Steve Horner's Revenge, or the ascent of Roy Den Hollander
Looks like renegade party pooper Steve Horner may get the last laugh after all. After calling "dibs" on the ideal that "Ladies Night" at bars crushes his civil rights, a gaggle of "me too's" are popping up nation wide. Seeking to one up Mr Horner, who merely sued for the rights of all Colorado males, one Mr Roy Den Hollander feels that he needs to lead the charge for all American males and is taking his case to the Federal Court. He's a modern day Martin Luther King Jr. I'm sure that one day there will be schools, streets and holiday's in RDH's honor.
Says RDH, "I'm tired of having my rights violated and being treated as a second-class citizen." I suppose, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by their chest hair but by the amount of liquor they can drink for half price." would have been a bit much.
Seriously, shouldn't having your rights violated and being treated as a second-class citizen for something that 150 million American share, a hoo-hoo, affect more outrage than just one jack-ass? I honestly feel more like a second-class citizen because RDH is somehow my representative than his silly lawsuit. Can I sue him in Federal Court for making me and my whazzit look ridiculous (just to beat the wife to the punch, yes, I know I do a good enough job on my own)?
Another "man" who doesn't understand economics, George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf, says this is just the tip of the oppression iceberg. Seems Mr Banzhaf thinks the conspiracy of free choice spending extends to dry cleaners and hair-cuts. Just to help Mr Banzhaf out, no way no how will I spend what my wife spends on a hair-cut. I'm also in and out in 30 minutes, and have had the same basic hair cut since I retired my mullet in 1992. So a smart business owner maximizes what someone will pay, ladies will, and do, pay more, men, won't pay more, so they pay less. As far as clothes, I don't own nearly as many "dry clean only" clothes as my wife because I'm too lazy and don't care enough about them anyway. My local dry-cleaner would go broke waiting for me to bring my clothes in. His only chance is keep the prices down. In fact, I'm much more apt to by-pass a product that says "dry clean only" than to buy one. The clothing manufacturers know this too, and design around "dry clean only" products. There's nothing at all nefarious about any of these practices. In fact, if women wanted, they could easily band together and boycott until prices came down.
Bottom line? If ladies night was truly an oppressive, civil rights destroying, male bashing, submissive practice, guys wouldn't line up and frequent the bars that hold these events. The bar would suffer, and the bar owner would change the practice. Being a guy (I'm a life long member of the club), I'm fairly plugged into what bugs guys. Ladies night, I assure you, is not on the list. What does bug guys is little squirrelly cynics ruining a good thing and making us all look like idiots.
Posts
9 comments:
For UBlo to jump ahead of the legal process and urge the ridicule of Mr. Den Hollander before his day in court even is a tad alarming.
Look, dog fighting's one thing, I mean who hasn't paid to see dogs kill eachother, but Ladies Night? Some things are bigger than the Constitution.
I might begin by stating that I am in favor of Mr. Hollander's complaint. Hear me out before you pull out the bag full of rotten veggies. I realize that, shockingly, I'm in the minority on this one, however, I think that my fellow man in his blind thirst for female attention has overlooked some key factors in the debate.
I know many percieve the notion of ladies night a simple tactic where a venue promotes itself by offering cheaper prices to the female gender thus drawing tons of women while luring male patrons in who in turn reduce their sizeable bank accounts considerably in one night on the oblivious female customers who, unaware of their male counterparts true intentions, have nothing else in mind but an innocent girls night out. In theory, everybody benefits from this perfectly concocted situation - ladies save money, the guys get to be around a bunch of girls and the club makes millions.
Anybody who believes that this is the way it truely happens hasn't been out since the fucking eighties or is in serious denial. Sociology 101 says that people tend to appreciate more that which they have earned. Simply put, you make sure you get out what you put in. Ever been to a ladies night in NY recently? Its full of dudes. You know why? Because women don't appreciate it. In our culture, more money = more value. Ladies night has lost its value in the eyes of the woman (Its also partly due to the fact that ladies night is every night but I'll get to that in my third point). On the male side, since guys have to pay, you better believe they're gonna bust their asses to have fun for a night.
Second point is that if you look at the model of any other state that has banned the so called "ladies night" nothings happened to decrease the income of night venues. Actually, their income has increased. Its simple math...more people pay you make more money...dugh!
If your not in NY or spent some years in NY recently as a guy, then you have no clue as how dysfunctional gender relations have gotten. Its even more visible at these night time venues. Its not just on ladies night that women get in free. Its really on any given night where the will let women in free and either charge men $20 at the door or make guys by a bottle per guy starting at $300 minimum/guy. No exaggeration! This is at most venues. Sometimes they wont even let guys in at all.
Its nothing short of a scam concocted by a couple of guys to have a bunch of girls around them while men who aren't affiliated with the venue pay the tab.
Whether it's bad or better for business, whose club is it? And whose choice is it to buy in or beat it?
As long as what's yours is yours and mine is mine, what's a court got to do with it?
The lawsuit is absurd, just like all the successful gender equalizing lawsuits that this one is meant to parody.
"You watch your step, Anon" he said while slowly holstering his cabbage...
Mr. Hollander should have his Man Card revoked... Whoever said life is fair. Just pay the cover charge or go hang out somewhere else. He's a lawyer - I'm sure he can pony up the $20 to get in.
Mr. Hollander is the perfect example of what is wrong in this country. Wasting taxpayers' dollars on frivolous lawsuits.
I bet Hollander can't get any poon at the clubs so he takes his anger out on the clubs promoting ladies night. He's a typical asswipe of a lawyer trying to prove a silly point and somehow claiming that he is "representing" other men. I for one do not wish to be included in his idiotic lawsuit and am not so damned cheap that I have an issue paying the cover charge to get into a club. Like I said, this poor old sucker is just angry that he can't get laid.
Attorney for Night Club says that making "ladies night" illegal would be like making Early Dinner deals for elderly or children's discounts illegal. Using that logic, it should be okay to have a "White's Night", "Black's Night" and "Hispanic Night" to name a few. If its okay to have deals based on Sex and Wage, why not Race? Since most bars only offer Ladies Night, they would only have to support one of the specific race nights if desired.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Post a Comment