Ragged Ass Barbergeddon

August 1993 Vanity Fair cover | photographer: Herb Ritts
Cindy Crawford says it will all be okay.

If you’re on Facebook or Twitter, you’re probably aware Regina is having an epic brawl over a much-loved local barbershop that’s in hot water because it doesn’t serve women.

Last week, local human-with-hair Evie Ruddy tried to make an appointment at the Cathedral neighbourhood’s beloved Ragged Ass Barbers. Evie wanted a particular style of men’s haircut that they’re really good at. But when she called to make an appointment, she was told they don’t cut women’s hair and wouldn’t serve her.

Ruh roh.

Evie isn’t the first female customer RAB has turned down but she is the first to fight back. She also might be the first to have worked as a journalist and  activist, which is probably why she thought to turn to the media to announce a human rights complaint against the shop. From CBC:

A Regina woman is planning to make a formal complaint with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission after being refused service at a barber shop. Evie Ruddy says she went to Regina’s Ragged Ass Barber seeking a men’s style hair cut known as a hard-part. Ruddy says she learned the shop only did men’s cuts for male clients.

“It makes me feel discriminated against,” she said. “Because the only reason they are denying me service is because I am a woman.”

She added that when she pressed the point and asked how the shop would respond to a transgender person seeking a haircut, she was given an emphatic answer.

“He launched into this rant saying if they start accepting trans clients and lesbians then what if a lesbian with long hair wants their hair cut? Where do you draw the line?,” Ruddy told CBC News.

More here.

I thought about this situation a lot yesterday. I talked to a lot of people — because this town is so small, I know Evie and I also have friends who love Ragged Ass Barbers. I also know a lot of opinionated people in the Cathedral and even other neighbourhoods.

I pondered the issues, I weighed the facts and I’m now ready to share my thoughts.

Here’s what  everyone should think and do.

First, Ragged Ass Barbers needs to immediately change their idiotic policy. They also need to apologize to Evie, offer her a free haircut and maybe make some kind of additional gesture — small donation to an organization for women’s advancement, maybe?

Ragged Ass needs to remember that this is Canada in 2014. A business attempting to discriminate against women is not going to win the fight.

Once they do this, Ruddy should graciously accept the apology (haircut optional) and drop the HR complaint.


Second: no one wants Ragged Ass Barbers to change its business model. Ragged Ass is a lovably scruffy, hairy, beardy, male-clientele focused barber shop. It can stay that way. It doesn’t have to start doing perms or shag haircuts or flower braiding or whatever. What its misguided defenders aren’t realizing is that this is the environment Evie wanted to get her hair cut in. She didn’t pick Ragged Ass because she wanted to change it, she picked it because it seemed like a cool place where she’d fit in, and get the cut and service she wanted.

Evie is a natural Ragged Ass customer. The problem is Ragged Ass doesn’t realize it.

Third: Ragged Ass Barber’s is not some evil club of woman-hating man-trolls. While I don’t know owner Craig Zamonsky, I do know some of his friends and they assure me  he’s not a sexist idiot. I don’t know if anyone’s breaking out the rope, but if they are, let’s hold off on the public lynching, okay? This isn’t some  men’s rights creep. This isn’t an organized effort by Real Women Of Canada to undermine hard-won rights. This is a businessman who through no fault of his own grew up in a sexist, homophobic and dumb society and, thanks to long-term exposure to cultural toxins, innocently blundered into a minefield.

There’s a lot of misogyny, homophobia and transphobia out there that deserves excoriation. What’s happening here doesn’t (at least not yet). This isn’t malicious. We should look at it as the cultural equivalent of a fender-bender. The fender can be un-bendered!

Fourth: drop the stupid arguments. “How come Curves can be a women’s gym but Ragged Ass can’t be a men’s barber shop?” Answer: because society is not as welcoming for women as it is for men. Thanks to harassment, sexual assault and violence, women need safe spaces in a way that men don’t. No one can reasonably claim they’ll suffer because a woman got a men’s-style cut at the same place they get their beard trimmed. But a lot of women have been harassed while working out.

Fifth: there is some genuine hatred being directed at Evie, which tells me that she’s right to challenge this dumb rule.

Finally: let’s put this in perspective. Women do not have cooties. An occasional female client is not going to ruin this manly-men’s barber shop/salon/whatever people want to call it with their stinky period smells. Ragged Ass Barbers is not going to see an influx of imaginary feminists demanding armpit hair grooming. Get real. The only “risk” is that a popular local business becomes a little cooler (and more successful).

Selling a male-style haircut to the occasional female customer will not ruin Ragged Ass Barbers. This fight, if it continues, might.

Author: Stephen Whitworth

Prairie Dog editor Stephen Whitworth was carried to Regina in a swarm of bees. He's been with Prairie Dog since May 1999 and will die at his keyboard before admitting his career a terrible, terrible mistake.

226 thoughts on “Ragged Ass Barbergeddon”

  1. Not bad, not bad at all! Though I’d’ve added that though “Ragged Ass Barber’s is not some evil club of woman-hating man-trolls” it seems to be attracting them.

  2. The other difference between Curves being an all-female gym and Ragged Ass Barbers wanting to exclude women is that women buy a membership to be a part of Curves, it is a private club. Ragged Ass Barbers is a public business. If they want to continue discriminating, they would have to become a private club, too,

  3. Your thinking in the matter seems appropriate. Hopefully the right people are reading.

  4. @LetsPlayNice: I don’t know that a men’s only club would fix the problem RAB has. I mean, the Assiniboia Club was taken down and had to start allowing women as members and that was 20-some years ago. So, RAB would have to allow women into the club.

  5. this is such neo feminist bullshit.. she is trying to destroy an honest, well liked and successful business thats here to fill a small niche in the community. There are hundreds of other hair stylists that can fulfill her needs.. there are also places like ‘curves’ that only serve women. She has launched an attack campaign that amounts to no more than harassment and is doing nothing to further the needs of her lesbian rights movement. There are bigger problems in this world. I say either grow a pair or stay out.

  6. Troy didn’t read the article… or he did and he is just so daft, he doesn’t grasp critical analysis.

  7. Agrees with Troy. Seriously I know of another “men’s only” hair salon here in Regina. .. so why is RAB picked on? Because they offer a great service!! Obviously some people thrive on making misery for others… RAB. .. you rock!!

  8. I understand the uproar of a place being male clientele only, however, let’s look at the bigger picture. I’m an avid client for RAB and I cannot rant and rave enough about their services. What we’re talking about is the hair industry which for the last five or ten years has been female oriented and there were maybe two or three traditional style barber shops in town. Men (like myself) were forced to go to the lesser of two evils either A) a hairstylist that knew how to do trendy hairstyles for an outrageous price or B) somewhere like a cheaper spectrum hair salon that gave you an okay cut for maybe thirty bucks. Now while I’m not going to retort by being a chest thumping testosterone sweating feminist hater there does need to be a line drawn in the sand. People vote with their wallets. Plain and simple. That’s the basis of a free market. If people are genuinely bothered by their policies they’ll choose not to do business there. But most of the guys in my inner and outer circles are all choosing to do business there regardless of the uproar. I know that I’ll be labelled some form of mongoloid idiot for not “understanding” the above article, but to run a legitimate locally owned business that employs skilled craftsmen is complete lunacy. Nowhere else in this city offers straight razer services or has the level of skill as the barbers there do.

  9. Personally, as a woman, I see nothing wrong with Craig’s business model. There are great stylists in the city who specialize in men’s cutting. Try out the new Iron Hair Beauty salon who has talented, trendy stylists in a similar atmosphere located in the wonderful old warehouse district just to name off one on the top of my head.
    I feel that as women be transgendered or lesbian, we have a great deal of variety to choose from being that I work in the industry and have seen first hand how business’ are popping up all over this city specializing and catering to one group or another.
    While Ragged Ass Barbers has a great image and grand location, I can’t help but wonder why of all the different places to go this is such a big deal. Human rights issues to me are when clearly there are no other options and a specific group is being cut out with no place to go. Secondly, why would anyone want to be a part of something when they’re clearly not a part of it and why does Evie feel she “fits,” in there? What is the idea behind calling a place first to “ask” for a haircut if she didn’t have some idea that she might get an answer she expected? Why not just show up as per the norm there and ask for it straight up?
    It is my opinion from all the articles I’ve read that there was some premeditation to this “human rights,” violation.
    I don’t feel thy should have to change their business model to accommodate a few. I don’t think their reputation is going to flush down the drain because of it either. Although I will agree that if it does get taken to the board they will more than likely have to accommodate because of the way those policies work. However, I think the biggest thing to consider here is why a person who wants a “hard part” haircut really willing to sabotage the business model of a business that is clearly successful and a welcomed experience for the male clientele who frequent there just for their own personal gain or successful woman activism when it’s not truly hurting anybody? I could see if there was absolutely nowhere to go but that is simply not the case.
    And I agree with Craig but in A more grander scheme, where do we draw the line with this political correctness?
    I understand the need for this business to stay exactly how it is because men frankly are not fond of perfumey, female dominated salons. And when I say female dominated I mean female dominated. So why is it necessary to ruin that for the male clients who go there? In a world where political correctness is taking an extreme, why not just live and let live here. Find another business who will accept you for all the you that you are and move on. To me it seems narcissistically self promoting to be taking something so innocent as the good time, old time barber shop of the latter years and saying sorry guys it’s the turn of the century we can’t have any fond memories of the vintage style shop because it’s interfering with my rights as a woman.
    All of us ladies who’ve known about Ragged Ass Barbers since its inception have been aware of its business model and it really never offended me or anyone I know that they chose to be men only. Just like some people get upset about no children policies at restaurants, I think the same thoughts need to be applied here and hell, maybe Evie could open up her own men’s cut only business strictly for women, transgendered and lesbians and make a monopoly.
    I won’t harass Evie for her decision if I saw her on the street or be rude about it and I don’t think that’s fair either but I do think she should re-assess the situation from another perspective and those of the patrons who enjoy that barbershop for exactly what it is instead of her own needs or placing her idea of how she thinks things should work. No one is getting hurt here, but this just might hurt everyone.

  10. Brandon, don’t you think that maybe women share your perspective, too? Maybe some women want a cheap haircut, that maybe has a more ‘masculine’ feel to it? Men have it sooo hard.

  11. This silly uproar has made me a customer of RAB. I think they should thank her for the free advertising! At least she did one positive thing!

    Like mentioned earlier, vote with your wallet. If no one goes there, I’m sure policy would change. I do enjoy how the goalposts get moved when different women only clubs are brought up. It doesn’t matter the reasons for them, you are either for equality or not. Don’t hide behind true equality and only support women’s rights. What’s next on the list? Urinals? They are exclusive to men’s rooms.

  12. She needs to understand that this is a barber shop not a unisex salon just cause she has a man hair cut it doesn’t grow her a dick …have respect for there trade ..lots of other unisex places to go

  13. I could not disagree with you more Stephen. Having been a hairstylist for over 25 years, my career was born in the era of the “unisex” salon. I witnessed the death of the barbershop, and the culture that existed inside those walls. I have also witnessed decades of embarrassed men suffering through the “walk of shame” wearing a plastic gown en route to the shampoo bowl as dozens of women, hair in foils, having their nails painted, focused their attention on this lone intruder within their space. What Ragged Ass Barbers did in Regina was revive the tradition of the mens only barbershop. They created a space where men can go and get ‘detailed’ in an inviting, nurturing environment. And guess what … guys are lining up outside their door from the moment they open until the moment they close. They are swamped with business! Is it because such a huge population of men in Regina are evil women hating trolls? No, I don’t think so … I would wager it is because Craig and Ragged Ass Barbers are supplying the men of Regina with an environment they feel comfortable in … and dare I say enjoy. It is all about supply and demand.

  14. The women supporting RA and their little army of MRA activists who now are in the full swing of terrorizing evie are disgusting examples of human beings. Get a fucking clue and stop setting the rest of us back. The boys don’t need a little club, they have the entire fucking world. Go back to shitting out your man’s kids.

  15. Hi Becca, thanks for your well thought out and respectful comment. I’ll answer some of your questions. I called the barbershop to book a hair appointment. I did not know about the men-only policy. I had been to RAB a few months earlier because my partner and I took her 5-year-old nephew there to get his hair cut. I thought it was a cool place – it didn’t feel like other barbershops I’d seen. The esthetics were different, the guys cutting hair were young and edgy. Fast forward to a few days ago, I went to my regular hair dresser to get a hard part. She gave me one but when I got home, it wasn’t quite right – not visible enough. So I thought to call the barbershop I had been in — RAB. Called them to book an apointment for a hard part and everything unfolded from there. I had no agenda. I felt and still do that this is an unjust policy. I wanted a men’s hair cut and they specialize in that but won’t give me one because I’m not a man. It is sex discrimination. I also don’t like the atmosphere of female dominated perfumey salons. I don’t fit in there — I don’t wear makeup, have gel nails or use a lot of hair product. Just because I was born biologically female doesn’t mean I belong in a female-dominated salon anymore than men do. I do not identify with mainstream femininity. You said that no one is getting hurt here. I have had death threats today — that hurts my well being. Also, if RAB had a change of heart and continued to offer traditional barber style haircuts to anyone, not just men, it wouldn’t affect their male-dominated atmosphere as I doubt that very many women would want barber-style cuts and this could end.

  16. Evie – thanks for your perspective. As for death threats I would say that is overly brash. I can’t see why a situation such as this would warrant such behaviour as it’s just a bit of perspective for everyone, including myself. And I do empathize for your situation as no one deserves that for speaking out.
    I also can understand your take on why you would want to go there if you are a male dominated person and not interested in feminine esthetics.
    But I think where the lines get crossed is that while you might be that way, once Craig lets that line go, than it’s just an open forum and it could continue on so on and so forth. I’ve seen it happen in other lines of industry. One line is crossed and then another and another and then the next thing you know the place you love isn’t the same place you love anymore. And I agree there are probably not many women who want that, but what happens if other ladies see you going in there and then women want to go there too and due to it’s locality and the cultural area, that could cause a lot of noise. If this was in Walsh Acres, probably not.
    So I think where the stylists are coming from isn’t at you, personally. It’s just drawing a line. An unfortunate one for you and other women who identify as you do.
    And unfortunately when it comes to testosterone, I don’t think many males are going to identify with your stance on this and that is where the problem is. As forward as we all should be, we aren’t and it sucks.
    However, what I have learned from this situation is there a big gap for transgendered and the gay community as whole that I will definitely look into myself.

  17. An Ass barber helped cause a woman to get death threats today because he didn’t want to accept her money for a hair cut. That’s a problem that even Regina in 2014 shouldn’t be going through.

  18. I just don’t think everything has to be everything to everyone. It’s called Freedom. In one instance we want our freedom of speech, in another we want to be able to call the shots. It can’t be both. If a company chooses not to have children in it’s restaurant it should be able to do so, if a company doesn’t want women and this applies the same to if women don’t want men, than it should just be a live and live moment. It’s impossible to please everyone. How many quotes have we posted on our Facebook that say something to affect of “No matter what anyone says, I’m going to do my own thing or hold fast to my dreams or believe in what I do.” Personally, all this says to me is there is an open market waiting to be taken in the marketplace to fill a niche. The writing is right there on the wall. It says to me that certain groups or people aren’t getting their niche filled and why isn’t that happening? But I don’t think anyone should have to change their business or anything to accommodate what someone else wants. It means that other business people haven’t seen that there is a whole community out there who is in need of a certain kind of service and it hasn’t been provided yet. The company fulfilling their business model and holding fast to their business plan and vision and mission statement and financial goals are based around the initial model that was viewed and taken by a financial investor in the agreement. The company is holding their model. There are literally tons of other great places to go. I’ve seen them around. Industrious, modern, upscale, fast forward, and trendy salon with none of the fluffy stuff. None. Completely Unisex and inviting.

  19. Especially starting up a Facebook page and getting people to call and harass a business. That sure is a great way to get people to understand your point…

    The people that are doing the same to Ms. ruddy as is happening to RABS are shameful.

    That being said, find somewhere else to go if girlie ones make you uncomfortable, this place is marketed towards men. It is a barber. The meaning is to give haircuts to men and boys. Ignorance is no excuse for causing problems because you don’t agree with a businesses practice.
    Vote with your wallet.

  20. Come ON! Discrimination is NOT what this is! It’s a business model. Making their clientele feel more comfortable in the atmosphere THEY have created!

    As a short haired woman, I can get my hair cut in virtually any salon, right? WRONG. Lots of stylists specialize in long hair, and have refused me. As I have refused some, who admittedly are not great with short hair. Discrimination? Heck no! Just let them have their business, and there are hundreds in Regina who can offer you the service you are seeking.

    Just like bullying is NOT saying “na-na-na-na-boo-boo”, nor is specializing in male grooming services discriminatory. Let’s be reasonable people. Lend all that energy to helping women who really have no options for equality. And let’s hope that the world will forgive this ridiculous outburst. I, for one, don’t want my gender associated even a LITTLE with this situation. It’s absolutely embarrassing.

  21. I just don’t get the business’ logic. They act like it’s so hard to restrict their clients to what they’re looking to do. They cut short hair in “masculine” ways. They should just screen on that and not gender, since that’s more correlated with what they actually do. So dudes with long Legolas hair should get turned down just like “Lesbians with long hair” (i’m looking at you, Portia de Rossi!). And since they do masculine cuts, the woman in question should have been enthusiastically accepted because that’s exactly what she wanted. So, new policy should be “Hair past the ears, you can’t come here. But we accept Queers. Also ladies (we ain’t shady!)”

    Great analysis Stephen. Thanks for breaking down the “Curves” argument I keep seeing thrown around here.

  22. It is a barber shop. Perhaps people should do some reading and find out what exactly a barbershop is.

    The “curves argument” holds no water and is a silly excuse for an argument. Equality or not. Not, equality for some. Do you see how silly that that sentence was?

  23. Hottest topic of the month.

    I’m a regular at Ragged Ass and I go there because I like getting a man’s haircut. This is obviously no problem for me, as I am bearded, curse loudly and drink whisky.

    I am not surprised, as a women’s rights’ advocate, that the Prairie Dog has sided with Ms. Evie on the issue. Mr. Whitworth wrote a compelling argument which specifically countered Craig’s (the owner of RAB) argument that there are women only gyms and so forth. (Whitworth argued that the reason these gyms and establishments exist is because of the harassment women experience when going to co-ed gyms and yoga classes.) I think this is a valid counter-argument. The analogy put forth by Craig between womens only gyms and men only barbershops is not a good one.

    What hasn’t been mentioned so far is the constiutionality and heretofor validity of this woman’s human rights complaint, which is the fact that someone has plainly been discriminated (denied service) on the basis of her (or his) gender.

    In a legal sense, this seems constitutionally or legally sound.

    The problem is that the Canadian constitution is a broad document that is meant to cover encompassing problems and traditional issues related to freedom of expression and belief. The entirety of our country (borrowing heavily from the constitution of the United States) is based on freedom from oppression because of one’s beliefs, race, gender or beliefs.

    That all being said, it does not follow that in a contemporary sense that Ms. Evie’s human rights have been violated. Becca Steps had the most cogent arguments in this thread when she pointed out that there are literally dozens of other establishments Ms. Evie could have patronized (about 10 in a one block radius– this is Cathedral, we’re talking about) who would have gladly cut her hair.

    A human rights complaint is a serious topic. In this grim category we find issues such as female genital mutilation in Africa, ethnic cleansing in Serbia, anti-homosexuality laws in Uganda, beheadings in Iraq and Syria because of faith, the abortion of a baby because of its gender in China and so and and so on. These are all serious ongoing, life threatening atrocities that numerate the world affairs section on any global media outlet.

    Do we really wish to believe that because someone could not get a haircut at the establishment she wanted is on par with solemn subjects such as these?

  24. This is ridiculous! Barbershops have ALWAYS been for male clients only, thought everyone knew that. Why would a female even try? Seriously just suck it up and go somewhere else. Not always does a person get the cut that they want anyway. I totally support RABS business model and they should not change. Today’s society is getting way too sensitive and wussy. I have been taking my son’s to a unisex salon because it’s cheaper but I think I will start taking them to Ragged Ass just to show them support. We as a society are loosing traditions and history because somewhere along the way people have become whinny cry babies.

  25. Although I feel excluding Evie isn’t the most sound of business practices, a ruling last fall somewhat supports RAB’s fears.

    Apparently things started somewhat similar in Ontario and forced quite a few barbers out of the trade. Now to be licensed to cut hair in Ontario all tradespeople are obligated to know how to do men’s and women’s cuts.

  26. I’m sure in the end…. future advertising for RAB will still mention their specialty, but add emphasis “All are welcome” or something of that nature.

  27. 100% agree that RABs business model is their right to run their business as they see fit. If you don’t fit, check out page 881 in your local phone book yellow pages, under Hair Stylists MEN and check out one of the almost 50 others to choose from that I am pretty sure are qualified too. I understand, that she was told no, so move on. This kind of stuff is what makes folks negative about women’s rights so you are not helping the situation at all. Men have just as many rights to be in a place that CATERS to them as well as the many places in this city that cater to women. Sorry, pick up the phone and make an appointment elsewhere. RAB stand your ground, this isn’t a human rights issue, it’s a joke and wow, what a waste of time.

  28. Great reply, Evie! Or maybe you could take Becca’s advice and open your own salon. Seems like the next logical step haha. Like…wtf?

  29. 1. RAB is going to close up shop and move off-shore if this issue persists.
    2. They’ll probably now be flooded with a bunch of actual misogynists lining up to “show their support” and share what they hate about women, which will but them all in awfully uncomfortable positions.

    Curb Your Enthusiasm

    I get their desire to maintain the discipline of their old-school “men-only” aesthetic, but they probably should have just cut her an exception and given her the haircut… On the other hand, maybe they really didn’t want to encourage her or even more females to come for a cut, becoming some new politicized touchstone in the gender equity campaign. I don’t go there, but I sense it as a politics-muted zone.Yes, at the least, it’s like a club. Perhaps it’s unrealistic to operate a business like that post-1960s. I think that the vibe however maybe as intrinsic to the whole “artisanal” movement thing as reclaiming the methods and means of production.

    I really don’t think this is a human rights issue, tho. Man, think about Craig: You’re going to ruin this poor young man with all the unbearable stress this must be creating for him. Killing the dream… I don’t want to see him trying to recoup down at the Golden Mile stylists in two years time. Hanging in the balance…

  30. Or maybe once a month RAB, can establish “Ladies Night” or “Day” or “Afternoon”.

  31. Probably the best thing RA could have done was just cut Evie’s hair and be done with it. I’m sure they wouldn’t have had a tremendous influx of women, but then again, that’s what RA are afraid of…and then they would lose their particular distinction, that sets them apart, in an swamped market.

    They could have told her that the next available appointment would be a week from some Tuesday, next year…or cut her hair so badly that she wouldn’t want to come back. But they chose to be straight up about it and come clean from the get-go.
    The positive upswing is that they are getting a HUGE injection of free advertising, good and bad, but advertising, none-the-less…even all the way out here in Ontario.

    I see two things here…
    1.) RAB has rights too, that are not even considered here…(in this over-regulated and over-taxed small business world.)
    2.) This is not a Human Rights issue, as Evie has many other options, and it is not life threatening to her at all. It will just take HR Commission time away from a much more worthy case.

    I think that Talbot Fresh, Jr, has one of the best ideas yet!
    Have a special Ladies day or time, so that RA could try to accommodate and save face, at the same time.

  32. Well written. Comments around the media seem to indicate that people are pulling rationale out of their ass to beat this one down. The white male “rest of the world” argument is interesting, and then you hear the stories about getting stares at a salon (FYI, I think everyone is gawking at everything in these places). My only addition to the excellent comments is that I am certain that risk management was discussed when making the business decision. Forms of protest could still happen – HRC takes their time making decisions. I think it’s something the shop expected. I am surprised it did not happen almost immediately, truly. It just takes one person to create a good size ripple. People making it their mission to bully Evie on social media are horrible…so many bold comments made on all media actually. I hope Evie finds someone skilled enough to fix her cut, and that the process is kind and fair all around. Agreed with John – why is this even happening in these times? It’s hard to say whether I should argue for a place for my hubby to get his beard trimmed and if I should go back to shitting out babies, or if I should say that every woman can and should be able to access a service and go there. Both have extremely deep layers, and the importance of the complaint to HRC is that piece of accountability. People will make a decision now, knowing the other side of the business and voting with their wallets per se. Good luck to all involved!

  33. Cutting hair is a trade, and Craig has focused his skills on men’s grooming. I don’t believe that this is a human rights issue at all, haha. Having access to clean water, freedoms of religious expression, and freedom from harm are all examples of human rights issues. A woman who can’t get her hair cut by a barber is laughable. This is the fight you’re digging your heels in for? Wow. Historically, and currently in major cities, there are barbershops who refuse female clients. This isn’t a bastion of misogyny, a frontier of male priviledge, it’s a business model. This is hilarious. I’m a proponent of equality, but this is silly. Can I start going to Lamaze classes because I feel men are under-represented in the pregnant woman aisle? C’mon.

  34. I remember the old school barbers, with the playboy mags, an comic books. Chummy atmosphere, and friendly bs about sports and business. I haven’t been in one since probably the 80’s and I love the idea that someone tried to recreate that.

    I go to a cheapo place because I can get in and out of their quickly.. It sucks and I’m clearly not their target demographic and don’t have a friendly relationship with the hairstylists like they do with their regular clients. I’d love to patronize a business I support and feel welcome at. Everyone including Evi should.

    Predictable, blanket condemnations of misogyny aside I think both parties are right here and the anger comes from the fact that everyone understands RAB will get sanctioned, and the ladies only gyms and women only swim nights will keep happening. Freemasons won’t last and only survive because nobody gives a fuck about them. It’s all part of being in a declining demographic, and times changing means a few people will fight for the old ways.

    I hope for a good resolution for the parties close to this.

  35. There’s been some serious grappling going on…back and forth in me mind. FOR INSTANCE!

    Yes, Mark is correct: Craig has focused his skills on men’s grooming. However, Evie was not asking for woman’s haircut, she was asking for what’s been stylistically-defined, I believe, as a man’s haircut. Legally, can you confine the service of men’s grooming exclusively to men if, occasionally, requested by a woman?

    Is upholding the spirit and atmosphere of the gold rush era, legally, enough to defend yourself against a human rights complaint? Would you, or can you even, incorporate as a “men’s only” grooming salon, or at worst, a “theme salon” specializing in historical re-enactment?

    After much thought I’ve concluded that Evie probably does, legally, have a case; however, is it really one that needs to be made? Like I said, I don’t believe RAB are human rights violators at heart or in spirit and it’s unfortunate they have to bear that cross now.

    (On the other hand, full disclosure: If I had a teenage or adult daughter who wanted that haircut and was denied by RAB, I would probably be very pissed off and may as a knee-jerk suggest a complaint to the human rights commission…you never know. I can admit that, so…like I said. Grappling.)

    Ladies Night!

  36. How is this even an issue? Can we have nothing of our own anymore? This is one of the only places I go knowing it is men only. Yet we are now embroiled in some kind of ” human rights” issue? A manufactured issue to be sure, but human rights?- no way. I don’t think men of this generation are allowed to say things like ” I enjoy going somewhere women are not”. Not aloud, anyway. If we do we’re labelled with all the “-ist’s”. Sexist. Elitist. Woman hating trolls, etc. If this was an issue occurring in the one and only barber shop in the city, or in every one of them, it wouldn’t feel like such a waste of time. Stand your ground ragged ass. WWJD? I have a feeling he’d see how sweet ragged ass is, compliment Craig’s beard and sit down for a beer with the rest of us -because though he can’t say it out loud- even jc needs a place to talk about Mary Magdalene. Ragged ass is that place. I will continue to love this place until it gets bulldogged into the ground by b.s. Maybe the next barber shop should exist like fight club constantly moving locations, no phone line. “The first rule of man haircut club is we don’t talk about man haircut club”.

  37. Lashing out because she got a bad haircut? Evie sounds more girly than she gives herself credit for.

  38. Unless, however, it can be proven that men and woman have differently shaped heads and different textures of hair. In that case, then, RAB can make the case that they’re simply protecting their skill-sets, reputation, and brand by refusing to provide what they know would result in an inferior product. If that case can in fact be made. Forensic Barbery.

  39. I agree with the comments that Becca made. I’m sorry that Evie does not feel comfortable in other hair dressing establishments and she didn’t get the cut she wanted from her regular hair stylist, but I do like the idea of a traditional barber shop. I think it’s a simple, harmless pleasure for men, and I respect that. I wonder if Evie would have been open to getting a haircut by someone at RAB without it being at RAB. Was it the haircut or experience that was most wanted?

  40. When I was in there yesterday, I was told Ms. Evie (sic; Ms. Ruddy) asked for a bob and I was told they don’t do bobs.

  41. As a business owner you are entitled to serve who you want… I dont agree with the rant but seriously people its a barber shop!! You are making a massive political/rights scene over a god damn barber shop!!! Overkill to the max …. Iv been meaning to go.to RAB for sometime now I have a reason to before these overkill children with pitchforks burn the place down….sheeesh grow up people

  42. Presumably the barbershop has been operating in Cathedral — of all places— for some time, and now suddenly its policy is an issue?

    There have been some well-thought-out comments above, and also the predictable number of not-so-bright ones, but the comment that is the least thoughtful and least bright is “Here’s what everyone should think and do”.

  43. Amen Barb Saylor. I think I just picked up my last Prairie Dog after reading “Here’s what everyone should think and do”.

  44. “Like mentioned earlier, vote with your wallet. If no one goes there, I’m sure policy would change. I do enjoy how the goalposts get moved when different women only clubs are brought up. It doesn’t matter the reasons for them, you are either for equality or not. Don’t hide behind true equality and only support women’s rights.”

    I agree with this statement. Why can’t we have businesses that only cater to women AND businesses that only cater to men, is that not equality? As long as there are enough options for both sexes to find somewhere else to go to receive these services then this is by no means a human rights violation.

  45. When I lived in Manitoba we had a barbershop in town that was men only. I walked in once to ask my boyfriend and business partner a question and a hush fell so fast, I felt like I had blundered into a hallowed space. And it kind of was. I was really impressed that somewhere there was a space that was just for men, and yes, that is important. Al (the barber) was a perfectly nice guy outside, at the market or around town, courteous and friendly to women. And I’ve met Craig and he is too. This is just a guy’s space. It seems every time guys try to establish a space for themselves we follow them in like an annoying kid sibling. And no matter how cool we think we are, the whiny bitches line right up behind us and crowd in after us. Give men a place to talk to men. They need it. And a good haircut, not the flock of seagulls sh*t they tend to get at unisex salons.

  46. Barb, Grant: my occasional displays of sweeping Shatnerian arrogance are always offered with a wink. It’s part of my charm. Besides, my opinion is a good one. Not the only one, but a good one.

  47. Charming to you, maybe, Stephen, but misleading and offensive, not only to people who are unfamiliar with what you find “charming”, but also to regular readers. Your ascription of motive in the second-last paragraph of the “charming” rant is especially insulting.

    kat szulga: you reminded me of the time in Winnipeg, decades ago, when my boyfriend at the time and I dropped into a downtown bar for a quick drink after a movie. There were only a few customers, so we expected to be served rather quickly. We were totally ignored. It finally dawned on us that the only other customers were men, and that we had inadvertently entered a gay bar. You’re right: there are exclusive spaces, and they’re important — for a safe haven or safety valve or both.

  48. For those talking about the need for a male-only space…you realize that RAB isn’t that, right? Lots of women, including the one raising the complaint, have said, in this very comment thread, that they’ve been into the shop with male kids and friends. I’m assuming women are also allowed to come in and purchase whatever priducts they have for sale.

    Does this ruin the environment for you? If not, what is it about a woman sitting in the barber chair next to you that is so very different than a woman standing over her son in the chair next to you?

  49. Let’s also pause for a minute, to consider a similar case which happened recently in Toronto. Faith McGregor took Omar Mahrouk, owner of a barber shop, to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal because he refused to cut her hair. His defence, that his religion prohibits him from touching women not related to him, wasn’t enough to keep him from reaching a mediated settlement with Ms McGregor. If religious belief isn’t a sufficient defence against a discrimination charge, think on how well a “but, but man cave…” defence will fly.

    And on that note, I’m curious to know if the young woman who apprentices at RAB compromises the integrity of their “man space.” What about the moms who bring their sons in for cuts? Do they destroy the safety of this manly retreat? What about the spa owner from downstairs, who comes upstairs to buy beer from them?

    Why is it that women come and go from the shop all the time, without issue, but somehow the moment barber shears touch hair with the XX chromosome, it will all go to hell?

  50. Taken from the article from this website:


    And this is my point here. It has nothing to do with human rights but I what I see as taking away our freedoms. The bottom line being that we want the freedoms but we still want people to do what we want. To me, that’s the issue.

    These paragraphs from the above links summed it up better than I could or can:

    But the very concept of “right” includes inviolability. A genuine right is something that cannot legitimately be infringed by the mere say-so of some state-appointed tribunal doing a balancing act.

    So whenever there appears to be a conflict of “rights,” at least one of the claims — or possibly both — must be phony.

    The only kinds of claims that can genuinely be rights are those that are both universal and reciprocal. Everyone has to have the same right, and everyone’s obligation to everyone else must be identical. The right to life, for instance, means that you don’t kill me, and I don’t kill you.

    We both have the same right not to be killed, and the same obligation to refrain from killing the other person. Such rights — commonly called “negative rights” — create no conflicts between claimants. They are invariably rights to be left alone, free from coercion.

    In this case, it’s easy to figure out which claim is the fake. McGregor’s claim to freedom from gender discrimination is not reciprocal. If granted, it would impose upon the barbers an affirmative obligation to do something for her, something that they have no desire to do and are not demanding that she do for them.

    In effect, it imposes a form of involuntary servitude on the barbers, even if she pays them for the haircut. The price of a haircut is clearly not enough to induce them to violate their religious practices, so she would be forcing them to work against their will.

    The barbers have the genuine right in this case. They should be legally permitted to refuse haircuts to whomever they please — but not because they have freedom of religion. What they genuinely have a right to, and what the tribunal should recognize and enforce, is a right to plain old unadorned freedom.

    Freedom means the absence of coercion. It includes freedom of contract. To have a contract, you must have a meeting of minds on all the major terms of the contract, including the identity of the person with whom you are contracting. If you don’t want to deal with someone for whatever reason — be it that they’re female, or not a member of your family, or that they’re left-handed, or they smell bad — you should be free to decline. If they have the right to force you to deal with them, then we’re back to involuntary servitude.

  51. Well said. Did the mediated settlement include monetary compensation? If so, this is a form of judicial shakedown.

  52. Thanks for citing that article, Becca Steps. It raises compelling points, on which I plan to reflect deeply. I referred to the Toronto case to bring light to what I confidently predict will be the outcome for RAB if they decide to fight the claim against them. The Canadian Constitution Foundation can expound at length, but the HR tribunal will likely give their flavour of argument little weight.

    I didn’t bother to bring contract law into the equation, though it very much applies to this situation at a fundamental level. It is correct that a shopkeeper has no obligation to contract with anyone. This principle is well-established in the common law. The caveat, however, is that anti-discrimination legislation applies. We, as a modern society, have concluded that a compelling reason must exist in order to curtail an individual’s equitable treatment in the marketplace. Appeal to tradition will not serve RAB very well at all, and the owner will be poorly served if he pays much heed to his cheerleaders.

    As a fan of the shop, my sincerest hope is that he consults with a lawyer who outlines his situation as frankly as possible, and that he finds a way to make things right with Ms Ruddy, before this goes to the commission.

  53. It’s interesting that no one seems willing to address the fact that RAB contracts with women all the time, seemingly without issue.

  54. A non-disclosure agreement is highly likely to imply a financial settlement, so despite statements about not wanting money, just the principle of the thing — feh.

  55. I have to agree. The fact that the shop owner attempted to mitigate, by offering a cut from a willing barber, and Ms. McGregor rejected that offer, is a point too easily overlooked. Bullies come in all shapes and sizes.

  56. I read the article but not all the comments on this lengthy thread, so forgive me if this point has already been made. I get the authour’s point that comparing a men’s only barber shop to ladies only gyms is apples and oranges because women may want a place to work out without having to worry about being checked out or hit on by creepy guys. But what about bars that host ladies nights. I am out the loop on the bar scene, but back when I was a part of the scene (not that long ago) it was common practice for bars to host ladies nights wherein women didn’t have to pay cover charge and or got cheaper drinks until 10:00. The business model is basic, offer free cover charge and cheap drinks to women before 10 in order to get women out to the bar earlier on in the evening. And if the bar is going to be full of women, naturally lots of guys will going there, too. Cha-ching, your bar is full of people spending money. If some guy wanted to push the issue and take one of the bars to a human rights tribunal, he would probably win his case. Charging different prices to different customers based on their gender is not only a charter violation; Admin Law students will also tell you that it’s outright illegal. It’s called price discrimination. But guess, no guy’s likely to take one of these bars to task over it because it would be silly. Do we fear that ladies nights at bars are going to lead us down a path wherein we will end up in a society where ladies unfairly get cheaper booze than men? No! That’s ridiculous. Likewise, it’s ridiculous for someone to take a men’s only barber shop to task when there are a gazillion other places in town to get your hair cut any style you want. This is not a human rights issue; it’s an entitlement run amok issue.

  57. This is not a Charter issue. Charter rights only come into play within the context of an individual and the state.

  58. They do ladies night to attract more female patrons not because they are against men being there. I’m sure there’s lots of heterosexual men who are happy not every bar they go to is a sausage fest. I know lots of guys who go out on ladies night specifically because more women will be there.

  59. It’s 2014!!!
    This fight shouldn’t even be happening. A purple monkey should be able to walk into a salon/barber shop( doesn’t matter) and get what she/he (doesn’t matter) wants as long as he/she (doesn’t matter) is polite. It would be best if egos were set aside and everyone emphasized on “One” realizing we are all One so why discriminate against a woman wanting a hair cut or a dude that wants a perm. We are so different but all the same . I’m tired and going to bed. “Hallucinate on that ” -:House Bunny.LOL

  60. Your right CC. Oh when it’s ladies night, oh what a night… they knew it in the 70’s ladies night was the best night to get down get down.

  61. Did Brandon mean ruin? Last sentence Steve,Becca( 1st bit ),Chris(last 2),pc 9:04,JB, & my fav Tess!

  62. CC, I don’t know if you read my post very closely before responding to it. You’re right, ladies night is to attract more patrons, not to exclude men. Attract lots of girls and you’ll also attract lots of guys. Cha-ching: basic business model, my post clarified that. But that’s beside the point. Charging a different price to different customers and/or waving cover charge solely based on the customer’s gender is price discrimination (“price discrimination” is actually the legal term for it; look it up for yourself) and if some guy wanted to go into a bar on ladies night and demand he get the same discounts as the ladies get, he would have legal grounds for his demands. And if the bar refused, he could file a human rights complaints and would likely win (pc, no, human rights complaints are not exclusively between an individual and the state; private businesses can face human rights complaints as well). So why is nobody doing this? Because nobody cares. And frankly, nobody should care. Why should one guy ruin ladies night for everyone just ’cause he wants cheaper drinks when he can go to another bar or an off-sale and get cheap alcohol.

    Likewise, no one should be up in arms about a man’s only barber shop, when there are a gazillion other places in town where one can get a hair cut of any style. Why ruin things for the small niche market in town that wants a men only barber shop?

    If some guy claimed that ladies nights were taking us down a slippery slope where one day, all men would have to pay more for their booze than women, people would rightfully mock this guy for his entitlement run amok. Likewise, when someone acts like having a men only barber shop in town is infringing on her rights (as though allowing this place to exist will somehow lead us down a slippery slope where one day, no women will be able to get the hair cut), people should recognize this person’s behaviour for what it is. This isn’t someone standing up for her rights; this is someone’s entitlement run amok.

  63. @Barb – it was a non-disclosure agreement but the article did state that the woman who had started the human rights complaint did not want a monetary reward but that the barber shop should have to change their policy to serving men and women.

    There is involuntary servitude, freedoms being called into question and gender discrimination. Now while I understand the point Evie is trying to make, I am just trying to look at the bigger picture. If this goes forward as a gender discrimination complaint than what happens is that all barber shops if specializing in men’s haircuts will have to take on women as well and that means that they will be forced to also serve perms, cuts and colour and the like. It changes the whole business model. Now the issue I see if it is true that RABS is allowing women into the facility to wait for their children and hang out, be it a bench or whatever and if it IS true that a woman is apprenticing there, than I think it’s no brainer that putting a woman in the chair is no big deal. I don’t know for a fact if that is or is not the case as I have never been there to know. I was always under the impression that it was for men and since I don’t need a men’s haircut, I’ve never tried to go to the business other than thought about my partner taking my son with him so they both could get hair cuts together. But, I’m also not a transgendered or lesbian woman who is seeking a men’s cut. This is clearly an issue. A big one.

    So, you’ve got a huge homophobia problem I’m sure on one hand with certain clientele and a business model that doesn’t cater to women. A perfect storm.

    In my opinion, however, I feel that people have the freedom to do as they will as long as it’s not hurting anybody and that there are other options available elsewhere. We live in a huge marketplace, we are oversaturated with advertising and marketing ploys everywhere we go. Someone always has an idea of drawing in one crowd or another and every time a gap is recognized in the marketplace, don’t worry, it will get filled pretty quickly. But as the article I notated points out it’s universal rights we should be focusing on. You can’t have equality here, but not there. You can’t let one dictate over the other. So many minorities and discrimination groups are starting their own segregate clubs and activities that the rationale behind one business catering to one group while that group or others refuse to cater to the other, it becomes a dictate. Do as I say, not as I do. I could site many examples of this but anyone who has been keeping a close eye on this debate already knows what I’m referring to.

    I believe we all have the freedom to choose. We make choices all the time. If a business wants to choose to run itself a different way, let it. People will make the choice for themselves whether they want to continue to support this business or boycott it. That’s the beauty of free will. And as a previous commentator pointed out, I’m sure the RABS is going to get a lot of business they may not have wanted because of this exposure. I, personally, would rather get my haircut by someone who accepts me and wants my business than someone who would be quick to get me out of their chair. If a company is rude and disrespectful to me, I won’t shop there and I won’t buy anything because I feel I make a statement by boycotting that particular place by not financially supporting it. It’s that simple. And that is the freedom I get to have by having so many different options to choose from because if one store doesn’t want my money, there is always another company who does. I’m grateful to have my freedom to choose.

  64. Women’s Entrepenurs and Youth Entrepenurs are two businesses here in Regina that do not allow me to join unless the head of my company is either a woman or a youth and must own 51% of my company. Does this make them sexist and ageist? I cannot participate in the Women’s Entrepenurs annual fashion show even though my Design Studio mainly caters to women, which for two years in a row I was asked to show my line of clothing for their show, and after accepting the invitation I was then informed that I could not show due to their business policy, this made me feel highly discriminated against not once but twice especially with the fact that they personally invited me and then rescinded the invitation, do I have a human rights fight here as well? As a middle age gay male there is no such services offered to me for the advancement and support of my business like WE or YE but if I was a woman or a youth then the sky is the limit again is this a human rights fight or just shitty business policies that we learn to understand and accept and embrace?

  65. My grandmother told me the story of when feminine pads were first produced and marketed here last century. There seemed to be a reluctance by the targeted market. The marketing people had their packages placed in the windows of local barbershops in order to gain acceptance….If she was still around I think I’d give her a call to see if the women walked into the barber shop and bought their napkins or had their men buy them.

  66. Comparing this to ladies night at a bar isn’t relevant because men still receive service. Evie was refused service. Get it? I don’t go to ladies night because the only places that do it are sleazy bars like the pump. See why they need ladies night? I’m a lady and I won’t even go!

  67. “and that means that they will be forced to also serve perms, cuts and colour and the like. It changes the whole business model.”

    No, no they won’t. Pure and utter fiction.

    “You can have any colour car you want, so long as it’s black.” – Henry Ford

  68. On a whole ‘nother level, for me at least, this exposes the exclusivist/snobby/descriminatory underbelly of the whole “artisanal” movement.

  69. The whole notion that “guys need their own space” also seems a little absurd to me and is, in itself, rather sexist. Kind of sounds like a marketing gimmick. It’s a notion that’s creating its own demand. Most guys are able to “find their own space” on their own time. And are we just so bombarded by an effeminizationist ozone at every turn, that we need to get a 30 minute fix at the barbers to make us right?

  70. It’s also a fiction, Talbot Fresh, Jr. Women contract with the shop all the time, seemingly without issue. The apprentice is a young woman. Soccer moms bring their boys in for cuts, and the spa owner from downstairs buys beer from them, for her customers. But heaven forbid those shears touch “woman hair.”

  71. PC – I don’t say this to be rude, I just ask that you read some articles that are happening in Canada where barbers are having to go back to school because they now have to be able to cut women’s hair as well and they’ve only been trained in men’s haircuts. If this is considered to be a gender issue.

    As an esthetician do I not have the right to refuse service to someone who has extremely bad hygiene? Do show salesman not have the right to refuse service to someone who needs to see podiatrist first? Should I start a human rights debate with Le Chateau because the posh girls there won’t serve me when I come in all disheveled in my pj’s? What about Aldo?

    I think we’ve all been to business where there is some level of discrimination be it for whatever reason, not just gender. And what do we do? We choose not to go back or go somewhere else that will accept our business.

    I remember being at wedding shop and they discriminated against me because they felt I couldn’t afford their dresses – so I went somewhere else.

    What we think are “rights” and as per the article I linked above talks about is just plain old freedom to choose who a business or business person chooses to do business with. Again, I said I don’t personally think as I stated above that if yourun a business with double standards that you have the ability to pick and choose, but I also don’t see any issue with a business choosing to cater to one type of group or another. Not in this day in age with so many places to go. Just because RABS is choosing this business model, doesn’t mean every other place is going to follow suit because of it, they haven’t so far…

  72. You do know that every barber at Ragged Ass had to do 1000 hours of styling, to become certified as a barber in Saskatchewan, yes? That ship sailed here, long ago. Personally? I think it’s a bullshit requirement, but there you go.

    The simple fact is that a shop keeper can refuse to contract with anyone, for any reason, except in situations where anti-discrimination and/or consumer protection laws apply. The venerable common law principle that establishes the right to refuse custom is constrained by legislation. This circumstance is not unique to contract law. Legislation always trumps judge-made law, as it should.

    So yes, you have the right to refuse service to someone with bad hygiene. For that matter, it’s not completely unfathomable that a shoe salesperson might have a duty of care to refuse service, to someone who needs medical attention for their feet, never mind the former’s right to do so in first instance.

    You can run a business that only sells black cars, just like Henry Ford did. What you can’t do is refuse to sell those cars to someone who isn’t the right colour, gender, or whatever class is expressly protected by the anti-discrimination laws in question.

    You are attempting to conflate completely separate issues, with this talk of “business models.” No one can force Ragged Ass to give them a perm. It’s, at best, disingenuous to suggest it’s even in the realm of possibility under our–probably any–legal or legislative system, notwithstanding the jurisprudentially-marginal assertions of the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

  73. About 2 years ago here in Toon on 8th St E near where I live, a hair place called Off Side Hair Zone opened up by a lady owner. This place only does men’s hair cuts, not ladies. It’s still here, so it must be doing ok. I wonder what would happen if this Elvie came to this place in Toon and talk face to face with the lady owner about her business policies.

  74. It probably would depend on whether the lady owner accepted her offer to purchase a ‘hard cut’ or whatever it’s called and, if she didn’t, the reason for her refusal.

  75. First of all, I will admit that I did not read all the comments on this post and that I am re-posting my comment from Stephen’s more recent post. I am just relaying my own story and it is not in direct response to anything anyone has said:

    When I was five years old, I walked into the Italian barber who operates just around the corner from RAB. The kind of old-school barber shop that I think RAB is trying to emulate in a new and hip way. When I walked into that old barber shop, I asked to get my hair cut. The response was, “We don’t cut girl’s hair.” I, in turn, said, “But I want a boy’s hair cut.” The barber: “In that case, you have come to the right place,” and I hopped in the chair. In 1988.

    Case closed.

  76. On a different note… I’m more upset about the fact that Prairie Dog feels that is ok to just steel the photo used in this article. Even worse than using a copyrighted photo without permission or licensing, they didn’t even take the time to credit the artist.

  77. Great article, Stephen.

    For many of the commentators: it doesn’t matter why someone has decided to go to human rights. To question Evies decision is pointless; it’s her choice, which thankfully, she has the freedom and support to make.

    The hate I’ve seen directed at her on Facebook is awful.

    To justify discrimination is asinine and so many of the arguments on social media in regards to this are completely devoid of critical thinking or logic; it would be laughable if not so full of venom.

    This issue seems to have completely flown over your head, Becca. It is not a “business model” when it infringes on human rights, one of which is freedom from discrimination.

    I think Stephens suggestions are right on and hope both parties are reading this.

  78. Kiriako: Thank you for the comment. You make a good point, and I’ve added photography details and credit (photographer is Herb Ritts). Given that I’m using the image of this particular Vanity Fair cover — a well-known and historically significant marker of shifting/evolving gender roles/identity in society — to make a relevant point about barber shops and gender identity, I think I’m on safe “fair dealing” ground. Fair dealing includes using an image for satirical, critical and news reporting purposes.

  79. I don’t think my comparison are that out of line. We are each and every one of us discriminated for some reason or another.

    I say call this issue for what it is. It’s not just a gender issue, it’s really a gay rights issue. If you re going to push the limits of discrimination force the agenda where it really applies.

  80. It’s a gender issue. Someone was refused a simple service based on their gender. The owner should admit his fault and give her a free haircut.

    To compare that to someone being refused service based on bad personal hygiene only perpetuates sexism.

    And no, we aren’t “all discriminated against in one way or another”. That’s nothing more than an attemot to justify discriminatory actions, such as this one.

    Just take a look at history; some groups of people are discriminated against while others have consistently been in positions of power.

  81. Personally, I’m just getting tired of people picking apart little quotes from my argument to one extreme or another. Basically as far as I feel in a world where everyone is crying discrimination to one extreme or the other and minorities as well as races are just as isolating as any other business or religious group and where laws are being changed only to cater to one group or person it’s just starting to get a little over the top about where are freedoms start and where they end.

    I feel its a personal choice whether a business wants to cater to one group or another so long as it’s not the only option for said business in its industry. And yes, the reality is people are always forming opinions of other people whether we like it or not. Forcing an idea or forcing change when it’s not hurting anybody, doesn’t make any sense to me.

    What I don’t like about this debate is the homophobia aspect where Evie is receiving death threats and a lot of nasty distaste is coming out of the closet. That aspect of this really bothers me and on that note, I offer Evie (if she isn’t into polish or gel nails) – a mans foot tx with an ice cold beer on me and she can message me at beccasteps@hotmail.com or PM on facebook.

    Also when I used Iron Beauty as an example – it was an example I was using off of the top of my head THAT company does not endorse or share in any way the same thoughts I have. I used it as an example because I know that the stylists there would be more than happy and generous in giving Evie a wonderful experience that she deserves.

    I don’t want my argument getting derailed. I believe everyone has the freedom to choose what kind of business establishment they want to create for themselves and if they want to target a certain group, I don’t think there should be any issue with that. I draw the line at rude, perverse, negative, and violent comments or threats at someone due to their personal choice to be transgendered or gay/lesbian. To me, that is royally messed up in today’s age.

    Otherwise, no one was bothered by this until now and I believe the business would have just kept on keeping on otherwise. And why not when there are literally tens of hundreds other stylists to choose from. My boyfriend goes to a unisex salon and has a brilliant stylist who does a fabulous hard part.

    Call me crazy, but I like the idea of the vintage old time shops and I’ve never felt discouraged because of it. Again these are my opinions and I know not everyone shares what I think and that’s why we have the freedom to choose and the free will to think what we want. Why can’t we just have the freedom to do that? Why does everything have to be changed this way or that way? There are lots of minority groups and gender groups and organization that promote sexism and ageism, but no one cares because we realize that it’s OK! Everything is going to be OK!

  82. I just have to say, many of your points seem to contradict one another, escpecially your last one:

    “There are lots of minority groups and gender groups and organization that promote sexism and ageism, but no one cares because we realize that it’s OK”.

    Um, what? Sorry, I can’t even start to deconstruct that ideology. Care to elaborate?

    Anyway, not to beat a dead horse or anything here, but you specifically made comparisons to people refusing others service based on something like bad hygiene in order to justify why RAB had a right to refuse this woman service.

    Doesn’t matter which gender they choose to markets themselves to.

    Here’s an example: most salons cater to a Caucasian demographic.

    Not explicitly, but they carry lines targeted to women with a certain hair type, use only white models in advertisements, have no women of color working there, don’t train their stylists on how to properly cut “ethnic” hair. Nor do they care to.

    Would they be allowed to refuse service based on this? Of course not. A woman of color should still be able to get her hair done there if for some reason she chooses to. Perhaps it is more convenient for her.

    I believe the same applies here.

    That is all.

  83. This situation is neither a human rights issue or a feminism issue. To suggest otherwise would be a monumental disgrace to what the Human Rights Code in this province was set up for. Only Ms. Ruddy would put a “hard part” in the same category as the rights of mentally disabled persons, employment equity and so on.

    If Ms. Ruddy had been in fact advocating for ALL women as part of a feminist complaint, then I could agree with her. But she is not. She is pushing back as part of a very small group of women who want…you guessed it…a HARD PART” and their own absolute right to infringement of everything they are said “NO” to.

    I fail to see how this infringement of her Human Rights impacts her emotionally, physically, socially or economically. Other than having her feelings hurt, which being an advocate she should already have a thick skin for.

    Only in Canada..the land expectations and excess would we even consider this a gross treatment of a human being to go so far as to include it with some REAL issues…


  84. Kimbereley, you seem quite adamant that this issue is only about a hard part. I’m not sure where or why you came to that conclusion.

    In fact, it’s about an establishment refusing a woman service for no other reason than she has a vagina and not a penis.

    Yes, this entire situation is based on gender. No, your opinion on the subject does not change that.

  85. Dana…

    What is the real issue then? For argument sake lets say she wanted a hard part and a fade up the back her head. Both of those techniques she could have and would have received gladly at another establishment.

    Lets get back to the bottom of the pot here. Tell me please..how is this impacting Ms. Ruddy’s being other than she was told no. Tell me please how this can possibly compare to any of the more important and all encompassing issues that have been brought before the human rights commission that have the ability to effect multiple humans lives on so many great levels.

    How is this situation making her life unbearable? A little bit of common sense goes a long way Dana.

  86. How am I supposed to sit here and tell you how she feels?

    I have no idea. I’m not going to pretend to know or just assume, either. That’s not for me or anyone else to judge.

    The point is, she felt discriminated against. She has since acted on said discrimination.

    Neither you nor I will decide whether this us valid; that’s what the commission is for.

  87. Thank you for the discussion Dana..

    I will leave with the following…

    I for one hope that the commission finds her complaint to be without validity. But if she does achieve her goal..how wonderful for her…the women who lives in Regina was able to take a long standing (one of the only left of its kind) tradition of men only barbering and manage to bring it to it’s knees…all for a HARD PART!

  88. Kimberly: as others have pointed out, women have been getting men’s-style haircuts in barbershops for a long time. Even the original Ragged Ass Barbers in the Yukon has offered to cut Evie’s hair for free (if she can get there). The freak-outs opposing her haircut are silly.

    Traditions evolve. Thank goodness!

  89. “The whole notion that “guys need their own space” also seems a little absurd to me and is, in itself, rather sexist. Kind of sounds like a marketing gimmick. It’s a notion that’s creating its own demand. Most guys are able to “find their own space” on their own time.”

    Yep, well said. Do we really want a society where some men need a “refuge” of a barber shop to get away from women? If they are that painfully shy or sexist, they should hire a barber to make a house call instead.

    And isn’t Elizabeth Curry’s story very interesting from 26 years ago in Regina. She got a male style haircut then, what’s wrong with Ass Barber to turn away a customer, then fail to apologize when their sexism was exposed? Are there enough sexists in Regina to sustain their business that they have no fear of being left in the past?

  90. If you are reading at all you will notice that my posts are regarding the disagreement as a Human Rights Issue. You all are stuck on it being freak-out and sexist.

    This is not a Human Rights Issue and have given my opinion to why. I will ask the above gentlemen the same question.

    How in particular has Ms.Ruddy been victimized? Economically…perhaps socially….what about physically or emotionally?? No…she has not been hurt other than being said no to by a shop that is specifically for men. That is what Human Rights is all about..none of you want to talk about it. You just keep yammering away about oh those sexist men..and they should apologize. For pity sake!

    I just want to know how you think that she has been victimized to the point where she needs to turn this into a Human Rights Issue.

  91. Stephen,,,

    I have gone ahead and read Ms. Ruddy’s comments. This would be my response to them…

    I can understand first of all her attraction to the barbershop. All of these men are exceptional people.

    When Ms. Ruddy called and asked for an appointment and did not get the answer that she was looking for..she could have and should have to ask to speak to the owner. Did she do that? My understanding is that she did not and this is where it gets interesting. Given her experience of years of being an advocate, she should have asked to speak to Craig directly and stated her case, perhaps over a coffee or a beer even.

    At that point she would of found him be approachable and willing to have a discussion regarding this issue. Ms. Ruddy should take some responsibility for this going haywire. If this had been handled in a more meaningful way from her end…it would not be the gong show that it is now. There was no need for her to kick the door down. Not all men need to be hit over the head with a two-by-four.

    I find it depressing that some gals seem to think that unless every nook and cranny is flushed out and sanitized of what they deem is sexism we are all going to he$$ in a hand basket and still are living in the dark ages. Exactly…it is 2014…we have come a very long way, both men and women. I would argue that majority of women today are clever enough to know when something is really sexist or just a plain old men’s barbershop.

    Still not a human rights case. Not by a mile. Thank you for the discussion…made my day….

  92. Hi Kimberly MacDonald,

    If Ms Ruddy’s claim is a “monumental disgrace” to what the Human Rights Code is supposed to be about, why does the code include section 12?

  93. Here, I’ll even quote it for you:

    12(1) No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with another, or by the interposition
    of another shall, on the basis of a prohibited ground:
    (a) deny to any person or class of persons the accommodation, services or
    facilities to which the public is customarily admitted or that are offered to the
    public; or
    (b) discriminate against any person or class of persons with respect to the
    accommodation, services or facilities to which the public is customarily
    admitted or that are offered to the public.

  94. Last time I got a straight razor shave at a barber shop it cost me a dollar… And there literally was nude pictures tucked into the edge of mirror.

    For some reason I don’t think Ragged Ass Barbers is going to be able to compete with this…


    As for the sexism…Going to have to end it all. Ladies nights at bars, Curves, Women Entrepreneurs, etc….

    I still intend to go to RAB.

    Also, so why don’t we mention dispute resolution here. If we are actually to believe Ms. Ruddy’s story shown above we should really question her dispute resolution skills. Instead of sending a letter to the Barber shop outlining her positions and feelings on the matter she formed a facebook group, harassed the shop for a day and then is dragging them off to the HRC. I feel the shop at this point in time is right to dig their heels in and fight her on this then.

    Had she sent a well reasoned letter perhaps they would have relented and she could have gotten her “Hard Part”. As it stands her methods of tackling this matter has probably lost her a lot of support.

  95. PC…

    You can quote me the Human Rights Act inside out..upside down and around and around. The act in my opinion is to protect and improve human beings lives. Help them get fair wages..better housing…better treatment from nasty employers..REAL issues PC..not the right to get a hair cut somewhere.

    It is a monumental disgrace!

  96. That’s fine. I respect your opinion on the matter. My opinion is that human rights can’t be compartmentalized–they encompass a wide range of issues, including the right to receive service without discrimination, all the way up to the right to life, liberty and security of the person. From big to small, each of these rights compound to “protect and improve [our] lives.” It is inevitable that equally-valid rights will sometimes conflict. I prefer these conflicts to a world in which shop fronts with “women not served here” signs is acceptable.

    As I’ve said in numerous places, shop owners have wide latitude to refuse service, as they should, but that latitude is subject to anti-discrimination legislation. Chances are pretty good the commission will agree with my assessment, if it even goes that far. I’m hoping it doesn’t, and that the parties are able to reach a mutually-acceptable agreement.

  97. @Dana – I fail to be able to put together a congruent argument with the many thoughts I hold in my head at one time, hence I’m an esthetician, not a lawyer or a diplomat.

    I have a few disagreements with them. One I notated in an article about involuntary servitude and freedom of choice. Another issue I have is that well this may in fact be able to fall into the statute of feminism, I personally haven’t witnessed many hetero woman disagreeing with the barber shop. All of us or some of us (as I have to be specific) are blatantly aware how biologically some men work. That’s why common married households operate by women having their and nights/days out and so we realize the importance of our significant others to have this time themselves. It wasn’t hurting anybody and we like our “shopping” getaways or spas getaways, so why not this? We see that this business works for our significant others and we just don’t care, because we have ours. Why not?

    And when many establishments (like the one I work at, are all inclusive; men, women, transgendered, gay, lesbian, we don’t care who you are) and so many others to choose from I have to beg the question, why is this establishment out of (#1??) a big issue?

    Another point is rights. Rights are when we both mutually agree to do something that becomes mutually exclusive like, I don’t kill you and therefore, you don’t kill me. You have the right to vote, I have the right to vote. You have your body parts and I have mine. There are women rights issues to be fought, like the rights yet to be pardon in certain parts of Canada for the right to do what we want with our own bodies in the areas of pregnancy and the like. This isn’t the right. Evie wants a haircut and only this place will do. She wants them to perform the cut, but what equal benefit do they get out of doing what she wants? Sexism, femininism, all that aside? Why do people have to explain away their personal thoughts or explain what they think or believe to anyone? Isn’t that what we’re trying to get away from, we’re trying to have the freedom to think or own thing, practice our own thing, embrace our own things? But yet, there this other half that wants you to explain what you think and dictate why you do what you do? Why? If there are umpteen other places to choose from why target one specific business that really wasn’t hurting anyone? To me regardless, given Evie’s background in activism, feminism, reporting and journalism, it looks like this became a good target for her studies.

    As for elaborating on discrimination. Girl guides still exist but not boy scouts. Aboriginal secular events and complexs that only rent to certain ages and won’t allow kids. People who have the right to refuse certain waxes based on comfortability (like esthetician doing manscaping), womens entrepreneurs, youth entrepreneurs, do you want me to keep going?

    You can pick apart my argument all day long if you want to, but at what point can the people of the world just allow bygones to be bygones. No one is doing this to cause this huge rifts in sexism. One small shop out of sea of a hundred isn’t limiting Evie’s choices. And for all the good points I make, you focus on all the small ones. But, whatever.

    I suppose I’ll get lumped in there with the men lovers and the homophobes which anyone who truly knows me as person, definitely knows that’s not the case.

    But what really stumps me here is I bet 10/1 you’d never hear one complaint about me opening a hair/esthetic shop geared 100 percent to transgendered and gay/lesbian women. Never.

  98. And why would nobody complain? Well, because everyone realizes the need for everyone to have a certain place they fit in and can call home, that’s why. And who is one person or another persons right to choose who should change who’s ideas? I don’t believe in that line of thinking. I’m of the belief by just embracing all things for all that they are and living compassionate lives through example of openness and understanding that we are evolving just the way we need to be. Obviously some hatero’s are evolving at a slower rate, but I sure don’t think initially that was the issue here.

  99. “…if we are actually to believe Ms. Ruddy’s story shown above we should really question her dispute resolution skills….”

    How charming.

  100. Honestly, this isn’t even meant to be an insult, but I have a hard time comprehending much of the several paragraphs you wrote due to grammatical and spelling errors.

    As such, I don’t have the time to argue your points.

    However, all personal beliefs and ideologies aside:

    a human was denied a service that the shop was capable of performing because said human has a vagina.

    How is that okay?

  101. That’s not true. You’re just choosing to only see what you want you to see. And that’s fine. That’s why we live in a free country and free to think what we want.

  102. And yes, I was typing fast and didn’t go back to proof read my sentences so they do run-on. I’ll agree to that. But I’m pretty sure your a smart gal and can figure out. :)

  103. PC….

    A long walk and some fresh air bring me to say to you technically you are absolutely correct. My head will agree with you. My heart however..will remain sad. What Ms. Ruddy is trying to do is to take a long standing tradition and make it her own achievement. Just because she can.

    What a shame.

  104. Stephen…

    I believe that it is at least two of us now that have questioned Ms. Ruddy’s approach to this whole ordeal. Thank you PC for the information on Clean Hands Doctrine.

    Maybe, just maybe Stephen you would consider her actions as “Unclean”?

  105. Barbering has never solely been a ‘male’s’ profession nor the client’s purely, ‘male’.

    VERY early in my career I had the pleasure of meeting a woman, an elder in my industry, who had only ever been a barber. She never cut women’s styles because she had no idea how to. She had only ever “barbered”. In the same breath, I’ve known male barbers like the one Beth spoke of, who would refuse to cut women’s ‘styles’ but who would happily cut a woman’s hair pending she wanted a barber-craft cut.

    I think the line was drawn too hard here. It’s the craft that has its niche, not the gender it’s being performed on. I worry a little about some of the comments I’ve seen on here, warning that this fight could lead to all barbers having to to learn women’s cuts and perms and the like in order to continue practicing. That is ridiculous and unfair. Painters don’t have to draw. Potters don’t have to take photographs. It is an art. A craft. People within the trade have chosen their preferred methods of cutting and i really hope this doesn’t go as far as changing that aspect of the industry.

    I can also understand working hard to create a workplace aesthetic, in this case, an “old school barber-shop” environment. This can still be wildly achieved without the old-school mentality (which, ironically a lot of “old school barbers” don’t even necessarily seem to share).

    I had the joy of spending tme at Morley’s Barber Shop in Lumsden a few years ago where i was welcomed (with some apprehension on the barbers part at first) to stay and visit. It was an intimate space and he wanted to keep the environment “comfortable” for his male clientele. Well, most of the men found it “refreshing” to have my company in the shop and I was warmly invited back! Maybe Evie would have made you laugh. Maybe she would have loved her cut and become a loyal customer. Maybe some possiblity got lost here in the limitations of ideas.

    I hope Evie finds someone who will happily rock her a killer hard part.

    I hope places like RAB continue to succeed in the CRAFT of barbering.

    I sincerely hope both parties can find some resolve within all this.

  106. ““…if we are actually to believe Ms. Ruddy’s story shown above we should really question her dispute resolution skills….”

    How charming.”

    I know, I’m just so charming Stephen ;)


    It looks like Evie wrote a rather heartfelt response here. With her history of having been an activist, Journalist and the oddly coincidental fact that she teaches women’s and gender studies at the university I’m sure the vast majority of people hearing about this story and her background are assuming this was a publicity stunt for her, another chance to be an activist, even a grand shot at getting to talk at the Human Rights Commission which is probably revered at a lofty goal for most activists. And no concern for any of the stress or problems she might create for a small shop trying to work in a nice market.

    Had I not read her response here I would still be thinking that she had heard of their policy and simply put her activist hat on and went to town creating this controversy. If we can take her for her word on this matter and not fall to the suspicion that its just an act to fulfill the requirement for launching this complaint then we really have the basis for her being blindsided by the policy and feeling slighted indeed.

    I’d like to know when she called to book her appointment did that happen to be the same day that she had a multitude of females call to book an appointment too? Or did that happen on a second day.

    And if we do accept her story as valid then we must question her methods for dispute resolution.

    What we know is that Evie did this:
    “On a Facebook page, created by Ruddy to bring attention to the situation, Ruddy asked people to “inundate them with calls so that they will reconsider their sexist policy and give us the barbershop hair styles we want.”

    Which is basically akin to harassment. So instead of trying to appeal to their intellect and reasoning with them as intellectual adults she has instead tried to harass and badger them into compliance and is resorting to state force to compel them also.

    So while Ragged Ass Barber gets inundated with calls Evie has had to turn off her twitter and hid her facebook…


  107. I don’t think there’s any reason, aside from petty justification, to dig that deep.

    Her background, job, political stance, race, class, age are not what is at the center of this debate.

    Once again, she went into a barbershop requesting a men’s cut. They refused to provide her this service on the grounds that she has a vagina.

    Its pretty simple, really; no need to analyze her “true motive” like the Da Vinci Code.

  108. “While I don’t know owner Craig Zamonsky, I do know some of his friends and they assure me he’s not a sexist idiot.”

    Um. Y’know, if you need your friends to assure the media that you’re not a sexist idiot because something you’ve done is sexist and idiotic… You probably are a sexist idiot. And your friends might have absorbed some cultural sexism without actually being fully aware of it and could conceivably be doubling down on the initial idiocy and sexism.

    You don’t have to be a foaming-at-the-mouth MRA to be sexist in your actions. You can be a nice person, sweet as pie, courteous as all get out, and still be sexist. You might not even mean to be sexist, or set out to be, and still do something that is, at base, sexist.

    That’s why sexism is so difficult to wipe out.

  109. This whole debate is getting out of hand. Time to settle down and let the Human Rights Commission do it’s job in determining the outcome of the complaint.

  110. Have to say I disagree with your Curves comparison. What if an effeminate, gay man who felt uncomfortable and was possibly being harassed at a macho type gym was to try to join Curves, or the like, only to be rejected because of the women only policy? That sounds like a very similar situation to the one presented in the Barber scenario. But, a stereotypical male jock trying to join Curves is comparable to a lady with heels and french tips going into RAB for a Brazilian Blowout. It’s probably not going to happen. Your suggestion that there is never an argument to be made for any men in a woman’s fitness facility simply falls flat.

  111. I’ve been doing a lot of thinking, discussion and researching, about this whole situation. It is not clear cut and there are valid arguments for both sides. Certainly, Ms. Ruddy has had her feelings hurt, no doubt. If I was told that I was not allowed or not welcome, I would feel left out, hurt and angry…but you move on and get over it.
    My main concern here, isn’t gender equality and discrimination, though. My main concern here, as a small business owner, (who is already taxed, regulated and held down by ‘The Man’s’ thumb enough already), is for the rights of the RAB!
    As a business, they state, very clearly, that they are a ‘Men’s only’ business. If they lose clients that can’t deal with that, that is THEIR choice and ultimately will see the effects of that choice. But to be FORCED to change their very unique and applauded niche, in an otherwise, over-saturated market, is a very sad day.
    Unfortunately, this is not the first case that will be heard by a HR Tribunal. It has been happening in different contexts and situations, since the Canadian Human Rights Commission was formed.
    Bottom line…I SUPPORT RAB for their choice!
    If, as a hairstylist, I would be FORCED to have to cut any and everybody’s hair, regardless of my right to accept or refuse, I would feel less than free in this country. If I refuse someone, for whatever reason I deem fit, then that should be that. They are free to give me bad press, if they so choose, or to go somewhere else. I alone, make the decision. If it is the wrong decision, then my patronage and income, MAY suffer. That’s the CHOICE, I would make, as it is MY talent, and I have the RIGHT to ply it as I see fit.

  112. PC

    Do me a favour and go look up in a dictionary, Wikipedia or whatever fetches your fancy and tell me what a barber shop is.

    This isn’t about discrimination. This is about a woman wanting attention. I still feel she needs a hobby.

    This is NOT what the human rights commission is for.

    Maybe look that up too.

  113. I must say that I wish this whole tizzy would have worked itself up in the middle
    of winter, when everything else is dull and it could be enjoyed to its full extent.

    In my estimation, this has been a great demonstration from everyone on how not to behave like adults. Excuse me if I ignore some of the nuances but it appears like we’ve got the little boys putting up the “No girls allowed” sign on their clubhouse and then the precious little girl decides she doesn’t like it so goes and tattles to Mother. The boys will get a tut-tut from Mom (maybe a good spank if it goes that far) but now all the little girl’s peers think she’s nothing more than a whiny tattletale.

    In the end, everyone gets something frivolous and inconsequential to argue about on the internet, which is all anyone wanted in the first place.

  114. jn…I think you hit the nail on the head with your grade school analogy. In the end, though, I don’t believe this to be a frivolous or inconsequential discussion. The lines of gender, ethnicity and culture, are becoming more blurred all the time, (hence Mr. Thicke’s fame…LOL).
    If we don’t have these discussions at this level, then we won’t be able to wade through all the murky, grey water.
    As Pink Floyd once sang, (or rather Stephen Hawking said), “All we need to do, is just keep talking.”

  115. Kimberly, yes, I did call back later that evening and asked to speak to the owner. They said he wasn’t there. I asked to speak to a manger. The manager said they do not cut women’s hair. I said, you’re seriously not going to cut my hair because I’m a woman? He said we only cut men’s hair. I said, what about trans people? He said, “that’s a touchy subject.” As for the “inundate them with calls” quote, Global took that from the Facebook page out of context. A friend and I created the FB event asking women and non-binary folks who wanted short cuts to call and book hair appointments. That is not harassment. Only a handful of women called and 1 actually got on appointment for this Saturday probably because she has an androgynous name and a mildly deep voice. We were trying to show them how much business they were turning away. As far as I know, everyone who called was respectful. As for my background in women’s and gender studies, just because I’ve studied feminism doesn’t mean I don’t have rights. It just makes me more aware when they’re being violated.

  116. Thank you Evie for taking the time to reply!

    Kimberley: vagina, vagina, vagina la dee da vaginaaaaaaa

  117. “What its misguided defenders aren’t realizing is that this is the environment Evie wanted to get her hair cut in. She didn’t pick Ragged Ass because she wanted to change it, she picked it because it seemed like a cool place where she’d fit in, and get the cut and service she wanted.”

    I don’t believe that for a second. Her motivation for picking that shop had nothing to do with getting a haircut and everything to do with her ideology and activism and desire for self promotion which always helps the career of ideological theorists like herself.

    That said I think they are wrong for refusing her service but I don’t buy this notion that she didn’t have ulterior motives (i.e. self-promotion) for doing this.

  118. Evie…What about RAB’s rights to cater to a specific clientele? They are straight up about it and haven’t hid the fact, for a moment, that they are a ‘men only’ barbershop. So, why did you want to be the exception?

  119. Jo: Ragged Ass Barbers might well NOT have a legal right to refuse service to someone on the basis of their sex. That is to be determined. We all have our opinions on what a Human Rights Commission/court case ruling would determine, but they’re just that — opinions.

    No one is asking Ragged Ass Barbers to change the services it provides, the decor of their shop or the focus on men’s grooming. Ragged Ass Barbers’ business model has been, and continues to be, celebrated by virtually everyone.

  120. “[Evie Ruddy’s] motivation for picking that shop had nothing to do with getting a haircut and everything to do with her ideology and activism and desire for self promotion which always helps the career of ideological theorists like herself.”

    simoneletsatretreatherlikedirt: That’s a remarkably disrespectful opinion. Character assasination will not solve this dispute. As Ragged Ass Barbers has stated on its Facebook page:

    “FRIENDS: Once again, while we are grateful for the overwhelming show of support here and on other social media outlets, we must insist that comments are made with RESPECT to all parties involved. We understand this topic has sparked a passionate response on all sides, but name-calling, threats, and insults are not what we condone. They are neither constructive, nor are they ever the start of a peaceful resolution.”

  121. True infringement of human rights should have overwhelming opposition from the party discriminated against. A good percentage of women in this thread are in support of RAB, so it appears to me this is not something worth pursuing. I do not want to debate whether this is or is not sex discrimination. I want to debate whether the attention given to this matter has trivialized legitimate matters of gender inequality that has plagued our society in the past. Pick your battles.

    A line must be drawn somewhere. There are a number of alternative options. Unlike the right to vote, this denial of service does not adversely affect an individual. A change in policy is not necessary to bring the state of Regina hair services into equilibrium.

  122. Ben:
    “True infringement of human rights should have overwhelming opposition from the party discriminated against”

    Why? Because there are more people against you than for you? That’s ludicrous. I mean it’s unbelievably ludicrous.

    Anyway, it’s in these grey “trivial” areas that a person finds the systemic and unnoticed discrimination that is the foundation for the “legitimate matters of gender inequality” you speak of. I need only read the comments in this blog to see this.

    Do you feel less concerned about what you consider “legitimate matters of gender inequality” now than before this controversy? Have they been trivialized to you?

    Barber should have just cut her hair.

  123. Thank you Ms. Ruddy for responding….

    Since I work with these gentleman everyday in an adjacent business you understand now that I will ask them about a second phone call made.

    I personally have known Craig the owner for well over 15 years. Myself as well as countless other females were delighted when he decided to return to Regina as he was our hairstylist before he left for Yellowknife. That excitement did turn to disappointment when he made it clear that he was operating as a men’s only barbershop. Not a run of the mill barbershop but one that concentrated on the old style barbering. He desired for it to be professional, upbeat and something a little different. He worked very hard to get the shop started, doing all that was necessary to get his name out there to draw men in.

    I can tell you that his old clientele including myself were thrilled to have him back, not just because of his extreme talent but because he is just that fine of a human being. Never once did we think of coming at him like a spider monkey and pushing our feminist opinion that he should cut our hair. We respected his decision and in the grand scheme of things it was not something we could not live without.

    You have been the brunt of some unnecessary comments and rudeness, that has been noted by the barbershop. I am not convinced personally that targeted the shop. The story is that you had visited it previously. Your own words that you were comfortable there should have given you an indication of the personalities of the barbers contained within that shop. Did they seem sexist to you? Did they give you a cold shoulder or stink eye when you walked in?

    The one thing that I have learned over the years is, just because you can do something..does that absolutely mean that you should do it? It has been commented by many people ” why did he just not go ahead and cut her hair”…..It may not be a big deal to everyone else but it is to himself and the business model that he has created. Not because of his raging need to kick women to the curb. As I have said previously, I do find it monumentally disgraceful that you have taken such an insignificant need and pushed it in the name of all women, just because you could.

  124. I agree with you, except this line: “This is a businessman who through no fault of his own grew up in a sexist, homophobic and dumb society and, thanks to long-term exposure to cultural toxins, innocently blundered into a minefield.”

    I don’t think any of us can claim ignorance as a defence. None of us ‘innocently blunder.’ We all have the choice and the will to do what’s right in spite of what society dictates. After all, Stephen, you managed to be aware! And so do a lot of the rest of us. If someone wants to blunder through life hurting others, I wouldn’t call him/her innocent.

  125. This is NOT a black and white case….it has many nuances that make it a mucky quagmire.
    I think that Ben has just stated something significant about the discussions surrounding the situation. Many women support the ‘men only’ policy at RAB. I am a woman, a ‘haircutter, and small business owner. I support RAB 100%.
    The fact that Ms. Ruddy chose to take this to a public and legal forum, makes me sad. I am sad because, by taking this to the HRC, she thinks she speaks for all women. She doesn’t speak for me. She has gone out of her way to blow up a molehill to try and create a mountain. She says that because she has a background in women’s studies and feminism, she is more aware of violations. I would think she could tackle some other violation that really does hurt women. As Ben said…’Pick you fights’. Picking such a fight, does trivialize what women have to deal with every day, around the world. Not being able to get your hair cut at an establishment that doesn’t want your business, is tantamount to self flagellation. And she’s surprised that she has received so much attention???
    Glenn – Perhaps RAB COULD have cut her hair, but the CHOSE not to. I don’t ascribe to SHOULDs.
    All in all, this has sparked a good debate and conversation about this grey area in the scope of ‘rights’. I still don’t believe it is as clear cut and that the woman wins. There is the matter of, not only the business’ rights, but the barber’s rights too. They doesn’t have to cut everyone’s hair, they can refuse for a number of reasons, and I will support that decision and that right!

  126. Rosa Parks.
    Martin Luther King.
    Evie Ruddy.

    Like I said before: some people around here are full of themselves.

    Anyway, we’re outta here. Final camping trip of the season. You’ve been a great audience … tip your server … And have a great weekend !!

  127. Ben:
    “True infringement of human rights should have overwhelming opposition from the party discriminated against”

    “Why? Because there are more people against you than for you? That’s ludicrous. I mean it’s unbelievably ludicrous.”

    Women can’t vote. Most women would be against that. Discrimination.

    Blacks aren’t welcome here. Most of African-Americans would be against that. Discrimination.

    Asians can’t drive. Most Asians would frown upon that stereotype. Racism.

    When you are trying to defend a population, the smaller percentage of that population you have in support of you, the greater it is an indicator that your battle isn’t worth fighting. It’s an indicator that the infringement of “human rights” may more appropriately be classified as an infringement of “personal feelings.”

    The exception here is if you believe a good percentage of the female population lacks the intelligence to recognize when they are having their rights withheld. Is this how you feel Glenn?

  128. Glenn:
    “Anyway, it’s in these grey “trivial” areas that a person finds the systemic and unnoticed discrimination that is the foundation for the “legitimate matters of gender inequality” you speak of. I need only read the comments in this blog to see this.

    Do you feel less concerned about what you consider “legitimate matters of gender inequality” now than before this controversy? Have they been trivialized to you?”

    So this is the start and foundation of unearthing a systemic and unnoticed discrimination? In 100 years, there may be a Wikipedia article referencing this as the starting point of a gender equality revolution in barber shops? Stop comparing this to the Women’s Rights Movement of the 18/1900s. Society is evolving at a different pace than it did 100+ years ago because, quite frankly, there were far more atrocities to correct compared to present day.

  129. Darren, please advise on how much weight a quasi-judicial tribunal will give to “appeal to etymology.” Been there, done that, dispensed with it.

  130. Wow, Ben. An appeal to popularity? You do realize that protection of the minority is fundamental to democracy, right?

    But never mind what I have to say about it. Let’s run some Mark Twain: “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

  131. “What about RAB’s rights to cater to a specific clientele?”

    Hi Jo,

    A little late to the game, here, but I’ll give your question a go. It is an old common law principle that business owners can refuse to contract with anyone, for any reason. However, the common law is constrained by legislation, which is only appropriate in a representative democracy. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code outlines boundaries on a business owner’s right to refuse custom to specific protected “classes.” Gender is one of those classes.

    I’ve been talking about “appeals” in my last few posts. It appears that RAB’s owner is making an “appeal to tradition” in defence of his refusal to provide only a single and specific service to women. Let’s remember that he does, after all, contract with women every day in his shop, a simple fact that seems to anger quite a few people in other online forums.

    Recently, in Toronto, a Muslim barber’s appeal to religious proscription (which bears significantly more weight than “We don’t do that here”) didn’t protect him from having to settle with his complainant, through mediation overseen by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.

    Commenters on this situation tend to throw “shoulds and shouldn’ts ” around quite a bit. But this isn’t about “shoulds and shouldn’ts,” no matter how much we might like it to be. It’s about legislation, and how a tribunal will interpret that legislation.

    Stephen is right when he says that only a ruling by the Sask HR Commission will reveal whose conflicting right carries more weight. I’ve made my prediction, based on prior cases, and I’m very confident in it. As I’ve said all along, I hope it doesn’t have to come to that. Hopefully the two parties can find a way to work things out.

  132. Hi jn,

    I might have agreed with your analysis, but for the fact that Ms Ruddy has received death threats over this situation, as well as many calls for violence to be done to her.

    The one death threat I saw was as follows: “She needs a bullet.”

    Think on the implications of that , for a minute or two.

  133. Night owl …

    Stop beating around the bush. No one has time to read between the lines.

    If you have something to say, why don’t you just say it.

  134. 12(1) No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with another, or by the interposition
    of another shall, on the basis of a prohibited ground:
    (a) deny to any person or class of persons the accommodation, services or
    facilities to which the public is customarily admitted or that are offered to the
    public; or
    (b) discriminate against any person or class of persons with respect to the
    accommodation, services or facilities to which the public is customarily
    admitted or that are offered to the public.

    Interesting. So if RAB can show that their services are not customarily offered to the public they might have a case?


    I think what is interesting here is about a matter of respect. Curves most definitely has a sexist policy in how they created a female only gym. And we all know its sexist but yet no man has bothered to try and sign up or drag them off to the human rights commission. Seems like there is some level of respect given to their desire to have female only gym.

    Yet RAB didn’t get this same level of respect in return. They want to run a traditional barbershop that specialises in men’s hair cuts and straight razor shaves. (Only place I know of that does straight razor shaves).

    I also find it comical that Evie was trying to “show them how much business they were missing out on.” Last I heard they weren’t even targeting that business(thus not missing out on it) and were doing perfectly fine before she offered her business marketing help in such a strange way.

    This story has a lot of traction and trying to figure out exactly why is interesting.

    Does anybody deny Curves isn’t sexist?

  135. As a hairstylist who is on chair rent, (that means every dollar I make goes to taxes, product,… Everything. I don’t have an hourly wage or salary to fall back on.) I don’t regret my decision because I’m great at what I do. With that means I can choose what I specialize in. Just like Ragged Ass Barbers. I say no to services I don’t provide. A “deep part, men’s cut” on a female is still a woman’s cut. My brother has very long hair, does that mean I’m giving him a women’s cut? No. I feel this situation/complaint is nothing more than shooting fish in a barrel, easy target. The sad part is so many people have mean comments to say and know nothing about the hair/barber industry but will gladly jump on the wagon if it could be turned into a human rights case. We have this story, Isis Salon and Spa being “terrorists”, what’s next?

  136. “The author of this blog is a pussy whipped cultural marxist freak, demanding total capitulation of the barber shop to the whims of a full-time feminaze activist.”

    Meet a supporter of Ragged Ass Barbers. With friends like Night Owl ya don’t need enemies.

    Pretty sure Ragged Ass Barbers will be much happier giving the occasional men’s-style hair cut to women who want ’em and collecting the bourbon I said I’d buy ’em. This should not be a big deal.

    Once again: bourbon!

  137. And actually, the misogyny and homophobia in Night Owl’s comment is pretty ripe. I’m deleting it on hate speech and general total stupidity grounds.

  138. Now Stephen, Don’t liken night owl to all of RABs supporters. That just wouldn’t be fair…

  139. Stephen….

    These boys put bourbon in their frosted flakes in the morning. Bribe with booze..interesting. Although offered for some kind of camaraderie I suspect. Not in the least bit enticing for them.

    It is about a business model..not about exclusion..it is about specialization in a chosen field.

  140. “It is about a business model..not about exclusion…”

    It might be an illegal business model, regardless of many Reginans’ opinions. Perhaps we’ll get to find out.

  141. Good Morning John Klein,
    I appreciate your comment but may I ask why barbers, hairstylists are considered “regressed” because we chose to specialize in particular hair services? I don’t let the general public tell me what to do, and for the simple reason. It’s my business and I’m the professional. If you like to talk further you can easily find me on social media. Take care and enjoy your weekend.

  142. You might want to criticise the “MRA” people that are defending RABs. But in stereotypical fashion you are ignoring all the feminazis that are attacking it. At the end of the day the town had numerous women only establishments one being http://www.spalady.ca/ which 100% refuses to serve men. Strange how these feminazis are not attacking them claiming discrimination. Goes hand in hand with how these nut jobs really have no other interest other than to stir things up.

  143. “Feminazi” is an idiotic word describing a made-up type of person that doesn’t exist.

    As for discrimination against men, it’s illegal, so what’s the complaint? In fact, there aren’t any human rights complaints I’m aware of, and I have no doubt if there were, a Ragged Ass supporter would let me know immediately.

    Perhaps the reason men aren’t launching complaints against Curves is they recognize an all-female gym for what it is: necessary for safety reasons. A male-only barber shop? Not even slightly the same thing.

  144. Yes, “Feminazi” is an idiot word. Would you prefer “Feminist Zealot?”, “Hardcore Feminist”, “Fem….”

    You think an all-female gym is necessary for safety reasons? Like somehow being discriminatory with an all-female gym is permissible because they can’t possibly solve the safety issues in absolutely no other way?

    Its a flimsy reason at best to support an all-female gym. I don’t think you’ve got much to support that as there are most certainly other solutions to the safety issue rather then discriminatory practices.

    How can “Safety” be used to justify that discrimination? Should RAB simply had said they don’t feel safe with women around while they get straight razor shaves? “Its a male only barbershop for safety!”

  145. “I ask why barbers, hairstylists are considered “regressed” because we chose to specialize in particular hair services?”

    Lauren, the regression is because a service that was available to women in a barbershop in the ’80s is now denied because of the gender of the customer, not the skills of the stylist/barber. It’s regression because a notable social uproar wasn’t made when a barber in the ’80s cut a woman’s hair in a man’s style, while in this decade a barber shop has taken it upon themselves to deny service they are capable of providing, on the basis of gender or sex.

  146. I have operated my own barbershop for 15 years, and 20 months of training in mens hairstyles. I have from time to time been asked to trim a little girls hair or give a women a short haircut. I now refuse, because almost every time it has turned ugly – with the customer unhappy and myself being yelled at. I refuse because I am uncomfortable, not because I hate women. I would rather refuse service than provide poor service. Also, what the hell is a “hard part”? Never heard of it.

  147. Stephen

    What would you call Ms. Ruddy’s harassing phone calls..barbershop flashmob….spot on local television? A bit extreme would you not say? Femanazi behavior tends to believe that the male gender is conspiring against them and show no restraint in heaving up utter nonsense which they refer to as an argument (found that collection of words that describes her actions perfectly) In contrast to a feminist action would be social, political, legal and economic rights for ALL women. Does a hard part fall into any of those categories I have listed above?

    Women I have spoken to are appalled at her execution of this whole episode. Mature and reasonable responses disagreeing with her came from all ages, professions and backgrounds. Ms. Ruddy did not talk to the owner of the shop directly, She did not speak with the manager of the shop as she has claimed. FACT. Given the actions I find that Ms. Ruddy and her supporters do not care how this was handled..only the end result. Who knows, she might have even been further ahead if she had been more tactical.

    Femanazi’s are alive and well and are just irritating to the majority of composed women.

  148. Adam

    I have read the clean hands doctrine. I suspect I am waiting patiently for someone to come forward and say that it was handled inappropriately.

    If this case does make it in front of Human Rights, I hope they ask her that question.

  149. I didn’t realise that the gym I go to was so unsafe. I had assumed that some women went to Curves because they were more comfortable there. Which is what male customers of my shop have told me.

  150. “Yes, “Feminazi” is an idiot word. Would you prefer “Feminist Zealot?”, “Hardcore Feminist”, “Fem….”

    Adam: All of those terms stink. They’re all stupid and misogynistic.

    “You think an all-female gym is necessary for safety reasons? Like somehow being discriminatory with an all-female gym is permissible because they can’t possibly solve the safety issues in absolutely no other way?”

    Adam: Yes, all-female gyms are necessary for safety reasons, as anyone paying attention to issues like harassment, stalking and sexual violence would be aware. That said, Curves has stated they’ll admit male members so the point is moot.

    I just want the barber shop to give the nice lady a haircut.

  151. Their stance is not idiotic. It is their choice for their business. Whatever happened to the law that a business can refuse anyone service at their discretion? They should be free to choose to serve whatever clientele they want. Everyone is free to disagree and then support them or not as they choose. People need to stop being so dramatically offended at the expense of other people’s rights and freedoms.

  152. In regards to this particular incident, and this issue as a whole:

    I would like to formally apologize to the LGTB community, especially those transexual individuals who are facing discrimination based on their gender identification, for taking a stance before completely understanding the real issues as hand. I have, through the course of recent discussion with a variety of individuals and further educated myself in regard to the issue in both a broad societal context and a variety of specific incident cases, come to have a deeper understanding and to realize that I was wrong, and also wrong in my perception of the depth of this issue and its effect on the individuals involved and all who face similar discrimination. We may think that we are approaching this issue and incident from a place of openness, as I initially did, but we need to continue to rethink and re-evaluate if that position is really as open as we think it is. I believe in equality for all, no matter what sex, gender identification, or sexual preference they have, and will, in future, seek to be more understanding, more educated, more empathetic and more actively supportive of this belief, both in regard to this issue and all others which stand in the way of this becoming a full reality, not just one of measures. I hope others are willing to do the same.

    For those out there who did the same as I did in regard to this issue, and jumped one way based either on an attitude of “is it really that bad?”, “But this is a trivial incident, and isn’t it relatively harmless?”, “Well is one demographic has this, why can’t another have the same, because isn’t that equality?”, “Right now there are bigger issues that should be looked at instead that we need to devote our attention to”, or “Do we have to be so negative?” to further educate themselves and strive for a better understanding towards all issues of discrimination, whether they directly affect your own life or not; it may seem like an innocuous issue to you, but it really is not. You may think it is harmless, but it is not. This is not a singular incident, it is not isolated, and we cannot continue to treat it as such, in the interest of providing true equality, freedom, and protection to all Canadians no matter how the present or identify their gender and sexual identity or preferences. I further encourage you to read up on similar cases, on the deeper and broader impact our stances had or continue to have, and to re-evaluate WHY you stood on the side you did. Was your stance taken because you based it more on your own discomfort with the idea, or misunderstanding of the breadth of issues at hand, and whether or not it was actually represents the kind of attitudes you want society to continue to have or to propagate. If we all listen to those around us, we can logically change our opinions and thus ensure that in the future similar discriminatory treatment will not be addressed with flippant disregard or without truly understanding what is going on. Let us also agree that threats and insults, on either side of the issue, are not going to help foster a civil discussion where we can truly come to understand the dangers of certain stances and how we need to change them in order to truly call ourselves individuals, communities and a society where equality and protection against discrimination is truly equal and open to all members. Hopefully, this will do more to help us change our opinions to be more inclusive, progressive and equal as individuals, as communities, and as a society. Additionally, we need to push so that it is not just the Human Rights within certain provincial charters that call for and protect the rights of LGTB and trans or differently gender individuals, but the Canadian Charter of Rights as well. There are bills sitting in 2nd reading in parliament that are seeking to do just this, and they need more attention and more support, or they will continue to be stuck where they are. If we say we believe in equality for all, then we must start pushing harder, even if we think our own individual power to change this may seem small.

    Further reading that helped me better understand this issue;










  153. “Whatever happened to the law that a business can refuse anyone service at their discretion?”

    Businesses once discriminated against people for all kinds of reason: skin colour, gender, religion, nationality. It sucked. Businesses can’t do that any more, and we live in a better country because of it.

    Ragged Ass Barbers needs to change their policy (NOT their men’s grooming specialization).

    This will go on forever and ever and ever and ever until they do.

  154. Their specialization is men only grooming Stephen and that is their policy. How do you propose to force them into changing their policy?? What is the current information on this? Can a policy be changed by petition only?

    Now that Ms. Ruddy has thrown the bone into the middle of the cage..she can sit back and watch all of her supporters gnaw on it…how clever.

    Have you made it down to the barber shop yet to buy your ticket to the Sophia House Raffle? You should make a point of doing that. It would show even though you do not agree with the barbers your support for something that all people can be proud of and sink their teeth into….

  155. Right on schedule, Whitworth. Censorship … from a small man that feels a rush of power in his belly and enjoys it far too much.

  156. Night Owl, you are hilarious and I look forward to your future comments. Hopefully more of them will be publishable.

  157. Stephen…

    Is it true that Evie Ruddy was let go from her position at the University of Regina?

  158. @Kimberly MacDonald … as of some weeks ago there was someone named Jennifer Ruddy on the list of the Women’s and Gender Studies Faculty and Staff page. There still is. It’s *possible* that Evie Ruddy is *not* Jennifer Ruddy, but I’m inclined to think they are the same person.

    As for whether she’d be let go, somehow I doubt that because a significant percentage of the people in that program got their Ph.D. from York U, which is itself a hot bed of left-wing activism. And York was the same place where the Dean of Arts, insisted that the student who refused to work with women because of his religion be accommodated. That’s how warped things are at York, and it seems there is an outpost of this mentality establishing itself out West.

    If she was let go, the only possible reason would be that the University does not welcome the publicity she has brought with her in the wake of all of this. I’m sure in her mind, she really believes she is some kind of Christ like figure bearing the cross of sins against women all through history. But truthfully, I don’t believe she has the qualities needed to truly be any kind of martyr or symbol or anything like that for women’s past sufferings. If she was she’d be fighting female genital mutilation or something equally ugly. But I don’t think she has the strength for such things.

  159. “Now that Ms. Ruddy has thrown the bone into the middle of the cage she can sit back and watch all of her supporters gnaw on it…how clever.”

    “Feminazis are alive and well, and are just irritating to the majority of composed women.”

    “She really believes she is some kind of Christ like figure … “But truthfully, I don’t believe she has the qualities needed to truly be any kind of martyr or symbol or anything like that for women’s past sufferings.”

    If I was Evie, comments like these would go into a folder to be used at a human rights hearing. Since a tribunal won’t be made up of Internet commentators — it will be run by a qualified expert on gender and discrimination who understands the law — the stuff some of you guys are saying might ultimately be used as evidence that Ragged Ass Barbers’ “no haircuts for woman” policy encourages tolerance of gender discrimination, as well as malicious smears and attacks against anyone who speaks up against discrimination. That could lead to a big settlement that actually could hurt the barber shop.

    How ironic.

    Me, I don’t want to see the barber shop hurt, and I don’t think it’s owner is misogynistic or homophobic. I just want it to stop being stubborn.

    So much simpler just to change the dumb policy, but if Ragged Ass Barbers wants to roll the dice on winning a human rights complaint, that’s their right.

    Hope they’re ready for unfriendly national media attention.

  160. Stephen….

    Well I guess then the Barbers may have a file containing the accusations of being called “sexist, misogynistic, homophobic. Maybe harassment and also damaged caused by this whole incident on the owner and staff of the barbershop. Would that be a fair assessment?

  161. I missed one on the original Flashmob page (which is gone now unfortunately) saying that the barbers are going to be sorry for this and they will have nothing to do but sweep the floor all day because of a lack of customers.

  162. “If I was Evie, comments like these would go into a folder to be used at a human rights hearing.”

    Rhetorically speaking, just exactly whose side are you on? It’s obvious, actually, but spare us the double speak, as shown below. About the snippet above, seriously? She has gotten death threats already, I hardly think anything written here is of any consequence.

    “Since a tribunal won’t be made up of Internet commentators — it will be run by a qualified expert on gender and discrimination who understands the law”

    Translation: I, Stephen Whitworth think you’re a bunch of uneducated rednecks, and the tribunal will be run by some lawyer who is well indoctrinated to political correctness and its agenda for whoever has bruised feelings.

    “the stuff some of you guys are saying might ultimately be used as evidence that Ragged Ass Barbers’ “no haircuts for woman” policy encourages tolerance of gender discrimination, as well as malicious smears and attacks against anyone who speaks up against discrimination. That could lead to a big settlement that actually could hurt the barber shop.”

    I don’t see how our comments in support of Ragged Ass’s rights to run their business free from harassment by a radical lesbian feminist translate to ammo for Evie at the HRC. We don’t work for, or speak for Ragged Ass. Ragged Ass speaks for itself. We are third parties and observers and commentators. We have fair comment rights under law. When Human Rights Courts are abused in this way by radicals, it will create a lot of ill-will towards the radical and the HRCs, as Evie has already discovered to her dismay. But HRCs have rendered some incredibly stupid decisions over the years. My favorite was that Nigerian with albinism who complained about Earl’s bar’s Albino Rhino beer, claiming it was offensive to people with her condition. I’m sure she felt like she was Wonder Woman when the decision came down in her favor, just like Evie does when she went after Ragged Ass, a barber shop that was literally minding it’s own business.

    “Me, I don’t want to see the barber shop hurt, and I don’t think it’s owner is misogynistic or homophobic. I just want it to stop being stubborn.”

    This is the doublespeak. Your unconditional support for Evie implies that if the Barber Shop digs its heels in, they deserve what they get if this goes to the HRC. And your article suggested near-total capitulation to Evie’s absurd demands. You haven’t admitted a single fault on her part with her boorish phone bombing campaign and threats of economic devastation for Ragged Ass. If that doesn’t sound like a shrewish woman, I don’t know what does. The Barber Shop has already been hurt by her threats to file a complaint before the HRCs; an already dubious institution, which I hope are shut down or severely restricted in the future. You’ve heard of Big Brother … HRC are Big Daddy.

    “So much simpler just to change the dumb policy, but if Ragged Ass Barbers wants to roll the dice on winning a human rights complaint, that’s their right.”

    Recall Moosa Jiwaji and APEGA and the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The HRCs tried to dictate to an engineering licensing body to pay a failed applicant money, and guide him into the practice. They are putting engineering standards and the public good at risk. Ragged Ass is worth fighting for, because this is symbolic of *all* Canadian business owners to specialize in providing a service, and to exercise their right of refusal when they choose, based on their professional judgement, and not on the whims of either the HRCs or a radical lesbian feminist.

    “Hope they’re ready for unfriendly national media attention.”

    I think they will get more support than you’re betting on.

  163. Kimberly: you think so? It doesn’t seem well said to me at all.

    Night Owl: Whaddaya mean “whose side” am I on? I want Ragged Ass Barbers to change its policy. My position has been clear almost from the first sentence I wrote. I think they’re in the wrong, legally (could be wrong, not a lawyer, not my call; we’ll see), and I think their stance encourages hatred. I don’t believe that’s their intent, but that’s what’s happened.

    And once again, terms like “feminazi”, “radical feminist”, “political correctness” and “doublespeak” aren’t arguments, they’re snarl words. “Radical feminist” in particular is a garbage hate term with a bloody history, and I’m not putting up with it on the blog any more. I wouldn’t allow racial slurs or homophobic comments; there’s no reason to allow misogynistic language. Start your own blog if you want to viciously (and anonymously) trash women who disagree with you.

    As for Ragged Ass Barbers getting more support than I would’ve thought, that’s already happened locally and yes, it’s depressing. Nationally? Sun News, Ezra Levant and Margaret Wente would probably defend Ragged Ass Barbers. With friends like them, Ragged Ass Barbers doesn’t need enemies.

  164. Stephen…

    Let me be clear. I do not hate Ms. Ruddy or her supporters. You are talking to the gender that is more supportive, compassionate and hardwired to accept just about anything. The barbers stance encourages every small business owner to not just lay down and accept the norm now, which seems to be that anyone and everyone can put the steam roller in gear and run over business yelling…. discrimination! NightOwl gave an example of this. I am sure there are many more.

    Tell me then..why are so many women supporting the barbers? Are we all full of hate regarding this situation? I would argue not the case at all. I would say that common sense regarding womens issues and maturity brings them to their support of the barbers. Have you read some of the comments left on the shop facebook? Women are proud and pleased that their significant others, sons, boyfriends can come to the shop and part of that is the exclusively in the company of other males.

    I would like to know why you keep dodging the questions asked of yourself regarding the conduct and execution of the whole incident by Ms. Ruddy. Holding actual threats on high, the whole thing was handled extremely poorly. If Ms. Ruddy disagreed with the barbers policy then she should have headed straight for the HRC and filed a complaint. Instead, she made it into a three ring circus. Out of that sprang nastiness..of epic proportions that she laid the ground work for.

    10-4 on the feminist language.

    Why is it such a surprise to you that they are garnering large levels of support? Perhaps it is because people just refuse to see this stance worthy of becoming solidified. It all comes back to having some good old common sense, which is the main message that just about everyone is trying to get through on this one.

  165. Ms. Ruddy

    Running all over town bashing the barbers now are we! Stop the nonsense and go to the HRC already! Go report your gross injustice and wait for the normal protocol. Let this go through mediation and let all of the facts come out. My guess is that is what you are afraid of because of your “Unclean Hands”. Your determination to flatly ruin the barbers is clear as glass. Not fooling anyone here.

    But by all means Ms. Ruddy…proceed.

  166. Is this the latest development in this rather sorry tale? A smear campaign is the latest news?

  167. Night Owl…

    Since my last post Ms. Ruddy has finally placed a complaint to HRC. For the life of me I can not figure out why she waited so long. It has been clear from the beginning that the Barbers had NO reason to change nor were they going to change their policy for the shop. She has demand that they yield to her in policy and provide a public apology from the Barbers.

    As I have said before….with any luck, Ms. Ruddy will be questioned on her handling of the whole affair. From the earliest conversations on this page I have doubted and have asked the question. There is a continual dodging, even from the master of this blog.

    Yes..she has been speaking in public. The most recent is a gig was giving the sordid details of her harassment to young women at a YMCA conference. Cleverly never saying the Barbers name..but in all, implicating them as being responsible for her sorrow.

    Stay tuned……

  168. I also neglected to mention that a women’s only gym location here in town has been collateral damage. A male walked into the establishment and demanded to become a member. Stemming from the Barber vs Ruddy battle.

    The owner has been unfairly targeted and may I be as so bold to say that if this incident with the barbers would have been handled in a more respectful way the gym business would not have been put under this pressure.

  169. I think the possibility of Women losing their “Women’s Only” places was discussed earlier in this conversation. They have all been put at risk by Evie’s HRC complaint.

    Will all Evie’s supporters once again stand up and clap for stamping out the sexism of this Women’s Only gym? Can we expect the same response of people claiming this is a good thing?

    I’m sure Evie is probably just right happy that she has found another person in the fight for gender equality!

  170. Adam..

    I suspect Ruddy and company do not really care what happens to others in their brawl with the barbers. I am god-smacked at the level of ignorance on just how this could possibly have been an a more constructive experience for everyone involved.

    I am shocked that there was not someone close to her that pulled her aside and said to her..hang on..lets calm down and do this properly. Was there not one voice in her crowd that could have managed to assess the situation and come up with a better plan to execute?

    This was fueled by pure emotion! The kind of emotion that gets people hurt and possibly dampens any additional conversation to help better understand where to go from here.

  171. Kimberly: statements like, “I suspect Ruddy and company do not really care what happens to others” are smears, and I’m gonna start deleting smears. They don’t help anyone “better understand where to go from here.”

    Adam: if there’s an HR complaint against Curves we’ll cover it. We’ll also attempt to patiently explain, yet again, how a women-only gym is a genuine safety issue whereas an men-only hair salon is not in the slightest.

    No one wants Ragged Ass Barbers to change their their services, their decor, their staff or their men’s styles specialization. Some women want exactly that service in exactly that environment. Arguably, they have a legal right to it. We’ll see what happens. It’s too bad Ragged Ass Barbers maintains a misguided policy that emboldens sexism and stupidity, and makes Regina a dumber, meaner place.

    Come on, people. If k.d. lang walked into RAB would staff turn her down, too? Would anyone argue that k.d. lang isn’t a better prospective RAB customer than even the hairiest dude in Regina? Time to get with the 21st century.

  172. Stephen

    It’s too bad Ragged Ass Barbers maintains a misguided policy that emboldens sexism and stupidity….SMEAR my dear.

    Women only gyms are not largely a safety issue..they are far more a comfort issue. I am a women..I know what annoys, gawking men..that is what annoys..hardly a safety issue. The specialization of them has capitalized on making it seem like a safety issue. Bravo for them. I would bet that the majority of women only patrons have never set foot in a unisex gym to even know if there is a safety issue or not. But ok…keep your women only gyms.

    No one know for sure yet Stephen if they have the legal right to it or not. This is far from being an black vs white case. Because you are not in the thick of things you do not hear the comments from the RAB barbers patrons. How pleased they are to have a place for men only..how uncomfortable they are walking into beauty salons. Same rule as applied above….a personal comfort issue.

    One more time Stephen…we would all like to hear your words on how Ms. Ruddy handled this whole ordeal. I am asking you directly Stephen. Do you think her initial actions handled this complaint in the best way possible?

    I like k.d. lang so I will bite. This is what I envision her doing…doing a little research on the shop first..walking into the shop..probably thinking that is is groovy…shaking everyone’s hand…asking who owns it (by name)…having a conversation with the owner and inquiring what the specifics are of the shop…acknowledging that the shop specializes in men only….gently saying that it is a shame….wishing them the best with their idea….exiting, singing, softly, anywhere but here.

  173. I hope k.d. lang isn’t the air-headed nitwit you imagine she is, my dear Kimberly.

  174. I have been following this page since it began and even have made the odd comment.
    With this last round, though, I have to strongly support Kimberly MacDonald’s comments…she is Bang On!
    I can also see k.d. lang going into RAB, in a similar fashion. She would be calm, cool, and inquire in an adult and mature fashion. I also think she would respect RAB’s choice, as she embodies fairness, respect, differences and letting your freak flag fly.
    Stephen Whitworth, you just crossed the line by insinuating that k.d. would be considered an air-headed nitwit, if she indeed would go into RAB in the manner that Kimberley has laid out.
    Isn’t that quite a bit of a smear? And to a beautiful soul like k.d.?
    You should live by your own credo and stop the name calling. Not very professional at all.

  175. Jo-Ann: Thank you for your opinions on Ragged Ass Barber’s discriminatory policies, k.d. lang’s inevitable tolerance of them and my own inadequate professionalism. Also, thank you for your arbitrary capitalization of “Bang On”. Please know I take your opinions Very Seriously.

  176. Stephen: OUCH! When in a corner you come out swinging, yes? If you fail to make your case, in a mature fashion, you resort to sarcastic condescension to make your point.
    You, sir, come across as a self glorified, self-righteous elitist.

    As the saying goes…
    ‘Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good you are, the bird is going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like he’s victorious.’
    Have a great day, flying back to your flock!

  177. Jo-Ann

    A small sweet slice of solace for us…Craig voted best men’s hairstylist in Regina 2013 and also this year. Ragged Ass Barbers voted Best Hair Salon too….wonderous!

    Quite an achievement considering he has had to roll around in sexist, mysogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, oh and lets not forget stupid mud pit.

  178. Hi Kimberly MacDonald. What a hornet’s nest this place has become.

    So she has finally complained formally to the HRC. These HRC’s are really strange places, where completely bizarre decisions are handed down over trivial things. I have said before the whole Earl’s beer named Albino Rhino and African immigrant Ikponwosa Ero having the gall to complain about this, and the HRC supporting her, and forcing Earl’s to change the beer name.

    But when the HRCs are in the public eye, they are very careful about the decisions they make, such as when the Canadian Islamic Congress went after Ezra Levant to try to silence him. Everyone was watching that one, just like many are watching APEGA’s appeal against the HRC decision forcing them to accommodate a failed engineering applicant, thus threatening engineering quality standards in Alberta.

    So you see that the HRC’s are not entirely objective or rational. Trusting HRC in this barber shop case is fraught with risk. HRCs are like a fun house mirror where things can get distorted beyond any semblance of recognition very quickly. They might very well rule in her favor, if they think they can get away with it.

  179. Hi Night Owl..

    Yes, she has made a formal complaint. I have been told that HRC has not followed their own resolution road map already, so…great..right out of the chute..inaccuracy.

    My fear is that the backlash to Ms. Ruddy will overshadow the obvious mishandling by her of the whole situation. Had she taken the complaint to the HRC immediately instead of spreading herself all over the internet and media..the threats would not have taken place, she would not have felt alienated and she would have felt no fear.

    And yes Stephen Whitworth..as horrific as they were, she is responsible for the threats against herself..her and her alone. Through her own inappropriate actions. Her responsibility. Period.

    All one can do at this point is wait to see what happens…I am not convinced about the handling of this by the HRC either.

  180. The backlash she has experienced cannot and should not be used as any kind of pretext to either exonerate or martyr her. The HRCs should be facing an equally vocal campaign to be shut down if they drop the ball on this one. The issue is whether Ragged Ass is wrong to refuse her service because of their specialization in men’s haircuts, as well as providing an environment primarily for men to socialize and fraternize with one another, not unlike how Curves is by unspoken convention an exercise club for women only. Curves has unwittingly become the foil for this drama, with some man having gone in there and demanded a membership. No doubt this was political and symbolic, but it serves to illustrate the point that men also cherish a place that’s just for them. Now regarding the claim that Curves is for women’s physical safety while Ragged Ass does not address this and is therefore exclusionary, I would say that in these times, when if someone “feels” aggrieved then they *are* aggrieved and therefore someone has intentionally hurt them, the men’s shop can make similar appeals and say that they don’t feel “comfortable” with women patronizing their barber shop, just as the weaker argument goes for Curves, to help women feel at ease with other women only when they exercise. Other issues come to the fore like the property and policy rights of the entrepreneurs that run the business. Surely no one knows better than they do what they have the skills and the inclination to do or not. This is a free market after all, and just as we have laws that allow an employee to refuse to do something they feel is unsafe or they are not qualified for, I think it can be argued that a men’s barber shop also has right of refusal.

    Now, having said all this, I do not believe that Evie Ruddy should have received rape or death threats. She can be mocked, parodied, satirized, criticized, and her past statements scrutinized. If her feelings are hurt, oh well. But threats to her safety and security of person do cross the line. Is it her fault? Partly. but hopefully when this is over she will find real issues to care about, and not a hard part hair cut.

    I do hope the HRCs will read this blog because it represents the main public forum to debate various angles of this whole thing, and its broader implications for several things in society.

    There are arguments that can be made both for Evie’s position, and there are some legitimate ones, and there are points for Ragged Ass to make as well. But we’ll leave that for another time.

    Suffice it to say that the rather virulent backlash against Evie Ruddy is probably the result of years of pent up frustration of people having had it up to their necks and nearly drowning in this mire of weakened gender roles, accommodations for race, religion, and other minority seemingly at the expense of Canadian values and Canadian traditions, and being made to feel guilty for many things that they were brought up to cherish. Being able to say “Merry Christmas” for example. Or their kids being able to get dressed up for a Halloween party at school. Even a Christmas tree in public. Or the Lord’s Prayer … all of these things have been in the news at one time or another as an issue. So perhaps filing an HRC complaint over being refused a haircut at a men’s barber shop, because one felt they “didn’t fit in” at a regular salon was too surreal for the vast majority of people’s sensibilities.

  181. Women do not have to stand on the stage and yell through their megaphones regarding equality this day and age. The SHRC although seriously eroded over the years is a avenue for a complainant to safely and in some cases anonymously report.

    Ms. Ruddy had a choice. Fueled by emotion the path that followed was seemingly one of notoriety..not my words…only the reaction of plenty of women I have had a discussions with. How else can one explain the combination of her education and employment which part of it is to seek out, uncover and expose sexism. That is what she teaches..that is her passion. Her sensitivity to all things sexist is for another discussion..I have been busted enough by the gate keeper for apparently smearing.

    Her miscalculation was that not only men..which might be expected..but an overwhelming amount of women came forth to support the RAB. I would gladly listen to another persons explanation regarding that phenomenon. Stephen says it is because we are stupid and mean. I had to chuckle at that one for the simple picture in my head at telling my 82 year old female client that a young buck called her stupid and mean because she saw the complaint as frivolous! I might just do that yet and give her his name. That would be worth the price of admission!

    I would agree that our society is saturated with gender, cultural and religious quagmire’s. While I agree with some of them and disagree with others. I do wonder at times if this beautiful country of ours is too pleasant..too complacent at the risk of never…ever…offending anyone.

    I know of public service based businesses that screen people all the time for reason of
    not accepting any new clientele. It is defining their own personal business. Is that wrong? Are they allowed to do this? Could that be viewed as discriminatory based on sex, gender or religion? Or maybe it is that they are just uncomfortable with who just walked through their door or maybe they feel that particular individual might actually make others around them feel uncomfortable. Which ties in with the whole “comfort” thing.

  182. One thing I forgot to mention was that one additional reason for the backlash was that Evie Ruddy was a real professional in that she knew how to use every tool at her disposal to try to whip up public support for her perceived grievance. She went to the press to publicly shame Ragged Ass’s “discriminatory” policy and threatened to go to the HRC. When that didn’t work, and the public came down on the side of Ragged Ass, she eventually went to the HRC when she didn’t get her way.

    From what someone told me about the original purposes of the HRC, it was conceived as a place where people with minimal or no resources to resist oppression by corporations or rich landlords could go to for help, and the HRC would take it upon themselves to confront the rich and powerful “oppressors”. But now we are seeing that the little people and special interest groups (ie. Islamic congress) are using HRCs as a weapon to further their own agendas. Along the way HRCs have revealed their bizarreness in their zeal to make mountains out of molehills and imagining authoritarian personalities lurking everywhere.

    Now a hard-part haircut is being adjudicated over by a quasi-legal body with a history of dubious decisions right across the country. It’s a sad day for the country when things get to this point, and it will be a very sad day if the HRC pursues this to the point where Ragged Ass is forced to change its policy over this. If so, then the people might finally be roused at long last.

  183. I agree with your assessment of Ms. Ruddy’s course of action. If one has been tasked to take the cake out of the oven there are only two ways to do it last time I checked. Ms. Ruddy chose to bare hand it and when she received third degree burns, screamed in agony..all the while thinking..WHY did I not put on some oven mitts? The next however much time has been spent…nursing..healing..commiserating with others and possibly ending up with a scar that will fade in time but never quite go away.

    The important thing to keep in mind is that it was her choice to do it that way. Ms. Ruddy is media savvy so she chose the best way and undeniably the most exciting way in her mind to attack..and yes I said “attack” the barbershop. The barbershops instant post to stop the threats is very important here along with their on going silence..not to agitate from their end. The direct opposite of Ms. Ruddy who has continued to be the outspoken driving force behind the negative reaction.

    The SHRC has already blundered this right out of the starting block. I am in agreement with you Night Owl, they may not be able to see this case with impartial eyes. Which is their job until all information has been viewed.

  184. Has there been any new developments on this situation?

    It’s clear that Ragged Ass Barber’s has been silenced for fear of the SHRC. That much Evie Ruddy has accomplished so far. People used to fear Big Brother … it seems we have a kind of Big Father now and even before it has adjudicated, it can already repress those in its glare.

    What in particular has SHRC done that is out of line with its supposedly objective protocol?

    The public is clearly on the side of the barber shop, so the SHRC might find itself the subject of public anger if they show any discernible bias towards Evie Ruddy.

    I haven’t seen or heard much except for her giving some kind of girl power talk, and saying how she was cyberbullied to the extreme, and claiming that the public record is not an accurate version of events. I suspect historical revisionism personally.

  185. Night Owl..

    The SHRC according to their information on the website is to take the complaint(in writing) from the complainant. Since I have a direct line to the owner of the shop and information relayed to me is not always to be shared. I would like nothing better than to blow the lid off of this one and other sweet little details, but at this point I have to remain silent.

    Be it suffice to say that it was not handled by the commission properly at all and this will be interesting if anything even comes of this. It will actually be a miracle if any women comes forward to file a complaint about anything from this time on since the morbid, explicit details regarding the threats just had to be told. Hardly encouragement. Which still, however you slice it, has nothing to do with the barbershop. Still claiming that the threats were a direct result of the denial of services.

    I missed the claim that the public record is not an accurate version of events. Would love to hear that version!

  186. The barbershop has chosen since the beginning to respond when necessary and not to feed the drama. They choose to be silent because there is nothing to talk about publicly right now.

    They choose not to be baited into anything. Going about their business..everyday…voted best male stylist 2014..Craig Zamonsky Ragged Ass Barbers..voted best salon 2014 Ragged Ass Barbers.

    Get a barbershop category already PraireDog!

    I would say you are correct that the support is on the barbershop side..

  187. Loovveeee to see what Stephen is going to write in his critique about the barbershop….can not wait…oooh….hurry November 14th…

  188. – How to win friends and influence people –

    by: S.W.

    Ya bunch of misguided citizens…..Ugh

    The End

  189. This “misguided” reader thinks it’s deplorable to use a Win in one of your categories as a platform to slander and attempt to vilify a local business. The masses have spoken and PR nightmare that Ms Ruddy threatened Ragged Ass Barbers with has blown up in her face. People don’t like bullies like Ms. Ruddy. The public has voted with their dollars in supporting RAB in increased numbers and they have voted strongly in your Best Of edition. You discredit yourselves and you have truly discredited your own award with this tripe and Mr Whitworth owes RAB a public and written apology. Let’s see whether you have a 10th of the class that RAB has shown through this entire debacle. I’ll remain happily “misguided”if the alternative is supporting classless jerks and activist bullies.

  190. Maww..Stephen, how are you going to get the cheese in with the whine when both feet are in your mouth.

  191. About the differing versions of events, here is a published article from October 17 Leader Post:

    “There’s been a lot of misconception about what actually happened with the haircut. Some people have said I tried to target a local business and tried to attack them,” said Ruddy.

    She says she was told by the shop — which she didn’t name during her keynote address — that it only gives haircuts to men.

    Ruddy then went to the CBC and said she planned to file a formal complaint with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.

    As the story made its way through the media, Ruddy was bombarded by threats and insults online.


    That’s what I read indicating a possibly different version of events.

    But you can see the order of operations here. To the CBC? It seems to me that when she decided to air her grievance with the CBC of all places, it did enter the domain of fair comment and public discourse, and it seems that the vast majority of the public seems to have come down on the side of the Barber shop.

    Is Evie Ruddy a social visionary? Are the rest of us still in the dark ages? Is it true, as she implies that the women who oppose her are basically domestics, who don’t have the fire that she has to right society’s wrongs?

    The SHRC might very well be in an extreme idealist mode and side with her. Or they may tread very carefully, because they know they are in the spotlight. And once this blows over they may revert to their Kafka-esque ways.

    I know nothing of the mechanisms by which they decide what is, or is not a frivolous complaint, but I suspect the threshold is very low because places like the SHRC seem to be employed by zealot lawyers eager for a meaningless fight on the public dime.

    There was an incident in Toronto where Muslim barbers refused to cut the hair of women because of their religous beliefs, rather than a professional skill set specialization for men, and social environment for men, as RAB is saying. I wonder how Evie would have handled a Muslim barber shop. Would she have gone after them with the same zeal? Or would she have be herself cowed for fear of reprisals from that community?

  192. This whole debacle started with Ms. Ruddy calling the barbershop requesting a service. When she was turned down..she then constructed a Barbershop Flashmob facebook page naming the Ragged Ass Barbershop by name. From there, she encouraged fellow women to call the barbershop and try to book appointments. From that point she arrived on CBC doing a spot on the dinner news where she identified the Ragged Ass Barbers by name. Both CBC and Global picked up the story on their facebook pages and that is where she learned just how alone she was out there.

    The general public was already wise to what she was doing as soon as the Flashmob page was posted, news travels in an instant. Some people believe she did target the shop. At the very least she was excited about the prospect of her complaint going viral, it just did not work out like she planned that is all. What did she expect? If she had done even one ounce of research regarding the shop she would have found out that it catered to men only and it’s popularity among men and women would have given her some idea to maybe tread lightly and be clever about the way she handled her complaint.

    She did not do this. She went full steam ahead, recklessly..and I agree with Colin..it blew up in her face, then, was taken aback by the emotional response she received. Imagine that…emotion met with emotion..what does one get? A clash..of epic proportions. Hardly surprising.

    A written complaint needs to be served to the Barbershop. That is the correct procedure. Lets see if that gets done and take it from there. I am not sure that the SHRC wants this to go the distance. Ms. Ruddy’s lawyer costs(if she chooses to go all the way with this) are paid by them so who knows…maybe they will try to resolve this through the least costly means possible. Remember who’s climate we are in. This present day provincial government is trying to “Lean” everything. Cutting costs where ever they see that they can. Sometimes brutally….

    This hair cut may not be in this provincial governments budget!

  193. Well..well..welll…looks like Ms. Ruddy has achieved her goal. Public heartfelt apology from the RAB. Interesting though that the SHRC has put a gag order on the whole affair. I personally would like every little detail of the negotiations of that agreement.

    As a tax paying member of this province I encourage the SHRC to release the details of this..what say you Stephen Whitworth?

  194. Thank Goodness we’ve solved all the other problems and issues in the world so that now we can turn our attention to a truly horrific tragedy like this. Those monsters! They’ve taken a centuries old business model and tried to ram it down our collective throats – but fortunately a brave hero stepped forward. This hero courageously used threats and a smear campaign to show those monsters what it really feels like to be victimised, and isn’t that what acceptance is supposed to be? Forcing others to submit to your way of thinking at the risk of reputation assassination and potential loss of a private business? It’s a great day for Freedom!

  195. So she did file a “Human Rights” complaint.

    So Ragged Ass Barbers caved. And Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (lovely name to cloak its intents) put a gag order on it. No surprise there. They know they are being watched very closely now, yet they still persist in their meddling over trivial issues like this.

    I am pretty sure that once the story breaks out in the open, Evie or Jennifer Ruddy will again be the subject of much commentary. Where is the news reference for this? How did you find out about this?

    I think the bigger issue now is for everyone to recognize the Orwellian slant of all these Human Rights Commissions. They cloak themselves in a name like that as a kind of camouflage, so that anyone who attempts to attack them is branded as being against human rights. The first step to reforming or removing these bureaucracies of lawyers turned social activists is to strip away this mask that they all wear.

    Moosa Jiwaji formerly of the Alberta Human Rights Commission is a classic example of the duplicity and deceit and hypocrisy. They condescend to legitimate businesses and engineering societies and try to tell them how to do their jobs, all over complaints by people who really have nothing better to do.

  196. The fact that Evie has endured rape and death threats and cyber-bullying over something as “trivial” as a haircut is indicative that this is a MUCH bigger issue than a woman being denied a service at a men’s establishment. Yes, being turned away from a barbershop may seem menial, but this is just a small injustice in a huge epidemic of gender inequality that women experience daily. One battle in the gender equality war. I wish everyone would stop focusing on the damn haircut and look at the big picture, especially at the violent reactions of people that have been sooo offended by a woman wanting to be treated fairly.

  197. From the CBC … it seems that about 25% of the people side with Evie/Jeniffer Ruddy, and about double that think the Barber Shop should be able to vet its clientele.

    Thank you for voting! This poll and its results are unofficial.

    There are women’s gyms, why can’t there be men’s barbershops? 49.81% (796 votes)

    The apology was the right thing to do 24.78% (396 votes)

    I think they both handled it poorly 13.39% (214 votes)

    The apology was never needed 12.02% (192 votes)

    Total Votes: 1,598

  198. Quote: “The fact that Evie has endured rape and death threats and cyber-bullying over something as “trivial” as a haircut is indicative that this is a MUCH bigger issue than a woman being denied a service at a men’s establishment. Yes, being turned away from a barbershop may seem menial, but this is just a small injustice in a huge epidemic of gender inequality that women experience daily. One battle in the gender equality war. I wish everyone would stop focusing on the damn haircut and look at the big picture, especially at the violent reactions of people that have been sooo offended by a woman wanting to be treated fairly.”

    A haircut *IS* trivial. That you would ascribe such symbolism to a haircut is indicative of other things. I expect I would get turned away from Curves, and some otherwise ordinary men did indeed go in there and demand a membership just to make a point. That Evie chose to crash the party at a barbershop, one of the last areas where men are attended to, is indicative of a cruel and heartless “march through the institutions”.

    I’ll be the first to agree she is not deserving of death threats, since she has not done anything criminal, but what she has done is organized a media feeding frenzy, flash mobs, and went to the big brother “Human Rights” Orwellian establishment full of rabid lawyers all trying to turn this into a big crusade. As for her being aggrieved over the epithets that have since been attached to her, well, she chose to make a big thing about what the vast majority of people consider a small issue, but it was the tipping point for many, and she chose to do it.

    If our friend Evie really was concerned for women’s rights, she should know that there are no battles left to fight in Canada of any significance for her quest to be a hero. Why isn’t she fighting about segregation in mosques, or confronting sex-selective abortion by visible minorities, or fighting arranged child marriages, or female genital mutilation? WHY WHY WHY?

    When Evie chooses to talk about some of these “bigger issue” things, maybe then we’ll forget about the haircut … you get it all now?

  199. “That Evie chose to crash the party at a barbershop, one of the last areas where men are attended to, is indicative of a cruel and heartless “march through the institutions”.” Men have an area that they are attended to, it’s called The World. RAB allows women into their shop, they can sit in the waiting area, but were forbidden to move 3 feet over into a barber’s chair for the sanctity of a men’s establishment?

    “If our friend Evie really was concerned for women’s rights, she should know that there are no battles left to fight in Canada of any significance for her quest to be a hero.” This is sarcasm, right?

    “Why isn’t she fighting about segregation in mosques, or confronting sex-selective abortion by visible minorities, or fighting arranged child marriages, or female genital mutilation? WHY WHY WHY?” Probably because she didn’t walk in to a mosque or have her genitals mutilated, she was discriminated against by a barbershop.

  200. ItsNotAboutAHaircut…..

    I for one, being a women, am tired of being thought of as some kind of idiot and not having the brains to know when something has a legitimate weight in its fight for women’s equality.

    You are correct. It is not about the silly service anymore. It is about a women who chose to and will forever now be known as the one that received threats because she decided to ATTACK a barbershop on multiple levels…that is how this is going to be written in the history books. WoW! What an achievement! Unfortunate….she could have made her legacy far more kind to her laid another useful stone in the pathway to women’s equality as she saw it.

    That is what makes this whole episode smell to high heaven. But I guess that is ok right? The end goal of having the barbers change their policy and having them apologize on every news media site known to man is the most important thing. Not the road to getting to your goal…only the goal.

    From the very..very..beginning Ms. Ruddy conducted herself like a person seeking attention. She would have NOT RECEIVED ANY THREATS if she had conducted herself in a manner that was respectful to the barbershop and general public. It is well documented that the barbershop followed with sensibility and calmness, rejecting the cruelty.

    The public has not changed its mind on this issue. You can kick and scream all you want. They are viewed as not evolved and neanderthals when the fact of the matter is that generally people do not see this hard part as a earth shattering, hair raising, rolling around in the mud women’s fight for equality issue. Start giving us some more credit than that!

    Once again, our SHRC has been made a fool of by some trivial story, which has happened multiple times in the past.

  201. What? No takers yet at the Ragged Ass Barbers? Not one gal to grace the doors of the shop?

    Oh come on! This is what you fought so hard for..to make it into the men only barber shop. I encourage you to come on in and get what you want.

    Oh..right..not about coming in right! Just about kicking them to the curb, just because you could right!

    Show yourself!

  202. haha, Kimberly!

    Its entertaining now. Fight hard to get something they don’t even want!

Comments are closed.