Is this story sexist?

We have this story from 2019 - Will Only Touch A Mother Board - and if you click on it you’ll notice it has over 1,000 comments - wow.

But hey, new forum, new take, so as a NAR editor who is always looking to improve, do you think this story is sexist, or is it a case of providing a safe space for women who are uncomfortable with having men come to their house?

Don’t want to start any wars here, so play nice, but I’m genuinely curious what you think?

Yeah, I think a policy like that is sexist.

It’s one thing if the service in question involves women explicitly showing their bodies in some way. Think like a doctor’s office or a gym. There are way, way too many dudes who think it’s okay to criticize or creep on random women just because of her appearances. Like, that is a documented issue that disproportionately affects females— be it the infamously useless “What were you wearing?” question almost always asked to female rape victims to even entire cultures that have norms and rules around how men can (often severely) punish a lustily dressed or ugly woman. It’s not unreasonable for women to have trauma and/or anxieties related to that and thus not feel comfortable exposing their bodies to strange males.

But this has nothing to do with the human body. This is a computer repair. There are alternatives to visiting a male customer’s house if a woman isn’t comfortable with going alone to some strange guy’s residence— she could have them meet at the library, or rent out an office space to discuss the repairs. Heck, she can hire a delivery person to retrieve the computer if it’s really that stressful for her to meet with a male customer alone under any circumstances. Sure, some customers are sexist jerks, but I doubt they’re going to use an independent female repairman for their computer needs either.

I can’t blame the customer for being annoyed here. This goes beyond guaranteeing women protection from the unidentifiable-until-it’s-too-late males who get away with horrible conduct thanks to culturally ingrained sexism. This effectively penalizes all men for the actions of a few. Guys resent that a lot and it actually makes them less receptive to feminism, as it gets falsely tied to misandry in part because of people like the OP of the linked story.



Already said it on that post, and my opinion hasn’t changed.

Also, this thing has been hashed to death already.


I think it’s sexist. On one hand, it probably fills a need for single women living alone who wouldn’t want a strange man in their home for whatever reason. Given that it’s their home, that’s their right. However, while I can understand the storywriter not wanting to go by themselves into a man’s residence to fix their computer, I think it’s sexist to refuse to do the work somewhere else, like a public place.


I think that the main issue people have with the story is that it seems to be a completely arbitrary rule that OP created.

For comparison, we have had several stories on the site about female IT repair personnel, or female receptionists at IT repair places, who have had men come in with “issues” that are completely fabricated — for example “these video files won’t play”, and they’re all porn that plays fine, but they clearly expect the tech to have to “check” them, and are getting their kicks out of the idea of forcing the women to watch it. (And, in some cases, quite possibly deranged enough to think that it might lead to the woman asking for the customer’s help in “recreating” some of the scenes)

If OP’s policy had been explicitly in response to experiencing that sort of situation, I suspect comments would have been a lot more sympathetic.

1 Like

It is the legal definition of sexism, as a business you can’t choose your clientele based on a protected class like gender or race.

There are plenty of businesses that primarily cater to a certain community, like Spanish-speakers or people with black natural hair, and it is fine for OP to build a business model on catering to women who prefer to work with women (female OBGYNs probably do the same). But it doesn’t make sense for OP to turn away male clients for that reason, it doesn’t advance the cause of feminism, and it’s illegal discrimination as I understand it.


Yes, completely agree. As a women, hahah deal with it, but as a business owner, there are laws and one of them is you cannot discriminate against race gender etc. If there was a business doing the exact same thing but with men, it would receive backlash as well.


I wonder what the laws are then, because I see plenty of women-only gyms springing up these days:

By strict definition of the law, they probably do count as sexist… but authorities are far less likely to act on sexism against men, especially for places defined as safe spaces for women.

I remember the backlash a few years ago - from both men and women - when the City of Perth tried to create female only parking spaces. They were closer to the door, and among the disabled and parents parking bays.

1 Like

Yeah I’m not sure how explicitly women-only places justify it, as opposed to just making a women-friendly space that men rarely choose to enter, like barre or yoga classes.

It seems like the main reason they are able to get away with it, based on the link you shared, is that everyone sees the valid safety concern, and that no men have been adversely impacted enough to get a successful case together.

It was found that Stopps was not adversely affected by his inability to join, and rather, he was politically motivated.


I wonder what the laws are then, because I see plenty of women-only gyms springing up these days:

This thing has been hashed to death over there, too.


where can women find