So, men don't like chenille throw blankets? (My boyfriend loves mine...) Is the TV pre-programmed to Lifetime? I'm not sure about all this either. I'm sure it's just trying to capture a corner of the market, but it still kinda comes off as patronizing, doesn't it?

And, really, how would a women's only floor:
1. Make women feel safer in a strange city?
2. Prevent men from approaching them in the lounge?

And... yeah... I'm not so sure that a cheille throw blanket is going to do a lot to increase your safety.

If you want guests to feel safety, mighten it be a better to, say, have controlled access to the building? Or visable guards? Or cameras in elevators? These sorts of things actually help make all guests actually safer, instead of taking pointless actions (that, at best give a false sense of security).

i wholeheartedly agree. accommodating sexism by separating
women only legitimizes what is clearly wrong. it gives muscle to fear. and to men.

Yeah, I don't get it either... I was under the impression that the locks on the doors and the "do not disturb" signs were protection enough.

Not to mention the security guards constantly patrolling the hotel.

And, how does this curb violence of woman against woman?

If a man and a woman that aren't married check into the hotel together, can they stay in the same room?

If the woman's floor is completely non-smoking, do smoking women have to go all the way downstairs and to the lounge or outside?

This raises a lot of important questions about the luxury afforded women at this hotel...

Is this hotel a part of a larger hotel chain?

If so, I know where I'm NOT staying, next time I SWING through the midwest! :)

This just reinforces the idea that the problem is with women, not with men. And if women would just cover up, or travel separately, or stay on different floors, they wouldn't tempt men into doing bad things to them.

Bullshit.

This gimmick is nothing new. Usually women's floors offer a combination of "ammenities for women" (girlie soaps, ect.) and extra security.

I misread the post in the beginning and thought it read "India" rather than Indiana. Racist and ethnocentric much? Yet, I think my reaction speaks volumes about the backwardness of such a plan. I just did not want to think such stupidity could happen so close to me. Not that I think India is more backward than Indiana (I know better; I used to live in Ohio), but I was grasping at cultural straws.

What a bad idea. Honestly, why don't they have a rapist/mugger/harasser only floor, and then we'll separate out the ones who should be kept out of mainstream society.

While it's definitely true that we should be working on fixing the problem, which is with men and not women, I don't see anything inherently wrong with the separate floor idea. I think that no matter how hard you try to hold men culpable, make sexual harassment and assault their problem, etc., there are still going to be men out there who will sexually harass and assault women. Always. No matter what. And if a women's-only hotel floor really does make women safer and feel safer and more comfortable, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I would definitely be more comfortable staying alone if I would go get ice or sit in the lounge without some creep coming up and hitting on me. Because, it happens, and some guys just don't get the "not interested" message.

Not to mention that, if you're that skeered of being in Indiana, you probably should never leave your house.

I am reminded of Golda Meir, who responded to the idea that, to address an increase in rape, there should be a curfew for women. She said that if there should be a blanket curfew, it should be for men. So perhaps we should have all-male floors with lockdown after dinner. Then women can opt to sit in the lounge or where ever they want and feel 'safe.'

Good idea, Grace.

Hey now, women sexually harrass me all the time and don't think twice about it...

Do we need a curfew for you ladies so that I can leave my house without feeling like my "package" will be "debriefed" against my will?

This is getting beyond silly...and you all know it...and ought to be ashamed of yourselves!

Really, I would feel much LESS safe on an all-women floor as it seems to invite rapists/stalkers/unwanted men. It would make that hotel that much more attractive to these types. Idiotic idea. Besides, it's not like the floor would be on lockdown, and why should it be? It's not a dorm with curfew and RAs. And why the hell can't they just make all the rooms that much more palatable?

I'm torn. On the one hand, I think it is silly to assign women to a certain floor, and that it does tend to invite stalkers/rapists et cetera. On the other hand, I feel as though it's silly to expect a hotel to single-handedly change the status quo. Also, I think it's a good thing that this is being brought to national attention--stating that women don't feel safe and are uncomfortable staying alone in hotels *does* draw attention to the fact that...well...women don't feel comfortable staying in hotels.

As a side note, if there should be women-only anything, it should be elevators. Not only would it be less expensive to post a guard at that single station, it would be very much harder for men to follow women up to their hotel rooms; also, I find that my creepiest encounters happen on elevators (close standers are terrifying).

The discussion is not in the least bit silly, but your remark is silly, sad, and dismissive of a serious issue. Your preening and papa-like scolding of the little "ladies" is not appreciated by this woman who understands the depth and pervasiveness of issues of sexual harassment and the curtailment of women's freedom.

last post was for mnh

Ouch JRav, this conversation is headed down rather quickly.

I think it is easy to see that what we don't need is segregation, what we don't need is curfews...

What we do need is security.

Security to me would involve security cameras, trained and responsible security guards, and an alert system to alert the hotel when there is a rapist/intruder on the loose.

It might cost more money in the short term, and you might feel as if your privacy is violated by always being on camera...BUT...if it makes us all feel safer from the lost souls that exist and perpetrate heinous crimes that terrorize us all...than more power to it.

And yes, the womens floor, like the women dorm is most likely the FIRST place I would go to HANG OUT.

(Which might actually bring into question my intentions of hanging out here on feministing.com :)

:)

Just an FYI: Grand Rapids is in Michigan, not Indiana. Doesn't change the absurdity of the hotel, but Indiana doesn't need any more backwards ideas attributed to it.

I'm sorry that you feel patronized, Grace.

If you don't see why a man (who isn't a creep or a rapist) would feel offended about the idea of a curfew for men so women can all hang out by themselves while men sit at home bored, or why I would find your specious argument "silly", than I really don't know what to say.

I was playfully chiding you, I wasn't scolding you.

Surely, you understood me that I was "JESTING".

I was under the impression that your post was a jest too, but now I know that you are as scary as you purport yourself to be...

I'm sorry I made you feel patronized, but the idea of a curfew for men because of the heinous actions of a few individuals reeks of Nazi-ism.

I am not really why you feel my entrance into the conversation would bring it down mnh. I felt like my points were valid. Further, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Besides, I don't really think rapists/intruders identify themselves at the door and then proceed to run "on the loose," as you say, around the hotel. And your comment that you would definitely hang out there perfectly proves my point. So thank you.

OneSong-

I know exactly what you mean...I HATE ELEVATORS. I HATE PEOPLE TALKING TO ME IN ELEVATORS. I HATE WOMEN BRUSHING UP AGAINST ME IN ELEVATORS.

Ugh. I forgot how much of a rat trap elevators are.

They make me SO uncomfortable.

Wow, 19 whole comments before someone went "Nazi" on us. I guess I was thinking we'd get the 30. Call me an optimist.

Actually Jrav,

You misunderstood me, I was agreeing with you.

I was saying that in general the tone of the conversation was heading into dark territory.

Your likening the hotel to a "dorm" reminded me of Virginia Tech, and that is what made the conversation to me take a dark turn.

And, I'm sorry about the ambiguity of my post.

My point is that I enjoy the company of females way more than men most of the time, and I know that because of this I tend to take up interests that females take up (such as Feminism, Soccer, Jogging, Roller Skating, Art, Pop Music, Dancing, Laughing, etc). This isn't because I'm trying to take advantage of women, and I'm sorry my ambiguous statements would accidentally mislead you to think such things...but knowing that I am that way with good intentions...I'm sure that an evil bastard with horrible intentions would use the same techniques...and the segregation would cause those women (unless they were all bad ass hoss trained killer babes like my future wife hopefully will be) to place themselves in a position of danger merely by segregating themselves.

The idea that women like different luxuries than men is damn right insulting.

The whole idea that Grand Rapids is putting forward is a deliberate slap in the face and I hope you ladies recognize that.

Oh. Then I apologize.

How is the idea of a curfew for men not similar to the idea of a curfew for Jewish people?

That is nazism, and I didn't go nazi on Grace, Grace went nazi on us.

I understand Jessica's train of thought - if we start trying to "protect" women by segregating them, we're only getting one step closer to the type of society where women aren't let out of the house for fear they "tempt" men and the common claim is that not leaving the home is for women's own good. I myself feel very limited in my actions sometimes beause I'm 18 and my parents put restrictions on me that I don't think they'd put on a boy - they don't like me driving home alone late at night, for example, because they're convinced the car will break down and I'll inevitably get mugged or raped by someone while I'm stopped on the side of the road. Same with walking alone at night at college - my boyfriend doesn't like me walking alone because he's convinced I'm somehow more at risk than he is. (I pointed out to him that young men in their 20s are statistically assaulted more than any other category of people, but that doesn't seem to matter.) I ignore him and simply remain aware of my surroundings.

That being said, I don't think we can deny that women are in some ways more vulnerable than men - when it comes to armed robbery, sure, men and women are both defenseless, but I also know that the average guy is MUCH, much stronger than I am, and that does scare me a litle bit. So it's hard because women SHOULD be able to interact with the world in the same way that men do and freely go about in public, but we don't live in an ideal world.

It's cool JRav, it's easy to understand how you could so easily misunderstand me especially through the use of a computer to communicate.

I'm sorry my communication was so rediculously ambiguous.

Twice in 30 comments! Oh well, it must just be the computer's fault.

How do we make sure no men get on the women's-only floor? Will there be guards posted at the elevators and stairwells? Will there be a exclusively female restaurant, so I feel safe while eating my dinner?

MNH, I'm glad we have a man posting so there's more dialogue. I just wanted to clear one thing up: I don't think any of us here literally think a curfew on all men should be imposed. If I understand Grace correctly - and forgive me if I don't, Grace - I thought she was merely pointing out that there is a tendency in our society to say women's actions should be limited "for their own good" and that this way of thinking is ridiculous. Then she turned the tables as Golda Meir did, saying if anything, men should be the ones who are limited if it is men who cause the problems. But again, no one thinks all men should literally be kept indoors. We just don't think women should have to be segregated in order to feel safe.

yowsa, MNH. i understand playing devil's advocate, but you've sashayed past the devil's advocate realm into facetiousness central. Here's why:

Although no one here would ever discount the fact that there can be man on man, woman on man, and woman on woman violence, the fact of the matter is that there is a significantly higher incidence of man on woman violence than any other. refusing to keep that perspective in your arguments is what's taking away from them.

jessica (and golda meir!) are right that of course women should not be punished for their own harrassment/rape/murder.

but what *is* the solution? i had to stay in a motel by myself at a truck stop sort of town recently. at the first two motels i looked into, the front desks were both manned by large men with shaved heads and tattoos, presumably to keep the truckers off each other (let alone uppity city feminists like me).

the third motel was staffed by a nice motherly woman, but just walking from the front desk to my room, i got a full-body leer from a fellow traveller. after that, i was scared even with all three locks on the door engaged. there was a window they could smash. i skipped a rather lovely view and made sure not even a crack was open in the curtains. where normally i'd explore my new surroundings, i limited myself to one trip to the convenience store on the same block, concentrating on looking ugly and mean the whole way.

so women do fear for their safety in these situations, and it limits our freedom already. besides raise boys to know it's not okay to treat women like meat, i'm not sure what the solution is.

i would have paid top dollar for a women-only motel that night.

Why isn't this crap illegal?!

Racial segregation has long been unthinkable, yet gender segregation is completely tolerated. Safety and comfort for both blacks and whites was the justification for racial segregation. As long as black people had their own lodging, transportation, and restaurants, black people would be safe from attacks and harassment, while white people were "safe" from the influence of black people.

Looking back now, this is ridiculous logic. The reason black people were harassed and attacked was BECAUSE they were segregated and seen as a lesser "other." Segregation on the bus, on the train, or in a hotel seems innocuous in a vacuum, but it's the base for ALL other social inequities. We are still stuck in the first wave -- until we get equal social footing under the law, issues such as rampant violence towards women and economic disparity will never come close to being solved.

We need to take a STRONG STANCE against this and any other form of gender segregation. Unfortunately, I am very confident that feminism is a lost cause if we continue to tolerate it.

I'm sorry that you feel patronized, Grace.

versus:

I hope you ladies recognize that.

Huh?

If you don't see why a man (who isn't a creep or a rapist) would feel offended about the idea of a curfew for men so women can all hang out by themselves while men sit at home bored, or why I would find your specious argument "silly", than I really don't know what to say.

If you can misread the statement: "I am reminded of Golda Meir, who responded to the idea that, to address an increase in rape, there should be a curfew for women. She said that if there should be a blanket curfew, it should be for men." as an actual endorsement of blanket curfews, rather than as a criticism, I really don't know what to say. It's obvious that the suggestion that men should be locked away is a criticism of the idea that, because women are victimized, they need to be locked away.

Surely, you understood me that I was "JESTING".

I didn't. Especially given that it was pretty obvious that she wasn't seriously suggesting that all men should be locked away.

I was under the impression that your post was a jest too, but now I know that you are as scary as you purport yourself to be...

If you knew that she was joking, why respond as though she were not?

When you dismiss the concerns about being sexually harassed or make jokes about how it's just as bad for men as it is for women, you set alarm bells ringing. You- as a man- are coming from a position of privilege, and being dismissive of the very real problems facing women, even in jest, isn't necessarily very appropriate. Especially when it's not clear that you're joking.

I'm sorry I made you feel patronized, but the idea of a curfew for men because of the heinous actions of a few individuals reeks of Nazi-ism.

*head desk*
And the suggestion that women need to be segregated out in order to keep them safe doesn't seem patently ridiculous, as well? Did you stop to consider that the entire point of the suggestion might have been to draw attention to the ridiculous notion that, because women are victimized, they need to be further victimized by locking them away?

I was saying that in general the tone of the conversation was heading into dark territory.

From my perspective, the tone started going downhill around the time you said: This is getting beyond silly...and you all know it...and ought to be ashamed of yourselves! That's just my pov, though.

Your likening the hotel to a "dorm" reminded me of Virginia Tech, and that is what made the conversation to me take a dark turn.

That sounds like a problem on your part, not hers. It makes perfect sense to compare it to a dorm, since many dorms have womens only floors.

My point is that I enjoy the company of females way more than men most of the time, and I know that because of this I tend to take up interests that females take up (such as Feminism, Soccer, Jogging, Roller Skating, Art, Pop Music, Dancing, Laughing, etc).... ...The idea that women like different luxuries than men is damn right insulting.

You... you do see the glaring contradiction of what you're saying there, right? I agree that it's insulting to think that men and women have innately different tastes, but just a few sentences earlier, you're listing off things that, apparently, women like that, you imply, men don't?
Like laughing?

The whole idea that Grand Rapids is putting forward is a deliberate slap in the face and I hope you ladies recognize that.

I just have to point out, again- that, right there? That's patronizing. I think it's pretty obvious from some of the comments that plenty of the women on here are giving this serious consideration. Calling them ladies (which tends to be dismissive and patronizing) and saying that you hope they recognize the conclusion that you've come to as the right one isn't really the most respectful way of approaching the topic.

While overall I do think I would stay on a woman-only floor at a hotel, I also really, really wonder about this hotel's intentions, especially in light of the stupid "extra" amenities offered. That strikes me as really patronizing, plus it makes me think they're probably charging more for these rooms, which means that women are essentially going to suffer financially for men's actions. (Okay, I know that's pretty much one of the foundations of capitalism, but I don't have to like it when another idiot finds a way to make a buck off of our lack of safety in the world.) I know when I was in hostels in Australia I paid extra money to be on female-only floors, and I did like it but it also put me even more in debt by the time I came back.

Interestingly enough, there's also a female-only hostel in Cairns in Australia. From what I understand it basically exists because so many young women are unsafe in the excessive party atmosphere of Cairns, and often hostels are just as threatening as the bars (not to mention that hostels very commonly have bars attached to them in Australia).

This is an excerpt from one of my most favorite recent posts, on one of my most favorite recent scandals, the Tobias/DC Madame one.

PEPFAR: The art of practising safe prostitution.
It’s a gleeful morning here in Washington, kids, as all the international development-ites (even the former ones) wake up to Sunday morning talk shows filled with the news that Randall Tobias, director of foreign aid programs at the State Department (otherwise known as the head of USAID), just resigned due to the press finding out that he was listed on the D.C. Madam’s list.

Pop some khalua in the coffee, mix up some mimosas and griddle some pancakes, pals, because CNN has never been so fun.

For it seems that the same guy that developed the international policy against prostitution and for abstinence, couldn’t quite manage to abstain from prostitution.

Pretty much the only way for things to get more fun than this would be if we found out that Bush was a gay Iraqi.

Oh, the irony. And what we lack in fashion sense in this town, we make up for in our appreciation for the ironic...

More: http://scottybeammeup.blogspot.com/2007/04/pepfar-art-of-practising-safe.html

Jami: i would have paid top dollar for a women-only motel that night.

I think that my problem with ideas like this is that they provide a false sense of security. Most hotels that I've been to have stairwells and don't have elevator attendents. If a man wanted to attack a woman, nothing about a woman's only floor is going to prevent him from doing that. Anything that could be used to prevent that from happening is going to work at least as well in an unsegregated floor.

I think that you're right- the best long-term solution involves teaching men and boys to respect women and making it clear what is and is not acceptable behavior. In the meantime, I think that programs like this are a good short-term aid. While they do put some onus on women to protect themselves, I think that the actual security that they offer is better than the sense of security that segregated floors would offer.

i would have paid top dollar for a women-only motel that night.

Most southern blacks would have paid top dollar for black-only hotels for their safety until very recently (and probably still would in certain areas).

This is not a solution, though, and just perpetuates the problem. If racist whites only see blacks when they drive through poor neighborhoods, doing subservient service jobs, and on crime reels on the local news, they're not going to treat blacks well in the few instances they interact with them. If men only interact with women in subservient jobs, in sexualized roles in the movies and porn, and in the female ghetto on TV (daytime shows, lifetime, etc), they're not going to treat them well either.

Sometimes I go to Digg.com and gawk at the commenters there. This is a "geeky" site full of young male computer engineers (the site is over 95% male) who went to school with almost all men, work with almost all men, and watch sports with almost all men. Their few interactions with women are in porn, on strip clubs, and in over-sexualized media. Look at the comments there on any topic having anything to do with women -- they're almost all completely demeaning, sexist, and dismissive of women as human beings. These are mostly very smart men who have just not come across many smart women in social situations in their lives.

but what *is* the solution?

Refuse to hide and be visible as a human being. Don't stay in "women only" locations. Realize that stranger rape is relatively RARE, but carry mace or learn self defense just in case. It's not fair that you need to carry this extra burden of fear, but it's the only way you will ever get the respect you deserve.

roymac, you made my day, so thanks for that. Sometimes I get worked up when I'm reading some of the posts, when all I should do is scroll down and notice that you've made it all happy again. :)

the idea of separating women out instead of trying to improve the world we're already in doesn't seem like much of a solution.

Agreed. Reminds me of the Golda Meir suggestion, met with such resounding silence.

Whoops, the link didn't go through. Here's the comment I was referencing:

[mg_65] Why don't we focus outward on the rapist?

It's like when the Tel Aviv police wanted to respond to a rape problem with a curfew for women. And Golda Meir demanded that they have a curfew for men, since men were the ones, y'know: doing the raping. And so the whole curfew idea was dropped.

("on fear, on and o