Man Sues Mother’s Day Promotion for Sexism

I submitted this to the author. This isn't the area I am most active in, but I do support the lawsuits.
___________________

Female-only discounts (or, “Ladies Nights”) send a message that men should pay for women, that women are entitled to it, and that discrimination against men is ok. So I support the lawsuits to end female-only discounts and other forms of gender-based discrimination.

I agree with the California Supreme Court in Koire which held that female-only price discounts prepetuate sexist stereotypes and are not "harmless." Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, 35. http://crusading4u.googlepages.com/koirev.metrocarwashvictory(1985)

Female-only discounts feed into gender stereotypes and larger forms of anti-male discrimination such as in military conscription, parenting rights, criminal sentencing disparities, dating expectations, forced labor laws, public health policies, and overall misandry and unequal gender-based expectations.

I haven't seen any studies showing ladies' nights result in a better ratio for men. Most likely the ratio stays about the same because if it draws women then it draws men too. It's not about changing the ratio but about bringing in more women and men both while men pay for both entrance and drinks. And then there's car washes, hotels and others that do the same without any motive of changing ratios. It's just like when salons and dry cleaners charge women more than men. They all do it because one gender is willing to pay more. That doesn't make it ok. The Unruh Act should be enforced in both directions equally or not at all.

Even if it did change the ratio, it puts men and women on an unequal footing, sending messages that men need to pay for women and women should be entitled to freebies. It's more elite men filtering out lower-income men in order to have more women to themselves. And it promotes the myth that men "earn more" when in fact they only earn more by working longer hours, more dangerous jobs, more risky jobs, making 92% of job deaths and 80% of injuries, working 90% of overtime, driving longer commutes, having less flexible hours, and basically having less option of opting out and being primary parents. http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

Al is not alone at all in fighting female-only discounts in nightclubs. Men in Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Missouri, Washington, D.C., Wisconsin, Illinios, New Jersey and other states are objecting ladies' nights discounts, either through the courts or through their state civil rights commissions, regardless of whether there are any financial incentives to do so. I'm glad to see this happening more and more. http://www.chiprowe.com/articles/ladies-night-rip.html

Radio Host Tom Leykis totally supported the lawsuits against female discounts, and I'm glad he did. Even as a libertarian, he supported it.

New Jersey’s Director of Civil Rights put a stop to it too. (“’Ladies Night’ Discount Axed in New Jersey Bars,” Associated Press, Yahoo News, June 2, 2004, EXH. “B.”)

Findlaw’s legal commentator, Joanna Grossman, agreed and stated:
"regardless of stereotypes, it is simply unfair to charge people different prices for the same product because of some immutable characteristic like gender. Most sex-specific prices disadvantage women – dry cleaning and haircuts, to give two examples – but ones that disadvantage men are unfair as well." http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20040615.html

As another blogger put it: "The issue is important and it is unfair to men, especially men who are not making all that much money, that is the men we do not like to consider much. . . . This type of discrimination would have died years ago had it been discrimination against women in American bars, and the world would have heard a good deal of greasy wheel about it and would have cheered the proceedings."
(“Kiss Ladies Night Goodbye: Not the Poor Boys,” Robert Babbitt, 10/24/03, San Diego Indymedia, emphasis added.)

Another blogger, who took a similar position, stated:
In the end, it doesn’t really matter if it’s a win-win situation, because it’s that the laws be applied consistently, and it has consistently held that gender-based discrimination in the sale of alcohol is unconstitutional.
(“Ladies night is unconstitutional,” The Calico Cat, A Blog.)

Even the "hat" thing on Mother's Day was discrimination. No matter what you're promoting, a business establishment needs to treat customers equally regardless of their gender or race. They wouldn't give hats only to Europeans on Columbus Day or only to Blacks on MLK Day. They can celebrate Mother's Day and donate to breast cancer without discriminating against customers based on sex.

The Unruh Act's goal is preventative, so it doesn't matter what the motive of some plaintiffs might be. I did these in 2004 because I wanted to end the discrimination. And we used the money to get paternity fraud victims from L.A. to Sacramento to testify and pass legislation to end paternity fraud. So it went to a good cause that few people donate toward (while Breast Cancer, in comparison, hordes the available funds for cancer and has been funded about 4 times more than prostate cancer.) http://www3.cancer.gov/public/factbk97/varican.htm

Very good Marc.I'm still kind of new at being an MRA but, I'm learning fast. I have been tired of the sexual disCRIMINATION against men.

No wonder people think sports writers are retarded.