Restaurant charges "man tax"

[Hygro]

That site is a really good one. And links to lesswrong.com. Which is equally good, imo.

I can't seem to find any article on the Comanches, though.

So...er... I dunno.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. After some digging around, I found it. It's on a different site, but it's the same guy:
http://squid314.livejournal.com/340809.html

 

[Oerdin]

A clear case of gender discrimination and I am surprised Austrlia does not have a law banning such discrimination.

 

[NovaKart]

This is beyond stupid. It's assuming every man makes more than every woman. So if I go there, I'm supposed to pay a tax but a woman who makes $100,000 a year isn't.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Men have been taxed for years without any uproar. Think of all those bars where women didn't have to pay the cover charge or got discounted drinks. I don't see any real difference or any reason to be upset.

This was also the first thing that came to my mind as well when I read the OP. Bars do "ladies get in free" and "free X drinks for ladies" all the time because they've learned that a bar full of women is the best way to get men in there spending a ton on drinks... ie good business.

Putting that aside, reading the article... it seems like the whole thing is kind of tongue-in-cheek... more like a commentary on the cause of gender equality, than an actual "man tax".

 

[JollyRoger]

I think another benefit of ladies night is it keeps offended MRAs away, thus upping the quality of patron.

 

[warpus]

This was also the first thing that came to my mind as well when I read the OP. Bars do "ladies get in free" and "free X drinks for ladies" all the time because they've learned that a bar full of women is the best way to get men in there spending a ton on drinks... ie good business.

Yeah but the point of that is to attract more men to the bar by having more women there. It's a marketing ploy targetting men who are looking for women to sleep with. Cheaper drinks also means that the women are more likely to be tipsy, attracting even more men. It's pretty sleazy overall but I guess it works.

The same dynamics don't work at a restaurant, you attract men to a restaurant by selling well cooked and well priced food, it doesn't matter how many women end up eating there or how tipsy they are.

It's a sleazy sexist business practice, but men out on the prowl for tipsy women who are easy to score with don't care too much. And I presume the women enjoy the fact they save money. In a restaurant setting it's a completely different context, people expect a bit of class there, and not blatant sexism and/or a promotion of rape culture or whatever.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The same dynamics don't work at a restaurant, you attract men to a restaurant by selling well cooked and well priced food

Well they already messed that part up with the whole "vegan" thing but I guess they balance that out by selling vulva stones (is that a medical thing?) and period sticker packs, which more than make up for it.

But to be fair, it is a cafe and not a restaurant. No-one's expecting class or a quality dining experience.

 

[red_elk]

Provocative rules help spread the word about their cafe, which is probably the main reason of all this taxes and priority sitting.

I guess they balance that out by selling vulva stones (is that a medical thing?) and period sticker packs, which more than make up for it.

Souvenirs probably. Restaurants usually don't sell medical stuff.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Souvenirs probably. Restaurants usually don't sell medical stuff.

Yeah... that was just a joke.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yeah but the point of that is to attract more men to the bar by having more women there. It's a marketing ploy targetting men who are looking for women to sleep with. Cheaper drinks also means that the women are more likely to be tipsy, attracting even more men. It's pretty sleazy overall but I guess it works.

The same dynamics don't work at a restaurant, you attract men to a restaurant by selling well cooked and well priced food, it doesn't matter how many women end up eating there or how tipsy they are.

It's a sleazy sexist business practice, but men out on the prowl for tipsy women who are easy to score with don't care too much. And I presume the women enjoy the fact they save money. In a restaurant setting it's a completely different context, people expect a bit of class there, and not blatant sexism and/or a promotion of rape culture or whatever.

I think @red_elk captures it below... the "man tax" accomplished exactly what they wanted... publicity to draw in their target patrons. So in that way, its similar to the "free cover for ladies" thing that bars do. Its a vegan cafe, so they obviously aren't targeting the average man.

Provocative rules help spread the word about their cafe, which is probably the main reason of all this taxes and priority sitting.

Yeah, this.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Which is why I thought their "who'd have thought one little sign could cause all this furore" post on their FB page was rather disingenuous.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Like I said earlier... tongue in cheek... including that statement...

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well... surely it's just more a cynical publicity stunt if anything. But anyway, I don't think their own motivation is particularly the point of interest.

 

[JollyRoger]

The point of interest is seeing MRAs pitch a tantrum that is well beyond the level that even a SJW could dream of achieving.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Hmm, not bad, but didn't use the words "neckbeard", "basement" or "virgin". 6/10

 

[JollyRoger]

Such words would trigger bad memories of my life shortly before I turned 16.

 

[warpus]

I think @red_elk captures it below... the "man tax" accomplished exactly what they wanted... publicity to draw in their target patrons. So in that way, its similar to the "free cover for ladies" thing that bars do. Its a vegan cafe, so they obviously aren't targeting the average man. Yeah, this.

Yeah it's a sexist PR stunt. As a result they get some negative press and some positive press, and so the name of their establishment is in the news and so on.

So I mean, yeah, that's exactly what they're doing. Doesn't mean that morally superior individuals such as myself can't stand up and say "Hey that's not cool you guys, even though it's working for you business-wise and I'm not a vegan or a woman so I'd probably never eat there anyway"

 

[Commodore]

I think @red_elk captures it below... the "man tax" accomplished exactly what they wanted... publicity to draw in their target patrons. So in that way, its similar to the "free cover for ladies" thing that bars do. Its a vegan cafe, so they obviously aren't targeting the average man.

The question this establishment has to ask though is "is such a publicity stunt such a safe move in the current political climate?" People on all sides of the political spectrum are increasingly seeing it as acceptable to use violence to silence their opponents. So making such a public spectacle of themselves may attract their target patrons as you stated, but it also might draw in the lunatic who's willing to toss a bomb through their window or shoot the place up.

 

[NovaKart]

It sounds like it's just a flash in the pan gimmick that will soon be forgotten and then they'll have to actually try to succeed on their own as a real business once the typical "Let's see how we can troll those MRAs" posts fade from the Twitter and CFC oblivion.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

One of the most important consideration in running a restaurant is generating publicity. Looks like it worked, didn't it?

So making such a public spectacle of themselves may attract their target patrons as you stated, but it also might draw in the lunatic who's willing to toss a bomb through their window or shoot the place up.

Don't worry, they're have no connection with Clinton.