Restaurant charges "man tax"

[civver_764]

The hilarious part about this is that men already do pay more at restaurants. It's not usually the woman that picks up the tab at the end of the date, let's be real.

 

[Borachio]

Ahh. But is there going to be sex on offer at the end of the evening in that scenario?

That's a question at the fore-front of everyone's minds.

And we all know what that de facto is. Don't we?

Can't say the same about the vegan restaurant. Probably.

If it were me, I wouldn't cede to the woman's demands for sex no matter how good the meal.

Nope.

I'd be holding out for gifts of the small and expensive variety.

 

[JollyRoger]

I usually make sure my date's husband picks up the tab.

 

[civver_764]

Ahh. But is there going to be sex on offer at the end of the evening.

No way dude, that's so misogynistic. Typical entitled white man.

 

[JollyRoger]

It's a capitalistic outlook for sure. Let the buyer beware though. You might find yourself in a situation where the trans are running on time.

 

[civver_764]

It probably means you're in a group that's still getting free stuff snowballing onto all the free stuff you got for hundreds of years.

Whaaaat really? Where can I go to get this free stuff?

 

[Hygro]

Okay, so I'm still struggling to see why "no cover for women" isn't blatant discrimination, but "no cover for whites/homosexuals" is. Whether or not it makes good business sense would seem to be a separate issue would it not? To me it seems that the only intrinsic difference between them is that you can get away with one of them without anyone really complaining, but not so much with the other. But that doesn't seem like much of an actual argument.

"No cover for women" is illegal where I live, but requires someone bother to make a complaint, so it still happens sometimes. When it happens and is an official event policy, you can use it as a reliable heuristic that the place is lame. Who wants to go to a club where the women are the product? It means the rest of the party isn't making the sale. Nothx. Much better to go to a party that women are willing to pay to get into.

 

[plarq]

They should charge the same, and donate to women's charity.

You can have the same effect without sounding like discrimination.

 

[JollyRoger]

I confess to discriminating against men in my dating life.

 

[red_elk]

Ahh. But is there going to be sex on offer at the end of the evening in that scenario?

But sex is something both sides benefit from!

If seriously, it depends on culture. In some places if woman lets man pay for her it's assumed she agrees to have sex. In other places, it doesn't mean much.

 

[plarq]

I confess to discriminating against men in my dating life.

Does a prostitute refusal to serve same-sex customer an act of discrimination?

 

[JollyRoger]

How about a regular purchaser of the services of prostitutes only hiring women?

 

[Hygro]

The new strat for taking down pimps: civil suits alleging hiring discrimination.

 

[JollyRoger]

You know that if a pimp is only offering women that his product is lame.

 

[Ajidica]

The hilarious part about this is that men already do pay more at restaurants. It's not usually the woman that picks up the tab at the end of the date, let's be real.

Sounds like the solution is not to date women.

Problem solved.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

I guesss 18% from a cup of tea is not that high price for a good hours long irl trolling.

Where I live, males have to pay for a woman, if they are to pursue her romantically or to have sex, while she easily mischiefs you on her real intentions or sympathies, just to get this what they call "courtship" and then disappear without a word or utilize your purse farther, as far as into the marriage, in the worst reported cases.

 

[schlaufuchs]

"No cover for women" is illegal where I live, but requires someone bother to make a complaint, so it still happens sometimes. When it happens and is an official event policy, you can use it as a reliable heuristic that the place is lame. Who wants to go to a club where the women are the product? It means the rest of the party isn't making the sale. Nothx. Much better to go to a party that women are willing to pay to get into.

Pretty much the only worthwhile takeaway from this thread.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I fully support this restaurant in showcasing for the world what feminism is all about.

The 18% extra is being donated to a charity to benefit women and children. There's nothing wrong with that.

Ideally, however, there should be no need to point out this wage discrepancy, and no need for the charity.

The hilarious part about this is that men already do pay more at restaurants. It's not usually the woman that picks up the tab at the end of the date, let's be real.

So state upfront that you want each to pay individually, with no assumed expectations afterward.

In some places if woman lets man pay for her it's assumed she agrees to have sex. In other places, it doesn't mean much.

What is the assumption if the man lets the woman pay for him? Would he say the woman would be right to complain about wasting her money if he refuses to go along with her plans for the rest of the evening?

 

[red_elk]

What is the assumption if the man lets the woman pay for him? Would he say the woman would be right to complain about wasting her money if he refuses to go along with her plans for the rest of the evening?

I don't know what she may assume, to be honest. It would depend on why she agreed to pay - 99% of women would be outraged by such perspective.

 

[Borachio]

Doesn't say much for the man if he feels the only way to persuade a woman into bed with him is if he pays, imo.

I like to think I'm worth every penny I get paid. Not the other way round.

On the other hand, if a woman has to pay me it could reflect badly on her looks. ("Hang on a minute, luv, while I put this paper bag over your head.")

Or it could just be that I'm cheap and a bit of a male slut.