Thread: These men's rights activists are using a 1950s law to shut down women in tech

Stephanie Burns came up with the idea for Chic CEO, a free online platform for female entrepreneurs, in 2008, when she was getting her MBA. Many of her friends had lost jobs in the recession and were asking her for tips on how to start their own businesses. After hosting about 15 friends at her San Diego home to exchange advice, Burns realized there was a market for offering entrepreneurial guidance to women. A year later, she launched her company.
Up until 2014, the focus of her work involved providing practical business advice to women in the form of free, easy-to-follow online materials. Every so often, Burns also organized networking events at which Chic CEO members could sip cocktails and chat about work. It was to one of these gatherings, held at an Italian restaurant last April in downtown San Diego, that two men showed up.

What happened next would be the fuel for lawsuits against her, her company, the company that her business partner’s husband owned and the restaurant. It would ultimately lead to the demise of Burns’ company, and still threatens to derail the women-in-tech events that have begun popping up in Silicon Valley.
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 . . .
http://news.yahoo.com/this-californi...213035804.html

Cupcakes don't like the shoe being on the other foot?

The are talking about the Unruh Civil Rights Act. From the Yahoo article:

The 56-year-old state law ensures that all Californians are “free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”

Also from that article:

According to George Stephan, a lawyer who specializes in discrimination law and has faced off against Rava in past cases, many lawsuits under the Unruh Act are used to attack the same people the law was created to protect.

The same people the law was created to protect. I've read that phrase over the years in discussions about many other situations in life. It usually makes me infer that a bad thing has occurred, for them to say it that way. Like something got turned on its head and an unjust thing has happened. But, if if if that 1950's law was intended to only end then-prevailing discrimination by majorities against minorities, well clearly they instead wrote the law to prevent anybody from discrimination. That is, they wrote the law to lift up the status of the discriminated to that of the discriminator, not just specifically lifting the status of the minority to the status of the majority. See the difference?

Of course we do. So, it's not exactly honest to suggest that the law was created only to protect those groups who may have been the earliest and immediate beneficiaries of it, and only those groups. It's not exactly honest to say the law hurts the same people it was created to protect, as if the protected people always remain innocent. When the Discriminated themselves become the Discriminators, when yesterday's Discriminated become today's Discriminators, the labels of majority and minority do not matter and the 56-year-old law wisely accounted for this. That law should hurt those people that it first had protected, if those people are doing what was done to them.

The same people the law was created to protect are now themselves breaking that law.

There, George Stephan, I fixed that for ya.

Those men are doing righteous work.

And we see again that so many feminist complaints: "Waaah! Tech is an exclusive boys club!" are projection. It's women who run a team woman.

reminds me of Sinclair's actions once the Rush Act was invoked in the B5 episode By Any Means Necessary.

Link from Google Play for Android users- https://play.google.com/store/tv/sho...de-HwayVBQfDOo
IMDB link - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0517635/

Even though many comments on the article state these guys are 'ambulance-chasers' {an obvious attempt to demonize the men}, most people agree they ARE being discriminated against, and the fems are reaping what they have sewn.

Some also made the excellent point that this article is worded to make the women look like the victims, even when they are the ones being sexist. The author clearly wanted everyone to side with the women, and in doing so, exposed herself as the sexist cunt she really is.

Great stuff. Now, if we can get this law in every state..

Originally Posted by Unboxxed

The same people the law was created to protect. I've read that phrase over the years in discussions about many other situations in life. It usually makes me infer that a bad thing has occurred, for them to say it that way. Like something got turned on its head and an unjust thing has happened. But, if if if that 1950's law was intended to only end then-prevailing discrimination by majorities against minorities, well clearly they instead wrote the law to prevent anybody from discrimination.

Exactly. And I'm putting my foot down on this one. Civil rights laws, despite SJW propaganda to the contrary, were written to ensure that people could not have their civil rights infringed.

When you argue that the law was meant to protect a particular group (and implying that another group doesn't have access to the protections of that law) you are in essence arguing FOR a particular group to have privilege over another group.

And yes, SJWs, this is what privilege actually is: a legal benefit conferred on an individual or group by force of law.

And that's what you want.

Unfortunately for you, the politicians actually took you at your word and wrote the law with the intent to end privilege.

Originally Posted by Chairborne

Those men are doing righteous work.

They are. And that's what it's going to take. They're doing what left-wing agitators did back in the 60s. And they won.

Our side is still doing what we've done since the 50s--focusing on winning intellectual debates.

Intellectual debates don't decide policy. If we want sanity back, we're going to have to adopt the tactics of the other side. These men are doing that. They are heroes.

Absolutely, love what they are doing. I've thought of doing it myself once or twice, but haven't "bothered".

FUnnily enough - there was a similar case here in the UK, where a bunch of male bin workers were being paid the same paygrade as female kitchen workers - but receiving less.

They used equal pay laws in the UK - which led to this reaction by Barbara Ellen, a prominent misandric feminist columnist in the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...n-equal-rights

She is noted for giving female sexual abusers a free pass - and also defended Solange Knowles and said she gets "slap-happy" herself..

Way to shoot yourself int he foot there Babs - that's Assault ABH.

The Guardian is the grease pit of so called Journalism.

Many of the comments are similar to comments now found in many newspapers, blog, etc. The comments allude to feminism having "jumped the shark." The liberal lawyer mommies who worry about their boys in College standing in front of the rape tribunals must be commenting in the negative. The old guard leftists are worried if this SJW theater of the absurd continues, it will kill their One Worlder wet dreams.

Will the pendulum swing back to the center from this far leftist nightmare, or will the pendulum swing even father right in the form of some societal "purge?" Another good economic crash ought to give it a hardy push.

Originally Posted by Eddie Willers

Cupcakes don't like the shoe being on the other foot?

like I said.... best way to deal with a zealot is to use their own ideology against them....

"Be careful, Professor.... when questions of ideology arise, they often conceal doubts about methods and results.." -- Soviet radio operator, Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine