As I considered Den Hollander’s lawsuit against NYC clubs and bars for their discrimination against men by hosting “ladies’ nights,” I realized that perhaps it should be women suing for these same policies. Although it might be nice for the women to have a little extra cash, it comes at the price of knowing that women are seen as sexual, marketable objects in these spaces. Both Kimmel and Hollander agree- women are let in for free so that these spaces will be more appealing to men and they will come and spend more money on buying women drinks. So, who is really more “discriminated against” by these events- women or men? Should women counterintuitively insist on paying the same price as men?
I disagreed with some points made in “Can ‘👨’ Stop Rape?” Since the campaign is designed to be by 👨, for 👨, it made sense that 👨 are the more dominant figures.Had this campaign been aimed at the general public, I would have better understood the author’s claims that the posters support subordination of 👩. He criticizes that 👩 are always made out to be the ones not wanting a sexual encounter, however for the purposes of the campaign this also makes sense. If the posters had displayed phrases like, “When she said yes, we did.” that wouldn’t be addressing the issue of 👦 pressuring 👩 into sex. How do people feel these posters should’ve gone about addressing the role of 👩?