Support NeoGAF

[torre_avenue]

Title comes from the Washington Post:

Stephen Clark almost let it slide.

The theater was 2,000 miles away in Austin, and there was no chance he was going to show up there to see a movie anyway. As a gay man who considers himself sensitive to historically disadvantaged groups, there was even a part of him that saw the value of a celebratory, women-only screening of ”Wonder Woman."

But Clark — a law professor at Albany Law School — changed his mind when he looked up Alamo Drafthouse's Facebook page and began reading the heated exchanges between the theater's management and the frustrated men calling the venue's women-only events ”discriminatory."

”There was a vibrant argument happening on Facebook," Clark, 48, told The Washington Post. ”But when the theater responded to complaints, they were pretty snide about it and willing to mock anyone who had a complaint and that really struck me."

”There is also the fact that what they were doing is illegal," he added.

Instead of ignoring the theater's decision, Clark began researching Austin's city code and decided to file an administrative charge with the city's Equal Employment and Fair Housing Office.

He alleged that the Drafthouse's women-only event — as it was described in the theater's advertising — discriminated against male customers based on their gender. Citing the theater's promise to staff only women at the events, Clark also alleged that the Drafthouse was illegally engaging in employment discrimination.

”It's the principle of the thing," he told The Post. ”I'm a gay man, and I've studied and taught gay rights for years. Our gay bars have long said that you do not exclude people because they're gay or straight or transgender — you just can't do that for any reason."

”We have to deal with the bachelorette parties that come to the gay bar," he added. ”They're terribly disruptive, but if you forbid women from coming to a gay bar, you're starting down a slippery slope. It's discrimination."

The theater initially embraced the male-dominated backlash online and promised to expand the women-only screenings across the country, but then appeared to walk back that promise in a statement emailed to The Post Wednesday.

The statement said the women-only screenings may have sparked ”confusion."

”Obviously, Alamo Drafthouse recognizes ‘Wonder Woman' is a film for all audiences, but our special women-only screenings may have created confusion — we want everybody to see this film," the statement said.
...

After reviewing Austin's municipal code, Stacy Hawkins — an associate professor of law at Rutgers University who specializes in employment law, civil rights and diversity — told The Post that the theater's management finds itself in an increasingly common position. As public and private sector organizations look for opportunities to celebrate diversity and embrace historically disadvantaged groups, they run the risk of violating laws that were designed to respond to overtly racist, exclusionary practices. Hawkins said anti-discrimination law is increasingly being used to attack diversity efforts through allegations of ”reverse discrimination."

Women-only movie screenings, Hawkins said, are not the same as ”old boys" clubs that excluded minorities and women. Intent matters, Hawkins said, but the law is not nuanced enough to distinguish between malicious and benign intent.

”This new focus on diversity and inclusion is not really accounted for by the laws of civil rights and discrimination," Hawkins said. ”Law is not calibrated for our new political paradigm of diversity and inclusion.

The article itself basically describes a situation that infuriates me: this guy had no right to shut down these events, but is doing so because it aggravated him that the Drafthouse was shutting down the kind of people who would be irritated at a women-only screening.

”I understand the reason for creating a women-only event, but the equality principle is fundamental," he said. ”It sometimes means we have to give up some of our ‘trait only' spaces to make sure we are not being exclusionary."

”There are men in Austin who would like to celebrate women's empowerment," he added. ”There are women in Austin who would like to go to this event with their gay best friend, and they can't under this rule."

What the actual fuck is this reasoning. It is not the Drafthouse saying that ALL screenings of Wonder Woman are woman-only, it is only a select few. If your hypothetical woman wants to see the movie with her gay best friend, go to one of the many other screenings for the movie being held.

What really gets me is this:

Hawkins said the entire controversy could have been avoided with a simple tweak in the theater's advertising.

”Just eliminate ‘no men welcome' language," she said. ”You try to make sure you demonstrate this is an event for and about women and, most likely, men aren't going to show up."

All this anger and self-righetousness is coming over one line, verbalizing something that would have been implied otherwise. Fucking hell.

If this should be merged into the other thread, go ahead and lock it, mods.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Milo is gay

Gay doesn't make you not a moron if you're a moron.

 

[SpaceWolf]

“There is also the fact that what they were doing is illegal,” he added.

I'll need to see the receipts on this, Professor.

 

[kirblar]

Hawkins said the entire controversy could have been avoided with a simple tweak in the theater's advertising.

Someone else pointed this out in the original thread- this was deliberate. They run "Girl's Night" stuff all the time w/o issue. They actively chose to use the language here. And of course, a ton of gnats fell for the bait.

 

[excelsiorlef]

“We have to deal with the bachelorette parties that come to the gay bar,” he added. “They’re terribly disruptive, but if you forbid women from coming to a gay bar, you’re starting down a slippery slope. It’s discrimination.”

No gay women exist apparently

 

[kirblar]

No gay women exist apparently

Gay bars are generally split by gender naturally. They're two very separate social spheres.

 

[lightskintwin]

I knew this would happen just to prove a point.

Hawkins said the entire controversy could have been avoided with a simple tweak in the theater’s advertising.

“Just eliminate ‘no men welcome’ language,” she said. “You try to make sure you demonstrate this is an event for and about women and, most likely, men aren’t going to show up.”

As for this quote, I damn near said the exact same thing.

 

[- J - D -]

It's like, 2 showings. You can go to the other dozen showings of this movie at the Alamo.

edit: But I recognize that maybe better language would probably help, not hurt.

 

[clearestblue]

“There are men in Austin who would like to celebrate women’s empowerment,” he added.

ok then go see the movie in a different theater or even at the same theater at a different time

“There are women in Austin who would like to go to this event with their gay best friend, and they can’t under this rule.”

 

[excelsiorlef]

Gay bars are generally split by gender naturally. They're two very separate social spheres.

I'm aware but it was still a funny line

 

[GitarooMan]

What an embarrassment. That's about all I can say

 

[excelsiorlef]

Also do what... article mentions a ton of people have filed claims... what makes this worth a story? That this guy is a gay man?

 

[Mathieran]

So fucking petty.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

I get what the theater is doing and I applaud them for it. But I think I can agree it's clearly discrimination. Alamo Drafthouse is a public-facing business. So restricting screenings based on a protected class is going to be illegal.

I wonder if there is a way for them to make a "membership" which I assume can be based on whatever they want. Then allow screenings based on that membership. But even then, it'll be untenable and likely not a precedent we'd want to see in businesses in general. Or I guess fixing the language on this to emphasize women for a specific screening would hopefully accomplish what they were aiming for here without the legal issues.

 

[ReiGun]

Because that fragile masculinity will have you doing some strange things.

 

[MrGreencastle]

Having women-only screenings is absolutely discrimination.

But a private company reserves the right to discriminate in my opinion so long as it isn't harming anyone.

Don't like that? Don't go to that theatre. Pretty simple.

 

[cpp_is_king]

I'll need to see the receipts on this, Professor.

Well, i mean, he *is* a law professor. When someone asks for "the receipts", usually they're referring to confirmation from a subject matter expert, no?

 

[torre_avenue]

Also do what... article mentions a ton of people have filed claims... what makes this worth a story? That this guy is a gay man?

I don't really know why the Post chose to make this a story.

Maybe it's because the person filing it is a law professor as compared to an internet troll of some sort.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Having women-only screenings is absolutely discrimination.

But a private company reserves the right to discriminate in my opinion so long as it isn't harming anyone.

Don't like that? Don't go to that theatre. Pretty simple.

Private businesses that openly serve the public do not have this right. Especially not when it involves a protected class.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Private businesses that openly serve the public do not have this right. Especially not when it involves a protected class.

So you mean those "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs aren't legally binding?

 

[Pryce]

Well, isn't it illegal? I don't know the laws of Austin, but banning a gender in a public place sounds pretty illegal. Someone who knows law better than I can help me.

I think it's all stupid anyway, but whatever. It's not my theater.

 

[cr0w]

I feel like the intent is good and their hearts are in the right place, but they could have worded it differently to make it seem less exclusionary and more about being a celebration of women.

It's a risky thing when businesses take a stand like this because people will jump on anything they can find to twist the message. A local comic chain here in Houston had a bit of backlash last year when they made a big deal over the bathroom bill and posted signs everywhere in store and online saying, 'Supermen, Wonder Women...no politician can tell us who can use our bathrooms.'

Problem is none of their stores have public restrooms, and they flat out won't let anyone use their private ones regardless of need, and that became a rather solid point of criticism.

 

[Cels]

But a private company reserves the right to discriminate

lol no that's not how the law works

 

[Clancy]

Clicked on article

It's a white male

Why am I not surprised?

 

[kirblar]

I don't really know why the Post chose to make this a story.

Maybe it's because the person filing it is a law professor as compared to an internet troll of some sort.

The "is this actually legal?" angle is the far more interesting one here, I can see why they'd go with that for a piece. Ladies Night's at bars are actually banned in a lot of places.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I don't really know why the Post chose to make this a story.

Maybe it's because the person filing it is a law professor as compared to an internet troll of some sort.

I mean they put gay in the title it is obviously because it's the conflation that a minority identity give you credibility when talking shit about another minority identity.

 

[tirminyl]

Jesus. Why is a mountain being made out of this?

 

[sturgboski]

Is this like that whole "the left turning on the left thing" or is it one oppressed group not having the back of another oppressed group? I mean this event was clearly supposed to be an empowerment thing for women (and sure the theater taking advantage of that for economic gain as well) and instead of letting it happen, someone in Albany said "nope, I get what you are trying to do but fuck that" is what I am getting from this.

 

[Dice//]

Oh my god can this stupid screening be dropped already??

Let women have their crumb on this dumb issue to see a movie together.

I'd sympathize if people didn't genuinely feel 'ostracized' by this, but this feels like a huff and puff about "women only" and some weird offended stance at not being invited. There's a thousand other theatres in town, I don't get why this movie and this theatre are getting all the flack because (presumably) men are having a small sliver of fun somehow taken from them.

I do not understand this.

 

[Majukun]

on one hand yes,it's discriminatory..on the other,i doubt there are no other screenings one can access to, even in the same time slot

on the other,other hand i find funny the idea of an all woman screening for a superhero movie of all things,but that's just me.

 

[MrGreencastle]

Private businesses that openly serve the public do not have this right. Especially not when it involves a protected class.

But why not, though? Shouldn't this be something the market should decide rather than enforced top-down?

If people don't agree with the idea of a theatre having women-exclusive showings, then they should vote with their wallet. If enough people also agree, then that theatre will not have enough business to sustain itself - no more issue.

Genuinely curious. I'm not sure I agree with that - by the way I live in Canada, so the laws may be more restrictive here.

lol no that's not how the law works

I should rephrase - I think that a private business should reserve that right, not that they do have that right. I'm not super familiar with American laws.

 

[SYNTAX182]

Can't just let women have this one thing huh? There's always some schmuck ruining things for every one else.

 

[Pizza]

This is SUCH a nonissue to me.

This is the first woman-centric superhero movie since this dumb craze started. So celebrate it! Who fucking cares. It's cool as hell that Alamo is offering a venue for a women-only screening for this movie. I'm a dude excited for this film and I love it.

It's not even the fucking majority of screenings. Other showings exist. Alamo is not becoming a women's-only venue entirely. They were right to shit on the people who are SO up in arms about women publically getting special treatment (for once) that the feel the need to bitch about it.

Like christ there are other ways to spend your fucking time.

Do you know how many places charge a higher fee for dudes and a lesser/nonexistent one for ladies? Where is the outrage for that thing that's been happening for fucking years.

It's a goddamned movie.

 

[kingofthedead45]

If the next time I go to a bar and put in a complaint of discrimination during a ladies drink free night,what would happen?

 

[SpaceWolf]

Well, i mean, he *is* a law professor. When someone asks for "the receipts", usually they're referring to confirmation from a subject matter expert, no?

What specific laws is it breaking, though? And if holding such a screening is llegal, why do the numerous "Gentlemen's Clubs" in America that specifically reject female membership allowed to operate as valid businesses?

 

[Spoo]

I talked a bit about this with my Dad who is also a lawyer, and he indicated the same as this professor. It doesn't have much to do with how we feel about it, whether it bothers us or not, at the end of the day it would seem as if they were going over the line on this one from a legal perspective. My dad mentioned it had something to do with commerce law, and he referenced the case with the wedding cake baker not providing services with gays as a similar example (though I'm not sure if the same law? Honestly I should ask him for more info)

 

[Ordinaryundone]

I get what the theater is doing and I applaud them for it. But I think I can agree it's clearly discrimination. Alamo Drafthouse is a public-facing business. So restricting screenings based on a protected class is going to be illegal.

I wonder if there is a way for them to make a "membership" which I assume can be based on whatever they want. Then allow screenings based on that membership. But even then, it'll be untenable and likely not a precedent we'd want to see in businesses in general. Or I guess fixing the language on this to emphasize women for a specific screening would hopefully accomplish what they were aiming for here without the legal issues.

I mean, all they had to do was call it a "Ladies night" or something. Encourage women to show up, and they will, and just accept that a few guys will be there (likely brought by their girlfriends) without being outright aggressively discriminatory. They could have offered discounts for women, free food, whatever. Any number of things to encourage a heavily female majority audience, which one assumes should be the primary goal. Assumes, anyway. More than anything they just wanted to pick a fight on social media for the free advertising; these days this sort of thing is the easiest bait in the entire world but someone always bites.

 

[metalslimer]

But why not, though? Shouldn't this be something the market should decide rather than enforced top-down?

If people don't agree with the idea of a theatre having women-exclusive showings, then they should vote with their wallet. If enough people also agree, then that theatre will not have enough business to sustain itself - no more issue.

Genuinely curious. I'm not sure I agree with that - by the way I live in Canada, so the laws may be more restrictive here.

No that was why civil rights laws were needed in the US to begin with. It's questionable whether this is actually legal but companies should not and are not given the right to discriminate.

This all being said there really are some fucking crybabies in the world.

 

[elrechazado]

Having women-only screenings is absolutely discrimination.

But a private company reserves the right to discriminate in my opinion so long as it isn't harming anyone.

Don't like that? Don't go to that theatre. Pretty simple.

Have fun with that logic in bakeries and same sex wedding cake threads.

 

[SliceSabre]

But why not, though? Shouldn't this be something the market should decide rather than enforced top-down?

If people don't agree with the idea of a theatre having women-exclusive showings, then they should vote with their wallet. If enough people also agree, then that theatre will not have enough business to sustain itself - no more issue.

Genuinely curious. I'm not sure I agree with that - by the way I live in Canada, so the laws may be more restrictive here.

I'll make it simple, this is only a couple of steps from when businesses went:

"Whites only, blacks only"

And we decided a some time ago that shit was illegal and we don't desire to 'let the market' sort it out. I certainly get what Alamo is trying to do but I'm not going to sit here and pretend it isn't discrimination in some form.

 

[Mentosrock]

Strange how some gay men have become vanguards of the alt-right movement, how and why were they roped in? They're a convenient 'diverse' mask for the men's rights activists to hide behind.

So stupid to prevent this from happening. Why is it such a big deal for a group of women to feel some solidarity together watching a movie? There's clearly something there for them over and above just watching the movie. Let them have their damned moment.

 

[Violence Jack]

For fucks sake, this is still going on?

I'm fine with Alamo making snide remarks towards man-babies who can't get over 2 fucking showings of WW to an all female crowd. It isn't even like that's only screen showing WW.

 

[sturgboski]

If the next time I go to a bar and put in a complaint of discrimination during a ladies drink free night,what would happen?

Yeah, how does that work? Would it then be everyone drinks free or no one drinks free?

What about discounts for other classes? Like if one complained about ticket price differentials between children, adults and seniors? Or maybe that is a strawman for this topic?

 

[Moppeh]

I get what the theater is doing and I applaud them for it. But I think I can agree it's clearly discrimination. Alamo Drafthouse is a public-facing business. So restricting screenings based on a protected class is going to be illegal.

Yeah, this is my stance on it.

I get it and I think it is cool to have these screenings where women can be together and celebrate that this awesome, feminist icon is finally having her own movie but I do understand why some people are perturbed by it. I have similar feelings about that black feminist festival in Paris.

I think ideally, what you do is have female preferred screenings as opposed to female only screenings. You don't ban men but you make it clear that these showings are for women to celebrate and experience it. If some fucking MRA assholes waltz in there and start a fuss, you kick them the fuck out for being disruptive.

But in the end, I think the outrage over this is way overblown. And a lot of shitty people have said a lot of shitty stuff over a few screenings. Critique it, sure, but don't be a major dick about it.

 

[cpp_is_king]

What specific laws is it breaking, though? And if holding such a screening is llegal, why do the numerous "Gentlemen's Clubs" in America that specifically reject female membership allowed to operate as valid buisnesses?

That's a good question. Maybe because nobody's ever challenged them? Kind of like the boy scouts and gay members, until someone challenged them.

But the thing is, I'm not a lawyer, but he is. And he said he researched the city code. So, idk. Gotta believe someone, until a more credible lawyer comes along and says he's wrong, or until a judge decides, I'm going with the subject matter expert. Otherwise I'm no better than an anti-vaxxer.

 

[torre_avenue]

I mean they put gay in the title it is obviously because it's the conflation that a minority identity give you credibility when talking shit about another minority identity.

Honestly, you're right.

It does stand out to me that the Post chose to address the professor as a "gay law professor" instead of a "New York law professor" or just a "law professor."

 

[SomedayTheFire]

Aw poor guy.

 

[elrechazado]

Strange how some gay men have become vanguards of the alt-right movement, how and why were they roped in? They're a convenient 'diverse' mask for the men's rights activists to hide behind.

So stupid to prevent this from happening. Why is it such a big deal for a group of women to feel some solidarity together watching a movie? There's clearly something there for them over and above just watching the movie. Let them have their damned moment.

Taking a consistent stand on civil liberties is not "alt right". The ACLU has been taking stands on principle on behalf of bad people for decades because it's right. Look up the Skokie case if you want a primer.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

I'll make it simple, this is only a couple of steps from when businesses went:

"Whites only, blacks only"

And we decided a some time ago that shit was illegal.

Pretty much. And it's still entirely possible to create and maintain a nominally segregated venue, if you want, but it's about ENCOURAGING your target audience to attend (and by extension, non-actively discouraging others) rather than just outright banning anyone who isn't them. One is marketing, the other is segregation.

 

[lightskintwin]

Yeah, how does that work? Would it then be everyone drinks free or no one drinks free?

What about discounts for other classes? Like if one complained about ticket price differentials between children, adults and seniors? Or maybe that is a strawman for this topic?

Some states have banned Ladies Night or Ladies Only promotions when contested. Some states said those promotions are legal. The majority of States have yet to weigh in on it due to nobody taking it to court yet, and Ladies Night and Ladies Only promotions continue.