Tiassa, I think were going to have to agree to disagree. I understand your point that ladies nights don't "discriminate" against men because they are not harmed (at least those that can afford to get in or are able to get by the bouncer) and they are willing to put up with it because they can always go to another bar because it's not like every bar is going to be having a ladies night. And no business is going to completely ban men or make it prohibitively expensive because it's not profitable. My question was on the theoretical nature of discrimination, not the financial plausibility of it. In fact, I think any policy which is too discriminatory (whites only night, men only night, etc.) would not be profitable, but thats doesn't detract from the theoretical case where it does happen. Relevant Anecdote: In the college town I lived in, a bar tried to require people to show a student ID to enter, mostly with the motivation to keep out the people who lived in the town who were not students. The people who lived in the town who were not students and would come to bars were typically middle-aged low-income black men. These people would typically come into the bars, not buy many drinks, and try to hit on young college students, often aggressively (There were plenty of complaints and I knew plenty of people who were treated inappropriately). From the bars standpoint, these people were making customers uneasy and were not buying any drinks, so they were not hurting the bar's popularity and revenue. However, there was a huge student outcry at this attempted policy because it was seen as racial discrimination (pretty liberal campus). Another bar tried to do a similar thing by having a dress code and not allowing large T-shirts and baggy pants. Similar result - student outcry for racial discrimination. So here is an example that is not as clear cut - the bar is trying to make the best possible environment for its customers by making it cater to students in a college town and also trying to attract the kind of customers that will spend money. You will probably agree that this is discrimination, because it bans people from entering, but what if students got in free where other had to pay? This seems like a reasonable policy. The free for students would ensure that lots of students would be there, which benefits the people from the town who are going there to hit on students. I think you are right that the historical record and the "feel" of racial discrimination is very different from "discrimination" against men. That's why I included it as a choice in my poll. You also argued that men are not really hurt by ladies nights, which was another choice in my poll. So it seems you are of the opinion of "Both 2 and 3." It's a justifiable position, that's why I put it there.