Men's rights activists invoke a California law to threaten women-only tech events


hooded-wanderer's avatar
news.yahoo.com/this-california…
Stephanie Burns came up with the idea for Chic CEO, a free online platform for female entrepreneurs, in 2008, when she was getting her MBA. Many of her friends had lost jobs in the recession and were asking her for tips on how to start their own businesses. After hosting about 15 friends at her San Diego home to exchange advice, Burns realized there was a market for offering entrepreneurial guidance to women. A year later, she launched her company.
Up until 2014, the focus of her work involved providing practical business advice to women in the form of free, easy-to-follow online materials. Every so often, Burns also organized networking events for women at which attendees could sip cocktails and chat about work. It was to one of these gatherings, held at an Italian restaurant last April in downtown San Diego, that two men showed up.
Rava has represented clients in lawsuits against MLB teams for handing out free goodies such as hats and tote bags only to women on Mother’s Day.
What happened next would be the fuel for lawsuits against her, her company, the company that her business partner’s husband owned and the restaurant. It would ultimately lead to the demise of Burns’ company, and still threatens to derail the women-in-tech events that have begun popping up in Silicon Valley.
Two men named Allan Candelore and Rich Allison, who had each prepaid a $20 registration fee on the Chic CEO website, tried to enter the restaurant. According to a legal complaint that they later filed with National Coalition for Men president Harry Crouch, Burns turned them away at the door, saying the event “was only open to women.” They took a photo, left the premises, then promptly initiated legal action, turning to a 1959 California law originally written to prevent discrimination against minorities and women.
Burns first learned about the suit against Chic CEO as she was taping a webcast episode with a male friend called “Why Men Are So Important to Female Entrepreneurship.” She glanced at her phone and saw a text from her colleague’s husband, who had just been served legal papers because his company promoted a mixer she’d hosted. Burns was devastated.
“That was the most ironic moment of my life,” she told Yahoo News. “I was just explaining how it’s important that men are on our side.”
Burns had even consulted with a lawyer before holding the event and was assured that everything was above board. Her company had male clients, subscribers, mentors and advisory board members.
“I was completely confused,” she said. “Chic CEO does not discriminate against men.”
There's more of it in the link, I only posted the first section. 

It is pretty damn infuriating that this is happening, and using a law that is designed to protect women and minorities to go after women is nothing short of ironic. What really bothers me though is the fact that these two are not only going after Ms Burns and her business, but they are also suing the business partner's husbands company, and the restaurant, parties that have the bare minimum involvement. 
Comments72
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
RobStrand's avatar
So the MRA is using tactics the feminist have been using for years, and now every feminist is butthurt because it means they are hypocrites?

Oh how I love you hypocrisy.  You give me a reason to live. 
kitsumekat's avatar
Except they're intentionally doing this. The companies that where created was to promote more women into the business world were singled out by these guys to shut them down. $5 Rava, the secretary for the group, will keep getting a cut out of this.
RobStrand's avatar
And feminist don't? 
kitsumekat's avatar
I know they do but, the guys targeted groups that are not even associated with the feminist movement. This woman even made sure the even was ok through a lawyer. Plus, they targeted another woman who didn't even have her event up. even threaten to sue her just because.
hooded-wanderer's avatar
Except that A) Feminists have not been using this tactic for years, and B) MRA's don't serve a purpose as Men already have all the rights since the foundation of America, and have been running the country since then. 
RobStrand's avatar
I am calling bullshit, because feminist have used the armed forces time and time again to push there agenda.  And of course I point to a very recent event about females in Ranger School.  And guess what?  They all failed.  But unlike every other washout who had to go back to there unit defeated and have to resubmit all the paperwork to do it again, the women in the program had the opportunity to quit or start over from phase 1.  No male was ever giving that opportunity.  So take your privileges and eat it a la mode with a slice of humble pie.     
RobStrand's avatar
So the MRA is using tactics that feminist have been using for years and now feminist are butthurt?

Fair is fair.
kitsumekat's avatar
Not only was this intentional but, they just made their group awful.

Also, the comments on that thread got real salty, real fast.
hooded-wanderer's avatar
Yeah... It kind of makes me wonder if they actually clicked the link, because there's a lot more stuff in the article then what I showed. 
kitsumekat's avatar
They based if off of the short summary. If they read further, Rava is the secretary of NCFM and did this to another woman who turned them down even though they were not invited to the event. In fact, he's known to target non men events.
AgentA122's avatar
These asshole aren't real MRA's, they're just assholes that's all.
Valsayre's avatar
"real MRA's" 
DragonQuestWes's avatar
As someone who lives in California, I'm going to say that MRAs are absolute scumbags who deserved to be classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I honestly don't care much about wealthy businesswomen since many of these millionaire women don't really make any impact but MRAs just need to STFU.
FlipswitchMANDERING's avatar
The SPLC is a hate group.
fuckshiru's avatar
As long as men are aloud to have their men's only events, I would be OK with this
hooded-wanderer's avatar
They have been allowed, for a long time :| 
DJ0Hybrid's avatar
Question, has anyone proven that the two men are actually Men's' Rights Activists versus just two guys looking to sue someone or actually wanted to attend the event? Because I don't see any proof one way or another and I'm really tempted to point out actual discrimination going on.
kitsumekat's avatar
The guys did this before.
Kellodrawsalot's avatar
They got the help from the  National Coalition for Men it's known as American's first Men right's organisation 
Blue-Anima's avatar
I think it's that they filed the complaint with National Coalition for Men. 

Which is not MRA it's NCFM... and I'm not sure how if at all MRA interacts with NCFM but in this context I think they're being generally lumped together as men's rights movement as a whole and that lump is being dubbed MRA... or perhaps the NCFM is part of the MRA. I don't actually know. But I think the fact that they filed the complain with the National Coalition for Men and therefore brought men's activists into it is why they are being called that. 
Kellodrawsalot's avatar
National Coalition for Men is generally known as American's first Men right's non-profit organisation   
Blue-Anima's avatar
I know this (I looked at their website), but what I don't know is how it relates to the MRA.... (Men's Rights Activists) Or is it part of the MRA? 
Kellodrawsalot's avatar
It's part of the Men right's movement but I am not sure if it's part of Men right's Activist.