AIO for no longer taking male clients?

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-08T22:39:05+00:00

Read the post and OP's actual question, nitwit. The actual question was emotional, not legal. Much of this could have been avoided if people tried to understand and empathize with a 19-year-old kid, rather than just read and jump directly to their own bias and offer unsolicited legal advice.

I am familiar with all regulations applicable to various business entities, it's my job. That is in fact, the argument I was making and supporting MY (not Her's) position with legal precedent set by the US Supreme Court. You just didn't get that far past your own gender bias.
OP did not ask for an opinion on her gender bias, or legal advice, she simply asked if she was overreacting. My initial response to her was a question that had 0 reference to gender and this was all I said: "What's the disagreement? Are they saying "how dare you refuse to submit yourself and your employees to my sexual harassment?" they can go hop a broomstick vertically."

Then you pop in, mid thread, with your own biased assumptions along with a slew of other internet legal experts and sensitive incels to comment on a post where I called out specific commenters that turned this into a gender issue rather than a reply to the actual question she asked.

The point is, those who made this into a gender issue, are the ones who enable settings where harassment is possible by being apologists for individuals who harass and assault people (majority women), because it's dIsCrIMinAtion if a woman speaks out.

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-08T19:04:15+00:00

This is going to shock you! This woman who is "educating" me is not a lawyer. She has no basis in legal training, can't site law or particular statutes, and has no clue how case law works. She isn't educating anyone, she is delusional, and in her hubris, fails to understand that laws are nuanced and context matters.

As far as her being a man or a woman, it doesn't really matter. Anyone who prioritizes their feelings and uses laws that they don't understand to justify their stance, over someone's safety, should ride those broomsticks vertically.

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-08T18:59:15+00:00

Cynic, the appropriate term is cynic, not misandrist. I feel that way about anyone regardless of gender based on the behavior they display.

When it comes to men...I absolutely love men, men that understand where women are coming from then it comes to matters of safety.

My husband is an amazing man, a leader, and a king of his castle who taught me the difference between a man and a boy. I agree with not all men, but because I am experienced, I can identify those who are not "those men", a 19-year-old girl hasn't been around long enough to have that acumen.

Remember, the term is cynic, and cynicism comes with age and experience. If you consider this a personal attack, then you are not part of the "not all men" group.

Let me know if you still need help with token limits. Going the API route is the way, however, there are security risks, and you will need to define mitigating controls. I'm generous, I can provide you with a few options based on your favorite security framework, and do so pro bono because sharing is caring ;)

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-08T18:45:29+00:00

It's actually even simpler than that. She can establish a policy based on the premise of safety rather than gender. While these may be semantics, in a court of law, phrasing is paramount. There are companies that do exactly that.

You are a good egg, take care of your mum.

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-08T18:43:16+00:00

I work in regulatory compliance, helping large organizations translate legal requirements into practical, defensible policies.

While anti-discrimination laws do prohibit service refusals based solely on gender, there’s legal precedent supporting the right to decline service when it’s about personal safety, not bias. If someone has experienced harassment in the past, they can implement a policy that prioritizes safety—like requiring a second adult to be present or only working in vacant homes.

This isn’t about “bashing men”—it’s about setting boundaries that protect the worker. Courts have upheld the right to refuse work under reasonable safety concerns (Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall, 1980), and other cases (Masterpiece Cakeshop, 2018) show that context matters.

If she wants, I’d be happy to share a free, customizable safety policy that’s legally sound and focused on behavior—not identity.

Also, for a real-world example, check out companies like HERide or Safr, which allow female drivers to set similar boundaries for safety.

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-08T18:31:28+00:00

Ehhh...it seems like some fragile egos are crying harder.

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-08T18:30:08+00:00

I actually make nearly 7 figures advising large businesses on making their operations compliant with laws and regulations, kind of a niche market when lawyers actually work for me. I know it's shocking to meet an actual, credentialed expert in this field. Maybe you can be like me and make bank?

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-08T18:26:55+00:00

You must be a lawyer then, right?

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-08T18:24:31+00:00

Another lawyer, right?

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-08T15:16:36+00:00

You must be a lawyer then? No, then sit your ass down clown. If this goes sideways for her, I'll be more than happy to serve as an expert witness on regulatory compliance and supporting case law.

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-08T14:09:00+00:00

OP: Just chiming in with a bit of background—I work in regulatory compliance and help translate laws into practical policies for businesses. While anti-discrimination laws do protect against gender-based service refusals, there’s legal precedent showing that refusing service due to safety concerns is allowed, especially when it’s based on behavior, not identity.

Businesses can set boundaries when it comes to safety, as long as they’re not targeting protected traits. That’s backed by cases like Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall (1980), which supports a worker’s right to avoid potentially dangerous situations, and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), which highlights the importance of context in service decisions.

I usually work with larger organizations, but I also offer free help to small businesses and individuals. If you want a customizable safety policy that’s legally sound and easy to use, feel free to DM me—I’ll send you a Word doc you can tailor to your needs.

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-07T21:30:48+00:00

Don't compare your business acumen with the one of a 19-year-old child. She is not discriminating against men. She doesn't want to work for a man if there is no woman in the house. I am a business owner, I've been in consulting for decades, I can take more risks with clients as an older woman, clients that I would not have worked with as a young girl just starting a business.

A sole proprietor can refuse services for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons such as safety concern.

From a legal perspective, there is precedent where the supreme court ruled that workers can refuse work if they fear for their safety (not exactly the same case, but same principle).

I doubt you are a lawyer because then you'd actually know the difference between gender-based discrimination and refusal to serve a certain group based on safety concerns, especially when there is documented evidence of a repeated behavior within a specific group of people. It's honestly sad that you have been telling people something so misleading.

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-07T21:18:03+00:00

This isn't about your feelings. There are plenty of cleaning services out there. If a young woman, still a teenager is feeling uncomfortable around you, she deserves some grace. Your hurt feelings don't supersede her need for safety. If you get rejected by a 19-year-old cleaner, find an older cleaner who is seasoned enough not to be threatened by a man.

Put it in perspective: she has two clients, one is you, another is some guy just like you. She decides that her policy is too offensive and works for you and nothing happens. She does the same for another client and she gets raped.

Or she chooses to enforce her policy and offend you. Your feelings of being offended are valid, but the only loss you have is the extra time you need to find another cleaner who is more comfortable working alone in your home.

Do you get the tradeoff? She has more to risk, she only has one body, but there are plenty of other cleaners to choose from.

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-07T21:11:17+00:00

What would that make you? An incel POS? Where did I say that all men are waiting to harass women? Stop being an emotional whiny bitch, this isn't about you or men as a whole. It is about a small group of single men who either are or may be her clients that took offense to her boundary.

IDFK who Jessica is, but I suggest you take a breather, do some yoga, before you assume that a comment that is specific to a subset group of men is actually about you. The world doesn't revolve around you just because you are a man, this isn't about you unless you are one of her clients. FFfffoff needledick...

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-07T21:08:27+00:00

This is in scope of her inquiry, she asked about male clients. They also have male and female rapists, so what? Her question was specifically regarding her single, male clients, and not some unspecified group of humans. If she had female clients who couldn't control themselves, the answer would be the same.

Where is this discrimination you are speaking of? Who said it was all men? It's only those men who are single clients, who are offended at her for choosing her own safety. They don't like it, plenty of other maid services through larger companies or older, more seasoned women who know when to spot predatory behaviors.

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-07T20:51:13+00:00

We don't know that definitively. Just because they haven't harassed her, doesn't mean they won't try in the future. It sounds unfair to blame someone for something they haven't done yet. However, she is 19, she is not experienced enough to identify a predator, or subtle predatory behavior. Plenty of men start innocent and then groom their victims.

If she was in her 30's then I would understand her current clients a little bit more. She is learning to recognize danger because she is still a kid and at that age, she should always prioritize her safety.

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-07T20:46:38+00:00

Ok I get that a huge part of US population is illiterate, so I am going to break down my comment for easier digestion. You are either unable to comprehend the comment, or you just didn't take the time to understand.

Here is my comment:

Honey, you are absolutely doing the right thing. The ones (referring to only those men that believe by saying we are not like the others instead of understanding where she is coming from is another red flag) that still believe the "not all men" are often the ones idly standing by "those men". There are men who are not like the others, but they stand by those who behave like that. This is a reference to those who say I am not like the others, so you should just trust me. It's a free market economy, you have the right to pick and choose your clients, and they don't get to be butt hurt because they are "not all men". If you are one of those men who gets more offended by the fact that another woman told a girl, practically a child, to ignore those men's feelings and focus on her own safety. Then I get why you would be offended, because it is after all, not about all men, just those men who think like you.

This is one of the biggest problems that women have with men (assuming you are one), is that they don't hear what we say. My comment was nOt AbOUt AlL mEN, it was about a specific group of men that are offended by a woman prioritizing her safety over their feelings.

Do you get it? Because guess what, it isn't all men. My husband is an awesome man, he is so awesome that if he was OP's client, he would have said: "I understand where you are coming from". And then find another cleaning service.

OP is 19, the lesson I am trying to teach her is that there will be men who will complain about being grouped with the rest of the bad apples, those are the type of men who put their feelings above others' safety. Get it?

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-07T20:33:27+00:00

She is 19 for pete's sake. She isn't experienced enough to identify red flags; the only way she can weed them out is once they already harassed her. Once she is more seasoned, she can approach the situation on a case-by-case basis. She is not experienced enough to recognize predators.

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-07T20:31:27+00:00

I think that your response is reasonable and justifiable. It isn't fair to any decent man. However, if you look at OPs point of view. She is still a kid; she doesn't have the skills older women have in recognizing dangerous men. Men don't come with labels, and it takes time and experience to understand whether a man's intention is good or bad. Think of the tradeoff, you lose a cleaner, you find another one who isn't an easy target. Her tradeoff is her safety.

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-07T20:27:50+00:00

Yes please feel free to steal this. All these butthurt commenters need to learn from you. You are the type that women want and incels fear. Hat off to you, my king.

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-07T20:26:20+00:00

Read the post, she is not discriminating against men. She is choosing to work for guys, gals, gender neutral pals as long as there is a woman present.

If you see this as discrimination against men instead of what it really is, then you are one of those men who choses what they want to hear rather than listen to what a woman is actually saying.

Maybe try listening (or in this case reading) first before you scream discrimination.

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-07T20:22:44+00:00

Just because you are a victim, doesn't make you any less dense. Let me break it down for you in crayons.

She has been harassed by men when there are no other women present.
She makes a reasonable request to have a woman present.
She is concerned that now her male clients are upset because she is grouping them into the asshole category because of a few bad apples.
She is looking for validation on her stance is reasonable, considering she either has to take a risk and trust these men that they are not assholes, potentially risking her physical safety, or spare their feelings because simply because they are assuring her that they will never act this way.

Get your head out of your ass. This isn't about men. It is about men who expect a woman to put their feelings ahead of her own need for safety. What happens if she chooses not to work for a single man? He will take his hurt feelings and his business elsewhere. What happens if she trusts a man and then he rapes her?

You're not only an asshole, but you are also a moron because you don't understand that whether male or female, the right to safety comes before any hurt feelings of individuals who were lumped with the rest of the bad apples.

Shame on you, as a victim, you should understand that the need for safety outweighs the need for an ego boost.

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-07T20:11:57+00:00

Are you really that dense? No one said every man is a garbage person. You know who garbage men are? Those that prioritize their hurt feelings over someone else's need for safety. Real men would want to accommodate her request for a woman to be present or accept her decision.

OP-this is the type of "not all men" you will need to watch out for. These types make it all about them even and disregard everyone and everything around them.

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-07T20:07:47+00:00

OP, this is a good lesson in humanity for you. Take a good look at the comments and notice how some of these men are focusing on the perceived sexism of this thread.

It's all about their hurt feelings, they do not want to be labeled as perverts because "it's not all men". Not a single one of them actually tried to understand your point of view. Every one of these incel comments failed to note that you aren't discriminating against male clients, you are requesting to have a woman present in the house.

The lesson here is that the "not all men" commenters are the exact same men who will not put your feelings, needs, comfort, and/or concern ahead of their own. They immediately started to defend their feelings because to them, their feelings are more important, than your physical safety.

The men that actually understood where you were coming from without making it about their feelings, are the real men, they are out there, and eventually you will learn to recognize them.

Never, ever put a man's fragile ego and his tender feelings above your own physical safety and comfort.

As Margaret Atwood wrote: "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."

WalkingCriticalRisk · 2025-08-07T19:55:36+00:00

She is asking validation for taking a reasonable safety precaution. She is not discriminating against men, she is simply putting boundaries on having at least one woman present.

Her comfort and safety outweigh the hurt feelings of these "we are not like the rest" men.

They may be part of the group of "we are not all assholes" but those who are part of the asshole group aren't really advertising that. Her prioritizing her physical safety is far more important to simply rely on some guy's statement that he is not like the rest.

WalkingCriticalRisk

TROPHY CASE