About.com, Male vs Female MTs

Discussion area for male practitioners on issues and topics related to their practice.

Moderators: Pete, JasonE

User avatar
shivashiva
Registered Member
Posts: 823
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: New Mexico
Contact:

Post by shivashiva » Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:07 pm

the reason that gender discrimination in massage therapy and for example race discrimination are different is the following:

in most racial or other discimination, the racist doesn't want the person of a different race doing whatever it is they're doing because they feel the service will be inferior....that the ethnic person must be not as good, or is "untouchable" in some way or that they're dirty or whatever. Or just that they are "separate" and should be kept away from. The racist feels uncessarily superior and above the other person. (i am not being collegiate about this, so please correct me there, I'm just giving my idea of it)

when a client wants to choose one gender of therapist over another I have serious doubts that these are ever the ideas that are motivating them. It is probably more like either what zoe said, that they have been traumatized somehow, or simply that they unconsciously sexualize touch too much and so in the case of most men, they want touch from a woman...or in the case of many women....they don't want touch from a man. I doubt they are ever thinking that the massage from a male therapist would be less skillful or objectively enjoyable.

It's a personal choice rather than a global choice which is making a judgement on men. That same client may choose a male insurance agent over a female, or a male mechanic over a female, or any number of things.
Shiva
O friend, understand. / The body is like the ocean, rich with hidden treasures. / Open your innermost chamber / And light its lamp - Mirabai
Blue Lotus Day Spa, Ruidoso, NM | Residential Yoga Teacher Trainings & Bali Yoga Retreats

User avatar
BlackSwanMassage
Registered Member
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL

Post by BlackSwanMassage » Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:21 pm

shivashiva wrote:the reason that gender discrimination in massage therapy and for example race discrimination are different is the following:

in most racial or other discimination, the racist doesn't want the person of a different race doing whatever it is they're doing because they feel the service will be inferior....that the ethnic person must be not as good, or is "untouchable" in some way or that they're dirty or whatever. Or just that they are "separate" and should be kept away from. The racist feels uncessarily superior and above the other person. (i am not being collegiate about this, so please correct me there, I'm just giving my idea of it)

when a client wants to choose one gender of therapist over another I have serious doubts that these are ever the ideas that are motivating them. It is probably more like either what zoe said, that they have been traumatized somehow, or simply that they unconsciously sexualize touch too much and so in the case of most men, they want touch from a woman...or in the case of many women....they don't want touch from a man. I doubt they are ever thinking that the massage from a male therapist would be less skillful or objectively enjoyable.

It's a personal choice rather than a global choice which is making a judgement on men. That same client may choose a male insurance agent over a female, or a male mechanic over a female, or any number of things.
Agreed, Shiva, right up until that last point.

Why would a man want a male mechanic over a female mechanic? Most likely, because he assumes (sometimes wrongly--just ask my mother, who built her first car) that a male will know more about cars. Thus, he feels a female's service will be inferior.

I agree with your argument, but you shot yourself in the foot with that final comparison. May I suggest an edit? ;)
Nemo liber est qui corpori servit.

User avatar
EgoMagickian
Tech Admin
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 12:34 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Post by EgoMagickian » Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:59 am

Is it because you believe those who live in the South must automatically be racist?

Not at all. I find your question hyperbolic. In any case, apologies to any who were offended. Shall I edit my post? I would rather drop this matter lest it take any more attention away from the topic at hand.

What I have a problem with is the idea that the client doesn't get to choose who ultimately gets to touch his/her body.

I don't think not allowing spas to cater to discriminatory customer preference removes ultimate client choice at all--ultimately, clients can always choose to see the private practitioner of their choice. Patronizing a multi-therapist business is a different matter though.

Whether you or I like the fact that they may not want a particular gender or race working on them it should still be their choice.

So do you believe spas should be allowed to cater to client racial preference?
the reason that gender discrimination in massage therapy and for example race discrimination are different is the following:

in most racial or other discimination, the racist doesn't want the person of a different race doing whatever it is they're doing because they feel the service will be inferior....that the ethnic person must be not as good, or is "untouchable" in some way or that they're dirty or whatever. Or just that they are "separate" and should be kept away from. The racist feels uncessarily superior and above the other person. (i am not being collegiate about this, so please correct me there, I'm just giving my idea of it)

when a client wants to choose one gender of therapist over another I have serious doubts that these are ever the ideas that are motivating them. It is probably more like either what zoe said, that they have been traumatized somehow, or simply that they unconsciously sexualize touch too much and so in the case of most men, they want touch from a woman...or in the case of many women....they don't want touch from a man. I doubt they are ever thinking that the massage from a male therapist would be less skillful or objectively enjoyable.
This argument seems to boil down to this: "Clients with racial preferences are usually being racist, but clients with gender preferences are not usually being sexist." But that doesn't tell us how race and gender are different, simply how client motivations for discrimination are different.

It also still fails the litmus test: when we substitute race for your gender examples, we get results that would not be kosher. For example, spas would not be allowed to cater to the racial preference of a client who was traumatized by a member of a particular race. Do you think they should? And if not, what is different about gender that means spas should be allowed to cater to a similarly based gender preference?

I'm not sure it's true that clients with gender preferences are not usually being sexist--how do we quantify this? I can definitely think of clearly sexist examples of gender preferences among clients. And even if it were true, how is this a matter of degree? If our culture shifted such that clients with racial preferences were not usually being racist (because if your gender examples aren't sexist, then presumably the racial versions would not be racist), would it then be ok to allow catering to racial preferences? Or is it the case that preventing any catering to racism (or sexism) in the workplace is worth having anti-discrimination laws in place?

Is anti-discrimination about the motivation/beliefs of the client, or is it about the discriminatory end-result? Since a) we can't know the motivation of the client, let alone judge it and b) race has no bearing on the ability of a massage therapist to do their job, it's simply not legal for businesses to cater to racial preferences.

It would seem that since gender also has no bearing on the ability of a massage therapist to do their job, it should also not be legal for businesses to cater to gender preferences.

I don't see how one can logically come to any other conclusion unless one sees a problem with current anti-discrimination laws.

User avatar
BlackSwanMassage
Registered Member
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL

Post by BlackSwanMassage » Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:34 am

I think that there's something, after all of this is said and done, that you're forgeting, EM.

Yes, I'm on your side about the fact that coming straight out and asking clients their preference isn't the best choice, but your need to eliminate gender preference entirely fails to take into account the most crucial thing.

The person on your table.

If someone calls in to make an appointment, and categorically refuses a male therapist, and are unwilling to be persuaded through recommendations made by our staff (all of our therapists are highly professional, "Joe" is highly skilled in the type of therapy you're requesting, etc.), I will respect not only their wish to receive massage from a female therapist, but also the spa's decision to accommodate their wish, if possible. I will do this for one simple reason--I started in this career because I have a passion for bringing people peace and relief that they might not otherwise receive. If I talk someone onto my table who clearly doesn't want to be there--for whatever reason--then I am running counter to that goal, because they're not going to enjoy it, and will gain nothing.

Say, for example, that the woman who refuses to see a male therapist was the victim of a rape. She only feels comfortable with female touch. However, because of new anti-discrimination policies that have been put into place, she was given an appointment with a male therapist. She's clearly distraught, and pleads with the front desk to change the appointment. The front desk refuses, and reminds her of the cancellation policy--she'll be charged 75% of the cost if she leaves. Finding herself forced to go through with it, she gets on your table. Her body is rigid throughout the entire visit. She is a nervous wreck by the time she leaves. You have, in effect, raped her all over again.

I'm all for equality, all things being equal. But what I'm coming to realize, not only through this thread, but also through observation of everyday life, is that all things are rarely, if ever, equal.

Can women perform the same jobs as men? For the most part, yes. You'll never convince me of the wisdom of placing a woman in an infantry unit on the front lines of a war. Can men perform the same jobs as women? For the most part, yes, although women possess certain nurturing qualities (most do, anyway), that make them better suited to certain types of work than men. Is a black man capable of doing the same job as a white man? On a genetic level, yes.

On a genetic level? What do I mean by that? The exact opposite of what I mean by the other two examples I gave, and the reason why discrimination based on gender is different than discrimination based on race.

A woman, placed in a combat situation, possesses (in the majority of cases) a handicap. Don't believe me, ladies? Picture this: You're going from door to door in Haditha, tracking down insurgents. Your heart is racing, sweat dripping down your face. Your finger is on the trigger of your weapon, twitching slightly in the tension of the moment.

Suddenly, a flash of movement. It's a young child--about the same age as your own son back home. He's grinning up at you. Then you notice the gun in his hand. Do you fire on him?

In the instant it took you to contemplate that decision, you're already down.

I'm not saying a man won't agonize over the decision. He will--back at base, hours after he shot the boy on first instinct. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying we're different on that level.

Guys, the same goes in reverse. There are highly skilled nurses out there who are male, just as there are very good male kindergarten teachers--but women do have a nurturing quality that we often lack. That same thing that makes them a hazard on the battlefield renders them better equipped for other roles, such as caring for children.

In the third example, a black man can rise to exactly the same level as a white man in any company anywhere. He may have to fight his way out of the ghetto, get a scholarship, and fight the prejudice of corporate America to do it, but none of those things have to do with his genetic makeup--they are all cultural. Again, not saying it's right. Just saying that's the way it is.

Take personal feelings and emotion and set them aside for a minute, and look at the logic involved here. You really are arguing apples and oranges.

I know that quite a few people will be surprised and/or upset by this post. Some people will look at this and say, "But that's not how you thought 2 pages ago!" Well, there's the development of the mind for ya. I've transcended certain thoughts and come to new conclusions. Ain't that a kick? Others may look at my examples and rail against my beliefs on women in combat. Go ahead. That's one opinion I have that won't change.

EM, at the end of this (VERY) long post, let me say this: you're not being discriminated against. I'm not being discriminated against. When male MT's have to drink out of a different water fountain and eat in a different room than the rest of the staff, then come and complain about it. What's happening to us is simply the result of the business catering to its client base. Should they stand up for us more? Maybe. (Where I work, I think they do fine.) Even if that's the case, it's not discrimination that they're practicing.

Here's a litmus test: take this argument to a black man over the age of, say, 55. Lay out all the details, and ask him for his opinion. Here's a hint: if he laughs, your argument might be a little weak.
Nemo liber est qui corpori servit.

User avatar
Breathe
Registered Member
Posts: 1989
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 8:52 pm
Location: Oregon

Post by Breathe » Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:15 am

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen so much gender bias in a single post. So many unfortunate stereotypes, so many justifications for discrimination and prejudice.

I suppose it does prove a point though, before gender discrimination can change, the people practicing discrimination have to come to the realization that they are indeed discriminating.


On a related note, in my inbox this morning:

"XYZ spa is seeking a FEMALE THERAPIST. Please apply at ..." This particular spa is not even working with a select population, yet they won't consider a male therapist.
abusing the word "actually" since 1973

User avatar
JasonE
Moderator-S.S.S
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:12 pm
Location: Burnsville, MN
Contact:

Post by JasonE » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:33 am

It is not my role, nor that of my business, to force tolerance upon our clients. People have hangups, prejudices, preferences, whatever, and that's just reality. We will not force someone to see an MT that they prefer to avoid, for whatever reason.

But we can accommodate them without reinforcing the negative feelings they may have about certain MTs. We give our clients limited info, but hopefully enough to feel they are making an informed decision about who will be treating them.

Here in Minnesota, we have the Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Client Bill of Rights, which includes the right to know the MT's educational background and certain other things in advance. Our business promotes this, and our clients have slowly been moving towards selecting their MT based upon skill and experience. Rather than it being a burden, our business is using the state regulation as an opportunity to educate clients and market our strengths.

We respect our clients' right to choose their MT, and seek to help them make the best choice based on their needs. Over the last few months, many of our clients have seen a male MT for the first time, and we've received tons of positive feedback. Many said they tried a male MT because we presented the option in a non-threatening, friendly way. Ultimately, they chose to trust us, and that is what means the most to us.
Jason Erickson, NCTMB, ACE-CPT, AIS-TA
Massage Therapist, Personal Trainer
http://www.CSTMinnesota.com

Internet forums are like going to the zoo; if you get enough monkeys together, sooner or later someone will start throwing their poo.

Zoe
Registered Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:33 pm

Post by Zoe » Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:30 am

EgoMagickian wrote:I don't think not allowing spas to cater to discriminatory customer preference removes ultimate client choice at all--ultimately, clients can always choose to see the private practitioner of their choice. Patronizing a multi-therapist business is a different matter though.
If the client doesn't discover until they arrive for their session that they have an appointment with someone who makes them uncomfortable their choice has been eliminated or greatly reduced at that point. Is it the job of the spa to force them into a situation that makes the client uncomfortable?
EgoMagickian wrote:So do you believe spas should be allowed to cater to client racial preference?
I believe spas should be allowed to cater to their client's choice about what makes them comfortable and willing to spend money in their business. I don't think forcing someone into an appointment with a practitioner that they are uncomfortable with is smart business. I think it is simply not the place of the business to force racial or gender tolerance on their clients.

Btw, never have I said I think the business should set out to enforce prejudice or discrimination which I believe happens when the client is offered an appt with a female or with a male at the time of booking -- just that ultimately it should be the client's choice as to who works on his/her body. As you said above, you do not know the psychology of why a client has a preference.

IMHO, the ultimate concern should be the client's well being.

User avatar
BlackSwanMassage
Registered Member
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL

Post by BlackSwanMassage » Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:47 pm

Breathe wrote:Wow. I don't think I've ever seen so much gender bias in a single post. So many unfortunate stereotypes, so many justifications for discrimination and prejudice.
I know. It's a sad way of thinking. I don't necessarily agree with any of it, really, with the exception of the part about women in combat, but I wanted to put these out there as examples to prove my point.

Not my favorite post I've done, by far, but I felt some things needed to be brought in and examined for what they are.

Care to elaborate on your thoughts?
Nemo liber est qui corpori servit.

User avatar
EgoMagickian
Tech Admin
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 12:34 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Post by EgoMagickian » Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:37 pm

your need to eliminate gender preference entirely fails to take into account the most crucial thing. The person on your table.

I see no need to eliminate gender preference. So let's draw a distinction:

Gender preference and gender discrimination are two different things. Gender preference is on the part of the client and is not concrete; it is in the mind of the person and can be expressed or not through various actions. Gender discrimination is on the part of a business, and is concrete either in terms of discriminatory policies or actions.

So, this is why I say that I see no need to eliminate gender preference. People may, of course, have whatever preferences they choose. Those preferences, however, should not be permitted to manifest in discrimination. It is important to note here that I do not see a client choosing to see or not see whatever kind of therapist they want as something that should be stopped, as I consider this part of their freedom of association/choice/etc. But that is separate from the actions of a business like a spa.

It is not considered fair to demand that businesses be permitted, let alone expected, to maintain discriminatory policies or engage in discriminatory actions to accomodate client preferences. Businesses may only accomodate client preferences up until that point.

The example client you mention who refuses to see a male therapist due to being a rape victim needs to seek out the private practitioner of her choice.

Is a black man capable of doing the same job as a white man? On a genetic level, yes.

On a genetic level? What do I mean by that? The exact opposite of what I mean by the other two examples I gave, and the reason why discrimination based on gender is different than discrimination based on race.


Where is the genetic factor in your client example? Where is the difference in the ability of the therapist to do the work? The only difference I see is the ability of the therapist to fit the client's generalization about an entire class of people.

You really are arguing apples and oranges.

As far as I can tell, what you mean by this is: "The genetic difference between races creates no difference in people's abilities to do various jobs [agreed] but the genetic difference between sexes creates important differences in people's abilities to do various jobs."

Is that accurate so far? If so, then your argument as I've understood it only creates an "apples and oranges" situation in the case of massage therapy IF you believe that gender impacts a massage therapist's ability to do his or her job. Do you believe that?

Take personal feelings and emotion and set them aside for a minute... EM, at the end of this... post, let me say this: you're not being discriminated against.

Well, not me personally at this point in time—I work in the Castro. So I have very little emotional involvement in this issue at the moment, not to worry.

It is not my role, nor that of my business, to force tolerance upon our clients.

This is not about forcing anything on clients. It IS about not permitting businesess to engage in discrimination.

We will not force someone to see an MT that they prefer to avoid, for whatever reason.

Of course not... who has said that a business should? On the other hand, it is not permissible for your business to collaborate with a client on discriminatory preferences.

If the client doesn't discover until they arrive for their session that they have an appointment with someone who makes them uncomfortable their choice has been eliminated or greatly reduced at that point. Is it the job of the spa to force them into a situation that makes the client uncomfortable?

This is one of the drawbacks for clients of patronizing spas vs private practitioners—one does not usually get to personally evaluate one's massage therapist beforehand.

Anti-discrimination laws do not make it "the job of the spa to force [clients] into a situation that makes the client uncomfortable"; they remove from the spa the job of being responsible in discriminatory ways for a client's preferences.

I believe spas should be allowed to cater to their client's choice about what makes them comfortable and willing to spend money in their business.

Do you believe that spas should be allowed to cater to client racial preferences then?

I don't think forcing someone into an appointment with a practitioner that they are uncomfortable with is smart business.

What businesses do this? Have current anti-discrimination laws done this? No... such laws do not make the business force clients into appointments they do not want, they merely prevent the business from accomodating certain appointment preferences that clients may want.

"We are unable to accomodate such requests" does not equal "You have to let this therapist you're uncomfortable with rub you."

It can mean that the client will go elsewhere. I'm sorry if not discriminating is "bad for business" in the short term... so is not polluting (in many cases)... doesn't mean it should be allowed.

I think it is simply not the place of the business to force racial or gender tolerance on their clients.

No one forces clients to patronize businesses that are not allowed to accomodate their preferences.

IMHO, the ultimate concern should be the client's well being.

I think most of us here are well aware that the client's well being must be balanced with the well being of everybody else. We know that when the client's well being is made ultimate, then the well being of others (mostly practitioners) usually gets sacrificed.

I've seen us encourage each other on BWO to keep these things in balance and NOT serve the client's well being to the point of disserving our own well being. This is exactly what anti-discrimination laws are about.

Bobblehead
Registered Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 10:36 am
Location: Oahu, Hawai'i

Post by Bobblehead » Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:47 am

Breathe wrote:

On a related note, in my inbox this morning:

"XYZ spa is seeking a FEMALE THERAPIST. Please apply at ..." This particular spa is not even working with a select population, yet they won't consider a male therapist.
In my inbox...
Male Licensed Massage Therapists … Preferably Japanese speaking and located in/near Waikiki.
To work part time days, nights and weekends. Looking to fill shifts of Mon 4-9pm, Tues day/night, Weds 3pm-9pm, Thurs day/after/night, Fri afternoon/night, Sat 10am-6pm, Sun (in the future) and special monthly gigs.
Must be skilled or interested in learning a multitude of styles. We offer treatments for relaxtion and pain relief. Our clientele are locals, tourists and insurance cases.
Commission for treatments + downtime pay if you work a full shift (keep all tips). Independent Contractor status Hawaii state LMT and GE Tax License. We’d like to offer employment w/benefits in the near future...

I am a male and am busier than the next two of my classmates from massage school, and i charge more. 75% or so of my clients are women.

In school i was having a conversation with another male classmate about this exact topic and one of my (female) instructors overheard us and butted in. "Don't you dare put that out there!" , she scolded us, "If that is what you focus on you are sure to manifest it as reality!"

I put her words into practice, and at our school clinic i was the first to finish clinic hours (even though we had an unusually high percentage of males in my class, making the females more "in demand") and today i don't even think about it much...

Until i logged on here, LOL.

As to the nurturing thing, most men i know won't even consider massage as a career, same with nursing and oddly the same with women and combat/fighting. Is this due to the pressure of discrimination? I doubt it...
"Be who you are and say what feel, because those who mind don't matter and those that matter don't mind."
Theodor Geisel

User avatar
Gaspen
Registered Member
Posts: 1143
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 8:17 am
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Post by Gaspen » Sun Aug 03, 2008 1:28 pm

Congratulations on your busy schedule.

I think the term should be self-discrimination, not based on genetic program but more for social programming.
Glad ta meetcha...I'm your handy man.
www.SpencerMassage.com

Bobblehead
Registered Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 10:36 am
Location: Oahu, Hawai'i

Post by Bobblehead » Sun Aug 03, 2008 2:08 pm

Thank you Gaspen.

So is it not reasonable to assume that the generations of women nurturing and men being more physical changed us in innate ways?

If our bodies can be so different, why can't our minds and when did evolution stop and social programming take over?


ps. from the eeoc:
Conversely, courts have refused to apply the BFOQ exception where the customer or client interest is based on preference or stereotypical assumptions, rather than legitimate concerns about bodily privacy. E.g., Olson v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 75 F. Supp.2d 1052 (D. Ariz. 1999) (Holding that hotel spa could not establish that sex was a BFOQ for massage therapist position where it asserted that clients should be able to choose sex of their massage therapist because of alleged privacy concerns).

I do not think this applies to IC's however...
(my bold) (BFOQ = Bona Fide Occupational Qualification)

(i edited the italicized portion, changes the meaning quite a bit but is more accurate to what i was thinking)
Last edited by Bobblehead on Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Be who you are and say what feel, because those who mind don't matter and those that matter don't mind."
Theodor Geisel

User avatar
RelaxandRejuvenate
Registered Member
Posts: 1919
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:06 am
Contact:

Post by RelaxandRejuvenate » Sun Aug 03, 2008 2:29 pm

EgoMagickian wrote:
I don't think not allowing spas to cater to discriminatory customer preference removes ultimate client choice at all--ultimately, clients can always choose to see the private practitioner of their choice. Patronizing a multi-therapist business is a different matter though.
But now you are discriminating against legal entities!

One set of rules for multi-therapist businesses, another for SPs. But what if all the MTs in an MTB are the same gender? Based on alot of the business names I see here, it is hard to tell if they are SPs are MTBs. Is their advertising misleading?

And what of "women-only clients" for a practice? I have seen that asked here, but no hew and cry of "discrimination". Is it OK for the MT to choose the gender of their clients, but NOT OK for the client to select the gender of the MT? Not see how you can support one and not the other.
Smithers: "Sir, I'm afraid we have a bad image, people see you as a bit of an ogre." Mr.Burns: "I ought to club them and eat their bones!"

Bobblehead
Registered Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 10:36 am
Location: Oahu, Hawai'i

Post by Bobblehead » Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:57 pm

RelaxandRejuvenate wrote:
And what of "women-only clients" for a practice?
Very good question.
"Be who you are and say what feel, because those who mind don't matter and those that matter don't mind."
Theodor Geisel

User avatar
JasonE
Moderator-S.S.S
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:12 pm
Location: Burnsville, MN
Contact:

Post by JasonE » Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:59 pm

As a business owner, I am all in favor of other MTs moving towards "women-only" clientele. Cuts their potential market down, and drives more clients to my door.
Jason Erickson, NCTMB, ACE-CPT, AIS-TA
Massage Therapist, Personal Trainer
http://www.CSTMinnesota.com

Internet forums are like going to the zoo; if you get enough monkeys together, sooner or later someone will start throwing their poo.

User avatar
makingachange
Registered Member
Posts: 966
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:36 pm

Post by makingachange » Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:00 am

JasonE wrote:As a business owner, I am all in favor of other MTs moving towards "women-only" clientele. Cuts their potential market down, and drives more clients to my door.
:smt044

that was priceless!
"You need chaos in your soul to give birth to a dancing star."~
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

User avatar
EgoMagickian
Tech Admin
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 12:34 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Post by EgoMagickian » Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:31 am

But now you are discriminating against legal entities! One set of rules for multi-therapist businesses, another for SPs.

That's incorrect. It's not that the rules are different... the private practitioner doesn't have the option of offering a different therapist to a client, so it's moot.

User avatar
RelaxandRejuvenate
Registered Member
Posts: 1919
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:06 am
Contact:

Post by RelaxandRejuvenate » Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:44 am

The SP must be forced to take on opposite gender partners in their practice so that they can help educate clients to lose their gender bias.

This is true...its in the Stimulus Bill.
Smithers: "Sir, I'm afraid we have a bad image, people see you as a bit of an ogre." Mr.Burns: "I ought to club them and eat their bones!"

User avatar
Snackdaddy
Fresh Hands
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:17 pm
Location: Phoenix AZ

Post by Snackdaddy » Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:10 pm

Holy mackerel, what an interesting thread!

I'm happy that R&R is here. A real business owner, with apparently a keen business mind. Always much needed in this biz.

Well..... Im in the biz for 15 years, and my amateur understanding is that business owners will--and should-- do whatever it takes to get the appointment on the books and into the door (in the context of this subject of course..... not "anything goes"). Would YOU, if you were a business owner, turn away customers just to ensure that everyone's schedule booked up equally? To do so would be a different form of incompetence. I empathize with business owners, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't, in terms of keeping the therapists BOOKED (which is always what therapists yell for the loudest).

Furthermore, it's no secret in all avenues of buisness that the customer chooses where to spend his/her money on a number of factors, some of which are flat-out stupid and completely unfair to the company(s) vying for the patronage! For a number of reasons, legislation will NEVER level out this disparity (as was done in getting "white only" businesses to open up to people of all ethnicities). A substantial number of companies do encourage clients to see things gender-neutral. Fantastic, we all applaud that. But in the end, if you're a business owner, money talks! And you're listenin'! If you're not listenin', then you can expect your employees to continually leave you for greener pastures elsewhere. How does that sound?

Sigh. Like it or not, gender accomodation is an entrenched courtesy that's here to stay. Oh well, better luck next career. (haha?)

User avatar
StephenCMT
Registered Member
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:35 pm
Location: Now In Germany! :)
Contact:

Post by StephenCMT » Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:40 am

I agree with a lot of what you said. Like I also agree with a lot of what R&R says.

But just because a belief/practice is currently entrenched doesn't mean that it needs to stay that way. Our history shows time and time again that when there are enough small stones, it's only a matter of time before the avalanche of change comes (not an Obama reference :P). Racism is still in our country but we have a black president AND RNC leader after all. :P

Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not all, "THIS HAS GOTTA CHANGE NOW OR WE'RE DOOMED!!!", but I do think that we can do our small and subtle parts to make sure that this is changed where it'll do the most good...in the minds of the clients. Tiger Woods let his clubs do the talking. We can so something similar.
Stephen Hartswick, CMT
Massage By Stephen
http://www.massagebystephen.de

User avatar
moogie
Site Admin
Posts: 3191
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:16 am
Location: Tampa, FL
Contact:

Post by moogie » Sat Mar 07, 2009 7:47 am

StephenCMT wrote:Tiger Woods let his clubs do the talking. We can so something similar.
I think this is an excellent suggestion.

Angie

User avatar
RelaxandRejuvenate
Registered Member
Posts: 1919
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:06 am
Contact:

Post by RelaxandRejuvenate » Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:07 am

moogie wrote:
StephenCMT wrote:Tiger Woods let his clubs do the talking. We can so something similar.
I think this is an excellent suggestion.

Angie
Clubbing the clients...hmmm!
Smithers: "Sir, I'm afraid we have a bad image, people see you as a bit of an ogre." Mr.Burns: "I ought to club them and eat their bones!"

User avatar
moogie
Site Admin
Posts: 3191
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:16 am
Location: Tampa, FL
Contact:

Post by moogie » Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:44 am

RelaxandRejuvenate wrote:Clubbing the clients...hmmm!
Hey...I think I just invented a new modality!!

:joyous:

Now I can go out and make a killing by teaching classes!!

:woohoo:

Angie

User avatar
EgoMagickian
Tech Admin
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 12:34 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Post by EgoMagickian » Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:46 pm

my amateur understanding is that business owners will--and should-- do whatever it takes to get the appointment on the books and into the door

Including unethical behavior?

Apparently not, as you say:

(in the context of this subject of course..... not "anything goes")

So are you saying the behavior of catering to gender bias is ethical for a business owner, or that it's unethical but as long as it's legal business owners should do it?

For a number of reasons, legislation will NEVER level out this disparity

You are missing the point. Legislation against racist practices in business have erased all disparity. That doesn't mean the proper course of action was to shrug and say "oh well" rather than pass the legislation.

But in the end, if you're a business owner, money talks! And you're listenin'! If you're not listenin', then you can expect your employees to continually leave you for greener pastures elsewhere. How does that sound?

I'm not clear on how you view the ethics in this case. Elevating profit about ethics is hardly sustainable.

User avatar
JasonE
Moderator-S.S.S
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:12 pm
Location: Burnsville, MN
Contact:

Post by JasonE » Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:50 am

EgoMagickian wrote:I'm not clear on how you view the ethics in this case. Elevating profit about ethics is hardly sustainable.
There are many ways to ethically elevate one's profits without reinforcing potential client gender biases. Our business proves that every day.
Jason Erickson, NCTMB, ACE-CPT, AIS-TA
Massage Therapist, Personal Trainer
http://www.CSTMinnesota.com

Internet forums are like going to the zoo; if you get enough monkeys together, sooner or later someone will start throwing their poo.

Post Reply

Return to “Massage - The Male Practitioner's Perspective”