male lockerrooms - that’s perfectly equal. And neither can enter female lockerrooms - again, perfectly equal. If you’re complaining that women can get the thrill of seeing men naked and men can’t get the same thrill from female atheletes - well that’s just how the sexes work. Apparently, male atheletes are alot more comfortable with female reporters seeing them naked than women are with male reporters seeing them naked - so the rules are set up to respect that. Thrill? I’m not complaining about that at all. Although you are stating a common point of view that if the men want to enter women’s locker rooms, they must be pervs, but if the women want to enter the men’s, they’re just being good reporters. And if men were comfortable, why did women have to fight to win that right? ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/52 "2004-12-28T17:45:59Z")
> [@Wrath](#): > > The key phrase is women _in their charge._ Yes, I know, and I’m telling that some people, most likely women, aren’t going to like that phrase. While I agree whole heartedly that men and women are different, in this age of equality, one spouse isn’t supposed to be in “the others charge”. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/53 "2004-12-28T17:58:08Z")
> [@Master Control](#): > > Yes, but the fact remains that they won the right to lock room interviews, right? Just out of curiosity, can a male reporter interview a female athlete in a locker room? As I recall from that time, no reporters, male or female were allowed in the locker rooms of female athletes. Same access to locker rooms for both male and female reporters- none. The female reporters would have been content if the male locker rooms were closed to both male and female reporters- they simply didn’t want the men to have an advantage that they didn’t have. _Someone_ made the choice to open the locker room to female reporters rather than closing them to male reporters- but it wasn’t the female reporters. As a matter of fact, I think some organizations _did_ just close the locker rooms to all reporters. ---
**Author:** ![Wrath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ee7513/32.png) [@Wrath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrath)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/54 "2004-12-28T18:02:50Z")
> [@Master Control](#): > > Yes, I know, and I’m telling that some people, most likely women, aren’t going to like that phrase. While I agree whole heartedly that men and women are different, in this age of equality, one spouse isn’t supposed to be in “the others charge”. Bah. Nonsense. Couples are both in each other’s charge. Just because Masons teach a man to care for the women in his life does not mean that women should not equally care for the men in thier lives. If a feminist has a problem with that, then they _already_ have a problem with any male-oriented group such as the Masons. So be it. ---
**Author:** ![Sofis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Sofis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofis)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/55 "2004-12-28T18:07:41Z")
> [@pizzabrat](#): > > Apparently, male atheletes are alot more comfortable with female reporters seeing them naked than women are with male reporters seeing them naked - so the rules are set up to respect that. What, there’s some magical rule that says men can’t be modest about nudity? This may come as a surprise to some, but people aren’t undifferentiated instances of their sex. It’s possible for two people to differ, both physically and mentally, even if they have the same set of genitalia. ---
**Author:** ![pizzabrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e9c0ed/32.png) [@pizzabrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pizzabrat)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/56 "2004-12-28T18:19:00Z")
> [@Sofis](#): > > What, there’s some magical rule that says men can’t be modest about nudity? This may come as a surprise to some, but people aren’t undifferentiated instances of their sex. It’s possible for two people to differ, both physically and mentally, even if they have the same set of genitalia. I said “apparently” meaning I came to my conclusions based on the circumstances. Lockerroom interviews for male atheletes exist, so _apparently_ they don’t have much of a problem with them. If they did, wouldn’t they be banned like they are for female atheletes? ---
**Author:** ![Sofis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Sofis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofis)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/57 "2004-12-28T18:29:42Z")
> [@pizzabrat](#): > > I said “apparently” meaning I came to my conclusions based on the circumstances. Lockerroom interviews for male atheletes exist, so _apparently_ they don’t have much of a problem with them. If they did, wouldn’t they be banned like they are for female atheletes? Only if the athletes were the ones making the decision. But that’s not the point. Even if you can show that men are far more likely to not be bothered by it, you’re still treating each and every man as some sort of statistical average. Some of them are certainly bothered by it. Why is their modesty worth less than the female athletes’ modesty? ---
**Author:** ![pizzabrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e9c0ed/32.png) [@pizzabrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pizzabrat)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/58 "2004-12-28T18:37:09Z")
> [@Sofis](#): > > Only if the athletes were the ones making the decision. But that’s not the point. Even if you can show that men are far more likely to not be bothered by it, you’re still treating each and every man as some sort of statistical average. Each and every man? Do you get lockerroom interviews? We’re talking about pro atheletes - they know what they’re getting into when they willingly join pro leagues and obviously, enough of them are okay with that. Maybe a few are a bit shy, but apparent from the fact that the atheletes willingly talk on camera rather than duck and run when the reporters enter, enough aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/59 "2004-12-28T18:41:19Z")
> [@Wrath](#): > > Partly true. Masons aren’t permitted to drink in the Lodge. At least not in most American Grand Lodge jurisdictions. Shriners drink though. > > In a nutshell, true. But our focus is to teach men to be better, not to be loud, crude and obnoxious. > > So mote it be. Ironically, caring for women (widows) is part of the Masonic obligation. Well, I guess it means different things to different people, but I think the point is the same. The purpose of all-man social groups is to allow men to bond with other men and do manly things. Unfortunately some people have taken the idea that women and men have equal rights to an extreme that there should be no differences between them at all. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/60 "2004-12-28T18:43:04Z")
**Featherlou** , why is it that you object to men’s organizations as sexist, but have not included women’s organizations as well? Just curious. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700.md?page=4)