Columnist Steven Chapman has an interesting column arguing against claims that ladies night's in bars should be banned because they discriminate against men:
When it comes to relations between the sexes, a little common sense goes a long way. It's not sex discrimination to bar men from women's locker rooms. It's not sex discrimination to let only females audition for the role of Juliet. It's not sex discrimination to roughly balance males and females in an entering college class. And it should not be sex discrimination to offer favors to one sex in order to benefit people of both sexes.
Why, after all, would a bar offer discounts to women? Not because the owner harbors a deep-seated hostility toward men, perpetuating centuries of oppression. People who run such establishments understand that a lot of men patronize taverns partly to meet women, and that they will come more often and stay longer if women are abundant than if they are scarce.
Since females are generally less attracted to the bar scene, discounts may be needed to draw them out in respectable numbers. The owner of the Coastline Restaurant and Bar in Cherry Hill, the target of the complaint, said after the ruling came down that his male customers are unhappy "because they're wondering, 'Are the girls going to show up?'" ....
Offering a discount for women, to George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf, is no more defensible than charging whites less than blacks. "Sex discrimination is wrong, no matter whose ox is being gored," he declares.
But context is crucial, and relations between the sexes are different from relations between the races. We don't accept racially segregated restrooms, but we do accept sexually segregated restrooms. All-white colleges would be offensive, but all-female schools are not.
Charging whites less than blacks would suggest a desire to drive away black customers because of racial animus. Charging women less than men suggests nothing comparable.
I blogged about some of the legal issues involved in the ladies' night litigation in this series of posts last year. I argued that ladies' nights don't violate the 14th Amendment and that the anti-ladies' night plaintiffs should not be allowed to proceed with a class action case under which they get to be class representatives for male bar patrons as a group; quite obviously, they would be poor representatives of this class because most male bar patrons actually benefit from ladies' nights and would be harmed by the lawsuits' success. I'm far less certain that ladies' nights are legal under the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If they are not, however, that is a weakness in the law, not a virtue.
UPDATE: I had foolishly forgotten that Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only bans discrimination in places of public accommodation on "the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." It doesn't forbid sex discrimination. Therefore, ladies nights in bars are perfectly legal, at least so far as Title II is concerned.
UPDATE #2: It turns out that Tim Sandefur of the libertarian Pacific Legal Foundation has recently filed an amicus brief in a California ladies' night case making arguments similar to some of those advanced in my posts on the subject. The brief is available here.
UPDATE #3: Some commenters argue that Chapman's argument can also be used to justify affirmative action. To some extent, this is true. However, my view is that private sector affirmative action programs should be legal. Therefore, there is no contradiction between my positions on the two issues.
Does Chapman realize he's making an argument in favor of affirmative action?
Moreover, he's arguing in favor of the sort of "balancing" that the Supreme Court has found particularly offensive to the Constitution in the racial context. Then again, I don't think government has any business telling people who they must admit to their place of business, so...
Someone might sue eventually. But it will work for a while.
I don't know. But speaking for myself, I believe that affirmative action in the private sector should be legal. Therefore, there is no contradiction between my position on AA and my views on ladies nights.
Maybe there would be such "howls." But current federal law doesn't ban this practice.
All rules discriminate in some sense. For example, rules requiring bar patrons to wear shoes discriminate against those who don't. Rules banning those under 21 or those under 18 discriminate against the young. The question is whether the discrimination in question should be legal. That issue is not addressed simply by saying that "discrimination" is going on.
um. yes it IS sex discrimination to bar men from women's locker rooms, etc.
but it's a form of sex discrimination that we tolerate.
if you treat men differently from women, that's sex discrimination.
also note that it's sex discrimination to prohibit men from playing on women's sports teams. it's just a form of sex discrimination that we tolerate. because women are weaker and slower, so it's "ok" to discriminate.
the issue is with these types of discrimination ... are they LEGAL sex discrimination? but to argue they aren't sex discrimination is grossly ignorant.
i recall bringing up this argument with a college prof back oh so many years ago when i was in college... that ladies nights are sex discrimination.
this is especially laughable...
that's great but completely irrelevant to his point that it's not sex discrimination. essentially he's saying that it's not sex discrimination because there is good reason to do it. that's NOT an argument it isn't sex discrimination. that's an argument that it is legal and/or morally justified.
There is *nothing* illegal about discrimination. The law often requires it. The law discriminates between ages for school attendnace and for work rules. The law requres discrinating between 17 and 18 yeard actresses in porn movies. The law requires discriminating between people of disparate ages engaging in sex under many circumstances. Discrimination is illegal is one of the fuzziest notions ever propagated. Unfortunately, A.W. is far from alone.
*Some* discrimation, however, is illegal. The question here is twofold. Should *this* kind of discrination be legal and why? *Is* this kind of discrimination legal and why?
As a general rule, discrimination that is acknowledged to create an onerous disparate effect, particularly following an odious past history, has been made illegal. I do no think that either is the case here.
The latter does not establish the former. More importantly, if you're going to let feminists set the standard for your argument about unequal treatment, you've already lost.
exactly. similarly, requiring an SAT of XXXX discriminates (against dumb people), requiring that applicants to your sports team can actually play the sport well, also discriminates.
"discrimination" has gotten a bad rap, but all it means is to make a choice between better or worse options.
CERTAIN kinds of discrimination - based on sex or race are bad (and usually illegal), but not all.
people are hesitant to admit anything is discrimination because then it seems like its automatically "bad", when in fact it's not.
and there is a big difference between "private sphere" and public sphere discrimination. the former, whether "bad" or not, is usually legally ok, because it's none of govt. business.
if you choose to only let asian people into your own home, and not blacks or whites, that may be "onerous" but it's clearly your choice.
similarly, you can choose to only date attractive women, but if you choose to only serve attractive women at your bar, that would not be ok.
This is all policy, however, and is simply pointed out because I noticed the litigant in California is ostensibly "libertarian."
Except in the 70s wasn't there litigation that shut down men only Monday Night Football nights and the like? Isn't there some famous bar on 86th Street in NYC that was forced to allow women into the bar?
Given that we've gone down this road of insanity, I'm not going to be surprised if this someday prevails.
>If those guys win, it is every guy's duty to make sure they never get laid again.
Are you suggesting universal marriage? Is that a variation on the theme of conscription?
Those pronouns can be so troublesome.
You are thinking of McSorley's Old Ale House which is on 7th Street not 86 St. And yes in 1969 it was sued to allow women to enter. Women had been banned since 1854, and in 1970 women were allowed to enter. I well remember the transition and some men were happy about it while others were not. New York City has plenty of bars, and a woman no trouble at all finding lots of them. I don't see why one tavern should not be free to continue its historical practice of providing a special place for men. Most bars want to allow women to attract men so I don't see a problem. We have traditionally black colleges, so why can't we have one traditionally male bar?
These cases are rarely about federal legislation, but come up in the context of municipal ordinances in PC college towns.
Likewise, airplane seats and hotel rooms (on hotels.com or hotwire) go for all sorts of different prices. The benefit of reduced pricing is not given out on the basis of sex or age, but on economics: there is a very small marginal cost to add extra people to otherwise empty seats on a flight. In effect, a discount given to one group of people can result in a lower, not higher, price for the "full-fare" travelers, because the discount people help to offset some of the fixed costs.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the same thing happen on Ladies' Nights. If they are eliminated, the price for men could increase, too.
There is a secondary benefit to women: being in an environment that is not overwhelmingly male. When there is a heavily male-dominated atmosphere, it is not as if men all compete for women's attention and treat them well; often, they get rather crude and demanding, and create an atmosphere that does not feel safe. Most women don't want to go to bars and feel like they are in a meat market.
DangerMouse: if men got discounts on cooking or ballet classes, I wouldn't complain. The other six days of the week, they would have to pay full price, and it's not like I'm being charged extra.
I don't think that is against the law. Don't some trendy places have bouncers for that purpose? Ugly is not a protected class is it? Is there any case law on that issue? That would be interesting to read.
Just out of curiosity, how much support is there for prohibiting private sector AA?
Nothing wrong with ladies night. I am sure those who are complaining can't get a date.
Fifty years ago, bars could substitute skirt night (or hosiery night, bra night, or high heels night). But not since then.
Maybe handbag night?
Re McSorley's: The bar at the Berghoff in Chicago was men's only until 1969 as well. At the noon hour, men (and later women) would line up to get freshly carved sandwiches of ham, roast beef, or tongue, then belly up to the bar (hooking a foot under the bar rail because the bar had no stools) to wash it down with a shot of Berghoff bourbon, or a stein of light or dark beer.
You're an asshole.
Well, perhaps it is. Here in Washington, The Shakespeare Theatre is currently doing an all-male production of Romeo and Juliet.
Which, of course, is the traditional way to do it, at least back in Shakespeare's time.
(And in a tit for tat, another local company is doing an all-female production of the same play.)
Those bars already exist -- they are called 'gay bars'. And, believe it or not, guys in drag DO impress many people, men and women alike. So much so, they get tips, especially if they do a good lipsync.
And trust me, these bars are *waaaaay* more fun than boring hetero bars, but that's just me.
I can’t say in state by state, but actually, no discrimination by sex is usually illegal.
> As a general rule, discrimination that is acknowledged to create an onerous disparate effect, particularly following an odious past history, has been made illegal. I do no think that either is the case here.
I have never seen a statute on this subject that talks about any connection to bad history. And besides a case can be made that it is invidious discriination. These bars are trying uniquely hard to get women to drink. And the men there are there in part because they hope those women will become easy when they are drunk. Personally, I say God bless them all around, but I am not going to advocate ignoring any statute just because I like the outcome.
Like I said, pretending that a law that says “no sex discrimination in bars” means that ladies’ night is alright is just bull. I want them to change the law, but to do so the right way—by a new law.
pun intended?
So you are aguing that all the forms of sex discrimination listed are illegal, from family law to restrooms?
Time to quote Inigo Montoya...
Next, we have the Fast Food Preservation Act, in which the discriminating palate is made illegal.
Are you trying to be obtuse here?
Look, if you want my policy preference, it is exactly what Thad. Stevens, father of the Fourteenth Amendment said: “No distinction should be tolerated in this purified republic but what arose from merit and conduct.”
But the real subject of discussion is not what your preferred outcome is, but how you want the law to be read. In most states, in this situation, it says it is illegal to discriminate because of sex. To discriminate is to treat differently, period. There are typically no references to historical injustices and the like in the text.
Now what the original post here argued is that we can and should carve out exceptions based on common sense. To make the point that this is appropriate the author points out that most people agree that separate bathrooms, locker rooms and the like are still legal. This despite the fact that if they were racially segregated bathrooms, etc. that would be considered flat out illegal.
Now I say to that, fair enough. But where the author of the post and I differ is on how far they would go creating an exception to the otherwise straightforward language. I wouldn’t go as far as the author would, because I feel that this sort of thing should only be done sparingly in uniquely clear situations—and that is not the case with Ladies’ Night. Instead I would leave rewriting the law to where it belongs: in the hands of the legislature.
But your point about “discriminating tastes” misses the mark. We aren’t talking about what Joe Shmo does walking down the street. We are not talking about private persons expressing private preferences. We are talking about discrimination by a public accommodation.
Are you planning to see the two gender-bending DC productions? I'm planning to see the all-girl one this weekend and the all-boy one next weekend. Both should be fun. Who doesn't enjoy men in dresses and women with swords?
I think a bar that wants to attract more women should try to create an environment that women want to be in. Have someplace to sit down, for example. Heels can be murder if you have to stand in them for a couple of hours. Decent bathrooms, flattering lights, bartenders that actually serve women rather than waiting on all the men first... discounts on booze are probably cheaper, but there are lots of other approaches that could work.
The government shouldn't be involved in this at all.
The argument is essentially that laws that prohibit discrimination aren't supposed to benefit the people who would be discriminated against individually. It's supposed to benefit the class as a whole.
Since ladies night benefits men generally, and only harms a few individual men, it shouldn't be prohibited.
If you accept a collectivist justification for such laws, why not a collectivist exception for where the law fails to benefit the collective it was supposed to help?
Maybe VC needs a "ladies night" to get them here. :-)
Of course! I certainly will see the all male version first. It will be fun to see the some on the audience squirm with the male-male kiss. Perhaps I should take a date with me and we can 'warm up' the audience in the lobby beforehand!
Course, now that I'm a bit older and grayer, that's getting less and less frequent.....
There are at least two women here that I know of, theobromiphile and me. Anybody else?
At least two! What, do you think that many men go around talking about mood lighting or how high heels are rough on the feet? or announcing their undying love of chocolate through their nomes de blog?
I dunno, A.C.. Maybe we're not real girls.
Anyhoo -- You'll be going to Reel Affirmations next month, I hope? There is nothing like seeing a gay movie with 1200 other gay people, and we get ALL the jokes.
If you heteros feel left out, join us! You won't have more fun that seeing a good drag show, and yes hetero men do attend. Usually with a female date.
They aren't?
I'd think they should be, to women, who are told that they're incapable of learning well in the presence of males, by the very existence of "women's colleges".
And to men who might want access to the academic content of such a school, but are forbidden purely because of their sex.
I see no substantive difference between "whites only" and "women only" in terms of a college.
(I see a difference in terms of bathrooms because there, genitalia are actually relevant, and there's a much more plausible compelling interest in sexual segregation for privacy's sake - and of course bathrooms really can be "separate but equal" [or at least equivalent, since making them "equal" would paper over real differences in biology that make urinals a good idea for a men's bathroom and a stupid idea for a women's].
But "women need special women-only colleges"? Insulting to women as well as to men.)
(I won't even mention ballet because I just don't see it doing much good, but classical theater and opera can be very butch. Try it. You may like it.)
You're erroneously conflating "want" with "need." Women are capable of learning in co-ed environments; they often choose not to. Furthermore, as a historical matter, it made sense to have all-women's schools when the other schools would not allow women to be admitted, no matter how smart. These days, women have other options, but choose schools like Wellesley and Smith for the atmosphere.
Do you find all-male colleges (both historically and currently, such as Hampden Syndey in Virginia) to be offensive?
As for those poor men who don't have access to the course content: boo frickin hoo. Like there is some huge deprivation in taking calculus at Hampden Sydney and not at Sweet Briar.
Ah, the hazards of going on limited and anecdotal evidence.
I did not mean to impugn your femininity. :-)
Now that you have moved past "Discrimination is Illegal" always and everywhere, toe "Sexual Discrimation is Illegal" always and everywhere, you are half way there.
Illegal Discrimination is Illegal.
Illegal Sexualt Discrimination is Illegal.
Discrimination is defined as Neutral discernment; The act of discriminating, distinguishing, or noting/perceiving differences which exist
As many have pointed out in this thread, there is a whole host of forms of discrimination that are legal, forms of even sexual discrimination that are legal. That's why statutes tend to say titles like "Sexual Discrimination in Employment", specifying what they are talking about.
Of course there is another standard, that which says words mean whatever slogan was said last. This position is attributed to Humpty Dumpty.
But for those who favor plain english,
Inigo says it best
I am not going to argue with you anymore. You are hallucinating stances I didn’t take. Because your hallucinations have shifted you falsely believe my POSITIONS have shifted, when in fact all you have done is force me to repeat what I had already said.
I never said all discrimination against any and all things or persons in all situations was illegal. There is a new concept in the English language. Its called CONTEXT you complete moron.
I never said that all sex discrimination was illegal. I specifically mentioned the example of separate bathrooms, in my first post.
What I said was that most state laws in their plain language banned all sex discrimination without exception within certain areas, usually including public accommodations and that we should not create exceptions to the blanket rule because we think we can read the legislative minds, except under rare circumstances. Separate bathrooms justified a judicially-created exception; Ladies’ Night does not.
Either accidentally or out of an abundance of stupidity, you have literally never understood the words I wrote, or you chose to ignore what I wrote and stated that I argued for something that I didn’t.
Since you are incapable, mentally or morally, of discussing my actual argument and arguing for or against it, you can kindly f--- off.
The gun club I belong to holds an annual NRA Women on Target day to encourage female shooters. It’s sponsored by our local adult education program. I have the privilege of teaching the handgun portion. It’s October 4, if anyone is near central Texas. While literally true, I would hope that the law would only be used to prevent situations where people were discriminated against. Certainly there should be a defense against legal action where both parties benefit from the practice. The perpetrators of actions like this one are those who believe, “It’s fun, therefore it should be illegal.”
I assume that many men would feel the same way in a cooking class, class in child care, or something else that is stereotypically female. Assuming they are are there to learn, that is, and not to pick up women.
That's not an issue when it comes to bars. I assume that everyone, of whatever sex or orientation, can figure out the mechanics of getting drunk and having sex.
> Assuming they are are there to learn, that is, and not to pick up women.
Don't you know that everything men do is about sex?
(Follow for very funny futurama clip.)
The whole point of those laws is to say to people who would prefer to do that -- tough. You will have to evaluate people as individuals. You will not be able to insulate yourself from those who might discriminate against you. Integration is the decision the law compels.
I understand why people might rationally want to engage in the "bad kind" of discrimination. If I'm hiring people to work in a day care center, I might prefer not to hire any people who meet the typical profile of a child molester. I might prefer, for good rational reasons, only to hire married women. But the law won't let me do that.
Rational discrimination is just as problematic as irrational discrimination. In fact, it's more important to prohibit rational discrimination, since it's less likely to disappear on its own.
Not that I agree with this position, but it's the position behind laws against private discrimination.
A private range could consider the economic advantage of an expanded customer base. Shooting is traditionally a men's deal and gun shops and ranges are looking for a new clientele. Especially when you consider that women control the purse strings in many marriages (speaking of mine, here) and a shooting wife would object less to gunshop charges on the credit card statement. Or so the thinking goes.
Many women (especially newbies to the activity) also express a preference for shooting in a gender segregated atmosphere. I've seen lots of guys turn into flaming A-holes when they begin teaching the "little woman" how to shoot. Learning to safely handle a firearm can be a stressful activity--especially if you've been culturally conditioned to fear weapons--and who needs more stress injected into the process?
Yes. If what "action" means is sitting through Shakespeare or opera.
This is wrong. You are assuming that any Men's Night is going to be at a sports bar and involve sedentary viewing of sports on large screens. Sports bars are different than other bars, and women generally don't go to sports bars to meet men.
saying 'well gay bars exist' is tantamount to claiming that as long as their are separate but fair accommodations for a minority group it's ok to discriminate against them--and we know how well that arguments works out before the SCOTUS
Right on, AC. Any idea of how many women I know, married or not, who want to go the theater with me? They have no one else -- husbands, bfs, or no one, they can't get anyone to go. Me, I'm happy to go by myself, principally because it's easier to do so at the last minute and get the rush tix. But when I go with a galpal, we have to plan it in advance, and dinner is usually involved as well.
So -- I have all these dates with women. If hetero men only knew this, they could get laid a lot more often, but they assume, as SKarnder does, that opera doesn't lead to sex, but bars do.