BACK IN JULY, I wrote a rather scathing post about men -- or, as I wrote at the time, the "weak, soulless excuses for men these people are" -- who were all hot and bothered over the practice of nightclubs offering "ladies' night" promotions. Some of these men have actually gone to court, in an attempt to prove the promotions discriminate against men through offering women free admission or cheaper drinks, and I was appalled at such conduct.
After all, I argued, no real man would argue against "ladies' night" promotions. That's because "ladies' night" promotions are net positives for men in attendance at these nightclubs, because they boost female attendance at these venues, and men approve of partying with women. Plus, even if one wants to argue about whether these practices discriminate against men, the supposed damage is so small that no real man should complain about it. I mean, I'm sorry, but paying $5 to get into some nightspot when women pay $0 -- and on some crappy night, like a Tuesday -- is not morally equivalent to facing a literacy test when registering to vote.
Anyway, I wrote this post back in July and since my comments weren't working, it disappeared into the vast Internet ether and no one said a thing. There were no angry retorts on other blogs, no impassioned e-mails, no nothing. So you can imagine my surprise when over the past couple of days, I did get comments from two men who vehemently disagreed with me. Since my original post was so old, I thought I should respond with a new post to
trample out the vintage address these disagreements.
I would note that, to properly address my commenters' concerns, I am responding line-by-line to their posts. Those readers who would like to read their posts in their entirety, without my interruptions, may do so at the original post in the above link.
Anyway, our first commenter, who went solely by the name of "Thomas," writes:
Dude, you think Mr.Hollander's lawsuit is a joke? Do you know that in several states, this practice is illegal? in Hawaii, Iowa, Oregon, and in California also??
So what if it's illegal in several states? That just shows the various states you mentioned -- particularly Oregon -- are screwed up. It does not take away from my fundamental point -- that this state of affairs is not something which men should get all hot and bothered about. Just because the state legislatures of Oregon and Hawaii and Iowa and California took an extra dose of the stupid pill does not mean the other states in the union ought follow them in their idiocy.
This is discrimination, period. I personally don't care, this is what the law calls " De Minimis", they don't really enforce it. But any man, has the right to demand equality.
If you personally don't care, then why did you write the comment? Besides, if it is truly a de minimis matter, then it's not something to get worked up about, then is it? As for "demanding equality," if this is all men have to get worked up about, there's precious little deserving of complaint.
What about homosexual men? why they have to pay more if they are not interested in females? The tell me that they can go to " gay nightclubs", that's nonsense. They can go wherever the hell they want to go.
I'm sorry, but that's a bit of a non sequitur. A homosexual who goes to an establishment offering a "ladies' night" promotion is not being treated differently than any other man, thus nullifying any charge of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Also, since no one is forcing him to go to any particular establishment, one would be hardpressed to say that he was being damaged as a result of paying a few dollars more for his cover charge or drinks than women at the same establishment.
The state of New Jersey made ladies' night legal, but that can't last for long, somebody will take it to the Supreme Court, and guess what? The law in NJ will get overturned. True, one out 700,000 men would demand equal pricing, men have lots of ego, lot of pride, and they don't want to be humilliated due to peer pressure, being called names. Other men don't care at all, they don't have nothing to lose, that is Mr. Hollander.
Sure, somebody may well take it to the Supreme Court. Get back to me when the Supreme Court agrees to hear such a case. That's another kettle of fish entirely.
Btw, do you know that most female lawyers agree with him? I guess he can get laid with them, or he still can get laid moving to Thailand. This " sex-rationale" is just stereotype and just plain stupid.
So what if "most female lawyers" agree with Mr Hollander? I've made no claims about what women may or may not feel about the matter; I am arguing the point solely from a man's point of view.
Anyway, that was our first comment. I think our second commenter, who went by the handle of "dudeasp," had a better grasp on my argument, even if he erroneously believes I am wrong. "Dudeasp" wrote as follows:
I am a traditional 30 something male. Who always pays on a date. And I don't have trouble finding dates or girlfriends. So please don't accuse me of being gay, or not being able to get laid just because you can't defend your position. I don't have any problem in that department.
Hey, pal, you brought it up, not me!
OK, now that we have established that. I think women should pay equal cover and equal prices for drinks. As a gentleman, I want to deal with ladies, not rude obnoxious golddiggers. And furthermore, I don't want to subsidize a bunch of girls whom I don't know, nor want to know. It is just plain wrong, and has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with chivalry.
I would agree that it is sound advice to avoid "rude obnoxious golddiggers," as you put it. However, I don't believe one can assume that women who go to a bar or nightclub because they're offered economic incentives to do so count as golddiggers. I mean, in most cases, we're talking about five bucks. The good life can't be achieved on five bucks.
As for the subsidy question, how can you argue that through your paying a cover charge that you're subsidizing women at an establishment? It's the bar or nightclub owner who is doing the subsidizing, in the hopes he'll gain more business through offering those incentives.
Besides, no one is forcing you to go to the establishment in question. So if you don't want to "subsidize" women that you have no intention of getting to know better, then don't go to the bar offering the ladies a price break. Go to your neighborhood bar or take out that girl from the office for a nice seafood dinner. It's hard for me to sympathize with your position when you admit from the get-go that you have no intention of meeting the girls at a bar offering one of thse promotions. OK, fine. Go somewhere else. Problem solved.
Its a matter of fairness and justice, and a bunch of women milking the system and men for what they are worth.
Last time I checked, it was the bar and nightclub owners who were all for "ladies' nights." As a result, I don't think you can argue that "ladies' nights" are Strategy 37B of the Great Feminine Global Conspiracy and their Grand Campaign to Make Men Obsolete by 2050. That you would argue that women are abusing the system and men for their own gain, to be blunt, suggests you have far deeper issues than I can hope to address in this post.
What is chivalry these days anyway, what is the womens role in chivalry? Ever ask yourself that? What standard are women held to? What is our expectation of them in terms of chivalry? I do my part. Feminism has killed their role.
No, I have never asked myself that. That's not the point. You call yourself a gentleman and I like to think I am one myself. The whole idea of being gentlemanly is that you hold your own conduct to a higher standard regardless of what happens around you. Let's say you're out on a date, and you do the gentlemanly thing and you move to hold the door open for your date, and your date responds with a smart-aleck comment. Now, you might not think much of that; after all, you were only trying to be nice and do what you felt was proper, and it might not exactly inspire you to ask her out for a second date. But why in the name of God would you let that concern you? It goes with the territory in this day and age; surely it is not difficult to adapt accordingly.
Its not about the money, its the principle. How would this play out if the roles were reversed? Should historically girls colleges give male admits a free ride, while only women pay tuition? That sounds like an idea? What would the feminists say about that?
Beats me. However, I have heard no complaints about preferences given to men who undertake studies in traditionally female-dominated fields such as nursing. That said, I don't think widening the argument makes a lot of sense in this case. After all, we're not talking about college admissions or awarding contracts -- we're talking about whether having women receive discounts at a nightclub really and truly hurts men. In my view, the answer is a clear and definitive No.Posted by Benjamin Kepple at December 17, 2007 07:06 PM | TrackBack