"Female establishment only"

[Richard]

So, I just moved back to where I grew up and I'm walking home from work and I see a hairdressing salon which used to serve everyone, but now it's windows are all blacked out and there is a sign saying "Female clients only, we do not serve men or young children".

Now, I don't know if any of you have seen a show called Tabathas Salon Taker where this Australian lady travels around America criticising American salons and she encountered a male only salon and got them to change their ways.

My questions to WZ is: Is this morally correct? Is it even legal to only serve one gender? What do you think about places that only serve one gender and who refuse to serve another?

I, personally think that legality aside, isn't it quite stupid to turn away half of your potential customer base who would pay good money for your services? Instead of earning $60 - 70,000 as main owner and only serving females, is it stupid to do that when you could potentially earn a lot more ontop of that? I don't think 'gender only services' business like hairdressing should operate.

 

[Calderownz]

Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. Men have so many places that woman CAN go into, but would not realistically go to on a regular basis. If women want one place, it's not that big of a deal.

Plus, if it's a private business, they have the right to turn down anyone. It could be considered a social club, and they have the right to only allow for certain members/guests.

 

[HBK-aholic]

It depends on what the business is, what the reasons for stopping a certain gender are, and whether the gender disallowed can get the same service elsewhere. For example, I love the idea of gender-specific gyms - I see no problem with men and women working out separately as many can feel uncomfortable working out with the opposite sex. As long as the option is there for both genders.

Hairdressers can easily only serve one gender, especially if it's a small place. Styling the hair of men is very different to women - you may not have the stylists who are able to do both to a high standard and therefore only style those you're confident a high standard style can be given to, whether that be men or women.

There's only a problem when the reason for stopping a certain gender is purely a sexist one. 'We don't like men/women' etc.

 

[LigerBomb]

I'm in agreement with the majority here. Exclusivity is a reasonable and (perhaps counterintuitively) sometimes highly profitable business strategy. Morally there's little problem as they've the right to serve whatever clientele they desire. And yes it is legal as selective exclusion isn't necessarily the same thing as discrimination.

Oh, and a man should go to a barbershop, not a salon.

 

[Arkham Noir]

I, personally think that legality aside, isn't it quite stupid to turn away half of your potential customer base who would pay good money for your services? Instead of earning $60 - 70,000 as main owner and only serving females, is it stupid to do that when you could potentially earn a lot more ontop of that?

That was the first thing I thought of when I was reading this.

As great as the owners might feel having their "women only" club, business is business and flat out refusing to serve an entire gender is quite stupid in this context. If they set up their shop in a way that appeals more to women than they most likely only attract women anyways, but what if some of those women want their child to come along and have their hair done?

Morally I don't see what's so wrong with it. Like someone said before me, men have their retreats that women more or less avoid, and having a place where women can go and enjoy doing their gossip or whatever among themselves is understandable to me.

 

[Final Form Snyper.]

My questions to WZ is: Is this morally correct? Is it even legal to only serve one gender? What do you think about places that only serve one gender and who refuse to serve another?

I think it is quite a stupid thing for a a business to turn away anyone who is willing to pay for their services, to turn away a whole sex could really be catastrophic for your profit turnover. I guess the gimmick is that having a place where males/females can really open up about the other sex whilst knowing that the other sex isn't there to be offended.

 

[DirtyJosé]

I'm in agreement with the majority here. Exclusivity is a reasonable and (perhaps counterintuitively) sometimes highly profitable business strategy. Morally there's little problem as they've the right to serve whatever clientele they desire. And yes it is legal as selective exclusion isn't necessarily the same thing as discrimination.

I agree as well. It's not a big deal, nor should it be. Many salons do this in the interest of creating a relaxing atmosphere for their clientele. As for the comments regarding the loss of potential revenue, I don't have the figures in front of me but I know for fact that a woman on average spends far more for services in a salon than a man does, and as such also tend to require far more time in the salon. I think this is a legal business decision more than it is a questionable business practice.

Oh, and a man should go to a barbershop, not a salon.

I disagree. It's a luxury service that anyone can enjoy. Some locations have chosen to focus only on female clients, but that's not to say that salon service is an experience a man can't or shouldn't enjoy. In fact, there exist many salons for men only, which range from simply focusing on men's hairstyling to places where clients are offered cold beers and a place to watch the game while they received salon services such as paraffin wax treatments, massages, hot towels, and shaving. I heard of one down here in southern California which strives to be a high-end salon and a Hooter's at once. Like the "females only" salons mentioned earlier, these places are morally and legally acceptable in the same way many other service industries are allowed to specialize (such as foreign-only Auto Technicians). I recommend the experience at least once. Why let girls have all the fun?

 

[ABMorales787]

It's like with pediatric doctors and adult doctors. Some focus on kids and others on adults. Treating a sick child as very different to treating a sick adult because of their age and maturity and such. So having salons and gym specified to specific genders isn't wrong at all. It's like gay bars and such. It's just to focus on a specific field where the workers are more experienced at.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Absolutely not. This is just like all the issues that feminists fought, only the roles are reversed. Men cannot be denied business due to their gender. Children for their age perhaps, but not men for their gender. It is not morally correct because if women can get away with such actions but not men, then that creates a double standard. Richard also brings up a good point in the opening post about how those businesses are turning away half of their potential customers. Aren't they in business to make money? That's not very smart, even when you ignore the morality issue.

 

[DirtyJosé]

Absolutely not. This is just like all the issues that feminists fought, only the roles are reversed.

Explain. This isn't about men being denied the right to vote or about taking away rights afforded to women; this is about a private business catering to a select clientele.

Men cannot be denied business due to their gender. Children for their age perhaps, but not men for their gender. It is not morally correct because if women can get away with such actions but not men, then that creates a double standard.

As I pointed out earlier, there do exist "men's only" salons, or barber shops which deal only with men and children. There is no double standard. This isn't a norm for salons, by the way, but it isn't uncommon either.

Richard also brings up a good point in the opening post about how those businesses are turning away half of their potential customers. Aren't they in business to make money? That's not very smart, even when you ignore the morality issue.

Women spend FAR more money in a salon than a typical male client does. Is it wrong for an automotive technician to only specialize in high-end foreign cars? No. I think as men we read this and assume this is discrimination without really taking it for what it is, which is merely specialization. I don't mean to sound pompous or disrespectful to you when I say that I know more about this than you do, and believe me that there is a world of difference between salon services for men and salon services for women. Many "women's only" hairstylists aren't trained or experienced enough to work on men's hair, and vice versa.

 

[Richard]

Ok, to put an end to this debate, I think I found out why it is a female only salon.

I live in the western part of Sydney and there is a large base of Islamic followers in the western area of Sydney, it's fact. I think because the windows are blackened out and the fact they only serve women is to provide a private space for women to remove their Burqa or Hijab to expose their hair to other Islamic female hairdressers to get it cut without worrying about men looking in from outside. If that is the entire reason behind it then I fully understand why they have decided to go down this business route.

 

[Dagger Dias]

This isn't about men being denied the right to vote or about taking away rights afforded to women; this is about a private business catering to a select clientele.

You can cater to a certain demographic without refusing business to those who don't fit that criteria. It IS about men being discriminated. The sign says "women only". How is it not discriminatory to refuse business to those that don't fit the criteria?

As I pointed out earlier, there do exist "men's only" salons, or barber shops which deal only with men and children. There is no double standard. This isn't a norm for salons, by the way, but it isn't uncommon either.

That's discriminatory too. Same issue with the roles reversed. Uncommon or not.... it's still discrimination.

Women spend FAR more money in a salon than a typical male client does.

How much money they spend has nothing to do with it. If you have a business and earn $100 from a customer but only $4 from another, you would deny doing business with the type of customer that pays less? People are in business to make a profit. A profit that's only 25 cents above the break-even point is still a profit. "Women make us more money than men, so we won't do business with men." Still sounds like discrimination to me, bro.

Is it wrong for an automotive technician to only specialize in high-end foreign cars? No.

Not at all. However you can specialize in high-end foreign cars while still doing business with clients who like other types of cars too.

I think as men we read this and assume this is discrimination without really taking it for what it is, which is merely specialization.

A specialist merely has one field of expertise while still having knowledge in all of the basics and still doing business with everyone. That salon does not do business with men. It's still discrimination.

I don't mean to sound pompous or disrespectful to you when I say that I know more about this than you do, and believe me that there is a world of difference between salon services for men and salon services for women. Many "women's only" hairstylists aren't trained or experienced enough to work on men's hair, and vice versa.

I'm aware of how different mens and womens salons are, and no offense was taken by your point. I still disagree though on what you said here. If the stylists are not "experienced" enough to work on both genders, then they need to go back to their cosmetology classes. "I'm a hairdresser but I don't know how to cut men's hair" doesn't sound very professional at all. It's also still no excuse to not discriminate against the other gender by only doing business with one, regardless of if it's men or women, because people should be open to doing business with anybody at any time unless they have a VERY good reason to deny them entry to the store.

 

[DirtyJosé]

You can cater to a certain demographic without refusing business to those who don't fit that criteria. It IS about men being discriminated. The sign says "women only". How is it not discriminatory to refuse business to those that don't fit the criteria?

The same reason why if you take a PC to an Apple Store to be serviced you will be turned away.

That's discriminatory too. Same issue with the roles reversed. Uncommon or not.... it's still discrimination.

No, it's not. A business such as a salon does not have to cater to all clientele. For example, a restaurant is not free to declare that they won't serve black customers because there the service provided is the same regardless of race, gender, etc. The service provided in a salon is much more personal and involved, and specializations are required.

How much money they spend has nothing to do with it.

Hey, you guys brought it up.

If you have a business and earn $100 from a customer but only $4 from another, you would deny doing business with the type of customer that pays less? People are in business to make a profit. A profit that's only 25 cents above the break-even point is still a profit. "Women make us more money than men, so we won't do business with men." Still sounds like discrimination to me, bro.

Because you are reacting to this in outrage without any knowledge of how the industry works. We've already established that it is well within the legal mean of a business to specialize to a select part of the market available to them. The simple fact is that it is impossible to run a salon which "does everything for everyone" because you'd never make any money. The customer who only wants a $4 service can go to a place which provides that.

Not at all. However you can specialize in high-end foreign cars while still doing business with clients who like other types of cars too.

But you don't. A Ferrari-only or a Japanese-Imports only garage won't accept your beat up '76 Dodge because they aren't equipped to provide service to that vehicle, nor do they wish to. There are all-service garages just as there are all-service salons.

A specialist merely has one field of expertise while still having knowledge in all of the basics and still doing business with everyone. That salon does not do business with men. It's still discrimination.

Does not mean that the specialist is forced to utilize those skills in their careers.

I'm aware of how different mens and womens salons are, and no offense was taken by your point. I still disagree though on what you said here. If the stylists are not "experienced" enough to work on both genders, then they need to go back to their cosmetology classes. "I'm a hairdresser but I don't know how to cut men's hair" doesn't sound very professional at all.

Actually, most licensed cosmetologist specialize in one field or another. Your statement is like saying a Chemist should also be a whizz at Marine Biology simply because it's still "Science". Hair styling/service is not universal. For example, I am leaning more towards specialization in chemical texture treatments (Perms) and Hair Coloring than anything else at the moment. It is certainly feasible for a stylist to work only in those areas. There is so much more to the training than just "learning haircuts", and again, there is a world of difference between men's and women's hair, sufficient enough to warrant specialization.

It's also still no excuse to not discriminate against the other gender by only doing business with one, regardless of if it's men or women, because people should be open to doing business with anybody at any time unless they have a VERY good reason to deny them entry to the store.

And that reason is that they aren't equipped to provide the service required. In the case of the restaurant which refused services based on race or gender, it is a service that can be provided to anyone without any change in the training and resources required.

For what it's worth, each state's Board of Cosmetology has different rules about things like this, some finding it illegal and others allowing it.

 

[RedBeardHair]

the reason they did it ill bet is because they want more appointment base stuff cut and color prems so on and so. the barber shop i go to only cuts mens hair why it fast and easy. also tvs everywhere. that said right next door is the salon for the ladys and they do it all but only by appointment.

 

[Dagger Dias]

The same reason why if you take a PC to an Apple Store to be serviced you will be turned away.

The secret is revealed. This is one of the reasons why I hate Apple. People will make more money if they don't turn away customers.

A business such as a salon does not have to cater to all clientele. For example, a restaurant is not free to declare that they won't serve black customers because there the service provided is the same regardless of race, gender, etc. The service provided in a salon is much more personal and involved, and specializations are required.

No matter what the business is, if somebody is denied business for any of the following: race, gender, and religion.... it's discrimination.

Because you are reacting to this in outrage without any knowledge of how the industry works. We've already established that it is well within the legal mean of a business to specialize to a select part of the market available to them. The simple fact is that it is impossible to run a salon which "does everything for everyone" because you'd never make any money. The customer who only wants a $4 service can go to a place which provides that.

We're not talking about specializing though. We are talking about somebody being told "I'm sorry, you can't do business here because you're a man". Do you not see the problem with that?

A Ferrari-only or a Japanese-Imports only garage won't accept your beat up '76 Dodge because they aren't equipped to provide service to that vehicle, nor do they wish to. There are all-service garages just as there are all-service salons.

That's different. The beat up 76 Dodge could be damaged beyond repair. If so, it can be denied. If it's not.... a car mechanic should know how to fix cars, it's his/her JOB. Just as the hair stylists need to know how to cut hair.

Does not mean that the specialist is forced to utilize those skills in their careers.

Yes it does. That's why schools have core classes, so that everyone knows the basics. Even within your field of study there is still another core of basics. Thus, the hair stylists should know how to cut hair, regardless of the client's gender.

Actually, most licensed cosmetologist specialize in one field or another. Your statement is like saying a Chemist should also be a whizz at Marine Biology simply because it's still "Science".

That's not what I said at all. I said that if that comsmetologists should know the simple basics of how to cut hair. That IS their job after all. We pay them to do that service for us. The least they can do is know the basics. Specialities are like majors whereas everyone still has to know the basics.

Hair styling/service is not universal. For example, I am leaning more towards specialization in chemical texture treatments (Perms) and Hair Coloring than anything else at the moment. It is certainly feasible for a stylist to work only in those areas. There is so much more to the training than just "learning haircuts", and again, there is a world of difference between men's and women's hair, sufficient enough to warrant specialization.

Beating a dead horse here, Dirty Jose. All hair stylists should be required to know to cut anyone's hair. I wouldn't go to a stylist who didn't know how. That's just stupid. Your argument here is basically approving of them saying "I cut hair, but I don't know how to cut mens hair, so I won't do business with men". See the flaw there, bro?

And that reason is that they aren't equipped to provide the service required. In the case of the restaurant which refused services based on race or gender, it is a service that can be provided to anyone without any change in the training and resources required.

The change in training does not excuse the fact that discrimination took place because they turned men away simply for being men. That's wrong no matter how you look at it.

 

[LSN80]

It's not a big deal, although I suspect there would be quite the uproar if it was the other way around, and they catered to male clientale only. But to answer your questions.....

Is this morally correct?

I suppose this all depends on the motivation as to why the policy was changed. If it was done because the person running the establsihment is getting up there in age, and decided on a specific clientale they enjoyed working with, then no harm, no foul. If the person does this because their best tips came from women, well, its understandable, but Id say unethical, sure.

Is it even legal to only serve one gender?

It depends on what type of business it is. If it's a private hairdresser, then sure, its absolutely legal. There are some "private restaurants" or "clubs" that refuse the right to service anyone they choose. Lodges are the same way, the only accept men, not women. Since there's a membership fee, it's a business, and it's legal.

What do you think about places that only serve one gender and who refuse to serve another?

To each their own, I feel. It all depends on the dynamics of the place in question. The hairdresser may have downsized, and as a result, only can fit in a certain clientale. But if it's a place that has singled out a gender or type "because we don't like them", then that's a different story entirely. I think it's morally wrong and unethical.

isn't it quite stupid to turn away half of your potential customer base who would pay good money for your services?

I think, as i said before, it all depends on where that person is at the stage of their life. Maybe they've made all the money they'll ever need, and are just working with the clientale they enjoy. But yes, it could potentially backfire, as some families could be outraged and the women themselves may refuse to go because their children are being denied. It all depends on where that person stands financially, and their overall motivation.

 

[HBK-aholic]

The secret is revealed. This is one of the reasons why I hate Apple. People will make more money if they don't turn away customers.




No matter what the business is, if somebody is denied business for any of the following: race, gender, and religion.... it's discrimination.



We're not talking about specializing though. We are talking about somebody being told "I'm sorry, you can't do business here because you're a man". Do you not see the problem with that?



That's different. The beat up 76 Dodge could be damaged beyond repair. If so, it can be denied. If it's not.... a car mechanic should know how to fix cars, it's his/her JOB. Just as the hair stylists need to know how to cut hair.



Yes it does. That's why schools have core classes, so that everyone knows the basics. Even within your field of study there is still another core of basics. Thus, the hair stylists should know how to cut hair, regardless of the client's gender.



That's not what I said at all. I said that if that comsmetologists should know the simple basics of how to cut hair. That IS their job after all. We pay them to do that service for us. The least they can do is know the basics. Specialities are like majors whereas everyone still has to know the basics.



Beating a dead horse here, Dirty Jose. All hair stylists should be required to know to cut anyone's hair. I wouldn't go to a stylist who didn't know how. That's just stupid. Your argument here is basically approving of them saying "I cut hair, but I don't know how to cut mens hair, so I won't do business with men". See the flaw there, bro?



The change in training does not excuse the fact that discrimination took place because they turned men away simply for being men. That's wrong no matter how you look at it.

Do you not live in the same world as everyone else? It's NOT discrimination to have hair salons for only one gender - it's common practice! In fact, I've seen more male-only barber shops than female hair salons! As a female who is interested in womens rights and roles etc, it didn't even cross my mind that this was discrimination. I live in an area with a lot of black people - and there are MANY salons catering specifically to the needs of afro-style hair needs. That's not racist. It's a business, catering to the people it needs to and/or can.

You go on about the basics, but I don't WANT someone who only knows the basics to style my hair! Have you ever looked into hairdressing courses? The complete difference in how to style the hair of men and women is astounding, especially if someone has been styling mens hair only for 20 years. I would not go up to a person like that expecting my hair coloured, cut in a specific way, hair extensions added etc. And, under what you're saying, I should be able to, and he'd have to do it.

Looking at the actual reason for why the salon was female only - Muslim women who don't remove their headscarves in front of men. What's discriminatory about giving them somewhere to have their haircut?

This issue is not always about discrimination. People go on about Feminists finding sexism and discrimination in everything, then I come across your post in this thread!

 

[Navi]

This isn't the big deal that's it's been made out to be. For years there have been women's hair salons, barber shops for guys, and cut price places that will cut men, women and kids hair.

In a women's salon, they usually do hair by appointment only, also they make their money on perm's, colour's, streaks, eyebrow's and in some cases nails. Not only that, it can be very expensive in a women's salon.

In a barber shop, it's come in sit down, and your done in less than ten minutes. Most barber shops don't even wash your hair before it's cut. So it's a volume business because it's cheaper to get your hair cut there.

What man would want to sit with a bunch of women yapping about all the neighborhood gossip, most would rather stick pins in their eyes.