Women-Only Travel Company Violates Men's Rights

At best, women-only policies strike me as band-aid solutions. I see little merit in single-sex gyms, and am downright appalled by the idea of Mexico's women-only taxis --  bubble-gum pink cabs equipped with makeup mirrors -- as a real solution to sexual violence. We can't end sexual harassment and assault simply by carving out spaces where men don't exist. Poof! They're gone! No more worries! Except that eventually you have to leave the gym or get out of the taxi.

So I was automatically skeptical when I heard about the proposal for a women-only travel company, Travel Sisters, geared toward helping women escape men who are only interested in "sexual conquests and partying." But then the story took an unexpected twist.

Founder Erin Maitland applied to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to have Travel Sisters exempted from Australia's Equal Opportunity Act, but was denied on the grounds that she was unfairly stereotyping men and could not prove it was necessary to deny them their human rights.

Wait, what? Human rights? Since when is taking a cheesy Australian packaged tour and flirting with women over piña coladas a basic human right? I would understand using the logic of discrimination, making the case that if this company were allowed an exemption perhaps other proposals for race, age, or gender-based exemptions might emerge.  Sure.  But the argument that touring is a human right and men will somehow be disadvantaged by not participating in Travel Sisters tours seems farcical.

It gets worse. Instead of driving home the argument that women are unsafe on tours in the company of men, or that women might be searching for a place to escape the distinct pressures associated with men in male-dominated societies, Maitland resorted to the reasoning that these trips would only be about things that interest women anyway. The two things cited: shopping and cooking! In addition, they would make men who were "sending their women off on holiday" happier since "their" women would not be in the presence of other men.

Sounds to me like a solid, progressive measure taken in the name of women's liberation: a women's only shopping/cooking tour created to comfort jealous husbands who don't trust their wives mingling over cocktails with pudgy Hawaiian-shirted tourists.

Meanwhile, Dr. Helen Szoke, the commissioner of VCAT, defended its position by clarifying that since women on these trips are not exerting themselves or wearing "certain attire" there shouldn't be any problems.

"If you think about women's gyms, that's about women exercising, exerting themselves, dressed in certain attire," Szoke said. Yes, just think about women pumping away on the Stairmaster in running shorts and old T-shirts. Danger! But since women don't exert themselves or sport sexy gym wear on their packaged tours, well, it's not the same cup of tea.

The one woman who seems to believe in female empowerment is the owner of another women-only travel company called Adventurous Women, based in Western Australia. Sue Hile sees women-only travel as "empowering," as implied by the name Adventurous Women (as opposed to the wimpy "Travel Sisters"), and founded the company as a response to "losing [her] soul as a wife and a mum."

This rhetoric goes much further in convincing me of the validity of a women-only travel company -- and yet, couldn't a travel company run by women be marketed towards women, with values and interests that appeal to women, without having to legally exclude men?  After all, wouldn't drawing up itineraries with scary terms like "feminism" and "female bonding," and strictly forbidding any sort of harassment, go a long way towards eliminating unwanted male attention?

At the least, let's make sure women-only policies aren't themselves founded on sexist stereotypes of women. Hold the shopping and cooking -- who's up for some rock-climbing?

Photo Credit: honey-bee's Flickr photostream.