From the San Diego Union-Tribune:
Lawyers quietly settled all the suits last month. Seven nightspots in the Gaslamp and elsewhere in San Diego County agreed to pay a total of $125,000 to two men who accused them of violating a decades-old California civil-rights law. […]
The lawsuits were filed earlier this year on behalf of two men who spent time trying to get ladies night discounts at a variety of bars and nightclubs, only to be rebuffed and “laughed at,” according to the suits.
I can’t say that this strikes me as a terribly important issue, but offhand I agree with the rulings: people shouldn’t be offered different prices for the same services on account of their sex. That seems pretty basic. On the other hand, this ruling does legitimize my belief that most of the things men’s rights advocates make a fuss about are basically petty and unimportant..
Just as we need to protect the free speech rights of, say, Nazis to keep free speech, you need to prevent discrimination due to sex when it’s applied to men in order for it to go away. Is “ladies night” price discrimination by sex a small issue? Remove the part of that question that’s in quotes and tell me you don’t care about it.
When I was in school in NY, they passed a law against things like Ladies Night — but not just Ladies Night. They also banned any “offers” that would or could induce “binge drinking” — open bar, $5 drink all you can nights, drink specials, etc. It had nothing to do with sexism, it had to do with binge drinking, though.
I’m sure this goes without saying, but “Ladies’ Nights” weren’t really created with the intent of benefitting women at all. Women are usually smaller and tend to drink less, not to mention have less disposable income. Women are given free passes into clubs and sometimes free drinks in order to lure men into the club with the hopes of scoring with some drunk chick. In the charming words of one of my former bar managers with regard to Ladies’ Night: “Tits and ass sell booze.”
It floors me how this gets twisted around to an “Oh, poor me,” piss and moan from men’s groups.
Sure, get rid of it. But shit, do it for the right reason, you know?
Huh. While I’ve never been out drinking, I always thought that, as flea mentioned, “ladies’ nights” were always more for the men than for the women. Notice how the radio ads always begin: “Ladies! Ladies! Ladies!” It’s not an address, it’s a feeding call.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this law suit started out one of two ways: the two men who filed the law suit were trying to get the feeding frenzies shut down and found a way to do it, or the two men were just trying to pressure the bars into having a men’s night and ended up shooting themselves in the foot.
I can’t really imagine anyone seriously trying to stand up for “men’s rights” in a situation that was so obviously designed to benefit men.
bean brings up an interesting point, though. How much of this decision had to do with the courts finding a good way to cut back on binge drinking? [shrugs]
In any case, I agree with Amp that the ruling makes sense even if it’s petty.
Methinks it was started by angry (and cheap) men who didn’t consider that the bars want women to populate their meat market.
Nevertheless, don’t give the OLCC any ideas – it’s bad enough with them being racist and prohibiting Happy Hour advertising to give them another way to meddle.
There’s a Comic-Con joke hidden in here somewhere, but for the life of me, I can’t find it.
Sigh…
On some issues I find myself being purposefully ignorant to equal rights issues simply because I want the alternative.
That is; I am sure that as far as the constitution and equality are concerned men and ladies should not be treated differently when it comes to getting into a bar. But I don’t give a shit, because I want lots of girls in the bar.
Am I the only one who thinks it’s okay for a privately owned organization to have whatever policies it wants so long as everyone to whom those policies apply has chosen to be there and is free to leave at any time?
If I own a bar, I should be able to have any rules I want about who can and cannot come in. I should be able to have a lesbian bar that excludes men, a karaoke bar with a singing test to enter, a KKK bar where a drop of black blood gets you kicked out, or a bar where everyone is welcome but I set the prices based on what I think people will drink and the way I think is best to get the mix of people I want there.
If you don’t like “Ladies’ Night” or think it’s sexist, DON’T GO. If enough people agree with you, bars that are sexist in this way will close down for lack of business. But if some people like to go to bars where they know there’ll be lots of drunk women, or if women want to go someplace cheap where men have to pay more, why should the mere existence of such a place bother anyone else? If you don’t like the rules, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. Better yet, start your own bar and charge whatever prices you like to whomever you like.
I think that people who discriminate based on arbitrary characteristics like race or sex are despicable, and I avoid associating with them whenever possible. But not only do I think that “Ladies’ Night” is not real discrimination, I think that even if it were, it’s not the job of the legal system to enforce my preference that other people not have discriminatory ideas about how to run a business.
Amy Phillips writes: “Am I the only one who thinks it’s okay for a privately owned organization to have whatever policies it wants so long as everyone to whom those policies apply has chosen to be there and is free to leave at any time?”
Ummmmm, yes. In fact there are laws against this. These laws are the reason that we no longer have segregated buses, restaurants and water fountains. What an awfully ignorant statement given that we know that “Seperate but equal” is not equal.
Amy Phillips also writes: “If you don’t like “Ladies’ Night” or think it’s sexist, DON’T GO. If enough people agree with you, bars that are sexist in this way will close down for lack of business.”
Ah yes. I remember how effective that was in shutting down restaurants that didn’t allow people of color. See, it’s not a matter of enough people agreeing with you sometimes. It is a matter of constitutional protection.
The civil rights movement wasn’t just about laws, it had to fight customs that discriminated — one of the main arguments against the civil rights movement was that businesses should be allowed to serve, or not serve, anyone they chose to. Look at the past and see the results; it wasn’t pretty.
Jake’s right — look at the length of time the segregated businesses in the US lasted. Market pressure was not what changed them. The other side of that is that people grow up learning from their surroundings, and surroundings that allow discrimination teach them that discrimination is A-okay. This also makes it harder for people to speak out against discrimination, as they fear a backlash. Keep in mind also that there are one h___ of a lot of places where you don’t have choices in bars, stores, etc. There’s one or two and that’s it. Market forces can’t do diddly in the effective monopoly situation of a small town.
“On the other hand, this ruling does legitimize my belief that most of the things men’s rights advocates make a fuss about are basically petty and unimportant.”
As a balance, did “men’s groups” really get up in arms about it, or just these 2 money-grabbing whiners and their shysters?
I think most men don’t care, and as evidence, how long have “ladies’ nights” been around, and how many men have sued over it?
So to say that this is evidence of pettiness among men’s groups is unfair. They may be, but this is not proof of it. As for the unimportance of their issues, well…
Most men’s groups focus on the injustice that women never pay child support to men with custody. And that it is quite easy for a woman to claim harassment and little recourse for men if they’re innocent.
And many men are forced to pay child support even for another man’s kids, whether due to fraudulent paternity claims or adulterous mothers. So they do have valid issues. It is non sequitur that this legitimize your belief that men’s groups have no sincere issues.
Most men’s groups focus on the injustice that women never pay child support to men with custody.
Without speaking to the rest of your claims, can I point out that this one is spectacularly untrue?
But you are right to say that my comment was unfair. It was, and I shouldn’t have said it.
I wondered why no men’s rights groups were named in the article you provided, Amp. Normally, they love publicity, especially when they win. I figured either the name was cut in the final edit, no men’s rights groups were involved, or some were involved but were too embarrassed to admit to it. Turns out they may not be involved after all, but I’m still holding out on that. I found some more information about the “ladies night” lawsuits, and came across this article, linked below. It seems a corporation called Consumer Cause, Inc. is behind that and similar lawsuits.
Lawyers Who Give Lawyers A Bad Name.
I’m still trying to find out if Consumer Cause, Inc. is the company behind these particular “ladies night” and other similar lawsuits. Looks good so far.
The El Toro Nightclub (one of the clubs involved in a “ladies night” lawsuit but not named in the link you provided) named Consumer Cause, Inc. as the plaintiff.
Consumer Cause seems to have made a lucrative business for itself filing lots of these types of lawsuits. While “ladies night” is just the sort of thing a men’s rights group would latch on to, it seems this particular case isn’t attached to one of those groups.
If I find more information (I’m bound to), I’ll post it here.
I’m with flea & PinkDreamPoppies… I’ve always viewed Ladies Nights as an attempt to get men into bars & clubs with the hopes of finding that one who has drank just a little too much. Never struck me as a “men’s rights” issue… but I appreciate the fight for cheaper booze for all!
Amy Phillips writes:
“Am I the only one who thinks it’s okay for a privately owned organization to have whatever policies it wants so long as everyone to whom those policies apply has chosen to be there and is free to leave at any time?”
No, you’re not the only one. The idea that the evil of government-sponsored segregation was best fought by governmental intrusion into private affairs has long astonished me. There is NO logical end to this kind of intrusion, no matter how desirable we find the intended outcome. And the notion that the intended outcome is, perforce, the one we get has been proven wrong ad nauseum. Sometimes the straightest line between two points goes over a cliff.
Well, *I’m* convinced. (rolleyes) And I’m eagerly awaiting the day that we can bring back “Whites Only” lunch counters, drinking fountains, and golf courses. Oh, wait… we still have the latter, don’t we, despite the rotten, evil intrusion of the rotten, evil Gummint. Nevermind. :p
Jonathan wrote: There is NO logical end to this kind of intrusion, no matter how desirable we find the intended outcome.
There may be no “logical” end, but there is an end in practice. For instance, if John Smith decides he doesn’t want to invite any black people into his home, he’s free to do so.
So to imply, as you do, that anti-discrimination laws will endlessly increase their scope until no area of life is left untouched is obviously mistaken.
And the notion that the intended outcome is, perforce, the one we get has been proven wrong ad nauseum.
I don’t know what world you live in, Johnathan, but with all due respect you’re pretty far removed from reality.
In fact, anti-Jim-Crow laws have been overwhelmingly successful; there are almost no whites-only businesses providing public accomodations anymore. That is the intended outcome of anti-Jim-Crow laws, and that outcome has by and large been accomplished by those laws.
If libertarians want to make honest arguments, then they should acknowlege that some of the laws they hate work, and getting rid of them might have a cost.
I think the fear of how well these laws can work IS what scares ’em, Amp. :( I personally find the deliberate confusion by Libertarians in this sort of argument between a White person who wants a Whites-only home and one who wants to run a Whites-only commercial apartment (of course, there’s plenty of the latter, unofficially :( ) a typically odious and irritating tactic.
you 2 assholes, is this why you went into law!!
to scam nighclubs, because you had to pay a cover charge. are you that broke!! you guys are sad and pathetic and really need to soul search, you may made some $$$ of an ignorant law.. but my friends what goes around comes around!! why are you so worried about a cover charge!! nigga please
*snort*
these two idiots who are filing these lawsuits.are straight $$$ hungry idiots. there supposed to be a lawyer and a paralegal. obviously there business wasnt doing to well so they figured out a way to use there stupid legal rights shit to make some cash off of club owners
pissing and moaning about a cover charge. what the hell are you hanging out in nightclubs for then. go to work assholes. its quite obvious this isnt about your damn rights but a pathethic way to make money thru the already fucked up judicial system. and innocent club owners trying to make a living@!!! get a life buddies.. and rememeber karma!!