Is "ladies day" at the shooting range sexist?

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

How is it a leap? Females are a sub-group of humans, just as white people are. Racism was used to decades as well, and it was still wrong.




Is it OK to divide humans up into subgroups based purely on a physical trait they were born with, then grant special privileges to one group and deny them to another?

 

[Walkalong]

Another leap.

Technically, it might be sexist, but who cares. Ladies Night will still be legal when we are dead and gone.

 

[TennJed]

Some of us still belive in property rights. The range should be able to freely choose who they will and will not do business with reguardless of race, sex, disability or religion. If the range wants to give a discount to left handed Chinese athiests in wheel chairs it should be none of your or your governments business. If you don't like it you are free to open your own range.

100% agree

 

[TennJed]

What if the gun store had a "White People Shoot Free Day"?




It's about time people started actually putting their money where their mouth is. Equal rights are equal rights. We've been hearing for 100ish years about the equality of the genders. That women should have every single right that men have, and should be treated no differently in the workplace, school, etc. And that's all well and good. But true equality also means removing some of the privileges. If a woman can lobby to be let into the Augusta National, than there is no reason a man shouldn't be able to take advantage of some of the perks previously afforded to just woman. If we're going to talk about equality, we need to walk the walk too.

If we are going to to accept that businesses should be forced to treat people equally (which they already have to, ie: a range can't have a "White People Shoot Free Day") than we need to go all in. Either we're going to tow the equality line or we're not. We can't pick and choose which group to give favors and privileges too and scoff at others. That's not equality.

If the law is truly trying to foce equality, this man has a good case.
If you as a THR reader truly support equality, you'll see he has a good case too.

Maybe I am over simplifying this or over common sensing this, but why is giving a special offer to someone discrimination?

Males are not being discriminated against. They are free to purchase the product at the normal price. I am sorry but this is just another form of wanting a handout and having the mentality that is destroying our country. Everyone wants special treatment and if they don't get it they whine and cry. It is not about treating everyone equal it is about giving a promotion away.

I have a 14, 4, and 1 year old child. Should my 14 year old sue the local zoo or movie place because my 1 year old gets in free? There is no difference in my zoo example and this range example except the world has not lost all it's common sense (yet) when it comes to age pricing.

There is a fine line between not allowing (discrimination) someone something and giving a promotion to someone. That fine line is called common sense

Next we will see all the people who are alergric to chicken sue mcdonalds because KFC gives discounts on chicken

 

[Manco]

Is it OK to divide humans up into subgroups based purely on a physical trait they were born with, then grant special privileges to one group and deny them to another?

Sexism against men has become so ingrained in modern American culture that most Americans aren't even aware of it. Some will even call you a homosexual for pointing out what should be obvious, as we've seen in this thread, without even realizing how prejudiced that is (not to mention irrelevant), referring to an entire subgroup in a derogatory manner, as though they were inferior because of sexual preference. And as I had described earlier, there is an underlying element of male chauvinism in the reactions of many here, but if you ask them, they'd claim that YOU are the male chauvinist! The irony and contradictions are delicious.

Technically, it might be sexist, but who cares.

Well, obviously some people do, so I guess the point is that the views of these people mean nothing (especially if they're male), even when they make logical sense. I'm starting to understand how so many anti-gunners can be so obstinate--even when we finally get them to admit that we have a point, they still hate guns and what we say doesn't matter (presumably because they believe that society and culture and all that is good and right are on their side overall, reason notwithstanding). Thank goodness for the 2nd Amendment!

Now, I'm not trying to imply that this is all there is to the argument. Valid points have been raised about the rights of private business owners, for example, and pragmatically speaking sometimes there is an overall net benefit to certain forms of discrimination at certain points in time--the subject is far more complex than whether it is or isn't sexism (that's simple--it is ). In addition, the person involved appears to be merely an opportunist looking to make an easy buck rather than a true champion of equal rights, so I doubt that anybody is rooting for him personally. But I do think that it is worthwhile to address some fundamental issues I see with people's views.

 

[Owen Sparks]

For those of you who support laws forcing businesses to admit everyone equally, would you support laws forcing everyone to patronize all businesses equally? What if you HAD to shop a certian percentage of the time at minority owned businesses? Wouldn't that be more fair? What about people who drink? Shouldn't they have to go to gay bars some time?

 

[Manco]

Maybe I am over simplifying this or over common sensing this, but why is giving a special offer to someone discrimination?

Males are not being discriminated against. They are free to purchase the product at the normal price.

Males are being made to pay while other groups (specifically females) do not have to. When groups are not treated equally, that is discrimination, and even compromises such as "separate but equal" are not necessarily acceptable.

I am sorry but this is just another form of wanting a handout and having the mentality that is destroying our country.

In this specific case, yes, but the general case is another matter.

Everyone wants special treatment and if they don't get it they whine and cry.

But the person in question, swine though he may be for exploiting the issue purely for personal financial gain, is asking for equal treatment, not special treatment.

I have a 14, 4, and 1 year old child. Should my 14 year old sue the local zoo or movie place because my 1 year old gets in free? There is no difference in my zoo example and this range example except the world has not lost all it's common sense (yet) when it comes to age pricing.

Well, the age discrimination in your example has to do with how much value a person can theoretically derive from an experience. It matches common sense, and therefore makes business sense in encouraging parents to come to the zoo or movie theater with their very young children. Similarly, most athletic events are segregated based on gender for obvious, common sense reasons.

There can be reasons to justify sexual discrimination when it comes to paying range fees, but it is not as cut & dried as a 1-year-old not being able to fully enjoy a movie or women not being able to physically compete in a 100-meter dash against top male sprinters. If a woman can theoretically get as much out of a trip to the range as a man, then it could be argued that she should be required to pay the same amount. Yes, there are other considerations such as this group being underrepresented in shooting and needing some encouragement and introduction, and the right of private business owners to promote membership and potential paid visits in the future by offering targeted discounts, but what I'm addressing is the core issue of sexism and how unaware people seem to be about why they're reacting as they are. Maybe on some deep level, it is fundamentally wrong, as Ragnar pointed out, and not everybody here is using rational justifications as some of us have been doing.

There is a fine line between not allowing (discrimination) someone something and giving a promotion to someone. That fine line is called common sense

Then there is interpretation and application of the law, which is what this case will boil down to.

Next we will see all the people who are alergric to chicken sue mcdonalds because KFC gives discounts on chicken

Now this would definitely be a ridiculous grab for special treatment, but the case in question, ulterior motives notwithstanding, is about equal rights, which is supposedly one of the tenets of American society and philosophy.

 

[zxcvbob]

Hunter had no expectation of getting in for free, unless he though he should get a discount for being a "special" cop. And the two women getting in for free did not affect him in the slightest -- their getting in for free didn't bump him from a lane. So he wasn't discriminated against.

He appears to be a professional litigant; going around looking for slights to be butthurt about so he can sue.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is not a bad policy. He's never going to get in there again, ever, and the range owner should turn his buddies away too to apply a little pressure.

 

[Manco]

For those of you who support laws forcing businesses to admit everyone equally,

First I'd like to point out that it's not that simple, in my view (speaking only for myself).

would you support laws forcing everyone to patronize all businesses equally?

No, this is more analogous to competing for jobs, wherein businesses can discriminate on the basis of skills but not on the basis of gender or race (with some common sense exceptions, such as specific movie roles, etc.). I don't think that anybody here has argued for no discrimination of ANY kind at ANY time--just on the basis of arbitrary, irrelevant traits.

What if you HAD to shop a certian percentage of the time at minority owned businesses? Wouldn't that be more fair? What about people who drink? Shouldn't they have to go to gay bars some time?

There is a difference between treating people of all types fairly, based on what they individually want to do, and trying to enforce numerical quotas based on things like gender and race. Nobody is saying that the same number of men and women need to be present at all shooting ranges at all times, against their will if necessary, just that men and women who happen to decide to go to a range should be treated equally on the basis of gender, which has nothing inherently to do with shooting (same goes for race, for that matter). It is difficult to describe the distinction comprehensibly in words, but it should be common sense enough for anybody to understand.

More to the point regarding your examples, consumers should be free to discriminate between businesses based on product quality and other personal preferences, just like businesses can refuse to serve those causing problems or not following their safety rules, for example. Now, discriminating against a business purely because of the race or gender of the owner is wrong, in my view, even if enforcement may not be practical--the same goes for how businesses treat their customers.

 

[The_Shootist]

They never bother with "Ladies Day" at our range. When I was in Galveston and went to the Texas City range, pre-911 and Katrina you show up on a Sunday and it was 99% (no kidding ) male and the other 1% were wives just tagging along. Post Katrina it started to inch up to 30-40% female. Some of the women had some pretty nice firearms, pretty tacticool AR's as well.

Maybe moreso at the range I go to now in Richmond, American Shooting Center. Some days its been almost 50-50 male/female shooters but still mainly hovering in the 30-40% range -way high proportion than prior to Katrina. Even during the weeks it can go 20-30%.

A good thing I think - more women protecting themselves and becoming 2A adherents.

Of course, this IS Texas!

 

[Manco]

Hunter had no expectation of getting in for free, unless he though he should get a discount for being a "special" cop (that still means retarded, right?) And the two women getting in for free did not affect him in the slightest -- their getting in for free didn't bump him from a lane. So he wasn't discriminated against.

He had to pay, which is worse treatment than not having to pay, and therefore unequal and a form of sexual discrimination. Imagine if he were black and had to pay while whites did not. Would people think his treatment were unfair then? Obviously yes, they would, so what's the difference here? That racism is bad while sexism is OK? Or is racism OK when it's against whites specifically and sexism is OK when it's against males specifically?

Noting again that this instance of discrimination does not trouble me personally for a variety of reasons given earlier, admittedly I cannot escape my own logic in this matter, and strangely enough it is gun enthusiasts like us who keep forcing logic and reason down other people's throats when it comes to the RKBA. I guess we don't like our own "medicine" any more than the antis do.

He appears to be a professional litigant; going around looking for slights to be butthurt about so he can sue.

True, but this doesn't change the arguments being put forth. Maybe he'll get called on his real motives and history, and lose as a result, but the underlying issue remains.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is not a bad policy. He's never going to get in there again, ever, and the range owner should turn his buddies away too to apply a little pressure.

It's not quite that simple, though--you can discriminate against individuals for a great many reasons, but not whole groups for arbitrary reasons. In this case, there are some justifications, but they need to undergo scrutiny if one cares about equality (evidently not a popular philosophy around these parts ).

 

[ArfinGreebly]

THR Ladies Night

So . . .

I was just browsing through this thread, and it occurred to me to look for all the commentary from the ladies on the board.

And I looked. . . . And I looked.

And here I am on page five, and there's still no commentary from the women.

Is THR sexist? Or maybe we just do a poor job of making women welcome here?

Maybe if we did something to encourage more participation by women . . . hey! We could have a THR ladies night!

Oh, wait, THR is already free, every night, regardless of gender. Damn.

There must be some kind of promotion we could run to help boost the participation of women here on the board.

The guy with the gun range seems to have figured out a way to encourage more participation from women.

Except that now he's being sued by a guy who evidently believes that encouraging women's participation is a bad idea.

So, who's the sexist?

The guy offering women a break so he'll have a better gender balance at his range, or the guy who thinks having more women shooters is a bad idea?

'Cuz that's what his lawsuit says to me.

 

[1911 guy]

Guy needs to get a life. If they'd taken MORE money from him to subsidize the Ladies Day, then he'd have a beef. However, they charged him normal rate and gave the ladies a break.

Frankly, I like the idea of "Ladies Day". If it weren't such a charged issue, I'd like to see "Minority Day" at gun shops and ranges. The majority of shooters and gun owners are white males. The more we do to broaden the demographic, the more secure we can be in our future regarding legislation and public attitudes. Quite frankly, I make extra effort to introduce women and "minority" (read non-white) to the shooting sports. I'm also quite frank in discussion about my motive. Member Cousin Mike and I had this disscussion. late in our day last year when he made the drive up my way to be "mentored" beginning his hunting career.

 

[TennJed]

Manco you are saying that to give a special to one particular group it is discrimination to the other groups correct. I went to a minor league baseball game one time that gave away cheap sunglasses to everyone with a ticket. Would a blind man not be able to sue because he/she did not get the same value for his ticket as the someone else. Free hotdogs to the people with pork allergies.

I am still on the side that says giving someone something extra does not mean the other is treated unfairly. Not everyone gets everything. My son was not born tall. Not his fault yet he gets no basketball trophies.

 

[jim243]

I'm sorry did I miss senior's day? Yes, it is blantant discrimination and against the law. You can not or should I say should not discriminate on the basis of gender.

Now if he or she had published a discount (free) coupond in a woman's magazine or even the woman's section of the local paper for a one time visit that would have been a proper way to drum up business, It is actually viewed as a insult to all women that they are not our equals.

Let us not pander to the business owner that wishes to probagate sexist attitudes (women's day?) for his or her own gain.

Just my view from the high horse.
Jim

 

[Fremmer]

no, not sexist at all. let the ladies have a night. heck, let them have as much time as they want with shooting. i think it's awesome!

 

[jim243]

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is not a bad policy. He's never going to get in there again, ever, and the range owner should turn his buddies away too to apply a little pressure.

CZ, only for cause. What you are suggesting, will get you business lic. pulled and cost you dearly to get it back.

Jim

 

[stickhauler]

I'm seeing so many claims of discrimination on this, I disagree. The range did this program ONE day a week. Had this litigation loving guy showed up the NEXT day, he'd have seen women pay the same fee they asked of him. A single day a week is not discriminating, had the range owner ALWAYS allowed women to get in free, I might buy it. This guy knew what day it was, I wager, went to make sure he was asked to pay the regular rate so he could sue. And found some slug of a lawyer to take the case.

That's one of the biggest problems in America as I see it, no matter what goes on, you're gonna see someone suggest a lawsuit. If I were the judge set to hear this case, I'd laugh this idiot out of my courtroom, after informing him that he would be required to pay the legal fees of the range owner.

Our country would be a lot better off if some folks learned that if they want "fair", they go to the place with a Ferris Wheel, prize winning steers, and funnel cakes.

 

[CajunBass]

That's all he's got to worry about? Some woman got in the range free?

Must be nice.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Would a "White People Range Discount" day once a week be acceptable?

-Non-whites would not be denied service. Just white people are being given a special offer.

-Non-whites still have the option to pay full price. After all it's not about special treatment, it's just a promotion.

-Had a non-white shown up the next day, they would see white people paying the same full price.


According to all the reasons presented in this thread, that should be perfectly acceptable.


Owen Sparks. I never said I was in favor of forcing businesses to do anything. There are 2 entirely separate and yet somewhat connected issues here.
1) The property rights of the owner allowing them to offer services who whomever they want, however they want, at whatever price they want.
2) Is treating one subgroup of humans differently based on a characteristic they were born with justified and moral?

To answer 1: Property owners should always have the right to offer their services on whatever terms they wish. I think all current discrimination laws that force property owners to operate on terms not of their choosing are immoral laws. One of the tenants of basic liberty is the freedom of two individuals to exchange value for value on terms of their own choosing.

BUT, in regards to 2: property rights aside, treating males and females differently in this regard is wrong. We are no longer a society that accepts treating people differently based on characteristics they were born with. We have developed morally to the point where we recognize that if someone was born with a characteristic and cannot realistically change it; that it is unjust to either deny them something or offer something to everyone but them, based purely on that one characteristic. If you agree with that, than you need to be willing to reign back in certain privileges historically provided certain groups. White people used to have their own bathrooms and drinking fountains that were of high quality. WE now realize that offering whites that special privilege while denying it to everyone else is wrong. So we removed that privilege. And now we're at a point where we must decide if certain privileges that are given to people just for being born female is just or not.

Morality is not a sliding scale. If something is wrong on a large scale, it is wrong on the smallest scale. If treating all women or blacks or whites or any other group differently just for being part of that group when it's on a national scale, like whites-only colleges, than it is also wrong when one single gun shop decides to treat groups differently and offer privileges to own and not the other just because of how they were born.

I honestly don't care if anyone agrees or disagrees that discrimination is right or wrong. Just be consistent. If it's OK to discriminate on a small scale at one gun shop, you must be honest and concede it's right to do it on a large national scale. Likewise if you claim that discrimination against a group on the national scale is wrong, you MUST be constant (if you have any moral fiber) and concede it is equally wrong on a small scale.

 

[JohnM]

What's amazing me as this thread goes on is how many are chiming in with their hand wringing PC comments about how this is such blatant discrimination.

People attempting to use the system with such frivolous suits should be charged as public nuisances and made to do about 180 days of community service. And at the very least their lawyers should be officially reprimanded.

 

[Al Thompson]

I'm going to stick a fork in this one, it's done.