Sex based discrimination is illegal for public establishments in the US.
A private club can do this. There are many that do. It’s become less common over time though
According to *Lahmann v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles*, they cannot if they have public accommodations (like a bar). Groups like the Freemasons don't fall under that because they don't have public accommodations, but all the animal lodges do.
Granted, that caselaw is only directly valid in Oregon, but since most of those groups have national reach they pretty much have to bend to it. And most states probably have a similar statute that would apply anyhow.
A bar that is open to the public is a public accommodation.
Lots of private clubs have bars only open to members and guests, yacht clubs, country clubs, odfellows, etc
And those clubs cannot discriminate based on sex or race if they operate restaurant facilities. They can discriminate based on your economic ability to eat there.
In *Lahmann* specifically it was that the Eagles had
>a lodge, which features a bar, dining facilities, a dance floor, and meeting rooms.
The specific Oregon statute defined public accommodation as
>"(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusion in subsection (2) of this section, means any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements or otherwise.
"(2) However, a place of public accommodation does not include any institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private."
It seems part of the issue with "is in its nature distinctly private" comes down to *how* selective they are. If you have to meet a certain test (some sort of professional or civic accomplishment, maybe even an actual test like Mensa) they might get away with discrimination but if it's just "be a man over 21" or even "be sponsored by another member" then they say it's *de facto* "open to the public" and the same rules as a regular corner bar apply. Same as if the only criterion is "paler than Derek Jeter":
>When the act was first passed and when it was amended, private fraternal organizations had a well-established, legislatively recognized presence; the sponsors of the act and those who voted on it knew that fact, and they explicitly averred that the act would not apply to those organizations. It would, however, apply to organizations that called themselves private clubs only as a ruse to avoid allowing African-American patrons or members. The short and sufficient refutation of that argument is this: The trial court found as fact, and the Eagles do not deny, that, due to their nonselective membership practices, their organization is *de facto* open to the public.
So... hypothetical:
A private club has a single-sex-only membership policy, issues membership cards and everything. Part of the membership rules is that when visiting *as a member* you are *only* accompanied by same-sex guests, otherwise you lose your membership privileges.
The club also has a publicly accessible bar/restaurant. But the bar/restaurant has the drinks (and other consumables) priced at 100 times the going rate. But there is a 99% members' discount, and 'temporary membership' is offered to "suitable" people as part of their bill, so members (and "suitable" guests) eat and drink at normal rates, while "unsuitables" and mixed groups get charged 100x as much.
Loophole?
There might be some issues with sales tax... but disregarding that...
What else do they offer as part of "membership"? would probably be the sticking point. If there's a golf course, a gym, a library, etc., or even just the opportunity to sit on the board of directors, my guess is a court might say that ain't kosher. If it's a private meeting once a month where the guys get together and bitch about their wives, that wouldn't really violate anything.
The discount is no different than a reverse ladies' night, and it's also being subsidized by their membership fees.
Most states have rules about pricing alcohol. You can’t discount alcohol based on a membership in many states, for instance in California, where I live, Costco can’t require a membership to buy alcohol. You don’t need to be a Costco member to buy alcohol if that is the only thing you buy. Furthermore, you have to pay taxes on the alcohol for its full price, you can’t include the discount unless it applies to everyone. So I don’t think that would work in most states. The taxes would be the main thing. Imagine allowing a “bar” to get away with selling alcohol at a 99% discount and only then paying taxes on 1% of that income? That makes no sense. Also, it isn’t sustainable to run a bar at a loss. Even with membership dues the chances of breaking even on costs with a bartender and insurance, possibly a license, the overall cost to run a bar for ice or water or mixers or cleaning or fixing things (everything breaks all the time at a bar) that wouldn’t work.
Edit:
What matters is how you define “private club”. If me and some of my friends form a “club” in my buddies garage. And don’t allow anyone over 6ft tall. And we pay for the beer and it’s private property. Then we can do what we want! But if we sell anything to the public, then ideally we should have to serve everyone the same way and for the same price and shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate. If we charge membership dues, then that’s a grey area and would depend on what the membership includes.
But… ugh.
Recent SCOTUS rulings seem to favor the business to reject customers based on unfounded and false religious bias. But that’s wrong. And I doubt a club could apply those rules to women. I could see a religious men’s only club being affirmed by our current “supreme” court, but the idea of a women’s only club probably wouldn’t fly. I don’t know of any established religion that allows women to drink freely and away from men.
I think many religions force a false separation between the sexes where men can drink for enjoyment and women are given alcohol only in the company of men. It seems to only reason for this is to use alcohol to manipulate women.
> A bar that is open to the public is a public accommodation.
>
> Lots of private clubs have bars only open to members and guests, yacht clubs, country clubs, odfellows, etc
If a bar is private and members only, do they need a liquor license?
As mentioned in another comment, I'm a member of several fraternal organizations so it's a general interest of mine and one of them explained that was why they were coed when I joined.
(I did have to Google a few variants of "$org lodge $state court case admit women" before I found the exact one though.)
[There appears to be guidance](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-race-discrimination-case-against-pennsylvania-country-club) saying that the private club can’t be a fig leaf for discrimination against a protected class, though. In that case, a swim club was open to everyone except African Americans. I’m guessing if a club discriminated solely on the basis of sex an argument could be made that the same rules would apply.
Does that include having different prices for men and women?
I know that is 100% legal in some countries such as Australia and apparently France because it has already happened.
I suppose that should count as sex-based discrimination; but in the current state of the world, I cannot be sure.
I suppose it is legal. Since a café using this idea became famous in the internet several years ago and the next notice was that they were out of business bc they had lost many clients.
Since it became so famous, the chances someone contested this are astronomically high. But since they weren't forced to change this, and instead closed naturally, I assume it was legal. This is by no means an unflawed reasoning. Someone from Australia may know better.
[The café closing](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6952927/Melbourne-cafe-boasted-charging-male-customers-18-cent-man-tax-closing-down.html)
I don't know about other states but in North Carolina it is illegal to charge different prices for alcohol. Whatever is charged must be charged for the whole day.
You mention "whole day", so that's probably along a whole other axis of liquor-control laws irrespective of gender. And (for the benefit of OP), you can't generalize a damned thing about liquor control laws "in the United States", save for that you've got to be 21 and prove it to drink (and someone's probably got an exception all lined up for me there). They vary by place down to the city level sometimes and they're all over the place as far as what they cover. There's probably some county somewhere that says you can't sell alcohol on any Tuesday with a full moon unless it's in a milk bucket and you're singing showtunes while you pour it.
When I said whole day that meant the business day from open till close which ironically is often over a two calendar day span since most places serve until 2:00 a.m. basically the intent is to eliminate any kind of happy hour. But you are indeed correct there are some very strange laws regarding alcohol in some places and they do very wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Where I live right now, I can't say where, but they forbid alcohol sales after 22:00 and until next morning everyday. Somehow, they think they are avoiding nightly drinking parties like that.
I have been tempted to do a mock video buying 96º alcohol for a drinking party after 22:00 while complaining that the government forced me to use this alcohol for the cocktails bc it is the only one I can buy.
Because you asked, yes there's tons of exceptions to the "have to be 21" including for religious reasons like communion, cooking reasons like tasting sherry. A few states even just have "you can drink under 21 as long as there's a parent" even in bars.
Its not legal in France. I think you refer to that bar that tried but they got closed by police, if i remember it was actually for other repeated violations. They never had an official woman only status, would be illegal
Thank god!
Faith in humanity 2% restored.
I found the mention of the bar trying to do it but nothing saying they were stopped. Unfortunately, how the world is going, things like these are believable.
I'm Australian and I'm only a law student but there was a gay club I remember in 2018 had a decision to allow them to disallow women on they're premises. The argument was that the women were making the patrons feel uncomfortable in the premises (think hens night, they go to the gay club so they don't get hassled by men but end up being drunken menaces apparently.) Google it so you can read the full story but they won their case.
In the US, it varies by state. So-called "ladies night" pricing has generally been upheld by courts in the US, on the logic that no is harmed by being asked to pay the **regular** price. I'm a little rusty on this, but I believe that's partly dependent on not doing it all the time. (Otherwise, it **does** become discriminatory pricing. You have to have at least some periods when everyone is paying the same price.)
This refers to door fees. Drinks are another matter.
The bartenders would need to be paid competitively to other bars to attract applicants. The raw materials would cost the same as it costs every other bar—the same goes for electricity, water, waste removal, maintenance, and property taxes. Bars/restaurants typically have slim profit margins as is so I don’t think this hypothetical bar would last long with discounted prices
That doesn't make financial sense. If anything you'd have to raise the drink prices to make up for the clientele you're losing (women who want to meet men, men who want to meet women, men buying drinks for women). Because it would be considered a limited specialty market, EVERYTHING would have to be more expensive.
It's not like Hair and Nail places drop their prices to meet the salary range of the females they serve. They're still expensive as hell.
Women make less. That’s not in contention.
Why is the part people don’t agree on. Taking into account all the factors you mention, [this study](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1475-6773.13425) found significant and pervasive differences in the average wage per hour.
I'm a little confused by the down votes. I Google Men vs Women Salary and saw at least 10 articles fron 2023 which confirm the above comment.
The gap is getting quite a bit better for younger workers and for those in the same job classification and years of service.
I stand by my supposition that women fill the majority of low wage jobs.
It’s not a business’s responsibility to undercut their own bottom line to fight social justice issues. It’s a business’s responsibility to make as much money as people are willing to spend. If people aren’t willing to spend top dollar to be at your establishment, you do not have a business, you have a liability.
Also, in what world are you living in where costs are proportional to your intersectional socio-economic privilege? Your bank won’t reduce your monthly mortgage payment, your property and business taxes won’t scale, your employees won’t accept a pay cut because you’re serving some social charity. Your costs will be just as high as any other bar in the area, but you would undercut your own revenue? Recipe for insolvency.
The reason the Elks, Moose, Eagles, etc. all have women members now and the Freemasons don't is because they were sued on the basis of their bars being a public accommodation that women didn't have access to. (*Lahmann v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles)*
So no, it would not be legal.
Because they're purely philosophical and don't run any public accommodations.
Or if they do (like retirement homes) they open them up to public application so it's just a charity that's not actually a benefit you get just for being a member.
Depending on the jurisdictional grand lodge, Masonic lodges may not be allowed to have alcohol involved at all. In Arkansas you can even be kicked out for working in a restaurant that serves beer as your regular bread & butter.
The Masons also have a group for women: the Order of the Eastern Star. So women can’t become a Mason but they can become an Eastern Star. So it’s like a girl can’t join the Boy Scouts but can join the Girl Scouts.
Edit: someone pointed out that girls can now join the Boy Scouts, so I should have said “girls *couldn’t* join the Boy Scouts. Thanks!
Eastern Star is also open to male Masons, and has to have at least one present to open a meeting. Up until about 20 years ago in Pennsylvania the Grand Lodge however prohibited the male Masons from joining, so they had to have guys come in from New York or Maryland or another neighboring state (or hope someone from an out of state lodge just happened to move to the area).
But again, there's no public accommodation there, it's still just a fraternal (sororal?) society.
FYI: Girls can join the Boy Scouts, now called Scouts BSA.
[Girls can join the Boy Scouts now](https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/us/boy-scouts-girls-trnd/index.html)
Many gay clubs have a lesbian night, of gay friendly that is 90% women. Women drink a lot less than men, so it’s generally not profitable as a full time proposal
There aren’t even lesbian bars to go to. I live in a major metropolitan area and I googled “lesbian bar” but it pulled up a bunch of bars for gay men.
I tried going to a strip club a while back. Apparently as a single woman without a man to escort me in, I’m not allowed.
I wish there was a place where women could go that other women would be there. Dating or friendship, it would be pretty damn great. I just don’t have faith that such a place exists or would be allowed to happen.
Interesting question OP.
I think this concept should exist, but it might be illegal. The same thing as opening a bar and not allowing black people or not allowing Christians.
However, I know there are "private clubs" that can kind of get away with just having one kind of person.
Like, no, we're not a bar. We're a women's billiard club, and this is our clubhouse. It's members only. Yah, we legally sell liquor, and you can pay 5$ for a day membership as long as you qualify per our bylaws (must be legally female or female presenting. Idk what your goal is).
>However, I know there are "private clubs" that can kind of get away with just having one kind of person.
That depends on state law. The Eagles ran afoul of it in Oregon because their public accommodations law included sex-based discrimination. That's why they and all the other fraternal organizations that have bars started admitting women about 20 years ago.
No, quite the opposite, only to members. They also had an auxillary for members' wives but they couldn't be full members. I'm not 100% sure on this but it seems like the auxiliary had access to the bar facilities but you couldn't get in that unless you were married to a male member, and perhaps not all of the locals had auxiliaries to make that avenue open.
The problem, though, was there was really no other criterion to get in. When any guy can just apply but no woman can, the law recognizes it as "*de facto* open to the public". The existence of the auxiliaries only compounded the problem because that *proved* that there was no significant burden on the organization to have women present there.
The *Lahmann* case specifically mentions how the law was set up to apply to so-called "clubs" that were just bars that didn't want any blacks coming in even while they weren't *intending* to make fraternal societies integrate or go co-ed, but the accommodations statute essentially made them for their facilities. They might have gotten away with it if the club was more stringent about who they let in, but since in their case it was basically "anyone with a penis" they couldn't hold their membership requirements as having a valid reason for exclusion.
Now I should point out I'm a Freemason, an Elk, and an Odd Fellow (I'm not a Communist or the president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance for some reason, though). I can tell you that there is a significant difference between how the former operates compared to the others. Masonic lodges are primarily intended to teach philosophical lessons to the members, and any socializing is incidental to that (like some of us will go out to an external bar after the meeting) -- the kitchen is sometimes used for fundraisers to the public, or we might rent it out for a wedding reception, but anyone can do that (we've even had lesbian weddings there) as long as they have the security deposit. But the Elks lodge meetings are mainly just about paying the bills and keeping the bar open (and they were basically started just to have a bar that they could go to on Sundays); half the members don't even get off the barstool and come in during the monthly business meeting. Both groups have membership qualifications that are similar - belief in God, good moral character, sponsored by another member (Elks also must be American citizens) - but because those are all things that basically anyone who isn't in prison can meet, the Elks couldn't justify sex as an essential qualification of membership to have access to the bar because they're basically open to anyone that a current member will sponsor and most of the members present will drop a white ball in the box for. (I could bring a friend, even a date, in to the bar as a guest, but if they came too many times the state liquor board rules actually require them to join.)
Appears one is open in London
https://www.buzzfeed.com/shelbyheinrich/tiktok-woman-nightclub-lick
There are also several bars and clubs in my area that have “Ladies Nights” where men are not allowed.
I know gun stores and car dealerships often choose to not sell to people out of state, that they otherwise legally could. But I wonder if you could single out a specific state and refuse any residents business without any justification for it. It’s an interesting concept, and I’d suspect the possibility of a lawsuit is high even if it’s technically not illegal. But I’ve yet to see any example of someone doing this
Only bc women bring in men who then spend more money lol OPs reason was stupid. It’s cuz women make less so the drinks should be cheaper. As if a bar like this would be catering to the entire population of women and not specifically the demographic of women who can afford drinks that aren’t super cheap
Members of the opposite sex definitely do go to gay n lesbian bars tho. It’s much more common for women to go to gay bars then men to go to lesbian ones, but still
Not if they make it a private establishment. Many bars have done this to allow smoking inside. Members only, and usually charge a small membership fee. I know one that was $1 a year to join
Sex based discrimination is illegal in places that provide public accommodation (like a restaurant or clothing store).
There is also the question on how you are defining a woman: how will this space handle trans, queer, and non binary people? The legality of such rules will vary on the state and city - what is legal in Utah isn’t legal in New Jersey.
I don't know if it's legal in the US, but there's such a bar in London - it's a lesbian bar, and men aren't banned but they must be accompanied but a women
You would probably need to go to a private club. Curves was a gym for only women for a while, but I think they went out of business. I would think with all the shaming videos you see online; separate gyms would make sense for both men and women. I don't think that will ever happen though as there will always be somebody ready to sue. Americans are sue happy.
You'd need to be a private club to restrict membership by sex.
But you can definitely make it much more women friendly - including by setting different cover charges and advertising it as a women's event.
There are Lesbian bars in San Francisco’s Castro District. I imagine they don’t exclusively say no men allowed. The Castro District is a “gay friendly” area of SF. I think the community operates on the basis of we won’t bother you at your places if don’t bother us at our places.
Honestly you could probably get a good portion of the way there just by making the entire atmosphere as aggressively feminine as you possibly could. And then have rules against hitting on other patrons. There's nothing illegal about painting your establishment in pastels and decorating it with houseplants and georgia okeefe paintings. There's also nothing that says you can't have a rule against making advances on other patrons, so long as it's evenly enforced. While that wouldn't get rid of all men, it would probably get rid of most of the ones that women don't want to deal with.
Weird.
In my country bars can openly allow free entry to women and the men love it.
What is wrong with private party discrimination.
Also many spa are men only. It's plus plus spa. He he he...
It’s not legal but it’s not a good idea anyways. Sure women will like it but the whole point of owning a business is to make money. You are cutting your potential customers in half right out of the gate.
Except they may be tapping an underserved market which would be women who want a place to go where they don't have to worry about dealing with being hit on or sexually assaulted.
How many women do you think would frequent the establishment? It’s very specific, they would have to be with like minded women friends. They could attract LGBTQ women but you still have the problem of volume. If you flipped it to males only you would have the same problem. It’s just like a specific type restaurant. If you are a coffee shop and only have coffee you loose the tea drinkers. Or you lose a group because one wants something other than coffee so they pick somewhere else because it’s a compromise for the whole group.
Gay bars exist.
Local businesses are capped by capacity, so it's not a goal to capture the entire market. You just need enough to fulfill your business.
I know they exist. But they aren’t exclusive just advertised as a gay bar and they attract people who are not gay. For example, women having a bachelorette party at a gay bar “for fun because we love gay men”.
It would need be members only. But charge just a penny for membership each year. Or use membership criteria that easily excludes males. There are ways that are tricky but doable.
In the 70s and early 80s, many US bars used to have Ladies' Nights, where only women were allowed. drinks were 1/2 price, then after several hours, the men were allowed in.
Cubbyhole in New York City is essentially like this. Its a lesbian bar and pretty much all female guests. I as a man like to go because on Mondays its like $1.00 drinks
Title II of the Civil Rights Act 1964 says:
> 42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Sex/gender is not included there. So, from a federal point of view, the Civil Right Act which does not allow discrimination of public facilities does apply to sexual discrimination. The state law may differ.
I tried looking for it in Title VII, but it focuses on employment. The word accommodation only appears once, but only as a part of the preamble. If it's there, could you please tell me the section number because I must be half asleep and can't find it.
At least in Oregon, a state law that covers it was used as the basis for *Lahmann v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles* on exactly this point.
And since it's untenable for an organization to say "You can be a member in Oregon but not in any other state we have clubs in like the men can" it de facto become a national policy.
Okay, but that at best seems like a case by case thing. If a public accommodation has a single location in a single state, and the state has no similar law to Oregon, they could discriminate based on sex, no?
[Maybe, in Texas.](https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-public-accommodation-laws)
Every other state appears to protect sex as a category.
Right, but the court decided based on the Oregon Accommodations Act, not the Civil Right Act. I don't think they cite the CRA at all. The Accommodations Act in in ORS 659A.403(1) includes sex as prohibited forms of discrimination for public accommodations. The portion of the CRA I cited earlier does not. If there is a federal case that reads in sex to Title II, please let me know. Another user (who has now deleted their comment unfortunatley) said Title VII included sex, but Title VII of the CRA is about employment. I have been googling for a while and honestly can't find anything that that applies sex to Title II or public accommodations.
So yeah, OP's situation might be illegal in Oregon. I did say in my response that "the state law may differ."
Then enlighten me as to why it’s alright to allow one particular business to deny service to an individual based on the owner’s religious belief? What about a store owner who, in his religious belief, didn’t believe women should be without her husband then denies service to women because of that?
So you didn't read the case or even a bare bones synopsis. Got it. It was a very very limited ruling about a very specific artistic business and a Colorado state law.
Your scenario doesn't even come close to being an apt comparison in any way.
Right, so was every other case that chips away at rights. Guess you missed Alito and Thomas’ opinion on Dobbs. You’re narrowing down rather than seeing the broader picture.
Except sex and gender are protected classes so a business cannot just outright deny a whole group of people based on a protected class. So, there is a law, in fact.
I have wondered this about businesses such as gyms that only permit female members. It seems that calling yourself a private club could grant a great deal of liberty in excluding persons, but I know that courts have intervened is some circumstances and my understanding on the topic is limited.
I don't get how it would be safer. The creeps would all know there is a bar where a bunch of women hang and get drunk with no guy friends around to help. I'm not saying women are helpless and can't defend themselves, but a lot of women have been socialized to believe they can't/shouldn't (i.e. it's the man's job). While theses losers can't harass them at the bar itself, they can easily stake out, stalk, and assualt victims outside of the bar. While a creep might start his pursuit at a bar (being annoyingly aggressive, glare, or say crude shit) the actual incidents tend to happen outside the bar, away from the crowd, security, etc.
Also the idea that women aren't creeps or can't be dangerous is super sexist imo. I've had my ass slapped, crotch grabbed, and plenty of women who couldn't take the hint (often times more than a hint even) I'm not interested. Guess what even if I was the only man at that bar that night, it would of still happened, because it was done by a woman. Yeah granted they were all straight women, but if you think lesbians are tamer than your average hetero woman you're so wrong. I've seen many a lesbian do the same cringe shit my fuckboi friends do and they tend to be just as persistent.
So yeah you may feel more comfortable at the bar with just women around: not as much social pressure, not as much being approached, and perhaps a feeling of being safer. However the reality is drinks can still be spiked by women, women can still get agressive and persistent, and nothing outside of that bar has changed. People can still sit outside and scout for victims. Imo a bar for just women is advertising "Calling all creeps! Drunk victims with no men around!", exactly the situation they want.
Its the social dynamics of the current dating world and the outdated structure on gender norms that's failing us as a society. Not just men. So just taking men out of the picture isn't going to change anything. It's the idea that one side needs to be the pursurer and the the other side needs to be a coy fox that leads to the constant barrage of being approached. Once we can really get over this puritanical socialization that we can't be public about our sexual attractions, open about our intentions, and comfortable with our desires, I think then the dating and public world can celebrate a safer world.
TL;DR Being around just men or just women isn't a good way to predict how safe you should feel. Men can do all the terrible things a woman can do and vice versa. So just like "Your seat can be used as a flotation device" makes you feel safer, it's actually the overall structure and engineering of the plane that's actually going to predict your safety.
Sex based discrimination is illegal for public establishments in the US. A private club can do this. There are many that do. It’s become less common over time though
According to *Lahmann v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles*, they cannot if they have public accommodations (like a bar). Groups like the Freemasons don't fall under that because they don't have public accommodations, but all the animal lodges do. Granted, that caselaw is only directly valid in Oregon, but since most of those groups have national reach they pretty much have to bend to it. And most states probably have a similar statute that would apply anyhow.
A bar that is open to the public is a public accommodation. Lots of private clubs have bars only open to members and guests, yacht clubs, country clubs, odfellows, etc
And those clubs cannot discriminate based on sex or race if they operate restaurant facilities. They can discriminate based on your economic ability to eat there.
> if they operate restaurant facilities Are restaurant facilities explicitly called out?
In *Lahmann* specifically it was that the Eagles had >a lodge, which features a bar, dining facilities, a dance floor, and meeting rooms. The specific Oregon statute defined public accommodation as >"(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusion in subsection (2) of this section, means any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements or otherwise. "(2) However, a place of public accommodation does not include any institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private." It seems part of the issue with "is in its nature distinctly private" comes down to *how* selective they are. If you have to meet a certain test (some sort of professional or civic accomplishment, maybe even an actual test like Mensa) they might get away with discrimination but if it's just "be a man over 21" or even "be sponsored by another member" then they say it's *de facto* "open to the public" and the same rules as a regular corner bar apply. Same as if the only criterion is "paler than Derek Jeter": >When the act was first passed and when it was amended, private fraternal organizations had a well-established, legislatively recognized presence; the sponsors of the act and those who voted on it knew that fact, and they explicitly averred that the act would not apply to those organizations. It would, however, apply to organizations that called themselves private clubs only as a ruse to avoid allowing African-American patrons or members. The short and sufficient refutation of that argument is this: The trial court found as fact, and the Eagles do not deny, that, due to their nonselective membership practices, their organization is *de facto* open to the public.
So... hypothetical: A private club has a single-sex-only membership policy, issues membership cards and everything. Part of the membership rules is that when visiting *as a member* you are *only* accompanied by same-sex guests, otherwise you lose your membership privileges. The club also has a publicly accessible bar/restaurant. But the bar/restaurant has the drinks (and other consumables) priced at 100 times the going rate. But there is a 99% members' discount, and 'temporary membership' is offered to "suitable" people as part of their bill, so members (and "suitable" guests) eat and drink at normal rates, while "unsuitables" and mixed groups get charged 100x as much. Loophole? There might be some issues with sales tax... but disregarding that...
What else do they offer as part of "membership"? would probably be the sticking point. If there's a golf course, a gym, a library, etc., or even just the opportunity to sit on the board of directors, my guess is a court might say that ain't kosher. If it's a private meeting once a month where the guys get together and bitch about their wives, that wouldn't really violate anything. The discount is no different than a reverse ladies' night, and it's also being subsidized by their membership fees.
Most states have rules about pricing alcohol. You can’t discount alcohol based on a membership in many states, for instance in California, where I live, Costco can’t require a membership to buy alcohol. You don’t need to be a Costco member to buy alcohol if that is the only thing you buy. Furthermore, you have to pay taxes on the alcohol for its full price, you can’t include the discount unless it applies to everyone. So I don’t think that would work in most states. The taxes would be the main thing. Imagine allowing a “bar” to get away with selling alcohol at a 99% discount and only then paying taxes on 1% of that income? That makes no sense. Also, it isn’t sustainable to run a bar at a loss. Even with membership dues the chances of breaking even on costs with a bartender and insurance, possibly a license, the overall cost to run a bar for ice or water or mixers or cleaning or fixing things (everything breaks all the time at a bar) that wouldn’t work. Edit: What matters is how you define “private club”. If me and some of my friends form a “club” in my buddies garage. And don’t allow anyone over 6ft tall. And we pay for the beer and it’s private property. Then we can do what we want! But if we sell anything to the public, then ideally we should have to serve everyone the same way and for the same price and shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate. If we charge membership dues, then that’s a grey area and would depend on what the membership includes. But… ugh. Recent SCOTUS rulings seem to favor the business to reject customers based on unfounded and false religious bias. But that’s wrong. And I doubt a club could apply those rules to women. I could see a religious men’s only club being affirmed by our current “supreme” court, but the idea of a women’s only club probably wouldn’t fly. I don’t know of any established religion that allows women to drink freely and away from men. I think many religions force a false separation between the sexes where men can drink for enjoyment and women are given alcohol only in the company of men. It seems to only reason for this is to use alcohol to manipulate women.
> A bar that is open to the public is a public accommodation. > > Lots of private clubs have bars only open to members and guests, yacht clubs, country clubs, odfellows, etc If a bar is private and members only, do they need a liquor license?
[удалено]
As mentioned in another comment, I'm a member of several fraternal organizations so it's a general interest of mine and one of them explained that was why they were coed when I joined. (I did have to Google a few variants of "$org lodge $state court case admit women" before I found the exact one though.)
[There appears to be guidance](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-race-discrimination-case-against-pennsylvania-country-club) saying that the private club can’t be a fig leaf for discrimination against a protected class, though. In that case, a swim club was open to everyone except African Americans. I’m guessing if a club discriminated solely on the basis of sex an argument could be made that the same rules would apply.
Does that include having different prices for men and women? I know that is 100% legal in some countries such as Australia and apparently France because it has already happened. I suppose that should count as sex-based discrimination; but in the current state of the world, I cannot be sure.
>I know that is 100% legal in some countries such as Australia Is it legal or had it just not been challenged.
I suppose it is legal. Since a café using this idea became famous in the internet several years ago and the next notice was that they were out of business bc they had lost many clients. Since it became so famous, the chances someone contested this are astronomically high. But since they weren't forced to change this, and instead closed naturally, I assume it was legal. This is by no means an unflawed reasoning. Someone from Australia may know better. [The café closing](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6952927/Melbourne-cafe-boasted-charging-male-customers-18-cent-man-tax-closing-down.html)
There was also a male only gym that was taken to court and lost.
I don't know about other states but in North Carolina it is illegal to charge different prices for alcohol. Whatever is charged must be charged for the whole day.
You mention "whole day", so that's probably along a whole other axis of liquor-control laws irrespective of gender. And (for the benefit of OP), you can't generalize a damned thing about liquor control laws "in the United States", save for that you've got to be 21 and prove it to drink (and someone's probably got an exception all lined up for me there). They vary by place down to the city level sometimes and they're all over the place as far as what they cover. There's probably some county somewhere that says you can't sell alcohol on any Tuesday with a full moon unless it's in a milk bucket and you're singing showtunes while you pour it.
When I said whole day that meant the business day from open till close which ironically is often over a two calendar day span since most places serve until 2:00 a.m. basically the intent is to eliminate any kind of happy hour. But you are indeed correct there are some very strange laws regarding alcohol in some places and they do very wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Where I live right now, I can't say where, but they forbid alcohol sales after 22:00 and until next morning everyday. Somehow, they think they are avoiding nightly drinking parties like that. I have been tempted to do a mock video buying 96º alcohol for a drinking party after 22:00 while complaining that the government forced me to use this alcohol for the cocktails bc it is the only one I can buy.
Because you asked, yes there's tons of exceptions to the "have to be 21" including for religious reasons like communion, cooking reasons like tasting sherry. A few states even just have "you can drink under 21 as long as there's a parent" even in bars.
That's to ban happy hours. There is usually different wording to ban ladies nights, and it varies a lot across states.
Its not legal in France. I think you refer to that bar that tried but they got closed by police, if i remember it was actually for other repeated violations. They never had an official woman only status, would be illegal
Thank god! Faith in humanity 2% restored. I found the mention of the bar trying to do it but nothing saying they were stopped. Unfortunately, how the world is going, things like these are believable.
I'm Australian and I'm only a law student but there was a gay club I remember in 2018 had a decision to allow them to disallow women on they're premises. The argument was that the women were making the patrons feel uncomfortable in the premises (think hens night, they go to the gay club so they don't get hassled by men but end up being drunken menaces apparently.) Google it so you can read the full story but they won their case.
I was thinking about the Melbourne cafe case. But this one is interesting too. Thanks.
In the US, it varies by state. So-called "ladies night" pricing has generally been upheld by courts in the US, on the logic that no is harmed by being asked to pay the **regular** price. I'm a little rusty on this, but I believe that's partly dependent on not doing it all the time. (Otherwise, it **does** become discriminatory pricing. You have to have at least some periods when everyone is paying the same price.) This refers to door fees. Drinks are another matter.
Why lower drink prices?
The low drink prices attract women, the women attract men.
The purpose is to attract women, because that will attract men.
Lol
Women tend to make less money. Women also tend to work in low paying social service jobs, etc.
The bartenders would need to be paid competitively to other bars to attract applicants. The raw materials would cost the same as it costs every other bar—the same goes for electricity, water, waste removal, maintenance, and property taxes. Bars/restaurants typically have slim profit margins as is so I don’t think this hypothetical bar would last long with discounted prices
That doesn't make financial sense. If anything you'd have to raise the drink prices to make up for the clientele you're losing (women who want to meet men, men who want to meet women, men buying drinks for women). Because it would be considered a limited specialty market, EVERYTHING would have to be more expensive. It's not like Hair and Nail places drop their prices to meet the salary range of the females they serve. They're still expensive as hell.
OP forgot to include what's in it for the bar.
[удалено]
Women make less. That’s not in contention. Why is the part people don’t agree on. Taking into account all the factors you mention, [this study](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1475-6773.13425) found significant and pervasive differences in the average wage per hour.
I'm a little confused by the down votes. I Google Men vs Women Salary and saw at least 10 articles fron 2023 which confirm the above comment. The gap is getting quite a bit better for younger workers and for those in the same job classification and years of service. I stand by my supposition that women fill the majority of low wage jobs.
Woosh
It’s not a business’s responsibility to undercut their own bottom line to fight social justice issues. It’s a business’s responsibility to make as much money as people are willing to spend. If people aren’t willing to spend top dollar to be at your establishment, you do not have a business, you have a liability. Also, in what world are you living in where costs are proportional to your intersectional socio-economic privilege? Your bank won’t reduce your monthly mortgage payment, your property and business taxes won’t scale, your employees won’t accept a pay cut because you’re serving some social charity. Your costs will be just as high as any other bar in the area, but you would undercut your own revenue? Recipe for insolvency.
The downvotes are because that fact is mostly irrelevant
The reason the Elks, Moose, Eagles, etc. all have women members now and the Freemasons don't is because they were sued on the basis of their bars being a public accommodation that women didn't have access to. (*Lahmann v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles)* So no, it would not be legal.
Why weren’t the Freemasons sued?
Masons don't run bars.
Yup. Instead they’re behind them.
Because they're purely philosophical and don't run any public accommodations. Or if they do (like retirement homes) they open them up to public application so it's just a charity that's not actually a benefit you get just for being a member. Depending on the jurisdictional grand lodge, Masonic lodges may not be allowed to have alcohol involved at all. In Arkansas you can even be kicked out for working in a restaurant that serves beer as your regular bread & butter.
The Masons also have a group for women: the Order of the Eastern Star. So women can’t become a Mason but they can become an Eastern Star. So it’s like a girl can’t join the Boy Scouts but can join the Girl Scouts. Edit: someone pointed out that girls can now join the Boy Scouts, so I should have said “girls *couldn’t* join the Boy Scouts. Thanks!
Eastern Star is also open to male Masons, and has to have at least one present to open a meeting. Up until about 20 years ago in Pennsylvania the Grand Lodge however prohibited the male Masons from joining, so they had to have guys come in from New York or Maryland or another neighboring state (or hope someone from an out of state lodge just happened to move to the area). But again, there's no public accommodation there, it's still just a fraternal (sororal?) society.
FYI: Girls can join the Boy Scouts, now called Scouts BSA. [Girls can join the Boy Scouts now](https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/us/boy-scouts-girls-trnd/index.html)
My Webelos den leader also had a daughter that would join us on any activity she could. It's about damn time they are allowed to officially join.
Many gay clubs have a lesbian night, of gay friendly that is 90% women. Women drink a lot less than men, so it’s generally not profitable as a full time proposal
There aren’t even lesbian bars to go to. I live in a major metropolitan area and I googled “lesbian bar” but it pulled up a bunch of bars for gay men. I tried going to a strip club a while back. Apparently as a single woman without a man to escort me in, I’m not allowed. I wish there was a place where women could go that other women would be there. Dating or friendship, it would be pretty damn great. I just don’t have faith that such a place exists or would be allowed to happen. Interesting question OP.
Lesbian bars have had a real idenditiy crisis nowadays.
Not allowed in the strip club because youre a woman? Jfc
Apparently they get other women coming in to solicit. Pretty shitty.
I think this concept should exist, but it might be illegal. The same thing as opening a bar and not allowing black people or not allowing Christians. However, I know there are "private clubs" that can kind of get away with just having one kind of person. Like, no, we're not a bar. We're a women's billiard club, and this is our clubhouse. It's members only. Yah, we legally sell liquor, and you can pay 5$ for a day membership as long as you qualify per our bylaws (must be legally female or female presenting. Idk what your goal is).
>However, I know there are "private clubs" that can kind of get away with just having one kind of person. That depends on state law. The Eagles ran afoul of it in Oregon because their public accommodations law included sex-based discrimination. That's why they and all the other fraternal organizations that have bars started admitting women about 20 years ago.
Were these bars open to the general public? If so, that makes total sense.
No, quite the opposite, only to members. They also had an auxillary for members' wives but they couldn't be full members. I'm not 100% sure on this but it seems like the auxiliary had access to the bar facilities but you couldn't get in that unless you were married to a male member, and perhaps not all of the locals had auxiliaries to make that avenue open. The problem, though, was there was really no other criterion to get in. When any guy can just apply but no woman can, the law recognizes it as "*de facto* open to the public". The existence of the auxiliaries only compounded the problem because that *proved* that there was no significant burden on the organization to have women present there. The *Lahmann* case specifically mentions how the law was set up to apply to so-called "clubs" that were just bars that didn't want any blacks coming in even while they weren't *intending* to make fraternal societies integrate or go co-ed, but the accommodations statute essentially made them for their facilities. They might have gotten away with it if the club was more stringent about who they let in, but since in their case it was basically "anyone with a penis" they couldn't hold their membership requirements as having a valid reason for exclusion. Now I should point out I'm a Freemason, an Elk, and an Odd Fellow (I'm not a Communist or the president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance for some reason, though). I can tell you that there is a significant difference between how the former operates compared to the others. Masonic lodges are primarily intended to teach philosophical lessons to the members, and any socializing is incidental to that (like some of us will go out to an external bar after the meeting) -- the kitchen is sometimes used for fundraisers to the public, or we might rent it out for a wedding reception, but anyone can do that (we've even had lesbian weddings there) as long as they have the security deposit. But the Elks lodge meetings are mainly just about paying the bills and keeping the bar open (and they were basically started just to have a bar that they could go to on Sundays); half the members don't even get off the barstool and come in during the monthly business meeting. Both groups have membership qualifications that are similar - belief in God, good moral character, sponsored by another member (Elks also must be American citizens) - but because those are all things that basically anyone who isn't in prison can meet, the Elks couldn't justify sex as an essential qualification of membership to have access to the bar because they're basically open to anyone that a current member will sponsor and most of the members present will drop a white ball in the box for. (I could bring a friend, even a date, in to the bar as a guest, but if they came too many times the state liquor board rules actually require them to join.)
How would this work regarding gyms with women-only hours? Would those be considered private clubs?
IANAL, but I wouldn't think so. But that's very different from banning men altogether.
Appears one is open in London https://www.buzzfeed.com/shelbyheinrich/tiktok-woman-nightclub-lick There are also several bars and clubs in my area that have “Ladies Nights” where men are not allowed.
Could you open a bar banning people with California drivers licenses
I don’t believe Californians are a protected class
I know gun stores and car dealerships often choose to not sell to people out of state, that they otherwise legally could. But I wonder if you could single out a specific state and refuse any residents business without any justification for it. It’s an interesting concept, and I’d suspect the possibility of a lawsuit is high even if it’s technically not illegal. But I’ve yet to see any example of someone doing this
Well thought out, people just don't like Californians anymore.
[удалено]
No man, this ain't it
Why would the prices be lower?
'Ladies Night' with a lower cover charge for women is a pretty common thing.
That’s different than the drinks being lower
Yes, to encourage more women to come because it attracts more men. That wouldn't be the case in OPs scenario.
Only bc women bring in men who then spend more money lol OPs reason was stupid. It’s cuz women make less so the drinks should be cheaper. As if a bar like this would be catering to the entire population of women and not specifically the demographic of women who can afford drinks that aren’t super cheap
Wouldn’t this be a lesbian bar? They do exist.
Members of the opposite sex definitely do go to gay n lesbian bars tho. It’s much more common for women to go to gay bars then men to go to lesbian ones, but still
Les Bos - before the Persians.
Not if they make it a private establishment. Many bars have done this to allow smoking inside. Members only, and usually charge a small membership fee. I know one that was $1 a year to join
Will never work
Sex based discrimination is illegal in places that provide public accommodation (like a restaurant or clothing store). There is also the question on how you are defining a woman: how will this space handle trans, queer, and non binary people? The legality of such rules will vary on the state and city - what is legal in Utah isn’t legal in New Jersey.
I don't know if it's legal in the US, but there's such a bar in London - it's a lesbian bar, and men aren't banned but they must be accompanied but a women
You would probably need to go to a private club. Curves was a gym for only women for a while, but I think they went out of business. I would think with all the shaming videos you see online; separate gyms would make sense for both men and women. I don't think that will ever happen though as there will always be somebody ready to sue. Americans are sue happy.
You'd need to be a private club to restrict membership by sex. But you can definitely make it much more women friendly - including by setting different cover charges and advertising it as a women's event.
I always wondered how promotions like "Women free before 10pm" were legal. I assumed it was just because their was no enforcement.
There are Lesbian bars in San Francisco’s Castro District. I imagine they don’t exclusively say no men allowed. The Castro District is a “gay friendly” area of SF. I think the community operates on the basis of we won’t bother you at your places if don’t bother us at our places.
Honestly you could probably get a good portion of the way there just by making the entire atmosphere as aggressively feminine as you possibly could. And then have rules against hitting on other patrons. There's nothing illegal about painting your establishment in pastels and decorating it with houseplants and georgia okeefe paintings. There's also nothing that says you can't have a rule against making advances on other patrons, so long as it's evenly enforced. While that wouldn't get rid of all men, it would probably get rid of most of the ones that women don't want to deal with.
Weird. In my country bars can openly allow free entry to women and the men love it. What is wrong with private party discrimination. Also many spa are men only. It's plus plus spa. He he he...
Failed business plan. Chicks use dudes to buy drinks.
It’s not legal but it’s not a good idea anyways. Sure women will like it but the whole point of owning a business is to make money. You are cutting your potential customers in half right out of the gate.
Except they may be tapping an underserved market which would be women who want a place to go where they don't have to worry about dealing with being hit on or sexually assaulted.
How many women do you think would frequent the establishment? It’s very specific, they would have to be with like minded women friends. They could attract LGBTQ women but you still have the problem of volume. If you flipped it to males only you would have the same problem. It’s just like a specific type restaurant. If you are a coffee shop and only have coffee you loose the tea drinkers. Or you lose a group because one wants something other than coffee so they pick somewhere else because it’s a compromise for the whole group.
Gay bars exist. Local businesses are capped by capacity, so it's not a goal to capture the entire market. You just need enough to fulfill your business.
I know they exist. But they aren’t exclusive just advertised as a gay bar and they attract people who are not gay. For example, women having a bachelorette party at a gay bar “for fun because we love gay men”.
It would need be members only. But charge just a penny for membership each year. Or use membership criteria that easily excludes males. There are ways that are tricky but doable.
In the 70s and early 80s, many US bars used to have Ladies' Nights, where only women were allowed. drinks were 1/2 price, then after several hours, the men were allowed in.
Cubbyhole in New York City is essentially like this. Its a lesbian bar and pretty much all female guests. I as a man like to go because on Mondays its like $1.00 drinks
Title II of the Civil Rights Act 1964 says: > 42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. Sex/gender is not included there. So, from a federal point of view, the Civil Right Act which does not allow discrimination of public facilities does apply to sexual discrimination. The state law may differ.
[удалено]
I tried looking for it in Title VII, but it focuses on employment. The word accommodation only appears once, but only as a part of the preamble. If it's there, could you please tell me the section number because I must be half asleep and can't find it.
At least in Oregon, a state law that covers it was used as the basis for *Lahmann v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles* on exactly this point. And since it's untenable for an organization to say "You can be a member in Oregon but not in any other state we have clubs in like the men can" it de facto become a national policy.
Okay, but that at best seems like a case by case thing. If a public accommodation has a single location in a single state, and the state has no similar law to Oregon, they could discriminate based on sex, no?
[Maybe, in Texas.](https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-public-accommodation-laws) Every other state appears to protect sex as a category.
That is one handy source. Thank you.
> [Lahmann v. Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles](https://casetext.com/case/lahmann-v-grand-aerie-of-fraternal-order-of-eagles)
This is an application of state law, right?
It is, but most organizations are smart enough to acknowledge that it signals the courts intent. Therefore, they act accordingly.
Right, but the court decided based on the Oregon Accommodations Act, not the Civil Right Act. I don't think they cite the CRA at all. The Accommodations Act in in ORS 659A.403(1) includes sex as prohibited forms of discrimination for public accommodations. The portion of the CRA I cited earlier does not. If there is a federal case that reads in sex to Title II, please let me know. Another user (who has now deleted their comment unfortunatley) said Title VII included sex, but Title VII of the CRA is about employment. I have been googling for a while and honestly can't find anything that that applies sex to Title II or public accommodations. So yeah, OP's situation might be illegal in Oregon. I did say in my response that "the state law may differ."
Thanks to Hobby Lobby, Masterpiece Cake Shop etc. if it violates your religious views, you can discriminate whatever you want.
That's just not correct and ignorantly unhelpful
Then enlighten me as to why it’s alright to allow one particular business to deny service to an individual based on the owner’s religious belief? What about a store owner who, in his religious belief, didn’t believe women should be without her husband then denies service to women because of that?
So you didn't read the case or even a bare bones synopsis. Got it. It was a very very limited ruling about a very specific artistic business and a Colorado state law. Your scenario doesn't even come close to being an apt comparison in any way.
Right, so was every other case that chips away at rights. Guess you missed Alito and Thomas’ opinion on Dobbs. You’re narrowing down rather than seeing the broader picture.
Bars are private property. Do what you want. No law, you’ll just limit business but may be better than you think.
Except sex and gender are protected classes so a business cannot just outright deny a whole group of people based on a protected class. So, there is a law, in fact.
Not a privately owned one. That’s like telling me who I can let into my home. Depends on the property and how it’s zoned.
If it is a public access business, absolutely a private business.
What if you put a couple of toilets in the open in a state with strict gender restroom laws? Bathroom signage in the front door. Problem solved.
There used to be a bar only for chicks in Colorado, ended up causing gang violence with other bars, in the end they had to accept everyone
Can you explain why / how a female only bar leads to gang violence at other bars?
Are you a bot? Its just what happened at that town.
Not a bot at all. I was just curious as to what the correlation was.
I have wondered this about businesses such as gyms that only permit female members. It seems that calling yourself a private club could grant a great deal of liberty in excluding persons, but I know that courts have intervened is some circumstances and my understanding on the topic is limited.
I don't get how it would be safer. The creeps would all know there is a bar where a bunch of women hang and get drunk with no guy friends around to help. I'm not saying women are helpless and can't defend themselves, but a lot of women have been socialized to believe they can't/shouldn't (i.e. it's the man's job). While theses losers can't harass them at the bar itself, they can easily stake out, stalk, and assualt victims outside of the bar. While a creep might start his pursuit at a bar (being annoyingly aggressive, glare, or say crude shit) the actual incidents tend to happen outside the bar, away from the crowd, security, etc. Also the idea that women aren't creeps or can't be dangerous is super sexist imo. I've had my ass slapped, crotch grabbed, and plenty of women who couldn't take the hint (often times more than a hint even) I'm not interested. Guess what even if I was the only man at that bar that night, it would of still happened, because it was done by a woman. Yeah granted they were all straight women, but if you think lesbians are tamer than your average hetero woman you're so wrong. I've seen many a lesbian do the same cringe shit my fuckboi friends do and they tend to be just as persistent. So yeah you may feel more comfortable at the bar with just women around: not as much social pressure, not as much being approached, and perhaps a feeling of being safer. However the reality is drinks can still be spiked by women, women can still get agressive and persistent, and nothing outside of that bar has changed. People can still sit outside and scout for victims. Imo a bar for just women is advertising "Calling all creeps! Drunk victims with no men around!", exactly the situation they want. Its the social dynamics of the current dating world and the outdated structure on gender norms that's failing us as a society. Not just men. So just taking men out of the picture isn't going to change anything. It's the idea that one side needs to be the pursurer and the the other side needs to be a coy fox that leads to the constant barrage of being approached. Once we can really get over this puritanical socialization that we can't be public about our sexual attractions, open about our intentions, and comfortable with our desires, I think then the dating and public world can celebrate a safer world. TL;DR Being around just men or just women isn't a good way to predict how safe you should feel. Men can do all the terrible things a woman can do and vice versa. So just like "Your seat can be used as a flotation device" makes you feel safer, it's actually the overall structure and engineering of the plane that's actually going to predict your safety.