|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notice the not too subtle misandric catty remark at the end of the article.
The feminists have only distortions and lies to support their beliefs, as made clear by the remark: "Welcome to getting a haircut in America. You all pay $8. We pay $90."
When men and women are given entrance to a bar or a club, they receive the same thing — entrance to a bar or a club. Consider haircuts, however...
I go to Great Clips and pay a few bucks to have my hair cut. It takes about ten minutes. If my wife had almost no hair and went for a trim at Great Clips, she'd pay the same as me. She goes to a hairdresser and pays a lot more for her styling, which takes more than an hour. If I had hair as full and long as hers and went to the same hairdresser for a styling that took the same amount of time, I'd pay as much as her. (I tried it once. My god, it was a waste of time and money! It's not that it isn't worth it on my wife, it's that nothing can be done with my lousy head of hair--or lack of. Great Clips does as good a job.)
This is like women buying new Mercedes-Benzes, men purchasing used Volkswagens, and the fembots bitching that women pay more for their cars than men do.
Sleazes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been going to the same guy since I was a kid. He charges $16 for a wash and a cut and that goes for men and women equally. Of course women are going to pay more if they opt for the whole nine yards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. Getting charged less because of your gender *alone* is completely different than paying more for an expensive service that you "chose" to use. It's not like the hairstylist is saying, "Sir, your haircut is $8.00, but because you are a woman ma'am, I have to charge you $90.00." Two completely different scenarios.
AND! And, IF women *did* have a problem with being charged more for servics, then they should seek to rectify the situation on their own, not knock down someone elses concerns.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas, as usual you’re absolutely correct.
This haircut analogy has been around forever and everyone knows how phony it is, even if they won’t admit it. It speaks volumes that it’s the only challenge presented.
If that’s the best they can do they’re groping for straws. The writer obviously felt the need to include some kind of opposing view, however weak.
Maybe this lady’s night thing could be used as a way of raising money for men’s issues. I’m sure that there are bars in most cities that do this. Why not sue them and donate the money to a worthy men’s cause?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Maybe this lady’s night thing could be used as a way of raising money for men’s issues. I’m sure that there are bars in most cities that do this. Why not sue them and donate the money to a worthy men’s cause? "
Hopefully it will inspire other lawyers to take action.
The whole haircut thing is a communist lie in my opinion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 07, @08:21PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
It's great to hear that we finally won one! We also need to challenge ladies day at the oil change places. And, yes, this would be a great way to raise money for mens causes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...to "Welcome to getting a haircut in America. You all pay $8. We pay $90."
"Welcome to getting car insurance in America. You all pay $600. We pay $1200."
Feminists squealing back: "But men make more accidents than women!"
Masculinist response: "And cutting women's hair takes longer and is more expensive."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If men’s haircuts and women’s haircuts were identical services I’d agree with the haircut analogy. If a woman walked into the Great Clips I go to and had to pay $90 for the service I get (I pay $10 and it take 5-10 minutes) she’d obviously be getting ripped off and I’d take her side. But when using the $8 vs $90 haircut comparison we’re not talking about identical services.
Men’s car insurance and women’s car insurance is the same product. Car insurance companies use generalizations to discriminate against individuals. A male with a clean driving record pays more than a female with an identical record. You don’t pay more because you are personally more likely to be in an accident, you pay more because you’re male.
Any given male may be the safest driver on earth but he will pay more simply because of his sex. Discrimination based on a people’s sex rather than their individual abilities or behavior was once the definition of sexism.
This is a great example of how bizarre feminist “reasoning” has become. When women choose a premium service and pay more than men pay for an ordinary service it’s discrimination, and when men pay more than women for identical service it’s justifiable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yet another statist intrusion into the private property rights of owners, not to mention freedom of assocation. this isn't a victory for "equal rights", it's a violation of rights.
you do not have the right to go to a bar and pay the same amount at the door as a women. going to a bar is a privillege, as is paying lower prices. owners can extend these privilleges to anyone they please. what exactly gives you, or the plaintiffs, or the state, the right to tell these owners how they run their own establishments?
i don't think that this morally reprehensible expansion of government is anything we should be cheering about. this is a completely frivolous and idiotic ploy by two jackoffs who wanted to make an easy buck. i doubt either of the two plaintiffs are even involved in the mens movement.
this is no better the laws banning smoking in bars. nobody, not you, not your friend and not the state has the right to tell the owner of a property what he can and cannot permit on his own property, or what he can or cannot charge for his services.
----
"I despise you. I despise your order; your laws; your force-propped authority." HANG ME FOR IT!" - louis lingg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 07, @03:13PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I like your notion of privacy and individual rights, but it doesn't reflect the reality that we live with in the US. In discussing bars/clubs, they are not private homes they are public service providers... owners of bars do not have the right to choose who their clients will be, for this could lead to discrimination (and would if the owner were racist or sexist or any other 'ist). With regards to smoking you have the same thing, although I happen to think banning smoking in bars was stupid, it was well within the rights of states to do so because bars are public entities, and gubberment is SUPPOSED to be looking out for the public (not that they do a very good job of it).
I think a better solution to "girls night" would be to require bars to have a "guys night" with the same benefits to guys that the girls get on their nights. I think bars would be surprised at how many guys would show up if they got drinks half off... and just like it works the other way... if the bar was full of guys, there'd be plenty of girls there too(although most of them would get some sucker to pay their cover and buy their drinks).
All in all I think the old adage "any publicity is good publicity" is in effect here, this will AT LEAST get people thinking about inequity in society... and specifically that men are expected to suck it up and accept these sorts of inequities based on outdated concepts of male/female interaction.
Dave K (forgot my stupid password)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> In discussing bars/clubs, they are not private homes they are public service providers...
NO NO NO. wtf. Since when has a bar been a 'public service'? (it's not subsidised by tax dollars, unless you can think of a more relevant metric of what constitutes a 'public service'). Bar owners, like any other business, residential or other private property owner, are there to serve _themselves_. If they want to offer a lopsided deal, it's their business.
Now if the shoe was on the other foot, and men had the discounts and women were moaning and lawsuiting about it, and won, but this case failed, then I'd call in question the asymmetric application of the relevant laws; but at any rate, who gets let into whose private property is none of the business of the state; like the parent poster said, noone has a 'right' to go to a bar (except the owners of the bar).
>owners of bars do not have the right to choose who their clients will be
Erm, _why_not_? This is the question the parent poster asked, you didn't answer it, all you've done is restate it.
>I think a better solution to "girls night" would be to require bars to have a "guys night" with the same benefits to guys that the girls get on their nights.
Ugh. That's a socialist-inspired 'equal-means-the-same' type policy. As a mensactivism.org reader, surely you've by now noticed that feminists are great proponents of such policies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Ugh. That's a socialist-inspired 'equal-means-the-same' type policy"
Equal does mean the same, and I doubt that authors solution was inspired by socialism. PS - Socialism has a definite meaning, and it isn't "everything but economic anarchy". You can thank what you consider "socialism" for the fact that the US economy does not look like the Mexican one.
"As a mensactivism.org reader, surely you've by now noticed that feminists are great proponents of such policies?"
As a mensactivism reader, surely you're aware that they are not? Its called lip service. I don't know any feminists, and very few women, who would be at all satisfied with equality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equal does mean the same
That is not necessarily the case. 'same' implies 'equal' though. Dissimilar people can most certainly be equal "under God", "under the law", or whatever.
You can thank what you consider "socialism" for the fact that the US economy does not look like the Mexican one.
People are 'equal' in the US (i.e. equal of rights); the fact that income disparities exist means they aren't the same. Socialist countries aim to change this by making the lack of sameness into a bogeyman of missing equality that has to be rectified by income redistribution. What I consider socialism is what's been implemented many times around the world under the name of 'socialism' (and failed miserably each time).
Hence, making 'equal' entail 'same'-ness is the sort of socialist thinking the ensures non-free markets like Mexico are shitholes.
As a mensactivism reader, surely you're aware that they are not?
Erm. You haven't noticed the recent spate of "gender quota" laws?
I don't know any feminists, and very few women, who would be at all satisfied with equality.
Mmh; agreed. Nasty isn't it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Ugh. That's a socialist-inspired 'equal-means-the-same' type policy. As a mensactivism.org reader, surely you've by now noticed that feminists are great proponents of such policies?"
You are exactly right! Which is what men's activists will have to watch out for. You're not the only one who thinks that way.
Im not really concerned about ladies night giberish. And I know for a fact that the lawyers involved are men's activists and I support their decision. I wish them continued success.
But on the other hand, the fems have been pushing for extreme laws on domestic violence without solving the problem but increasing it. One large group or organisation that is behind this, is children's services. They are a group that is very interested in taking your children to be wards of the state.
We should be pushing the laws back that rip people from their homes and their children, not helping them to advance it by pointing out that women do it to.
This bullshit was done UN-DEMOCRATICALLY! I can't stress this enough. If we want to improve our rights we will have to fight for women's rights, just as men have as a class historically.
While women are fighting to be in the workforce government is slowely taking away their rights to be parents. Watch for upcoming propaganda that will show mothers more and more as abusers of children.
Father has already been executed from his family, mommy is next.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While women are fighting to be in the workforce government is slowely taking away their rights to be parents. Watch for upcoming propaganda that will show mothers more and more as abusers of children.
Father has already been executed from his family, mommy is next.
I think there's a lot of wisdom in these statements, Dan.
The situation is very complicated. On the one hand, right-wing feminists want less government intrusion into private affairs, and on that I agree with them. On the other hand, reactionary feminists are as fundamentally anti-male as the commie feminists. They'd just rather promote female supremacy through the way they raise their children. Neither of these bunches are the friends of men and boys.
Though there are times when we have to work with the right-wing feminists, we need to stay aware of the fact that they are still female supremacists. Our cooperation, to the extent that it is necessary, should be understood as politics making strange bedfellows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 08, @12:10PM EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
A bar provides drinks and food to the public in exchange for dollars... they DO provide a public service. They're no different than any business, and the government currently has the responsiblity to regulate businesses when it's in the interest of the public. While it might be tempting to say that they shouldn't be doing this, I think that no regulation is as bad as over regulation. The problem is setting the right amount. I think with smoking and bars they've gone overboard, but I'm not as sure about the girls night thing. In CA there's a law that says businesses can't discriminate on the basis of gender... and differential pricing schemes are just that. The idea that guys should suck it up because it's the right thing to do sounds to me like what I hear from feminists about most issues affecting female privilege. These two guys very efficiently called attention to the issue (even though it's a bit of a frivolous one) and the press coverage is sure to get a few more guys out there thinking about mens rights... and maybe it'll open a few eyes and get those guys digging into more serious issues. Maybe it'll make it easier for the next two guys to attack an issue that's more important. You need to start somewhere, and visibility is pretty darn important to getting our message out there.
I don't see the guys night/girls night thing as socialist or capitalist... but as a simple balancing of the rights of people to be treated equally with the rights of owners to use marketing gimmicks to draw customers.
Dave K
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Midasmulligan,
You pose an interesting question regarding the rights and responsibilities of property owners. To some extent I am inclined to agree with you (particularly with regard to the smoking ban). However, I wonder if you feel the same way about "No Negros" and "Whites Only" signs hanging outside an establishment. Do you feel that it is the right of the owner to refuse service based on race? Do you think involuntary desegregation was a violation of the rights of property owners, or an enforcement of the civil rights of all citizens?
"[O]wners can extend these privilleges [sic] to anyone they please."
Technically, of course, they can't. It seems to me that you are stating that they SHOULD be able to extend those privileges to whomever they please. Without delving into a large discussion on the rights of property owners versus the civil rights of the general populace, where, if at all, do you draw the line between acceptable discimination and unacceptable discrimination?
I pose this question not as a challenge, but as a simply inquiry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
simple:
acceptable discrimination: all. while i may not personally agree with discrimination of any sort, i recognize it is not my right, nor the right of the discriminated party, to demand the use of another person's property. neither i, nor the discriminated group have earned any right to the property, so neither of us can dicate it's use.
unacceptable discrimination: none. see above.
----
"I despise you. I despise your order; your laws; your force-propped authority." HANG ME FOR IT!" - louis lingg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
acceptable discrimination: all. while i may not personally agree with discrimination of any sort, i recognize it is not my right, nor the right of the discriminated party, to demand the use of another person's property. neither i, nor the discriminated group have earned any right to the property, so neither of us can dicate it's use.
Ahem.
I'm willing to wager they are on the government tit for a variety of things. Incorporation for tax savings. Participation in government programs for "Equal Opportunity." Just for starters.
Well, when you invite the vampire in the door, you lose the right to bitch about getting bit.
So - so long as I'm getting robbed of tax money, if you recieve that in any way I have invested - and I get a say.
When we can reopen the all-male schools, and the Jaycees can go back to being a male organization, and so on and so forth - then I might relent and allow ladies' night. Until then - if I can't, screw 'em, they can't either.
Live by the sword, and die by the sword. Or the lawsuit as the case may be. It's called just desserts.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and the fact that they are on the government tit is wrong too. i'm dealing with this one issue at a time. i furthermore believe that two wrongs do not make a right, but only add to the problem.
i'd like to see less government regulation of private property owners. i see no point in adding more to make it "fair". why not make it "fair" by removing the leglislation already in place?
----
"I despise you. I despise your order; your laws; your force-propped authority." HANG ME FOR IT!" - louis lingg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. I think it gets a bit more sticky than this if for no other reason than very, very few establishments are not subsidized in some way by the government, but, nevertheless, I admire your consistency... very few people actually make the leap from their position on an issue to the inevitable conclusion that follows...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
midasmulligan writes "....acceptable discrimination: all. while i may not personally agree with discrimination of any sort, i recognize it is not my right, nor the right of the discriminated party, to demand the use of another person's property. neither i, nor the discriminated group have earned any right to the property, so neither of us can dicate it's use. "
Note the contrast here between the arguments of the far left and the far right. In this case, the concept of "acceptable discrimination" has a history of leading to and supporting human slavery, Nazism, genuine oppression of women, and other evils.
The argument of "acceptable discrimination" is not new. We almost always hear this from chivalrous males that believe in female superiority and male subservience. It is quite old and the source of it is conservative white supremacists. As we go back in history we find threads of this all the way back to the Roman and Greek empires. This argument has nothing to do with socialism or communism.
This sort of thinking from the far right is what leads to conservatives supporting and passing very dangerous and oppressive laws that are anti-male. It is this form of thinking that creates the most problems in Sarcamento as we lobby for new more equal laws.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
accept i am not a conservative and would never advocate the passage of any law. fundamentally, my beliefs are based on the principle that nobody has the right to iniate force or fraud against another person.
you support the iniation of force. tell me, what, do you believe, gives you the right to do so? do you believe you are smarter then everyone else?
----
"I despise you. I despise your order; your laws; your force-propped authority." HANG ME FOR IT!" - louis lingg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"yet another statist intrusion"
Yet another one huh? Boy I wish the "statists" would get off my back with their meat inspectors, pollution laws, and OSHA requirements. Now they won't let me start up a bar and sell certain kinds of people beer for one price, and other kinds another? What's next, are they gonna tell me I can't start up a bus company which reserves the front seats for white people?
"This isn't a victory for "equal rights", it's a violation of rights."
Whatever. If you want to pay more for drinks because you're male, Jewish, black, or whatever you were born go right ahead and include it in the tip. Personally if I was a Californian I'd be happy to see all the women who only went to the bar because of their female-elite marketing gimmicks weeded out before I arrive. Instead of sucking down that hatoraid, go get yourself a beer and celebrate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't know how the subject line changed on that last comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't know how the subject line changed on that last comment.
Which makes it all the funnier. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the owners of these bars have worked for them. they have sacrificed their time and energy, some of their very lives, to purchase and run these establishments. this sacrifice is what gives them claim to the property, their property is an extension of their lives.
you, on the other hand, have not sacrificed a single penny or a nanosecond towards the purchase or maitenance of these bars. you have no claim on them. so then, what gives you the right to tell the owners how they should be run? how is this any different from the government telling you that you cannot hang porno posters in your room because they are offensive to some women?
bars are not "public service providers". bars are private property, like a house or car. only the owner of the bar can decide who can use his property, and for what price.
you do not have the right to go to the bar. i repeat,
you.do.not.have.the.right.to.go.to.the.bar.
going to the bar is a privilege that only the owner of the bar can grant you.
if you disagree, please tell me, in a logical and reasonable fashion, what gives you the right to use the private property of others, in any fashion you please, without their consent?
Whatever. If you want to pay more for drinks because you're male, Jewish, black, or whatever you were born go right ahead and include it in the tip. Personally if I was a Californian I'd be happy to see all the women who only went to the bar because of their female-elite marketing gimmicks weeded out before I arrive. Instead of sucking down that hatoraid, go get yourself a beer and celebrate.
pay more? au contraire, these lawsuits have not changed my situation at all. that's another thing i find interesting about your twisted worldview. you act as if men have gained something from this, when in fact, all that's happend is that women have lost something. the price of my cover/beer at one of these bars remains the same. all that's happened is that the price of women's cover/beer has gone up.
so what i am celebrating? that, because you and others like you are jealous of luxuries enjoyed by somebody else, you have commissioned armed men to go out and remove them by force? that's cause to celebrate? maybe if you're a communist or a nazi, but i'm neither.
congratulations. i have nothing to celebrate. i do not take pleasure in the misfortune of others, even women.
----
"I despise you. I despise your order; your laws; your force-propped authority." HANG ME FOR IT!" - louis lingg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Public buses, public drinking fountains are different then bars run by private citizens. I will agree to that.
I would be more pissed if they had laws on the books that prohibit certain races or genders from entering bars.
Like I've been saying all along, most of this is really just to allow government to invade our lives. Which means its really just 'other' people invading our lives with their ideologies.
And based on the total propaganda that we've seen from the government we should not trust them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"the owners of these bars have worked for them. they have sacrificed their time and energy, some of their very lives, to purchase and run these establishments."
They've set up bigotted marketing schemes. Fuck them.
"congratulations. i have nothing to celebrate. i do not take pleasure in the misfortune of others, even women."
The poor deers aren't being given elite treatment anymore in this *one* aspect, I feel so sorry for them. I can't imagine having to go without one night a week where the local tavern gives me free beer. Hey you think maybe if bars and everyone else stops treating women like their an elite class, they'll stop believing they are?
(Yes, I know there are a few exceptions to this rule, but very few)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Easy, Nibbles.
you act as if men have gained something from this, when in fact, all that's happend is that women have lost something.
Bingo! Now, say it again, with feeling!
you act as if men have gained something from this, when in fact, all that's happend is that women have lost something.
Hallelujah! Amen!
Buddy, I'm as Libertarian as you are; but I long ago got horked at the libertarian tendancy to treat everything but a perfect and total victory as an utter loss. So, let me spell out for you what this settlement means.
It means women have lost something - as a direct result of pheminist lobbied and paid for laws.
Yes, dat's right. BEACAUSE OF "FEMINISM" women have lost something. Their own laws, their own doctrinaire attitudes and stridency has jumped up and bit them square on the ass.
In order to bitch, they must now do one of two things: A) Either admit that such "discrimination" is allright - ALWAYS, or (b) Push for blatant and undeniable anti-male legislation, IOW, come out of the closet.
congratulations. i have nothing to celebrate. i do not take pleasure in the misfortune of others, even women.
I'm tempted to tell you to grow up and take off the rose colored glasses. Let me let you in on a little secret.
The feminists delight in your misfortune - because you are male.
When men commit suicide at a rate of 4x that of women, they rejoice. They only wish it were more.
That hate you. HATE you. You are their enemy. Therefore, they are yours. (If you're not, well, you're just a willing whipping boy - it take two to make a peace, but only one to make a war.)
So - when my side gains a victory over my enemy - I rejoice. In fact, I'm toasting it with 18 year old scotch right now. Here's one for the good guys! Maybe this will be the straw, maybe this will round up the hundredth monkey -
But if it's only the 67th chimp, we need a few more.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm toasting it with 18 year old scotch right now.
Mmmmm. Which one? I've only got 12-year-old Bowmore on hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glenmorangie. (sob) I drank all my MacCallan's.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've noticed that the overwhelming majoraty of libertarians are nutty as a mad hatter, fruitcakes and not firing on all cynlinders. Some of the time anyway. :)
That hate you. HATE you. You are their enemy. Therefore, they are yours. (If you're not, well, you're just a willing whipping boy - it take two to make a peace, but only one to make a war.)
A lot of libs are like that though. After he was outed as a closet gambler, Bill Bennet's most vigorous defenders weren't fellow members of the religious right, but rather libertarians! This made absolutely no sense, sine Bill Bennet is the personification of telling other people how to live their lives, which is against everything that libs stand for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 07, @08:54PM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
"I despise you. I despise your order; your laws; your force-propped authority." HANG ME FOR IT!" - louis lingg
Interesiting, I hate both the state and private property for both are intertwined and authoritarian. The sole reason for the state is to enforce the property rights of the minority over the property-less majority who have no other realistic recourse but to submit to the authority of the property owner for mere survival.
I hate the authority of the property owner that is granted to them by the state. I hate following their orders, I hate obeying the land-'lords' dictates, I hate being sub-ordinate to the boss/capitalist, I hate being controled, I hate being made to conform, I hate being told what I can or cannot wear, I hate being told when I can or cannot go to the bathroom or, when I can rest or, when I may eat, and I hate it when this is done to others. All in all I hate authority just as your qoute seems to imply that you do....
A libertarian should (in theory) seek out authority and wherever he finds authority abolishes it without any sentimentality or prejudice for whatever grants one their authority over yourself or others. Even if that authority comes from something as sacred to the "libertarian" capitalist as private property (as oppossed to personal possessions which, grants you no authority over anyone). For if you stop at abolishing authority when that authority comes from the ownership of private property you have just then stopped being a libertarian and have morphed into a propertarian. You have become someone who holds property higher than liberty. A libertarian should be against authority it is of course the anti-thesis to liberty.
"[T]he inequality of fortune . . . introduces among men a degree of authority and subordination which could not possibly exist before. It thereby introduces some degree of that civil government which is indispensably necessary for its own preservation . . . [and] to maintain and secure that authority and subordination. The rich, in particular, are necessarily interested to support that order of things which can alone secure them in the possession of their own advantages. Men of inferior wealth combine to defend those of superior wealth in the possession of their property, in order that men of superior wealth may combine to defend them in the possession of theirs . . . [T]he maintenance of their lesser authority depends upon that of his greater authority, and that upon their subordination to him depends his power of keeping their inferiors in subordination to them. They constitute a sort of little nobility, who feel themselves interested to defend the property and to support the authority of their own little sovereign in order that he may be able to defend their property and to support their authority. Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." [Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, book 5]
Hence the anti-authoritarian and anarchist Peter Kropotkin said "the rich perfectly well know that if the machinery of the State ceased to protect them, their power over the labouring classes would be gone immediately." [Evolution and Environment, p. 98]
This is why libertarians only want to get rid of the social functions of the state and not the coercive functions that actually define the state.
Do you really hate authority? So who in fact is the statist here?
And one last quote from the anti-communist, (although an anti-statist socialist) individualist anarchist, Pierre Joseph Proudhon.
If I had to answer one question "What is slavery?" and if I were to answer in one word "Murder,"... I would not need to use a lengthy argument to demonstrate that the power to dprive a man of his thoughts, his will, and his personality is a power of life and death... Why, then, to the question "What is property?" may I not likwise reply "theft" without knowing that I am certain to be misunderstood, even though the proposition is simply a transformation of the first?
- PIERRE-JOSEPH PROUDHON
If you agree with what I've just described above you may further read here
www.anarchyfaq.org
www.anarchyarchives.org
Is "anarcho"-capitalism against the state?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secF6.html
Or go to library and read "The conquest of Bread" by Peter Kropotkin.
Propertyless George
"I despise you. I despise your order; your laws; your force-propped authority." HANG ME FOR IT!" - louis lingg
I agree and, you can hang me for hating your authority just as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, sweet Jesus. You again?
You ever get tired of quoting the same old tired crap that was put out to pasture a hundred years ago?
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 13, @12:13AM EST (#106)
|
|
|
|
|
Randroidism was put out to pasture...well as soon as it popped out of the holy Rand's mouth as it was so insane.
The state is nothing but one giant property owner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like a bunch of communist crap to me. You want to live in a country where no one can own anything? Fine, go to Cuba or China if they'll have you. To me all this sounds like the rantings of someone who is JEALOUS of the achievements of others and attempts to resolve cognitive dissonance by creating an insane viewpoint where you have a right to enjoy the fruits of their labors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like a bunch of communist crap to me.
I'm not sure exactly to whom or to what you are referring here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
midasmulligan whines, "...you act as if men have gained something from this, when in fact, all that's happend is that women have lost something. the price of my cover/beer at one of these bars remains the same. all that's happened is that the price of women's cover/beer has gone up...."
Obviously, this ultra-far right conservative would have no problem with woman making a fool of him because of the chivalrous ladies night practice.
This joker is clearly one that believes women should have special privilege based on gender.
What he doesn't realize is that it became popular for these "empowered" females to mock men and make fools of them on ladies night and on other nights by the demanding of free drinks of “any” male.
That's right. Women were going to these clubs with their friends and demanding free entrance and free drinks from men, and they would get it. This would happen even at lesbian clubs where men might be present. If the male failed to by the drink they were mocked by the female and her friends. If the male bought the drink he was laughed at and mocked.
It was already predetermined by the women that they would not be giving out their phone numbers, or they would give out fake numbers. This was a cruel game for them. Then they would demand that the male buy drinks for the female and all her friends. After they had their fill of drinks that would blow the guy off as pre-planned and leave.
This was happening on a wide spread scale. Women were demanding special privilege, making fools of men for sport, and getting money thrown at them. Now these same bitches are whining because men are getting wise and making them carry their weight.
These discrimination suites, that I have participated in, were long overdue.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what we have here is what i like to call a "meninist".
let's review the content of your post
1. advocating socialistic regulations on the activities of private individuals.
2. demonizing conservatism (i am not, by the way, a conservative)
3. making negative generalizations about an entire gender
4. using purely emotional and irrational arguments
5. advocating the use of coercive force to impress his views on others.
these are all tactics virtualy synonymous with the modern feminist movement. i also like how you did not once attempt to tackle my point logically. i repeat,
what gives you the right to tell private property owners what they can and cannot do and permit on their own property? how is this any different then telling a homeowner what he can hang on his walls?
and, for your information, i have been to many a ladies night at local clubs (in fact, i have often gone out with my friends to bars specifically because it was ladies night) and have never experienced any of the "mockery" etc. you are describing. generalizations such as those have no place in any intellectual discussion as they are all based on annecedotal and totally meanginless evidence. drop it.
----
"I despise you. I despise your order; your laws; your force-propped authority." HANG ME FOR IT!" - louis lingg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
midusmulligan ignorantly asks, "what gives you the right to tell private property owners what they can and cannot do and permit on their own property? how is this any different then telling a homeowner what he can hang on his walls? "
If this midasmulligan has to ask this kind of a stupid question then midasmulligan just doesn’t get it. There is nothing intellectual or enlightening about this supposed argument/question.
midasmulligan might as well be claiming that government has no right to tell business owners that they cannot poison their patrons. NOT!
When midasmulligan set aside the ignorance and answer the question of why a government can stop a business owner from poisoning the patrons then midasmulligan have the answer to the bogus question.
Make no mistake. This question is stupidity at its best!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL!
"midasmulligan might as well be claiming that government has no right to tell business owners that they cannot poison their patrons. NOT!"
but midasmulligan is not asking this question.
so please, answer the question that i did ask. or better yet, allow me to be a bit more specific:
what gives you the right to tell private property owners what they can and cannot charge for their services?
----
"I despise you. I despise your order; your laws; your force-propped authority." HANG ME FOR IT!" - louis lingg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but midasmulligan is not asking this question.
Notice how this person avoids answering their own question. This person cannot even answer the simple question of what gives the government the right to regulate a business.
This person of course has side-stepped several other plain points already made about businesses and the government regulation of racism. No point in arguing with the person as they are too racist. This racist has already demonstrated the support for permitting private business to reinstate Jim Crow laws.
Clearly, this person cannot answer the question of what gives government the right regulate racist practices in business and impose penalties. That is because this person is a bigot.
midusmulligan is most likely one of three things:
1) a feminist troll
2) a bigoted chauvinist that wants to obligate women to sex by purchasing a drink.
3) some sort of supremicist that believes in bigotry
Neither is a masculist and contributing to the men's movement.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 08, @02:46PM EST (#70)
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly, this person cannot answer the question of what gives government the right regulate racist practices in business and impose penalties. That is because this person is a bigot.
The government has no right. That's why you can't answer the question and that's why he won't. The difference between the two of you is that you believe they do have a right and he doesn't. he knows why he believes that. do you know why you believe that the government has the right to regulate how men operate their businesses?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i believe i have implicitly answered my own questions a dozen times, but just so we're all clear
the government does not have the right to regulate businesses.
there. is that better?
now, your turn.
----
"I despise you. I despise your order; your laws; your force-propped authority." HANG ME FOR IT!" - louis lingg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have the right to force the government to apply its laws fairly and equitably. With respect to the situation that we are discussing, the government would not, I believe, allow businesses to charge blacks more than whites.
If you want to change or eliminate the law, then work to do so. But, again, we have the right to force the government to apply its laws fairly and equitably.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what gives you the right to tell private property owners what they can and cannot do and permit on their own property? how is this any different then telling a homeowner what he can hang on his walls?
Since he is incorporated as a business, he gets tax breaks. He gets special personal protection against most lawsuits (You sue the club, Inc, not Joe Clubowner - when Club, Inc. runs out of money, the well is dry and he is shielded.) As a result, as well, from his tax breaks for "development of the workforce" I pay more.
My Taxes:
Cover him against fire by paying for the fire department.
Give him police protection.
Have reserved the property he sits on for business use.
Pay for unemployment insurance for his employees.
Pay for Workman's comp insurance.
Upkeep the infrastructure that allows him to survive as a business.
Etc. Etc. Etc. Ad Nauseum, Ad Infinitum.
Thus, it is a matter of public record, and a place of public accomodation. This gives me the right to "Tell" him what to do.
Tell you what, if he gets off the tit, and becomes solely a private individual with a private "members only" club, he gets to call the shots. Until then, so long as the collective "we" foots part of his bill, the collective we dictates how he does business.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and can he choose to get off the tit? could he run his business without incorporating? can he tell the state not to tax him anymore, with the full knowledge that none of the aforementioned services will be offered to him?
or will refusal to comply with these rules result in his being shot? don't be part of the problem, be part of the solution. the state has no right to force him, you or anybody else to be a part of all that, but they're doing it anyways.
furthermore, your taxes do the same for every person living in your state, and on a greater scale, the country. does that give you the right to dicate to them how they should live their lives too?
hmm. america doesn't seem so free anymore.
----
"I despise you. I despise your order; your laws; your force-propped authority." HANG ME FOR IT!" - louis lingg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
midusmulligan whines,
"...what we have here is what i like to call a "meninist".
Whaaaa....whaaaa....whaaaa....
"let's review the content of your post
1. advocating socialistic regulations on the activities of private individuals.
I suppose that since I am a moderate and midusmulligan is using a far-right-wing-conservative set of arguments it would appear this way. If we used midusmulligan's arguments then traffic laws would be socialist.
2. demonizing conservatism (i am not, by the way, a conservative)
Actually, I work with both conservatives and liberals in Sacramento. Non have yet to come up with the extreme far right nutcase conservative arguments that you are posing.
3. making negative generalizations about an entire gender
You are quite right that I'm generalizing that the female gender demands ladies night and free drinks as a condition for socializing with men and that it has become increasingly more common for women to exploit men's generosity. Yes. I quite agree. The generalizations are negative. Now if most women wanted equal responsibility they would insist the practice of special privilege stop.
4. using purely emotional and irrational arguments
This of course an outright lie. It goes along the line that if an issue has emotional elements and the person feels those emotions then the argument must be irrational. Looks like this person is suppressing some anger. Clearly, this is a case of denial.
5. advocating the use of coercive force to impress his views on others. "
Well there are those nutcases that believe there should be no traffic laws because it involves the use of coercion be the state, and they argue that paying taxes is unconstitutional. Of course they are the ones going to jail. Only nutcases argue this way.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"what gives you the right to tell private property owners what they can and cannot do and permit on their own property? how is this any different then telling a homeowner what he can hang on his walls?"
Midas, I think these are legitimate questions. The anger on this issue, I think, is based upon what would happen were the roles reversed--that is, if men were allowed to get something for free while women had to pay. For example, if women had to pay for their own nursing scrubs while the male nurses got theirs for free. There would likely be a firestorm, but a lot of the complaining people would look upon the Ladies' Night controversy as silly and say, "that's different".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why does the owner of a bar have the *right* to shorten the lifespan of his employees by ten years, by having cancer causing smoke in the air every night? No other workplace would be allowed to get away with such a hazardous environment. If I own an establishment, is it okay for me to invite a bunch of Joes over for an asbestos party?
I'm very much down on the war on drugs - if you want to smoke pot, knock yourself out. But what on gods green earth gives you the "right" to give me cancer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 08, @06:45AM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but then the problem is the law and not the men who filed the lawsuit.
If this is your viewpoint, then we need to repeal the law in California.
BUT having the law selectively exercised in order to protect women but leave men in the lurch is completely unacceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
midasmulligan writes, "....you do not have the right to go to a bar and pay the same amount at the door as a women. going to a bar is a privillege, as is paying lower prices. owners can extend these privilleges to anyone they please. what exactly gives you, or the plaintiffs, or the state, the right to tell these owners how they run their own establishments? "
No doubt that this nutcase would encourage business owners to charge African-Americans more for entry into a “white only” club if they were permitted entry at all.
What is interesting is that I've heard Asian-American business owners claim they should have the right to give their own race a price break while charging whites more, and that there should be no government regulation against race discrimination. They argue that discriminating against whites and blacks is good for business and brings in more customers.
Get a clue. When one group experiences economic discrimination it opens the door to harm others. Singling out any group always leads to harming a larger circle.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"No doubt that this nutcase would encourage business owners to charge African-Americans more for entry into a “white only” club if they were permitted entry at all. "
encourage, no. permit? yes.
i notice how instead of responding to the question i asked in a logical and reasoned manner, you attempt to paint me as a racist. gee, that reminds me of a tactic posters at the ms. boards use all the time...
"Get a clue. When one group experiences economic discrimination it opens the door to harm others. Singling out any group always leads to harming a larger circle."
ha! your hypocrisy on the issue is transparent. i notice that you aren't complaining about the higher prices of women's haircuts as opposed to men. isn't that "economic discrimination"?
----
"I despise you. I despise your order; your laws; your force-propped authority." HANG ME FOR IT!" - louis lingg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"No doubt that this nutcase would encourage business owners to charge African-Americans more for entry into a “white only” club if they were permitted entry at all. "
encourage, no. permit? yes
And so we find that midusmulligan will permit human suffering, oppression, and outright bigotry in the name of profit. Profit without morality clearly leads to untold evils that have been visited upon the world. The list is endless.
Here's a clue. People can make a profit without slaves, without hating a group for their skin color, and without being a supremacist.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 08, @03:00PM EST (#73)
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a clue. People can make a profit without slaves, without hating a group for their skin color, and without being a supremacist.
They sure can.
I think in the case of Ladies Night, the bar owners believed that coaxing more women to bars by providing them with a lower price would create more business at the bar (i.e more drinks being paid for)
I don't think that any night club owner operating a Ladies Night promotion does so with the intent of "holding men down" or discriminating. I believe they do so to encourage business. Neither you nor I have any idea if the promotion did increase business, but i still believe that is why the promotion was launched in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that any night club owner operating a Ladies Night promotion does so with the intent of "holding men down" or discriminating. I believe they do so to encourage business. Neither you nor I have any idea if the promotion did increase business, but i still believe that is why the promotion was launched in the first place.
Actually we have almost two years of experience in this issue now. So, we can claim expertise in the area and claim to know what businesses intend.
We do know that the owners who discriminate against men share certain characteristics:
- 1) They all believe that women deserve special privilege and that men must pay the way.
- 2) They will use force to prevent men from having equal access to the discriminatory discounts.
- 3) They all, without exception, lie about the practice when publicly questioned about the price differences.
- 4) They all have a chivalrous values system where they believe women are entitled to special privilege and men are required to pay the females way no matter how wealthy the female.
- 5) In lesbian clubs, the lesbians believe that males should by them free drinks and subsidize their free entrance.
- 6) The owners will not hesitate to use the power of the state (police) to enforce their discriminatory practices.
- 7) The owners are aware that their practice is illegal because of publicity and written warnings. So, it is fair to say their discrimination is intentional.
- 8) The owners of discriminatory business become more secretive in their oppression of men after being sued and loosing.
- 9) The owners falsely assume that their are only a few men suing the discriminatory businesses.
- 10) The patrons are commonly heard in line complaining about the discriminatory practices. We hear this everywhere now and the males are asking for equal treatment at the door.
Finally, we know that during the days of the Jim Crow laws that business owners would exclude blacks to increase their business. That was done on the basis of skin color which is a genetically determined trait. Here it is done on the basis of gender; that is also a genetically determined trait.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And so we find that midusmulligan will permit human suffering, oppression, and outright bigotry in the name of profit. Profit without morality clearly leads to untold evils that have been visited upon the world. The list is endless.
Here's a clue. People can make a profit without slaves, without hating a group for their skin color, and without being a supremacist."
human suffering? because some racist asshole won't let black guys into his bar, they're experiencing "human suffering".
oppression? opression requires force. always. i am opposed to the iniation of force, always, period.
bigotry? i doubt bigotry is typically a very profitable practice, but yes, i'd permit it.
your allegations are ridiculous and a pathetically veiled attempt to disguise the fact that you have no answer for my fundamental question.
----
"I despise you. I despise your order; your laws; your force-propped authority." HANG ME FOR IT!" - louis lingg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oppression? opression requires force. always. i am opposed to the iniation of force, always, period.
When these type of statements are made I only need produce a single example to destroy the fallicy.
For example, we know that force/coercion by the force of law must be used in numberous ways to protect the larger public. For example, we often have officers arrest criminals by the use of force and coercion.
What this joker would have us believe is that genuine criminals are oppressed. NOT!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
midasmulligan spews, "oppression? opression requires force. always. i am opposed to the iniation of force, always, period.
Naturally, this joker would claim that business who discriminate against males do not use force. Let's see midasmulligan get into a lounge on ladies night without the security guards using "force or coercion" to stop his entry.
Clearly, by this argument midasmulligan would oppose the use of force to create oppression against males on ladies night, but that is not the case
By his own definition oppression requires the use of force. Yet force WILL be used to stop his entry if he fails to pay, and in many cases the police would be called when trying to force entry. If he continued to enter the discriminating business after a warning he might even be arrested!
This guy cannot be for real. This has got to be some radical feminist.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's see midasmulligan get into a lounge on ladies night without the security guards using "force or coercion" to stop his entry.
That's fair enough - you'd be entering a private property where you explicitly weren't welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ha! your hypocrisy on the issue is transparent. i notice that you aren't complaining about the higher prices of women's haircuts as opposed to men. isn't that "economic discrimination"?
Do you even know what law it is that we are talking about? Do you know who wrote it? What is the name of the act? What are the Supreme Court rulings related to the _______ Act? Do you even know where to find the URL for this Act on the Internet? Let's see just how deep your ignorance goes.....
You have 24 hours to come up with the answers. I can assue you that I know the answers to all of these questions.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 08, @03:03PM EST (#75)
|
|
|
|
|
What any of that have to do with his post?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what does the law have to do with the price of beer? let me spare you trouble of waiting 24 hours: i don't know, nor do i care. the law is morally wrong.
----
"I despise you. I despise your order; your laws; your force-propped authority." HANG ME FOR IT!" - louis lingg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
midasmulligan writes, "what does the law have to do with the price of beer? let me spare you trouble of waiting 24 hours: i don't know, nor do i care. the law is morally wrong."
And thus we find that midasmulligan has no clue of how the California Unrah Act reads, doesn't know what he is talking about, doesn't believe that he should know the facts of the law to make reasonable arguments, admits that he would permit businesses to practice racism (see his post on 8/8/03 1054:AM PST where he admits that he supports businesses practicing racism for a profit) because of his morality (a.k.a racism), he cannot explain why the state should be able to impose a single regulation on a business, and lacks the skill to even examine the actual law. Not surprising.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 08, @02:30PM EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
If we lived in a libertarian world, I would say your arguments are 100 percent correct. But we don't live in a libertarian world, we live in a world where "compelling states interests" are paramount, and therefore your arguments are 100 percent irrelevant.
In fact, if the state can take my children claiming the "best interest of the children", why should I give a fuck about your property rights?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You order a Pizza from Pizza Hut (TM) -- as a man you pay $5 and as a woman you pay $15! Same pizza.
You order cable TV, as a man you pay $150 a month, as a woman she pays $10 a month. Still fair?
You order telephone service, she pays $11 a month, you pay $76 a month for the exact same service package.
You take a taxi to the airport from a downtown hotel, you pay $50, she pays $10.
Anyone have a problem with saying that is discrimination on it's face by gender in those situations? I didn't think so. Ladies night isn't any different.
Freedom Is Merely Privilege Extended Unless Enjoyed By One & All.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Examples where men are paying more right now include...
Insurance - All types
Traffic tickets, as a recent study revealed what we've long known
Child support, on both an average and net basis
Alimony, same as above
Dating services/loveline phone connections - many advertise "free for women"
and probably include things that depend partially on others caring about your financial expenses, such as fines doled out by judges, programs shown to new college enrollees, auto repair, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Examples where men are paying more right now
I would add "paying their debts to society." On average for a given crime, men are given a far more severe sentence than women are given.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wait, don't forget the big daddy of them all: Selective Service registration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would add: Dying for their country.
Which, so far as I am concerned, since males aare the only one risking it all should give them a double vote.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
one at a time here...
HombreVIII -
"They've set up bigotted marketing schemes. Fuck them."
how logical. i totally see your point. so, let me ask again, you believe that it's totally fine for whomever has the biggest gang of thugs at their disposal to dictate, on pain of death, what you can and cannot do with your own property? and you believe this is a logical assertion why...?
and price discrimination is a proven economic tactic which increases revenues. it's just another way the market drives down prices.
"The poor deers aren't being given elite treatment anymore in this *one* aspect, I feel so sorry for them. I can't imagine having to go without one night a week where the local tavern gives me free beer."
"elite" treatment? they are being given incentive to come out to the bar. i for one, think that's great. i don't know about you, but nothing sucks more then a sausage party. if lowering the price of cover etc. is what it takes to get women out to the club, then i'm all for it.
Gonzo -
"Yes, dat's right. BEACAUSE OF "FEMINISM" women have lost something. Their own laws, their own doctrinaire attitudes and stridency has jumped up and bit them square on the ass. "
even if that's the case (and i might add, feminists are not the only group who lobbies the government this way. every special interest group, be it the NAACP, Greenpeace, PETA etc. does. special interest groups are just like government. they only exist to grow bigger and overstep their boundaries and usefulness.), the women who are at losing privileges here are not feminists. i can assure you that 90% of the girls who attend ladies night promotions are there to get picked up, not castarate anybody.
so these girls are not the enemy. these are girls who recognize that there are no inequalities between men and women anymore, and therefore, nothing left to fight for. they see feminism for what it is, an obsolete dinosaur struggling to survive.
Sacred -
" You order a Pizza from Pizza Hut (TM) -- as a man you pay $5 and as a woman you pay $15! Same pizza.
You order cable TV, as a man you pay $150 a month, as a woman she pays $10 a month. Still fair?
You order telephone service, she pays $11 a month, you pay $76 a month for the exact same service package.
You take a taxi to the airport from a downtown hotel, you pay $50, she pays $10.
Anyone have a problem with saying that is discrimination on it's face by gender in those situations? I didn't think so. Ladies night isn't any different. "
all of those situations are discrimination by gender. and what, exactly, is wrong with discrimination?
scudsucker -
"Why does the owner of a bar have the *right* to shorten the lifespan of his employees by ten years, by having cancer causing smoke in the air every night? No other workplace would be allowed to get away with such a hazardous environment."
the owner has the right because it's his bar. he's not forcing those people to work there. they choose to, in spite of increased dangers.
the "wrong" being committed here is that other workplaces cannot choose to allow smoking.
"If I own an establishment, is it okay for me to invite a bunch of Joes over for an asbestos party? "
yes.
anonymous "anarchist" -
capitalism and anarchy are mutually inclusive. you cannot have one without the other. it's just that simple. without government to mandate economic controls, they do not exist, and therefore, you have capitalism.
so any anarchist like yourself, who claims to be anarchist but not capitalist, is clearly not advocating anarchy, but instead just "different" statism, and still advocates the iniation of violent and deadly force against those who do not agree with his views. i reject this.
suppose we eliminated the state. how would "anarchists" such as yourself prevent the emergence of a market? force. now, on the reverse side of it, if you and your wanted to get together in my stateless society and start up a commune, you're welcome to go right ahead.
any questions?
----
"I despise you. I despise your order; your laws; your force-propped authority." HANG ME FOR IT!" - louis lingg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
midasmulligan writes, "..."elite" treatment? they are being given incentive to come out to the bar. i for one, think that's great. i don't know about you, but nothing sucks more then a sausage party. if lowering the price of cover etc. is what it takes to get women out to the club, then i'm all for it....."
What ignorance. If women are not visiting the lounge then maybe the owner(s) need to make it more appealing. This is the most bogus argument I've heard so far. NCFM, LA knows of lots of clubs that attract hoards of women without discriminating against men. Only the losers have to spread hate to make a profit.
Don't believe this lie for an instant. No doubt this joker would reinstitute the Jim Crow laws of the South because it’s good for business. NOT!
There have always been those that believe economics should equal social policy. Ironically, these bigots always appeal to the economic policy and dismiss morality when they find bigotry profitable. This is an age old pattern.
Without morality all economic systems will eventually run into serious trouble.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"What ignorance. If women are not visiting the lounge then maybe the owner(s) need to make it more appealing. This is the most bogus argument I've heard so far. NCFM, LA knows of lots of clubs that attract hoards of women without discriminating against men. Only the losers have to spread hate to make a profit."
spread hate? my God, it's all i can do to avoid puking while i type this. please, leave the nauseating rhetoric at the door.
this is not about spreading hate, it's about making more money, which contrary to what marx may have said, is the absolute right of private property owners. i'm sorry, but your socialistic logic doesn't hold water.
you do not have the right to go to the bar. have i said that enough times for it to sink in yet? you do not have the right to go to the bar. are we clear?
the owner of the bar gives you the privilege of going to the bar. as such, he can decide under what terms you will allowed entry. if he wishes to discount the price for certain individuals, that is his right. ok?
"Don't believe this lie for an instant. No doubt this joker would reinstitute the Jim Crow laws of the South because it’s good for business. NOT!"
please. this is a pathetic attempt to demonize me. furthermore it should be clear by now that i am not in favour of any law.
"Ironically, these bigots always appeal to the economic policy and dismiss morality when they find bigotry profitable. This is an age old pattern."
morality? what's moral about iniating force against other people? furthermore, according to your own system of democracy, this is a moral action. clearly, the majority of men are ok with the fact that women are paying lower prices then they are to get in the door of the bar, or they'd stop going, and that would be the end of ladies night, now wouldn't it?
but no, you minority whiners couldn't let the market decide for itself whether or not this practice would continue. even though i imagine you and yours probably don't even GO to ladies nights at any of these clubs, you still felt that it was your moral duty to wantly violate the property rights of the owners and call in your jackbooted thugs to put an end to a perfectly legitimate business practice.
pat yourself on the back buddy.
----
"I despise you. I despise your order; your laws; your force-propped authority." HANG ME FOR IT!" - louis lingg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Don't believe this lie for an instant. No doubt this joker would reinstitute the Jim Crow laws of the South because it’s good for business. NOT!"
please. this is a pathetic attempt to demonize me. furthermore it should be clear by now that i am not in favour of any law.
It isn't demonization when you have already made the de-facto admission in another post. You've already been called on your racism by me and several others
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
actually i've only been "called" on my so called racism by you, and i have not admitted to it in any way, shape, or form.
obviously, i am not a racist.
----
"I despise you. I despise your order; your laws; your force-propped authority." HANG ME FOR IT!" - louis lingg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You've already been called on your racism by me and several others
Let's see the links then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
even though i imagine you and yours probably don't even GO to ladies nights at any of these clubs, you still felt that it was your moral duty to wantly violate the property rights of the owners and call in your jackbooted thugs to put an end to a perfectly legitimate business practice.
LOL!
Yea right. Like that would hold up on court! What a joke. The guy wants a lawless society where any business can use force and coercion to make men pay and let ladies in free, and yet he believes that when these businesses are sued under the law that it's immoral and that all of the physical evidence is a lie.
We've seen that before. Ironicaly, the bigots never admit to the immorality of their discriminatory practices. They will tell any lie to justify the practice. The slave holders did the same thing. That is why we are very careful to provide hard core physical evidence that cannot be disputed.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The guy wants a lawless society where any business can use force and coercion to make men pay and let ladies in free
Force and coercion? How many times does it need to be repeated to you, it's not YOUR BAR, you DON'T have a right to be there. You're not being 'forced' or 'coerced' into going to the bar AT ALL - precisely where did that charge come from? If it's the cover charge you're being 'forced' or 'coerced' into paying, since it's NOT YOUR BAR, the owners have the right to make anyone pay as much as the owners want. If you don't like it, tough; that's your problem. Set up your own bar and charge women more if it sucks so much.
Ironicaly, the bigots never admit to the immorality of their discriminatory practices.
Attracting women to the bar is immoral? Treating a gap as some sort of iniquity is the foundation of socialism. Immoral? Forcing upon bar owners entry criteria when it's none of one's business - that's immoral and should preclude any discussion of the morality of varying cover charges.
They will tell any lie to justify the practice. The slave holders did the same thing. That is why we are very careful to provide hard core physical evidence that cannot be disputed.
Erm. The only 'evidence' is your bleating about what's immoral or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...i can assure you that 90% of the girls who attend ladies night promotions are there to get picked up, not castarate anybody.
Another ignorant statement. You need to move to California and do a few of these suits. After about 20 of them you'll learn that most of what you are saying is either misinformation or outright lies.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
even if that's the case (and i might add, feminists are not the only group who lobbies the government this way. every special interest group, be it the NAACP, Greenpeace, PETA etc. does. special interest groups are just like government. they only exist to grow bigger and overstep their boundaries and usefulness.), the women who are at losing privileges here are not feminists.
No.
No.
No.
And no. These girls are the ones whyo have stood idly by, clucking in disapproval if anyone was watching, and still didn't have the courage of their (alleged by you) convictions to say, "Nope, we're going to pay our way and carry our own load."
These are the "good (wo)men who stood by and did nothing."
i can assure you that 90% of the girls who attend ladies night promotions are there to get picked up, not castarate anybody.
I see. They're just your garden variety slut, eh?
so these girls are not the enemy. these are girls who recognize that there are no inequalities between men and women anymore, and therefore, nothing left to fight for. they see feminism for what it is, an obsolete dinosaur struggling to survive.
Really? Go tell them, then, that women who can't pass the PT requirements have no business on police or fire departments, or in the military. See if your eyeballs don't get clawed at.
BTW - "Propertyless George" is a foaming-at-the-mouth radical, who believes in magic "We're all going to get along now" fairies, and can't see that total anarchy will result in the strong doing what they will and the weak doing what they must - IOW, starting the same master/slave shit all over again. Save your breath.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And no. These girls are the ones whyo have stood idly by, clucking in disapproval if anyone was watching, and still didn't have the courage of their (alleged by you) convictions to say, "Nope, we're going to pay our way and carry our own load.""
i think i need to clarify my position on the issue.
i don't see anything wrong or anti-male about ladies night. it is just a way of attracting female patrons to bars which attracts male patrons to bars. if females didn't attract males, the bars wouldnt' do it. they are doing it for us.
my girlfriend frequently makes use of ladies night's promotions. but ask her and any of her friends what they think about feminism and they'll tell you that it's out of date and useless.
"Really? Go tell them, then, that women who can't pass the PT requirements have no business on police or fire departments, or in the military. See if your eyeballs don't get clawed at. "
i believe, based only on my own personal experience with these girls, that they would agree completely with women being kept out of physically demanding jobs if they cannot pass physical testing. i know, for example, that my girl feels this way.
however, i try to refrain from speaking for 50% of the population. ultimately, how they feel about this is an individual issue that cannot be predicted.
----
"I despise you. I despise your order; your laws; your force-propped authority." HANG ME FOR IT!" - louis lingg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
radical feminists will not be overly displeased. They will see this as driving a wedge between heterosexual men and heterosexual women, which they approve of. Also they will probably start using this judgement to bolster their specious claims about haircuts etc.
cheers,
Tim
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 08, @06:41AM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't agree. The implication appears to be that the feminists are exclusively lesbians. Untrue. Certainly, the lesbians were (and are) the driving force behind the feminist movement. However, the feminists won because heterosexual women gave them 100% backing (with very few, but laudable exceptions). Without that support, the lesbians woudn't have had a hope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also they will probably start using this judgement to bolster their specious claims about haircuts etc.
They were using this same law to do that years ago. For instance, feminist attorney Gloria Allred includes in her resume:
Also on behalf of women, Allred has brought suits against:
Flair Cleaners for charging women more for dry cleaning services than men were required to pay.
Yellow Balloon Salon for charging more for a girl’s haircut than a boy’s.
All of these cases resulted in a change of policy.
These anti-Ladies' Night cases are silly and specious. Just as the above cases were. They are also, as Gonzo has eloquently pointed out, extremely good tactics.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These anti-Ladies' Night cases are silly and specious. Just as the above cases were. They are also, as Gonzo has eloquently pointed out, extremely good tactics.
Force the government to apply its laws equitably. Force the government to apply its laws against the most powerful group (women, today, especially white women) as much as the target-of-politically-correct-hate group-du-jour, and you will most quickly and efficiently undermine and eliminate bad laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well unless you are only looking to have sexual relations with a girl at a bar, that is not the best place to meet them.
Considering that when a man has sex with a woman he loses all his rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I never liked ladies night and such, I did go to a club where I got in free because I was one of only three women that showed up that night. Felt weird, the guy [maybe the manager? I don't know] wouldn't accept my offer to pay anyway. :P The boyfriend and the other guy I went with weren't thrilled about that either.
So, I have a question, can a guy sue Hooters for not giving him a job as server?
Oh, yeah, and I'd say men spend more on average for hair stuff - I cut my hair professionally maybe every year; my boyfriend does every three weeks. It's more "socially acceptable" for girls to have longer, less 'trimmed' hair anyway - so they get away without a cut for longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"So, I have a question, can a guy sue Hooters for not giving him a job as server?"
That actually happened in Florida. Hooters put an ad in the paper of a big burly guy in the Hooters outfit as a way of saying they thought the suit was ridiculous. I'm not sure how the case turned out.
You offered to pay on Ladies' Night, Luna? Wow. You must be a cool friend to have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I searched about the case, the guy won, $3.7 million settlement. Hasn't seemed to change their hiring policies much.
I don't know if it was an official Ladies' Night or what, just that I said I'd pay anyway and the guy wouldn't let me. My friends weren't as impressed with my offering, I still was told I sucked and punched. :P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, yeah, and I'd say men spend more on average for hair stuff - I cut my hair professionally
As Glenn Sacks likes to point out, sure girls have to spend more money on clothes and appearance - but what is never mentioned is how guys have to have a decent car and a presentable place to live. How many girls do you know of who failed to get a second date because she drove a rusted out Citation or still lived with her parents?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 08, @06:47AM EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
Do I get to wear the orange shorts? Just don't make me shave my legs...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 08, @03:15PM EST (#77)
|
|
|
|
|
We should shutdown all bars because they are disgusting rape promoters!
No?
If sex after two drinks is rape, isn't two drinks with a babe at the bar the same as "attempted" rape? I say it certainly is!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This saddens me. The government shouldn't go around forcing private business owners to treat everyone the same. What if I ran a gentleman's club that only admitted men, and some feminazi took this and other rulings and forced me to open my doors to women? I bet we'd see ANOTHER eighty-post article, only you'd all be flipped over to the other side.
Don't any of you see this? Except Midas, I mean. You guys sure tore him a new one. Don't you realize how communistic this all is? Government dictating how private businesses have to treat people who walk into their doors OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL? We are not talking about health inspections or anything critical to the public welfare. We are talking about one person trying to force his opinions on another person, and using the law to do it.
What I see is a bunch of pernicious snickering from a bunch of guys who think they have a RIGHT to expect to pay the same as a woman in a PRIVATE BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT. What you actually have a right to do is take your business elsewhere on ladies' night.
I wonder how many of you are reminded of Martha Burke and the whole Augusta National Golf Club issue. I sure am. If you would have rights for yourself, you must afford the same rights to others. Maybe if you applied the same standards to yourselves that you apply while judging the feminazis, you'd see your own tendencies to try to use the law to force your own way. I'm incredibly disappointed to see so many of you supporting this ruling.
You think they won't turn around and use this against us? They will. You can't claim to be better than the feminazis when you avidly support the exact same behavior that forms the core of their operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 09, @06:34AM EST (#93)
|
|
|
|
|
I think your arguement is fundamentally flawed. A private club does not have the same status as a business providing a service to the public. Thus in a private club , the members are entitled to draw up rules which may exclude members of either gender. A business providing a service to the public has a separate status as it must conform to the laws enacted by the state pertaining to the running of that business. These laws cover the running of all aspects of the business. Thus, there are laws relating to fire safety, cleanliness, treatment of employees and,most pertinently in this case, laws relating to the treatment of customers. The latter laws preclude the implementation of discriminatory policies in relation to age, gender, religion, race etc. Such laws do not apply to a private club which has the status of a private home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do you figure the laws that apply to a members-only club are different from the laws that apply to any other business?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 10, @04:31PM EST (#104)
|
|
|
|
|
Because a private club is not the same as any other business. I can form eg a chess club with 3 or 4 other people. The activities of this club are not subject to Government regulation. On the other hand, if I set up a business I will be obliged to fulfill all Government regulations relating to that business. Virtually all businesses are subject to Government regulation. The whole point of having PRIVATE clubs (as the name suggests) is to be free from the regulations governing businesses in general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are not talking about a few people getting together in a garage, we are talking about buying a building in a business district. If I do this I have to follow the same laws as the business next to me. If you can find where it says in California law that that is not so, I will be more than happy to read it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gentleman's Clubs?
As I recall you cannot have a club that only allows men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, you can. You just aren't likely to have one without someone like Martha Burke raising hell about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 09, @01:22PM EST (#96)
|
|
|
|
|
I think this topic has been discussed to the point of exhaustion and I have nothing further to add to it. I am making this post to help bring the number of posts up to 100, which would be a record for mensactivism (I think). This post will bring it up to 96.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 09, @01:29PM EST (#97)
|
|
|
|
|
...and this reply brings it to 97!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am making this post to help bring the number of posts up to 100
Actually, we've exceeded 200.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 09, @03:36PM EST (#100)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, Thomas, I didn't know that. Anyway, this post makes it (a rather anti-climactic) century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, Thomas
No need to apologize. I just thought you'd want to know.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
