Discrimination In Plain View: Walking Out of a Restaurant

Imagine sitting down at a restaurant, scanning through the food menu and coming across a section labeled "For white people only". This overt discrimination is illegal, socially unacceptable and few would accept this situation. Many would walk out of the restaurant and never return.

What if a section of the restaurant's menu said, "For ladies only"? I confirmed that this wasn't a joke. Because I am a man, the waiter would not allow me to order food from that part of the menu which was specifically priced much lower than the rest of the menu. This was the restaurant's version of a "Ladies night special" a policy with highly questionable legal standing.

In college, a professor once taught us a simple lesson about discrimination. He said, "If you make a statement about a group of people and are unsure if it is racist, sexist, ageist... just substitute a different group. If you find the new statement is offensive or inappropriate, then the first statement probably was too."

This "For ladies only" section of a menu is an incredibly mild form of discrimination. I am well aware of the fact that there are millions of other more serious issues to deal with as a society.

On the other hand, why should labeling a section of a restaurant menu "For ladies only" and offering preferred pricing be acceptable or even legal? As a customer, you get to choose where and how to spend your money. I chose to walk out and never return until they remove their "For ladies only" section of the menu.

Note: In order to avoid giving this restaurant any publicity, I have chosen to not name the location.

Please join Howard's Facebook Fan page

 

 

 

Follow Howard Steven Friedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/howardsfriedman

Comments

[AcademicFreedom]

12:24 PM on 07/10/2011

In St. Louis, Mo, at Grand and 64 there is a fast food restaurant that, if you are white, you are going to get waited on slowly and may not get waited on at all. I did not believe this, so I went there at around 2:00pm in the afternoon (the lunch crowd is very mixed, therefore the employees have no real chance to discriminate). I walked in the door with some friends (all white) and we waited for about 5 minutes; no one came out of the back. We left; as we got in the car, an AA woman walked in the restaurant, someone immediately came from the back and helped her. Oh well ... I guess it is their right to serve whomever they want to whenever they want to. Next time you are in St. Louis check it out - it will happen.

[TheParson]

01:19 AM on 06/15/2011

Can't wait to read the comments from all the women who will be twisting and turning to justify this discrimination.

Don't you know? Men are an oppressor class and discriminating against them is a blow for justice.

[Carrie Dowell McCully]

11:27 AM on 06/12/2011

Mr. Friedman, It is really unfortunate that you have allowed your knickers to get into a knot over a ladies only menu. While anything can sound vile if you ponder potential negativity, legalities and persecution, a "Women's Only" menu is just a throw-back to kinder gentler days in a European tradition. As a women, I think the occasional traditional throw-back is charming and nostalgic.

Dining and Food are experiential with the potential for lasting associations and fond memories. I would encourage you to try to enjoy your meals and your guest and leave the anger and crusading for something that is really important.

[AcademicFreedom]

12:28 PM on 07/10/2011

I think it would be charming and nostalgic that every woman would have to succumb to the demands of every male. And, women would not be allowed to vote - throughout most of history, women were not allowed to vote and the world thrived. Also, my golf club now allows women to be members and has done away with the men's only days - things are much slower (although seeing a few camel toes when they bend over to pick up their balls or tee up, may just be worth the frustration of poor golfing). Therefore, I'm all for the women's only lunch, and the men's only clubs and right to vote.

[bobclapp1936]

07:11 PM on 05/25/2011

Howard you pass,with an A, any class in logic, metaphysics, or semantics that I ever enrolled in, and it was several. Hence I agree with you, BUT ( Here it comes ) I also marched with CORE in Mississippi and King in several places. Never have I seen such violent and evil treatment of human beings for simply being BLACK. In these unique situations, there is NO such thing as a moral equivalency with most other forms of discrimination: sexism, homophobia, ageism,etc. So what I'm saying is in NO way is "Ladies only" on par with "Whites Only."

[Sidewalk Social]

06:42 PM on 05/25/2011

Women do make less than men. Have you not seen the statistics?

[Johnny Bomers]

05:17 PM on 05/27/2011

If a man buys a suit it will be tailored to fit at no cost to him. It is considered a service. When a woman buys a suit she is charged for any alteration. A woman who gets a haircut pays more than a man. So give the restaurant a break. If you don't like it don't eat there. Go stand on a corner and protest some inequalities happening to women. My wife forced me to write this. Just kidding.

[Sidewalk Social]

05:40 PM on 05/27/2011

Thank you :)

[Oceras]

06:33 PM on 05/25/2011

Speaking of a different brand of discrimination, I just took a trip to the southwest and many places I went to had a sign that read, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." I remember just such signs from when I was growing up in the 50's and 60's. These signs were used by management to discriminate specifically against blacks. They were wrong then and they make me very uneasy today. If the proprietors just mean drunks and rowdies, why don't they just say so?

[DMSmith]

06:20 PM on 05/25/2011

I found this objectionable for the simple reason that it seems to indicate that ladies need a lower-priced choice. As if - and here's the rub - it were assumed that ladies had (made?) less money and that this is accepted and acceptable. Therefore we 'men' offer them this as an acknowledgement of this 'need.'
The refusal to offer a man this choice as well is also where it becomes true discrimination. It IS offensive - regardless of their intent. To those who would say this was not their intent, I add: Ignorance of the effect of one's actions is neither justification nor excuse.
IF this were offered in the belief that women might want a lighter - therefore less costly to serve - option, the answer is simple: Label it 'For those with a light appetite' and make it available to all. Voila - discrimination gone.