The reasons are simple: free admission + free/discounted drinks for women = more ladies. I'm hardly the drink buying type, so more women loaded off their own money/free drinks is even better.
Of course, in the most legalistic thinking, something like Ladies' Night is kinda silly. Purposely giving a perk to another group and excluding another from getting such a perk is textbook discrimination. But come on. For all the reasons I mentioned above, only a gameless d-bag would have a problem with the concept of extra drunk women up in the club.
Apparently, the great state of Minnesota disagrees.
It's a bastion of bar culture: "Ladies' Night," staged to attract female customers by cutting their drink prices and cover charges.I gotta tell ya', this is just silly, and whoever this Steve Horner guy is, needs his ass whipped just on GP for messin' up the fun for everybody else. So, I say this is officially a case of too much gubb'ment intrusion.
It's also illegal gender discrimination, according to the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.
The department charged this week that by having ladies' nights, five Twin Cities establishments denied men the right to "full and equal enjoyment" of their businesses.
In 1994, Gators, a now-defunct Mall of America club, resolved a human rights case by paying less than $500 to Steve Horner of Apple Valley. He had complained of having to pay a cover charge on ladies' night, and the department said the club discriminated against him.
On the other hand, with women on the come-up professionally, outpacing men in levels of education, and quickly approaching them in the earning power, maybe the ole' Ladies' Night concept is a relic of the past that needs to go away. What say ye'?
Question: Is Ladies' Night sexist, or is this one of the rare occasions where a discriminatory practice benefits all involved parties? If you think Ladies' Night is okay, would you be okay with a Guys' Night, where men get in free and women had to pay?
Ladies' night not all right, state says [MinnStarTrib]