Restaurant charges "man tax"

[Disgustipated]

Australia? I could have sworn somewhere in this thread I read this place was in Vegas. Oh well, if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

Haha, no way is my city progressive enough for something like this. We currently have a billboard on our major freeway with the word broads on it. Our progressive dining consists of the heart attack grill.

Australia is a whipped country, so no surprise they have this over there.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

But to use this (perhaps statistically in some regions accurate) stereotype to conclude that women need their own safe space to eat vegetables in private seems like a reach to me.

That's not what I said. It's true that I prefer to eat in private, but my observation was a general one. There is a mindset among some men (and women, as per your comment below) that men eat (or prefer) meat and women eat (or prefer) salad.

You see it on TV a lot, or at least I did: A couple goes out to dinner or lunch. The man will order steak and either red wine or something harder. The woman will order a salad and white wine. Obviously the scriptwriter could have had them order anything - soup, stew, fish, they could both have had salads, whatever. But I have never seen the steak/liquor meal ordered by a woman and the salad/white wine ordered by a man. Never.

They may, of course, in real life. But I'm talking about perceptions, stereotypes, and so forth - things that may be perceived but may not necessarily be true. For myself, if I go to a restaurant that serves a "western menu," I'm more likely to order fish. I remember when my mother and I used to go out for supper twice a month; we had a favorite restaurant, and my favorite meal was B.C. salmon, carrots, and a baked potato. My mother would try various things, and got upset because I always wanted the same thing. What she didn't realize was that I loved fish, and didn't get it that often unless someone went fishing and gave us some.

I mean, it also seems that some women have the exactly same mindset. Maybe I'm lucky that I live in a part of the world where we can all eat whatever we want and nobody really cares unless it's shark fin or whatever, but I assumed that this is the way things were like in most parts of the civilized world.

Not criticizing you here, just the overall sentiment that this stereotype should have any bearing on anything

Well, the conversation was focusing on women and vegans, and wondering about whether or not there are many men who are vegans.

Of course there are male vegans; there's a guy who has a YouTube channel where he rambles on incessantly about his garden. But he's also one of the people on Care2 (an extremely mis-named social activism site) who would regularly express hatred toward anyone who is not vegan. I'm talking about stuff that would be considered death threats and hate speech in Canada, and get him tossed off this forum in a short period of time if he were ever to come here and start posting his usual speeches.

 

[warpus]

That's not what I said.

Yeah I know, I wasn't saying you did, I was just explaining why stereotypes are not useful in this conversation. You're not the one who brought it up initially so I wasn't trying to say "hey now stop that Valka", but rather "the more we all know"..

 

[Manfred Belheim]

There's a profound logic fail in "it's much more socially acceptable for women to be vegan than for men to be, therefore female vegans need a safe space while male ones do not".

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yeah I know, I wasn't saying you did, I was just explaining why stereotypes are not useful in this conversation. You're not the one who brought it up initially so I wasn't trying to say "hey now stop that Valka", but rather "the more we all know"..

Stereotypes may not be useful, but the fact is that they exist and if we want to change them, they have to be acknowledged and refuted.

 

[Ryika]

They may, of course, in real life. But I'm talking about perceptions, stereotypes, and so forth - things that may be perceived but may not necessarily be true.

But they are true, and from an evolutionary point of view we even have a pretty good understanding of a possible reason. A slim and healthy body is what makes a woman attractive, a muscular, strong body is what makes a man attractive. So of course, when you're on a date, you do what reinforces the idea that you are what the average person of the opposite sex finds attractive, be it conscious or not.

It's pretty silly that you want the "stereotypes" to be...

acknowledged and refuted.

...without even looking into the matter and finding out whether they're based in a statistical reality or not.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So again... if it's a stereotype that men aren't/shouldn't be vegans, how exactly can creating male-unfriendly vegan eating establishments be considered a good way to challenge and refute this stereotype? This is like an argument that's accidentally been channelled through a NOT gate.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

But they are true, and from an evolutionary point of view we even have a pretty good understanding of a possible reason. A slim and healthy body is what makes a woman attractive, a muscular, strong body is what makes a man attractive. So of course, when you're on a date, you do what reinforces the idea that you are what the average person of the opposite sex finds attractive, be it conscious or not.

It's pretty silly that you want the "stereotypes" to be...

...without even looking into the matter and finding out whether they're based in a statistical reality or not.

You missed the part where I said "if we want to change them."

Some people are very comfortable with stereotypes. Other people aren't.

 

[Ryika]

You missed the part where I said "if we want to change them."

Some people are very comfortable with stereotypes. Other people aren't.

Why would we want to change something that is true?

It's like refuting the stereotype that women are generally smaller than men. Do we need more tall women in movies?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Why would we want to change something that is true?

Because stereotypes are not always true.

It's like refuting the stereotype that women are generally smaller than men. Do we need more tall women in movies?

Why not?

 

[Ryika]

Because stereotypes are not always true.

Yeah, but this one is true, as studies like the one analyzed in the article I linked below show.

Why not?

That's not a valid response to the question of whether we "need" (in response to your "they have to be acknowledged and refuted") more tall women in movies.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Save a vegetable, eat a vegan.

 

[Hrothbern]

Some people are very comfortable with stereotypes. Other people aren't.

Very true as such
and applicable for many things where you find your identity

But attractiveness is rooted deep down in your instincts and social bonding factors, out of reach of your consciousness and intellectual development.
If you stretch the gap there between you and your nature too much, you don't do that for free.

Also to consider:
Sexual attractiveness was not evolutionary designed for the excitement of it:
It was designed to spot and mate the most healthy and fertile partner. As crude as it is.
For example partners with genes differing enough to avoid too often incest, but close enough to find family resemblances (the early childhood imprint story: https://peerj.com/articles/595/ ).
For example males with enough testosteron (muscular, lean) and healthy sperm (more symetrical face).

A culture can, like personal preferences, also have a gap with our nature.
A test done by asking females and males from our western culture to manipulate body images towards either more healthy or more attractive, showed that for male body images healthy and attractiveness were very close and spot on in the healthy zone of the BMI.
For female body images the attractive images had a lower BMI than the healthy images. Both being below the healthy zone of the BMI.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4892674/

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well, I'm quite confused now, and obviously only replying once a day or so isn't exactly keeping it fresh in my head, but you did essentially make a post basically saying "don't feed the trolls" didn't you? Well that was the last post I was referring to. And yes of course you can have more than one point, but one minute "don't feed the trolls" was your point, then the next minute "not everyone has to care about everything" is now your point. Not just one of your points, but THE point. So yeah, it's not clear what I'm supposed to be responding to.

And the other stuff definitely wasn't about you. You said "don't feed the trolls", so I responded by talking about the trolls. This doesn't meant that I'm saying you are one of the trolls just because I'm addressing you. I don't think that's particularly confusing or that anything I said contradicts that.

I did say "don't feed the troll". I don't think I ever said that was "THE" point... I think you just inferred that on your own. In any case I already acknowledged that was something I said didn't I?:

I'm not trying to silence you or "stop you from criticising". I did say "don't feed the troll" I admit that, but look at what I also said... I told you that I am fine with the argument you are making.

So again, my points (these are not my only points, but they are two that I am making mostly to you and @warpus ) are: 1.)This "man tax" is tongue-in-cheek jokes, intended to troll and create controversy to create buzz for the restaurant, by winking to the target customers at the expense of people they don't think would eat there anyway. 2) The irritation/outrage/indignation/grievance etc towards this trolling is understandable, however it is also in most cases, selective, self-serving and hypocritical, in that this same behavior in a different context, would be hand waved by the some of the same folks who are criticizing in this case, because the trolling is directed at them instead of others. Also, in this way it is yet another example of the famous "Don't like the who/what, gonna hate the how, regardless" principle.

I am back from my weekend trip, so I'm here to check my mail.. but if you think my main argument is crazy, then I don't think it's possible for us to agree on anything in this thread, because I also think your argument is crazy. I was hoping there was a misunderstanding regarding the meaning of something, but if we both have this same position, then I don't think we're going to get anywhere talking about it anymore.

It seems like there is a discussion going on now around one of the main points in your long post that I said was "baloney"... the idea you were expressing, (that I was dismissing) was that there was no evidence/tradition/validity whatever, in the perception that meat-eating versus veggie eating is/has been perceived as correlated to male v. female. I readily concede that I don't live in Canada so maybe you are right that its just a cultural difference, but Valka's comments seem to indicate that the perception/sterotype whatever is a reality there too. So for you to suggest I made it up seemed a little unfair. I'm not saying the trolling isn't sexist. It is. However, can we agree that it is also publicity stunt trolling, rather than a systematic attempt to oppress men? Can we agree that some (not necessarily your) of the unhappiness expressed towards this trolling is hypocritical? Please note that by saying it is hypocritical I am not saying that the criticism is invalid, just that it is selective indignation in many cases (again not necessarily in your case).

I thought you were better than using such dishonest tactics in an argument. Guess I was wrong. Clearly you are now a part of the "everyone who disagrees with me must be portrayed as the worst possible human being ever" crowd.

Huh? WTH is this about? My use of the word "hope"? If that's it I apologize for offending you, but I would expect that my posting history speaks for itself by now, better than for you to fixate on one particular word and get offended? I mean... am I wrong? I think I'll just chalk this up to you being in a bad mood and leave it at that.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yeah, but this one is true, as studies like the one analyzed in the article I linked below show.

Yes, women tend to pay more attention to nutrition, calories, and a balanced diet. Yes, historically there was the idea that men need and deserve meat because they work harder, and women don't need or deserve as much meat because apparently women's work isn't really work.

When we lived on the acreage, the men would get the garden ready for planting in the spring. After that, planting, hoeing, weeding, etc. were the responsibility of my mother, grandmother, and when I got old enough to work in the garden (supervised, of course), I was expected to help weed and pick stuff when told to. We had two gardens - one large, one medium, and one small. The small one was for the strawberries. The others had the potatoes, carrots, lettuce, radishes, kohlrabi, etc. and I'll never forget the one disastrous year when my mother planted pumpkins. They grew every damn way they wanted, and became a tripping hazard. My mother hadn't done her research carefully enough on that, so never again.

Yes, women tend to do most of the shopping and cooking. In my family, shopping was usually my grandmother's responsibility (my grandfather's responsibility was to drive her to the store, then sit on a bench talking to other men who drove their wives to the store; the only thing they bought for themselves was their tobacco products). She did the cooking.

But after my grandfather died, my dad and I took over the shopping (my grandmother made the list). My dad and I each took a cart and started on opposite ends of the store. There were some things that were his responsibility, while others were mine. We'd meet in the middle, eliminate the duplicated stuff (there was usually some), see what we'd both forgotten, argue about the 10 boxes of fudge mix he dropped into his cart (he was fond of fudge, but I'd catch hell from my grandmother if she knew he was buying so much; at times it was like dealing with a 5-year-old).

I've never been much of a cook. There are a few basic things I do well, and have discovered that I like experimenting with chocolate (chocolate-coated grapes; if I had the patience for that now it might be nice to have some again, but the recipe makes far too many for just one person and this isn't something you can freeze for later). I'm mostly a microwave-it or just open a can, insert spoon/fork, and eat person. My dad, on the other hand, was an excellent cook. He was also an improviser, and I can't recall that any of his experiments turned out inedible, unless he happened to use an ingredient to which I was allergic.

That's not a valid response to the question of whether we "need" (in response to your "they have to be acknowledged and refuted") more tall women in movies.

Do I have to label every sarcastic reply as sarcasm? I rarely watch movies, so the height of the actresses is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[warpus]

I readily concede that I don't live in Canada so maybe you are right that its just a cultural difference, but Valka's comments seem to indicate that the perception/sterotype whatever is a reality there too. So for you to suggest I made it up seemed a little unfair.

There is a stereotype that men like meat. Any sort of BBQ-related commercial on TV will likely have men saying stuff like "MEAT!" and "Bring out the meats!" or whatever. I've never heard of the opposite though, in that women are supposed to be more likely to be vegan.

Update since the last paragraph: I did some digging and it seems that 80% vegans (in the U.S.) are women. I'm surprised to be honest! It seems that vegetarians are an almost equal split gender-wise, but veganism seems to appeal to women a lot more than it does to men. I've been to vegan restaurants and I didn't notice any gender imbalance, so that's what I was going by. But it seems that my anecdotal observations have fooled me. So on this point, fair enough

Either way though, I don't see what that has to do with anything. The "made up" stereotype I was referencing was that men are walking into vegan restaurants mocking women and making fun of their food. Does that really happen so frequently? Frequently enough that vegan women need their own safe space restaurant, where they can be free to enjoy their food far removed from mockery? Somehow I don't think so. So the fact that women are more likely to be vegan than men doesn't really matter in this conversation.

I'm not saying the trolling isn't sexist. It is. However, can we agree that it is also publicity stunt trolling, rather than a systematic attempt to oppress men?

It'd be pretty hard for a vegan restaurant to genuinely oppress men. I never said men were being oppressed though. I just said that the restaurant was being sexist and that it was fair for people to criticize them for it.

I don't like this "Only criticize sexism if it's being used to genuinely oppress someone" standard. It is far too low for my liking.

Can we agree that some (not necessarily your) of the unhappiness expressed towards this trolling is hypocritical?

Yeah, there's hypocrites out there. But I don't know what that has to do with my personal take on this. In a response to me, a mention of hypocrites would only make sense if I was in some way being hypocritical. I'd like to think that I'd have the exact same reaction if this was an Arby's charging women 20% more and giving preferential seating to men. Of course such a thing never happened so you wouldn't be able to verify that I'm not hypocritical in this case.. but you'll just have to take my word for it that I'd be saying exactly the same things that I'm saying in this thread, if that were to ever happen.

That other people out there are being hypocritical here make no impact on any of my statements.

Please note that by saying it is hypocritical I am not saying that the criticism is invalid, just that it is selective indignation in many cases (again not necessarily in your case). Huh? WTH is this about? My use of the word "hope"? If that's it I apologize for offending you, but I would expect that my posting history speaks for itself by now, better than for you to fixate on one particular word and get offended? I mean... am I wrong? I think I'll just chalk this up to you being in a bad mood and leave it at that.

It's hard for it to be selective, when it is a thread here that when you click into it, you're supposed to focus on the facts within this thread, and this particular story. I call it out for what it is. What else am I supposed to do? Play a game of whataboutism? That would be intellectually dishonest of me. I click into thread, I read the story, and I give my honest opinion.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Edit: Oh go on then, one last stab at a proper reply.

1.)This "man tax" is tongue-in-cheek jokes, intended to troll and create controversy to create buzz for the restaurant, by winking to the target customers at the expense of people they don't think would eat there anyway.

You categorising it as a "tongue-in-cheek joke" would only seem to be relevan if "it's just a joke" was universally accepted as an excuse for doing things. Whereas, as I'm sure you're aware, there are many examples of things that are jokes which people still take offence to and that offence is widely seen as legitimate (such as... just to pick a completely random example off the top of my head... switching your avatar on an internet forum to the Confederate Flag). Whether or not you see this as something worthy of offence is of course subjective, but pointing out that it's a joke/trolling doesn't really constitute an argument as to why anyone should not be offended by it.

2) The irritation/outrage/indignation/grievance etc towards this trolling is understandable, however it is also in most cases, selective, self-serving and hypocritical, in that this same behavior in a different context, would be hand waved by the some of the same folks who are criticizing in this case, because the trolling is directed at them instead of others. Also, in this way it is yet another example of the famous "Don't like the who/what, gonna hate the how, regardless" principle

As warpus also said, unless you're accusing me personally of that hypocricy then there's no real reason for me to address this or comment on it. I personally was commenting on the obvious hypocrisy* on the other side.

*by which I mean "double standard" which is I presume how you're using the word.

 

[metalhead]

It'd be pretty hard for a vegan restaurant to genuinely oppress men. I never said men were being oppressed though. I just said that the restaurant was being sexist and that it was fair for people to criticize them for it.

I don't like this "Only criticize sexism if it's being used to genuinely oppress someone" standard. It is far too low for my liking.

It's fair to point it out, sure. Charging a gender more is textbook gender discrimination. But I think if you are going to genuinely criticize it, you need to dig a little deeper than, "This is gender discrimination and therefore it is wrong." The motive is critical in determining if it is deserving of criticism. If there doesn't appear to be a reasonable motive, that might also be worthy of criticism. I agree that it doesn't have to amount to "oppression," because in this context you'd be hard-pressed to explain how this is genuinely oppressive. But the nuance always seems to get lost, and it shouldn't, because the details matter.

That's not to say you were doing this, I'm just making an observation and your post seemed relevant to it.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There is a stereotype that men like meat. Any sort of BBQ-related commercial on TV will likely have men saying stuff like "MEAT!" and "Bring out the meats!" or whatever. I've never heard of the opposite though, in that women are supposed to be more likely to be vegan.

I was recently reading an old Archie comic and the particular story that applies here was probably from the '50s. Anyone who's read those comics knows that Jughead doesn't like girls; his preference is for hamburgers, pizzas, or basically any kind of food.

So in this story a girl comes up to him and asks him for a favor. His first reaction is (paraphrased) "Why ask me, you know I don't like girls." However, he gets talked into it, and is pleasantly surprised when he's taken to a backyard barbecue... and the reaction of the other girls there (it's a sorority party) is "Oh, thank heavens! You found a man, so we can get the barbecue going!" (perpetuating the stereotype that women know nothing of how to operate a barbecue).

Jughead, of course, is ecstatic when they repay him by inviting him to stay and eat.


BTW... men don't always get perfect results when barbecuing. My dad found that out when he and a couple of buddies decided to take the hibachi along when they went on a fishing trip. My dad ran into the house, grabbed a sack of charcoal briquets, ran back to the truck, and off they went. It wasn't until they got there that they realized that he'd only thought he grabbed the briquets.

In reality, he'd accidentally grabbed a sack of dry dog food... which isn't very useful when you're trying to cook your supper.

The dog didn't mind too much, though. Since my dad had run off with his food, Snoopy made do with table scraps.

Update since the last paragraph: I did some digging and it seems that 80% vegans (in the U.S.) are women. I'm surprised to be honest! It seems that vegetarians are an almost equal split gender-wise, but veganism seems to appeal to women a lot more than it does to men. I've been to vegan restaurants and I didn't notice any gender imbalance, so that's what I was going by. But it seems that my anecdotal observations have fooled me. So on this point, fair enough

It could be that women are more likely to be concerned for animal rights, or at least there may be men who don't answer the surveys honestly - too embarrassed to admit even to an anonymous survey that they might not be into the stereotypical masculine activities like hunting, barbecuing steaks, etc.

The truth is that there are female trophy hunters and women who are good at barbecuing (my dad's girlfriend being one of those who knew her way around a barbecue). My music theory teacher was a trophy hunter. I remember the day she took me up to the main part of the house (the music studio was in the basement) and I was sickened by all the animal heads on the walls and the bearskins draped here and there.

My dad was a hunter, but at least he only took what we needed for meat to get us through the winter. Living out in the country as we did in the '60s, and winters being more severe in this region then in comparison to now, it wasn't always feasible to get to town to go shopping. So that's why he went hunting every year and we had three garden patches; my mother and grandmother did a lot of canning in the fall.

Either way though, I don't see what that has to do with anything. The "made up" stereotype I was referencing was that men are walking into vegan restaurants mocking women and making fun of their food. Does that really happen so frequently? Frequently enough that vegan women need their own safe space restaurant, where they can be free to enjoy their food far removed from mockery? Somehow I don't think so. So the fact that women are more likely to be vegan than men doesn't really matter in this conversation.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that men would be going into the restaurant and mocking the women for being vegan. The vegan aspect of this whole thing isn't even the main point. The main point is the 18% tax (voluntary) asked of the men eating there, to point out to them what it's like for women who earn significantly less than men for the same jobs. The "women will be seated before men" is unnecessary snark, in my view... unless these particular women have experienced going to establishments where it's the policy to seat men before women.

 

[JollyRoger]

Next thing you know, MRAs will be complaining that there is more seating in the women's restroom than the men's.