Court Rejects Lawsuit Against Ladies Nights

Last week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a New York lawyer’s claims that “ladies nights” at bars were unconstitutional because they forced men to pay more. The lawyer says he’s going to appeal to the Supreme Court, but he admitted to the New York Daily News that the odds the court will agree to hear his case are “about the same as some pretty young lady paying my way on a date.”

“Ladies Nights aren’t sexist to men; Court of Appeals rejects Manhattan lawyer’s claim” [NY Daily News via Time]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Mark says:

    Holiday weekend updates.

    Brought to you by:

    Sex Sells!

    :)

  2. stock2mal says:

    Seems to me that one could have have a “white’s night” or “men’s night” and it would be the same thing then.

    • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

      Really? The same thing? We’re all aware of the motivation for bars to have “Ladies’ Nights”. Can you even imagine a possible motivation for a bar to proclaim a weekly “Gentlemen’s Night”?

      Although, come to think of it, increasing the number of gentlemen in a bar (as opposed to the NLP-addled losers whose opening move is insulting you, drunk roughnecks, strutting machismo cultists, and good Christian country boys looking for good Christian city girls to take home for the night and feel guilty in the morning with), that might be a fine thing.

      • pantheonoutcast says:

        “Can you even imagine a possible motivation for a bar to proclaim a weekly “Gentlemen’s Night”?”

        Yes. To keep out the vapid, soulless, brain-dead sluts who do things like compare themselves and their friends to the characters on Sex in the City. Perhaps a “Gentleman’s Night” would attract women who can discuss literature and theater and keep out the types who have the first season of “Jersey Shore” on preorder.

        • XianZomby says:

          Women who “discuss literature and theater” do those things during the daytime, with their gay male friends. Or at their book club.

          At night, they go to the nightclub, get in for free, and look for straight men they deem date-worthy.

          I go off to the gay club with my gay friends and look for hot guys to take home with me.

          But at no point do women at the straight nightclub, or men at the gay nightclub “discuss literature and theater.” Because that’s no way to get laid.

          • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

            Quoted for truth.

          • pantheonoutcast says:

            So the gay males and straight women you know are promiscuous stereotypes who only go to bars to get laid, eh? Are the straight men crushing beer cans on their heads during football games while scratching themselves in their La-z-boys?

            I’m glad the judge rejected the lawsuit – it helps me to identify the types of places and people to avoid. “Join us on Wednesday where hundreds of narcissistic women of dubious virtue who can only have ‘intellectual’ conversations with their non-threatening homosexual friends will gather in hopes of meeting alpha-males for some physically satisfying, yet emotionally empty, alcohol-fueled, anonymous sexual intercourse. And if you’re gay, join us at our downtown affiliate, where the scene is almost precisely the same, albeit with more ABBA on the jukebox.”

            • JeremieNX says:

              THIS. THIS. THIS. THIS

              /Raises glass

            • XianZomby says:

              You:

              “To keep out the vapid, soulless, brain-dead sluts who do things like compare themselves and their friends to the characters on Sex in the City…”

              -and-

              “Join us on Wednesday where hundreds of narcissistic women of dubious virtue who can only have ‘intellectual’ conversations with their non-threatening homosexual…”

              Two statements from you, where it is apparent you’ve been rejected by women many, many times, and that you now hate them. Unless you’re a woman yourself, then you’ve been rejected by men many, many times, and you hate the sisters that easily get a boyfriend.

              Then in this following statement, you contradict your own stereotypes of women by asking if it is only in my world where women (and men) are whores:

              “So the gay males and straight women you know are promiscuous stereotypes who only go to bars to get laid, eh?”

              So which is it? Are all the women and men in your world whores too? You’d go to a nightclub where people can barely hear themselves think — due to the music meant to facilitate dancing — walk up to somebody, and want to discuss Nietzsche. Then be dejected when they brush you off. You’re like the Law and Order: SVU woman-hating, sex predator, perv-of-the-week: a totally maladjusted perception of social structure and appropriateness.

              People join social, country and book clubs, volunteer at the soup kitchen, or participate in Habitat for Humanity to meet like-minded people of either the same or opposite sex. They also meet potential life-partners at work. Nobody goes to a nightclub or a predominantly drink-only, non-food-serving bar to talk about books;they go to dance, drink, and meet people socially for dating and a potential hook up.

        • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

          If all the “Sex in the City” tarts dropped dead tomorrow, I would breathe a sigh of utter relief. You and I could get together and repopulate the world, I imagine. If we lived that long. Something tells me we’d loathe each other deeply, despite our mutual love of literature and theater. (Classically trained musician here, published poet, and lesser nobility of a country that hasn’t given half a shit about nobility since the Communists took over. I cook well enough to throw gourmet dinner parties, I do fine needlework, I’m literate and articulate, I read a book a day, and if you think that’s going to get me anywhere in a bar, you need to either come off or go on some drugs.)

          • Big Mama Pain says:

            HAHA, exactly!

            There is practically no distinction between your typical “brain-dead slut” and your average wing-manned ‘bro’ that frequent most bars. The trick is finding a bar that dissuades those crowds, usually upscale bars that don’t have 2 for 1 longneck nights (which is the male equivalent of ladies night, anyway!)

        • OmnipotentMLE says:

          those women aren’t looking for guys in these bars anyway.

      • roaster says:

        Just because the bars have motivation to do it doesnt mean that they should. During the civil rights movement diners had a financial motivation to have a “whites only” sign hanging on the door … that doesnt mean that they were not unconstitutional and wrong. What I can’t imagine is why anybody would think that motivation should have anything to do with why something should be considered unconstitutional or not.

        • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

          You are completely missing the point. This not a civil rights issue. Nobody is bereaving you of your God-given Constitutional right as an American citizen to enter the bar of your choice and drink until you fall down. There is no massive injustice involving the bar’s mistreating or refusing to serve the paying customers it explicitly caters to the OTHER six nights of the week.

          What sort of fake victimization are we going to be tortured with next? Say, the religion of seventy-five percent of the nation whining and puking that they’re being discriminated against? Oh, snap, that’s already happened, hasn’t it.

          • Bladerunner says:

            They explicitly cater to men the other 6 nights of the week? How, exactly?

            • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

              You know, being without a TV makes me a little more sensitive to marketing than many other people, but I didn’t realize the rest of you had gotten that oblivious.

              Do a gedankenexperiment for me, eh? Walk into your favorite bar, and count the number of ads and promotions that the bar and its vendors offer explicitly to men, and how many explicitly to women. It should be instructive.

              • Bladerunner says:

                Ads offered explicitly to men…please define that term for me, ok? Are they discounts that only apply if you’re a guy, or are they ads that feature predominantly men? Because the first would be sexist, the second only ARGUABLY so, in that a women does not get any less benefit. So though the ad may have all dudes in it, she can still buy and enjoy in exactly the same manner.

        • teamplur says:

          Isn’t a Ladies night cheaper than normal price for girls, and normal price for Men? How is that any different than offering a military or senior citizen discount? It’s not like the Men are paying more than normal or getting worse drinks. Sorry i don’t do the bar thing very often so maybe i don’t understand ladies night.

      • PupJet says:

        That’s like a gay’s only night…OH WAIT, we have bars for that. Regardless of such, if you feel that going into a bar to score a chick which you will PROBABLY never get is to high a price to pay, then you really need to go to another bar. Big whoop if the sugar daddies have to pay more to get a piece of ass.

    • kenj0418 says:

      The bar has a legitimate interest in keeping their clientèle somewhat balanced by gender. Perhaps they could rename it to “Traditionally Under-represented Gender Night” to avoid silly lawsuits. Although that’s not as catchy as “Ladies Night”

  3. Suisei says:

    But…but…I thought ‘Ladies Nights’ were designed to prevent clubs from becoming all-night sausage-fests???

    • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

      Yes, indeed. The ignorant, cheap-ass bastard who brought the lawsuit is shooting himself in the foot. Only someone totally uninterested in meeting women when he goes to a bar would fight against a measure designed to make sure women are provided to him.

      Besides, the fact that there are more ladies around means more men come to meet them, and more drinks get bought, and this guy is all shaken up about an amount of dollars probably in the single digits. The bar would come out ahead even if they bought him off.

      • Griking says:

        You assume that men only go to bars to hook up with women.

        • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

          The statistics are on my side. No, men don’t just go out to a bar to meet women. But Ladies’ Night promotions work tremendously well. That’s why this joker got all steamed about them. if they were failures, he wouldn’t give two hoots.

          • Big Mama Pain says:

            Actually, not sure if you read about this guy who is bringing the lawsuit-he calls himself an “anti-feminist” and has crusaded against all sorts of things that women get as perks for having bits. He’s even sued colleges that have women’s study courses. Considering this crusade against women, something tells me that he has no interest in them.

            • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

              No. I only read the lawsuit itself, and that was a few days ago when it first came out. But as I pointed out in a comment below, there is no evidence that he’s gay; he just can’t find a thing that meets his definition of what a proper woman should be like.

      • TheSkaAssassin - College Man says:

        *Implying that I don’t go to a bar to have a few beers with my friends*
        or
        *implying that I enjoy it when a girl repeatedly asks me “You should buy me a drink”*

        • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

          Actually, asking a guy to buy me a drink is a good way to see their reaction when I ask for a single malt Scotch. I’m a safe bet to be twice the lady his ex-girlfriend was, but for some reason that scares a guy. Unladylike. But a girl can only drink so many goddamn Cosmopolitans, even when they make them with orange peel and orange vodka the way the Hotel Rotana on Yas Island in Abu Dhabi does it. Nice little watering hole. Reminds me I have not hit the Cosmo saturation point yet tonight. See you down at the pub. (It’s NOT Ladies’ Night.)

          • akacrash says:

            If you’re so classy and forward thinking, why don’t YOU offer to buy HIM a drink?

            I don’t care if it’s a red bull or a glass of scotch, if you walk up to a stranger and ask that person to buy you a drink that’s cheap and classless.

      • Lucky225 says:

        I disagree, California has a similar law;

        The Unruh Civil Rights Act and other state laws contain prohibitions against gender based pricing practices. Prices must be based on factors such as difficulty of treatment or service, and not on the gender of the customer. Violators of these laws may be required to pay damages of a minimum of $1,000 for each violation as specified in Section 52 of the Civil Code.

        A *VERY SIMILAR LAWSUIT* was upheld by the California Supreme Court for this reason;

        http://www.retaillawobserver.com/2007/08/californias-unruh-civil-rights-act.html

    • CookiePuss says:

      You know who else gets perks? Cops. Flash your badge and *poof*! No cover charge. So to get free/discounted drinks you either flash your vagina or your badge. Either one will get you drunk for free. Ahhhhh, perks. If your a female cop you just hit the liquor lottery! :-p

  4. zifnab0 says:

    The 2nd Circuit didn’t say that “Ladies Nights aren’t sexist to men”, the court concluded that there bars are not “state actors” and therefore not subject to the Constitutional requirement of nondiscrimination.

    This was a poorly brought lawsuit, instead, the plaintiff should have sued the state government for providing legal cover to discrimination (providing liquor laws), or sued the defendant night clubs under anti-discrimination laws.

  5. Extended-Warranty says:

    Nothing is ever considered illegal discrimination unless it gives white males an advantage.

    • tsukiotoshi says:

      Well, if it was a state run club then it would be unconstitutional unless the state could show there is some legitimate state interest in letting ladies in or cheaper then men. The problem here is the club is not state owned. The only somewhat plausible state action involved is that the state has to give them a liquor license to operate. But, that is not really a strong argument. As the Second Circuit pointed out, the action of licensing really isn’t related to the club’s cover charges.

      On another note, though, he’s not really thinking long term. What straight dudes want to hang out at a club/bar without women there? If a club has a cheap night for women they will attend and men can try their best to get laid. I don’t attend these sort of things as a general rule but I know I’m more likely to go to a club where I can get in for free than one where I have to shell out money to stand around and be bored and hit on.

      • evnmorlo says:

        So since there is no “state interest” clubs could charge non-Aryans a $1000000 cover-charge?

        • tsukiotoshi says:

          Well that all depends on the state anti-discrimination laws, but it’s not unconstitutional. The 14th amendment only regulates state action.

          On the other hand, it does seem like a bad business plan.

        • tsukiotoshi says:

          Also if you are at all interested in this topic further you should read the case Moose Lodge v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972). Whether you agree with the court’s reasoning it is an interesting case and sets the tone for this issue.

        • OmnipotentMLE says:

          Don’t men just pay regular prices for the drinks? There isn’t a ladies night surcharge, is there?

          The point of ladies night is to increase the female to male ratio, for the benefit of men. If women are lured in by cheap drinks or free admission, men will see it as a place to seek women and they will come out too.

          If men do not want to pay for women’s drinks- they don’t have to. There are women who don’t play the “buy me a drink” game. They don’t hang out in these clubs on ladies night though.

          • pot_roast says:

            I have seen bars/clubs that offer women special drink prices on ladies nights. It’s a catch 22 for many guys, though. They think that because women get in free, there must be more girls there, so they pay the cover to get in only to find that it’s a sausage fest anyway because the girls (having been able to get in for free) have come & gone to other clubs since they don’t have to pay and have no incentive to stay at one particular place. :)

    • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

      And Ladies’ Night disadvantages white men how? Because they don’t get the same discount as the women, right. I suppose this lawsuit opens the way to sue restaurants and other businesses that give discounts for children. Illegal age discrimination!! Ah’m a-callin’ ma loyer!!!

      But seriously. The deal with getting women into the club is partially to benefit men, as would be obvious to anyone with half a brain cell left over from his latest drinking bout. The rest of the deal is not so much to benefit women as to benefit the profitability of the bar.

      • Wei says:

        I agree with your stance on the lawsuit, but bad analogy. Kids meals (generally) cost less because they get less.

        Still, this is not a place of business stopping men from attending ladies’ nights. If someone doesn’t like that the bar does this they can go somewhere else that night.

  6. Tim says:

    I don’t mean to challenge the ruling, but the legal argument behind it, as reported by the NY Daily News, is pretty dangerous.

    The court ruled that the obligation to treat men and women equally only applies to the state, not private businesses. A liquor license doesn’t mean that the state is acting through the business, so the business is free to discriminate.

    So does this mean that all businesses in the Second Circuit are now free to discriminate by sex?

    • tsukiotoshi says:

      That’s not quite right. They are saying that under the Constitution the obligation is only for state actors. This has long been established by the courts. Most states, however, have established their own anti-discrimination laws that apply to business and other private actors.

    • Doncosmic says:

      When there are not laws specifically prohibiting it,( such as in employment decisions) then yes.

  7. Gulliver says:

    “Den Hollander, who sued the Copacobana, China Club, Lotus and others, blames militant feminists for the ladies-pay-less door policies”

    HAHAHA. Militant feminists are NOT the ones who thought of ladies nights. It was sexist men who need women at the bar drunk so they can get laid. Let’s face it, men pay more for insurance on cars and it is not illegal.

    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      I doubt militant feminists are going to go meet men at bars. Ladies night is the only way bar owners could get women into their clubs to be groped by the horny, drunk, male patrons. If there were no ladies nights, most bars would be a sea of men.

      It’s like chat lines. Men are the only ones who call, so they wither have to let ladies call for free to get them on there, or they have to hire women to talk on them.

      • lemur says:

        So let me get this straight. These women who would normally rather not be groped by drunk male patrons will be fine with it as long as they get a discount?

        • regis-s says:

          Ha! Exactly what I was thinking. It certainly doesn’t say much for the women, does it?

          • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

            My friends who do Ladies’ Nights go in a group of girlfriends, not alone to get groped.

            I don’t do Ladies’ Nights… I don’t care for the company of other women, to be honest. Give me a few honest, likeable guys down the pub, a glass of red, a game of darts I can fail amusingly at, and some decent conversation, and that’s my idea of a good time.

  8. FilthyHarry says:

    “he admitted to the New York Daily News that the odds the court will agree to hear his case are “about the same as some pretty young lady paying my way on a date.””

    I’m guessing even having a date with a pretty young lady is a longshot for this guy.

    • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

      I’m guessing he has zero interest in women, actually. I knew a guy who claimed to have been victimized by “the preferential treatment accorded to women in this society”. He got worse and worse over several years. He kicked in a TV tube because some sitcom made a reference to kicking some guy in the nuts. He alienated his sister because every time he visited her, he complained bitterly about all the “free stuff” that “the feminist state” gave young mothers. He even alienated his mother by saying that if she was unhappy with his father, she should have just left him, not taken child support all the years he was growing up. What a piece of work.

      I suppose it should not have come as a surprise to anyone when we found out he was meeting men for sex. He was actually not gay, per se… he just hated and mistrusted women but couldn’t do without. Sordid.

  9. madanthony says:

    The lawyer seems to miss the point of why people go to clubs – it’s generally less to consume cheap drinks and more to meet members of the opposite sex. Often men are more interested in meeting members of the opposite sex, so ladies night drink specials serve to get women in the door and even out the ratio.

    If people want cheap booze, they can stay home and kill a 30 of Natty Ice. They are going to clubs for the chance to drink booze in the company of other people who are drinking booze.

  10. El_Red says:

    Considering money paid for make-up, hair, manicure, etc. By these ladies before going out, I’d say it adds up to same $$$ as men.

    By the way, you know what clubs do not have ladies nights? Gay clubs. I’d doubt this guy goes there.

    • evnmorlo says:

      90% of that primping is not for the benefit of males. To the extent that men do see it, it mainly serves to deceive them as to the wearer’s genetic fitness.

      • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

        Really? I am married and wear make-up because I like the way it makes me look. I almost never wear make-up at home, but when I go out, I feel really confident when I put it on.

  11. Bkhuna says:

    Maybe Mr. Loser Lawyer can find a bar that has special prices for lonely, pathetic, girly-men.

    He must be a ton of fun at the local Star Trek conventions.

  12. bmused says:

    It’s all how you spin it. Back in the early 1980s a feminist group protested “Ladies Night” at a bar near Davenport, Iowa. I suggested they call it “Affirmative Action Night”; in recognition that working women earned only a fraction of what males in similar positions earned, and that this was the bar’s way to acknowledge that inequality and doing what it could to compensate for it.

  13. Awesome McAwesomeness says:

    This guy is a douche. On his website, he calls himself an anti-feminism attorney. He’s a total nut job. He must never, ever want to get laid again.

    • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

      I know the type. He wants to, oh, yeah, he really wants a woman, but his idea of the kind of woman he would let near enough to touch is not the kind of woman you or I would recognize as a human being, let alone a functioning, healthy woman.

  14. kitty says:

    That’s why you should rape women instead, that’s free!

  15. Alvis says:

    I’m surprised by the number of asses defending this kind of discriminatory pricing.

    Discrimination is OK so long as there’s some kind of benefit to it? For shame.

    Ladies’ Night gets a pass because it’s not anything serious? Because it helps dudes get laid? This is the in the exact same basket as a “Jew-looking people have to pay double” policy. What’s the big deal? Just a business trying to maintain some kind of control over the type of people who patronize it, after all…

    • FilthyHarry says:

      There is no discrimination. For this to rise to the level of illegal discrimination, there has to be a wronged party. If the bar said, “We don’t like men so they have to pay more” That would be discrimination. But that’s not what is happening. What the bar is saying, “We sure would like some more ladies in here, lets encourage them to come in by charging them less.” Completely different.

      Besides, given the garbage women have had to eat and contiue to eat in society, you’d have to be wound up kinda tight to get upset over this.

      • Alvis says:

        OK, so “we would like more Gentiles in here, so they get a discount”

        I’m sorry, but you just can’t rationalize this shit.

        • Gulliver says:

          Sexes pay different amounts for many things. Ever seen a car insurance bill for an 18 year old male versus an 18 year old girl? It is not discrimination. I know of bars that have white parties and allow those that wear white in for a discount. Others have underwear parties, those that come in underwear get in free. College nights allow college students in for less with ID. Go to a movie and a 10 year old pays less than me. Go to a restaurant and senior gets a discount. I have AAA card and get a discount that non AAA members can not have. The difference is they are not charging one sex more. They are charging one less. If they said the price to get in is $5 but Jews are free is fine. They can not say, everybody gets in free, but Jews pay $5.

          • Alvis says:

            Age and membership in clubs you buy your way into are not protected groups. Gender is.

            Charging one more vs. charging one less is a bullshit argument when you’re dealing with two groups. Would you argue that a law that says “black can be owned as slaves” is any more or less discriminatory than a law that says “Slavery is legal, and everyone who isn’t black can NOT be owned as a slave”?

          • pantheonoutcast says:

            “I know of bars that have white parties and allow those that wear white in for a discount.”

            And if those parties wee slightly altered to allow for a discount for those who happened to be born white, it would be discrimination. Because one cannot choose the color of their skin any more than one can choose their gender at birth.

            Whatever you feel is the underlying rationalization for the bar’s actions, it is still discrimination. I, and many other men, do not go to bar primarily to “get laid.” For me to have to pay more money than a female to enter the same place because the bar thinks they are offering me an advantage is discrimination. It’s also worth pointing out that the 2nd Court of Appeals judge who rejected the lawsuit was female, as was every judge for all of Den Hollander’s suits.

            • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

              You are at the exact level of a four-year-old who cries inconsolably while holding a slice of chocolate cake, because he thinks Mommy gave his sister a bigger piece out of the same cake. Pray tell, how does giving Sister a bigger piece of chocolate cake diminish your piece of chocolate cake? Mommy didn’t, after all, take your cake away to give to her.

              • pantheonoutcast says:

                Because my mom didn’t charge either of us for the cake? Also, my mom doesn’t own a bakery that levies a discriminatory cover charge against her offspring based on their gender. If she did own a restaurant, however, and she charged men $10 for a piece of cake, and women $5 for the same piece of cake, she’d be guilty of sexual discrimination.

                If you’re going to make an analogy, make sure that the situations are analogous.

        • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

          What’s to rationalize? You can’t turn a pig’s ear of an argument into a silk purse of an irrefutable bon mot by pulling a stupid double reverse half-twist Godwin, Alvis. If, say, a Chinese restaurant decided to offer half-price dinners to, say, Mexicans one night a week, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with it. Really, truly, nothing wrong with it.

    • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

      The men, bless them, get catered to the other six nights of the week. This is more like a synagogue offering half-price night to Gentiles, you dip.

      • Alvis says:

        There are discounts for men-only the other six nights?

        • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

          And you accuse me of being thick? Gee, if you value your “male privilege” so little that you can’t tell when you have it, maybe you don’t deserve it.

          • Alvis says:

            WHAT male privledge? The other six nights, both genders are paying the same, as near as I could tell.

            • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

              Right, the ladies all go for the loud sports and the macho beer promotions and stuff. Well, I never claimed to understand other women, but that one escaped me.

              • Alvis says:

                A bar that caters to sports and beer lovers is just that. Plenty of men don’t care for either.

              • Bladerunner says:

                Actually, you’re now showing yourself to be a huge sexist. I know PLENTY of women who like sports, etc. And if they don’t, they go to NON SPORTS BARS. (I know! A wacky concept). I myself hate every sport besides baseball, and don’t go to bars to watch that. So therefore, I DON’T go to sports bars either, and when sports is being played, they aren’t catering to me!

                Therefore, the bars that show sports and stuff are appealing to anyone who likes that stuff, be they male or female. While the “Ladies night” rules EXPLICITLY give benefit SOLELY for your sex. I now wonder why businesses can’t be whites only, or blacks only. Or no girls allowed. Since according to the courts, that’s all ok since they aren’t state actors.

                • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

                  I don’t get any benefit out of Ladies’ Night because for me, the privilege of NOT being in a room crowded with a bunch of cheap tarts and shallow, crass swinging dicks is worth paying more for my drinks.

                  Ladies’ Night exists because it makes money for the bar. If it was evil and sordid and shunned by every right-thinking American, it would exist in only the evil and sordid places, not in practically every non-gay bar in the country.

                  • Bladerunner says:

                    Segregation used to exist everywhere. And while I’m NOT equating the two necessarily, I will say that it is hard for me to draw a real distinction between sex and race, and therefore between whites only and ladies night…the only difference is that at least the guys can still GET IN, they just have to pay more…the principle is still ultimately the same, or at least similar.

                    Just because everybody does it, doesn’t make it right.

                    • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

                      No, the men do not have to pay more. The bar is offering an incentive to women in order to serve the purpose of balancing the sexes. If you can convince the bar that incentivizing women is harming, not helping, its bottom line, I’m sure they would listen to you.

                      Since you have trouble distinguishing the difference between age and sex, maybe it would make more sense to you if one night a week your upscale executive downtown bar gave half-price drinks to blue-collar workers who came in wearing their uniforms.

                    • Bladerunner says:

                      The difference being, and the reason that SEX is protected, but other groups aren’t, is that if I wanted to, I could choose to be a blue collar worker, and/or buy a uniform, (if that’s the only requirement in your thought experiment). Can’t choose my sex, or my race. Therefore, women get in free, I have to pay. Saying “Oh, it’s no that you HAVE to pay, so much as that they DON’T” is being disingenuous. The point is that women are being given a benefit that men aren’t. This is sexist,and on par with a rule saying that blacks have to pay to get in, but whites don’t. The REASONING behind it is irrelevant. It’s still sexist. And if you’re okay with sexism, that’s fine, I guess. Your choice.

                    • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

                      Nobody is forcing you to drink, at that bar or any other. You can choose to drink or not drink. Drinking, at full or half price, is not a Constitutionally protected right. Sorry, dude.

  16. Groanan says:

    Whenever the government legislates kindness they not only trample on all of our individual rights, but they do so to no benefit.

    The people who are not nice, who do things we do not like, those who are racist or sexist, if we want to change their habits we should shun them as a customer base and as neighbors in the community. Having the government with its guns, jails, and force, coerce persons to the will of the majority when it comes to what persons are allowed to do with their personal property, is giving the government too great a power that it will inescapably use inappropriately.

    If people genuinely want to be jerks, we should let them so long as their jerkness is contained on their property and the ability to ignore them remains.

    • Gulliver says:

      That’s insane logic. If you believe that drivle you think a private business can say we won;t serve blacks. Imagine that in Mississippi in 1965. Oh wait, they DID do that. If a business wants to run their business, they need to follow the laws of fairness since there was not fairness in the past. Imagine a homeowner saying we won;t sell to the blacks, or an apartment saying, we won;t sell to them coloreds.

      • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

        If a real estate agent had a primarily white (or black) clientele, and worked for and marketed to them seven days a week, and on one of those days offered a commission discount for under-represented black (or white) people, that would be more like an applicable analogy.

        • Alvis says:

          And that would be just as discriminatory, illegal, and reprehensible. You sure a thick one.

          • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

            And you sure have a thin one. This isn’t a civil rights issue. It isn’t reprehensible, evil, or ignoble. The folks who are pampered six nights a week are bleating because someone else gets the attention on the seventh. They are not denied anything just because someone else gets something. Please, for the sake of your sanity, beg, borrow, or steal a sense of proportion.

            • pantheonoutcast says:

              “The folks who are pampered six nights a week are bleating because someone else gets the attention on the seventh. They are not denied anything just because someone else gets something.”

              Oh, I didn’t realize that in all of the above-referenced clubs, males are given a monetary discount the other 6 nights of the week for virtue of simply being male, and all of these “ladies nights” exist simply to maintain fairness and equality.

              • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

                Oh, take your cheap ass home on Ladies’ Night, then. Or are you materially harmed by not being able to get your drunk on all seven nights a week?

                • Bladerunner says:

                  So men can’t go out on ladies night. Wow. You’re the one who’s used to being pampered, and you’re just upset that the world doesn’t cater to YOU. Bars don’t cater to men the other nights of the week, there is no benefit that I get as a dude with a GF. When I go to bars, it’s not to get laid, it’s to socialize. I hate loud sports, and avoid those bars. But that’s not based on sex, it’s based on liking sports. WHILE LADIES NIGHTS ARE EXPLICITLY BASED ON SEX. Not on something commonly female…bars could have a Dress night, and it wouldn’t be sexist, because if a dude wanted to he could get in, though he might get made fun of. Instead, these bars are catering to women, ostensibly to get more men and women in, but it’s just as sexist.

                  What about a cigar store charging women to come in? that would discourage women from coming into what is traditionally a masculine place. The economic benefit would be that men might be more likely to come if they knew there weren’t going to be women there, so they didn’t have to be on their best behavior. Would that be ok? If so, you’re at least consistent. It is still sexism, you’re just okay with sexism.

                  • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

                    You amaze me. Nobody is selling you into slavery. Nobody is infringing your civil rights. Nobody is taking anything away from you. You are not materially harmed because some business somewhere gives a woman something. They did not give her something that they took from you.

                    • Bladerunner says:

                      So therefore it’s not sexist? I never equated to slavery. I never said they took my rights. I said it was sexist. And it IS. It is sexism, in that ONE SEX IS PROVIDED A BENEFIT THE OTHER SEX IS NOT. Do you not agree that that is a definition of sexism?

                    • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

                      Discriminating based on sex is not always, all the time, illegal or even immoral sexism.

                    • Bladerunner says:

                      But it is SEXISM. I finally got you to agree to that. Now I ask how it’s any different from discriminating at the door against race? Or are you not against that either?

                    • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

                      What, am i supposed to be scared? It’s not illegitimate discrimination; it’s quite legitimate and justifiable. You are the one whose knee jerks when someone says “sexism” as though it was a legitimate argument, not just one factor to be considered in an overall judgement of fairness or unfairness. The word “sexism” is not a magic spell that ought to make me cringe in fear. Neither is “racism.” The full picture needs to be looked at.

                    • Bladerunner says:

                      Yes. And in rational discourse, actual points need to be made. You haven’t really made any new points. You just said “racism and sexism are okay sometimes” (to paraphrase).

                      So to carry your argument to its logical conclusion, businesses should be able to discriminate as they please. Is that your argument?

                    • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

                      My argument is that no one is being harmed by this particular practice, and so yelling “sexism” like I should be shocked by it is irrelevant. To avoid overposting, I recommend you read my responses closer to the end of the thread.

                    • Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

                      Rand Paul…is that you?!?

                • pantheonoutcast says:

                  “Cheap ass”? I’m not the one being inveigled by the siren song of a $3 watered-down Malibu and pineapple.

      • Groanan says:

        Yes, I think it is wrong for a business to not serve blacks.

        When I heard about Denny’s “Black out” policy where they charged black patrons prior to their meal, and everyone else after their meal, I stopped eating at Denny’s.

        Racism and sexism is only tolerated because we, as a society, tolerate it.
        Adding laws to the books won’t change it, laws are only enforced by those with the power to enforce them, and they abuse this power to the benefit of their political and economic goals.

        I am not saying that we shouldn’t, as a society, try to stop racism and sexism.
        I am saying that we should distrust the government, and not give them more power than is absolutely necessary to keep our society running and to keep us from goring each other.

        Regulation of markets to prevent fraud / torts (such as poisoning) / unfair competition aside, the government should leave the job of niceness police to us, the citizens.

        How can we be “the land of the free” if we do not have such simple freedoms as being jerks to one another?

        • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

          Racism and sexism are wrong because they result in someone being denied their rights, civil or otherwise, or otherwise being denied something that belongs to them.

          In the particular case being argued, nobody was denied anything that rightfully belonged to them. There was no “right” for men to be served half price drinks, therefore that “right” was not violated. No one had anything that they legitimately owned taken away from them in order for someone else to illegitimately benefit.

          • pantheonoutcast says:

            Ok, swap sides for a moment. I own a bar (hypothetically). I am going to charge every female that comes into my bar exactly double the price I charge men for every drink (as well as cover charge) every Wednesday night.

            Is that ok? You’re cool with that?

        • Gulliver says:

          YOU made the decision to not eat at Dennys. What happens when THOUSANDS more decide that is reason enough TO eat at Dennys? I guess in your world, if a business does not want to hire blacks, it is ok, since it is a “niceness” to hire them. If I choose to pay women half what I pay men, that is up to me and my business, who i want to be nice to. And those filthy blacks should just go find their own place to hang out instead of making my restaurant their hang out. They devalue my property. Its an argument made by right wing nut jobs all the time. Glad you could join us Rand Paul.
          You can call it anything you want, but believing what you say makes you a racist and bigot.

          • Bill610 says:

            I think you’ve just illustrated the problem with the reasoning that government action is needed to combat discrimination. If “thousands more” are in favor of the sort of discrimination, then how exactly does a democratic government either have the moral authority, or elect representatives, who will pass laws against the discrimination that “thousands more” support? When we say “there ought to be a law”, for some reason we always imagine that we and our little circle of good-hearted friends will be in charge of drafting, interpreting and enforcing the laws. If you really believe that everyone would discriminate if not for a law against it, shouldn’t you worry more that that evil majority can wield the same power you want to have in order to require discrimination? After all, Jim Crow was the LAW at one time…

    • Voxxen says:

      There is a quote that gets thrown around a lot, perhaps you’ve heard it? I believe its something to the tune of “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

      How in the world do you think the US government and economy got the way it is? Maybe we just didn’t shun the evil, sociopathic monsters heading up our financial institutions hard enough. Thats the ticket! All our fault, we should have given them more stink-eyes.

      • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

        Stop. Just stop now. You are overwrought and you need a good lie-down if you think it’s even close to appropriate to obliquely refer to goddamn “Ladies’ Night” as an evil about which good men must do something. Please, just take a deep breath and listen to yourself.

      • Groanan says:

        You are confusing “good men” with the United States Government.

        Good men should picket the place, or simply not go, if they disagree with its admission policy or cost policy. They should post on their web blogs about how this one club is sexist, and ask other people not to go.

        Good men should also respect each other’s personal property rights, because they know that the other person either paid, or is still paying, to enjoy their property.

        If you give the government the power, you take it away from the property owner, and owning property means less and less (while at the same time, giving the government more tools to abuse).

        The government should not discriminate on race, religion, gender, disability, veteran’s status, etc., but to deny private persons the sole discretion of who to allow on their property is an infringement on freedom that “good men” should not stomach.

  17. You hate your job but you're still working there? says:

    If Ladies Nights are discriminatory then so are senior discounts…

    • Alvis says:

      Age is not a protected group like gender or ethnicity.

      • You hate your job but you're still working there? says:

        Perhaps not in an all-encompassing way like with gender or ethnicity, but they still receive some protection to a certain extent. Things like the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 protects older workers, and several states (I believe New York is included) have statutes that can classify certain situations as hate crimes based on age. So I guess you’re technically right. How about insurance policies? My boyfriend wound up paying $10 more per month to drive the same exact car at the same address because he’s male.

  18. WordWise says:

    It seems that there are double standards and we Gays are just as guilty as the het’ros.

    Consider gay bath houses that discriminate against women. (can you imagine women in the “video room”?)

    It’s a bit of a sticky wicket and perhaps it’s true that the suit should have been brought against the state for licensing such an establishment.

    Hard to tell in this overly-litigious (sp?) society, where the ridiculous and righteous stand side-by-side, in line at the clerks office. N’est ce pas?

  19. speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

    Some of you jerks are beyond belief. This is NOT a civil rights issue. Nobody is refusing to serve you. Nobody is discriminating against you. Part of the reason this policy is in place is to cater to you. You are catered to seven nights a week, anyway. On one of those nights an incentive is offered to a normally very underrepresented clientele. Maybe the real civil rights issue is that women are somehow made to feel unwelcome the other six nights of the week.

    Comparing this tempest in a beer bottle with the civil rights cause, anyway, is a bit like saying that freedom of worship is infringed when someone can’t kneel to pray on the 40-yard line of a football stadium while a game is going on. It is not only beside the point, but damages the cause it purports to support.

    • Bladerunner says:

      I’m sorry that you don’t see sexism when it’s obvious.
      I’m sorry that you feel as though the world caters to groups you aren’t.

      But unfortunately, that doesn’t make you right, or me a jerk, when I point out facts. Just because you don’t want to agree that it’s sunny outside doesn’t make it any less sunny. And letting women in free, but charging men, is by definition sexist, as it prefers one sex over another, which is the definition of sexism. If this situation were reversed, people would be more upset, methinks. It has become fashionable of late to say that men and caucasians can’t be discriminated against, somehow.

      For example: reverse racism. That very term is racist, but it’s ok, because it’s against caucasians. And ladies’ nights are okay, because the poor women need to get let in free!

      BS, plain and simple. I get angry when I know ANYBODY is being disciminated against, whether or not they’re of my sex or race, because it’s BS. So though this may seem “innocuous”, the point is 100% valid. Though the suit may have been brought up poorly, the point is that if there’s no laws that are against this, then there are no laws against what you WOULD agree to be less innocuous forms of sexism, or by extension racism, et al.

      • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

        I just told you, in another post, that “sexism” is not a magic word that absolves you from thinking about the rest of the argument. It is not a “shut-up” spell. Calling something sexism, furthermore, does not make it so. The fact that something may appear to be discrimination based on sex does not mean it is illegitimate or unjustifiable.

        You are not harmed in any way by the business’s decision to give a woman something. It is not a zero-sum game, to use another phrase. Nothing is being taken away from you. You are not made poorer by the decision to give a woman something, any more than you are made less than human by the fact that women can have babies.

        Get over yourself, dude. It’s not like you’re on a sinking ship and someone pushed you out of a lifeboat and gave it to a woman. If they abolished Ladies’ Night at every bar in the country, you would not be a single bit better off than you are now.

        • MrAP says:

          It’s the same idea as telling dark-skinned individuals that they have to sit at the back of the bus. Your argument would be, “But nobody is denying them the right to ride the bus, they just have to sit in the back.” You can’t discriminate based on race or sex. That means you can’t have different prices based on someone’s gender. I also see that you have failed in every single reply to explain exactly HOW you think men are being catered to every other night of the week. Explain exactly how everyone being treated equally means that men are being catered to.

  20. Clyde Barrow says:

    This lawyer reminds me of the kind of guy that just “don’t get it,,,at all”. So he’s upset and uses the law to get his way? I’ve had women pay my way lots of time in many ways such as dinner, drinks, and weekend trips and even gas. If you have a personality and get along with women, it’ll happen sooner or later whether the women are friends or girlfriends. This lawyer must be a real fricking douche if he cannot even manage having a woman buy him anything such a drink. lol.

  21. speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

    The trouble with this whole argument is that some dog-in-a-manger laughingstock imagines that he is victimized by a practice that manifestly does not harm him. If there were no Ladies’ Nights at all, no wrong would be righted. Drinks would not be or become cheaper for him, or for anyone. Many benefits that now accrue to him through bars being more profitable and women being potentially more available would be unavailable to him. The liquor industry would be less free, not more free.

    An injustice harms someone. Ladies’ Night harms no one. The only thing it even arguably harms is the pathetic feelings of a few men who take it into their heads to complain that they’re entitled to something that is not an entitlement.

  22. Bladerunner says:

    There are two main points here:

    1, is Ladies Night sexist? I maintain that by definition, it is, in that it is giving preferential treatment to one sex over another. The reasons are irrelevant to the discussion as to whether this is sexism. The insurance companies, for example, have HARD DATA, built on YEARS OF RESEARCH, that shows why young males drive up rates, due to the real expense that they add as a subgroup. They have a reason for their sexism, but it is still sexism.

    2. Should we prevent businesses from being sexist?
    In the case of insurance companies, there is mathematical proof that backs up the ideas they express. If there weren’t, they wouldn’t be able to charge the rates they charge. I posit that racism/sexism, et cetera, without a very specific mathematical reason, is immoral and, if left unchecked, tramples on civil rights. Can a private bus company make black people sit in the back? Is society not outraged when blacks are forced wait longer for tables at restaurants? Granted, that’s RACE, and not SEX, but I see no difference, and no one has pointed one out to me, between discrimination based on one thing you can’t control due to birth, and discrimination based on another thing you can’t control because of birth.

    Speedwell, your point that “this is not a zero-sum game” has no validity. I’m discussing sexism as an ethical and societal issue, not whether it costs me more. And, in point of fact, you haven’t proven that it DOESN’T hurt me. If ladies night got abolished, they MIGHT lower the cover, mightn’t they? They also might not. We don’t know. Which is why your argument is stupid. Most of them, in fact, boil down to just “yeah, so? Get over it”. That is not a legitimate line of discourse. If you want to defend sexism or racism, please, do so. Don’t just say “I’m not afraid of those terms” as though therefore you’re right.

    • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

      What’s it to you? No, seriously, what’s it to you? I’ve got a bad case of SIWOTI syndrome right now, I admit, by posting on this at all, given that I have no vested interest in Ladies’ Night and in fact don’t participate in them. But what is your vested interest? No, don’t pretend you’re all noble and anti-injustice and crap. What got your goat about this particular issue and not all the other arguably sexist injustice in the world? Is it just that you get P.O.’d (not to be confused with our strident friend upthread) when a girl gets something and a boy doesn’t?

      • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

        Let me elaborate that I see nothing unjust about Ladies’ Night, so your continuing attempt to brand my arguments as “racist/sexist” is so much blather to me. If someone took something away from the men that was rightfully theirs and gave it to a woman to whom it did not rightfully belong, then I could understand the unjustice. But this? This is not any such thing at all.

        • Bladerunner says:

          This is clearly a case of one sex being given a benefit simply because of their sex. If that is okay, then by extension, the opposite (men not being charged cover, but women being charged) is okay. As, unless you make some kind of point against it, the same thing with race (Whites night, or blacks night, or whatever). And at what point do you say that it’s not okay? What if on Ladies Night, men were charged a 1000000 dollar cover? Would that be okay?

          I apololgize if I seem repetitious. I keep branding your arguments as sexist, because they are. You are defending sexism. And you once agreed, but since then have said “well, not really, because it’s not like they’re being PUNISHED, it’s just that the women are being REWARDED”. That same argument was put forth MANY times in the past, and struck down as sophistric babble by the courts every time. if you’re defending sexism, that’s fine. But don’t make brass tacks about it. Just say “Treating women better than men is okay because”, and I won’t feel the need to remind you of what you’re defending.

          • OmnipotentMLE says:

            But they are attempting to even out the male-female ratio to keep it in the men’s favor. The women are getting discounts because their presence serves as a marketing tool for the club.

            A bar or nightclub wants to be seen as a cool, hip place to meet members of the opposite sex. As a woman, I can probably go into most bars and the odds are in my favor that I will meet someone, or at least someone will try to meet me- I have no incentive to go to your bar in particular. If you offer me discounted drinks or free admission, I will choose your bar over the bars I don’t get discounts at. If your bar becomes known as a place where lots of girls go out, there will be more men who will want to hang out at your bar. Therefore you make more money.

            Are you going to say the bars and clubs discriminate against couples because they are trying to attract single people?

            • Bladerunner says:

              I’m trying to say only that there is clear discrimination here. Not the subtle kind of discrimination, where its’ a “vibe” or “feel”, but specific, concrete discrimination, where one group is receiving benefits that another group is not. And I’m simply pointing out that the reasons for that are essentially irrelevant to the argument. Supposedly its for “the guys’ own good”, but I don’t buy it. And if it’s for the bar’s bottom line, that opens the door for other kinds of discrimination, which is why “Fiscal sense” is not a usually considered a reason to do things (there were businesses who’ve gotten in trouble for making black people wait longer to sit because they supposedly tip less and so therefore should be distributed evenly amongst the servers…was that okay?)

              How could a court differentiate between discrimination against males (which is okay, apparently), and discrimination against females (my cigar store analogy, or choose your own)? If we say discrimination is okay in this instance, why are we saying it, and where can the line be drawn?

              You’re implying that this is some kind of affirmative action, for a case where there is no previous wrong (affirmative action was racism with the justification that it was due to previous racism in the opposite direction). That seems a bit ridiculous. I would also say that “couples” versus “singles” are not a protected class. We’ve equated gender to religion due to the whole “born that way” thing as a society.

              I also reject the argument about how since women will be attracted to the free, that will overall increase the business of the club as more men come too to meet the more girls. One, that’s just conjecture, and hasn’t been shown to happen. Two, whether that’s true or not is irrelevant; that’s logic that can get you pretty quick down the rabbit hole (The restaurant that was adjusting seating based on race could say that since that race annoyed their servers with their lack of tip, it keeps their servers happier, which keeps their customers happier and keeps them coming back).

              I know that this whole case seems like “No big deal”, and to a certain extent get the “Get over it” mentality. HOWEVER, I fail to see how the guy is wrong, in his claim that there is discrimination occurring.

              If he loses this, then the logic of discrimination cases becomes unsound, and the more odious versions become allowable. If that’s the argument being made by people, that’s fine, but I think they should realize that they’re making it. To be honest, I’m not even sure I’m against that argument. Maybe businesses shouldn’t be forced to be non-discriminatory. But I know the repercussions of that idea.

      • Bladerunner says:

        What’s it to me? Call me argumentative; I don’t like injustice whenever presented. I guess I, too, suffer from SIWOTI. I never let anything go. When it’s just average trollery, I can ignore, but when people seem to be expressing their real opinions, without realizing the ramifications of what they’re saying, then I often feel compelled to respond. And I’m not one to, once I’ve gotten into an argument, end it until it has been resolved.

        I’m just as strident when it’s a woman getting the short end of the stick, I assure you. This PARTICULAR article happens to be a bout a case where the sexism falls on the anti-male side of the line. And then I read comments that appeared to support it, without acknowledging the fact that they were supporting sexism.

    • Gulliver says:

      I can make a MATHMATICAL argument that if I allow ladies in for free it attracts more men who spend MORE money. It is a FINANCIAL decision as much as insurance rates are.If you think the bars and clubs do it to keep men away, you are just not intelligent enough to have this conversation.

      • Bladerunner says:

        Show me the numbers. And show me the numbers as they relate, over time, when not done. No bar does that. They just say “It’s common sense”. Common sense is what tells you the earth’s flat, as someone once said.

        Women go out. And they want to go out. Offering ladies nights will skew the numbers to them going out on those nights, and to those places. But I question whether there’s a NET CHANGE. Remember, with insurance companies, you’re required to have insurance, and so therefore, the insurance companies are required to offer to you (barring, again, special circumstances).
        Also, in the case of insurance companies: the young males cost more. Their being insured has a net drain of a greater amount than if they were not. Hence the higher rate. Are you saying it costs more to serve men drinks than women? Cause I’m gonna go on record and say: BS. In fact, I can anecdotally say the opposite is likely true: I usually see more women drinking mixed drinks than men, which require more effort to make. But that’s anecdotal.

        My point was we allow OCCASIONAL sexism as a necessary evil, in special circumstances. I see nothing special about a bar. Thus, to continue the argument to its logical conclusion, therefore any establishment can be as discriminatory as it likes. No whites, high cover for blacks, no girls allowed, Men prohibited, etc. Which is fine, if that’s your argument.

  23. IThinkThereforeIAm says:

    As far as I know it’s not that men pay more, but that women pay less. Men pay regular prices.
    I guess it’s the same as with the fine distinction between the “credit card surcharge” and “cash discount”.

    • Bladerunner says:

      The difference there, though, is contractual. And the credit card companies could choose to say that they’re the same, they’e simply chosen to say they are not, because they’re concerned about PR, and don’t want to have people not using their cards because of a “Surcharge”, while at the same time don’t want to anger retailers by not allowing them. The CC companies decided that was a compromise.

      Whereas here, this is a protected class. The concern is NOT about PR, but about equal treatment.

  24. smo0 says:

    Out here we have industry night…. so if you’re not an employee of the “bar and club” scene… should you sue?

    LoL… anyway, ladies night was invented FOR men… when are people going to realize this.. and WHY IS EVERYONE 30 YEARS BEHIND LAS VEGAS ON THIS TOPIC?!

    We do it right.

    Ur doin it rong.

    • Bladerunner says:

      Employment sector is not a protected group. So no, you should not sue.

      And I’m really really tired of being told ladies night was invented for me. That may have been the thought, but it’s never been backed up.

      (Kind of off topic, but its kind of like when municipalities give HUGE subsidies to Wal-Mart or to sports teams, and end up getting screwed in the end, with no benefit and only net loss. When justifying it, they always say it’s “obviously” going to increase revenue…and yet it doesn’t. So to bring it back on point, if you’re going to say there’s a net benefit to men, point at the statistics, please…there aren’t any to my knowledge. Not saying they aren’t there, just that people should stop saying they’re there when there’s no evidence of that. And besides, that, it’s immaterial to the point, which is that it’s sexist, by definition, and that if that’s okay, where does the line get drawn.)

  25. jaredwilliams says:

    Ladies night is meant to get girls into the bar so guys have girls to talk to and to look at…Why would you complain!?

    • Bladerunner says:

      Because it’s incredibly sexist?

      • jaredwilliams says:

        Get over it, women have had to deal with the raw end of sexism forever. Buy a 6 pack at home and pre-game you baby.

        • Bladerunner says:

          So… you’re a giant hypocrite?

          Wrong is wrong. Unlike you, I argue for both sexes, whoever is being treated unfairly. Your argument that “women have had it hard before, so therefore men should have it hard now” is…scary, to say the least.