"women" are like "video poker" or "nascar on television" or "a new neon sign" to ladies'-night bars. why not offer that to our male patrons?

now, young women are understandably confused by the bizarre situations our culture offers them. but i'll explain this one. when you willingly make yourself an object in exchange for discount booze, it's not surprising that pickled-brained men would mistake you for something they'd purchased. it's not right. but it's not surprising, either.

Are the women allowed to drink for two hours and then leave right before 11:00, or is this literally a lockdown until a later hour?

I have a real conflicting attitude about this also. A real part of it is that, now looking at colloege in retrospect and my experiences and my friends' experiences, I feel that there is a real problem. These are anecdotal, but there were so many stories of harrassment, rape, and violence that I am not sure myself what to make of it.
It's a very strange mixture of both feeling free to do what you want, but, and there is a big BUT, you can't disrupt the "natural" order -- which is women as objects for men. I feel like many college social activities (and it doesn't stop there let's be honest) promote this double-message.
I certainly don't want to think that women can't take care of themselves, because I believe they can. But I do think that part of the problem is that women are not taught to take care of themselves...in these situations, the intense desire to be liked by the other sex (and not made fun of by men and women) is really intense. And I also think that colleges are very poorly equipped to deal with these problems. The prevalent feelings is still that "kids will be kids" and that they "don't know any better." But certainly, I would like to think, a woman should know when she desires sex and when she doesn't. And this isn't always the reality -- society doesn't teach women to listen to their own desires.
I think it's a terrible problem -- when I think about the violence (yes violence!) and harrassment I endured in college, how powerless I felt to change it, and how it bothers me now (and how I always was a feminist and a believer inequal rights) -- I wish that I had had at the time more information about my own sexual desire, rather than reacting. It's not socially encouraged...so I think like many things this is very much a mixed message and I wish I knew what we should do about it!

Jami, I totally agree. It's gender discrimination for a frivolous activity. Now I can support a little gender discrimination if it's going to make a positive change (affirmative action, for example), but to get cheap beer?

Equality means equal pay (things cost the same for everyone and everyone should be paid the same for comparable work). Denying any part of this seems to be hypocritical (at least in a capitalist society, where we don't pro-rate how much things cost for people based on their incomes).

I think demanding equality means denying oneself the little gendered perks like cheap or free drinks, because they are gendered. And I've seen, at least for me, that this garners respect from men and women alike, thus furthering notions of equality in all arenas. I don't want to be singled out for my gender anywhere else, so why should I sell it at a bar?

It's called choice.

You choose not to drink.

Oh but this must be one of those times where women are weak and easily manipulated in order to create the illusion of opression or patriarchy riiiiight.

Lame.

Hugo--did you not read the post?

But positioning any woman who is out having fun as a potential victim just because she’s drunk is really problematic. First of all, it assumes that we’re all victims-in-waiting who shouldn’t be drinking.

This is a tough one.

When my lady friends and I went out drinking, we would decide beforehand that no nookie was to take place with any of the friendly, friendly men we would meet during the night, and we would all pitch in to cockblock for one another, especially if someone had imbibed too much. I was usually a cockblocker, which was fun because I got to drink AND be a bitch! Oh the one-liners...

Hujo, since men are such victims of feminism concerning divorce/child custody, don't you think it would be wise for men to not marry? Because damn, I'm sick of their whining......(I'm being SARCASTIC...didn't want you to miss that.)

Emphasizing the "drinking" part to me undercuts what is the most important issue -- what is the place of a woman's desire? It seems to be that setting up women as "victims," or, alternatively, as "desirous objects" reduces them in both ways. My problem with the idea of having women as "bait" for men (even if they are willing "bait" so for the sake of argument, rape isn't as issue) is that choosing to be an object doesn't seem to be a real "choice" based on genuine desire.
The reality is that the line between rape and "I wasn't sure but did it anyway" sex is thin and I think both are really problematic for women because their desire is nonexistent.
So, my only concern with focusing on the perpetuators (not that they shouldn't be punished and they should be prevented from acting) is that the situation posited here is a little more tenuous than just "forced sex" or "consentual sex" -- it's how does a women express her desire without expressing it by acting as a object (which is what society provdes)? And this is what I think is more difficult.

Mandy: "Now I can support a little gender discrimination if it's going to make a positive change"

Isn't that the argument of those who feel a woman's place is in the home? Let's pay women less so they'll be more likely to stay home and take care of the kids, which is a positive change. My discrimination is good, yours is bad.

I will point out that some women enjoy getting drunk and picking up men at bars. I am not saying we should all go do this, but that there is a certain possibility of mutuality there which I am not seeing in the comments (I think Jess alluded to it in her posting).

Personally, I would never set foot in a "ladies night" because they are typically held in bars that completely suck (plus I quit drinking), but I think we should at least acknowledge the possibility that some women go to bars specifically so they can get laid.

Raging Moderate,

That's a good point. When I made that statement, I was thinking specifically of affirmative action, which allows women to enter arenas that would otherwise be closed to them because of their gender (and same with race/class/etc). I think of affirmative action as gender discrimination, and I don't think that there's any other way to think of it. It requires thinking about race and gender as one hires / promotes / admits / whatever, and thus is discriminatory. But it allows disadvantaged people to have more choices instead of less, which I would call positive change. When things are unequal, it takes thinking about gender/race/class categories to identify and rectify the inequalities, for example minority scholarships to colleges where before many minority groups couldn't afford college.

It is really difficult to define "positive change." Everyone has their own ideas of what that would be. Mine is to allow people to take more control of their lives by offering them genuine options, and I assumed that the readers here would have the same definition of "positive change." I should have been more specific.

Hugo--did you not read the post?

But positioning any woman who is out having fun as a potential victim just because she’s drunk is really problematic. First of all, it assumes that we’re all victims-in-waiting who shouldn’t be drinking.

I am reffering to your friends victim logic.

"But then again I have friends that would argue that ladies’ night is not just an innocuous bar promotion, but a way to facilitate women getting more than a little buzzed—but dropping down drunk—for easy targeting. Thoughts?"

Lame.

Hujo, since men are such victims of feminism concerning divorce/child custody, don't you think it would be wise for men to not marry? Because damn, I'm sick of their whining......(I'm being SARCASTIC...didn't want you to miss that.)

Actually yes utill changes are made in family and divorce courts/ and paternaty fraud becomes a crime in the 38 states that legaly bind a father to a product of affiar, I think any young man would have to be naive or love blind to marry in the western world, oh yes.

So are all married men victims? Or victims-to-be?

Bind a father to the product of an AFFAIR? Whose affair? The mother's affair? In that case, there's a little thing called a DNA test that can alleviate paternity payments in such a case. Since DNA testing has long been around for precisely this purpose and is available to anyone who requests it, I can only assume that you mean that a man shouldn't have to pay for the results of HIS affair. Is that what you are saying?

http://hottopictalk.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=126

The prevalance of paternaty fraud is 30%, only in women tested for dna so it is more likley the tip of the iceberg. I am not monogomous nor do I think women should be, but a lie is a lie and fraud is fraud, real daddy should pay and commit.

Your government SHOULD be stopping paternaty fraud, instead they exploit it by forcing illegitamate fathers to pay for her affair.

Sorry for all the postings but I missed the words you put in my mouth, FTR I don't think men are victims of feminism in general.

Aspects of feminism do victimize men Vawa/status of women Canada, and feminism has (probably not intentionally till at least the 90's) created a culture that gives more regard and concern for women's, health, safety, education, protection and consideration.

MRA's are only as flawed as feminists they mirror each other.

I think this "men’s movement� will be good for society, in that it will be the next logical step to a humanist or egalitarian society.

Hujo, would you say that the existence of the Dept. of Indian Affairs victimizes everyone who is not Aboriginal? Honestly... I'm really not sure what you're talking about, in any of your posts in this thread.

I don't think "turn them loose" was supposed to be offensive. A bar closes between 2-4 am, and there is indeed a risk in inebriated people wandering around in the dark. A few months ago, one of my friends was telling me about how he saw a drunk girl wander into the street and get hit by a car. (She was fine... she stood up and walked away, looking embarassed. But really. If you're not going to know where the sidewalk ends, for the love of all that is good in this world, STOP DRINKING.)

Let's be honest. I'm 21. I know people in my age group. Most of them can't turn down anything that's free or almost free, especially alcohol and food. But free food is much safer.

Sylke started a convo whats not to get?

vawa discriminates because violence effects more than women, and it removes mens cival rights as they are arrested and charged on little evidance or simply acusation, status of women smears and labels men groups hate groups for trying to create awarness and support for men.

It was Jessica's friends stance I was originaly mocking, as if there is some grand rapist conspiracy behind ladies night, Women choose to drink. Like men they the face consequnses like lowered inhabitions. And waking up next to someone you normaly would not have.

'Sides, men are the ones still buying drinks for women(just like the evil 50's!), girls choose to drink them, everynight is ladies night for ladies at the club.

Mandy, I know this is off-topic, but since you brought up affirmative action.....

What do you think of Universities that are beginning to admit men who are not as qualified as women who are being rejected? They claim that they are doing so to keep the student population similar to society in general (about %50 / %50 male / female). Pretty much the standard argument used to justify affirmative action (to ensure the school or workplace diversity).

What you're saying is that promoting one group automatically discriminates against others by not accommodating their needs. That's ridiculous. Your article is from three years ago. I have yet to see Canada collapse under feminist influence.

I miss Felix. At least his posts were coherent.

Look they have banned my e-mail or whatever so, free speech is not so welcome here.

Look man do some research canadian boys are behind in eduaction , the family and divorce systems are bias toward men and abused men are being arrested for DV because abusvie women abuse the power of vawa.

Men in canada are trying to improve mens health education and standings in the justice system and status of women are oppresing and smearing them.

I think women are equal that means prone to corruption. So as an equal society we must expose that corruption. NO?

Look since i am being censored and all that i will leave you all alone.

Give it ten years and what I talk about will be talked about in the mainstream media and just be part of our cultural mind set.

Till then Y'all keep feminsting and eroding peoples faith in feminsm!

Um...no one has banned your email address. If you're having a prob commenting, shoot me an email.

Well banned or monotored it says my posts are "being held for review by owners", just like in the "author is on my death wish list" thread, were you censored my last post and gave durga the last word.

If the owners are going to be reviewing peoples posts to better suit their outlooks, what is the point?

Paranoid much? I answered you on another thread, but I'll put this here as well:

It looks like on one of your comments, you put in a bunch of links. When you do that, Movable Type assumes your comment is spam, so I have to manually publish it.

No one is reviewing comments to "better suit our outlooks." Get over yourself.

Seems to me the best way to deal with an event like "Ladies' Lockdown" is for some women to volunteer to come along as the responsible ones, stay sober, and make sure no one gets in worse condition than they meant to and has a ride home if they need it. You could actually end up having several groups of female friends just enjoying it as a cheap party.