Ladies Nights: Legal discrimination?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jeff 152, Apr 26, 2011.


Should Ladies nights be allowed?

  1. Yes, as should others (Caucasian Nights, Heterosexual Nights, Under Age 30 nights, etc.)

    5 vote(s)
  2. Yes, but not others. Motivation - ladies nights benefit men and don't harmfully discriminate

    2 vote(s)
  3. Yes, but not others. History - discrimination against men different than against blacks, gays, etc

    0 vote(s)
  4. Both 2 and 3

    0 vote(s)
  5. No forms of "nights" should be allowed - they are all forms of discrimination

    3 vote(s)
  1. Jeff 152 Registered Senior Member

    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.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    So then—

    • In 2004, New Jersey Director of Civil Rights Frank Vespa-Papaleo ruled against the practice of ladies' night, calling it "an unlawful discrimination". The denial of drink discounts violated one David Gillespie's rights under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. (#3)

    • One of the tolls of equal protection under the law is that inane social rituals like ladies' night are, in fact, illegal. In the grand scheme of things, though, when volcano erupts and everyone is fleeing for higher ground as the flood bears down on them, one can always stop the guy who dropped his Taco Bell sack in astonishment, and demand that he clean up his litter before leaving town. (#20; boldface accent added)

    • 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?" (#34)

    • Yes, I ought to have the right to drink shitty beer at a dive for the same price as a woman, but I really don't fucking care. (#45)

    Yes, Ladies' Night is discriminatory and unfair. (#53; boldface accent added)

    • It seems to me that if Ladies' Night is so tied up in the meat market, this ought to work, as well. That way, if the fact that the women in skirts are getting discounts annoys a guy, he can wear a skirt and get the discounts, too. (#56)

    —what was that you were saying about how you understand my point that ladies' night doesn't discriminate?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. JuNie Registered Senior Member

    I question whether some of these guys posting in protest of ladies night have ever been to a bar on ladies night. ARE YOU CRAZY!?! Ladies night is a MUST! It's not like men are banned from ladies night. Ladies just get in free or at a reduced price or something. The more females you get into your bar the more males you get.

    And if they want "Caucasian" night all they have to do is enact a dress code as they do at certain clubs where I live. Very few black people go to the clubs where they have dress codes because they've banned every kind of urban wear you can think of.

    And where I'm from they do have things like gay night etc, teen night, etc...
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. kororoti Registered Senior Member

    Is the goal of Ladies night to prevent men from frequenting the business? I would have say it probably isn't. It sounds like getting men to show up is the primary goal of the promotion.

    In a racist situation, the goal would be to prevent a certain racial group from frequenting the business, not encourage them to frequent it.
  8. Jeff 152 Registered Senior Member

    Tiassa, my mistake - I was confusing you with quadrophonics. He was the one making the argument that ladies nights aren't discriminatory because in order for it to be discriminatory, someone must be harmed first:

    So my apologies Tiassa. Now onto another issue.

    First, I am curious how you can so easily see that a bar which actually discriminated against men would lose money and not survive, yet you can't seem to see that a bar which discriminated against women by only allowing men in or a bar which discriminated against blacks by only letting whites in would also be unprofitable and not survive. They would be unprofitable due to both loss of potential customers and boycotts for being racist (that is what happened in my example from the college town - the bar which instituted the dress code was boycotted and quickly went out of business and a new bar took its place. There is the market correcting discrimination, yet you seem to be so afraid of letting it happen that need to get the government involved in legislating what is allowed)

    And it is not irrelevant you are dodging the question for the third time. Let's go to a real example. Many private golf clubs have tried to exclude women from joining, and in most cases they have been unsuccessful since it's gender discrimination. However, what if a gold club simply discounted the price that men pay versus women, in a more subtle effort to exclude women? You can't really say that this is different from the ladies night example (rather men's night) unless you argue that the motivation of the golf club is still to exclude women and discriminate, whereas the motivation of the bar with the ladies night is to actually improve the mens situation and not harm anyone. I agree with you 100% that this motivation is different, but the question is whether you can have a law where it is up to a judge's interpretation to decide the motives of businesses. I think this is a recipe for disaster. After all, maybe this situation would be beneficial to the women who get in at the higher rate, since maybe they are respected more or seen to be better at golf for being at a club catering to men. The women who can't afford it might be hurt, just like the guy who can't afford the more expensive cover charge might get hurt, but the people that do get in benefit.

    This thread has gotten so completely off track. The purpose of the thread was to use ladies nights as an example of a sort of price discrimination that is widely accepted in society, and then contrast it with how it is different from other forms of price discrimination that are widely condemned. But the focus has stayed exclusively on the specific case of ladies nights and irrelevant aspects such as their profitability. Maybe I wasn't clear enough in the OP. It was supposed to be a thread discussing what constitutes discrimination and when it is justified, whether the "ends justify the means" and whether intentions matter when we are talking about discrimination.
  9. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    I think Ladies Nights are wonderful! I'll have more of that please.
  10. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Just found out the local bar has women's drinks for $1 every Friday night. YES!!
    Basically they just get more women to go there, so now more men will go there.
  11. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member


    I wish someone would do single-sex nights for both genders...If I had the wherewithal, I'd definitely run those...
  12. smokinglizard Registered Senior Member

    Let's suspend the "legal" and "illegal" arguments for a moment and consider my point: What's wrong with a person who owns a business inviting in whomever he chooses? If the owner of the business wants to give, say, anyone with an Irish last name free drinks, shouldn't he be allowed to do that? It is, after all, his alcohol. If he wants to give it away, that's up to him, isn't it? And shouldn't he be free to decide who he gives the free drinks to?

    Let's take the bar out of the equation for the sake of the argument. Let's say a guy has a cooler full of beer in the back of his pickup truck at, say, a motorcycle rally and he decides to charge $2 for a beer. But then a pretty girl comes up and asks him for a free beer. Are you saying it should be illegal for him to charge everyone else $2 but then give the pretty girl a beer for free?

    Isn't it his beer to do with as he pleases?

Share This Page