June 4, 2004
MISHING THE POINT.
Last Call on Ladies’ Night: $5 beers and government overreach (Carrie Lukas, National Review, 5/04/04)
In New Jersey, it's last call on Ladies' Night. This week, director of the state division of civil rights, J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo, announced that the Garden State will henceforth ban the longstanding practice of offering drink and admission discounts to women on designated ladies' nights. The 13-page ruling lectures that a bar's desire to attract customers doesn't override the "important social policy objective of eradicating discrimination." In this case, "discrimination" refers to a Cherry Hill restaurant's Wednesday-night practice of charging men a five dollar cover while letting women in free and offering them cheaper drinks. . . .This is a silly little article, but it brings up two interesting aspects of modern American thought. First, the extent to which, objectively, gender discrimination laws are reintroducing Victorian era public morals meant to protect the weaker sex. Second, the odd American inability to think about second order effects. Bar owners are not offering cheap alcohol to women out of a sense of chivalry, or even for the benefit of women. Bar owners hold "Ladies' Nights" because they want to stock their bars with drunk women. And who, prey tell, does that benefit. Posted by David Cohen at June 4, 2004 1:36 PMOf course, the ladies' night ruling is also laughable for its unchivalrous nature. What's next, ticketing men for opening doors or giving up their seats on the bus? Yet this is the logical outcome of a campaign to eradicate any acknowledgement of difference between the sexes.
Bar owners hold "Ladies' Nights" because they want to stock their bars with drunk women. And who, prey tell, does that benefit.
You say that as if it were a bad thing.
Posted by: Brandon at June 4, 2004 3:21 PMYou can see some of this "advance to the past" in other arears. The sexual harassment laws that apply in many offices are offensive because they are largely based upon the subjective mental state of women rather than objective conduct. But it isn't objectionable to have strict rules about how the sexes are to be spoken to or making sexually-charged communications verboten. Grandmother would throroughly approve, and so would grandfather.
Posted by: Peter B at June 4, 2004 4:33 PMBTW--Either you misspelled pray or I'm submitting this to the Pulitzer people for their poetic-touch-of-the-year-award.
Posted by: Peter B at June 4, 2004 5:20 PMThat and "mishing" were both intentional. Thanks for noticing.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 4, 2004 5:35 PMThe bar owners should have argued that women are historically under-represented in bars, and thus deserve some affirmative action to help level the playing field. I'd love to see the NJ civil rights authorities argue against that.
Posted by: PapayaSF at June 4, 2004 6:20 PMI didn't notice that "mishing" was misspelled, but then I had had a few drinks.
Posted by: Peter B at June 4, 2004 7:12 PMWhy has no one commented on the fact that business owners should be able to manage their businesses however they see fit -- otherwise it is a matter of unprincipled exceptions, and then the pernicious principle has been accepted.
Posted by: jd watson at June 5, 2004 4:46 AMSpeaking of second-order effects, here are a few things that are discriminatory based on the same line of reasoning:
- senior discounts
- student discounts
- "kids eat free"
- family rates at amusement parks, hotels, etc.
As a young, single guy I should be incensed about all this discrimination, but oddly it hadn't occurred to me to be outraged until now.
Posted by: Dave Sheridan at June 5, 2004 5:53 AMDavid:
Your use of "prey" in that sentence is brilliant. With one letter change you added a completely different meaning simultaneously both funny and sinister.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at June 5, 2004 8:56 AMThanks. As OJ has said, it is absurdly pleasing when those little things get noticed.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 5, 2004 9:41 PM