Men-only hairdresser. Not bad or supporting sexism?

[Qaanol]

Given that women-only businesses exist (gyms being the most common example), I see no issue with there being no men-only facilities as well. Private individuals should have every right to decide whom and whom not they do business with.

Bryan

Perhaps someone missed the 1960s?

[gmalivuk]

Of course I'd have a problem with a business refusing service-I was asking if there were potentially acceptable reasons for limiting clientele.

Then what do you actually mean by "limiting clientele"? Because as I'm reading it, this is a patently contradictory sentence.

what about a catholic church that refuses to perform a bar mitzvah? or a synagogue that refuses to offer catholic communion?

That's a stupid comparison, and we've already addressed religious services.

nobody has really addressed the barber's ultimate motive for not serving women, which is a cultural aversion to lust and touching strange women.

Which is more valid than a cultural aversion to touching blacks or atheists... how, exactly?

[lutzj]

nobody has really addressed the barber's ultimate motive for not serving women, which is a cultural aversion to lust and touching strange women.

Which is more valid than a cultural aversion to touching blacks or atheists... how, exactly?

Because one is about obscenity and the other is simply bigotry? Would you consider a gay male masseuse immoral for refusing to massage naked women?

[Vaniver]

Would you consider a gay male masseuse immoral for refusing to massage naked women?

That's the opposite example. You wanted the example of a gay male masseuse who only takes female clients because he doesn't trust himself to be professional with male ones.

[lutzj]

Would you consider a gay male masseuse immoral for refusing to massage naked women?

That's the opposite example. You wanted the example of a gay male masseuse who only takes female clients because he doesn't trust himself to be professional with male ones.

Agreed.

[elasto]

Which is more valid than a cultural aversion to touching blacks or atheists... how, exactly?

It totally depends on the motivation.

If someone refuses to touch or serve a Black person, it can really only be because he thinks of them as lesser human beings - as 'dirty' in some way. He no more wishes to touch a Black person than touch a cockroach. If someone thinks it inappropriate to intimately touch a woman who isn't his wife - even with her permission - that may be out of a misguided sense of respect for the woman and her sensibilities though.

Of course, if it's just because he thinks women 'dirty' then, yeah, it's equally distasteful.

[Menkaure]

I don't really see a problem with this. At the barbershop where I get my hair cut, 3 of the 4 barbers are women, and one of the women is the owner. They still don't do women's hair there. It is a family business, and the owner was the daughter and only child of the man who started the business. He cut men's hair and that is what he taught her. She can theoretically do women's hair, but it isn't what she is good at or comfortable with, so she doesn't. The shop caters mostly to the university's Corp of Cadets, so they are really good at doing short mens haircuts at reasonable prices.

It is probably similar with this Moroccan. If he is comfortable with and good at doing mens hair, what is wrong with him sticking to what he is good at? Should he try doing something he knows he is bad at just to assuage your fears of somehow promoting sexism? The sign "Men's Hairdresser", strikes me as more descriptive than anything else. It describes what he does and what can be expected from his shop.

As it stands, all we really know about this barber is that he is a Moroccan expatriate, a Muslim, and that he cuts mens hair. Unless I have missed a post in my read through of this thread, we don't really know anything else about who he is or what he thinks. At any rate, this is at worst a minor thing to worry about. Does it really matter whether he doesn't cut womens hair due to cultural attitude, lack of technical skill, or a combination of the two? Boycotting someone because they have the gall to deviate in the slightest way from your values is IMHO childish. As long as he does a good job cutting your hair, and doesn't go about stoning women, where is the harm in having him cut your hair? Just my $0.02.

[gmalivuk]

The sign "Men's Hairdresser", strikes me as more descriptive than anything else. It describes what he does and what can be expected from his shop.

Well yeah, and if it's simply a description of the kinds of haircuts he's best at, there's no issue. Just like a store that sells "Men's Shoes" isn't a problem.

But in this thread we've been assuming that he would actually refuse to cut a woman's hair, so instead it's more like a men's shoe store that goes so far as to refuse to serve female customers, which is a different matter entirely.

[DSenette]

all of the laws against discrimination by businesses are based upon the concept that the discrimination in place is directed at the victim of said discrimination.

a Muslim refusing to touch a woman's hair isn't because the Muslim doesn't want to become "unclean" or that he thinks the woman is "unclean". it's because he's actually trying to protect the woman from disgrace. Since it's that religion's belief that no man should see a woman uncovered unless he's planning on marrying her.

so the discrimination isn't for the purpose of exclusion based on sex, it's based in a religious belief that if he were to touch a woman's hair, both of them would basically go to hell

it's like not allowing kids unsupervised into a shooting range. it's for mutual protection.

[gmalivuk]

No, it's more like not allowing women into a shooting range unsupervised.

[Jesse]

I know that the hairdressers I've been to over here, 'Men's Cut' actually means that they only have the basics there. Often there's no washbasin, or colouring etc. So if you go in there, even as a woman, only basic styles will be available to you. Generally, Trim, Cut and Shave. The one I go to is like that, but has recently added onto it's building a 'Beauty' section where they can now do colouring and layering and all that other stuff. So there's a 'Men's Cut' side and a 'Ladies Cut' side. I think the words are outdated based on preconceived gender roles, but the general idea of it isn't sexist, merely the words they use to replace Basic and Complex.

[gmalivuk]

I think the words are outdated based on preconceived gender roles, but the general idea of it isn't sexist, merely the words they use to replace Basic and Complex.

Right, but the premise of this thread seems to have been that the shop in question won't even serve women, not just that it doesn't do more complex cuts.

[sophyturtle]

The interesting thing is that when you walk into one of the men's hair places they don't say 'sure I will give you a buzz cut'. They say 'we don't serve women'. And have you leave. Looking at you funny and not caring about how easy it is to cut my hair.

[johnny_7713]

I think the words are outdated based on preconceived gender roles, but the general idea of it isn't sexist, merely the words they use to replace Basic and Complex.

Right, but the premise of this thread seems to have been that the shop in question won't even serve women, not just that it doesn't do more complex cuts.

It certainly makes the debate more interesting to take this as the premise, but I just wanted to point out that it is not supported by the evidence given. All we know is that 1) the hairdresser calls himself a 'men's hairdresser' and 2) the hairdresser identifies as a Muslim (presumably, otherwise I don't know how the OP knows this).

[annecdotal] 1) One of my friends at university is a Muslim woman, born of Turkish immigrants. She does not cover her hair, and does not object to being touched by non-related men (more than any 'western' woman would). She doesn't consider herself less of a Muslim because of this, and as far as I can tell, neither do her family and Muslim friends. 2) Last Christmas we celebrated with my maternal uncle and grandmother (Jewish, though not really religious) and good friends of my uncle (Muslim). Several of those friends are gay, but they still identified themselves as Muslim. [/annecdotal] Though I realise that the previous is all anecdotal I would be really wary about saying 'oh this barber is a Muslim, so obviously he must feel its wrong to touch the hair of women he's not related too.' unless we actually have a statement to that effect from the barber.

If there were a business that discriminates based on gender, race, etc (rather than being specialised) I would not support that, since such discrimination makes it much harder for people to fulfill their wants/needs. Its all very well to say that the people being discriminated against are a new market, and thus the invisible hand will solve everything, but that's not really true:
Consider a small town (say 300-500 people) with say 10 black people living there and only 1 baker. If the baker refuses to sell bread to black people, then sure there is an opportunity for someone else to sell bread to them. Its not exactly a profitable opportunity though, so the end result will be that the black people are unable to buy bread.

[Роберт]

Its all very well to say that the people being discriminated against are a new market, and thus the invisible hand will solve everything, but that's not really true:
Consider a small town (say 300-500 people) with say 10 black people living there and only 1 baker. If the baker refuses to sell bread to black people, then sure there is an opportunity for someone else to sell bread to them. Its not exactly a profitable opportunity though, so the end result will be that the black people are unable to buy bread.

I'm having trouble imagining a population that isn't approximately half female. So that particular example isn't very good.

I realize in the past women in the U.S. have somehow been discriminated against to a large degree (no voting rights, etc), and their is still some on a smaller scale (wages, etc). But it's not like it will be much harder for
them to get haircuts. Apparently they do have to pay more, though, so there is a real problem here.
(And they get refused service at some places, apparently, even when wanting buzz cuts... which is unfortunate, but men suffer the same style of discrimination here.)

If the man in question just means "men's style haircuts", then obviously there is no problem. Pretty much most Muslims I knew well would be okay with touching hair of the opposite sex.

However, I'm arguing that even if he would refuse to service women based on cultural/religious beliefs about appropriate sexual behavior, a man who is sensitive to sexism issues refusing to go there would contribute to isolation and segregation of the cultures, which is a bad thing.

Especially since we allow "men only" and "women only" restrooms, showers, sports, etc. He should be allowed to draw the line in a different place. It's a form of "separate but equal", yes. But I don't think it is bad enough to be worth a boycott.

[gmalivuk]

It certainly makes the debate more interesting to take this as the premise, but I just wanted to point out that it is not supported by the evidence given.

Maybe not, but it *is* the premise of the question the OP asked.

[General_Norris]

Especially since we allow "men only" and "women only" restrooms, showers, sports, etc. He should be allowed to draw the line in a different place. It's a form of "separate but equal", yes. But I don't think it is bad enough to be worth a boycott.

Well, that assumes that we all agree that sex segregated restrooms make sense.

Also Sport doesn't belong there. Competition is based on fairness and a level play field and the intrinsically different bodies of men and women make it impossible to have a man and a woman compete fairly in most physically-based sports.

@DSenette

Well, by that logic not allowing gay people to marry, kiss or otherwise exist outside of their minds protects them from going to hell. That doesn't make it right.

[Роберт]

Competition is based on fairness and a level play field and the intrinsically different bodies of men and women make it impossible to have a man and a woman compete fairly in most physically-based sports.

Wait, what? Next you're going tell me the intrinsically different bodies of women make them unsuitable for army combat roles, but perfect for working in the kitchen.


Some women are on an even playing field with some men. Some men are not on an even playing field with other men. People vary.

When I was a kid playing what many in the U.S. call as football, we played same sex pairs tackled, but opposite sex pairs did two-hand touch, because it would be inappropriate to tackle. It wasn't because we didn't think girls should play football or compete with boys.

Especially since we allow "men only" and "women only" restrooms, showers, sports, etc. He should be allowed to draw the line in a different place. It's a form of "separate but equal", yes. But I don't think it is bad enough to be worth a boycott.

Well, that assumes that we all agree that sex segregated restrooms make sense.

It just assumes the OP doesn't seriously consider boycotting places that have them.

[Azrael]

Competition is based on fairness and a level play field and the intrinsically different bodies of men and women make it impossible to have a man and a woman compete fairly in most physically-based sports.

Wait, what? Next you're going tell me the intrinsically different bodies of women make them unsuitable for army combat roles, but perfect for working in the kitchen.

No, he won't. But he *might* make a reasonable (and factually supported) example of a sport where the gender gap in results is notable, and extrapolate from there. Even still, he might point out one group's (African) current domination in many running sports (which is a varied and complex phenomenon not intrinsically based on genetic material) and not say that it's due to growing up running from lions/slavers/gangs.

Stop flame baiting. Right. The. Fuck. Now.

[Роберт]

Competition is based on fairness and a level play field and the intrinsically different bodies of men and women make it impossible to have a man and a woman compete fairly in most physically-based sports.

Wait, what? Next you're going tell me the intrinsically different bodies of women make them unsuitable for army combat roles, but perfect for working in the kitchen.

No, he won't. But he *might* make a perfectly reasonable, and factually supported example of sports where the gender gap in results is notable. Even still, he might point out African's domination in many sports but not say that it's due to running from lions or slavers.

Stop flame baiting and think.

...or I might point out African's domination in many sports and suggest we have white-only leagues and black-only leagues, so the whites have a place to compete.

I agree the "gender gap" is noticeable, I'm not a fool or a troll. I considered saying in my original post that I understood that men are, on average, stronger than woman. I thought that was obvious and pointless. What does it matter if, on average, men are stronger? What matters is the individual. Say, for example, that green-eyed people are stronger and faster on average than blue-eyed people. What would that matter? Why would we care? Drawing arbitrary lines because of statistical trends can be useful, but not in deciding who is allowed to play in which sports league, right? That should be based on individual performance.

Edit: I replied before you added the purple text. If you seriously think this is just flame-baiting, you have the power to delete it. But it is not intended to be flame bait or trolling.

[Azrael]

Say, for example, that green-eyed people are stronger and faster on average than blue-eyed people. What would that matter? Why would we care? Drawing arbitrary lines because of statistical trends can be useful, but not in deciding who is allowed to play in which sports league, right? That should be based on individual performance.

If that were true, then at the competitive upper echelons of our high school, college, professional and Olympic sports we would see a vast dominance of green-eyed people on awards podiums and in championship teams. If there's a meaningful difference not just in the average, but at the upper end of the distribution, then the group with that advantage will most certainly be well over-represented amongst top performers. But since green-eyed people have no history of being discriminated against (I'm going to assume that's true in this imaginary world?), the only people that would care and the unlucky people born without green eyes.

However, were that green-eyed dominance replace with say, being male and the imaginary world replaced with the realities and histories of this one, the same domination would again appear. Possibly 50% (probably less ... maybe only 60%?) of the Olympic sports would go away, replaced with unisex games that men always won. And as soon as the demand, exposure and celebration of accomplishment at the top goes, the feeder programs all the way down through the leagues full of 5 year old girls playing soccer would disappear too.

People would care -- did/still/will care. It's where sports were in the pre-Title IX era in the US.

[Dason]

If there's a meaningful difference not just in the average, but at the upper end of the distribution, then the group with that advantage will most certainly be well over-represented amongst top performers.

Topic seems a little bit off-topic enough to point out that this doesn't necessarily have to be true. The group with the advantage (on average) could have much less variation and thus the group with the disadvantage could still have the edge when it comes to top performers. There's more to distributions than just the mean. In some cases the systematic effect that would increase the average would have an effect of essentially dulling the top performers into being much more average.

[Azrael]

If there's a meaningful difference not just in the average, but at the upper end of the distribution, then the group with that advantage will most certainly be well over-represented amongst top performers.

...The group with the advantage (on average) could have much less variation and thus the group with the disadvantage could still have the edge when it comes to top performers. There's more to distributions than just the mean.

Yes, and that is why I used the exact words that I used. Only the upper end of the distribution ends up in the Olympics, or playing professionally.

[Роберт]

And as soon as the demand, exposure and celebration of accomplishment at the top goes, the feeder programs all the way down through the leagues full of 5 year old girls playing soccer would disappear too.

People would care -- did/still/will care. It's where sports were in the pre-Title IX era in the US.

White people still compete at running and other sports where it is rare for them to make the top.
You are right, though, it is different with men vs women than white vs black because the females were both discriminated against and lower performance at most popular physical sports; I can see how people would believe it should be handled differently.

It still seems somewhat sexist to me, but I don't boycott people who have men or women only sports teams. And I'll play coed volleyball even when the rules say that men aren't allowed to do three hits in a row, but women are. And I'd be willing to go to a men-only hair-cutter's. Unless I have an additional reasons to avoid them, of course.

[General_Norris]

With the same amount of skill and luck the woman will swim slower, jump less and take more time per lap than a man.

Women have less muscle mass, they have smaller hearts and they have smaller lungs making it impossible for them to compete fairly against a man, they will always be disadvantaged in a tournament. A woman would need more skill and luck than her rival to be even and that is anticompetitive and unfair.

Women also waste more energy when walking or running because women's legs must be able to move sideways to give birth, reducing efficiency. Men are heavier and thus can move heavier loads. They are also taller and so give an advantage on most physically-based sports. Women have a lower center of gravity than men so they also require more energy when it comes to moving their lower part of the body.

These are only a very small part of the reaons why having male and female categories in Sports is neccesary. If you were to make sport unisex no woman would ever be able to win and women would get kicked from sports pretty fast as Azrael mentioned.

It's like giving someone a 500HP car while I drive a 400HP one. It's unfair no matter how hard I beat that guy thanks to my driving skills. It's a handicap and shouldbe taken into account.

[PAstrychef]

Right, there are physiological differences between men and women that lead to separated divisions in sports.
But the question remains-are there ever circumstances under which a hair-cutting person could refuse service to one sex or the other and NOT have it be construed as bigotry?
How about a more loaded question-the hair of people from African ancestry is very different from the hair of people from European ancestry. Is it OK for a hair-cutting person to refuse to deal with people of a different race because they have different hair?

[gmalivuk]

Is it OK for a hair-cutting person to refuse to deal with people of a different race because they have different hair?

No, because again, the issue is that the person just isn't very good at dealing with that type of hair, which isn't a good reason to say someone with that type of hair can't get a haircut there.

[lutzj]

How about a more loaded question-the hair of people from African ancestry is very different from the hair of people from European ancestry. Is it OK for a hair-cutting person to refuse to deal with people of a different race because they have different hair?

Read the whole thread, not just the title.

That's a pretty dumb thing to say to someone who's been involved in the conversation for several days now. User warned.

- Az

[Vaniver]

No, because again, the issue is that the person just isn't very good at dealing with that type of hair, which isn't a good reason to say someone with that type of hair can't get a haircut there.

What if you care about your professional standards, or worry that your reputation will decline if you give someone a bad haircut?

[DSenette]

How about a more loaded question-the hair of people from African ancestry is very different from the hair of people from European ancestry. Is it OK for a hair-cutting person to refuse to deal with people of a different race because they have different hair?

this is actually standard practice. there are MANY hair salons and barber shops that don't serve black people because they're not trained or equipped to do black people's hair. of course, these locations rarely have a sign on the door saying "white haircuts only"....they simply inform the person that's coming in that they're going to get a REALLY shitty haircut because they're not versed in ethnic hair techniques.

and yes, it's PERFECTLY fine to turn away customers of any type because you're not equipped or trained to meet their needs

[Plebian]

After some time looking around for someone that treated my hair with more care I decided to have my hair cut in a small barbershop down the street. The man was careful, gentle and really cheap making it the best hairdresser I have ever tried. He is also muslim and and inmigrant from Morocco.

His shop is labelled as "Men's hairdresser" and I don't think his religion would allow him to have female costumers. I also don't think he has much experience with long hair and most of his customers are other muslim inmigrants who prefer their hair very short.

Now, it can be argued that by hiring his services I'm supporting a sexist practise. Am I? Should I change my hairdresser?

However I don't think it's that easy. If I leave I doubt I would change anything while my presence as one of the few native costumers has positive benefits in the neighborhood. Most natives are wary of muslim shops because they are nerver used by natives in a vicious circle. I also think I could be a positive influence to my hairdresser when it comes to certain topics.

So,w hat do you think? I have no idea, to be frank.

I think that offering men's haircuts is very different from only serving male customers. It is entirely possible that he is doing women a favour by indicating that he is not a good choice of stylist for them.

Asking if it is legal/should be legal for him to refuse female customers who are asking for the same service he provides men is an issue over my head. Then again if they have female only workout classes at gyms (to avoid us oglers) I think it is only fair that we allow at least some services to be provided to men only. Perhaps he could legally serve only male clients by employing at least one stylist who could deal with females if necessary. I think that your choice to support his business is perfectly legitimate. If you take exception to his service on moral grounds of sexism (ie a friend or significant other is offended) its an easy fix to go somewhere else. If his practice is illegal then you might consider it your civic duty to point it out to the appropriate authority. Personally I would leave well enough alone and enjoy a good haircut.

[Plebian]

How about a more loaded question-the hair of people from African ancestry is very different from the hair of people from European ancestry. Is it OK for a hair-cutting person to refuse to deal with people of a different race because they have different hair?

this is actually standard practice. there are MANY hair salons and barber shops that don't serve black people because they're not trained or equipped to do black people's hair. of course, these locations rarely have a sign on the door saying "white haircuts only"....they simply inform the person that's coming in that they're going to get a REALLY shitty haircut because they're not versed in ethnic hair techniques.

and yes, it's PERFECTLY fine to turn away customers of any type because you're not equipped or trained to meet their needs

I quite liked this. It only makes sense that people at least warn you that they do not recommended their services. Then again, I would rather do a bad job for someone who was insistent and 'ordering off the menu'.

[Plebian]

Given that women-only businesses exist (gyms being the most common example), I see no issue with there being no men-only facilities as well. Private individuals should have every right to decide whom and whom not they do business with.

Bryan

Perhaps someone missed the 1960s?

I agree, the issue is that when the practice of boycotting a certain group is so common that it becomes more difficult for a person of that group to obtain services. While I can not comment on specific practices elsewhere my school gym does have specific female only classes. However they also serve males in other equivalent capacities. If I want to take a yoga class I certainly can, they do not refuse me service, but they do offer certain sections of that classes to women only. I suppose the racial equivalent would be having a 'white only' section of a restaurant.

Ultimately, I agree that is bigotry. If there is a legitimate concern, such as men making women uncomfortable with their behavior, then men should be barred from participation only after behaving unacceptably. Still, I would be quite surprised to see men get much sympathy as victims of sexism -particularly on such a trivial issue- in the near future.

[setzer777]

Assuming that the motivation is based on avoiding lust/sexual discomfort/etc. because of seeing and touching a woman's hair, it really seems like a good comparison would be any profession requiring someone to see their clients nude*. In both instances I think it depends on how vital and how available the service is in the area the person is practicing their profession.

*This is assuming that the question of which body parts are sexual/private is a mostly cultural issue, and that there is not a moral requirement to adopt the standards of one's region.

[iop]

the issue is that when the practice of boycotting a certain group is so common that it becomes more difficult for a person of that group to obtain services.

I'm not quite comfortable with the thought that it's ok to be whatever-ist as long as you're a minority. I guess, though, that while it remains morally problematic, it's not a noticeable issue for society.

I do, however wonder why it should be any different whether a business refuses people who are white, female, overweight, too wealthy, not dressed right, atheist, gun-bearing or anything else. What makes some reasons better than another for refusing someone? Unless they're really causing a problem for society (e.g. refusing to serve the ten Jews in the village - though I don't think the grocery store should be required to stock kosher meat), it's really the business' loss when they refuse to sell to certain people.

[gmalivuk]

I do, however wonder why it should be any different whether a business refuses people who are white, female, overweight, too wealthy, not dressed right, atheist, gun-bearing or anything else. What makes some reasons better than another for refusing someone?

Well apart from the gun one, I'd say all of those are equally bad criteria for refusing to do business with someone. Carrying a gun is a safety issue, though, and so it's more reasonable to refuse to allow arms into your establishment.

[infernovia]

I think forcing a cheap and tiny hairdresser store to do their business in a way that they don't want to (even if they might make more money) is not going to change women's status in society.

[iop]

I do, however wonder why it should be any different whether a business refuses people who are white, female, overweight, too wealthy, not dressed right, atheist, gun-bearing or anything else. What makes some reasons better than another for refusing someone?

Well apart from the gun one, I'd say all of those are equally bad criteria for refusing to do business with someone. Carrying a gun is a safety issue, though, and so it's more reasonable to refuse to allow arms into your establishment.

Even the safety issue question is matter of opinion. There are, at least in the US, plenty of people who claim they feel safer if lots of people wear guns.

[Kendo_Bunny]

I do, however wonder why it should be any different whether a business refuses people who are white, female, overweight, too wealthy, not dressed right, atheist, gun-bearing or anything else. What makes some reasons better than another for refusing someone?

Well apart from the gun one, I'd say all of those are equally bad criteria for refusing to do business with someone. Carrying a gun is a safety issue, though, and so it's more reasonable to refuse to allow arms into your establishment.

There are restaurants that will turn you away if you are not in full dinner dress, because it is considered a matter of respect. Other people have worn their best, and you showing up in rags spoils the atmosphere. You can have reservations and still be turned away, because the business and how they conduct their affairs are not your business or your affairs. That's the beauty of the free market: niche services can be offered freely, with the consumer agreeing to the niche or not, and spending accordingly. For example, I am more likely to go to a restaurant that allows guns, because after a day at the range, I like to have a nice supper with my boyfriend, and neither of us like leaving our guns in the car (whole thing about most gun crimes being committed with stolen handguns). If a restaurant tells us we can't carry in, then we go find one that's okay with it. People who are scared of guns can eat their meals without getting scared in the first restaurant, and are free to complain to the management in the second restaurant.

If this hairdresser has a religious proscription against cutting the hair of women, that doesn't mean that women don't have lots of other options. I'd guess the average woman has more hair cutting options than the average man - going by my small town alone, I know of two barber shops that cater primarily to men, and seven salons or beauty parlors that cater primarily to women, two additional beauty parlors that cater primarily to black women, and one salon that specifically advertises unisex stylists (We do have more than average, since there's a cosmetology school in town and a women's only college). If he believes that Allah would find it sinful for him to touch the hair of a woman he's not married to, is he really that much worse than a Hindu who won't sell hamburgers? What if it turned out that this man actually has a fetish for women's hair, and touching it would make him think things that are religiously proscribed? Personally, I think this is kind of like complaining that a proctologist won't also do a PAP smear for a waiting wife. Theoretically he can do it, but it's not what he is trained to do and not what he wanted to do with his career. Cutting men's hair is a niche market different from cutting women's hair for the most part, and if it is religious for this man, how is that worse than anyone else specializing in a niche market?

[mojacardave]

I'm very VERY anti-discrimination, but in this case, I'd have to say, I think that the barber has the right to object to cutting women's hair:

My assumption from the OP was that the barber has a religious belief that it is sexually inappropriate to touch a womans hair. That is personal to him. It's not about his ability or his preference towards short hairstyles. What I object to, would be if the barber was attempting to enforce his beliefs: vocally claiming that men who work on women's hair were deviant and wrong. There is no reason in this case to force the barber to do something that he is personally uncomfortable with, that goes against his religion, when there are other perfectly viable options available.

In a lot of cases, I wouldn't follow that logic through though. If he refused to cut the hair of Caucasian men, or gay men, I'd definitely object. If anybody refused to serve a woman with goods, or let her stay in a hotel room, that would be obviously wrong too. I suppose that technically the barber is discriminating in the same way, but in this example I'd be okay with it. It just seems unnecessary to require somebody in such a widespread profession, to go against their beliefs. I think it's because there's a sexual taboo element. Maybe it's because the minority is women though: I don't know why but sexism doesn't strike me as hard as other -isms. Optimistically, maybe that's a sign that the situation has improved a lot. Pessimistically, maybe it's because I'm a man...

On a side note - my pet peeve: you often hear religious people complaining that tolerance laws defend women/gay people/ethnic minorities but never religion, and they don't seem to know why: this is the reason! You wouldn't find a gay hairdresser refusing to cut Muslim hair, a Polish-run hotel refusing to accomodate Catholics, or a female owned cornershop refusing sales to Jews.