Restaurant charges "man tax"

[Manfred Belheim]

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

It's a café though, not a restaurant. Cafes basically rely on passing trade while people are out shopping or whatever, so it's mainly just about being in the right location and having "café" written somewhere prominently.

 

[warpus]

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

Using sexism to try to generate publicity sounds like a risky strategy to me. And I mean it's easy enough to generate publicity. Racism would work a lot better even.

 

[Zkribbler]

I'll see yor penis and raise you a bra.

Chinese Restaurant Offers Women Discounts Based On Their Bra Size
Women who wear A-cup bras were offered a 5 percent discount, while G-cup wearers could get a 65 percent price cut.

The larger the breasts, the bigger the discount ― that’s the controversial promotion a restaurant in Zhejiang province, China, offered this month. The eatery, called Trendy Shrimp, prompted furore for its provocative price-cuts, which an incensed local called “discriminatory” and “vulgar.”

Trendy Shrimp, which is located in a mall in the city of Hangzhou, advertised the unusual discount in a poster placed outside the restaurant on July 31, the Qianjing Evening Post reported.

“The whole city is looking for BREASTS,” reads the placard, which features an accompanying image of animated female characters with varying breast sizes and a table showing how much of a price cut a woman would get based on her bra size.

According to the poster, women of all bra sizes would get some kind of discount at the eatery — though the percentage varied significantly. Women who wear A-cup bras would get a 5 percent discount, while G-cup wearers would get a 65 percent discount. (In China, discounts are expressed differently than in the U.S. The lower the number, the better the deal.)

The poster was removed within a few days following a public backlash, said Lan Shenggang, the restaurant’s general manager.

Lan, however, defended the offer, insisting that customers had responded positively to it. “Once the promotion started, customer numbers rose by about 20 percent,” he said, according to the BBC.

“Some of the girls we met were very proud ― they had nothing to hide,” he said.

Point of Order: Girls don't have bra sizes; Women do.

I wonder if the offer extends to manssierres.

 

[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.

"People expect class" at a restaurant? McDonalds and KFC are both restaurants. So is Hooters. People have all kinds of different expectations of restaurants and bars depending on lots of factors. I don't think its accurate to generalize that people expect more "class" at a restaurant than at a bar... I've been to some pretty classy bars and some absolute dump restaurants. The point of the promotions, whether its this "man tax" joke or "ladies get in free" is to accomplish some kind of goal. This stunt, promotion, whatever you want to call it... seems to have accomplished the goals...one of which, I believe JR correctly identified thusly:

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

Yep, this exactly.

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"

I don't need to tell folks here how powerful the "piss-off/irritate/troll your "enemies" tactic is in building a brand and creating a loyal appreciative fan base. The fact that certain people are so apoplectic about it, people who as many of us have already identified, wouldn't set foot in a vegan restaurant anyway... I mean its all upside from their perspective... they pump up their target patrons at the cost of trolling people who aren't remotely potential customers. And frankly, the louder guys howl about it, the more their target demographic loves it. They love to see those guys squeal and cry, so they can once again smugly mock you and remind you of your male privilege... complaining about how sexist and they are how they're driving away the theoretical male customers... yeah that's just giving them what they want.

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.

Yeah, but statements like this are just more salty tears for them to stir into their lattes, right? "Someone... not me, but someone, will make them pay for their trolling... any day now..." I mean you've heard that before in plenty of contexts... it doesn't happen... and they love to hear people say stuff like this, because all it does is feed the "look at how these radical right wing males are bullying us and threatening us" narrative, and it causes their target demographic to rally behind them... I mean we've seen this play out time and time again.

Plus... even if the cafe was attacked somehow... all that would do is give them an insurance windfall, and even more press... and an even bigger martyrdom narrative, making their business even more famous.... In other words... don't feed the troll guys

 

[Manfred Belheim]

"look at how these radical right wing males are bullying us and threatening us"

I know this is in quotes so it's not you saying it, but... you have to be radically right wing to not want to be treated like crap? That's rather worrying. I mean you already apparently have to be an MRA.

 

[warpus]

"People expect class" at a restaurant? McDonalds and KFC are both restaurants.

Technically McDonald's is a restaurant, but you know I was talking about a sit-down restaurant with ambiance, not a fast food joint.

If someone says "Wanna go out to a restaurant tonight for dinner?" most people would not assume that the person has McD's in mind.

This stunt, promotion, whatever you want to call it... seems to have accomplished the goals...

I mean yeah, they used sexism as a way to stir things up in the media and to get some exposure, whether good or bad. Being sexist will get people talking, so that's not an especially surprising effect.

I don't really get what saying "Yeah they wanted people to talk about them and they succeeded" is really supposed to be in terms of a point. Yeah, they got people talking about their business. If they slapped a baby and hung it upside down outside their restaurant they would get people talking too. Doesn't mean it's right or a good idea.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You're getting dangerously close to radical right wing rhetoric there.

 

[red_elk]

If they slapped a baby and hung it upside down outside their restaurant they would get people talking too. Doesn't mean it's right or a good idea.

Or alternatively, if they slapped a vegan lesbian woman...

 

[warpus]

You're getting dangerously close to radical right wing rhetoric there.

Just because I don't think McDonald's is really a restaurant doesn't mean I'm radical or right wing...

but if that's what the latest right-wing fanatics are writing about, then I might just have to pick up their latest pamphlets

 

[Sommerswerd]

I know this is in quotes so it's not you saying it, but... you have to be radically right wing to not want to be treated like crap? That's rather worrying. I mean you already apparently have to be an MRA.

Yeah no, I agree with you... No one wants to be treated like crap... well, maybe unless her name is Madame Le'Pain and she wears a choice leather/spandex outfit ... but I digress...

The point is this place isn't treating you like crap, cause you've never (and would never) go to a cafe like this, right? So you're getting offended on behalf of the hypothetical (and potentially non-existent) males that you imagine would be theoretically mistreated by these mean-spirited naughty femenazi meanies... which tongue-and-cheek aside... I fully get and am fine with, but just based on our past convo... it seems like the kind of thing you in particular would frown upon, in a different context... the righteous indignation over hypothetical/imagined slights ... maybe I'm wrong?

Technically McDonald's is a restaurant, but you know I was talking about a sit-down restaurant with ambiance, not a fast food joint. If someone says "Wanna go out to a restaurant tonight for dinner?" most people would not assume that the person has McD's in mind. I mean yeah, they used sexism as a way to stir things up in the media and to get some exposure, whether good or bad. Being sexist will get people talking, so that's not an especially surprising effect. I don't really get what saying "Yeah they wanted people to talk about them and they succeeded" is really supposed to be in terms of a point. Yeah, they got people talking about their business. If they slapped a baby and hung it upside down outside their restaurant they would get people talking too. Doesn't mean it's right or a good idea.

I fully concede that I knew you weren't talking about Mc'Ds and that you meant more of a sit-down-waiter-take-your-order kind of place. But the issue you raised was "class" and to that point, I also mentioned Hooters, which you seemed to have sidestepped or missed... In any case, I will also say that Denny's is that kind of place, and if I told my wife I was taking her to a "restaurant" she would not assume I had Denny's in mind for some of the same reasons that folks exclude Md'Ds from their personal parameters of a "restaurant"... Like I said... "restaurant" has a wide spectrum. I know plenty of people for whom fast food/Denny's/Friendly's/Pizza Hut is the most "going out to eat" they can afford. So to say that the best they can afford doesn't count is more a reflection of your means than any objective definition of "restaurant." I hope you will agree on that.

Just because I don't think McDonald's is really a restaurant doesn't mean I'm radical or right wing...

Nope, just elitist

Anyway I think (hope) you and @Manfred Belheim get my main point... you're being trolled... and while I can appreciate the overwhelming temptation to rail against their provocations... you really just fall into their trap when you do so.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

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.

You're either not familiar with how intense that collective gender-based extortion can be, or quite the opposite and got used to be protective of that kind of exploitative values, called "good manners", "masculinity" or whatever, to evade all the disadvantages of being dissent.

I do not know how it is in Canada, but somehow I suspect it might be just the next level of what we have here these days.

 

[warpus]

.. Like I said... "restaurant" has a wide spectrum. I know plenty of people for whom fast food/Denny's/Friendly's/Pizza Hut is the most "going out to eat" they can afford. So to say that the best they can afford doesn't count is more a reflection of your means than any objective definition of "restaurant." I hope you will agree on that.

Yes, but in the end it doesn't really matter in regards to the point I was trying to make tbh. The point being that a nightclub that tries to attract male customers by promising large amounts of tipsy women on their premises, with the premise that it will be easier for these men to find a sexually willing mate later in the evening, can be expected to use shady tactics to achieve this, such as sexist policies. The women save money and the men have an easier time picking up, so most people don't mind.

Meanwhile a restaurant is not someplace you go with your genitals in mind, but rather your stomach. You don't go to meet tipsy women, you go to enjoy the pleasant ambience, good service, and well put together meals. As such you would not expect such shady tactics as sexism to be present in a restaurant's customer acquisition strategy, whereas at a shady nightclub that to some degree helps perpetrate rape culture, it seems a lot more fitting.

Anyway I think (hope) you and @Manfred Belheim get my main point... you're being trolled... and while I can appreciate the overwhelming temptation to rail against their provocations... you really just fall into their trap when you do so.

Personally I feel it's important to stand up to sexism or racism even if it the people involved feel it's just a game or whatever. I certainly don't think it's worthwhile to downplay anyone's objections to sexism, under the premise of "oh you're just being trolled". This is a business that's doing this, they are in the public eye, so they deserve to be criticized for their behaviour even if it's just a game to them and a way to find more customers. It's not behaviour that should be normalized by society at large, and by just ignoring we are helping to normalize it, so I choose not to ignore it.

I mean, I don't really feel like I'm falling into any trap either. This restaurant is far removed from me, I'm not interacting with them in any way, I'm not talking about them on social media and helping spread their name, I'm just discussing their actions on an obscure message board. If some restaurant tried to be "edgy" by putting forth a "different pricing for different races" customer acquisition strategy, I hope we would all rise up against that sort of thing as well or at least agree that it's not something that belongs in our society.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yes, but in the end it doesn't really matter in regards to the point I was trying to make tbh. The point being that a nightclub that tries to attract male customers by promising large amounts of tipsy women on their premises, with the premise that it will be easier for these men to find a sexually willing mate later in the evening, can be expected to use shady tactics to achieve this, such as sexist policies. The women save money and the men have an easier time picking up, so most people don't mind. Meanwhile a restaurant is not someplace you go with your genitals in mind, but rather your stomach. You don't go to meet tipsy women, you go to enjoy the pleasant ambience, good service, and well put together meals. As such you would not expect such shady tactics as sexism to be present in a restaurant's customer acquisition strategy, whereas at a shady nightclub that to some degree helps perpetrate rape culture, it seems a lot more fitting.

OK so what about my (restated) point about Hooters? (we x-posted so you might have missed it, sorry)

Is Hooters the exception that disproves your rule about restaurants?

 

[warpus]

I don't really know much about Hooters tbh. It's just a restaurant that only hires women with big boobs, and they all dress provocatively? Is that about right?

If that's accurate, and you go to a restaurant with that "gimmick", I would actually say it wouldn't be surprising if men had to pay more. That would actually seem fitting, given the gimmick and premise. That way a husband could bring his wife or girlfriend to hooters, enjoy the added benefit of breasts everywhere, while his female companion could enjoy the food and ignore the breasts, and pay slightly less, since the place is targeted at men and women get less out of it overall. This of course completely ignores the existence of lesbians and homosexuals, but what can you do.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't really know much about Hooters tbh. It's just a restaurant that only hires women with big boobs, and they all dress provocatively? Is that about right?

Well OK, if you're saying you're just not really familiar with Hooters, then I guess you'll have to just take my word for it that Hooters approach soundly and roundly rebuts your point about "people expecting more class from restaurants" and the "sexism sells approach is for bars not restaurants" argument.

Personally I feel it's important to stand up to sexism or racism even if it the people involved feel it's just a game or whatever. I certainly don't think it's worthwhile to downplay anyone's objections to sexism, under the premise of "oh you're just being trolled". This is a business that's doing this, they are in the public eye, so they deserve to be criticized for their behaviour even if it's just a game to them and a way to find more customers. It's not behaviour that should be normalized by society at large, and by just ignoring we are helping to normalize it, so I choose not to ignore it. I mean, I don't really feel like I'm falling into any trap either. This restaurant is far removed from me, I'm not interacting with them in any way, I'm not talking about them on social media and helping spread their name, I'm just discussing their actions on an obscure message board.

As for your second point, while I can certainly appreciate and go along with the "fight injustice wherever it rears its ugly head" position... Do you agree that that kind of stance is exactly what gets people labeled as "SJWs" and "race-warlords" and "class warriors" etc in different contexts? Can you see that there is some irony in folks chaffing at the "MRA" label when they take the "give sexism towards males no quarter! You don't joke about stuff like that.."... when the irritation towards so-called "SJW" flows like water for taking essentially the same position?

 

[warpus]

Well OK, if you're saying you're just not really familiar with Hooters, then I guess you'll have to just take my word for it that Hooters approach soundly and roundly rebuts your point about "people expecting more class from restaurants" and the "sexism sells approach is for bars not restaurants" argument.

For a regular restaurant with no sexually-laden gimmicks, yeah, you're there to eat, so no sexism should be affecting the customer. The price you pay should be dependent on the ambiance, atmosphere, the quality of food, etc.

If your restaurant's gimmick is "see big boobs everywhere and stuff" then that changes things. You're not only there to eat, but also to look at boobs. As such you can expect some sexism, for instance in the hiring practices of the waitresses perhaps. Like I said before it also wouldn't be out of the question to expect sexist price points either, since the establishment is clearly marketed at men. With that in mind though you'd also expect them to think twice about charging men more, as that might drive men away. But either way, at a gimmicky place like that, it wouldn't seem out of place. At a regular restaurant, it would.

Do you agree that that kind of stance is exactly what gets people labeled as "SJWs" and "race-warlords" and "class warriors" etc in different contexts?

No. People usually rail against SJWs when they go out of their way to be offended by things that aren't really offensive. Here I am pointing out fairly blatant sexism.

Either way I don't really care what people label me as, as it pertains to my position here. If people want to say that I'm a communist for having these views, then whatever, that's irrelevant. Same with the other labels you list. It doesn't impact my point.

Can you see that there is some irony in folks chaffing at the "MRA" label when they take the "give sexism towards males no quarter! You don't joke about stuff like that.."... when the irritation towards so-called "SJW" flows like water for taking essentially the same position?

You'd have to point out specific examples I suppose. If a SJW (or anyone) points out blatant sexism against women, I would be behind them 100%, assuming everything checks out. So I mean personally speaking I don't see any irony at all in my personal approach to both situations.

 

[JollyRoger]

An MRA is just a SJW that feels that drycleaners have unfairly priced him out of wearing a blouse.

 

[Sommerswerd]

For a regular restaurant with no sexually-laden gimmicks, yeah, you're there to eat, so no sexism should be affecting the customer. The price you pay should be dependent on the ambiance, atmosphere, the quality of food, etc.

If your restaurant's gimmick is "see big boobs everywhere and stuff" then that changes things. You're not only there to eat, but also to look at boobs. As such you can expect some sexism, for instance in the hiring practices of the waitresses perhaps. Like I said before it also wouldn't be out of the question to expect sexist price points either, since the establishment is clearly marketed at men. With that in mind though you'd also expect them to think twice about charging men more, as that might drive men away. But either way, at a gimmicky place like that, it wouldn't seem out of place. At a regular restaurant, it would.

What you're essentially doing here is continually redefining "real restaurant" as "only those restaurants where my argument applies"... You say "X is true for restaurants"... I reply "not for these restaurants, so your argument is incorrect" ...and you reply with "Oh well that's not a 'real' restaurant/ its gimmicky/ not what I subjectively consider a restaurant"... and so on... in other words... goalpost moving.

For example... If we (you and I) can subjectively change the parameters of what restaurants count as "regular" and so within the parameters that are subject to your rule... then I would say that this particular restaurant isn't subject to your rule... because its also clearly a "gimmicky" restaurant... It's a bohemian lesbian vegan cafe, clearly intended to cater to bohemian lesbian vegan customers. So by your standard, its perfectly understandable that they would make sexist rules to make it a more favorable environment for the kinds of customers they are trying to attract, agreed? I mean if you can define Hooters as gimmicky then I certainly can define this lesbian bohemian cafe as gimmicky as well right?

No. People usually rail against SJWs when they go out of their way to be offended by things that aren't really offensive. Here I am pointing out fairly blatant sexism.

I don't follow your logic here. You say "blatant"... Don't you see that "blatant" is subjective? Don't you see that your decision that "things aren't really offensive" is also completely subjective? One man's "blatantly offensive" or "clearly X-ist" is another man's "not really offensive" or "its just jokes dude, get over yourself"... you don't see that?

 

[Commodore]

Plus... even if the cafe was attacked somehow... all that would do is give them an insurance windfall,

Actually, most insurance policies don't cover acts of war, terrorism, or civil unrest. You have to buy special policies for stuff like that and I doubt this establishment has purchased such a policy.

 

[warpus]

What you're essentially doing here is continually redefining "real restaurant" as "only those restaurants where my argument applies"... You say "X is true for restaurants"... I reply "not for these restaurants, so your argument is incorrect" ...and you reply with "Oh well that's not a 'real' restaurant/ its gimmicky/ not what I subjectively consider a restaurant"... and so on... in other words... goalpost moving.

No man, my point is that it depends on the purpose of the establishment. Maybe I didn't make that clear initially or I worded my point awkwardly, but it's been the same the whole time.

If you own a business and the only purpose of it is to serve food, having sexist pricing policies would be out of place.

However, if you own a business where boob watching and/or "picking up" are the selling points of your business, then customers might not be surprised to encounter sexist price points, such as the ones we see at nightclubs.

I don't follow your logic here. You say "blatant"... Don't you see that "blatant" is subjective?

I mean in this case it's as clear as crystal gravy. One gender has to pay more, the other gender has to pay less. It's textbook.

Don't you see that your decision that "things aren't really offensive" is also completely subjective?

I view most sexism as offensive, and I would hope that most other people do too. If somebody doesn't view sexism as offensive, then what am I doing talking to such a person anyway?

Certain exceptions exist in society of course, such as female-only gyms, and those exist for good reasons and I do not view them as offensive for that reason. Or like I've tried to explain, places like nightclubs or strip clubs or boob-themed restaurants might have sexist policies in place as a way to attract one of the genders in a specific way. Since one of the selling points of their business model is sex appeal, which depends on gender, they more or less get a pass from society in that regard, since they're shady in the first place, so what would you expect..