per incorrectly spelled name Geoff's request, I have added a poll. It was hard to get the complexity of the ideas into the short poll options but I did my best. Option 1 is for the Rand Paul fans - a private businesses is like your private home - have the right to decide who is allowed to come in and if they have to pay for the privilege. If you don't like it, you can go elsewhere. Options 2 and 3 are for the ones who see a difference between ladies nights and other discrimination - the difference is the reasoning. 2 is for the people who were touching on the argument that ladies nights are not harmfully discriminating against men and in fact they help men. The motive is just to bring in more business and not to exclude some group of people you don't like. This is a possible justification for ladies nights 3 is for those who mentioned how discriminating against men just isn't as big a deal since we will put up with it because we have always had the upper hand in history, so we are willing to relinquish that control. Option 4 is for people who believe both of these are valid reasons Option 5 is for the people saying none of these "nights" should be allowed since they are discriminatory. Let's see the votes!
What I mean is. I don't know about all this equality shit. I'm not sure we were ever meant to be equal. I think men were "meant" to go and get food and women were "meant" to make babies and make them grow strong. That's why males have broad shoulders and females broad hips and big tits. Having said that, I do support equality. But it has to be equality that works both ways. Not some affirmative action stuff like that girl suggested earlier.
Yes, equality is shit. I'm sorry, I'll go sell my olympic barbell and my natural sciences textbooks and get pregnant right now. Oh, and I'll have my thick deltoids removed, since only men have broad shoulders, according to you...Lol...
A note on equality Oh, go easy on him, VI. Not everybody is equally endowed by nature, so it's entirely predictable that some will fail to see, understand, or accept any difference between equality before the law and the idea that you and I are probably of different height.
Whatever... I don't know what you want to prove with your post. That somehow there's no difference between the male and female body?
Like I said. I support equality 100%. I'm just saying that men and women are not the same. Men can't breastfeed for instance. But they can go to work when the female is unable to.
I'd hazard that the overwhelming majority of (single) heterosexual males are in favor of ladies nights. The entire purpose of such being to aggregate a large quantity of drunk single heterosexual women in one place, and so attract said males. It's not as if males aren't already paying for most of the drinks being consumed by said ladies on the regular, non-ladies-night nights, in the first place.
Bi is good too, or if they just make out with each other for shots. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So really this has nothing to do with the principle of discrimination, it just has to do with the result of that action. It's not that ladies nights are alright because the business owner has a right to decide who gets in, but rather because the end result is good? I think it is hard to take a position contingent on the end result and you really need to address the principle. If just the end result matters, what about a ladies night where the cost to men was becoming so prohibitive so as to effectively bar a lot of men from entering? What if it literally was a ladies-only night, and men were not allowed in? If you take the "end result" position, you need to waver and decide a price whereby the majority of men will still come in and enjoy themselves and everyone is better off, and this sort of utilitarian calculation is arbitrary. On the other hand, the position that business owners have a right to decide who comes in and for what price is a position that is consistent.
This is where we're at? I tend to think it has more to do with the idea that, "Well, yeah, technically he's got a point, but ... really? This is where we're at?" People recognize the inherent inequality of "ladies' night". Most don't care, though, because it's a harmless social ritual°. And many think it utterly ridiculous that ladies' night is so analogous to whites only. (Anecdote for the fun of it: Once upon a time, maybe eight or nine years ago, we at Sciforums encountered a self-declared alpha-male who wanted to go forth and kill all the Muslims in revenge for 9/11. Well, all the Muslims except a few. Some of their women he would keep alive, as long as they were hot enough to fuck. I only mention this because I wonder who would resent those women for their evil sexism, since the only reason they would be alive would be their womanhood. That's kind of how ridiculously the ladies' night = whites only question strikes me.) ____________________ Notes: ° harmless social ritual — Actually, no, it's not, but the context of its harm is well removed from the present question of discrimination against men. See Grossman, previously linked in this discussion, for the basics.
I would personally sooner pay $20 a drink in a bar full of eye candy, than $10 in a bar full of back hair and sausage.
I dislike discrimination too, but who is it grabbing backsides, wrenching at hair, surrounding women in groups and not letting them out of corners, and threatening violence when their sexual touching is refused? Who was it shaking his fist in my face because I didn't want to go out with him? Men. All these fucking pathogens were men, if only in chromosome and hormone. Someone solve that problem and I'll stop supporting single sex events.
What about it? What is the specific principle, here? Bear in mind, again, that if you ban ladies nights, the main source of complaints at such a ban are going to come from exactly the single men who are currently being charged more to attend such events. They don't see these practices are harming them - rather the opposite. Such promotions would have died out long ago for lack of profitability, otherwise.
Tiassa concidering some sexual discrimination cases this is not actually that unreasonable, for instance a feminist group took gentleman's clubs to the antidiscrimination tribunal at the same time that fernwood gyms opened up (female only). The scouts were required to take girls but the guides weren't. There was also a case where a boy took his school to the tribunal because the school refused to allow him to have long hair where the girls are allowed to. He won BTW. BTW it could be argued that concidering that women don't have to pay to get into clubs, don't have to pay for there drinks, don't have to pay for dates ect that they don't NEED as much money as men and therefore "equal pay" is unequalPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What is "this?" Did I say that ladies nights are alright? If I implied that these events are alright, it would have been because the disparate impact in question is actually desired by the men at least as much as the women. The issue with ladies nights, is not an issue of men being treated poorly or unfairly. Again, (single) men are generally quite happy with such - the entire point of putting on a ladies night is exactly to market your bar to men. And not to create some space where men are excluded and marginalized. If you're going to complain about ladies nights, complain about their reinforcement of sexist roles wherein women are commodities to be competed for, by plying them with free drinks. Except that whole mess has as much to do with the bar - and dating - scenes writ large, as ladies nights in particular. You need to get down off those stilts, and leave those windmills alone. That's the entire point of ladies nights - to increase the ratio of females to males inside the bar. Wouldn't make any money. That's why nobody does that. I don't need to do any of that - the free market does it for me, ensuring that the price differentials exhibited by ladies nights are always around the optimal for ensuring that as many men come to the bar as possible. That's their entire premise - you don't make an extra profit by letting ladies in for free and selling them drinks at a discount. You make an extra profit off of the hordes of dudes who show up in pursuit of said ladies. If an event isn't drawing large masses of males happy to pay, then it isn't really a "ladies night" to speak of. What might happen in some other hypothetical situation that is totally different and aimed at oppressing men, would be an entirely different story. Fortunately, nothing I say about ladies nights has any bearing on that. Consistently unethical and immoral, sure. Business owners have no defensible right to discriminate against customers on the basis of gender, race, nationality, etc. If there's some exception to that for ladies nights, then it's exactly that nobody is actually being discriminated against. The ladies get cheap entry/drinks, the dudes get an improved gender ratio (and drunker targets). It's unequal, sure, but I'd have a hard time insisting that said inequality runs against the males.
So you're saying that charging one gender 20 and the other 10 is somehow equal? I don't care who is complaining. Equality it's not. Personally I think it's like whatever... Who cares? It's ladies night. I went to one in vegas once and i was like OMFG these females are hawt. All looking like a goddamn million dollars.
