www.ditl.org

Rejects claim that nightclubs should be barred from offering special deals for women

msnbc.com
updated less than 1 minute ago
Share Print Font: + - NEW YORK - A federal court has ruled that "Ladies Night" is all right.

The Manhattan-based Second Court of Appeals rejected a claim by Den Hollander, a self-proclaimed "Men's Rights" lawyer, who insisted that "Ladies Night" promotions such as half-price drinks and cheaper admission were unconstitutional, a result of "40 years of lobbying and intimidation, [by] the special interest group called 'Feminism.' "

Hollander insisted that because nightclubs are licensed by the state, the special deals required them to adhere to the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Without court intervention, Hollander claimed "none other than what's left of the Wall Street moguls" will be able to afford to attend nightclubs.

The court wasn't impressed by Hollander's lawsuit against a handful of New York clubs. It said nightclubs weren't "state actors," and dismissed the action.

According to the New York Daily News, Hollander is planning to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Asked by a reporter about the odds that the high court will agree to hear his case, he responded that it was "about the same as some pretty young lady paying my way on a date."

On his website, Hollander says he's fighting for men's rights "before they have no rights left."

You know, its funny........but I can't COMPLETELY disagree with him. It does seem lately as if the latest suffering minority are men. We are made out to be uncouth, moronic, cave men on TV who need women to take care of us. Or skirt chasing womanizers. Or any number of things.

In a domestic violence case, unless the man is bleeding, they'll always believe the woman. In divorce court, unless the woman has done something so horrible and can be proven beyond any doubt, the man gets shafted. And in family court? I've seen crack head mothers get custody of children before giving them to the fathers.

It's basically the same thing that's happened with racism in the US. If a white guy claims he's being discriminated against by black people then everyone just ignores him and considers him a whiner at best and a closet racist at worst.

Similarly, men can't claim to be discriminated against by women without being laughed at. But just try and imagine any club having a "Men's Night" with the drinks and admissions at half-price.

Now, that's not to say that pro-black and pro-feminist movements are unecessary in this day and age. Racism and discrimination are still around. As are inequalities between men and women. The problem is in preventing things from going too far in the opposite direction. Yet it's hard to prevent such a thing since anyone who'd speak up on the matter would be immediately labelled racist/sexist.

Mark wrote:We are made out to be uncouth, moronic, cave men on TV who need women to take care of us. Or skirt chasing womanizers. Or any number of things.

You know, I once recall seeing an add for a hoover a few years ago. IIRC, one of the lines in the add was "it's so simple that even a man could use it!", spoken by a woman. Just try imagining an add for an electric saw with the line "so simple that even a woman could use it!" that would last a week before getting pulled off the air.

Mark wrote:In a domestic violence case, unless the man is bleeding, they'll always believe the woman. In divorce court, unless the woman has done something so horrible and can be proven beyond any doubt, the man gets shafted. And in family court? I've seen crack head mothers get custody of children before giving them to the fathers.

The whole perception of men being unable to be the victims of domestic abuse is another serious problem. If a husband tries to control when his wife goes out and who she meets, he's (rightly) considered a controling asshole who she needs to dump. If a wife tries to control when her husband goes out and who he meets, then the husband is derided and called a puss.

The feminist movement really does have some more progress it needs to make in certain areas (women are still paid less than men in many professions, for example), but at the same time care needs to be taken that things don't go too far in the opposite direction.

I remember that Hoover ad, and made the same point when it aired. I was derided for "taking things too seriously." Of course, if it had said, "...made for a woman, because housework is her job," it would have been litigated so fast you wouldn't be able to see it.

I think "Ladies' Night" at a bar is a little ridiculous to be the forum for this case, but there are merits to the point. Why was it OK for a woman to sue (and win) to enter VMI - a private male military university^* - but Douglas College is allowed to exclude men... even though it is a publicly-funded college of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey?

^* - I forget the young lady's name, but she did sue and win the right to enroll at Virginia Military Institute. She dropped out after a few weeks because she was unable to handle the physical curricula - and also commented afterwards that her withdrawal had nothing to do with any sexism or misogony on the part of her classmates.

This is one of those cases where I think the guy is completely right - it certainly is discrimination. My acid test for discrimination is to simply substitute the likes of "what" or "black' or "Jew" for whatever's being talked about. Obviously a bar would never get away with charging white people less than black people, because it's discrimination.

At the same time, it's one of those cases where I just can't bring myself to care. Hell, guys even benefit - the whole point of charging women less is to fill places with women because the guys want a target rich environment, so to speak.

Exactly my point - this certainly is discrimination. It is, however, just a bar promotion in the final analysis. While the point is extremely valid that reverse discrimination is not only allowed but often condoned, this particular suit probably wasn't the strongest platform from which to launch that message.

Yeah, if you want to start an argument about reverse discrimination I'd be all for it. This, this is just being a douche.