Memo to Den Hollander: STFU
In the August 6th issue of the New Yorker, on page 22, you will find a Talk of the Town tid bit featuring Roy Den Hollander - the would be abolisher of Ladies’ Nights. Hollander’s federal lawsuit claims that special incentives for women, such as reduced admission fees and drink specials at bars and night clubs, are discriminatory based on sex.
I agree.
Personally, if ladies’ night went the way of the Kyoto Protocol, I wouldn’t shed a tear. In fact, a placard declaring drink specials for the fairer sex is an invitation to go elsewhere, so I don’t mind much if Hollander’s suit has legs.
Where I take umbrage is his invocation of Seidenberg and DeCrow v. McSorley’s Old Ale House (1970) as a precedent. Hollander’s main argument is based on fiscal favoritism, whereas the McSorley’s case dealt with equal access to a public venue, the outcome of which had obvious ramifications that extended beyond an East Village pub.
If Hollander wins, and ladies’ nights are abolished nationwide, where are the larger implications for fiscal equality? Women still earn 44-77%, on average, of what a man earns, women pay 68% more for healthcare out of pocket, and women spend about $800 more on clothes, beauty products, and accessories than men. So, catching a $10 break on a cover charge at Lotus doesn’t really seem like a societal injustice that might merit a federal lawsuit.
Comments(6)

