Support NeoGAF

[Admiral Woofington]

Guess we'll have to see what ends up happening when the equality justice warrior walks in demanding they be let in.

I'm hoping they have another theater availlable at the moment and guide them to that screening, leaving one theater for women only and another one for those that decided to come to make a statement.

 

[Azerare]

Bus segregation based on race was a central issue in America in the 1950s http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/alabama-bus-segregation-ended

And it's not about 'fragile men' or denying women a positive spotlight. Discrimination is illegal, whatever your reason or political or personal stance. That's the point some people are trying to make in this thread, being shot down by people saying 'fragile men!' And 'men can still see the movie' the first of which is unhelpful and the latter misses the point.

You're on GAF. People think their morality/purity tests outweigh law sometimes.

IMO though this movie thing is blown out of proportion. Alamo always does Ladies night movies. Let women enjoy them still.

 

[Riptwo]

Anecdotally, I got to see a showing of the movie on opening night with a bachelors party at the South Lamar Drafthouse and we were treated very well (as per usual at the Drafthouse). The ire being thrown their way for this is utterly bizarre to me.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

I'm sure in 50-years the men who bravely stood up for their rights by shitting all over a theater of women who just wanted to see Wonder Woman in Austin, Texas at a single location of a particular theater at a particular time will be seen with the same reverence as those attending the Seneca Falls convention and Rosa Parks not giving up her seat.

The complete failure to appreciate scale is astounding.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Guess we'll have to see what ends up happening when the equality justice warrior walks in demanding they be let in.

I'm hoping they have another theater availlable at the moment and guide them to that screening, leaving one theater for women only and another one for those that decided to come to make a statement.

That's what Alamo has stated what feels like several hundred times at this point. There are multiple screenings at the exact same time as the women only screening.

 

[Davidion]

Hey guys how do we feel about women segregating themselves in their own bathrooms when are we underground railroading into their toilets?

 

[commedieu]

Men bitching. Like most problems in society, if men just shut the fuck up many of them would be solved.

There is no real outrage, just my fellow gender showin they ass because for 2hrs the world doesn't revolve around them.

Exactly. Which speaks to their fucking privilege right there. "HOW DARE MEN NOT BE ALLOWED TO A WOMEN'S ONLY SCREENING OF WONDER WOMAN!"

Shit is embarrassing. And is of course, all the gamer gate types. And the Ones too oblivious to reality -- pretending this is their stonewall.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

That's what Alamo has stated what feels like several hundred times at this point. There are multiple screenings at the exact same time as the women only screening.

I'm saying I don't know what system they'll have in place. Alamo allows you to reserve tickets to theaters prior to the show and reserve specific seats.

I'd be curious if they preemptively reserved a portion of another screening at the same time so they can take the men there. Or if a man arrives they simply say "your ticket allows you to go a wonder woman showing and proceeds go to the charity, which seat would you like" and they simply go to another theater.

No doubt we'll have people demanding they be let in to the showing that is women only.

 

[Trident]

Exactly. Which speaks to their fucking privilege right there. "HOW DARE MEN NOT BE ALLOWED TO A WOMEN'S ONLY SCREENING OF WONDER WOMAN!"

Shit is embarrassing. And is of course, all the gamer gate types. And the Ones too oblivious to reality -- pretending this is their stonewall.

Such a nuanced approach to understanding the various perspectives at play here.

 

[Transhuman]

If an organization does a meeting called, like, "Job resources for ex-convicts", we don't get mad because what about all the people who aren't ex-convicts. If an organization does a meeting called, like, "Putting your life together after divorce", we don't get mad because what about all the people who are happily married but still need to put their life together. If an organization does a meeting called "Issues facing women in tech", we don't get mad because "what about the issues facing men in tech, like when you and your pair programming buddy wear the same j crew gingham check shirt to the dave matthews band concert". It's also okay for there to be a Black History Month.

I don't think anyone in this thread who has an issue with gender-specific movie screenings has an issue with domestic violence shelters specifically for women or specifically for men. Those have a reason for existing.

 

[teh_pwn]

Men bitching. Like most problems in society, if men just shut the fuck up many of them would be solved.

Well that's certainly a modest statement.

 

[CherryIcee]

If an organization does a meeting called, like, "Job resources for ex-convicts", we don't get mad because what about all the people who aren't ex-convicts. If an organization does a meeting called, like, "Putting your life together after divorce", we don't get mad because what about all the people who are happily married but still need to put their life together. If an organization does a meeting called "Issues facing women in tech", we don't get mad because "what about the issues facing men in tech, like when you and your pair programming buddy wear the same j crew gingham check shirt to the dave matthews band concert". It's also okay for there to be a Black History Month.

The reason "Separate and (un)Equal" is unjust is not because it is inherently wrong for there to be a space, a place, a time, a process, or a thing that applies to one group versus another, it's because it was part of a systematic process of the state using its force to dehumanize, denigrate, and criminalize the existence of millions of people because of their skin colour.

I agree that public accommodations should be inclusive. The question is how to we make them inclusive. And sometimes the answer might involve something with a little more finesse than "Everyone Is Welcome" -- sometimes the answer does involve thinking about how each group might have different needs that can be catered to in different ways. And again, this isn't a case where we're talking about you or me or anyone getting less, it's not like there's going to be a long line of men waiting because all the unisex showings of Wonder Woman are sold out and the women-only showings, which have space, won't admit them. It's meant to be an option on top of all the showings that already exist.

I should also say btw that it's not like they were addressing a Great Moral Injustice. Like, it's a comic book movie, and many women do attend them regardless. It's more like they thought "Hey, wouldn't there be a neat vibe if the audience were all women and the showing was explicitly themed around female empowerment". It's extremely low stakes. So as unusual as the showing is, it's also, like, ... this is not a Normandy Beach for a new Matriarchal Society where Western Values and Masculinity is Punished by Feminist SJW Mainstream Media Fake News or whatever.

Thanks for posting this. I tried to come up with a reply in my head but I couldn't put it as well as you did.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I don't really know if I can aptly describe how incredibly fucking embarassing it is that people are trying to compare a women's night screening, alongside ordinary screenings, of a film starring an iconic fictional woman, and sadsack men getting into a snit about it, to the civil rights movement.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I don't think anyone in this thread who has an issue with gender-specific movie screenings has an issue with domestic violence shelters specifically for women or specifically for men. Those have a reason for existing.

Either this is a principled argument (that nothing should ever be gender segregated) or it's a pragmatic one (that many services and spaces should be gender segregated but absolutely not screenings of Wonder Woman). You need to decide what your argument is.

 

[commedieu]

I did say that I'm not saying it's the same. I said that segregation based on race, religion or gender is illegal and examples like that of bus segregation in the past is one reason why.

Commedieu: but how can you not see the comparison? The cinema was trying to encourage limiting a screening based on gender. It would not be acceptable to limit even one screening based on race. And discrimination law applies to race, religion and gender.

Simple. Men aren't hung for seeing a movie, if they choose to. Or if they sneak into ladies night. Make sense? ladies night is a thing. It is legal.

I see the comparison. It's absurd considering it's a single screening of a movie, during a time when non special screenings are showing. It's beyond insulting to compare the two. No different if you compared a screening to the holocaust.

It's just a bunch of losers trying to co-opt actual societal wrongs, by equating a few weeks of a screening to segregation. Feel free to do it. But you're completely ignorant with that mindset, it speaks to how fragile you are, if this is a hill worth dying on. -- Life must be damn good if your call to arms is a limited screening of wonder woman. At a place that does special screenings.

This isnt some "hur dur" technicality discussion. There are no damages here, legally. This isn't law, as segregation was. This is a screening of a movie.

Such a nuanced approach to understanding the various perspectives at play here.

Wait was this supposed to be in the defeating isis thread?

Or the wonder woman screening thread?

 

[Davidion]

I don't think anyone in this thread who has an issue with gender-specific movie screenings has an issue with domestic violence shelters specifically for women or specifically for men. Those have a reason for existing.

Oh, so there are reasons why certain facilities should be reserved for use only by certain members of the population under specific contexts, even if it's by race/gender/other groupings?

That almost makes it sound like the very act of segregation doesn't by itself translate into discrimination, nor provide justification for or against why it should be done. Do consider the idea.

 

[The Llama]

Just IMO, but this is absolutely discrimination. That said, it's de minimis and basically so trivial that it shouldn't matter (or offend anyone...). The equivalent of adult swim at the local public pool - absolutely discriminatory (in that case age discrimination) but society has said it's so minor (de minimis, to use the legal term) that it doesn't matter.

All that said, Alamo's responses to this really turned me off from them and I actually agree with the law professor on that.

 

[Trident]

Simple. Men aren't hung for seeing a movie, if they choose to. Or if they sneak into ladies night. Make sense? ladies night is a thing. It is legal.

As I mentioned before, the legality of Ladies' Night varies by state in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladies'_night

I see the comparison. It's absurd considering it's a single screening of a movie, during a time when non special screenings are showing. It's beyond insulting to compare the two. No different if you compared a screening to the holocaust.

It's also insulting when people not only think that they immediately understand how to devise and implement anti-discrimination laws better than courts that have grappled with it for decades, but also that their own beliefs are so obvious and self-evident that anyone who disagrees must be some idiotic caricature.

 

[commedieu]

As I mentioned before, the legality of Ladies' Night varies by state in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladies'_night

Yeah this was beaten to death in the other "men" melt down thread. Alamo does special nights.

And none of this is comparable to the civil rights movement/segregation Which is what your point was.

But I'm done with this. Have fun. It's embarrassing. I'm sure it's all been said 200 times.

 

[Stumpokapow]

As I mentioned before, the legality of Ladies' Night varies by state in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladies'_night

This is a fair point (although the link you just gave suggests no such holding has occurred in Texas), but my question would be this -- do you get the impression that any of the debate here, across the thousands of posts on the subject on GAF or the bazillions of tweets or comments section comments, is actually about the narrow technical details of the legality, or do you think it's stemming from a broader moral anger?

One presumes that there is not, even in places where such things are technically illegal, there is no great protest and social disruption surrounding "Ladies Night" (or "Singles Night", or "Couples Night", or "Kids Night" or...)? As a posted above noted, this seems like a clear cut de minimis harm.

I'm totally on board with the idea that if this is illegal, Alamo should receive an injunction and be asked to pay a fine commensurate with the harm (I'm thinking a 10% off popcorn coupon to be split between the plaintiffs would deal with this grievous injustice). But that seems totally secondary to the "is this something that boils my blood?" question.

I am generally interested in narrow legalistic debates. But we don't have a thread about how the Supreme Court narrowly ruled that fish don't count as documents under Sarbanes-Oxley or whatever, so I suspect that's not the draw here.

 

[jrush64]

I can't believe this is somehow still a controversy.

 

[brandonh83]

I can't believe this is somehow still a controversy.

We all knew there would be SOMETHING.

 

[Trident]

This is a fair point (although the link you just gave suggests no such holding has occurred in Texas), but my question would be this -- do you get the impression that any of the debate here, across the thousands of posts on the subject on GAF or the bazillions of tweets or comments section comments, is actually about the narrow technical details of the legality, or do you think it's stemming from a broader moral anger?

One presumes that there is not, even in places where such things are technically illegal, there is no great protest and social disruption surrounding "Ladies Night" (or "Singles Night", or "Couples Night", or "Kids Night" or...)? As a posted above noted, this seems like a clear cut de minimis harm.

I'm totally on board with the idea that if this is illegal, Alamo should receive an injunction and be asked to pay a fine commensurate with the harm (I'm thinking a 10% off popcorn coupon to be split between the plaintiffs would deal with this grievous injustice). But that seems totally secondary to the "is this something that boils my blood?" question.

I agree that the impact of this is de minimis. I actually used that exact term earlier in this thread!

I don't have any issue with women's only screenings or ladies' nights. What bothers me is when people act as though these issues are so obvious and cut-and-dry that anyone who disagrees must either be a malevolent woman-hater or complete idiot, despite some very liberal courts (California!) coming to opposite conclusions.

I just wish people recognized that their first instinct, whether drawn from a good place or not, may not be the end-all be-all of analysis for a topic.

 

[Zabka]

Texas still has at least one men-only golf club. I'm guessing whatever court this hits wouldn't wanna rock that boat.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

I don't get the big deal over this and think it is being handled like shit from all parties. It seems people would rather use snark and act like a cockhole instead of engage in any form of sincere communication. I dunno, would have it been so hard for a guy to address the Alamo saying "Hey I support what you're doing, but how about a special 'Men's Only' viewing of Thor: Ragnarok for us?" or shit even the Alamo taking the higher ground once this all started and offering a non mocking, genuine guy's only event sometime in the future?
Maybe it's just me but it seems everyone wants to argue, antagonize others and sling shit like some fucking monkey instead of, I don't know? Maybe just not being a dick?
It's like we've lost all desire find some fucking middle ground.

 

[Nepenthe]

I don't know why women have to be patient and nice and understanding with guys accusing them of setting the country back five decades because they want to go to Ladies Night.

 

[Reeks]

I can see why this might be perceived as discriminatory. There are some valid reasons for this. I don't feel that way personally, but I get it. What I find interesting, however, is how high the temperature rises in response to a special screening for a movie. I wish this kind of outrage was displayed for things like, well, the gap in pay or hiring of women etc. That in itself is a window into how discrimination actually works.

 

[Psychoward]

How is him being gay relevant especially when he isn't even part of the gender in question

 

[Darryl]

I don't get the big deal over this and think it is being handled like shit from all parties. It seems people would rather use snark and act like a cockhole instead of engage in any form of sincere communication. I dunno, would have it been so hard for a guy to address the Alamo saying "Hey I support what you're doing, but how about a special 'Men's Only' viewing of Thor: Ragnarok for us?" or shit even the Alamo taking the higher ground once this all started and offering a non mocking, genuine guy's only event sometime in the future?
Maybe it's just me but it seems everyone wants to argue, antagonize others and sling shit like some fucking monkey instead of, I don't know? Maybe just not being a dick?
It's like we've lost all desire find some fucking middle ground.

You know exactly why they did it. If they weren't snarky or demeaning, this would have been a non-story. It is about hits and cash and they're willing to make people frustrated at each other to get it. I agree with you completely.

 

[Psychoward]

I can see why this might be perceived as discriminatory. There are some valid reasons for this. I don't feel that way personally, but I get it. What I find interesting, however, is how high the temperature rises in response to a special screening for a movie. I wish this kind of outrage was displayed for things like, well, the gap in pay or hiring of women etc. That in itself is a window into how discrimination actually works.

Yeah that's what amuses me. As a man I don't really care, if the demand is there for women only screenings for a popular superhero women movie, who cares. It's not on opening night or anything and it's a neat little idea.

The funny thing is people who would never go, people who had never even heard of the Alamo draft house let alone live near Austin, are up in arms about it. That's really fucking telling, a lot of men can only generate massive outrage over a gender issue when it's men not being invited to a fucking superhero screening that they wouldn't have gone to anyway. It's transparent as hell.

 

[Neverforget]

I cannot help but compare this "controversy" to a 5years old spoiled kid throwing a tantrum because he want every single toy in the room even if it's the same as the other kids, he still want them all.

It's one screening, there are tons simultaneously ones and others to come. The entitlement and spoiled attitude of these complainers are embarrassing, how dare this women get one single screening for a stupid super hero movie?!

Do people have nothing else to do with their lives than make a big deal out of something so small? I wish I had this kind of easy life and "problems"

 

[Admiral Woofington]

You know exactly why they did it. If they weren't snarky or demeaning, this would have been a non-story. It is about hits and cash and they're willing to make people frustrated at each other to get it. I agree with you completely.

You have an idealized opinion of the internet if you think if they had responded non mockingly that all of these men, who were only responding to antagonize, would have dropped it then. It would have been picked up regardless.

The only difference is that the snark has made it funnier and has riled them up more.

 

[Kuroi Gogeta]

I'm willing to bet that the kind of people who would be angry over the "women only" screening, would be the same kind of people to not want to pay to watch the movie any way. Entitlement culture has gotten so out of hand.

 

[Psychoward]

You have an idealized opinion of the internet if you think if they had responded non mockingly that all of these men, who were only responding to antagonize, would have dropped it then. It would have been picked up regardless.

The only difference is that the snark has made it funnier and has riled them up more.

Yep.

 

[brandonh83]

Do people have nothing else to do with their lives than make a big deal out of nothing?

Fixed.

But seriously, it's just so damned bizarre to me.

 

[UltimaPooh]

It was pretty obvious the way this whole thing was going to go down.

Alamo Drafthouse pretty much played everyone here. So good job getting riled up on either side of the debate.

Also only reason this was never considered illegal was due to the fact that the screens provided shares of ticket sales to non profits.

 

[Vicetrailia]

People need to get over themselves. You don't truly care about a women's screening, you just like to oppress.

 

[Wiped89]

Simple. Men aren't hung for seeing a movie, if they choose to. Or if they sneak into ladies night. Make sense? ladies night is a thing. It is legal.

I see the comparison. It's absurd considering it's a single screening of a movie, during a time when non special screenings are showing. It's beyond insulting to compare the two. No different if you compared a screening to the holocaust.

It's just a bunch of losers trying to co-opt actual societal wrongs, by equating a few weeks of a screening to segregation. Feel free to do it. But you're completely ignorant with that mindset, it speaks to how fragile you are, if this is a hill worth dying on.

Actually as an above poster pointed out, the legality of ladies nights varies by state. It is certainly not legal universally.

Like I said, I'm not saying it's the same. My point was that the reason discrimination law was created was because of examples such as that in the past.

It's important not to mix moral/emotional arguments with legal ones. Your moral argument may hold merit, that's not what I'm arguing with. To the law, emotion is irrelevant. If it's illegal to discriminate, it's illegal, regardless of the reasons or the intent behind it.

 

[brandonh83]

I can see why this might be perceived as discriminatory. There are some valid reasons for this. I don't feel that way personally, but I get it.

I would get it if it were outright preventing anyone from seeing the film. So as it stands, I don't get it.

 

[Transhuman]

Either this is a principled argument (that nothing should ever be gender segregated) or it's a pragmatic one (that many services and spaces should be gender segregated but absolutely not screenings of Wonder Woman). You need to decide what your argument is.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't care about the principle, so even if there were men's only screenings in addition to the women's only screenings, I would still be perturbed. But is restricting access by gender under the premise of empowerment going to be a positive? If this event had gone ahead without any controversy, would that have been a good thing? Because men would have been disruptive? Would have ruined the atmosphere for women? By existing this event reinforces the idea that when it comes to the fight for equality men are less than, and in the public sphere it makes sense to separate men and women.

 

[UltimaPooh]

Simple. Men aren't hung for seeing a movie, if they choose to. Or if they sneak into ladies night. Make sense? ladies night is a thing. It is legal.

I see the comparison. It's absurd considering it's a single screening of a movie, during a time when non special screenings are showing. It's beyond insulting to compare the two. No different if you compared a screening to the holocaust.

It's just a bunch of losers trying to co-opt actual societal wrongs, by equating a few weeks of a screening to segregation. Feel free to do it. But you're completely ignorant with that mindset, it speaks to how fragile you are, if this is a hill worth dying on. -- Life must be damn good if your call to arms is a limited screening of wonder woman. At a place that does special screenings.

This isnt some "hur dur" technicality discussion. There are no damages here, legally. This isn't law, as segregation was. This is a screening of a movie.

Alamo has a thing called Girlie Night already... guess what they allow men into that too.

Ladies night don't preclude men or people of other sexes. They are just a featured thing. Only thing that saved this Wonder Woman movie screenings from being illegal was the fact that they were benefit screenings for non profits like Planned Parenthood and Hope House. Otherwise I imagine Alamo legal would be having a tough go.

Which if I were Alamo PR I would have focused on the charitableness of these screenings instead of rilling up trolls and then bringing moderates in the fold to argue. It's just kind of funny to see everyone get played by the Alamo.

 

[Stumpokapow]

But is restricting access by gender under the premise of empowerment going to be a positive?

I already discussed my take on this, and the subsequent sentences in your post, in the post you quoted when you were still pursuing your previous argument that it wasn't a principled thing, it was a pragmatic thing.

 

[Sir Abacus]

Did you people miss the absolutely incredible email response Austin mayor Steve Adler sent to some asshole complaining about the whole thing? It's buried in the OP and WaPo story but I searched the thread for Adler and hacked and didn't see it: It's this century's Cleveland Browns response.

Dear Mr. Ameduri,

I am writing to alert you that your email account has been hacked by an unfortunate and unusually hostile individual. Please remedy your account's security right away, lest this person's uninformed and sexist rantings give you a bad name. After all, we men have to look out for each other!

Can you imagine if someone thought that you didn't know women could serve in our combat units now without exclusion? What if someone thought you didn't know that women invented medical syringes, life rafts, fire escapes, central and solar heating, a war-time communications system for radio-controlling torpedoes that laid the technological foundations for everything from Wi-Fi to GPS, and beer? And I hesitate to imagine how embarrassed you'd be if someone thought you were upset that a private business was realizing a business opportunity by reserving one screening this weekend for women to see a superhero movie.

You and I are serious men of substance with little time for the delicate sensitivities displayed by the pitiful creature who maligned your good name and sterling character by writing that abysmal email. I trust the news that your email account has been hacked does not cause you undue alarm and wish you well in securing your account. And in the future, should your travels take you to Austin, please know that everyone is welcome here, even people like those who wrote that email whose views are an embarrassment to modernity, decency, and common sense.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Adler

This mayor is gold.

 

[Quixzlizx]

There's also a difference between x and institutionalized/systematic x.

If there's some old black guy who sits on his stoop and rants about how Caucasians are white devils all day, he's a racist. But he's not contributing to society's oppression of white people, because that doesn't exist. So he may be an asshole, but a relatively harmless one.

So I suppose people who say this is gender discrimination are technically correct, the best kind of correct. But it does nothing to marginalize the role or place of men in American society. So I personally don't consider it harmful. And most of the men who are upset about it are probably lashing out because it's an instance where our society isn't catering exclusively to them. And having your entitlement complex bruised is not oppression.

 

[The Llama]

There's also a difference between x and institutionalized/systematic x.

If there's some old black guy who sits on his stoop and rants about how Caucasians are white devils all day, he's a racist. But he's not contributing to society's oppression of white people, because that doesn't exist. So he may be an asshole, but a relatively harmless one.

So I suppose people who say this is gender discrimination are technically correct, the best kind of correct. But it does nothing to marginalize the role or place of men in American society. So I personally don't consider it harmful. And most of the men who are upset about it are probably lashing out because it's an instance where our society isn't catering exclusively to them. And having your entitlement complex bruised is not oppression.

IMO this is just dumb reasoning though, because where do you draw the line. Excusing something bad because it may not be systematic is extremely problematic...

 

[Quixzlizx]

IMO this is just dumb reasoning though, because where do you draw the line. Excusing something bad because it may not be systematic is extremely problematic...

I don't think it's bad, though. Every women's only showing has a simultaneous normal showing from what I understand.

 

[excelsiorlef]

It was pretty obvious the way this whole thing was going to go down.

Alamo Drafthouse pretty much played everyone here. So good job getting riled up on either side of the debate.

Also only reason this was never considered illegal was due to the fact that the screens provided shares of ticket sales to non profits.

Both sides?

They are firmly on the side of the women... ya know hence the donation to PP.

 

[A Link to the Past]

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

Those bakeries' goals were to go against same-sex couples, not promote anything. And if you say religion, then it stands to reason that in order to pull that off, they must follow the Bible explicitly and refuse service to people who do not.

 

[The Silver]

I'm not surprised at all this became a thing, from the language the theater used they were clearly trying to rile people up and what do you know it's the fucking internet and the trolls will come.

 

[Opto]

The anti-gay bakery comparison is dumb because really it'd be like if a bakery held a special two hour block for only gay couples to come taste cake samples