Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
Fighting for Entitlements: NYC nightclubs defend ladies' nights
Submitted by MrReality on Mon, 2007-12-17 17:27
An excerpt from the article:
"NEW YORK - Men are not discriminated against by "ladies' nights" at Manhattan nightclubs, just as people in their 20s do not suffer because some restaurants let children eat for free or have "early bird" specials for older customers, according to nightclub lawyers fighting a federal lawsuit.
Roy Den Hollander has sued clubs including Lotus and the China Club, saying he was discriminated against by ladies' nights, which offer women free or discounted admission and drinks.
Deborah Swindells Donovan, a lawyer for Lotus, called the lawsuit frivolous in papers filed Friday in U.S. District Court.
She wrote that if his "ill-conceived theory is applied to restaurants, then 'early bird' specials for the elderly or promotions allowing children to eat free would be discriminatory on the basis of age."
Vanessa R. Elliott, a lawyer representing the club AER Lounge, said in court papers Friday that nightclubs recognize that men might not want to visit the clubs if they fail to attract enough women.
"Under this theory, male customers may actually benefit from ladies' nights in other ways and be encouraged to attend the club on those nights," she wrote.
The price charged to men is not so burdensome that it amounts to denying them entry, Elliott argued."
---
Women are fighting for their entitlements while claiming to want to be "equal." Will men finally stand up to their blatant hypocrisy?
- Log in to post comments
Comments
This is not even debated here
For once the US are ahead of Europe with these lawsuits at least being taken seriously. Here in Germany, such a lawsuit is unheard of.
Go ahead and don't back down, we all need such efforts.
And btw, of course men are discriminated against by ladies' nights, anyone who denies that just doesn't have common sense.
Roll over
«Women are fighting for their entitlements while claiming to want to be "equal." Will men finally stand up to their blatant hypocrisy?»
NEVER!
http://petepatriarch.blogspot.com - Old, phased out due to Google's policies. Archives here.
http://petepatriarch.wordpress.com - Current.
Bimbos Practicing Law
Defense attorney Vanessa R. Elliott stated -"Under this theory, male customers may actually benefit from ladies' nights in other ways and be encouraged to attend the club on those nights," she wrote.
Other ways?
Isn't that like saying that more ho's will show up for men to exploit if the fairer gender gets in for free?
Hasn't this esteemed feminist lawyer just defined "pussy" as a commodity?
So the assumption is that being surrounded by more ho's = greater benefits for men?
Isn't that supporting the Evil Patriarchy?
Or just the usual haggling over price?
"Feminist lawyer"?
Obviously she is motivated purely by her gender--no lawyer ever did a case just for the money, right?
Roy: good point.
Roy: good point.
I find it interesting how
I find it interesting how she tries to draw parallels between ladies' nights and 'early bird' specials. What she doesn't want to mention, is the very obvious fact that, generally, everyone receives benefits from 'early bird' specials, if not at the present time then at some point in their lives. Men do not receive benefits from ladies' nights, no matter what point their of their life they are in.
Besides this, it's not like women will just stop going to bars if NYC does away with ladies' nights. If there is a law preventing ladies' nights, it's not like these women can just walk down the street to the bar that actually IS having ladies' night.
Boycott
If ladies' nights are not illegal - and don't ever bet against anything in favour of women ever being illegal - then men have a simple solution: boycott the establishments that offer them. Let's see how long they stay in business when half their customers disappear, and the other half soon get bored by their absence and follow suit. We men must recognise that we have far more power than we give ourselves credit for; and we don't have to rely on a useless legal system to exercise it.
Civilisation: man's greatest, and most unappreciated, gift to women
What this is...
...is probably analogous to 'ladies' only fitness facilities.
Business owners must love to beef up the female component of their patrons, because after all...WHO HAS THE MOST DISPOSABLE INCOME!!!! Which gender probably spends more money at nightclubs.
Anyone who has been to a chain-gym recently knows two things: 1-they make lots of money off people who join but don't go (just screams for fat, lazy princesses with lots of disposable $$$), and 2-gyms really don't care much about the monthly fees as much as the chance to have an audience to market useless products to (just screams for fat, lazy, VAIN, SELF-OBSESSED princesses with lots of disposable $$)
Personally, I'm not willing to throw $$$ away on useless things just so I can be catered to.
If women ever become smart enough to figure this out, they will probably scream about being unfairly targeted by marketers, just like they did with the tobacco companies (forget the endless pics of Naiomi Woolfe with a butt hanging out of her mouth)
Alas a man finally gets it!
PaulP I am in awe of your reasoning skills. It seems you have solved the equation that many other men seem unwilling and unable to solve with the following statement:
We men must recognise that we have far more power than we give ourselves credit for; and we don't have to rely on a useless legal system to exercise it.
Men don't need to put up with women's attitudes and childish behavior at all. Why men do it is beyond me. Women are not "needed" for anything other than reproductive means and soon men will have options there as well.
PaulP, Very true statement. I applaud you..
----------
The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek
Age discrimination
She's right, and she's wrong.
She's right in that it's similar to programs based on age.
She's wrong in saying that because similar age-based discrimination is ok, that the gender-based discrimination is ok.
Age-based discrimination is not illegal. In fact quite a large number of laws support it, with good reason. (ie: right to vote, drink, drive, etc)
Gender-based discrimination is illegal, however, and therefor her argument holds no water.
A woman's version of equality.
A woman's version of equality:
Women are equal to men. Women are strong. Women work just as hard. Women want to be respected and not treated like children. Women don't want to be patronized.
BUT women should not have to pay the same price for the things men have because we are women and are oppressed, helpless, weak, and unable to work as hard. We are also so sickly that we live seven years longer than men.
****
Anyone see the bullshit yet? Stop falling for this shit men. They are playing both sides and men are "letting them do it!"
----------
The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek
Lawyers Would Benefit Also
Yup, getting more women into nightclubs draws in more male customers. The male customers then have more opportunities to "score a piece of ass" and possibly become the defendants in civil and criminal lawsuits like false rape accusations, $$$$$$paternity$$$$$$lawsuits resulting economic slavery for at least 18 years, contracting STD's (curable and uncurable), becoming subject to the Stalinist Era like law called VAWA if you start a livein arrangement with a pickup you found in the club. There are others but everyone should know the drill by now.
Oh come on.
Most people, male or female, will take any special deal they can get, principle and ideology be damned.
Ironically, the women most likely to be against ladies' nights are feminists. When men pay more relative to women, they are essentially paying for women's company, which is demeaning to both sexes.
I don't agree its the same,
I don't agree its the same, children and elderly get discounts because generally children and pensioners don't have full time jobs and children are not allowed to have full time jobs. It is a little discriminatory because some of those from the groups have more money than the average worker.
The sex-bias here however is outrageously discriminatory because contrary to their lies, women can earn just as much as men (when they can be bothered) and more so because they can always get free handouts for:
1)Having kids - Three Cherrys
2)Divorcing husband - Three Bells
3)Having kids with, and then divorcing, husband - JACKPOT!
So no. Its not the same not only legally but morally too. I'm sorry I don't agree with your closing argument either. After all if we, as men, rely upon the law to decide what is and is not discrimination, were fu**ed!
Brilliant point there.
Brilliant point there. Everyone at some point is a child and most people get to old age so everyone has a fair chance.
I think we agree.
It's similar in the sense that they're both discrimination.
I meant that in a very literal sense of the word... ie: to distinguish; not in the sense of the word that implies that someone is entitled to compensation.
My point was that such discrimination it is justified in the case of age, for children and the elderly; and not justified in the case of gender.
Also since the point made by the lawyer was a legal one; I was just pointing out that it doesn't have any merit.
Not relying on the law for morality. Just pointing out that the legal stance taken is even flawed.
Ah ok, that's cool :)
Ah ok, that's cool :)