|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday April 14, @09:49PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm hoping that he loses, not as a matter of
discrimination, but on the principle of private property rights. I think the bar, as a privately owned business, should be free to discriminate in any way it wants just as anyone who owns a house should be free to do so and for the same reasons. The principle of private property rights is fundamental to our freedom in a great many ways, some of which are not obvious.
That said, I don't really blame the bar for its practices. It is just trying to operate profitably. It could also be argued that the ladies nights (like free personal ads for women) draw women to the bars and that the women then draw men to the bars and that without the free drinks many singles bars would be out of business (assuming that fewer women would not risk venturing out to the bars without incentives).
Of course, like you, I am also disgusted by the Ladies' Night phenomenom. Not merely because the bar is discriminating against men, but more so because of the underlying circumstances that make it profitable, if not necessary to do so. These circumstances are quite painful for men.*** Keep in mind that making the symptom illegal will do practically nothing to cure the disease.
The painful truth behind Ladies' Night is that in the "market for romance" just about every night is Ladies' Night for young height/weight proportionate childless women. When it comes to finding a decent (not perfect) partner they have a much higher romantic market value and everyone knows it, at least implicitly. For that reason they need do little more than take passive initiatives (flirting as opposed to directly asking a man out on a date). Likewise, they have reason to invest less effort in meeting men than men have in trying to meet women. Ladies' nights are a response to that fact, not the cause.
[Disclaimer--much of the above is generalizations. Anedotal cases will, of course, vary from the mean.]
*** Arguably men could reduce the pain of rejection and increase the chances of romantic success if, in mass, they agreed to begin seeing women their own age and older, less attractive women, perhaps with kids. Sadly, it's a vicious circle that reinforces itself. Older men don't have as strong of an incentive to do that as do younger men suffering with the problem now since the older men already suffered through it and don't have as much to gain from it. (Of course, women also choose older, more attractive men.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever position you take on the public/private discrimination issue, the law on the books expressly forbids discrimination by businesses such as this. If you disagree with that law, that is one thing. But to say that it's OK for that law to only protect women and not men, that's another. As long as that law is there, why would you not want the case to win? If it loses, the message will be that men do not get the same protections offered by anti-discrimination laws, even if the laws are neutral. That is one of the very reasons we need these kinds of lawsuits, as well as to wake men up to the fact that they need to start speaking up for themselves when they are treated unequally, no matter how "minor" it may seem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But then how far do you take private property rights? Is it OK for a club to cater to white patrons only? What about a club that chooses to specialize in men who like Asian women and Asian women who like non-Asian men? Would it be OK for them to allow free entry ONLY to Asian women, charge men for entry, and expressly bar non-Asian looking women and Asian looking men?
Discrimination laws exist specifically to bar this kind of behaviour because in the delicate balance between private, individual rights and the right to a harmonious society, these kinds of things go too far. Private property rights are important, but they are only one kind of right, only one kind of guarantee made by the law. Sometimes rights collide, and you have to decide which one is to prevail and by how much.
Personally, I think that this suit is a bit silly, but then I'm not a clubber, and I also thought that lawsuits over hairdressing and dry cleaning were silly, too. That said, since the hairdressing and drycleaning rulings came down—if we're going to be ridiculously litigous—why not also ban this practice?
Yes, it may be only a symptom of a deeper malaise, but the other side of the equation is that if you allow the symptoms free rein then you encourage the problem. Suppressing the symptoms won't solve the problem, but it will reduce it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday April 18, @03:02PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
[Regarding the 2nd post, he has a good, compelling point that perhaps the plaintiff should win the lawsuit in order to uphold equal protection for men. Sadly, this is a case where two interests that I support conflict.]
Yes, I think that it should allow any kind of discrimination on private property in the same way and for the same reasons that you can freely discriminate about who enters your own home. I don't see any difference between a home and a business in those regards. Neither belong to the government. Another issue is freedom of association. Where does the government get off putting guns up to people's heads and telling them who they have to do business with or associate with?
I don't think you have a right to enslave other people by forcing them to deal with you if they don't want anything to do with you. (Why exactly anyone would want to patronize someone who, left unbound, would discriminate against them in the first place is beyond me.) Ultimately the free market (with help from prevailing rationality in the culture and a morality of individualism) would put an end to irrational (racial, etc) discrimination because it would be unprofitable.
As much as you and I might find such discriminatory practices to be odious, we should strive to maintain private property rights and freedom of association. What principle do you think would prevent the government from telling you that you have to erect big crosses or put Virgin Mary statues on your lawn (aside from freedom of religion)? Suppose that I own a printing press and publish a newspaper that criticizes the government. The government now wants to require me to use my property to print pro-government propaganda. What principle will protect my ability to determine how the printing press operates?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
