Would you consider it sexist if someone specifically opted not to use a "Woman Owned Certified Business?"?

The implication seems to be that it's a company like any other, but it's been certified so that people know that it's owner is a woman. So if someone declined to utilize the services of one of these types of companies, would you conclude that their motivations are sexist?

BQ: Would you consider it sexist if someone only opted to use a "Woman Owned Certified Business?"

Update:

Just to be clear, my initial question is suggesting that someone declines to use the services of a "Woman Owned Certified Business" specifically because of it's certification.

10 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    7 years ago
    Favourite answer

    Nope.

    The moment a business's sales pitch is the race/sex/ethnicity of its owner, rather than a sales pitch about the product that they sell, is the moment I lose interest in that business.

  • 7 years ago

    It depends. If they are avoiding or using the business based on the fact it's receiving a government advantage, not because of the gender of the owner, then that's not sexist. It's discriminating based on a policy of advantage, not based on gender.

    Personally, I don't blame people for acting on legal incentives. I don't blame women business owners for registering as women owned business and I can't find fault with people using a woman owned business if that's what the law either dictates or gives them the incentive to do.

    The problem is that we have law in the first place that gender discriminates favoring one gender over the other. I really wish we'd pass a strong ERA that would require all laws that discriminate to be overturned and make it illegal to pass any laws that gender discriminate in the future.

    Add: based on your update, no they are discriminating based on the certification, not based on gender, so it's not sexist, though it would obviously fall along gender lines.

    Let's say I disagree with war, so refuse to socialize with combat soldiers. That would mean almost everyone I refuse to socialize with would be male, but I'm not being sexist. I'm not refusing to socialize with them because they are male, I'm refusing because they are combat soldiers. Same thing.

  • 7 years ago

    We've been conditioned to think what you're implying. Without more information, it's hard to tell, though.

    I wouldn't use it because I'm not sexist. I agree with the first answer. When a company goes the extra step to inform everyone that it's owned by a certain group, it sets off my bigotry alarm. There's no need for it.

    It's also known that women-owned businesses often get grants or special loans from the government, while men don't. I don't buy into sexism.

  • 7 years ago

    In most cases in government construction contracts, you are required by law to use a women or minority owned busies...regardless if they are inferior to other companies or not.

    Sexism and discrimination are apparently only bad things when they don’t favor Women. As long as you only discriminate against men… you’re A-OK as far as the government is concerned.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • ?
    Lv 6
    7 years ago

    Depends on why im choosing not to use it. Is it because i dont like or am uncomfortable with a woman owning it or because i know somewhere that offers better service.

  • Ron
    Lv 6
    7 years ago

    Obviously.

    He is choosing to refrain from patronizing that business because of the gender of the owner.

  • 7 years ago

    if the only reason to use or not use the company is the gender of the owner.....well then the decision maker is a profound moron.

    soooooo many other factors to take into account.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Ideally, there should not be ANY advertisement of gender, race, ethnicity, etc, while promoting

    businesses through advertisements, exhibitions, certifications, etc. It is only to be done when

    SPECIFICALLY targeting a particular group, like, for example, a company that sells women's

    hair dye or men's shaving creams. In that case, it is fine to mention the gender of the people

    of the business venture. But again, ideally, the quality of the product/service should speak for

    itself, rather than using bigotry, dehumanization, sexism, superiority, etc, for selling tactics.

    Also, female-owned businesses, start-ups, ventures, entrepreneurship, etc, get MUCH, MUCH,

    MUCH more Government & Private incentives, resources, funding, loans at low interest rates,

    etc, than male-owned or mixed-owned businesses or companies. This should definitely change,

    because discriminating against honest, hard-working men who open businesses is NOT ethical,

    as there should be EQUAL opportunities for ALL genders to make reasonable profits & gains.

  • Zante
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    I really struggle to understand the purpose of such a certification. If the goods or services they sell are competitive what difference does it makes whether a man or a woman owns the business?

    Is it another way of using the pussy pass?

    "Buy from me because I'm a woman"?

    I don't want to sound cynical, but in all honesty I cannot see any other purpose for such a "certification"

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Yes. The moment he refuses to patronize a woman owned business is the moment he becomes sexist.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.