The Manhattan lawyer who thinks the big problem with singles clubs is that women pay less to get in got the big brush off in court yesterday.Now I'm as anti-radical feminist as the next guy, but in the days I'd be trolling bars if I stumbled across a place where young ladies were consuming copious amounts of alcohol at bargain prices the last thing on my mind was who was the evil genius behind this scheme. In fact, during college we'd always be sure to go out with the girls to the $2 all you can drink nights since it usually meant plenty of cheap booze for us anti-feminist cavemen. Now that I think of it, whoever did think of Ladies Night should be awarded a special commendation.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by self-proclaimed "anti-feminist lawyer" Roy Den Hollander that letting women past the velvet rope for free or half price on "Ladies Nights" violates the Constitution.
The state has no control because "liquor licenses are not directed related to the pricing scheme" at the door, the court said.
The court, with evident amusement, said it must rule against Den Hollander even though "without action on our part, (he) paints a picture of a bleak future, where 'none other than what's left of the Wall Street moguls' will be able to afford to attend nightclubs."
Den Hollander, who sued the Copacobana, China Club, Lotus and others, blames militant feminists for the ladies-pay-less door policies - not prowling promoters trying to lure women to the clubs.
"The guys are paying for girls to party. I don't think that's fair," Den Hollander said. "It's a transfer of money from the wallets of guys to the pocketbooks of girls."
Hollander, meanwhile, needs to get a grip or have a stiff drink.
Hollander blasted the ruling, saying it will allow nightclubs to "discriminate against any group of persons by charging them more for admission than other groups."Related: Likely reason for Hollander's raging case of douchebaggery.
"It does not matter whether the nightclubs charge males or females or blacks or Latins or any other identifiable group more for admission—it is now constitutional," he said. "It’s either a decision driven by feminist ideology or the Second Circuit decided to punt the case to the U.S. Supreme Court."
But to today's tall tale of woe from the man that feminists forgot — or tried to, anyway. He looks like that creepy guy that used to go to the 19+ clubs in college and stare at all the girls who wouldn't fuck him. But, obviously, that's not his fault for being a creepy bastard trying too recapture his lost youth by boning drunk chicks half his age, it's Feminism's fault for convincing drunk chicks half his age that they could do better. Way better.Ouch.