Talk:Membership discrimination in California clubs

Serious problems with the "Ethnic Minorities: 1960s" section

The section "Ethnic Minorities" (subsection "1960s") reads thus: "In July 1969, it was revealed that a campaign had been going on for the past ten years to quietly persuade 'what has been called the 'last bastion' of anti-Semitism in America — the downtown men's clubs of the nation's big cities' to allow Jews to become members."
There are a number of troubling elements to this claim. The first (and most obvious) error is that Jews are not necessarily an "ethnic minority". Indeed Jews in America tend to be predominantly ethnically European; of German, Russian, Polish, etc., stock. Second, it is not per force "anti-Semitism" for any group to exclude Jews from any particular association, any more than it is per force misogyny for men to exclude women from any particular association -- or, for that matter, is it per force misandry for women's clubs to exclude men, as they routinely do. Exclusion no more connotes hatred or intolerance (as suggested by "anti-Semitism") than the exclusion of women connotes the hatred or intolerance of women. So this claim neither sheds light on the legitimate grievances of actual ethnic minorities vis-a-vis private clubs, nor does it advance the understanding of the mechanism of social associations among kind, which exists among all groups (not just the vilified WASP males). Finally, the text of the citation is unavailable except to those who have library cards with the Los Angeles Public Library system. Given its flaws, I'd like to see this section rewritten to more closely reflect reality, or see it removed entirely. Bricology (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether to refer to Jewishness as an ethnicity or a religion is a perennial problem. In fact, for most people it's both. I don't think it's a serious problem to include them in ethnic minorities. "Anti-semitism" is a term used by a reliable source, so it's legitimate and appropriate to use that term in the article. I agree that the links in this and other citations are unhelpful to all but a small portion of the Wikipedia community. It'd probably be better just to give the citations without the links. FWIW, the cited sources are accessible to most readers using other means.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Changed the header to "Minority groups," which is actually the term used in the cited article, and added some more information. This was actually a pretty big deal at the time. Finally, any Californian can get an LAPL library card — just go in and show your ID. Those that can't see the article on their home screens can probably get their local public library to do so. Of course, the L.A. Times will be glad to sell you the article: There is a way to order it on the LAT website. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Those links can only be used by people with LAPL access. Most Californians don't live in Los Angeles or have easy access to the city. However hundreds or thousands of libraries across the country have Proquest subscriptions or the Times on microfilm. Even those with Proquest access elsewhere can't use those links. So at most they benefit only a small fraction of the potential readers of the article, and will frustrate others.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback wrote "Whether to refer to Jewishness as an ethnicity or a religion is a perennial problem. In fact, for most people it's both." For "most" who? -most Jews? -most humans? I doubt that most humans would consider say, Scarlett Johansson or Daniel Radcliffe to be members of an "ethnic minority", despite both of them having Jewish mothers, which would make them (according to the precepts of Judaism) de facto Jews. The fact is that they, like most American or British Jews, are of vastly more European ethnicity than Semitic ethnicity, so to consider Jews to *necessarily* be members of an ethnic minority is nonsensical. Next, whether or not the umbrella source that used the term "anti-Semitism" is "reliable" does not make a specific claim true. Countless newspapers such as the LA Times (the source in question) include writers who use language sloppily; for example, writers whose work appear in newspapers routinely use "decimated" to mean "obliterated" or "utterly destroyed", despite the fact that word correctly means "to kill one out of every ten". The term "anti-Semitism" has likewise become sloppily employed to mean not only anything that speaks unfavorably of Jews or Judaism, but also to apply exclusively to Jews, despite it correctly including all related Semitic peoples, of which Jews actually make up a very small minority. (When was the last time you heard the term applied to the 95% of Semites who aren't Jewish?) So I don't think that some newspaper's inaccurate use of "anti-Semitic" to mean "unfavorable to Jews" somehow magically changes the correct meaning of the term to the intended one. WP demands high standards of accuracy, and someone writing something in a newspaper doesn't "prove" anything, especially when it's at odds with reality. Finally, I have to stress once again that claims of private clubs being "anti-" whoever (Jews, blacks, women, etc.) have been characterized here as evidence of hatred towards, or intolerance of, one group or another, as if it was a violation of an aggrieved party's freedom *to* associate with a club. The claim seems to be that the principle of the freedom of association must be applied equally. And yet, there is a pervasive double-standard. For example, the four women-only private clubs in my town, while not allowing men, would never be described in print as "anti-male", since their simple exclusion of men as members does not suggest that the women members hate, or are intolerant of, men; merely that the expression of their freedom of association precludes male members; a position few would challenge. But how is this any different from a group of say, men excluding women, or a group of gay men excluding straight men or a group of black women excluding Asian women? I'm not looking for the redressing of social grievances on WP, just the accurate and unbiased use of language. Either groups can limit their association based upon their own parameters without it necessarily proving hatred or intolerance, or they cannot. And to be excluded does not prove that one is the victim of hatred or intolerance. Bricology (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You make some interesting points but this isn't the place to discuss them. Whether Jews are a religious group, an ethnic minority, or something else the point for this article is that they were the subjects of discrimination at private social clubs in California, a notable topic. Let's leave the other issues for other forums.   Will Beback  talk  07:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Mounted Patrol

This topic is probably not high level enough to include on this page, but I thought it would be an interesting point of discussion. All along the Peninsula in the Bay Area, Mounted Patrol clubs formed during WWII to patrol the coastal mountains, looking out for any Japanese activity on the coast. After the war, these groups continued, and even today provide search and rescue services. They were, as a rule, male only. I forget the name of the woman who sued all of them in the late 80's, but every club was forced to either drop all discrimination in membership or become a private club, which had significant tax effects on members who deducted their horse related expenses, due to their work in search and rescue.

I'm quite a fan of the San Mateo Mounted Patrol, which did in the end opt to be a men's club. I've been on many rides with them, and my step-father was once the Captian. My mother is similarly involved with the female-only horse club in the area. I believe there is also a black horse club, though I don't know if race is officially part of their membership requirement. I would note that I do not know of any black members of the Mounted Patrol, though there are Latinos, Jews, and in general I find racism among the members to be no higher than among the rest of the population.

I personally remain conflicted on the issue of sex discrimination in club membership. The members of both the male and female horse clubs I'm aware of would generally prefer to keep it segregated. The Junior League operates in the area and seems to be only women. Certainly the character of the men-only rides I've been on (many are mixed, only some are men-only) would have changed considerably had women been present. There would have been a lot less drunkenness, yelling, and generally raising hell, which was a lot of fun, and relatively safe. The food fights would not have occurred, nor most of the pranks. There's real value in gatherings where men can be boys again. We segregate Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. At what age does this become a problem?

Still, there's value in relationships formed in these male-only clubs, and some of that naturally extends to financial dealings, from which women are sometimes excluded. I wouldn't want the character of these horse clubs to change in any way, but is there a middle ground where women could be members, yet men could still get together without them? Some Mounted Patrol groups went the other way, and decided to become anti-discriminatory in membership. It would be interesting to hear about the differences in their outcomes. WaywardGeek (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"employes" quotation

@BeenAroundAWhile: Thanks for undoing my accidental edit to a quotation. The close quote mark is missing - would you mind checking the source once more and adding it at the correct place? I don't have a Los Angeles library card. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Membership discrimination in California social clubs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110120162725/http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/DFEH/Publications/unruhDescr.aspx to http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/DFEH/Publications/unruhDescr.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)