Monday, March 05, 2007


The following items are not sexiest or discriminatory..they are sound business reasons and DO NOT belong in our court system.

1.) Dry Cleaners should be able to charge more for cleaning woman's clothes....women have (on average) more styles, fabric types, embellishments, etc requiring more attention and machines then men's shirts. Cleaning a woman's shirt that takes more time and effort and a business should be able to charge accordingly.

2.) Salons should be able to charge more for a woman's haircut then a mans haircut...almost the same reason as above.

3.) Ladies night is not sexist towards men men want to drink where there are ladies and if a proprietor wants to offer an incentive then so be it.

4.) Are we really going to sue movie theaters and reasterants for offering kids priced tickets and meals? or senior discounts? Give me a fucking break

This isn't what we should be clogging our courts with. This isn't what our laws of equality were set up to enforce...all these lawsuits do is pay lawyers lots of money and make shit more expensive for the rest of us


Say Rah! said...

agreed. on all counts!

Rocketstar said...

1) I spent many years working in a Dry CLeaners and you are 100% correct, womens clothes are a pain in the ass, much more work involved.

3) I agree, but this does start you down a slippery slope. If you allow establishments to treat people differently based on sex, where does it stop. Race, Creed etc...

I have a solution, the losing lawyer pays the court fees. It will stop lawyers from taking frivilous cases, unfortunately it may also inhibit the poor in some instances, we have to figure that one out.

Brian in Mpls said...

3.) But you have to look at the end result on ladies night MORE men and women are at the bar so in this case you can't argue exclusion since the end result is more people are included...if that make sense

Rocketstar said...

3.) But you are treating people differently by sex. You may bring in more men, but htose humans are not being treated the same as other humans simply based on sex.

Brian in Mpls said...

But there is a distinction between discriminating and incenting...I would say that women need a little more incentive to go to the bar then men

Mags said...

I agree that there is a difference between incentivising and discriminating, however, telling one person they can pay $1 for beer and another has to pay $5 is not right. Men can't help it they aren't women, and therefore, it's discrimination.

Offering discounts for students and Seniors should never be eliminated. It is incentive (a little) for people to become educated, and honoring those who have come before us. (Seniors)

I haven't slept much, so these thoughts are jumbled, but I hope you get my point.

Brian in Mpls said...

So you both are against ladies night? As a guy I love to go to the bar on Ladies night...should we ban it like NJ did? I hope not

Mags said...

I can't really say I'm against it b/c hey, I'm a lady.

But from an honest stand point, I can say that I think it's unfair and if it were men getting the $1 drinks, I'd be angry.

Feel free to use the questions-just name is something else, k?

Also, why didn't you answer them?!?!?!?!

dawnmarie said...

don't most places charge less for a man's haircut anyway?

lauren said...

Hear hear!

Although to weigh in on the whole Ladies Night debate....

1) Ladies (at least the ladies I know) go to ladies night because there will be cheap drinks and lots of dudes. We don't go there to meet other ladies. We're not interested in making friends. We're intrested in meeting the opposite sex.

2) Ladies get paid less than men do. So they can't afford the $5 beers as readily as the men can. Okay, that one is a bit of a stretch and normally I would do the snake-neck-snap move if someone told me that I should pay $1 for a beer b/c it is all I could afford. But do you get my theoretical point?

Am I making sense?