Ladies Night Derail From ERA Thread

[dismal]

Like what?

You will get more men into your bar if you have more women in your bar. You will get more women into your bar if you offer them discounts. What you lose in the discount on the one hand you more than make up for it on the other.

Yes, it is discriminatory, and I'm not the one who argues there must never be any discrimination (except for discrimination approved of by the Progressive Stack). I say let a business do what it wants.

The Constitution only bars the government from discriminating against people. And maybe if the ERA passes, women too.

A private business can discriminate without offending the Constitution.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So is this going to be real equality, i.e. going both ways, or will it just benefit women?

Will it for example end preferential treatment women receive in divorce/child support, in college admissions, in support services in college. Will women have to register for selective service and be in danger of being drafted?

Hell, women even get preferential treatment when going out, with all the "ladies nights" where women can get in with no cover charge and then get discounted drinks.

You do realize that last part is about getting women in bars so guys get in bars? Right? It has nothing to do with preferential treatment and has everything to do with a bar trying to make more money! Gosh you are so bitter.

 

[Jarhyn]

So is this going to be real equality, i.e. going both ways, or will it just benefit women?

Will it for example end preferential treatment women receive in divorce/child support, in college admissions, in support services in college. Will women have to register for selective service and be in danger of being drafted?

Hell, women even get preferential treatment when going out, with all the "ladies nights" where women can get in with no cover charge and then get discounted drinks.

You do realize that last part is about getting women in bars so guys get in bars? Right? It has nothing to do with preferential treatment and has everything to do with a bar trying to make more money! Gosh you are so bitter.

We have a culture that is formatted around bring going up people in sexually dimorphic cultures. Many on these forums seem to support this dimorphic treatment and claim it has a real and necessary basis. Yet when we point out that the goals of men (to meet women in bars in this case) is damaged by this dimorphic cultural programming ("avoid strange men!" Messaging, in this case), and people do things to counter this effect ("you get cheaper drinks as an incentive to be around strange men!"), it seems to me that they same people cry foul. And when those incentives are not offered to overcome those cultural messages, they still cry foul because then their attempts to meet women are met with bars that are a sausage fest.

There are really only two sane options here: fight the cultural dimorphism between genders (quit treating women differently from men), or accept that treating women differently from men requires dimorphic policies in various spheres of life.

Of course, if certain people here quit trying to meet women solely for sex and just got comfortable with jacking off and actually being FRIENDS with women, they would be far more appealing as sexual partners.

 

[Derec]

Why? Ladies' night is still a discriminatory policy that should be banned if sexist discrimination is to be banned.

 

[Elixir]

Why? Ladies' night is still a discriminatory policy that should be banned if sexist discrimination is to be banned.

The local farm & ranch store had "ladies night" for a couple of years, and they still have an event they call ladies night, but men are allowed and are given the same discounts... there was a bit of a row about it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why? Ladies' night is still a discriminatory policy that should be banned if sexist discrimination is to be banned.

I requested the split so we could go more into the interpersonal economic choice differences between the genders without further derailing this thread.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Alright Derec, I asked for this split because I wanted to talk about the economics of interpersonal interactions without further derailing the thread about the ERA amendment, so here goes.

As someone who has studied economics, I can see it applied outside of the realm of financial interactions. For instance, when you give to charity, you are paid in non-tangible ways, such as you are paid by the feeling that you are doing something good and maybe even paid in the gratitude of those you have helped. That is actually an economic transaction, which is why I agree with Mises that "economics" should actually be renamed "praxeology".

Now I think we can agree on the first premise - men and women are different. There are those who hate that premise, but I think they are PC lunatics. Now we have to look at what those differences mean. It is said "Men give love to get sex, and women give sex to get love." Although it is an oversimplification to the point of insipidity, there is a rock-solid kernel of truth underlying it. It hearkens back to our stone age ancestors, and even back to our pre-human ancestors.

Although we're discussing humans, I think it is probably best to start by looking at deer. In a deer population, the bucks compete fiercely for the does, and a successful buck mates with many does while the unsuccessful one does not mate at all. This works because of the different reproductive burdens and therefore reproductive strategies of males and females in the mammal population. A male can sire many offspring in a year, a female is more limited. Usually a doe will have one faun per mating season which I think is one faun per year.

This means that if a male wants successful offspring, his strategy is to spread his seed as widely as possible. This means if a female wants successful offspring, her strategy is to find the best mate possible. A male who mates with an unworthy female loses very little, as he can mate with another the very next day, or even hour. A female who mates with an unworthy male loses a reproductive cycle carrying an inferior offspring. This is generally true of all mammals, but not completely true of all mammals.

Apes, especially great apes, invest a lot of time in care for the offspring. Some species are like that, others not so much. Investing that much care is a cost. Therefore it not only behooves a female ape to find a good offspring, she also wants to find one that can help with the rearing of the offspring. A mating cycle that leaves the male abandoning the female is a mating cycle that leaves the female very burdened. She can spend the next few years caring for offspring without any help.

Humans have a very long childhood. Also humans have exceptionally helpless infants. Back in the caveman days that meant a woman who had a child was very stuck with childrearing and definitely needed help. She wanted a mate who, after going out and hunting mastodons, would come back and give her some of the mastodon. If she chose wisely, she would find a man who was both able to hunt a mastodon and was willing to bring back mastodon. Thus the survival of the offspring was made more likely by her choosiness.

Although we have polygamy many times in history, we are still a fairly monogamous species. Even the barbarous religion of Islam recognizes limits on polygamy, saying a man may have up to four wives IF he can support them.

Back to men give love to get sex and women give sex to give love. Caring for the woman is the price the man pays to have the woman around. Bearing his children is the price the woman pays to have the man around. It is a very economic transaction. This was especially true when we hunted mastodons. Also that meant in courtship it was definitely the job of the male to court the female, and was definitely the job of the female to accept or reject the courtship. She had to know he would bring back mastodon, he wanted sex.

So our genetics gear us towards that kind of interaction. That is why we have "unfair" courtship rituals. It is also why we have the "slut double standard". Each party pays their respective good to get the other good. A man who sleeps with lots of women may be an asshole, but he is getting benefit without payment. A woman who sleeps around is giving benefit without receiving payment. That is a bad economic transaction, to give your valuable commodity without getting their valuable commodity in exchange. That is also why we show contempt for "nice guys" because they give the love and don't get the sex. "Nice guys" are the male version of sluts.

That is why it makes good economic sense for a bar to offer a ladies night. It is easy for a woman to find sex if she so chooses. Her genetics prompt her to want to choose the best she can get for it. She goes to the bar to receive advances, not to make advances. The male goes to the bar to make advances.

The incentive for a woman to choose Bar A over Bar B isn't about finding men, it is about which bar they choose. The incentive for a man to choose Bar A over Bar B is about finding women. It is a very simple economic consequence of our mammalian heritage. You want the sex, they want the mastodon.

These interactions between men and women can be looked at through the lens of economics, and once you see that each side is giving something to get something from the other side you'll see it isn't actually unfair, it is transactional as are most human interactions.

 

[laughing dog]

Again, why should I pay more so they can pay less?

You don't have to patronize any establishment that has ladies night, so you don't have to pay more at all.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Complaining about ladies night is like complaining about Best Buy having a sale on TVs because you listen to the radio. It’s a loss leader to get more customers into the store. The lower revenue from women is designed to be offset by the higher revenue from the increased number of men coming in due to their assumption that there will be more women for them to hit on.

It just seems to be an odd thing to complain about. Is having 2-4-1 chicken wings also discrimination against vegans because they’re forced to pay full price for their meal?

 

[Derec]

Complaining about ladies night is like complaining about Best Buy having a sale on TVs because you listen to the radio.

No, it's like complaining that Best Buy sells TVs to women 20% cheaper than to men.

It’s a loss leader to get more customers into the store. The lower revenue from women is designed to be offset by the higher revenue from the increased number of men coming in due to their assumption that there will be more women for them to hit on.

But it's a loss leader that directly discriminates against men. If the situation were reversed, it would never fly. But because it is men who are discriminated against, it's considered acceptable.

It just seems to be an odd thing to complain about. Is having 2-4-1 chicken wings also discrimination against vegans because they’re forced to pay full price for their meal?

Anybody can order wings. Not everybody is a woman.

- - - Updated - - -

I requested the split so we could go more into the interpersonal economic choice differences between the genders without further derailing this thread.

Yes, but the mods removed my original post about it, which was specifically about legality of ladies' nights and other things women are advantaged in (college admissions, divorce, draft etc.) under ERA.

 

[Toni]

No, it's like complaining that Best Buy sells TVs to women 20% cheaper than to men.


But it's a loss leader that directly discriminates against men. If the situation were reversed, it would never fly. But because it is men who are discriminated against, it's considered acceptable.

It just seems to be an odd thing to complain about. Is having 2-4-1 chicken wings also discrimination against vegans because they’re forced to pay full price for their meal?

Anybody can order wings. Not everybody is a woman.

- - - Updated - - -

I requested the split so we could go more into the interpersonal economic choice differences between the genders without further derailing this thread.

Yes, but the mods removed my original post about it, which was specifically about legality of ladies' nights and other things women are advantaged in (college admissions, divorce, draft etc.) under ERA.

I can see your point.

Maybe men should boycott bars that offer ladies night specials?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If the store has a sale of tampons, it is very unfair that men don't also get a sale on something?

 

[Derec]

Alright Derec, I asked for this split because I wanted to talk about the economics of interpersonal interactions without further derailing the thread about the ERA amendment, so here goes.

I understand splitting of the 'sexual economics' discussion, but mods removed everything, even when it pertained to legality of the discrimination.

As someone who has studied economics, I can see it applied outside of the realm of financial interactions. For instance, when you give to charity, you are paid in non-tangible ways, such as you are paid by the feeling that you are doing something good and maybe even paid in the gratitude of those you have helped. That is actually an economic transaction, which is why I agree with Mises that "economics" should actually be renamed "praxeology".

Now I think we can agree on the first premise - men and women are different.

I don't have a problem with that. What I have problem with is that these days, that is only acknowledged when it benefits women. Why are most people in STEM men? Must be discrimination, can't be due to differences between men and women for example.
That applies here too. Differences between men and women are acknowledged because it benefits women - it gets them a much cheaper night out.

Although we're discussing humans, I think it is probably best to start by looking at deer. In a deer population, the bucks compete fiercely for the does, and a successful buck mates with many does while the unsuccessful one does not mate at all. This works because of the different reproductive burdens and therefore reproductive strategies of males and females in the mammal population. A male can sire many offspring in a year, a female is more limited. Usually a doe will have one faun per mating season which I think is one faun per year.

Apes, especially great apes, invest a lot of time in care for the offspring. Some species are like that, others not so much. Investing that much care is a cost. Therefore it not only behooves a female ape to find a good offspring, she also wants to find one that can help with the rearing of the offspring. A mating cycle that leaves the male abandoning the female is a mating cycle that leaves the female very burdened. She can spend the next few years caring for offspring without any help.

But that no longer applies to humans because we have laws that burden the man with 18 years of child support.
When biology benefits men, laws are passed to rectify that. But when biology benefits women, I keep hearing arguments how that is the way things are supposed to be. It's a double standard.

Although we have polygamy many times in history, we are still a fairly monogamous species.

Tell that to any player with multiple side chicks.

So our genetics gear us towards that kind of interaction. That is why we have "unfair" courtship rituals. It is also why we have the "slut double standard". Each party pays their respective good to get the other good. A man who sleeps with lots of women may be an asshole, but he is getting benefit without payment. A woman who sleeps around is giving benefit without receiving payment. That is a bad economic transaction, to give your valuable commodity without getting their valuable commodity in exchange. That is also why we show contempt for "nice guys" because they give the love and don't get the sex. "Nice guys" are the male version of sluts.

Shaming female sluts is no longer politically correct. But making fun of nice guys is still very much accepted. Again, a double standard.

That is why it makes good economic sense for a bar to offer a ladies night. It is easy for a woman to find sex if she so chooses. Her genetics prompt her to want to choose the best she can get for it. She goes to the bar to receive advances, not to make advances. The male goes to the bar to make advances.

And all women want the top 20% best looking guys. That means 80% of guys at these bars are merely subsidizing the women without having any realistic shot with them.
Again, why are such discrepancies only acceptable when they benefit women?

You want the sex, they want the mastodon.

Which is why I think the honest "sex for mastadoncash" is much more honest than this nonsensical bar mating dance people engage in.

These interactions between men and women can be looked at through the lens of economics, and once you see that each side is giving something to get something from the other side you'll see it isn't actually unfair, it is transactional as are most human interactions.

It is unfair to vast majority of men. It benefits all women and a small minority of men.
But again, our society seeks to redress unfairness in sexual economics if and only if this unfairness disadvantages women. If it disadvantages men, it's considered acceptable. I do not think that's right.

- - - Updated - - -

If the store has a sale of tampons, it is very unfair that men don't also get a sale on something?

If they only ever have sales on products used by women, and jack up the prices on say shaving products in order to subsidize tampons, then yes.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe men should boycott bars that offer ladies night specials?

I already do. Sex workers are not any more transactional than the bar scene, but much more reliable.

 

[Toni]

If the store has a sale of tampons, it is very unfair that men don't also get a sale on something?

If they only ever have sales on products used by women, and jack up the prices on say shaving products in order to subsidize tampons, then yes.

(cough cough) Women also shave......

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the store has a sale of tampons, it is very unfair that men don't also get a sale on something?

If they only ever have sales on products used by women, and jack up the prices on say shaving products in order to subsidize tampons, then yes.

(cough cough) Women also shave......

You women are so high maintenance! Periods aren't enough. You see a guy shaving and all of a sudden you want special rights and demand to shave as well.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, it's like complaining that Best Buy sells TVs to women 20% cheaper than to men.

Gosh, you must go to expensive bars if that comparison is equitable.

But it's a loss leader that directly discriminates against men. If the situation were reversed, it would never fly.

Yeah, you'd complain that guys getting a discount isn't fair because they are just using the discount to buy more expensive drinks for women. "Why don't they give the discount to women and make the women pay for their own drinks?!"

But because it is men who are discriminated against, it's considered acceptable.

The bazillion number of bars out there seem to indicate it hasn't been considered a problem by anyone but people like you Derec.

Anybody can order wings.

Anybody can order a drink. Vegetarian food can often be cheaper to produce, yet you have to pay higher amounts for it, and it is rarely ever on sale. Why are coupons always available for meat sandwiches, but never the veggie burger?! ATTICA!!! ATTICA!!!

 

[thebeave]

Does anyone else besides me have a different perspective on men and women meeting up in bars these days, versus say, 20 or 30 years ago? In particular, with regard to all the talk about date rape, alcohol, consent, sexual harrassment, etc? It all seems like a minefield these days. I had an ex-girlfriend tell me once (back in the early '90's) that it was a really classy thing for a guy to buy a woman a drink, and nowadays, that seems like its a guy saying, "Here, let me give you this date rape drug (i.e alcohol) to loosen your inhibitions and take away your ability to consent to my upcoming sexual advances". Or putting your hand on a girl's shoulder at the bar to get her attention could now be construed as a sexual harassment or even assault? Maybe there should be "Enter at your own risk" signs at bars/nightclubs now.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Does anyone else besides me have a different perspective on men and women meeting up in bars these days, versus say, 20 or 30 years ago? In particular, with regard to all the talk about date rape, alcohol, consent, sexual harrassment, etc? It all seems like a minefield these days. I had an ex-girlfriend tell me once (back in the early '90's) that it was a really classy thing for a guy to buy a woman a drink, and nowadays, that seems like its a guy saying, "Here, let me give you this date rape drug (i.e alcohol) to loosen your inhibitions and take away your ability to consent to my upcoming sexual advances". Or putting your hand on a girl's shoulder at the bar to get her attention could now be construed as a sexual harassment or even assault? Maybe there should be "Enter at your own risk" signs at bars/nightclubs now.

Given the amount of hookups going on in bars and clubs on a nightly basis, this seems to be about as much of a concern as bear attacks.

 

[ZiprHead]

I actually agree with Derec on this, and on senior discounts. I just don't think it's worth bitching about it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Does anyone else besides me have a different perspective on men and women meeting up in bars these days, versus say, 20 or 30 years ago? In particular, with regard to all the talk about date rape, alcohol, consent, sexual harrassment, etc? It all seems like a minefield these days. I had an ex-girlfriend tell me once (back in the early '90's) that it was a really classy thing for a guy to buy a woman a drink, and nowadays, that seems like its a guy saying, "Here, let me give you this date rape drug (i.e alcohol) to loosen your inhibitions and take away your ability to consent to my upcoming sexual advances". Or putting your hand on a girl's shoulder at the bar to get her attention could now be construed as a sexual harassment or even assault? Maybe there should be "Enter at your own risk" signs at bars/nightclubs now.

Given the amount of hookups going on in bars and clubs on a nightly basis, this seems to be about as much of a concern as bear attacks.

Oh goodness... the amount of stupid from this White House, I had forgotten the bear attacks at school threat. Shouldn't we be building walls around schools?