The Ladies Night Debate

There has been considerable debate over a recent incident at a local nightclub, The Powerhouse, which was reported in the press. A lady in her 50s was denied the usual 5 free drinks upon entry for Ladies Night at the club and was instead given spa vouchers. She was informed that it was club policy to only issue free drinks to women who were 35 or younger. This soon led to widespread condemnation of this policy as being ageist and discriminatory. Many were further insulted when the club chose to enforce the policy by checking identity cards upon entry.

When asked to explain its policy, Powerhouse, part of the St James group of clubs stated that there were "specific business reasons behind the policy". According to their Chief Operating Officer, "the allure of Ladies' Night for men is that they want to see young, pretty women. We are responding to their expectations." The club also noted that it had the right to set the rules and regulations governing promotions.

While I understand the antagonism surrounding this policy, I must grudgingly support the club in this instance. They are absolutely correct in saying that they have the right to set any specific rules and regulations governing promotional privileges and entry provided that they are clearly stated. This would include a policy of only giving free drinks to ladies under the age of 35, even if we find the objective - that of attracting younger and prettier clientele which would in turn attract more high spending male clientele - worthy of criticism.

The simple fact is that ladies night privileges are specially given by the club, at their own expense. They thus have the right to decide who they want to award these privileges to. I find my sympathy waning for the women who gripe at no receiving the additional drinks free, considering that lady's night is in itself a form of thinly disguised discrimination. Why do the men not complain about the fact that they are being discriminated against on the basis of sex seeing that women are so blatantly having their cover charge waived?

It would have been quite a different story if the club, instead of barring these older women from the free drinks (and to be fair they did receive a substitute free gift), had barred them from entering the club altogether on the grounds that they are too old. That would certainly raise a hue and cry, and deservedly so in my opinion.

This brings me to the crux of this post, for such blatant discrimination on the grounds of age in terms of barring individuals from entering a club already exists. Almost every club in Singapore set different minimum ages limits for entry for males and females. Many, such as St James set a minimum age limit for men at 23 or even 25. They have no grounds for this blatant discrimination other than stating this is "club policy". Basically, clubs can let in anybody they want as long as they are above the legal drinking age of 18 years old.

Given what I just said, isn't it a bit ridiculous that there has been such a hullabaloo about discrimination, ageism, unfairness etc. in the case of these women not being given 5 free promotional drinks given that they still had the right to enter the premises and had their cover waived to boot? Let us put things into perspective. If you really want proof of ageism and discrimination, just look towards all those young men, serving their country as full time national servicemen, barred from having a night on the town for the simple reason they are deemed too young in the eyes of the club.