I had to really think about writing this post, so let me start off by saying, yes, while I do consider myself a feminist, and do believe in equal rights for all people I also feel that sometimes we take things too far. This rant, is about one of those things that I feel has been taken too far. Really enough is enough, when are we going to, as intellectual humans understand that in order to change anything we first must change the way we think of what is fair and what is right. Not everyone deserves special rights, that in fact is the antithesis of being equal.
We often take terms such as discrimination and bias a little too literally. I spoke before about what I think constitutes sexual harassment in the office, and I still stand up to my convictions. If you feel harassed then report it. If you don’t, then leave everyone alone until someone else says they have an issue. If you decide to say nothing then that is on you, as a person. Only the person who fights for what they believe in will ever get their way. That said, I also feel that there are things we shouldn’t’ complain about, such as going to a steakhouse and then questioning why there is no vegetarian entree, or joining an all male team and wondering where the female leadership is.
I am pretty pissed off right this moment about companies being forced to take away from their mission and vision in order to accommodate groups of people who have other outlets. It happened with Hooters in the 90’s’ and now is happening to another company.
eHarmony, a dating web company that gears it’s mission towards connecting couples who are looking for committed relationships that will lead to marriage, this week announced that they would be starting up a new dating site due to a lawsuit brought against them by a New Jersey resident who stated that they were not able to use the site because all of the pairings were male/female.
Let’s go back a moment. eHarmony was started by Neil Clark Warren: He is a former dean and psychologist at Fuller Theological Seminary. Warren holds a bachelor’s degree from Pepperdine University, a Master of Divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D in clinical psychology from the University of Chicago in 1967
Okay, so a theology prefessor and minister starts a dating site that is supposed to lead to marriage. My guess is that while it’s a great endeavor to help pair up people who are looking for marriage, let’s be clear that this does not mean he is intentionally being gender biased or discriminating against the gay population. I could be wrong, but I don’t see it that way. There are a million other sites where people can pair up with whomever or whatever they like. There are even dating sites for women who are goldiggers, poor dudes need not apply. So, is that discrimination? You tell me. The claim from the woman in NJ was that the site was not clear in it’s purpose. Now, I understand the drive for equal rights for gay couples and I empathize with the fact that the government is not giving these rights to the easily. The past few years have shown that rights have been given and taken away. However let’s also be clear that marriage per se, is a religious institution and one that is based in the Judeo-Christian schema in which partners are always male-female. In fact, anthing else is considered sacresanct and their dogma prohibits such pairings.
I have not considered myself a Christian in a long while and while I lean more towards the Agnostic and even dare I say Pagan side of the religious left, I have to say that I agree that no one should be allowed to re-define what a religious tradition is to those who practice it.
Going back to the case, however, which has less to do with marriage as it does with how people meet each other, I feel that this finding by the court is ridiculous. While there is a great deal of money to be made in matchmaking, to me it is like saying, you can create a business and have a clear mission, such as starting a company that sells motorcycles. However if someone walks in and wants to buy a car, you are obliged to cater to their interests as well. Okay, I admit it isnt the same as that. We are not talking about equipment, we are talking about people an emotions.
When a Florida man sued Hooters for discrimination, because he wanted to be a Hooter’s waitress, I said to myself, sure, whatever, right? I mean he’s not going to get tipped as well as his busty counterparts, in fact some customers might even refuse to be served by him, especially if he didn’t fit into those shorts. However that ruling was covered by governmental laws stating that you can no discriminate in hiring based on gender. The rules are meant to protect employees. This leads to a question of where does the customer fit into the discrimination act. By the way, Hooters did eventually fight back and so far I have yet to see another male Hooter gal brought up in the news.
Granted, eHarmony has a strict schema in which they are allowed to reject applicants based on their personality (read basic psych) profile. They also reject applicants that are in relationships (or at least the ones who aren’t lying about it) or for those who are not yet divorced. I tried to get an account when I was separated, and was rejected. Instead of suing them, I went to another site. I guess I should have sued them for not letting me find someone before I was ready to. Actually I am glad they didn’t.
Then again, that’s just me. I don’t feel that eHarmony is being discriminatory towards the gay population. There are as we speak over 100 dating sites on-line. What that woman should have done, instead of suing eHarmony for being set into one particular flavor of dating was to start up her own site for gay couples. She wouldn’t have wasted tax payer dollars by incurring a hearing and she would have probably found the fulfillment in her life that has kept her from meeting someone she could connect with.
Niche businesses should not be forced to change their business strategies in order to accommodate anyone. Businesses should be allowed to say, no, its okay we don’t want your business. They are allowed to say this when it means not breaking any civil rights laws, or when it goes against their business practices. I wonder if eHarmony had been an all gay site and a straight man sued because he wanted to go on-line to find woman, would this have even gotten to a court? I also wonder if it had been a gay man, would the same thing have happened. Actually, I have a good inkling that if a straight person sued because he or she wanted to go on the site for purposes other than marriage (ie just casual dating) then this would never have gotten to court in the first place.
What I also hate is that this now becomes a feminist issue because she is a woman. No! Don’t lay this down as a feminist issue. A feminist issue is when women’s rights are taken away. She was given the option to use another company and give her money to someone else. I do consider myself a Feminist, though more of a Nancy Friday, men are not evil sex, marriage and babies are good things to have if you want them and yes we can have it all kind of feminist. So I am all for anyone sleeping with anyone that they fancy and is willing. But what I am not for is inflicting your beliefs on my life, or especially on any company or business that already has stated that this is not their mission.
When are people going to learn, if a business doesn’t cater to you, you have the option of using another company? That’s what capitalism is. You don’t have to sue people because they don’t want to cater to your needs. Just don’t use their services, tell all your friends not to use them, and let the people who are stupid enough to put up with their lousy rules be the jerks who give them money.
If you feel that you read this and disagree please be sure to let me know. After all, we are entitled to our own beliefs. I try to write about women in business and when I see women using their gender as a weapon, I will write about it the same way as when I see real discrimination.
Okay, done ranting now.
RSS Feed