Dear Abby 2/4/14 - Men's Only Club

[lowspark]

Both very good points. Still, it's unreasonable for the organiser to tell the wives to leave the house.

I agree that it is unreasonable but I'm not sure it's rude. When someone starts a club they can make all the rules they want, reasonable or not. When people join the club they agree to the rules. If they find they don't like the rules, they can quit.

What is rude is to join the club and deliberately do things that are against the rules.

If the LW & her husband don't like the rules, they need to quit. Hubby can get together with his buddies in some other context.

[lowspark]

Picturing the 55+ (but in reality much older on the average, as I'm guessing this gang is) condo Florida community where my mother-in-law lives, I can see how getting out of the house entirely would be the way to go.  The floor plans are so open, the only thing she could do would be to go in the bedroom, and she wouldn't be able to get to the kitchen or garage without walking right through the card game or whatever.  Plus if the guys like to be loud and swear or have bull session conversations, they would feel inhibited by a lady on the other side of the thin wall.  If I lived in her condo, I'd WANT to leave in this situation instead of staying in the bedroom all night.  So depending on the "geography" issues in the units in this community, and especially if there are enough members that they only infrequently meet at each person's house, I can see "empty house" being a reasonable rule, albeit one that might make some people decline to join, and I do agree that the spouse should agree before joining.

Even if it isn't just the LW, which I think it well may be, maybe some of these wives choose to clean up because they don't trust their husbands to do a good job and don't want the guys to see a dirty or messy house.  And as for cooking, maybe they think it's easier to fix snacks than to have an inexperienced husband make a mess, or maybe they hate to give up control of their kitchens.  I wouldn't clean up (actually my husband has done that for me), but I might fix snacks if I like the people or have something I'm trying to clear out of the house.

All in all, I agree that she is trying to blame the organizer when what it sounds like is really bothering her is that her husband spends so much time with this club at all.  She's not unreasonable not to like that, but she should, in my opinion, just be honest about what is really bothering her instead of trying to make it seem like a sexist issue. 

I mean, would she be happier if this exclusive club included women?

I think if the layout of the house is such that privacy cannot be provided and the wife chooses to leave rather than hole up in the bedroom, that's fine because it's her choice.

In my house, the master bedroom is in the far back of the house so if one of us has guests and the other one stays in the back bedroom, no one in the public areas of the house even need know there's anyone else in the house.

But I'd venture to say that a layout where one can get from the bedroom to the kitchen or garage without going through the family room or at least passing it in some way is the exception rather than the rule. So like in the bunco thread, I think it's reasonable to say that the spouse isn't welcome to hang out with the "club" but not reasonable to say the spouse has to completely disappear to the point of not being allowed to be in the home at all.

But again, is unreasonable equal to rude? In this case, I'm not sure it is.

[SamiHami]

No one gets to tell me that I have to leave my own home. Period. If they are that worried about preserving their secrets then they should find a venue that does not displace nonmembers from their own homes.

This sounds to me like the Little Rascals all grown up...the adult version of the "He Man Woman Haters Club."

[TurtleDove]

I didn't assume the use of the word "skirts" was derogatory.  I have only ever heard it used in a tongue in cheek joking manner.  I think you can dislike its use, but to say that anyone who uses the term is a woman hater seems extreme. 

I think the writer is very biased so who knows where the truth lies.  But if the letter writer doesn't like the club, this sounds like a relationship issue with her husband, not the organizer of the club.

[KenveeB]

No one gets to tell me that I have to leave my own home. Period. If they are that worried about preserving their secrets then they should find a venue that does not displace nonmembers from their own homes.

This sounds to me like the Little Rascals all grown up...the adult version of the "He Man Woman Haters Club."

They do have a venue that works -- members' homes who've agreed to it. If you don't like it, then you don't join. It's pretty simple.

[BabyMama]

While I would not make snacks and leave, this is a older generation where that might be more common.

I just read an article the other day (ok, skimmed it) that pointed out that today's older people are different from the older people we all grew up with. No longer are grandparents turn of the century, children of immigrants, WWI and WWII veterans, or Depression babies. We're coming up on grandparents who grew up in the '60s and '70s and may have a very different outlook than the generation we've come to think of as "old folks."

Kind of like that meme that says, "I still think of 10 years ago as the 1990s."

ETA: Ahh, I see shhh got there before me.

[doodlemor]

The club organizer has every right to set his own rules.  The members have the right to join or not, depending on whether they care for the rules. It does sound like the letter writer's husband is uncomfortable with the club, and is planning to drop out. 

If the wives feel unhappy with leaving their homes and the husbands don't support them, then those would be couples' issues.

I also think that the club organizer sounds like a total boor, and that there should be logical consequences for his actions.  Since he doesn't want to socialize with the wives, I think that there is no reason that the wives are obligated to invite him to any of the parties/events that they organize.  Why would they want to socialize with someone who seems very disrespectful of women?

If I were one of the wives, I'd make sure to

[Hmmmmm]

No one gets to tell me that I have to leave my own home. Period. If they are that worried about preserving their secrets then they should find a venue that does not displace nonmembers from their own homes.

This sounds to me like the Little Rascals all grown up...the adult version of the "He Man Woman Haters Club."

They do have a venue that works -- members' homes who've agreed to it. If you don't like it, then you don't join. It's pretty simple.

I agree with this. While my DH can't banish me from my home I am willing to accommodate a request.

-My sister belonged to an early menopause support group that met monthly in group member's home. Rule was that only group members should be in the home during the meeting.
-A good friend belongs to a women's bible study group. Rule is that no kids or non-group members are in the home during the meetings as they discuss very personal issues that they want to remain within the group.
-I used to belong to a neighborhood/PTA women's informal social group. We had get togethers about 6 to 8 times a year. Whoever was hosting knew that it was best to have all kids and spouses out of the house during these events. I'm not sure if the rule was ever spoken, but in more than 20 events I attended, no child or spouse was seen unless you arrived early as they were leaving were still there when they returned home.
-My dad belonged to a hunting lodge that was "no kids/no wives" for more than 20 years. Twice a year, the families were invited to come out for a big bbq or fish fry. It never seemed odd to me. My mom belonged to a garden club and we all vacated the house when she was hosting.

To me the only rude person is the wife who, as a non-member, is trying to change the rules agreed to by the members. Her only skin in the game is whether she is willing to support her DH in being a member. If she doesn't then she needs to address it with him. Not try to force her views on others.

[gellchom]

No one gets to tell me that I have to leave my own home. Period. If they are that worried about preserving their secrets then they should find a venue that does not displace nonmembers from their own homes.

This sounds to me like the Little Rascals all grown up...the adult version of the "He Man Woman Haters Club."

They do have a venue that works -- members' homes who've agreed to it. If you don't like it, then you don't join. It's pretty simple.

I agree with this. While my DH can't banish me from my home I am willing to accommodate a request.

-My sister belonged to an early menopause support group that met monthly in group member's home. Rule was that only group members should be in the home during the meeting.
-A good friend belongs to a women's bible study group. Rule is that no kids or non-group members are in the home during the meetings as they discuss very personal issues that they want to remain within the group.
-I used to belong to a neighborhood/PTA women's informal social group. We had get togethers about 6 to 8 times a year. Whoever was hosting knew that it was best to have all kids and spouses out of the house during these events. I'm not sure if the rule was ever spoken, but in more than 20 events I attended, no child or spouse was seen unless you arrived early as they were leaving were still there when they returned home.
-My dad belonged to a hunting lodge that was "no kids/no wives" for more than 20 years. Twice a year, the families were invited to come out for a big bbq or fish fry. It never seemed odd to me. My mom belonged to a garden club and we all vacated the house when she was hosting.

To me the only rude person is the wife who, as a non-member, is trying to change the rules agreed to by the members. Her only skin in the game is whether she is willing to support her DH in being a member. If she doesn't then she needs to address it with him. Not try to force her views on others.

Very well put.  I can certainly understand couples who don't ever want to be in a position to ask each other to leave the house for any reason.  There's nothing wrong with that.  This club is not for them, and it is perfectly fine to decline to participate because you and your spouse are uncomfortable asking each other to leave.  But as in the examples given by Hmmmmm, I think it's also perfectly legitimate to require that the house be empty when it's your turn to host.  Even someone being in another room is inhibiting when people are discussing personal matters or even just letting their hair down and acting loud and goofy or something.

Although I certainly understand someone not liking the rule and declining to join over it, the rule itself is neither unreasonable nor rude -- just as although it is unreasonable and rude to go to someone's house and demand a sandwich and a drink, it's not rude for a club that rotates homes to have a rule that the host must provide sandwiches and drinks.

So Hmmmmm puts her finger right on it: it's one thing for the LW to ask her husband not to participate, quite another for her to condemn the whole club's existence as rude for having that rule.  And perhaps the real issue here is that her husband wants to participate even if it means asking her to leave -- i.e., they disagree on their own policy about that, which (understandably) hurts her feelings.  It sounds to me like maybe she is trying to reach for a global condemnation of the whole thing on etiquette grounds so that she doesn't have to focus on the personal issue, something we often see here.

[baglady]

"No skirts allowed."

I wonder what he'd do if one of the guys showed up in a kilt. 

[pierrotlunaire0]

So Hmmmmm puts her finger right on it: it's one thing for the LW to ask her husband not to participate, quite another for her to condemn the whole club's existence as rude for having that rule.  And perhaps the real issue here is that her husband wants to participate even if it means asking her to leave -- i.e., they disagree on their own policy about that, which (understandably) hurts her feelings.  It sounds to me like maybe she is trying to reach for a global condemnation of the whole thing on etiquette grounds so that she doesn't have to focus on the personal issue, something we often see here.

That is an excellent point.

[Winterlight]

I think that the LW can tell her husband that she's not willing to do the cooking and cleaning for this event, so it's on him. But nobody is making her husband join this group, so it sounds more like a relationship issue between the two of them.

[TurtleDove]

So Hmmmmm puts her finger right on it: it's one thing for the LW to ask her husband not to participate, quite another for her to condemn the whole club's existence as rude for having that rule.  And perhaps the real issue here is that her husband wants to participate even if it means asking her to leave -- i.e., they disagree on their own policy about that, which (understandably) hurts her feelings.  It sounds to me like maybe she is trying to reach for a global condemnation of the whole thing on etiquette grounds so that she doesn't have to focus on the personal issue, something we often see here.

That is an excellent point.

POD.

[mime]

So Hmmmmm puts her finger right on it: it's one thing for the LW to ask her husband not to participate, quite another for her to condemn the whole club's existence as rude for having that rule.  And perhaps the real issue here is that her husband wants to participate even if it means asking her to leave -- i.e., they disagree on their own policy about that, which (understandably) hurts her feelings.  It sounds to me like maybe she is trying to reach for a global condemnation of the whole thing on etiquette grounds so that she doesn't have to focus on the personal issue, something we often see here.

That is an excellent point.

POD.

Ditto.

It looks like most of us are coming to the same conclusions:

1- A group can organize under whatever rules they like without being rude.

2- Participants can either join under those rules or decline without being rude.

3- The rudeness here was when a member (or in the case of the LW, an involved non-member) wants to impose new rules on the group to suit their own tastes.

4- The group leader could just want old-fashioned 'guy bonding time' or he could be a total pig. Hard to tell. He still has every right to start whatever kind of group he wants. How he treats the individuals involved will determine his rudeness level and should affect his acceptance into others' homes and lives.

I agree that the LW wants the group setup to be deemed rude because her husband may be OK with it and she doesn't like it.

It's very human. I'd prefer to believe my husband is rude when he disagrees with me rather than believe I could be wrong.

[Twik]

It is rude for someone to expect their hostess to leave the house. If he's that concerned about not having women around, he could hold it in his own home on a regular basis.

However, the LW is not in a position to change him. She is, however, in a position to refuse to cooperate, and let her husband deal with the fallout.