Senator Ted Kennedy collapses

[rah]

Again, I'll concede the greeks, to me that's never been a debate in this thread.
I started this by saying that Kennedy is a shmuck for calling out someone for being a sexist by association while he was a due paying member of the owl club. One that is sexist because it excludes women.
I stand by that and am willing to answer any challange to it. Unless you've insulted my wife, in which case you don't have anything to say that i want to hear.

[Imran Siddiqui]

byrd probably just finally realized a black man was president.

[Boris Godunov]

You do that.

So is there really a moral difference between a group having men only to sing music versus a group having men only to eat/read/play games/etc.?

The various clubs like the Owl Club (and there are 5 all-female clubs at Harvard in the same vein) seem to be pretty similar to fraternities, so rah's exception should apply.

[snoopy369]

Do I look like rah to you? I don't agree with excluding frats here (in fact, they're one of the worst!). I believe there is a reason for PARENTS to want frats to remain all-boys, but I think it is a flawed reason (no sex, which ain't happening nowadays).

There is (something of) a moral distinction to be made between "clubs started by the privileged class" and "clubs started by a non-privileged class". I actually prefer not to make that distinction (and as a result, would prefer that the Gay Men's Choir allow females or straight males in who can sing to their standards) but it's not an inherently wrong reasoning, given the basis for my argument (exclusionary clubs -> disenfranchising minority groups), as the Gay Men's Choir is not going to disenfranchise anyone (not in the voting sense, but in the power sense).

[Boris Godunov]

To clarify, the Gay Mens Chorus does not exclude straight men, it's just the title. But it IS all male, and it's a group that exists purely for recreational purposes. There are also, of course, all-female singing groups as well. Such groups establish their unique character based on their demographic "exclusion," and I don't think the vast majority of people see such groups as wrong to do so. That's because most people differentiate between private organizations and public ones in this regard, although it's inconsistent.

So absent the priveledged vs. non-priveledged argument, would you say it is wrong for a husband to go out on an all-guys night with his friends while not taking his wife?

[TCO]

ding dong the witch is dead!

[Alinestra Covelia]

it would be funnier if you posted that as ali c.

i am not rah's sock puppet he does not have his hand up my arse check your facts please thanks

[snoopy369]

To clarify, the Gay Mens Chorus does not exclude straight men, it's just the title. But it IS all male, and it's a group that exists purely for recreational purposes. There are also, of course, all-female singing groups as well. Such groups establish their unique character based on their demographic "exclusion," and I don't think the vast majority of people see such groups as wrong to do so. That's because most people differentiate between private organizations and public ones in this regard, although it's inconsistent.

So absent the priveledged vs. non-priveledged argument, would you say it is wrong for a husband to go out on an all-guys night with his friends while not taking his wife?

As I said above (multiple times), there is a difference between a few guys getting together, and an organized group. I do not object to guys associating with each other informally ("guys' night out"); but an organized group that is for 'a certain kind of person', and that kind of person is 'men', is damaging to society.

[Boris Godunov]

I would very much like to see some evidence that all-male singing groups have damaged society. Beyond aural damage, that is.

What about a youth orchestra where the maximum age is 25? Ageist?

[snoopy369]

I don't believe they have... It is, of course, a matter of relative effect. Owl club, by virtue of specifically including the powerful, has the ability to damage society; 'separate but equal' fails in that comparison. All male singing groups or youth orchestra probably does not fail that test, or at least does not badly fail that test.

In the case of a youth orchestra, in any event, we are again talking about a group organized in such a way that it does not exclude the powerless in favor of the empowered - it does if anything the opposite (gives disenfranchised people a chance to succeed). The reason for excluding >25 is not because they want to disadvantage adults, but because if they let in >25 people the kids would be at a disadvantage.

[Grandpa Troll]

i am not rah's sock puppet he does not have his hand up my arse check your facts please thanks

umm..speaking of socks,azz and sweet ali c, i assure you it is a clean thought....


outside the sock, not so much inside the sock...a.k.a. American Pie when Mom and Dad (Eugene Levy) come into the scrambled pron channel

[SlowwHand]

As I said above (multiple times), there is a difference between a few guys getting together, and an organized group. I do not object to guys associating with each other informally ("guys' night out"); but an organized group that is for 'a certain kind of person', and that kind of person is 'men', is damaging to society.

I see, said the blind man. So,like the Elk's Lodge. The Does weren't good enough, so some decided they wanted to change it, which they did. Good? According to you, yes. To me, it's bull****.

[Boris Godunov]

I don't believe they have... It is, of course, a matter of relative effect. Owl club, by virtue of specifically including the powerful, has the ability to damage society; 'separate but equal' fails in that comparison. All male singing groups or youth orchestra probably does not fail that test, or at least does not badly fail that test.

In the case of a youth orchestra, in any event, we are again talking about a group organized in such a way that it does not exclude the powerless in favor of the empowered - it does if anything the opposite (gives disenfranchised people a chance to succeed). The reason for excluding >25 is not because they want to disadvantage adults, but because if they let in >25 people the kids would be at a disadvantage.

Arguments of advantage v. disadvantage only really move me in this situation to cases of public organization. No one has a right to membership to a totally private club, legal or otherwise, and therefore I think the question of the empowered vs. the "powerless" is moot. If our political or business systems are such that it allows people to be excluded because they're not in a private club, I'd say that is a fault of the systems, not the clubs.

Regardless, I think it's pretty safe to say that reasons for membership in such a club is an individual thing and chalking it up to discriminatory beliefs is tenuous at best. If a public figure spends his days working to open access to public institutions to all, and then retires to an all-gents clubhouse to have a brandy, I really don't see much of a problem.

[snoopy369]

You don't see it as a problem. I see it as hypocrisy.

[SpencerH]

i am not rah's sock puppet he does not have his hand up my arse check your facts please thanks

We finally have proof that Ali is Wiglafs DL!!!