Doesn't he know that the kind of women who keep turning him down (the ones he's so pissed at) can get men to buy their drinks anyway? If he thinks this is anti-feminism, I'm glad. Keeps him from doing anything that might cause actual harm.

Nice Guys gone wild!

Hey, ending ladies' nights is a good thing. It just happens that the approach that will convince the courts to crack down on them is a men's equality one.

Nothing says "I care about civil rights" like referring to someone as "a cripple."

Guy needs a taste of real discrimination. Here's a hint: "Oh noes! I'm not getting half-price shots!" isn't it.

lol, this cracks me up. He thinks he's hurting us but he's doing us a favor.

But hey -- I would rather have an anti-woman dude using up his money and his time fighting these battles, than us having to do it.

It is a sad fact that a lot of progress for gender equality in this country has only come about because MEN have decided gender bias discriminates against them too (another example: in many states there used to be a lower drinking age for women, which is offensive on all kinds of levels. Men complained this discriminated against them so they made it the same drinking age for everyone). I mean, it's good when men recognize this shit is bad for everyone, but there's something of a meta-bias in the notion that people will only listen to complaints when MEN have them.

i dont particularly think its bad for women to have ladies night, but thats just i am broke and in nyc;) what a loser this guy is. once women around denver find out what hes done, his chances at finding anyone are shot. and i love how men become anti feminists once their wives wake up and realize they are married to a dolt.

I'll bet that the resistance for this comes from other guys.

Why can the state regulate what private establishments charge for drinks? I don't get it.

And lower drinking ages for women? That's just great.

Co-sign the Law Fairy, if it keeps anti-feminists off the streets...

Hera, yup. If I recall correctly it was a Texas case. It was 18 for women and 21 for men. Horrific.

Oh, also Hera -- I suspect the right to tell businesses what to charge stems from licensing requirements. Since the state regulates liquor licenses, allowing businesses to charge differential rates based on gender might well qualify as a "state action," which moves the violation into the realm of constitutional rights. Courts apply intermediate scrutiny to state actions that discriminate between genders, which means that the discrimination must be substantially related to an important state interest. Clearly ladies' night would fail under this test.

I don't know for sure that's the rationale in these case -- but that's my initial guess.

This guy did us all a favor. We should flood this guy with grateful emails. That would really piss him off.

As a Denver-ite, I'll admit that ladies night in this city is definitely a bit out of control. Almost every bar has one and Denver has more bars per-capita than any other city (or at least I read that a while back when we recieved the title of Drunkest City in America...go us.)

Denver also has more men than women...theories abound as to what the actual ratio is, but your average singles type bar downtown has a ratio of about 2:1. So this silly marketing ploy used to bring more women into an establishment has grown quite popular.

The way I see it, you can look at the whole thing as either a win-win (girls get cheap drinks, guys get bar full of girls) or a lose-lose (guys pay full price while girls are objectified for the sake of a greedy, capitalist system).

I avoid ladies night for the same reason I avoid most trendy, crowded bars in Denver: I am not a piece of meat. Therefore, I will not go to a meat market.

But a lawsuit? That's just silly. Especially cause he wants to do it over and over again until ladies night is banned all over the city

On an interesting note, there are also a few lesbian bars here that do Femme Nights. That seems offensive in a whole different way.

I am confused;
Kimmy thinks this is about women not buying their own drinks, then perpetuates the stereotype of women not HAVING to buy their own drinks because of (ostensibly) their appearance. She then goes on to opine that the man's effort to establish equality, albeit for men instead of women, is ok since it prevents his doing any "real" harm.

What harm was done by this man in creating and demanding equality?

EG, instead of recognizing the importance of the issue, takes potshots at the unPCness of his choice of words.
Then purports to know that this man HASN'T sufered discrimination, and goes on to insiuate that he would consider not getting half-priced shots discrimination.

Next up is Law Fairy who appears to support the notion of providing equality and achieving equality, yet is unable to simply THANK this man for his efforts, however misguided they may seem. Instead, she (he?) chooses to use the "better him than me" type argument about legal costs.
Nice.

Katie seems to think this guy is a loser but doesn't explain why. Katie also claims to appreciate the lower costs for ladies OF ladies night out. Does Katie support having MENS night out? I'm quite certain there are myriad broke men in nyc, too...
Furthermore, it's apparently unwise to offend the opposite sex, lest ye find yourself undesirable.

Kinda sounds like an argument that has been directed at women for centuries. Why's it NOT ok for it to be directed at you but OK for you to direct it at someone else?

Oh, another thing Katie; are you sure his wife left him because he's a "dolt?" Perhaps she's loony. Perhaps she cheated on him. Perhaps she turned lesbian.
Plethora of other reasons she left but you singled-out the one that seems to bolster your "loser" argument.
Lookup sexism for me and let me know what you come up with...

Hera is apparently unfamiliar with the entire concept of discrimiation.

tps12 is in favor of keeping "anti-feminists" off the streets. Do you realize that "ladies nights" are not about feminism, but more about sexism? Cheaper drinks, more ladies. More ladies, more men. More men, more (regular price) drinks.
Duh...
If anything, it's more demeaning to women by making them "bait."

By the posting itself, I can't discern if Ann tends to agree with these sentiments. However, these comments alone are a big motivator to remove this blog from my daily reading.

Try honestly answering the question he asked, and try to ignore the fact that he use (gasp!) cripple...

"If I was a black or a cripple or a Jew or a gay, you wouldn’t dare ask me that question,’’ Horner said. "I’m standing up for my civil rights."

I couldn't agree more.

I have suffered real discrimination.
This is just as real.

And just as unacceptable...

Bars are not private establishments, Heraclitus. They are places of public accomodation and are covered under civil-rights laws. Laws don't regulate what bars charge for drinks, they just say you can't charge some people more (or less) than others based on race, sex, religion etc.
Ladies' nights are pretty indefensible.

vh, I don't owe this man anything. If he eridcates sexism in Los Angeles, I might consider a "thank you." But he's got a good 1100 miles left to travel, and a substantial chunk of critical thinking to do, first.

As for legal costs, as an attorney I love it when hot-headed whiners are the ones paying up to help us all out. It makes me feel less bad about working in a profession that lets REAL inequalities slip by every single goddamn day.

Oh, take a joke, vhgill. And knock off the empty threats. Do you really expect any of us long-time posters to quake in guilt and shame and beg "Oh no! Please do not remove this blog from your daily reading! I shall mend my ways immediately!"

The fact is that he's a member of a dominant group who takes for granted privileges that the rest of us feel the lack of every single day. And he feels that the most pressing issue to which he can devote his quest for social justice is...him not getting free drinks.

Again, I must wipe away a tear for his deep suffering. Except not.

If he eridcates sexism in Los Angeles, I might consider a "thank you."

So, it's no good unless it's in your neighborhood?

Nice...

hot-headed whiners

Wow. Just wow.

Tell me why you calling him a hot-headed whiner is better or more acceptable than Rosa Parks being called a nigger? Or Ellen queer?

And what, exactly, are YOU doing about all those inequalities you rail about?

You owe him a thanks if for no other reason than he is actually doing instead of just talking.

Pity you can't see that...

Colleen;
But a lawsuit? That's just silly. Especially cause he wants to do it over and over again until ladies night is banned all over the city

I suppose Civil Rights supporters should've just done one or maybe two marches. That would've been enough, right?
Maybe if they just eliminated discrimination in their neighborhood and stopped, it woulda been alright...

If it's illegal, it's illegal everywhere. And if the local, state or federal government isn't willing or able to seek out the establishments violating the law, why shouldn't he?

Hey Ann,

I was thinking about this, and I know you're using a kind of sarcastic tone, but there's something about the phrase "they're a place where scantily-clad young women are liable to get themselves raped" that just puts me off. I know you don't mean it to come across this way, but it puts the agency for rape on women. It would be nice to see a sentence like "they're a place where men without scruples are able to find incapacitated women to rape"?

I don't mean this as an attack on you. It's just that the sentence leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Oh God, I know I shouldn't feed the trolls... but...

vh, you show me where the term "hot-headed whiner" has been used to systematically oppress men as a significant part of a social movement vilifying and/or subjugating them, and I will admit that it's as bad as the vile insult you ACTUALLY printed. Oh, and -- you DO know that the gays have retaken "queer"? "Queer" isn't a bad word anymore. Welcome to, you know, 1999.

vh, I owe no one thanks unless they do something for me. This guy has done this for himself. He feels "oppressed" because the cute boys won't buy him drinks in the bar. That's a bummer but it's not oppression. That he sees it as oppression is insulting to those of us who face oppression every day. That what he is doing HAPPENS to coincide with some feminist goals is a fortuitous coincidence. Why should I thank him? Hell, it would probably piss him off if I did. You don't ACTUALLY believe we ought to thank every person in the world who does something that incidentally benefits us, do you? I mean, have you thanked your grandmother for having sex with your grandfather because otherwise you would never have been born? I kinda hope not, for your grandma's sake.

Let's count to see how long it takes vh to make good on his/her threat and leave this blog.

And I CANNOT believe you just compared the use of the word "nigger" against a black person to "hot headed whiner" against a rich white male.

And at the mistake of feeding the trolls I'll tell you why it's more acceptable; It's not a fucking RACIAL slur that's been used against a minority of people for hundreds of years to deliberetly degrade them based on skin color and "hot headed whiner" can in fact be used to insult anyone, where as nigger and all it's modifiers are aimed directly at a minority group of non white people.

Had she called him a cracker or a peckerwood I would have given you an inch on that but now you're barely grasping for straws. Comparing trying to get men free/half drinks to a group of people fighting to be seen as human beings with the same rights as their oppressors is asinine.

um yeah, i was kidding. personally, i don't find ladies nights offensive or sexist. i think they are far worse things going on in this world. however, i can see how they would be sexist towards men, but i also dont see many men complaining about it. i can clearly see how its demeaning to women, but if you make the choice to go knowing what the bar owners had in mind, well, oh well. i know i have so i wont judge. i just think there are other things that are so much more important, and this alone wont eradicate any sort of sexism.

Here's the expected, inevitable response;
Oh, take a joke, vhgill

Except that there's no joke here.

Do you really expect any of us long-time posters to quake in guilt and shame and beg

Hardly. However, I would consider it a courtesy to anyone whose blog I subscribe to and choose to leave to let them know why.
Comprehend that?

The fact is that he's a member of a dominant group who takes for granted privileges that the rest of us feel the lack of every single day

What priveleges do you imagine he possesses that he is taking for granted that you lack? Do you know that or are you making the assumption that because he is a man he MUST have priveleges you as a woman (?) don't possess?

And he feels that the most pressing issue to which he can devote his quest for social justice is...him not getting free drinks

Yes, obviously it must be the drinks. It couldn't possibly be borne out of a desire for actual equality...

Again, I must wipe away a tear for his deep suffering

Just don't expect anyone to shed any tears for your next battle, however non-trivial you may consider it.

EG its in reference to another article from not to long ago. hellooooooo. it was sarcastic.

Yeah, I realized it was sarcastic, as I said. It still icks me out, so I just wanted to register that.

It's not like I'm threatening to "remove the blog from my daily reading" or anything!

you DO know that the gays have retaken "queer"?

Uummmm, yeah, I know that. It was an example, and one that, while it may (certainly open to different opinions) no longer apply, serves as just as valid an example.

I owe no one thanks unless they do something for me. This guy has done this for himself

Yes, and by doing this for himself, it serves you. Why can't you see that?

He feels "oppressed" because the cute boys won't buy him drinks in the bar.

Where'd you get that? It ain't part of the article cited. Speculation? Conjecture?
Bad idea.

That's a bummer but it's not oppression

Correct. However, if an environment exists that makes it easier or cheaper for women to get the same drink as a man, that's every bit as much oppression as the environment that allows men to get paid more than women.

That he sees it as oppression is insulting to those of us who face oppression every day

That you fail to see it as oppression is insulting to every one of us who don't face oppression every day, but when we do face it, are scorned and laughed at by those of you who claim "welcome to our world."

You don't ACTUALLY believe we ought to thank every person in the world who does something that incidentally benefits us, do you?

Hardly. However, for you to so casually dismiss his efforts because they don't visibly and directly benefit you personally is disgusting.

And my grandparents are all dead.

Let's count to see how long it takes vh to make good on his/her threat and leave this blog.

Sorry, not yet.

And I CANNOT believe you just compared the use of the word "nigger" against a black person to "hot headed whiner" against a rich white male.

Of course you know that he is a rich white male, right? I mean, you wouldn't make that assumption, would you?

Because, you know, that's pretyy offensive...

It's not a fucking RACIAL slur that's been used against a minority of people for hundreds of years to deliberetly degrade them based on skin color

Oh, I didn't know that discrimination was more acceptable if it wasn't racial or long-term. When did that start? Because, see, I know that my wife hates the phrase "cunt", but it's not racial and hasn't been in use for as long as nigger. I'll be sure and let her know you told me it wasn't that bad after all...

and "hot headed whiner" can in fact be used to insult anyone, where as nigger and all it's modifiers are aimed directly at a minority group of non white people.

Consider the intention behind its usage and you'll begin to understand.
It's not about the word, or the group its directed at; it's all about the effort to oppress or diminish the credibility or importance of the person or group it's aimed at.

Comparing trying to get men free/half drinks to a group of people fighting to be seen as human beings with the same rights as their oppressors is asinine.

So, to you, equality isn't REALLY about equality but more about equality when it suits your purposes? Interesting...

i can see how they would be sexist towards men, but i also dont see many men complaining about it

True. Which is also why the opinion that men will argue against this first and hardest is so accurate.

The men who go to ladies nights, to me, are the true losers, but that's another discussion.

i just think there are other things that are so much more important, and this alone wont eradicate any sort of sexism.

No it won't. But that's hardly the point...

Uummm, UltraMagnus; I got it the first time. Thanks.

Uummm, UltraMagnus; I got it the first time. Thanks.

GOOD.

That you fail to see it as oppression is insulting to every one of us who don't face oppression every day, but when we do face it, are scorned and laughed at by those of you who claim "welcome to our world."

Oh My Fucking God.

vhgill, I would GLADLY give this guy a trade. For the rest of his life, I will buy him FREE drinks at the rate at which I would drink half-priced drinks, if he can magically get me the automatic respect he gets for simply having a penis.

vh, EXPLAIN to me how this is "oppresive." Definition of "oppressive": 1. burdensome, unjustly harsh, or tyrannical: an oppressive king; oppressive laws.
2. causing discomfort by being excessive, intense, elaborate, etc.: oppressive heat.
3. distressing or grievous: oppressive sorrows.

Now, tell me with a straight face that choosing to go to a bar that charges women a little less for its overpriced drinks is "oppressive." If you think it is, I bet there are some refugees in Darfur who will trade lives with you or this dude.

I never DISMISSED his efforts. Learn to read. I dismissed his attitude and acknowledged that it has an incidental benefit to the overall cause of feminism, of which I am a proponent. You've just admitted that I have no obligation to thank him, or anyone. So you've essentially admitted that your original point here was totally bogus.

OUCH. It must hurt to lose to a girl, huh?

Had he the ability to think critically, TLF, he'd know there is never any shame in losing to you. But as things stand...

"Uummm, UltraMagnus; I got it the first time. Thanks."

Apparently not.

[and at this point, I repeat over and over to myself, "I must not feed trolls, I must not feed trolls, I must not feed trolls."

However, if an environment exists that makes it easier or cheaper for women to get the same drink as a man, that's every bit as much oppression as the environment that allows men to get paid more than women.

this is sarcasm, right? Parody, right? No?! Oh my...I can't even muster the energy to try to set this person straight.

Dude, you are waaaay out there if you think those two levels of oppression are anywhere near the same.

I'll give you a hint, though: one activity is necessary to obtain food, clothing and shelter, the other activity relates to one, of many, methods of entertainment. Get it?

Aww, EG, you made me blush! ;)

I agree with vhgill.

We need to step back and think before we jump on this guy's back.

In my opinion any legal challenges regarding inequities, or the perception thereof, is a step in the right direction. Moreover , as a feminist I don't believe that it the gender of the plaintiff makes any damn difference.

And EG, don't trivialize the importance of seeminly insignificant legal challenges. We can't all be the big whistleblower.

wow, vhgill. this issue certainly appears to hit close to home for you. i think very few people are actually pro-discrimination, but if women want to take advantage of one of the few things in their favor and save a few bucks on drinks, let them. try shelling out money for tampons and the pill every month, not to mention pain killers for those of us unlucky enough to be burdened with cramps. it's not cheap.

the concept of offering cheaper drinks to women was established in the hopes to entice women to bars. in turn, the presence of women entices men. if men stop frequenting bars during ladies night, the bars will stop offering ladies night. since men tend to outnumber women in most bars/clubs, and buy a majority of the drinks, the lack of men at a ladies night will be noticed on the balance sheet.

here in massachusetts (where i live), drink specials are illegal. happy hour deals consist of food specials only. i always thought it was kinda silly, but it's better than a spate of lawsuits and the ensuing press coverage featuring people of Horner's ilk.

finally, to defend some other posters' assertions about the general level of this guy's intelligence, from the article:

"This is now a violation of law. I will now make it a point to visit as many ladies nights as I can every week. I’ll have my rights violated, then I’ll sue them in county court and collect my $500 (each time),’’ Horner said. "I feel it could net me $3,000 to $4,000 a week easy and I’m going to do it. It takes me five minutes to be discriminated against.’’

he says this despite the fact that the lawsuit only applies to the establishment in question, not to all places with ladies night.

Wow. I was impressed by how fast vhgill removed this blog from his reading list.

Horner strikes me as noise, and annoying noise, but eliminating discriminatory practices in bars is fine by me. By all means, let him keep going, bar by bar. Of all the things an anti-feminist can do, this is probably the least obnoxious.

Julep, I think everyone here is agreeing that this is a step in the right direction. We're just disappointed that it seems that a lot of these steps ONLY come if the inequality is something that hurts men. An inequality shouldn't have to hurt men for our society to address it. And it doesn't help that this guy is apparently an anti-woman moron.

vhgill is a troll. Entertaining and good for a rollicking argument, but he doesn't add much to the substantive discussion.

To be clear, we're not criticizing the guy for the actual result, just for his neanderthal and vaguely whiny attitudes.

Indeed--and hey, I just thought of a cool feminist way to make Ladies' Night go away! Women over the age of 50 should flood the Ladies' Night scene! Not only would I dearly love to see two or three 80-year-old friends knocking back some half-price scotch, as one is likely to do in England, but the presence of middle-aged and elderly women could, one hopes, force young creeps to tone down their acts. Or not, but I treasure the fantasy of my best friend's grandmother, who used to be a bartender, reading the riot act to a young man who was behaving in an offensive manner.

In case anyone's interested, here is a quote from a Seton Hall law review comment on this subject:

"The issue of gender-based pricing has generated a split of opinion among the courts in how to interpret their respective public accommodations statutes. California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Maryland have taken an all-or-nothing approach to interpreting their respective anti-discrimination laws. These states do not analyze price discrimination in terms of degree, but instead have held that any gender-based price discrimination, regardless of severity or motivation, is illegal. In contrast, Illinois, Washington, and Michigan have engaged in a balancing of the alleged discrimination with the motivations behind it and the likely effects. These states have found no actionable discrimination where the price-based discount was not accompanied by an improper motive to prohibit patronage by one sex or the other."

36 Seton Hall L. Rev. 223, 227 (Citations omitted)

Law Fairy,

Don't call Vhgill a whiny troll!!!! The "intention behind its usage" will make him feel oppressed!!!!

Plenilune,

Thanks for bringing up that quote. I was going to point out in response to the criticism of my remark on the silliness of this lawsuit that i question the guy's intentions.

Anyone who brings up that he wants to make a living with these kind of lawsuits loses some credibility.

The "I'm a major anti-feminist" also makes him hard to take seriously.

lol, Colleen!

Although actually I was still talking about the dude who thinks he can make 4K a week by going to bars. But either way :)

if he can magically get me the automatic respect he gets for simply having a penis

Wow. Are you really that naive? Do you think that it's that simple?

And while you might convince yourself you'd happily trade your existence for his, how long would that last? Ever heard about the grass and the fence?

Seriously, come back down to earth and use some logic. You trading isn't going to help either one of you, but his fight will help both of you. Try to see that.

Definition of "oppressive": 1. burdensome, unjustly harsh

Definition for unjust - not just or fair: contrary to what is right, just, or fair, or lacking fairness or justice

Besides, I get another definition for oppressive;
Definition for oppressive
- dominating harshly: imposing a harsh or cruel form of domination

Now, tell me with a straight face that choosing to go to a bar that charges women a little less for its overpriced drinks is "oppressive."

Choosing to go to the bar is not the oppresive part. Didn't you get that?

If you think that charging women a little less for drinks, overpriced or not, than men is NOT oppressive, then I have to ask you; do you think men are as good of parents in general as women? Because there's overwhelming evidence that divorced children will inevitably end up with the mother. I think that's oppressive and discriminatory. Perhaps with your view of the world, and your tits, I might see it otherwise.

You think?

I never DISMISSED his efforts

Bullshit.
Definition for dismiss
- refuse to consider something: to refuse to give consideration to something
- reject somebody or something: to consider somebody or something as unsuitable for a particular reason

If he eridcates sexism in Los Angeles, I might consider a "thank you." But he's got a good 1100 miles left to travel, and a substantial chunk of critical thinking to do, first.

I'd say that quite nicely matches being rejected for a particular reason; not being in L.A., and not being close enough, and (apparently but not obviously why) not thought about critically...

You've just admitted that I have no obligation to thank him, or anyone. So you've essentially admitted that your original point here was totally bogus.

Aren't you trained as a lawyer to not draw your own conclusions or something? I'm not sure where you see me admitting anything or proving any unmade admission, but whatever helps you sleep...

OUCH. It must hurt to lose to a girl, huh?

Wow. Just. Don't. Get. It.

Dude, you are waaaay out there if you think those two levels of oppression are anywhere near the same.

Why? If I as a man can't use an argument that is at least partly based in economics, why can you as a woman?

You won't like this, but it has to be said; what's the problem in me getting paid more if I'm expected to pay more?

The same harm in asking you to get paid less because you won't have to pay as much or for as many things.

They are both disgustingly oppressive attitudes.

I'll give you a hint, though: one activity is necessary to obtain food, clothing and shelter, the other activity relates to one, of many, methods of entertainment. Get it?

::puts popcorn in microwave::

In my opinion any legal challenges regarding inequities, or the perception thereof, is a step in the right direction. Moreover , as a feminist I don't believe that it the gender of the plaintiff makes any damn difference.

Thank you!

And EG, don't trivialize the importance of seeminly insignificant legal challenges. We can't all be the big whistleblower.

Thank you again!

wow, vhgill. this issue certainly appears to hit close to home for you.

Yes. I believe in equality. Flatly. This situation represents inequality. Moreover, (ostensibly) feminists seem to be arguing that it's an acceptable form of inequality whilst arguing that I and this man couldn't possibly understand inequality.

if women want to take advantage of one of the few things in their favor and save a few bucks on drinks, let them.

Hardly what I'd call "in their favor" but whatever. Slippery slope argument if ever I saw one...

try shelling out money for tampons and the pill every month, not to mention pain killers for those of us unlucky enough to be burdened with cramps. it's not cheap.

And what, cheaper drinks makes it all better? Bullshit!

the concept of offering cheaper drinks to women was established in the hopes to entice women to bars.

To objectify them! To make them bait for horny men!

if men stop frequenting bars during ladies night, the bars will stop offering ladies night.

Yeah, that will happen...

since men tend to outnumber women in most bars/clubs, and buy a majority of the drinks, the lack of men at a ladies night will be noticed on the balance sheet.

So because it's financially beneficial to the bar to objectify women and oppress men, we should allow it?

here in massachusetts (where i live), drink specials are illegal. happy hour deals consist of food specials only. i always thought it was kinda silly, but it's better than a spate of lawsuits and the ensuing press coverage featuring people of Horner's ilk.

I could not have made Horner's point, or mine, any better. Provide equality and everyone is better off!

vhgill is a troll.

Nice of you to so casually dismiss my points. Shows lots of respect.

Tell me again why any man would want to fight for you?

Entertaining and good for a rollicking argument, but he doesn't add much to the substantive discussion.

Yeah, you're queen substance, aren't you?

Moreover, the troll is usually the one completely disrespecting the other commenters and casually dismissing their points and opinions. Seems like you fill that role better than I.

To be clear, we're not criticizing the guy for the actual result, just for his neanderthal and vaguely whiny attitudes.

Translation: we couldn't give a fuck about this guy's "fight" and will never thank him for anything that benefits us cuz he's a man!

wooooo, can i have some of that popcorn?

Don't call Vhgill a whiny troll!!!! The "intention behind its usage" will make him feel oppressed!!!!

Oh ho ho... that was FUCKING HILARIUOUS IN ITS INANITY!

i'm inane. sweet!

i'm suddenly feeling very protective of Law Fairy, but since I so enjoy reading her arguments, I'm gonna leave that attack on her comment alone and eagerly await her response.

I think this whole thing has been blown WAY out of proportion. I mean, I'm fairly certain that the majority of people who read this blog are all for equality. And most of us would be happy to point out the problems with ladies night.

Do white guys face discrimination? I'm sure some of them do on occasion. Do they deserve the opportunity to fight for equality even though they often have an advantage in society? Of course. Equality is good for everyone.

But I find it hard to believe that with all the inequality in the world today Ladies Night is something we should attack with guns ablazin'. I mean, let's have a little perspective here.

And if this is the only inequality he experiences in his life then I frankly have a hard time giving him much sympathy.

I'm totally willing to admit that, lacking a whole lot of insight into the male brain, I have underestimated the burden this sort of discrimination has laid on men of our time.

So if it's a serious problem, let's see 'em organize. Round up all these guys who are so oppressed by Ladies Night and march through the bar district.

But for now it's one guy.

I realize that most movements begin with one person, but this guy doesn't strike me as a revolutionary.

No popcorn for me, I want to be a Mindsticker.

*opens a Diet Tab*

Some of you have complained about the fact that men seem to be raising issues of inequality rather than women. As in, why don't women speak up when they're screwed?

I think that in the contemporary landscape much of the discrimination against women has become covert whereas discrimination against men, where it exists, is explicit. Subtle, covert inequities are more difficult to recognize, document, describe, and challenge than overt and explicit inequities such as the price of admission to a bar.

Popcorn is nice, so don't hog it all yourselves!

Now...

"what's the problem in me getting paid more if I'm expected to pay more?"

Do you seriously think that Ladies' night is indicative of a larger imbalance? Because if so, you are the more mistaken. Haircuts, dry-cleaning, hell, getting home safely (how many times have I taken a taxi rather than a subway due to safety-concerns?) are but a few of the things that routinely cost more for women than for men. But I don't think you do. I think you're grasping at straws and making personal attacks on TLF because you're running out of hot air to blow.

"do you think men are as good of parents in general as women? Because there's overwhelming evidence that divorced children will inevitably end up with the mother. I think that's oppressive and discriminatory. Perhaps with your view of the world, and your tits, I might see it otherwise."

This has been true only over the past 50 years or so, and it is fair because overwhelmingly mothers are primary caretakers. Even when nannies and nurses are hired, their hiring is almost always the responsibility of the mother, rather than the father. Furthermore, the fact is, when men care to contest child custody, they often get it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of abuse. You can read about it here or in one of Katha Pollitt's essays, which, sadly, I can't name because I'm at work rather than at home.

"Are you really that naive? Do you think that it's that simple?"

Well, you tell me. Do men get asked whether or not they're married or plan on having kids at job interviews? Do men leave their dates' contact info with a friend with instructions to call if they're not heard from by midnight after a first date? Do men worry much about rape? Do men worry much about pregnancy? Do men endure street harrassment from people a hundred pounts heavier than them? Do men worry about how to "balance" a career or a family?

ok folks, it's a friday on a holiday weekend. let's all take it down a notch. and don't feed the trolls--even if it's tab.
thanks!

Ladies' Night discriminates against members of a specific gender. In a perfect world, it would be abolished without controversy.

However, in patriarchy, women are members of a class that is underneath men. I find it hard to cheer when a member of the more powerful class wins equality for his class, when the other class is still raped, traded as a commodity, underpaid (when paid at all), disenfranchised, and otherwise discriminated against on a vast global scale.

Next up: Horner goes after the ADA and fights for the right to park in a "cripple's" spot.

Oops, sorry, Jessica. That one went through before you posted your note.

Cheers, and happy Friday.

Yes. I believe in equality. Flatly. This situation represents inequality. Moreover, (ostensibly) feminists seem to be arguing that it's an acceptable form of inequality whilst arguing that I and this man couldn't possibly understand inequality.

vh, have you not even been READING what we say? Let me try to lay this out as simply as I possibly can. I'll type slowly.

1. Ladies' Night is bad because it is a tool for the objectification of women. Ladies' Night is designed to attract women with the promise of lower-priced drinks, with the *ultimate* goal of attracting men, using women as "bait" -- as you correctly note.

2. There's an incidental, but minor, perk for women in this disgusting and sexist scheme: namely, the cheap drinks.

3. This is facially discriminatory against men, but what is truly problematic about this is that it perpetuates the subjugation of women. Saying that subjugating women is a bigger deal than the incidental detriment of a few bucks to a guy's wallet doesn't make us feminazi man-haters. It means we have perspective. If the world were an equal place, this would be a bigger deal. But, as they say, we have bigger fish to fry on this issue. It doesn't mean that, strictly speaking, we disagree with you in the abstract. We just think you're missing the forest for the trees.

4. This Horner guy is anti-woman. In general, we don't like people who are anti-woman.

5. Mr. Horner, by making a federal (? or at least state) case out of bars costing him a little more money, has provided an incidental benefit to the cause of feminism. Score!

6. This doesn't mean we have to like him. It definitely doesn't mean we have to like what he actually stands for.

7. The only people I owe thanks are people who do things FOR ME. As you yourself have admitted, we have no obligation to thank people for doing things IN THEIR OWN SELF-INTEREST when this happens to benefit us. Thus, I need not thank my grandmother for having sex with my grandfather. I need not thank every random stranger I meet for not mugging, killing, or raping me. I need not thank every driver for not crashing into my car.

vh, what it appears to us that you are doing, is appropriating feminist language and rallying behind a feminist cause when your ACTUAL intention is to complain about men's rights being trampled on (the "what about teh MENZ!" fallacy). You brought up a valid point a while back about paternity rights. It's a shame that this was buried in your rhetoric about how we should rally behind an anti-woman man who happened to make something good happen.

The paternity rights thing is a valid problem. It's also off-topic. But if you find a topic where it's relevant to the issue, I hope you'll bring it up again. Issues like paternity rights do often get the short shrift in feminist arguments -- partly because while feminism is concerned with equality, its particular focus is on women's rights. This doesn't make feminism "bad." It just means that feminism standing alone doesn't actively solve every single problem in the history of the universe. You really can't fault us for this. If you do, you're the one who's being unfair.

So, vh, if you want to demonstrate that you're not a troll, why don't you cut down on the rhetoric and present a cogent alternative view of this story? Lay out clearly, without language that smacks of condescension, what it is you're trying to say (because, frankly, this is not clear to me. You seem to be fixated on us "owing" this guy something, but as I pointed out to you earlier, you tacitly conceded that we don't owe everyone for the things they do that incidentally benefit us. So either you're contradicting yourself, or you haven't yet articulated what your ultimate point is). You jumped into this thread purporting to scold us silly little women, and I think we can be forgiving for becoming irritated at your high-minded tone and pedantry.

Julep, excellent point about the covert vs. overt thing. It means we really do have our work cut out for us.

Oh, and here's some popcorn.

suggested reading at pandagon.

If women weren't getting wasted off discounted drinks, how would this douche and others like him ever get any?

Honestly, this is a silly use of his time, but at least he's not spending it making the world less equal. Well, he's not doing it here. He probably does everything he can in his day-to-day life to make the world less pleasant for women.

I'm a crazy free-market person, so take this all with a grain of salt... but I wouldn't care if a swing dancing class offered 1/2 price lessons to men to try to even out the gender gap. If people don't like it, they can patronise another swing dancing business.

Obviously, though, these people find it to be a sound business decision. More customers of both genders come in. If women want to accept, in return for their time, a discounted drink, that is their perogative. It's the same theory as a professional athlete endorsing Nike.

Ultimately, if bars want to do a good business, they need a good atmosphere. They are welcome to contract with certain segments of the general public t get their help - with consideration - for improving the atmosphere.

But I find it hard to believe that with all the inequality in the world today Ladies Night is something we should attack with guns ablazin'. I mean, let's have a little perspective here.

Yes, let's get some perspective.

How's this; while you may think there are more important issues to fight for, until and unless you are, or can find someone willing to fight for the "more important" causes, why knock the fights that ARE taking place?

And if this is the only inequality he experiences in his life then I frankly have a hard time giving him much sympathy.

I am pretty certain no one wants you to give him sympathy. But he deserves to not be knocked down because he is a white male. And that is what's happening...

But he deserves to not be knocked down because he is a white male. And that is what's happening...
No, it isn't. Yes, he is a white male, but he isn't being knocked for that, anymore than he is being knocked for the colour of his eyes.

Steve Horner is being slammed for - rightly - making statements such as these: "I'm a major anti-feminist."

Feminism is defined as seeking the political, social, and economic equality of women. Now, here's the thing: if he's really anti-feminist, he wouldn't have taken this battle, because it is pro-feminist (i.e. seeking social & economic equality). So we can only conclude that, given his animus, he is actually anti-woman.

Do you seriously think that Ladies' night is indicative of a larger imbalance?

No. What difference does it make. Even if it's not because an imbalance, it is certainly offset somewhat by the imbalance, no?

Haircuts

maybe

dry-cleaning

hardly the exclusive domain of women

getting home safely

again, maybe, but hardly the exclusive domain of women

I think you're grasping at straws and making personal attacks on TLF because you're running out of hot air to blow.

Setting aside the hypocrisy of accusing me of that which you then carry out, how do you see me making personal attacks?

This has been true only over the past 50 years or so

How's that matter?!? Because it's only recently occuring? We had that argument already!

and it is fair because overwhelmingly mothers are primary caretakers.

That's the biggest bullshit argument I have ever heard! It's ok to discriminate against the men who are forced or choose to raise their children themselves because most primary caretakers are women?!?

Even when nannies and nurses are hired, their hiring is almost always the responsibility of the mother, rather than the father.

Well, I can tell you that, in my marriage, that is a result of my wife being much more concerned about the who's than I am...

Furthermore, the fact is, when men care to contest child custody, they often get it

Who's talking about child support?!? I'm talking about custody!

And, if you do wanna talk about custody, let's think about the number of men who are likely at the ladies nights who are paying support. Seems an imbalance exists again...
Furthermore, it's certainly possible and maybe likely that some of the women there are recipients of support.
Again, an imbalance.

And another thing; the majority of times that the mother demands custody they get it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of abuse!

Well, you tell me. Do men get asked whether or not they're married or plan on having kids at job interviews?

Likely not as much as women. Your point? I am not advocating higher pay for men so don't construct a straw man that you can knock down purely for self-gratification...

Do men leave their dates' contact info with a friend with instructions to call if they're not heard from by midnight after a first date?

Sometimes, but not usually for the same reason.

Do men worry much about rape?

Not usually, but it does happen.

Do men worry much about pregnancy?

Well, I know I did.

Do men endure street harrassment from people a hundred pounts heavier than them?

Not that I'm aware of...

Do men worry about how to "balance" a career or a family?

Uummm, yes. Single parent men have this problem quite frequently. And, in case you weren't aware, single parent men get significantly less sympathy in this area than single parent women.
Do you really wanna open that can?

Ladies' Night discriminates against members of a specific gender. In a perfect world, it would be abolished without controversy.

However, in patriarchy, women are members of a class that is underneath men. I find it hard to cheer when a member of the more powerful class wins equality for his class, when the other class is still raped, traded as a commodity, underpaid (when paid at all), disenfranchised, and otherwise discriminated against on a vast global scale.

So, because women still suffer, it's ok to ignore the achievements that improve the lives of women?

Do men worry much about pregnancy?

Well, I know I did.
You worried about getting pregnant?

The "dry cleaning" comment was not that ONLY women need to do dry-cleaning, but that women get charged significantly more money for the same service. At least with Ladies' Night, there is a justification for charging men more in terms of getting a better atmosphere. My dry cleaning doesn't come out any better for men having received a discount.

Saying that subjugating women is a bigger deal than the incidental detriment of a few bucks to a guy's wallet doesn't make us feminazi man-haters.

Where'd you see me say that? If anything, my argument has pretty consistently been about the objectification of women being more important. But still, neither argument is truly "more" important as they are both issues of inequality!

This doesn't mean we have to like him.

No, but it means you shouldn't disparage him for the flaws and refuse to acknowledge the successes. That's just shallow and selfish...

what it appears to us that you are doing, is appropriating feminist language and rallying behind a feminist cause when your ACTUAL intention is to complain about men's rights being trampled on

Where you gettin' that?!?

My ACTUAL intention is to point out that, while his efforts may have been misguided, he has, in effect, provided more equality across the board.

It's a shame that this was buried in your rhetoric about how we should rally behind an anti-woman man who happened to make something good happen.

Seems to me the biggest problem here is your understanding of my intentions(or lack thereof)

I don't want you to rally behind him. But I don't want you to kick his ass and talk trash about him because he did something that helps you but did it for the wrong reasons!

The paternity rights thing is a valid problem. It's also off-topic.

Hardly! This discussion, at least inasmuch as the comments are concerned, is about equality. The paternity rights issue is about equality.

It just means that feminism standing alone doesn't actively solve every single problem in the history of the universe. You really can't fault us for this. If you do, you're the one who's being unfair.

What the hell are you talking about?!? I don't expect anyone or anything to solve every single problem.
I expect you to be a little more mature about the successes that happen!

if you want to demonstrate that you're not a troll, why don't you cut down on the rhetoric and present a cogent alternative view of this story?

Again, what the hell are you talking about?!? I don't need to provide a "cogent alternative view" of this story. I am arguing this story on its merits.

You seem to be fixated on us "owing" this guy something

Actually, you seem fixated on that. You seem to think I have made that point somewhere but that's hardly the case...

If women weren't getting wasted off discounted drinks, how would this douche and others like him ever get any?

Yeah, that's important...

You worried about getting pregnant?

Wow. Just wow...

Can anyone really be that stupid, or were you just being a complete ass?

I worried about what our life would be like when my wife got pregnant, both times. Anyone who doesn't is an idiot.

The "dry cleaning" comment was not that ONLY women need to do dry-cleaning, but that women get charged significantly more money for the same service.

Sorry, women don't get charged more for the same service.

Women tend to pay more because their clothes are of different, often more delicate material and requires more effort to not damage. Not more cost for same service...

At least with Ladies' Night, there is a justification for charging men more in terms of getting a better atmosphere.

Wow! You just justified the objectification of women for atmosphere!!!

My dry cleaning doesn't come out any better for men having received a discount.

And my drinks don't taste any better for women getting a discount. (Stupid argument, BTW)

Thread...getting...crazy. I'm having such a good Friday night, don't make me moderate pretty please.

vhgill, as Jessica notes, the play-by-play is getting old. I asked a simple question, which you still haven't answered: what's your point?

I admit I'm misunderstanding you. At this point I have no IDEA what you're saying. So please, enlighten me. Enlighten us.

Short and sweet: your point?

Oh SHOOT. I'm sorry, I completely missed the timestamps. The whole three-hour difference thing.

Anyway, nevermind, vhgill.

Your drinks don't taste better, but they come with a nicer view. ;)

See, I don't think that Ladies' Nights objectify women, but I'm a pragmatist. I would MUCH prefer to be at a bar with an even girl:guy ratio, because being outnumbered can be frightening.

Rianwyn, that was hilarious. I spit up some tab.

vghill, you're a troll. Covering your ears and pretending you're not doesn't change that.

Since the troll keeps going on about paternity rights, I think I should point out that in large parts of the world, women almost NEVER get custody, especially in the Islamic world. They basically get thrown out on their ass with nothing, and no right to even SEE their children.

Before about 50 years ago, this routinely happened even on our side of the world. (A point the troll missed.) They swung a little too far one way, but now they're coming back the other with all the research about how father figures are important. Unfortunately, courts often determine that they are important even in cases of abuse, sometimes to tragic consequences. (I'm sure this happens with women as well. I can't think of a case off-hand and don't feel like looking it up.)

Sorry, women don't get charged more for the same service.

Women tend to pay more because their clothes are of different, often more delicate material and requires more effort to not damage. Not more cost for same service...

You know, I can use that logic. Men are charged more at the bar because they tend to drink straight liquor instead of mixed drinks that have very little alcohol in them. You see how I can make a false statement by basing it on a false premise? It's equal opportunity.

"At least with Ladies' Night, there is a justification for charging men more in terms of getting a better atmosphere."

Exactly. Kinda like how my buddy (who owns a bar) charges blacks more for drinks than whites. For the better atmosphere.

This loser should mind his own business and open his own bar if he doesn't like Ladies Night.

Goo, a blatantly unconstitutional violation of civil rights was ruled unconstitutional. People should be happy here, but of course privelages that affect you're group are always ok.

Crappy, retarded arguments that somehow justify you getting special treatment will always sound self serving. Mostly because they are. No matter who brings a lawsuit, the lawsuit must be judged on it's merits, and the unconstitutionality of this is unquestionalbe. No matter how many lame, self serving arguments are made.

Prairie lily, you think the price of drinks isn't controlled? women pay less for drinks because of free drinks or discount drinks. nobody is compairing a bottle of beer to a white russian. A free drink is a free drink. A discount is a discount.

you're just whining and screaming and yelling the same way people always do when they have their privelages taken away. You don't have the right to get for free what I have to pay 10$ dollars for.

"Goo, a blatantly unconstitutional violation of civil rights was ruled unconstitutional. People should be happy here, but of course privelages that affect you're group are always ok."

dude, READ THE COMMENTS. everyone is HAPPY that this guy is trying to get ladies night done away with because ladies night is fucked up. they just dont like him cuz hes "a major anti feminist".

prairielily, you're an idiot. Pretending you're not doesn't change that.

large parts of the world, women almost NEVER get custody

Well, were I present in those countries, and didn't think it would endanger my life to do so, I would heartily argue for those women.

But since we aren't there, this is an incredibly stupid point to make.

Before about 50 years ago, this routinely happened even on our side of the world.

Hardly at the same level or with the same severity, but you do make a point. And I never missed it. Not mentioning it is hardly missing it, as obvioused by your failure to note that we aren't in those parts of the world where women regularly get nothing.

Men are charged more at the bar because they tend to drink straight liquor instead of mixed drinks that have very little alcohol in them.

THis would be a great argument if it weren't so stupid; men are charged more for exactly the same mixed drink as a women order. If it were simply a matter of women stick to frou frou drinks that cost less and men only consume straight liquor, that would make a difference. However, I can order a mudslide and pay more than my wife would pay for her mudslide.

That's inequality.

You see how I can make a false statement by basing it on a false premise?

Yes, I saw how you did just that. However, I didn't. I consistently made apples to apples comparisons. You chose to throw in an apples to assholes comparison...

Thanks for that.

Kinda like how my buddy (who owns a bar) charges blacks more for drinks than whites. For the better atmosphere.

This loser should mind his own business and open his own bar if he doesn't like Ladies Night.

Glad to see we have the KKK aspect of the story represented here...

I thought David Duke was long forgotten. I never imagined he'd rear his ugly head on a feminist blog!

you're just whining and screaming and yelling the same way people always do when they have their privelages taken away. You don't have the right to get for free what I have to pay 10$ dollars for.

Exactly!

If women weren't getting wasted off discounted drinks, how would this douche and others like him ever get any?

Yeah, that's important...
>>>>>>

Dude try to have at least a drop of a sense of humor. It's hard for me to take this story seriously because this guy just comes across as some bitter old man who got jilted when his wife left him and now he feels the need to take on feminism, like somehow that it to blame for his failed marriage. I would like to see if this guy objects to bars and clubs where the bouncers admit som women over others based on their looks and/or clothing.

I would like to see if this guy objects to bars and clubs where the bouncers admit som women over others based on their looks and/or clothing.

As would I. However, as I pointed out previously; we don't get to choose the fight other take up and the reasons they do so. Until and unless we are willing and able and ready to take up a fight that we feel is important, none of us has the right to discount the fights others are engaging in, especially when those fights benefit us overall.

This is a common occurence that I am tired of seeing; "There's so many other, more important things."

If no one else is working on those "other things" then don't mention them. Focus on supporting, or at least not disparaging the fight at hand.

Not hard to do. Just seems that way from watching society...

As for him being jilted because his wife left him, perhaps he as good reasons. We don't know and shouldn't speculate.

Hear about the man in Canada who recently helped convict his ex-wife and her new GIRLfriend of KILLING the couple's child?

That would cause a great deal of hatred of and distrust of women, no? Getting left for a women and then having that couple kill your child.
He did try to get custody but was unsuccessful...

Likely nothing he did would have changede whether she left him, yet the typical reaction of many "feminists" that I have seen about the case who don't know she left him for a women assume that she left him because he's a loser or abuses her.

Just food for thought...

I assume the guy is a loser because he calls himself, IN PRINT, a "major anti-feminist." He is trying to punish ALL women because of what his WIFE did to him.

Now, if a woman were to do that, she would be called a bitter man-hater. Turnabout is fair play. :)

Um, yeah, I don't get that black/white atmosphere thing. Ya know, people go to bars to meet people. Straight men try to pick up women. If the bar is full of guys, it's like a straight woman going to Wellesley to meet chicks.

Women who don't like Ladies' Night can patronise another bar. Sheesh.

As for him being jilted because his wife left him, perhaps he as good reasons. We don't know and shouldn't speculate."

Just for the record I wasn't really speculating. He stated in the article that he became anti feminist after his wife left him, so the obvious conclsion is that he blames feminism for the failure of that marriage or else he wouldn't be on this crusade. I never offered a specific guess as to why it didn't work out.

"you're just whining and screaming and yelling the same way people always do when they have their privelages taken away. You don't have the right to get for free what I have to pay 10$ dollars for.

Exactly!"

PERFECT example of how people (mostly of the troll nature) only read or hear what they want to. if any of the trolls would read the comments there wouldnt even be this argument. oh thats right, they dont care about what anyone says but themselves. hence why itd be better to just ignore them

I've a question. You've objected to him being a "major anti-feminist" but you seem to agree with him that ladies nights aren't a good thing. So how has feminism managed to get such a warped image that this guy thinks ladies nights are some sort of feminist idea and that he's getting back at you by getting them banned?

I also have problems with how this privilege thing get used to bash certain people over the head. I seem to stumble across an awful lot of blog threads where middle-class university educated women see themselves as oppressed and get involved in arguments with "anti-feminist" working class men who don't have much of an education and are slagged off for being privileged oppressors. I'm sure women on the whole have it worse than men on the whole. But to see this manifest itself in people having a go at others who are on a lower rung of the ladder than they are seems odd.

He is trying to punish ALL women because of what his WIFE did to him.

Wow, how did you make that deduction? Because he's (ostensibly, however actions seem to disagree) anti-feminist that hardly means anti-female. It might be more conveniet to see him that way but that hardly seems justified merely by this one action.

Now, if a woman were to do that, she would be called a bitter man-hater. Turnabout is fair play.

You have just perfectly proven that turnabout is indeed not fairplay.

Were a woman to do that and be scorned for it you'd likely come unglued on the person unleashing said scorn. However, when the man does it and you scorn him for it you are unwilling to accept that the scorn is deserved as much as the woman's in her case. Personally I don't think either should be scorned, however in the context of your example and my rebuttal, until and unless you accept that the woman would be as deserving of the scorn or this man is undeserving of the scorn you're nothing short of a hypocrite.

Women who don't like Ladies' Night can patronise another bar.

Rosa Parks could've chosen another seat. You miss the point.

Why allow the inequality to occur?

He stated in the article that he became anti feminist after his wife left him, so the obvious conclsion is that he blames feminism for the failure of that marriage or else he wouldn't be on this crusade.

That's hardly the obvious conclusion. Perhaps he blames feminism, perhaps not. The point is we don't know why his wife left him or why he is (again, in words, not action) anti-feminist.

PERFECT example of how people (mostly of the troll nature) only read or hear what they want to. if any of the trolls would read the comments there wouldnt even be this argument. oh thats right, they dont care about what anyone says but themselves. hence why itd be better to just ignore them

How did you reach that illogical conclusion? Did you actually read the comments?

But to see this manifest itself in people having a go at others who are on a lower rung of the ladder than they are seems odd.

Kinda makes you shake your head and wonder, doesn't it? I also love the "rich white male" statement by UltraMagnus; he's white and male and anti-feminist, must hold true that he's rich, right?

How many of the feminists here are what would be considered working class?

The Law Fairy has a law degree. I don't know from where but that amounts to a significant amount of education.

May I ask how you acquired such an education? Student Loans? Grants? Parents? Self-made money?

If your answer includes either loans or grants, are you what would be considered a minority ethnicity?

Likely, if you did have loans or grants, you had a greater rate of success than I would in obtaining said monies, purely for being a woman. Is that balance? Is that equality?

Now, think long and hard about your answer.

If you decide it's because I would make more doing the same thing, you have immediately negated every other argument about male/female imbalance you have/will ever make. If I have to pay more for my education I damn sure better get paid more afterward.

I singled you out because your name (and self admission of lawyer) provide the field you're in. No other's name/handle provides such info...

This is the funniest MRA troll ever!

So if it's a serious problem, let's see 'em organize. Round up all these guys who are so oppressed by Ladies Night and march through the bar district.
But for now it's one guy.

Ha ha!

Haircuts, dry-cleaning, hell, getting home safely (how many times have I taken a taxi rather than a subway due to safety-concerns?) are but a few of the things that routinely cost more for women than for men

The dumbest MRA troll ever can't understand that women's drycleaning, haircuts, wardrobes, safety are more expensive because society emphasizes women's appearance and makes women more vulnerable to rape.

overwhelmingly mothers are primary caretakers. Even when nannies and nurses are hired, their hiring is almost always the responsibility of the mother, rather than the father. Furthermore, the fact is, when men care to contest child custody, they often get it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of abuse.

When men are primary caretakers half the time, they can have equal say on the custody laws. My understanding is women in most cases are primary caretakers and have more say in gaining custody.

3. This is facially discriminatory against men, but what is truly problematic about this is that it perpetuates the subjugation of women. Saying that subjugating women is a bigger deal than the incidental detriment of a few bucks to a guy's wallet doesn't make us feminazi man-haters. It means we have perspective. If the world were an equal place, this would be a bigger deal. But, as they say, we have bigger fish to fry on this issue. It doesn't mean that, strictly speaking, we disagree with you in the abstract. We just think you're missing the forest for the trees.

Man, I do love TLF.

Feministing is like taking a really fun class. I read every day to learn and laugh.

I seem to stumble across an awful lot of blog threads where middle-class university educated women see themselves as oppressed and get involved in arguments with "anti-feminist" working class men who don't have much of an education and are slagged off for being privileged oppressors.

People attack the stupidity of the arguments. No one called this troll a privileged oppressor.

This thread keeps getting funnier & funnier. *Busts out the popcorn*
Didn't vhgill say he was leaving yesterday? Why is he still here?
B/c it's not like he's making any new points, he just says the same things over & over.
Here's a clue that the man suing might be priviliged; the fact that he even sued. Who else but someone with some money & security (& a lot of free time & psychological damage) would take this to court?
Not that I don't agree, I don't like ladies' night & don't participate in it, I just don't like his attitude.

So if it's a serious problem, let's see 'em organize. Round up all these guys who are so oppressed by Ladies Night and march through the bar district. But for now it's one guy.

They'll call the marches TAKE BACK LADIES' NIGHT.

Prairie lily, you think the price of drinks isn't controlled? women pay less for drinks because of free drinks or discount drinks. nobody is compairing a bottle of beer to a white russian. A free drink is a free drink. A discount is a discount.
you're just whining and screaming and yelling the same way people always do when they have their privelages taken away. You don't have the right to get for free what I have to pay 10$ dollars for.
Good job missing the point. I don’t have the right to pay less for drinks any more than you have the right to pay less for dry-cleaning. The fact is that I’m a small person. My silk dress probably uses the same amount of fabric as my boyfriend’s silk dress shirt. My women’s blouse (made of the same material) is far, far smaller. I still pay more. The point was that I can twist the “oh, it’s totally different!� logic to my ends by making stuff up. I did, and it made you upset. Mission accomplished.
And it’s really not a privilege for me, because I don’t drink, so I’m not getting anything for free. Take the free drinks! Take the men, too, so I can dance with my friends without anyone bothering me. I don’t care.
prairielily, you're an idiot. Pretending you're not doesn't change that.

I’m sure you could come up with a more creative insult. I know a guy who called me a “naïve socialist bitch who doesn’t have the slightest connection with reality.� Put a little effort in! Make me cry!

Well, were I present in those countries, and didn't think it would endanger my life to do so, I would heartily argue for those women.

But since we aren't there, this is an incredibly stupid point to make.

Hardly. You went on and on about how women automatically get custody. I pointed out that that isn't true, because North America isn't the only place in the world. And are you aware that they don’t kill foreigners when they get off the plane in those countries? Chances are, you would come back in one piece, the same way I always have. I didn’t tell you to go fight Bush’s war in Iraq.

Maybe if I spell it out to you very carefully, you'll understand, even though you haven't picked up on it from the other, more intelligent posters.

This guy, by his own admission, is an anti-feminist. If you read this article, you'll see that even his FAMILY thinks he's crazy.

You thank someone when they do something FOR YOU. It's not selfish not to thank someone if they accidentally helped you while thinking that what they were doing was hurting you. The whole point is to show appreciation when someone shows you kindness. Otherwise, I would thank my ex-boyfriend for treating me like shit for months, because breaking up with him over it turned out to be a good thing for me.

Please note that even when this guy has won this case elsewhere, the practice soon re-emerged. Therefore, he has not even won a battle for feminism.

Over and over in this thread, people have said that they don't like Ladies Night, but in a world where murder by a partner is the most common cause of death for pregnant women in the US, it really just doesn't seem that oppressive.

What the bar owners are doing is, in effect, paying the women (through free drinks) to perform a sexual service, ie. appear available and willing. This, in turn, brings in males that tend to weigh more and have a higher tolerance, and, therefore, are able to drink more and offset the cost for women.

"Yay, I get free drinks. In exchange, I get to fight off the legions of men who think that I am free for the taking because I’m wearing a short skirt and drank a few drinks with raunchy names. I feel so PRIVILEGED!"

I think it's weird and creepy that Ladies Night is acceptable. I don't really think it's oppressive to either party, because humans are quite capable of being opportunistic. We've also discussed the problems we have with Hooters on this board. I don't know where he got the idea that bothering them is a move against feminism, either.

If this is the best example of oppression that this guy can find, he needs to learn more about the world. This is a restriction on his entertainment, and doesn't limit his ability to move freely, speak freely, or affect his health or well-being. It's almost as if he's jealous of women being objectified, which makes very little sense to me. This is why so many people on the board have dismissed the idea that Ladies Night is oppressive to men.

However, if this is what he wants to spend his time doing, more power to him. Hopefully, it'll keep him busy enough that he doesn't start doing things that ACTUALLY harm women. He’s not shooting doctors, or strangling prostitutes. He’s not making death threats against Nancy Pelosi or Condoleeza Rice for being powerful women. He was mostly dismissed as a harmless crackpot before you started complaining. Are you going to make good on the threat that you’ll stop reading Feministing anytime soon?

It's also a little sad to me that he's not actually doing anything to help men. I would love for MRAs to get together, leave feminists alone or even reach out to us for help, and demand prison reform, or for them to campaign to get men to go to the doctor more regularly so their life expectancy goes up. I would be a big fan of a Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.

Calling prairielily an idiot is completely unacceptable. And yet you claim, vh, not be a troll. You wanna use your troll non-logic to parse that one for me?

Women who don't like Ladies' Night can patronise another bar.

"Rosa Parks could've chosen another seat. You miss the point."

Because Ladies' night is just like the institutionalized, systemic brutalization and subjugation of black people that was the law of the land fifty years ago. Here's a clue: degree matters.

Leederick said:

"I seem to stumble across an awful lot of blog threads where middle-class university educated women see themselves as oppressed and get involved in arguments with "anti-feminist" working class men"

Well, yes. This is one of the core principles of feminism: gender is a category of oppression. Middle-class white women are indeed impressed, by virtue of their gender, just as working-class men are oppressed by virtue of their class. Claiming that working-class men can't oppress women because they're poor makes as much sense as claiming that wealthy women can't oppress the poor because they're women. Now, vh is making an awful lot of assumptions about the backgrounds of other posters on this site, and I venture to suggest that he knows fuck-all about them. The world does not seem to have a dearth of male lawyers, for example.

I've never posted on Feministing, but the silliness of this thread has prompted me to. I really don't see why this conversation has gone on so long.
Horner clearly has some skewed idea of what feminism actually is. From the article, it seems that he thinks feminism is advocating improved rights for women solely with nothing to do with equality for both genders. I think he believes "anti-feminism" to mean "crusading against unfair treatment of men." There is nothing in the article to indicate that he was doing anything beside this or acting out any actual anti-feminism - That is, taking rights away from women or actually doing any harm.
That's it: just some guy with a poor understanding of feminism, not unlike most people, trying to right some mild injustice. Making personal judgements about Horner or ridiculing his actions without more information than just one article is distasteful. And who cares how silly his cause is? Even if it's the only inequality he'll ever face in his life, challenging any injustice is simply the right thing to do.

Who else but someone with some money & security (& a lot of free time & psychological damage) would take this to court?

Ever occur to you that people might do this who can't afford to because they are passionate about it?

Probably not. Only those who are priveleged would dare sue for anything...

Like, say, a woman who sues for discrimination despite the fear of losing her job. She's clearly priveleged...

Were a woman to do that and be scorned for it you'd likely come unglued on the person unleashing said scorn. However, when the man does it and you scorn him for it you are unwilling to accept that the scorn is deserved as much as the woman's in her case. Personally I don't think either should be scorned, however in the context of your example and my rebuttal, until and unless you accept that the woman would be as deserving of the scorn or this man is undeserving of the scorn you're nothing short of a hypocrite.
LMAO!!!!! Can I nominate you for "Special Person of the Week?" I point out a social phenomenon, and all of a sudden, I'm a hypocrite.

Babe, I've had my share of jerk boyfriends - like stalked, attempted rape boyfriends. Thing is though, I still like men - I just don't particularly like those men. So yeah, I would bitch-slap a divorcee who got her thong in a twist because her husband left her.

That's all I can make of your "logic." Someone please pass the popcorn; I'm off to get myself a bourbon for the show. ;)

Rosa Parks could've chosen another seat. You miss the point.
No, babe, you miss the point of a free market. A bus is a public accomodation. A bar is a business and was conducting itself to increase revenue. Don't like its practices? Make it lose money. No need to make an ass of oneself in the process.

I don't miss the point; I just don't happen to agree with you.

FYI: PrairieLily is not an idiot. First, she's right - at least throw a creative insult her way. ;)

Second, just my opinion, the only idiot is the one who doesn't back himself up in an argument. You have yet to bring an IOTA of evidence to this discussion, but instead respond with stuff you make up. Yeah, it's easy to win an argument if the only place that your opponents are never right is in your own head. This is reality though, and google.com is there if you would like to look up any facts to support your nonsense.

The ladies on this board are all highly intelligent, inquiring, tough people - and I concede that even when I (strongly) disagree with them. If anyone here is going to be insulted for lack of intelligence, I fail to see why it is the person making sociological and philosophical arguments.

Do you seriously think that Ladies' night is indicative of a larger imbalance? Because if so, you are the more mistaken. Haircuts, dry-cleaning, hell, getting home safely (how many times have I taken a taxi rather than a subway due to safety-concerns?) are but a few of the things that routinely cost more for women than for men.

I don't take this line of reasoning lightly; dry cleaners have always charged more for "blouses" than "shirts." If they conclude that the attire looks "feminine," they WILL charge as a blouse. The same goes for haircuts, in most situations. And I can't count how many times I've been adminoshed for taking a particularly deserted subway line or walk home in the middle of the night because of past incidents in my Brooklyn neighborhood.

As someone who insists on going Dutch for dates, I can also honestly say that my clothing and makeup are going to add up to more than his. Even the "natural" look takes a minimum of products.

There is a small, neighborhood watering hole that has a Monday ladies night, which I sometimes patronize. Drinks are free all night, but we tip $2-3 a drink. I see this as a little "thank you" for all the awesomeness we bring to the men in our lives.

I would like to see if this guy objects to bars and clubs where the bouncers admit som women over others based on their looks and/or clothing.

I concur. If he was consistent about pursuing true EQUALITY for this and the aforementioned pricing issues that don't benefit women, I'd find it interesting. He's merely being SELECTIVE, pursuing an "issue" that doesn't personally benefit himself. That is not equality.

I wonder if he objects to preferential treatment for hands, since he will most certainly be using his for years to come!

Oh yeah, let's also talk prom dresses and bridal gowns vs/ tuxedo rental...

One last thought: clearly he's alienated himself from pretty much every group of women. Patrons of ladies nights tend to be the kinds of girls who don't identify themselves as feminists. What's left...mail order brides?! Hehe.

"I wonder if he objects to preferential treatment for hands, since he will most certainly be using his for years to come!"

Quality. Grow up.

dry cleaners have always charged more for "blouses" than "shirts." If they conclude that the attire looks "feminine," they WILL charge as a blouse.
Correct. Male shirts often cost about $2 each, and that comes with ironing; I've had to pay $4 or $5 for my blouses (silk/cotton combo that requires no ironing and isn't very delicate).

My hair goes down to my waist. It gets a straight cut along the bottom. I can't get someone to snip the ends off for less than $40, and it requires less time and skill than cutting men's hair.

So if a bar wants to give me a discount, great. Neither do I object to Happy Hour in DC, which definitely allowed me to have a social life on an intern's budget.

Heh. But Happy Hour discriminates against those of us who do not work middle-class office hours! I feel oppressed!

"I wonder if he objects to preferential treatment for hands, since he will most certainly be using his for years to come!"

Quality. Grow up.

Aww, turn that frown upside down. Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays...on a Saturday! :)

...but, but... I worked for free, and free pizza and discount sangria kept me from starving. Think of it as welfare for idealistic law students. ;)

...but, but... I worked for free, and free pizza and discount sangria kept me from starving. Think of it as welfare for idealistic law students. ;)

This kind of reminds me of the universal health care article in Salon today, and how many liberal non-for-profits are notorious for depriving their employees of not only insurance, but a livable salary.

So you see, Happy Hours and Ladies Nights are indirectly making our world a better place by providing comfort to the non-for-profit sector.

But don't you see? Such sops, such opiates of the masses do naught but indirectly support the exploitative capitalist patriarchal not-for-profit sector by providing only enough comfort to dull our revolutionary fervor! They are but steam-valves that maintain the status quo! Aux armes, citoyennes, aux armes!

Ahem. Sorry. It's Saturday night, and I'm working, so I've gone a little funny in the head.

A self-described "agitator" against feminism

he’s been on an anti-feminist crusade since his wife left him with two young children several years ago and he regularly encountered discrimination against men.

"I’m a major anti-feminist," he said.

ABD, he seems pretty fired up about fighting "special rights" of women. I wish him luck in actually finding women's special rights. These MRAs never see the forest from the trees. And feminists are against ladies' nights. The term itself is insulting. After all, gentlemen's clubs is another term for strip clubs.

Ever occur to you that people might do this who can't afford to because they are passionate about it?
Probably not. Only those who are priveleged would dare sue for anything...
Like, say, a woman who sues for discrimination despite the fear of losing her job. She's clearly priveleged...
Sparky, I'm going to type this very slowly. Please be sure to read every word & think it through before you reply. K? K.
Of course there are exceptions to this, but, generally, poor people do not have the resources to sue & if they do sue it will be over something important. Other people have pointed this out to you before, but you have serious issues noticing degrees of opression. You do. A woman suing for discrimination at her job b/c of her gender is a lot more egregious than a guy not being able to get free drinks. Degrees. They're both not good, but one is more not good than the other. Do. You. Understand?
This guy has admitted that he's anti-feminist, if he knew this was making us happy then he'd probably quit.
And yes, I will say that the legal system in America is skewed towards the priviliged.

My women’s blouse (made of the same material) is far, far smaller. I still pay more.

Are your shirts both laundered in identical fashion?

I did, and it made you upset. Mission accomplished.

So your whole purpose was not to engage in meaningful debate but rather raise the hackles of the opposing viewpoint so as to feel superior as you mightily claim "mission accomplished!"

Good job, Bush!

And it’s really not a privilege for me, because I don’t drink

Here's our latest winner in "Completely Missing The Point!"

I’m sure you could come up with a more creative insult.

I'm as certain you could come up with a compelling argument. Perhaps not.

You went on and on about how women automatically get custody.

I didn't go "on and on". I pointed out the generally accepted imbalance that exists in that arena as a counterpoint to your argument about it being ok that men pay more for drinks.

North America isn't the only place in the world.

How many places you think have this ladies night phenomenon? Certainly none of the countries you were eluding to in your argument...

And are you aware that they don’t kill foreigners when they get off the plane in those countries?

Yes. Are you aware that stupidity is still not punishable by death here? Oh, of course you are...

My point with that statement was not that I would die by stepping off the plane (idiot statement) but rather thay I could/would endanger my life, both as a native and more so as a visitor, and significantly more as an American, by arguing against the traditionally accepted views of that country.

Perhaps that was too much to expect you to grasp.

I didn’t tell you to go fight Bush’s war in Iraq.

Wow. You're really starting to run low on oxygen, aren't you? (Both the breathing kind and the network)

You thank someone when they do something FOR YOU.

And your point? Show me where I told anyone they had to thank him. I have stated that they don't have to but should also not denigrate him or deride the success his case represents for women in general.

Please note that even when this guy has won this case elsewhere, the practice soon re-emerged. Therefore, he has not even won a battle for feminism.

That is truly one of the stupidest things I have read here yet.

Because business owners, possibly at the behest of male and/or female cleintele, choose to ignore the possible repercussions of the practice, this guy's achievement is worthless?

Wow. Good thing you weren't around earlier in our nation's, hell, our planet's history. As soon as someone did what was outlawed you'd just as soon it not be outlawed.

in a world where murder by a partner is the most common cause of death for pregnant women in the US, it really just doesn't seem that oppressive.

So because it's not the worst thing that can happen to a person, we should just ignore it?

If this is the best example of oppression that this guy can find

You presume that this is "the best example of oppression he can fid" but that is completely irrelevant. Firstly, it may not be the "best example" he can find, but that's hardly cause for anyone to tell him "just forget about it."
Secondly, you have no concept of his life experiences or his perspective on the world. Your "best example" of female oppression might seem trivial to another woman. Doesn't mean it's trivial to you and no one has the right to call it such.

Are you going to make good on the threat that you’ll stop reading Feministing anytime soon?

Not likely. In case you were to arrogant to actually read what I said, I'll repost here so you understand that my problem isn't and wasn't the content of the blog but rather the commenters;

By the posting itself, I can't discern if Ann tends to agree with these sentiments. However, these comments alone are a big motivator to remove this blog from my daily reading.

Calling prairielily an idiot is completely unacceptable.

I'm still waiting for you to call her out for the "troll" comment.

Remember this? vghill, you're a troll. Covering your ears and pretending you're not doesn't change that.

Don't defend someone who's willing to use a tactic and then have it thrown back at them...

And yet you claim, vh, not be a troll. You wanna use your troll non-logic to parse that one for me?

I dont' claim anything for your benefit. You labelled me a troll because it's easier and mor convenient for you and many others to dismiss me and my arguments as "troll" withour giving them any thought.

Hell, even if I accepted the moniker, at least I'm a big enough person to actually read and consider your argument.

Here's a clue: degree matters.

Whose degree?

Calling prairielily an idiot is completely unacceptable.

I'm still waiting for you to call her out for the "troll" comment.

Remember this? vghill, you're a troll. Covering your ears and pretending you're not doesn't change that.

Don't defend someone who's willing to use a tactic and then have it thrown back at them...

And yet you claim, vh, not be a troll. You wanna use your troll non-logic to parse that one for me?

I dont' claim anything for your benefit. You labelled me a troll because it's easier and mor convenient for you and many others to dismiss me and my arguments as "troll" withour giving them any thought.

Hell, even if I accepted the moniker, at least I'm a big enough person to actually read and consider your argument.

Here's a clue: degree matters.

Whose degree?

Now, vh is making an awful lot of assumptions about the backgrounds of other posters on this site

Where?!? When?!? I made an assumption about one poster, which was derived from her own addmission that she was a lawyer.

Seems to me you know "fuck all" about reading...

And how do you imagine that the number of male or female lawyers even matters in this discussion?!?

Talk about trolls!

My hair goes down to my waist. It gets a straight cut along the bottom. I can't get someone to snip the ends off for less than $40

Ever heard of a barber shop?

feminists are against ladies' nights.

I guess we can then assume that Katie, for one, is most definitely not a feminist!

"i dont particularly think its bad for women to have ladies night"
Posted by: katie | January 12, 2007 04:23 PM

"personally, i don't find ladies nights offensive or sexist"
Posted by: katie | January 12, 2007 05:56 PM

A woman suing for discrimination at her job b/c of her gender is a lot more egregious than a guy not being able to get free drinks.

I'm gonna type this real slow for you, and use small words so's you can get the idea in that pretty little head of yours;

I DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF YOU THINK HIS FIGHT IS IMPORTANT OR NOT. HIS FIGHT REPRESENTS A FIGHT AGAINST INEQUALITY, NOT FREE DRINKS. THAT YOU ARE TOO ARROGANT OR SELF-ABSORBED WITH YOUR OWN FEMALE SUPERIORITY DOESN'T CHANGE THE REALITY THAT I HAVE POINTED OUT CLEARLY A DOZEN TIMES;
ANY FIGHT FOR EQUALITY IS AN IMPORTANT FIGHT!

And that bullshit about "poor people do not have the resources to sue & if they do sue it will be over something important" is so ludicrous it isn't even conceivable that anyone with the brain power to breathe would make that statement.
Ever hear of contingency fees? Plenty of attorneys willing to take a case, not at all unlike this one, with the hopes and (realistic I might add) expectations of a large payout at the end. Don't need money for them.

And yes, I will say that the legal system in America is skewed towards the priviliged.

First of all; figure that out all on your own?

Secondly; how's that relevant. I don't believe anyone stated anything counter to that...

I don't why the troll is bothering Prairielily since most of us said the same thing. No need to respond to the troll, Prairielily. Why didn't the troll bug me? :D

Troll, it's not what he's doing, it's how he did it. Most of us are against ladies' night. He just shouldn't call ladies' night a "special right" for women and he shouldn't have considered this an anti-feminist crusade.

Oh, but donna, it's SO entertaining. Where else will I find someone to tell me that I'm so stupid that it should be punishable by death? And then say that they are at least willing to consider the arguments of others?

I mean, we're talking about someone who said this: And your point? Show me where I told anyone they had to thank him. I have stated that they don't have to but should also not denigrate him or deride the success his case represents for women in general.

He's obviously posted so many times that he can't remember also saying this: Next up is Law Fairy who appears to support the notion of providing equality and achieving equality, yet is unable to simply THANK this man for his efforts, however misguided they may seem. Instead, she (he?) chooses to use the "better him than me" type argument about legal costs.
Nice.

It just goes on like that, you know? Anyway, I'm going to go be sad now because I live outside of the US and have never watched the Oxygen network. Oh, the travesties caused by a childhood spent in the Middle East and Pakistan... good thing I didn't die out there, though, eh? Even though I was a tiny little feminist-in-training back then?

Anyway, I'm out. This thread had around 125 posts now, and I'd like to attend to more pressing feminist matters.

He's obviously posted so many times that he can't remember also saying this: Next up is Law Fairy who appears to support the notion of providing equality and achieving equality, yet is unable to simply THANK this man for his efforts, however misguided they may seem.

Still never said anyone had to, did I?

Miss that point?

LOL to EG. I think you miss the point, though. ;) The liberal revolutionaries will have the edge taken off their fever by reduced-price sangrias, while the conservatives will drink, schmooze, and network all night.

"My women’s blouse (made of the same material) is far, far smaller. I still pay more."

Are your shirts both laundered in identical fashion?

Yes, two shirts can have exactly the same fabric composition, yet the price will be more if one of the shirts is cut for more of an hourglass shape. Why is this so difficult to understand?

"My hair goes down to my waist. It gets a straight cut along the bottom. I can't get someone to snip the ends off for less than $40"

Ever heard of a barber shop?

The point is, why should she have to pay more than a man in a salon? Has Steve Horner ever heard of a liquor store and drinking at home for cheap?

I DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF YOU THINK HIS FIGHT IS IMPORTANT OR NOT. HIS FIGHT REPRESENTS A FIGHT AGAINST INEQUALITY, NOT FREE DRINKS. THAT YOU ARE TOO ARROGANT OR SELF-ABSORBED WITH YOUR OWN FEMALE SUPERIORITY DOESN'T CHANGE THE REALITY THAT I HAVE POINTED OUT CLEARLY A DOZEN TIMES;
ANY FIGHT FOR EQUALITY IS AN IMPORTANT FIGHT!

You had a good run, but they've finally made you crack. Methinks this almost warrants a "virtual restraining order."

I'm not ashamed to go on the record as a feminist and say I certainly don't mind trotting up to my neighborhood place for free drinks if they're offering. As stated above, I consider it a small token for all the catcalls, pay scale differences, and various annoyances only affecting women on a given day.

If I could wave a wand and make EVERYTHING equal tomorrow, I would do so. In the mean time, why should I give up a very small perk but still have to put up with the crap that's not likely to go away anytime soon? I'll fight for causes that may or may not be resolved in my lifetime, but life is also too short to look a small gift horse in the mouth.

I think someone in Horner's hometown should have a drink special night for people who show up in dresses...while I have several male friends who would do this in a heartbeat for free booze, I'd like to see how a more traditional community would react. Not only is this a great workaround, but I find men in drag to be quite a turn-on.

I think someone in Horner's hometown should have a drink special night for people who show up in dresses

Hee hee! Free high-class booze if you show up in heels, too. ;)

Yes, two shirts can have exactly the same fabric composition, yet the price will be more if one of the shirts is cut for more of an hourglass shape.

It's not that this statement is difficult to understand. It's that thiis statement doesn't speak to the question I posed; are both shirts, made of the same material, regardless of size or shape, laundered in identical manners?

If they are not, you can't claim appes to apples comparison.

The point is, why should she have to pay more than a man in a salon?

Does she have to pay more than a man would at the same salon for an equivalent cut? She didn't say she paid more than men for the same thing at the same place. Rather, she claimed not to be able to locate a place to have her hair cut for less than $40.

I am merely curious if she has tried a plain ole' barber shop or if she is limiting her searches to salons who specialize in women's hairstyles and getting reamed...

Has Steve Horner ever heard of a liquor store and drinking at home for cheap?

Again, hardly a comparison, as Horner pays more for the same thing at the same place.

As stated above, I consider it a small token for all the catcalls, pay scale differences, and various annoyances only affecting women on a given day.

You're ok with paying less for a product yet demand equal pay for employment.

Hardly seems fair.

Somehow I don't think that matters to you.

In the mean time, why should I give up a very small perk but still have to put up with the crap that's not likely to go away anytime soon?

Why should I have to give up anything either? You demand equality unless you're getting something you feel you deserve despite that thing representing inequality.

Oh, and believe me, they/you haven't "made me crack" by any stretch.

Disengage from the troll. This has gotten boring.

Lemme get this straight:

You think that I don't have the right to go to ANY hair salon and get the same price as a man, if my hair takes the same time (i.e. virtually nil) to cut. So I should either pay a higher price OR be forced to select other shops.

But you defend Steve Horner. Hypocrite.

Babe, this is exactly Steve Horner's issue. He doesn't WANT to go to bars that don't offer Ladies' Nights (and admits to seeking them out, in fact) or explore other options.

At least with Ladies' Night, I see the price discrimination as reimbursing women for their presence (as a civilising influence and as a draw to get men into the bar). Charging more to cut my tresses does nothing for the rest of the salon's business.

FYI: My parents cut my hair. Like other law students bum a free load of laundry, I bum haircuts when I'm home. ;)

Do you actually read what I type?

I'll put it here again;
Does she have to pay more than a man would at the same salon for an equivalent cut? She didn't say she paid more than men for the same thing at the same place. Rather, she claimed not to be able to locate a place to have her hair cut for less than $40.

Now, I'm not sure how you drew your conclusion, but I clearly asked if she is paying MORE than a MAN at THE SAME PLACE for AN EQUIVALENT CUT.

I don't really know how much clearer I could be.

So please, explain my hypocrisy to me...

At least with Ladies' Night, I see the price discrimination as reimbursing women for their presence

However you feel you have to justify inequality, just remember that you ARE INDEED ATTEMPTING TO JUSTIFY INEQUALITY.

Hypocrite.

Easy. See, men get charged less than I do (roughly $10-$15) at the same places, for the same amount of effort.

"Has Steve Horner ever heard of a liquor store and drinking at home for cheap?"

Again, hardly a comparison, as Horner pays more for the same thing at the same place

Women have to pay more for haircuts, as well as for women's shirts of the same material and same laundering techniques at the same establishments where men pay less. I think we've been clear about spelling this out. I believe you said women should go to barbershops if they want to save money; I think the same goes for men who really consider this issue an injustice...it would behoove them to stay home nursing their bottles. I can't imagine they would make pleasant company anyway.

All the cute (not to mention feminist) boys in my neighborhood don't object to Ladies Night, if a place chooses to have one. They are smart enough to know that it also benefits them; either they know they will be surrounded by chicks, or if they are going with a date the drinks for both will even out as half price. Most importantly, they observe what their ladyfriends endure daily, and are more than happy to watch us enjoy a few perks...both the old-time local dives and the recent hipster bars would laugh this Steve guy out of their establishments.

My guyfriends fight for true injustices, not trivial matters.

I wonder if Stevie will be hanging out every night, counting the seconds of each pour for a woman's drink, or monitoring "unjust" buybacks. Heh.

Hey, vhgill -

I realize fisking is terrific fun and all, but please indulge me:
Sum up your argument.
Do it in, say, 12 sentences or less.
Using your own words only.

Several people in this thread have already made this request, but thus far you have proven either unwilling or unable.

Please do so now, or else get back under your bridge.

Jane Minty,

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/dining/27feed.html?ex=1169010000&en=b4410afe1a71e316&ei=5070

Yeah, actually, women are paying the same amount for LESS liquor. :) So if this Horner guy wants to count the seconds on the pours of my bourbon, let him - please, let him, so I can get a real drink, not one of these sissified things that bartenders like to stick me with!

WOW, this was one long posting.

Oenophile, that was a fun article. True too, I always order the fancy drinks while I my wife orders beer, wine or straight spirits.

I always viewed price discrimination as amusing and something to joke about with your colleagues (besides, as a guy I figured I got the better end of the deal because who would pay $100 to get a hair cut and some dye?). Now that I am married however and have a joint bank account, I find price gouging for “women� stuff less funny. Haircuts, dry cleaning and cloths for women cost WAY to damn much money!

Now that I am married however and have a joint bank account, I find price gouging for “women� stuff less funny.

I'm guessing that you usually take the car to the mechanic, even if your wife is capable of doing it herself.

This book
http://www.amazon.com/Blink-Power-Thinking-Without/dp/0316172324
mentioned a study in which four people (black/white, man/woman) went into used car dealerships to ask the price of a car. They dressed alike, gave similar "professions," and were given the same instructions. They were to all get an initial price and then argue down as much as possible, with each prepared to walk away (obviously). The white male was given the lowest initial price; the white female was quoted about $500 above that; and the black man & woman were quoted at about a grand above the white male.

Oh, yeah, clothes. Y'all can get your suits tailored in the store, usually at no extra charge; we have to take ours elsewhere. Brooks Brothers, half the time, doesn't even stock professional women's attire! :(

Oenophile, thanks for the link! That's too bad, since I was really excited about trying Blue Smoke. Then again, I tend to order my bourbon (Woodford Reserve) straight up, or perhaps on the rocks.

Yeah, actually, women are paying the same amount for LESS liquor

That's an interesting article. However, it's certainly not one-sided.

I drink vodka and coke. More women pour my drinks heavy than men.

I also have women friends who have ordered the same thing as I but got a different pour. Sometimes my male friends get different pours.

I weigh about 300 lbs. It seems that waiters come by more often to see if I am "ok". I also get my drinks refilled much more quickly at bars and taverns.

What can be deduced from that?

Probably nothing related to the managment or ownership of the locations where this happens. More likely it's a individual decision.

That doesn't make it right. But ladies night is most definitely a management or owner decision.

As for Vervain, as I've done so about 3 or 4 times already, I'll leave it to your superior capabilities and intellect to find and absorb them. Then you can crawl back under your rock.

I order my Maker's Mark on the rocks, and I usually drink with my guy friends. Often, they'll go the bar to order for all of us. Which is nice, because I really hate ordering a round of bourbons - the bartenders all think I'm easy and get pretty crude.

Oh, I'm sorry, vhgil.
I would have thought, since you've already restated your point 3 or 4 times, you wouldn't mind indulging my polite request to reiterate it just once more, succinctly.
But you're right, you've been very clear. We just don't get it, even though you've posted more than twice as much as those actively responding to you, and at least 4 times more than anyone else.
Gosh, we must really be morons. Cause you've been so clear.

Guess I'll just have to go slog through all 39 of your posts again and see if I can't sift out your point. I'm sure it's in there, somewhere.

And then I'll go crawl back under my rock.

First-time poster here. (I think... it's late.)
Anyways, I just wanted to say that as a woman, when I think about how I would feel if some bar offered "men's night" where only men got a discount - just for being men ... I would be upset. Specifically, I would feel that it was unjust, and I would feel devalued as a human being. Why should my $2 not be able to buy the same thing that the $2 of some person sitting next to me can? I'm not trying to say anything about the relative significance of this issue to other issues of inequality. I am saying simply that if the tables were turned, I would feel that I was being discriminated against.