Comments on: lady judge says “ladies’ nights” are not unconstitutional

By: flea

flea — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:33:42 +0000

I was suggesting that the discrimination here is against women, not men. Guess I didn’t get that across. In any event, I’m not a zealot on this one, I am genuinely on the fence and simply offering an alternative theory. I’m sure my antipathy has much to do with having lived in Vegas, where the ladies’ night specials on the Strip are frequently extended only to those with short skirts and implants, ushered to the front of the line. In that context, the atmosphere that the proprietors are trying to create is fairly transparent. But ‘ugly’ ain’t no protected class. In any event, I see you no longer wish to debate, so I shall cease, but end with a thanks for adopting my capital BOOBS.

By: David Giacalone

David Giacalone — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:03:50 +0000

Hello, Flea. You seem to be the one reducing women to BOOBS. Many men would like to meet a woman at a bar, indeed go to a bar in the hope of meeting a person who happens to be a woman, and they have far less chance of that happening if there are many more men than women at the bar. I never went to a bar looking merely for boobs (or any other body parts), and I’m surprised that you think that little of women.

Because I do not see the discrimination toward men here to be major or serious (and many men consider it an advantage), I think being able to choose another bar is an adquate rejoinder. Of course, there can be serious gender discrimination, but that does not seem to be happening here. The difference between this type of discrimination and racial discrimination is that the race discriminated against is almost always meant to be harmed, denigrated, excluded or injured, not for a reason as benign as this one.

I feel no need to persuade you and am more than happy for you to disagree.

By: flea

flea — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:19:25 +0000

David, you note that sexism may consist of “attempting to maintain or impose stereotypes of masculinity on men or femininity on women in order to limit their freedom by restricting the gender to particular roles.” Do you not think there’s a valid argument that by creating a ‘meat market’ for men by encouraging the presence of lots of BOOBS, that that’s precisely what this business model is based on? It seems to ratify stereotypes that women are there to get doted on, picked up, and taken care of – because they don’t have to pay…they’re the bait. As a chick, I rarely go to ‘ladies night’ type bars, because I do feel I’m being objectified, and the freaking bar can pay for its OWN entertainment to attract business, thank you.

And by the way, “they can go to another bar” is not a substantive answer. It is a capitalist trope. If you are always for the triumph of the free market over social ideals, fine, say so. BUT, if you would not say the same for race, the comment is dismissive and lacks any real argument or merit unless you distinguish why gender discrimination is justified by market realities.

By: David Giacalone

David Giacalone — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:53:33 +0000

Hi, Karl. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. The harm from Ladies’ Nights is so easily avoided by simply going to another bar that it is difficult for me to get worked up about its effects — especially since I believe they benefit so many from both genders who willing go to such an event, and enjoy a full house.

As I stated when writing about charges of sexism during the primary campaigns here in the US a few months ago, “I believe that sexism does not exist unless the actor/speaker has hatred or contempt for the other gender, or believes that one gender is superior to the other, or is attempting to maintain or impose stereotypes of masculinity on men or femininity on women in order to limit their freedom by restricting the gender to particular roles.” I do not believe bar owners who hold Ladies’ Nights fit that definition (while those who banned all women from their clubs or leagues did). All sexual differentiation is not sexism.

By: Karl

Karl — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:07:38 +0000

Koiji, of course it is blatantly sexist. It doesn’t benefit men who are happily married and there to socialize with friends & family, it doesn’t help gay men, it doesn’t benefit anyone except women.

BUT it DOES force ALL men who enter the club to pay additional charges to cover the women who drink for less/free.

This is just a demonstration that women are given a pussy pass in every avenue of society.

It amazes me that men’s golf clubs are forced to allow women, while women’s golf clubs (e.g. the FPGA) do not have to allow men.

Surely these golf clubs are not ‘representatives of the state’?

Again, this case simply demonstrates that women are given a pussy pass, that sexism is perfectly acceptable under the law so long as it is women who benefit.

By: kouji

kouji — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 18:19:21 +0000

the context is indeed different. does seem reasonable to conclude that this practice may also benefit the men.