More News for the Masses, Ladies Night at a Pub is Discrimination.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:20 pm

'Ladies Night' Under Fire In Colorado - News

A state civil rights agency is reportedly backing a man's claims that he was discrimated against at a Denver night club hosting a "Ladies Night."

Ladies Night -- a promotion that often allows women in for free at clubs -- is often used as a way to bring more men and women to the clubs on weekday nights that are less crowded.

But Steve Horner said it's outright gender discrimination to which many government agencies have turned a blind eye.

"I think that's what the modern-day feminist issue was all about -- we're equal," Horner said.

He said equality became an issue for him when he said he was asked to pay a $5 entry fee at the Proof NiteClub while women were getting in free.

"I said, 'This is discrimination.' And he said, 'Go ahead and file a complaint.' And so I did," Horner said.

Horner went to the state Department of Regulatory Services, Division of Civil Rights. Horner says he's received a letter from the agency indicating that evidence of discrimination was found.

A mediation hearing with all sides is set for later this month. The matter could be set for a public hearing after that.

In a statement to 7NEWS, Proof owners Karen Parker and Tim Bell said, "It's ridiculous that the Proof NiteClub has been singled out because we have a Ladies Night, when this is a common business practice among many nightclubs in Denver and has been for years. We will continue to cooperate and move through the process. The Proof NiteClub has been a successful establishment in Denver for over 25 years, and we plan to continue well into the future."

But Horner hopes the promotion ends not only at Proof but all across the state and the country.

"The promotion is sexist in nature," he said.

Horner said he plans to ask at upcoming hearings that Ladies Night be a thing of the past.

"And then I'm going to ask for every dollar I'm owed to the letter of the law, which is $500. Then I'm going to get my $5 back," he said.

The state Civil Rights Division said it can't comment on specific cases but said such complaints are not uncommon -- they have occurred in other states -- and any ruling that effectively bans Ladies Night applies only to the one establishment where the violation was reported.

Horner said he plans to file complaints about other bars in the Denver area so that the law is applied consistently. Horner has a history of filing complaints in other states where he has lived.

Some states have outlawed the practice of Ladies Night specials, but the rulings are often not enforced, experts said.

I haven't completely read the article, but I looked it up because I saw it on the daily show just now. On the daily show this man compared ladies night and him having to pay to Rosa Parks and the bus issue. Sure, it has a few similarities, but it's a HUGE leap for a comparison, and it's a rather weak argument in my opinion.

That's like comparing an abortion to a woman getting her tubes tied, both are most likely because the woman doesn't want a child, but it's not really that great of an analogy whatsoever.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:56 pm

*sigh* This sort of thing is getting truly ridiculous all across the board...

Honestly, there are many genuine human rights issues out there that could use this kind of support and attention.

I really don't think this qualifies as discrimination. Next thing you know, people will be launching charges of discrimination if their favourite brand of "TV Dinner" isn't available at the grocery store.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:17 pm

If you really want to end financial discrimination, then women should be charged 76% of what men are charged for EVERYTHING until the day when women can earn as much as men for the same work in the workplace.

(That is not an original idea on my part. I recently read it in a blog by Amanda Marcotte about a similar subject.)

Siberys, you probably have no idea what a can of worms the issue of gender discrimination can be. If you read the blog entry I linked to, I don't expect you to understand all the issues that are brought up--I don't even understand all of them myself. Supposedly there's a great big war going on between the sexes, and all men are alike, and you know what they're like, and all women are alike, and you know what they're like, and every time one person takes advantage of a member of the opposite sex or simply behaves like an inconsiderate boor, it's all part of that great big war between the sexes, you know.

But actually, if gender isn't the issue, then some other difference between people is the issue, like race, or age, or religion, etc. Nobody EVER gets along.

That's what this sort of thing is really all about. That and the fact that people like Horner make complaints and file lawsuits everywhere they go.

Jhereg · Post by **Jhereg** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:19 pm

dragon wench wrote:*sigh* This sort of thing is getting truly ridiculous all across the board...
Honestly, there are many genuine human rights issues out there that could use this kind of support and attention.

I really don't think this qualifies as discrimination. Next thing you know, people will be launching charges of discrimination if their favourite brand of "TV Dinner" isn't available at the grocery store.

Or, more to the point, Dragon Wench, how the heck can this get serious press when there are still "Gentleman's clubs" all over N. Am. that simply don't allow females to enter? That's still legal. If that's still legal, then if poindexter has to pay a cover, it's his own damned fault.

Equality, right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If he wants to get in without a cover, then the rich macho men's clique golf club of no damned females has to let the girls in, too. Fair is fair.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:23 pm

Let's consider the reason why clubs allow women to enter without paying a cover charge. They want to attract more women to their establishment, because the presence of women will attract more men, and the clubs will get a lot more business.

Now think about that from a male point of view. If a club charges full cover for women as well as men, then the men will still be paying full cover, but there will be fewer women at the club. Are men really coming out ahead in a situation like that?

Horner is an idiot.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:35 pm

VonDondu wrote:If you really want to end financial discrimination, then women should be charged 76% of what men are charged for EVERYTHING until the day when women can earn as much as men for the same work in the workplace.

(That is not an original idea on my part. I recently read it in a blog by Amanda Marcotte about a similar subject.)

Siberys, you probably have no idea what a can of worms the issue of gender discrimination can be. If you read the blog entry I linked to, I don't expect you to understand all the issues that are brought up--I don't even understand all of them myself. Supposedly there's a great big war going on between the sexes, and all men are alike, and you know what they're like, and all women are alike, and you know what they're like, and every time one person takes advantage of a member of the opposite sex or simply behaves like an inconsiderate boor, it's all part of that great big war between the sexes, you know.

But actually, if gender isn't the issue, then some other difference between people is the issue, like race, or age, or religion, etc. Nobody EVER gets along. That's what this sort of thing is really all about. That and the fact that people like Horner make complaints and file lawsuits everywhere they go.

Not true, not all women are alike and not all men are alike. Simple example, homosexuality versus heterosexuality. that's one major difference in men AND women that alters there attitudes towards the opposite and alike sex altogether.

Jhereg · Post by **Jhereg** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:56 pm

VonDondu wrote:Let's consider the reason why clubs allow women to enter without paying a cover charge. They want to attract more women to their establishment, because the presence of women will attract more men, and the clubs will get a lot more business.

Now think about that from a male point of view. If a club charges full cover for women as well as men, then the men will still be paying full cover, but there will be fewer women at the club. Are men really coming out ahead in a situation like that?

Horner is an idiot.

That would depend on your point of view, wouldn't it? Is your purpose in paying the cover to get a chick? Then the ladies night is fine. Is your purpose to get a chick without having to pay a cover?

Yeah, Horner is an idiot. More to the point, a cheapskate idiot.

Andurbal · Post by **Andurbal** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:06 am

Wikipedia wrote:The word discrimination comes from the Latin "discriminare", which means to "distinguish between".(...) Gender discrimination is discrimination against a person or group on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

According to this, I think the club made a discrimination.
Edit: Well, maybe I thought wrong. Looks like this case is not a discrimination against men, but in favor of women.

(And the fact that it is not always in use, but just for some special times, maybe also makes great difference.)

Proof owners Karen Parker and Tim Bell said, "It's ridiculous that the Proof NiteClub has been singled out because we have a Ladies Night, when this is a common business practice among many nightclubs in Denver and has been for years".

The fact that something is common practice for years doesn't make it right.

dragon wench wrote:Honestly, there are many genuine human rights issues out there that could use this kind of support and attention.

I agree, but that is another case (maybe more serious, but still another).

Jhereg wrote:Equality, right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If he wants to get in without a cover, then the rich macho men's clique golf club of no damned females has to let the girls in, too. Fair is fair.

Fair is fair, of course.

VonDondu wrote:Let's consider the reason why clubs allow women to enter without paying a cover charge. They want to attract more women to their establishment, because the presence of women will attract more men, and the clubs will get a lot more business.

Now think about that from a male point of view. If a club charges full cover for women as well as men, then the men will still be paying full cover, but there will be fewer women at the club. Are men really coming out ahead in a situation like that?

My experience is that more men than women will go to a club on a lady's night, because they believe there are gonna be a lot of women inside... And that attracts a lot of men, even if they have to pay.

Siberys wrote:Not true, not all women are alike and not all men are alike. Simple example, homosexuality versus heterosexuality. that's one major difference in men AND women that alters there attitudes towards the opposite and alike sex altogether.

And another example is the transexuals, who usually get a lot of discrimination in any case...

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:20 am

Jhereg wrote:Or, more to the point, Dragon Wench, how the heck can this get serious press when there are still "Gentleman's clubs" all over N. Am. that simply don't allow females to enter? That's still legal. If that's still legal, then if poindexter has to pay a cover, it's his own damned fault.

Equality, right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If he wants to get in without a cover, then the rich macho men's clique golf club of no damned females has to let the girls in, too. Fair is fair.

Hmmm, I posted something about gender exclusive golf clubs not that long ago. I suppose I see it as an all or nothing thing. Either both genders should be allowed to "discriminate" against the other or neither should have the privilege.
It boils down to this too, while I personally often prefer hanging out with men, I do understand that sometimes people want to go off and engage in male or female "bonding." I really don't think it is all that big a deal.
The problem would be if we still had a situation where women required male escorts while in any bar, or if all pubs had "ladies nights" three or four nights a week. But, as it stands now, I feel stuff like this is largely a non issue.

Ugh... I hope I'm making sense, I'm not feeling very articulate just now

kathycf · Post by **kathycf** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:22 am

It seems that frivolous lawsuits are becoming the American way...

Gosh, next we'll be seeing someone sue a fast food restaurant because consuming the food caused them to become obese. Oh wait, my bad. That's been done...(and no, I am not bashing large people, I am bashing frivolous lawsuit people.)

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:27 am

Siberys wrote:Not true, not all women are alike and not all men are alike. Simple example, homosexuality versus heterosexuality. that's one major difference in men AND women that alters there attitudes towards the opposite and alike sex altogether.

I was merely expressing a point of view that is not my own. I was sneering at it, and I thought that was obvious.

Jhereg wrote:That would depend on your point of view, wouldn't it? Is your purpose in paying the cover to get a chick? Then the ladies night is fine. Is your purpose to get a chick without having to pay a cover?

Yeah, Horner is an idiot. More to the point, a cheapskate idiot.

I guess Horner's purpose is to get into a club that doesn't have a lot of female patrons. Maybe all he wants is to have some drinks all by himself or with the other guys.

In other words, it's losers night.

Andurbal wrote:My experience is that more men than women will go to a club on a lady's night, because they believe there are gonna be a lot of women inside... And that attracts a lot of men, even if they have to pay.

You are correct. Men go to a club on ladies night because they expect more women to be there. But as on any other night, there are still a lot more men than women.

If men are disappointed week after week because women don't show up on ladies night, pretty soon "ladies night" won't mean anything anymore and it will fail as a marketing ploy. Eventually, anyway, depending on how desperate the male patrons might be.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:17 am

VonDondu wrote:In other words, it's losers night.

Hey! I resent that.

Seriously though, there have been times when I was slightly irked about my 5 year young sister could enter clubs I could not (Due to age limitations only being enforced for men), and for no charge to boot.

But as DW already mention it feels very insignificant compared to just about anything else.

Kipi · Post by **Kipi** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:50 am

Dottie wrote: Seriously though, there have been times when I was slightly irked about my 5 year young sister could enter clubs I could not (Due to age limitations only being enforced for men), and for no charge to boot.

Reminds me one thing...

Year ago me and my friends were hanging out together. Well, we decided to visit local night club. Unfortunately, one of my friends weren't allowed in because he was wearing "provokative clothes", or so the boucer claimed. In truth, the clothes my friend used weren' provokative any way, most young men use such clothes here daily...
Each one of us had to show our ID's, by the way...

Just right behind us there were 4 girls trying to enter the same night club. Well, each one of them were underaged, and I know this becase I knew those girls... They got in without any problems, they didn't have to show their IDs even. Well, the friend of my who was denied to enter the night club said to the bouncer something like "How come you deny me to enter even when my clothes aren't provokative while you let girls underage to get inside?"
In 2 minutes there were three bouncers more driving us away. And they didn't care when we tried to tell them that they had just let underaged girls to enter the night club...

And to the topic...
Well, if women are allowed to complain everything which they think is discrimination, why men can't do the same?
If women are allowed to demand to get to certain jobs just because other who are trying to get tht job are men, why aren't men allowed to demand that women also pay for entrance to the bars/night clubs?

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:11 am

Kipi wrote:And to the topic...
Well, if women are allowed to complain everything which they think is discrimination, why men can't do the same?

If women are allowed to demand to get to certain jobs just because other who are trying to get tht job are men, why aren't men allowed to demand that women also pay for entrance to the bars/night clubs?

Because it's white males who created the policies of discrimination in the first place. God forbid we start to complain about our status of inequality.

Anyway, it's the justifcation of those against such discrimination that people like Horner are nothing but cheapskates and idiots. To cheapen an argument of such blatant discrimination in such a way is demeaning to them and to fighters of civil rights before them, and simply proves they themselves are biased and guilty of discrimination of their own. But you can't appeal to their sense of right in this case, because if only on a subconscious level, it will never appear as a case of discrimination; it's an attempt to regain some power over those who were once treated as "lessers." And you can't appeal to people in a way that could be construed as a financial excuse, because it causes instances like I mentioned. Then again, one could point out that when you have Ladies' Night and women get to go into bars/clubs for free or cheaper fare and drink for free or for less money, it attracts more women to get cheap drinks. It also attracts more men who hope to hook up with women that night, and it makes it much easier for frustrated men to pick off a young drunk girl and rape her. So, in the interests of desperate men everywhere, I say keep Ladies' Night. Women get free drinks and men get sex. Sounds completely fair to me.

Anyway, we've treated this topic before.

Andurbal · Post by **Andurbal** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:27 am

Kipi wrote:Reminds me one thing...

Year ago me and my friends were hanging out together. Well, we decided to visit local night club. Unfortunately, one of my friends weren't allowed in because he was wearing "provokative clothes", or so the boucer claimed. In truth, the clothes my friend used weren' provokative any way, most young men use such clothes here daily...
Each one of us had to show our ID's, by the way...

Just right behind us there were 4 girls trying to enter the same night club. Well, each one of them were underaged, and I know this becase I knew those girls... They got in without any problems, they didn't have to show their IDs even. Well, the friend of my who was denied to enter the night club said to the bouncer something like "How come you deny me to enter even when my clothes aren't provokative while you let girls underage to get inside?"
In 2 minutes there were three bouncers more driving us away. And they didn't care when we tried to tell them that they had just let underaged girls to enter the night club...

And to the topic...
Well, if women are allowed to complain everything which they think is discrimination, why men can't do the same?
If women are allowed to demand to get to certain jobs just because other who are trying to get tht job are men, why aren't men allowed to demand that women also pay for entrance to the bars/night clubs?

Your friend could have sued the bouncer on the basis of humiliating his personality and offending his appearance (or something like that). All of you could have sued the bouncers for driving you away by force and without proper justification. And if it was illegal for underaged people to enter the club, you could have sued them for allowing the girls in. Just because people don't usually start sueing for such reasons, doesn't mean they don't have the right to do so.

And on topic:

Horner has a history of filing complaints in other states where he has lived.

Maybe he is eccentric or (as other people claimed) idiot. But are we judging personalities here or talking about discriminations?

"I said, 'This is discrimination.' And he said, 'Go ahead and file a complaint.' And so I did," Horner said.

I think this is the funniest line in the first post (in red).
You can clearly see that Horner followed the bouncer's advice.....

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:52 am

Chimaera182 wrote:Anyway, it's the justifcation of those against such discrimination that people like Horner are nothing but cheapskates and idiots.

And they're losers, too. Don't forget that.

Dottie wrote:Hey! I resent that.

I had no idea that what I said applied to you. I was just taking another stab at Horner by calling him a loser as well as a cheapskate idiot. He deserves it.

But if you go to clubs just to have drinks with the boys, that doesn't make you a loser. Is that better?

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:17 pm

I just recently read an article on the role of the media not being to provide information on the state of the world as much as to distract ordinary people from it. This is a typical example of such distraction, since it brings up a ridiculous albeit formally correct grievance going opposite the prevailing norm. The true issue of discrimination, be it based on gender, creed or otherwise, has of course been marginalized and defused, and people are taking sides in this highly irrelevant case instead - thus fueling "the war" in all the wrong ways for all the wrong reasons. Am I paranoid, or do you think they blow these things out of proportion on purpose?

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:32 pm

Silur wrote:The true issue of discrimination, be it based on gender, creed or otherwise, has of course been marginalized and defused, and people are taking sides in this highly irrelevant case instead - thus fueling "the war" in all the wrong ways for all the wrong reasons. Am I paranoid, or do you think they blow these things out of proportion on purpose?

I think this is true. However, I also feel that many people voluntarily allow themselves to be distracted, and quite happily as well.
Why? Because it's much easier for people to take sides in trivialities. Doing so does not require any kind of serious thought, nor does it ask people to think carefully about ethics or any role they may themselves have played in perpetuating the problem.
So, all too often there exists a pleasant symbiosis between media and public. A relationship that actively encourages apathy, both deliberately engineered and self-inflicted.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:43 pm

@DW: Unfortunately, you're absolutely right - it is so much easier to make a stand on a non-issue, than hold a firm moral belief in any major concern. If people weren't so eager to accept that the media lifts the burden of viewing the world for what it is from their shoulders, the media wouldn't have stood a chance of keeping this up for as long as they have.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:39 pm

VonDondu wrote:Let's consider the reason why clubs allow women to enter without paying a cover charge. They want to attract more women to their establishment, because the presence of women will attract more men, and the clubs will get a lot more business.

Now think about that from a male point of view. If a club charges full cover for women as well as men, then the men will still be paying full cover, but there will be fewer women at the club. Are men really coming out ahead in a situation like that?

Horner is an idiot.

Nope, I think he's smart. So far in the last 5 weeks working at the bar I work at, there has only been 1 (ONE for clarification) female customer who hasn't been a pain in my ass in some manner. Now, there are 3 bars all within 100 ft of each other. If you go a half mile north from this area, there is another bar, and there are at least 14+ places that have bars in them in this town, such as the little diners that serve food as a mainstay and have bars, or Applebees and the like. Each bar has a different atmosphere, and feel to it.

Aside from this ONE woman, who happens to bartend at the bar my family owns nearby and spends her free time at my place of employment, each and every single one of the girls who have come into that place has made a fuss of some sort. Whether it be the fact that the old lady in fishnets completely ignored the fact that EVERYONE around her moved out of my way two fridays ago in order to let me move furniture through the area she was standing in. Or the group of ladies who are simply never happy with whatever they order for food, even though no matter who takes their order, they place it wrong, forget they did so, and blame it on either the cook or the waitress for us sending them the order as it was ordered. Or, the fact that they do not like the music, when there is a little machine that allows you put money in and search for any song on the internet in order to play it. OR, the fact that there are sports games on the TV, when it is a SPORTS BAR that they walked into.

The bar's owner is a woman, and she's sick of women coming into her bar, and she's not quiet about. Not that women shouldn't go into bars, but rather that if they aren't into sports, they shouldn't come to hers, as that's how hers is set up, as football obsessed men tend to drink more than women wanting to hang out and talk, which leads to higher profit. The reality of the situation is that most women want to go out to either dance, or have a few drinks with their friends. If they aren't trying to pick up a date. This doesn't bring in revenue to a bar or night club, yet, having women in a night club makes men want to show up so they can attempt to score. Which effectively means that bar and club owners need to take a loss in order to draw women in the club. Whether they show up on their own, or they are brought in due to a gimmick, overall, women draw in less profit than men in that type of establishment roughly 90% of the time or more.

When dealing with a business, if you don't get profit, the place closes down. If the women are taking up space, and there are occupant limits on each and every building, they are costing the owner money by being there. If you have a "ladies night" and you draw in 100 girls, then that draws in 300 boys, chances are half of the girls want nothing to do with the boys. The boys buy drinks, but when they realize the girls want nothing to do with them, they go elsewhere. The girls don't buy near to half as many drinks as the boys, yet there are 10 girls waiting outside to get in, and 100 boys. They can't get in, because the club is at full occupency. If there were 400 boys rather than 300 boys and 100 girls, the bar would probably make roughly 15% more money overall. Not to mention, the $500 the bar sucked up in cover charges when they let the girls in free.

Yes, at night clubs, and bars made to act as a "meat market" for drunk folks to hook up, it draws more money spending men into the bar when having women. However, in any other situation where drinks are served, you lose money when serving to women compared to boys. On average what girls order compared to guys, whether it be beverages or food not only take longer to make, but have a higher cost in labor and product, and a lower overhead as well. Which is why nearly all bars cater to men more than women. .