Ladies' night

[Lateralus]

Oh, yes it's ladies' night, judge rules - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/30/ladies.night.suit.ap/index.html)

Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum tossed the lawsuit out of federal court in Manhattan on Monday. She said nightclubs can price their products as they wish because they're not acting as representatives of the state.

Would this judge have made the same ruling if the nightclub set their prices based on race?

[BerberElla]

ladies night isn't meant to discriminate against men, it's meant to help them by getting more ladies into the club so they can have more fun. It's sad that anyone would feel the need to start a lawsuit over such a silly thing, but it is the US and silly lawsuits are a speciality wot wot? ;)

I also don't believe you can compare it to a race issue, since it's not motivated in the same way.

If a club had "White's night" it would hardly be to get more of us mutli coloured people in.

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I agree that it's not motivated the same way. More women = more business. To a degree, it's just an extension of the way clubs pay certain minor celebrities a fee just to come hang out at the club. Instead of getting paid, the women at ladies' night are just given a discount. I admit, it steams me sometimes, but I think it's legally defensible.

[Oberon]

Would this judge have made the same ruling if the nightclub set their prices based on race?

That may depend on which race gets the price break. :D

[Lateralus]

I'm not against this ruling. I don't think the government should have any say in the matter, whatsoever. I think the judge lied, though. I don't think she would rule the same, regardless of the situation. The US is so hypocritical with these sorts of issues. It would be okay to have a 'Black night', but not a 'White night'. It's not about equality, it's about settling scores.

[pure_mercury]

Private organization = charge whatever people will pay, and do business with whomever you want. A private club should be able to admit only whites or only blacks or only Jews or whatever they want.

[Hmm]

The fascinating thing about this is that in all likelihood the female judge probably considers herself to be a Feminist, and the attorney is a self-reported Anti-feminist, when in fact, they both wanted the exact opposite of that based on the case filed and it's final ruling.

[CaptainChick]

Private organization = charge whatever people will pay, and do business with whomever you want. A private club should be able to admit only whites or only blacks or only Jews or whatever they want.
Lol, I actually kind of agree with this.

But perhaps I need to give it a bit more thought.

[proteanmix]

I'm not against this ruling. I don't think the government should have any say in the matter, whatsoever. I think the judge lied, though. I don't think she would rule the same, regardless of the situation. The US is so hypocritical with these sorts of issues. It would be okay to have a 'Black night', but not a 'White night'. It's not about equality, it's about settling scores.

I think that's the implicit default in many cases. The places I go "tell" you whose night it is by the music they play. Stating such is illegal.

Ladies nights are to get more women to get more men to buy them drinks and thus make the club/bar more money.

[pure_mercury]

Lol, I actually kind of agree with this.

But perhaps I need to give it a bit more thought.

Well, it's an extreme freedom of association position, definitely. Still, I am always in favor of negative liberty (freedom from being forced to do something) over positive paternalism.

[booyalab]

I'm not against this ruling. I don't think the government should have any say in the matter, whatsoever. I think the judge lied, though. I don't think she would rule the same, regardless of the situation. The US is so hypocritical with these sorts of issues. It would be okay to have a 'Black night', but not a 'White night'. It's not about equality, it's about settling scores.

Although I agree that businesses should be allowed to discriminate, you are pretty much wrong on everything else. A "Ladies Night" price for women is not discriminatory against men like "white night" would be discriminatory against black people. It is actually designed to make the bar scene better for men and women by lowering the price to increase the demand among women and therefore making it less of a sausage factory for men.

[pure_mercury]

Although I agree that businesses should be allowed to discriminate, you are pretty much wrong on everything else. A "Ladies Night" price for women is not discriminatory against men like "white night" would be discriminatory against black people. It is actually designed to make the bar scene better for men and women by lowering the price to increase the demand among women and therefore making it less of a sausage factory for men.

The exact equivalent would be making a cover $10 for black people, but $5 for white people, because you want more white people to show up. It's price discrimination either way, but that should be legal provided there isn't bait-and-switch/fraud/contract-breaking going on.

[disregard]

The exact equivalent would be making a cover $10 for black people, but $5 for white people, because you want more white people to show up. It's price discrimination either way, but that should be legal provided there isn't bait-and-switch/fraud/contract-breaking going on.

No, that is not the exact equivalent, because black people don't, as a general rule, go to clubs to meet white people.

[pure_mercury]

No, that is not the exact equivalent, because black people don't, as a general rule, go to clubs to meet white people.

It's not about the people who show up. It's about the owners of the club trying to reach a different demographic.

[Oberon]

No, that is not the exact equivalent, because black people don't, as a general rule, go to clubs to meet white people.

Why does that change things? If it were true, why would it legitimize sex discrimination?

[disregard]

Why does that change things? If it were true, why would it legitimize sex discrimination?

It changes things because, as booyalab said,
It is actually designed to make the bar scene better for men and women by lowering the price to increase the demand among women and therefore making it less of a sausage factory for men.

It's designed to encourage overall satisfaction for both sexes, not to suit the club owner's sexist proclivities.

[pure_mercury]

It changes things because, as booyalab said,


It's designed to encourage overall satisfaction for both sexes, not to suit the club owner's sexist proclivities.

A) You don't know that; and B) you can't make legislation based on guessing people's motivations for their business practices. That is why hate crime laws are unconstitutional prima facie. Besides, an owner may be concerned that different theme nights at his or her place are getting to be too monochromatic. Jazz clubs tend to be full of old white people nowadays. Maybe they want to encourage younger black people to attend by changing the drink specials or having more eclectic music?

[Lateralus]

Although I agree that businesses should be allowed to discriminate, you are pretty much wrong on everything else. A "Ladies Night" price for women is not discriminatory against men like "white night" would be discriminatory against black people. It is actually designed to make the bar scene better for men and women by lowering the price to increase the demand among women and therefore making it less of a sausage factory for men.
When did you start caring about intent? I don't think intent is relevant to this issue, at all.

[Oberon]

It's designed to encourage overall satisfaction for both sexes, not to suit the club owner's sexist proclivities.

So what you're saying is that it's not discrimination that you oppose per se, but just discrimination on any basis you don't personally agree with?

[booyalab]

When did you start caring about intent? I don't think intent is relevant to this issue, at all.

Yeah intent isn't at all relevant in a discussion about what constitutes discrimination, you're right.

[booyalab]

The exact equivalent would be making a cover $10 for black people, but $5 for white people, because you want more white people to show up.

No! It's not the same at all because white people don't go to bars less than black people and black people don't necessarily go to bars to meet white people. It's price based on a discrepancy in demand not some inconsequential characteristic. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

[pure_mercury]

No! It's not the same at all because white people don't go to bars less than black people and black people don't necessarily go to bars to meet white people. It's price based on a discrepancy in demand not some inconsequential characteristic. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

It's generally based on profit motive, and there are other reasons why someone would price discriminate based on certain characteristics ("Kids Eat Free," "senior citizen discount," et al.). However, it could be any number of things: the bar owner is a lech, and wants more women around in the hopes of getting laid. Or, conversely, he is a sweet, gentle man, and he wants less drunk, potentially violent men around and a more inviting atmosphere for women. In other words. . .

IT WOULD BE LIKE CHARGING DIFFERENT PRICES IN THE HOPES OF ATTRACTING A CERTAIN GROUP OF PEOPLE. You know, exactly what I just wrote?

[ptgatsby]

No! It's not the same at all because white people don't go to bars less than black people and black people don't necessarily go to bars to meet white people. It's price based on a discrepancy in demand not some inconsequential characteristic. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

Actually, I'm fairly sure in the past, the racial makeup of the bar would affect those that would be willing to go to the establishment. I see no reason why this couldn't be true in the present too. That's why the discrimination laws were useful.

The reason why it is fairer is because there is a 'deadweight' loss present, sure. That is, if people only go to meet up, then the ratio should be ideal. Less women, less men and therefore less net utility for men and women trying to meet up.

But that could be applied to race as well, I realised...

[booyalab]

IT WOULD BE LIKE CHARGING DIFFERENT PRICES IN THE HOPES OF ATTRACTING A CERTAIN GROUP OF PEOPLE. You know, exactly what I just wrote?
Well yes, this situation is like that. Exactly. Except discriminatory prices usually refer to CHARGING DIFFERENT PRICES IN THE HOPES OF DETRACTING A CERTAIN GROUP OF PEOPLE. No one is being detracted here except this one guy. If more people were being detracted, the ladies night concept would have been abandoned long ago.

Admittedly I'm making lots of fine logical distinctions here. But enough so that I think one could be in favor of ladies night and against whities night without being a hypocrite.

[Edahn]

THE MORE YOU GUYS TALK LIKE THIS, THE MORE I AGREE WITH YOUR POINT.

[pure_mercury]

Well yes, this situation is like that. Exactly. Except discriminatory prices usually refer to CHARGING DIFFERENT PRICES IN THE HOPES OF DETRACTING A CERTAIN GROUP OF PEOPLE. No one is being detracted here except this one guy. If more people were being detracted, the ladies night concept would have been abandoned long ago.

This guy obviously has an ax to grind. Still, changing different prices can be used to attract people, as well. Charging more for something can actually increase demand, if you are targeting a certain demographic (the more conspicuous consumption-inclined wealthy). Look at the scotch that is $3,300 a dram at the Borgata in Atlantic City. They could charge far less (I believe a fifth of this Macallan goes for around $15,000), but it's priced higher because the people who would get it want to spend more and have people know it. "European bottle service" is based on this. No one in his or her right mind would spend $280 on a bottle of Skyy vodka, yet people do in clubs all the time.

[Edahn]

Well yes, this situation is like that. Exactly. Except discriminatory prices usually refer to CHARGING DIFFERENT PRICES IN THE HOPES OF DETRACTING A CERTAIN GROUP OF PEOPLE. No one is being detracted here except this one guy. If more people were being detracted, the ladies night concept would have been abandoned long ago.

Admittedly I'm making lots of fine logical distinctions here. But enough so that I think one could be in favor of ladies night and against whities night without being a hypocrite.

I think you and disregard are making perfect sense.

[kyuuei]

I think the lawsuit is bogus, and should have been thrown out. Club works like this: Guys want girls, so they go to clubs to get girls . (whoever goes to a club for liquor is a dumbass.) Girls go to clubs because there is Ladies night. Because lots of girls go there on those special nights, lots of guys go, club prospers. Both genders get in for half the price, but the quantity exceeds the discounts on ladies so everyone's happy. Except gay guys, who get no discount.

Clubs should be able to discriminate as they please.. because it is a private business, though I don't think many do because they wouldn't get business... so if anyone wants to put up with all that SO badly just to exclude someone, have at it. They won't get my money though.

If the subject WERE over discriminating race instead of gender.. I would question why anyone would want to go to a place and give them your money if they dislike you enough to bother excluding you? (I know this isn't the attitude to have in general.. but for this particular instance.. I think a better way would be to boycott it, and grapevine it's ways so its business goes to zilch.) There are clubs where you can't wear certain things, and I don't go there because I don't like being told what to wear when I go out to have a good time. Maybe it is nice, but I say nay and if my friends go there, I go elsewhere.

[Oberon]

So another fem weighs in for only objecting to the discrimination she finds personally distasteful...

[kyuuei]

So another fem weighs in for only objecting to the discrimination she finds personally distasteful...

I think discrimination at a private establishment is acceptable. Why should 60 year old people eat the same food for less at IHOP? It doesn't bother me at all. If they told me I couldn't go to a place because I was a woman, I just wouldn't go. I wouldn't be pissed about it, if I'm not wanted there, I'm not going to throw a tantrum just to get into a place no one wants me at.. that's sorta retarded.

If the subject were race, I'm just saying I don't think they'd stand too much of a chance of being successful.

Discrimination, one way or another, won't satisfy everyone on current standing laws because laws are made to appease the masses, not everyone. As it stands, we had a problem with racial discrimination in America, so the subject is more sensitive when it comes to things like excluding race.

It seems the only one truly upset about this is this one man filing the lawsuit.

Men's section sells jeans for less than the women's section even though we tend to use thinner material, less cloth in total, etc, and I saw no lawsuit bitching about that. If we bitched about every little discrimination that existed, the lawsuits would clog up the system and prevent real issues from being solved.

How much a woman pays at the door and gets a drink doesn't bother me. NOR would it bother me if men got in for free and we had to pay full price. If I wanted to go, I'd pay it. If it pissed me off, I wouldn't attend. We can't be so fickle that smaller issues like this blow up.

[Oberon]

Oh... okay. :D

[kyuuei]

Oh... okay. :D

-.-;; .. I'm just saying, if it had been a male judge throwing it out, would he have been so mad?

Mayhap we should all go on a crusade to make sure so many things are equal that kids pay for adult meals, old people that are limited in their diets and such should pay for their meals, and let's make sure that one place doesn't have cheaper prices than another so that we don't discriminate against store brands either.

Yes, I can see the coin where "Why is it, just because we're men, we have to pay full price?". But where I in ya'll shoes, I'd be more likely to say either "I don't care, buying a girl a drink is WAY less money for ME, and if I bring a date it's like getting 2 for 1 admission." OR "Fuck no, that place is too expensive. I don't care if Jessica Alba's in there."

I just don't think Ladies Night is a big-enough deal to warrant a lawsuit. I also don't think he should have blamed the STATE just because they give an establishment the right to sell liquor.

The fact remains the world is not equal, and never will have that Zero balance. We just do what we can.

[pure_mercury]

-.-;; .. I'm just saying, if it had been a male judge throwing it out, would he have been so mad?

That doesn't enter it into at all.

Mayhap we should all go on a crusade to make sure so many things are equal that kids pay for adult meals, old people that are limited in their diets and such should pay for their meals, and let's make sure that one place doesn't have cheaper prices than another so that we don't discriminate against store brands either.

Yes, I can see the coin where "Why is it, just because we're men, we have to pay full price?". But where I in ya'll shoes, I'd be more likely to say either "I don't care, buying a girl a drink is WAY less money for ME, and if I bring a date it's like getting 2 for 1 admission." OR "Fuck no, that place is too expensive. I don't care if Jessica Alba's in there."

I just don't think Ladies Night is a big-enough deal to warrant a lawsuit. I also don't think he should have blamed the STATE just because they give an establishment the right to sell liquor.

The fact remains the world is not equal, and never will have that Zero balance. We just do what we can.


Prices should be whatever the buyer and seller agree upon. Period. If they were, we'd have no argument here, and these lawsuits would be summarily dismissed.

[kyuuei]

That doesn't enter it into at all.

"He called the judge a feminist and said her dismissal of his lawsuit was consistent with the discrimination embedded in many of America's institutions."

I think if they had used a male judge and came to the same agreement he wouldn't have felt so indignified... because.. well I do!


Prices should be whatever the buyer and seller agree upon. Period. If they were, we'd have no argument here, and these lawsuits would be summarily dismissed.

Aren't they though? Maybe I'm entirely lost on that issue in and of itself.

[Oberon]

-.-;; .. I'm just saying, if it had been a male judge throwing it out, would he have been so mad?

Mayhap we should all go on a crusade to make sure so many things are equal that kids pay for adult meals, old people that are limited in their diets and such should pay for their meals, and let's make sure that one place doesn't have cheaper prices than another so that we don't discriminate against store brands either.

Yes, I can see the coin where "Why is it, just because we're men, we have to pay full price?". But where I in ya'll shoes, I'd be more likely to say either "I don't care, buying a girl a drink is WAY less money for ME, and if I bring a date it's like getting 2 for 1 admission." OR "Fuck no, that place is too expensive. I don't care if Jessica Alba's in there."

I just don't think Ladies Night is a big-enough deal to warrant a lawsuit. I also don't think he should have blamed the STATE just because they give an establishment the right to sell liquor.

The fact remains the world is not equal, and never will have that Zero balance. We just do what we can.

Oh, I'm not on the side of enforced balance... I'm on the side of free association. Power to the rugged individual to do business with whom he or she chooses, on whatever basis he or she chooses.

But it wasn't until after I read your half-page of explication that I understood that you were agreeing with me. :D

[pure_mercury]

"He called the judge a feminist and said her dismissal of his lawsuit was consistent with the discrimination embedded in many of America's institutions."

I think if they had used a male judge and came to the same agreement he wouldn't have felt so indignified... because.. well I do!

Let me rephrase: "Just because that guy is a douche doesn't mean the judge's gender enters into it at all." :D


Aren't they though? Maybe I'm entirely lost on that issue in and of itself.

Sadly, no. There are laws about how cheap or expensive you can sell haircuts, cigarettes, alcohol, housing. . . Also, try to have a "Whites Only Night" or "Whites 50% Night" at a bar sometime and see if the local government lets you get away with it.

[Lateralus]

Yeah intent isn't at all relevant in a discussion about what constitutes discrimination, you're right.
The judge said businesses can price their products as they see fit because they're not 'representatives of the state'. I'd love it if that were the truth, but it's bullshit. There's no way she would make the same ruling if this was dealing with race. (it's annoying having to repeat myself)

I didn't see anything about the judge calling this an issue of discrimination. The only people I see talking about discrimination are in this thread.

[Oberon]

The only people I see talking about discrimination are in this thread.

You don't see me!

[peers anxiously between the blinds]

[pure_mercury]

BTW, I feel the same way about Ladies' Nights as I did about frat parties in college where it was $5 for guys and free for girls: they're completely lame, because you are basically saying, "We can't get chicks here any other way besides free booze."

[booyalab]

The only people I see talking about discrimination are in this thread.
Try reading the first sentence of the article.


Btw, nightclubs discriminate against black people too...though it's less overt than the "whities night" label. They use dress codes.

[pure_mercury]

Try reading the first sentence of the article.


Btw, nightclubs discriminate against black people too...though it's less overt than the "whities night" label. They use dress codes.

And they price accordingly, as well. However, requiring a certain manner of dress or having high-priced drinks is not simply "less overt" than "Whites' Night." It is a completely different practice.

[booyalab]

You could simply separate the main types of discriminatory pricing into successful market positioning vs. stupid market positioning.

[kyuuei]

Oh, I'm not on the side of enforced balance... I'm on the side of free association. Power to the rugged individual to do business with whom he or she chooses, on whatever basis he or she chooses.

But it wasn't until after I read your half-page of explication that I understood that you were agreeing with me. :D

XD Nice. Yeah, I rant a lot.. I'm not very good at putting to words what I mean to say, so I end up writing a lot to try and ensure I make my point clear.. which is sometimes counterproductive.

Let me rephrase: "Just because that guy is a douche doesn't mean the judge's gender enters into it at all." :D




Sadly, no. There are laws about how cheap or expensive you can sell haircuts, cigarettes, alcohol, housing. . . Also, try to have a "Whites Only Night" or "Whites 50% Night" at a bar sometime and see if the local government lets you get away with it.

Well, I sorta already felt that way.. but seeing the situation, I suppose I would have had a male judge throw it out because it seems that would be one less thing for him to bitch about. The gender isn't important to anyone aside him. And I've always been all about working ways so there's the least amount of bitching possible.

Also, that sucks. I feel it should be that way. I just thought it already was ...

BTW, I feel the same way about Ladies' Nights as I did about frat parties in college where it was $5 for guys and free for girls: they're completely lame, because you are basically saying, "We can't get chicks here any other way besides free booze."

But you bet your ass if I drank for free I'd be there, lame reasons or otherwise.. the reason WHY it's free is of little concern to me. ^_^b



I had been taking a poll amongst my friends about what they thought of this, and a few interesting things were brought up.

One being the double standards in society.. which we all know exist. but if there WERE a Gentlemen's night, the amount of really drunk guys wouldn't attract women in there for the simple fact that girls are always wary of drunks anyways, so the risk would be greater in a facility like that. No one ever seems threatened by a thrown girl.

One of my friends said you couldn't consider this discrimination because there's no minus to anyone. Helping and aiding one side doesn't discriminate the other, because the other doesn't have anything taken away. I think I agree with this... but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

And finally that not all discrimination is made to be bad. Discrimination is just a tool like any other that could be used for good or malicious reasons.. and it's only when it IS used in such a way that the government has to step in.


The subject brought up earlier on speaking against discrimination that only you distaste would seem better explained by this. Why would anyone speak up against something they have no qualms with? People only ever speak up when they dislike something enough to make a stand about it. When it came to enough people disagreeing with it, it's more peaceful to make law and adjust to accomodate the masses.