So there’s a depressing (but very much a must-read) piece over on Yahoo News at the moment chronicling how a lawsuit by Men’s Rights activists (allegedly) led to the demise of Chic CEO, a small company offering support and advice for women entrepreneurs in the male-dominated tech world.
As Yahoo Tech writer Alyssa Bereznak explains, the whole debacle started when two men decided that they needed to be part of a Chic CEO networking event. Because, clearly, men need a leg up in the tech world.
Two men named Allan Candelore and Rich Allison, who had each prepaid a $20 registration fee on the Chic CEO website, tried to enter the restaurant. According to a legal complaint that they later filed with National Coalition for Men president Harry Crouch, Burns turned them away at the door, saying the event “was only open to women.” They took a photo, left the premises, then promptly initiated legal action, turning to a 1959 California law written to prevent discrimination against minorities and women.
So yeah. They’re like Rosa Parks, but for dudes.
Bereznak notes that this is not the first time the 1959 law has been used on behalf of the struggling, suffering male gender. Alfred G. Rava, the lawyer representing the two men turned away at the door,
has built a career around gender-discrimination lawsuits, filing approximately 150 complaints against California businesses over the past 15 years, according to CNN Money … and, as the secretary for the National Coalition for Men, he offers free consultation for NCFM members who feel they’ve experienced public discrimination because of their gender.
Rava has fought baseball teams giving out free mammograms and assorted swag to women as part of Mother’s Day promotions and has taken a stand against the evil tyranny of Ladies Night at a number of San Diego nightclubs.
And he’s often worked in concert with the other men involved in the ChicCEO case.
Candelore — who has been a member of NCFM for four years — has been the plaintiff in 10 civil cases since 2011, not including his case against Chic CEO. In nine of those 10 cases, he was represented by Rava. In eight of those, [NCFM president] Crouch joined him as a plaintiff. In seven of those cases, Allison was a plaintiff.
They’re like a “Reverse Discrimination” Superteam.
For her part, ChicCEO’s Stephanie Burns told Yahoo Tech that her company “does not discriminate against men,” pointing out that it has male clients and board members. But, apparently unable to afford the cost of fighting the claims in court, she chose to settle the case instead.
The strangest detail in the Yahoo News piece? This parenthetical aside from the author:
(Rava refused to speak to me on the phone because he said he was concerned Yahoo News would misquote him. He also later emailed me to say: “I hope you print all sides to your story, because I am sure you would not want someone to publish a story about you on the Internet labeling you a ‘predator,’ a ‘gigantic bitch,’ an ‘elitist,’ a ‘soulless harpie,’ a ‘narcissist,’ and a ‘dumb woman,’ without that story presenting facts or opinions to the contrary.”)
Apparently Rava has been taking lessons in public relations from the folks at AVFM.*
NOTE: THAT LAST SENTENCE WAS A JOKE. I HAVE NO PROOF RAVA IS TAKING PR LESSONS FROM ANYONE.
Naturally, MRAs have swarmed the comments over on Yahoo News — last I checked, there were more than 1400 comments on the post. Meanwhile, A Voice for Men has reposted a long and tedious piece by the NCFM’s Crouch presenting what he sees as the “truth” in the case.
AVFM chose to illustrate its repost with a picture of a white man in chains. Because a couple of lawsuit-happy men turned away at a women-in-tech networking event are pretty much the equivalent of actual slaves.
I would guess that the accusation is not so false considering their deliberately extremely narrow definition of rape. Of course, if he’s been able to hide this accusation for months and feminists are only finding out about it now, doesn’t that sort of undermine their thinking that rape accusations are so life ruining that they’re as bad or worse than being raped?
I don’t understand how a law intended to protect women and minorities can be used by White men though.
—
Because it *would* be illegal to write a law that discriminates against men. A law saying “minorities have the right to legal equality, but majoirty do not”. especially in those rare cases where, for what ever reason, it is the men who are singled out. Like traffic stops, child custody up till the 90s, divorce rights, etc.
Laws specificlly say things like “cannot discriminate based on sex, sexual identity, or gender identidy” or things like that. generic laws that cover all.
And it should be that way, cause if some group really was blocking out men, in a place they needed assistance (think, domestic violence) that would / could be a real issue.
The name Thomas Hobbes was a red flag in and of itself, if he was trying to straw feminist, bad choice of names. I knew it was going to be a troll comment before I even read it.
Do anti-feminists really think we’re going to defend Kim Davis just because someone’s pointed out that she’s a woman?
@ Tanya
In England we have an Equality Act. That specifically prohibits different treatment in the provision of goods and services based on certain ‘protected characteristics’; that includes things like gender, sexual orientation, marital status etc.
However exceptions are allowed where someone suffers a disadvantage because of a protected characteristic and the remedy is a ‘reasonable and proportional’ way of redressing that disadvantage.
So if, to give a relevant example, it can be seen that women are under represented in a particular field of employment like techy stuff, it is lawful to provide seminars specifically for women to encourage them to consider the field, or to offer training just to women so as to enlarge the potential recruitment pool.
We see that as being perfectly compatible with trying to achieve equality. If one group already has a lead, then offering the same services to everyone just preserves that disparity.
It works both way of course, we’ve had campaigns and schemes to encourage more blokes to go into teaching for example.
WTF is “honorarial”? And how does one have a patriarchal househould with no women in it? Patriarchy = men lording it over women, capisce? It practically demands compulsory heterosexuality. My gay friends aren’t patriarchs; they like women, they just don’t want to marry or have sex with them. They believe in equality of all people. Kim Davis, patriarchal religious troll enforcing compulsory heterosexuality, does not. So no feminist defence for her, EVER.
Nice of you to leave lesbians out of it, BTW. Now skedaddle.
My brain translated this word salad into this gif:
http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5uhp7KCZj1rn95k2o1_250.gif
Also, as many other people pointed out, Kim Davis is fighting against a law that forbids discrimination, not a law that calls for it. She’s literally trying to use her rights to freedom of religion to not do what she swore she would do as a member of a public government office.
She’s more than welcome to resign, but of course she won’t, because she wants to have her cake and eat it too. Feminists will not defend her solely for being a woman, because she’s not being discriminated against as a woman. She’s not even being discriminated against for her religion, she just doesn’t want to officiate “the gays” being married.
And my queer self thinks that’s bullshit.
Oh, and one last note: “honorarial” isn’t a word. Stop trying to pepper your paragraphs with counterfeit five dollar words to try to make yourself sound more intelligent. That may work in the manosphere, but it doesn’t work outside of it.
Barrister’s gowns have a little pocket on the back. That’s where our “professional client” (i.e. the solicitor) is meant to discreetly slip our fee whilst they’re sat behind us in court. That’s because technically barristers can’t charge for work so any payment is an *honorarium*.
Just thought I’d slip that in ’cause we were also talking about lawyers.
Indeed, and forthwith, I am not the ROK commenter. ROK is part of the feminist conspiratcy to destroy traditional marriage. Yet we understand that feminists start complaining when women get into positions of power but don’t bow down before the capricious goddess of intersectionality. Indeeed, bigotry is a part of life; women will make racist and homophobic comments, while racial minorities and gay men will make anti-feminist comments. Trying to make some sort of rainbow coalition is forsooth a nonstarter. It’s a war of all against all.
@Thomas
So… feminist conspiracy to destroy traditional marriage, and yet somehow we’re supposed to be defending someone for “defending” traditional marriage? Wut?
Oh, and now it’s inevitable that feminists are going to be bigoted, and yet we’re trying to push intersectionality too much.
You… *do* know that minority women exist, right? Right?
Also:
http://photobucket.com/component/Download-File?file=%2Falbums%2Fhh242%2FAaneti-Ninja%2F2.gif
Bwa ha ha ha! Oh god… can’t even make it past three words. Ok ok… *whew*. Calm. Centered. Focused.
GWA HA HA HA HA HA HA! No! Ha ha, no! I can’t… have to make it past… three sentences. Alright, alright, I can do this. Here we go.
WHYYYY!!!
T. Hobbes: This is not a freshman year high school English class where you need to fill out a specific word-count in your posts. You may freely eliminate all the padding and fluff you’ve stuck onto your word-salad and just leave the inane core concepts to stand in their full and shitty glory.
Me either, that and the handle. This shark expresses how I feel about this guy.
He’s got to be a sock for that troll whose names I can’t remember. I think one of them was Al at the Bay Shore or something?
“Resistance is useless!” is no less bullshit oppressor talk when it’s all wrapped up in fancy language and false concern.
@ guest and AbominableSnowPickle
I do want to clear up this point for the sake of accuracy. This is based on a comment from Rava (which Women VC have verified to be from the plaintiffs) that disputes the claim about the event being overbooked. As both Women VC’s petition and the Yahoo article have been edited it is clear that the claim has been accepted. Here is an extended quote from the comment itself:
“This event was not ‘overbooked’ nor were any my three clients prohibited from entering because it was ‘overbooked’. On the contrary, every one of the three plaintiffs had prepaid Chic CEO, through a feature on Chic’s website, for a reserved place at this business networking event. Nevertheless, the men were told by Chic CEO’s Stephanie Burns that they could not enter the event because they were men and this was a no-men-allowed event.
The three men then watched several women, who had not prepaid for a reserved spot, gain entry to the event by paying at the entrance table. I am happy to email anyone (1) the Chic CEO email announcement for the event touting that it was for “ladies-only,” (2) Chic CEO documents showing a plaintiff’s receipt for his $20 payment to Chic for a reserved spot at this “ladies-only’ business networking event, (3) the refund from Chic for not being allowed into the event, and (4) a photo of a woman paying to enter the event after the three men were turned away. I am also happy to email anyone a copy of the complaint filed in that case”
Also worth listening to is what Stephanie goes over in her own video about this incident from time 1:10 to 1:39, which I will summarize here.
Stephanie does state the event was overbooked and she mentions that the men were not invited. She states that the men were turned away and she stands by her decision as she feels obligated towards the women at the event in maintaining their safe space.
I have already stated my opinions about this whole issue in my earlier comments, but I did feel that it was important for everyone here to get a clearer understanding of the event in question.
What I love about Kim Davis is that she forbade her deputies from issuing marriage licenses either. Never mind what their religious beliefs say; only she gets religious freedom at her job.
@Falconer
http://i1.cpcache.com/product_zoom/467258664/borg_resistance_is_futile_zip_hoodie_dark.jpg?color=Black&height=460&width=460&padToSquare=true
I’m going to start calling myself Eratosthenes and spouting late-capitalism philosophy that conveniently allows me not to lift a single finger.
Because I’m absolutely terrified that people might look at my handle and not immediately know that I’m a straight white guy.
Well, *that* didn’t work.
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/0b/d3/a7/0bd3a7320615e06507f81c9d75d2f8a2.jpg
@ alternatesteve90 Thank you for pointing it out! Alright, I do retract my earlier categorizing of all Gators as monsters, instead making it a simple 2 set piece – Actual monsters and those being encouraged, misinformed and duped (they could become monsters). I have also read confessions from ex-Gators and I always hope that they learn about its true nature without becoming a victim of it – no one deserves the crap that Gamergate foists out.
The deputies are mostly men; therefore they were trying to be appropriately and congruentically feministic by obeying her. Clearly if they disobeyed her they would be acting in a patriarchal sexist manner. But fortunately for them intersectionality will magic that away.
@ Thomas Hobbes
Welcome! You are doing us a great service with your wonderful comedy here, especially in a topic so dark! Have an internet cookie and here is a link to an online thesaurus:
http://www.thesaurus.com
to show my appreciation for your contribution.
@andiexist: I actually heard the Daleks and the Vogons shouting “Resistance is useless!” before I heard the Borg state “Resistance is futile,” so it’s more associated with Nazis and corporates than with communists in my head.
@Thomas Hobbes: Oh dear, nothing can withstand your reverse ninjutsu spinning jargon attack! IT’S OVER NINE THOUSAND!!
Oh Thomas, dear dear Thomas; never change. Your ignorance is adorable.
@katz:
I like how even after 5/6 of her deputies agreed to start issuing licenses (her son being the sixth), and the judge offered her a get-out-of-jail card as long as she would agree not to interfere, she refused.