If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Is it legal that Men get charged more then Women?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I've just seen some party advertised at a club and it says Women £10 entry - men £15
Women have been campaigning for decades for equal rights to match men - so is it legal to charge someone 50% more because of their Gender?
Women have been campaigning for decades for equal rights to match men - so is it legal to charge someone 50% more because of their Gender?
0
Comments
Same goes for the 'Ladies go in free' nights IMO.
Then again, no sane person would ever want to visit a bar/club that offers free or discounted entry to women. Guaranteed to be a fucking dive.
lol you should come to singapore, every wednesday night the ladies get in free at all the clubs AND get free drinks til 10-11pm....no wonder they're all shitfaced by the time i turn up.
No, it's a breach of the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975. From the Equality and Human Rights Commission:
The issue is that no-one ever complains though. When they do, they win. Carlisle Football Club were nearly fined this year when someone pointed out that offering pensioners cheaper season tickets effectively discriminated against men aged 60 to 64. Obviously, that was a fairly innocent mistake, so they just changed the rules and everything was hunky dory. Incidentally, if a company advertises an event as being cheaper for women than men, they're not only breaking that law, but they're also breaking advertising laws.
The law doesn't apply to private member's clubs though.
Oh wait, I forgot - discrimination against men obviously doesn't exist...
It's a business that's open to the public, and so it subject to laws about providing services to the public. I suppose we could go back to a society where businesses put signs on the door saying "No Jews, no blacks, no dogs," but I don't think I want to live in that sort of society.
Charging a higher price is not preventing anyone from going in if they want to.
It's effectively trying to prevent men going. How about women: £10, men: £5000? That would be fine under your system, but don't pretend it wouldn't just be a way of banning without technically banning a particular group. Anyway, I can't be bothered to argue with the ultra-libertarian argument. The point is it's illegal, and you could sue them for it.
I find it hard to believe you cannot see the difference in motive between charging £15 and £5000.
Even if I never claim for a prang in my life I will have ended up paying thousands more to insuance companies than I would have had pay if I'd have been born with a cunt instead of a cock.
Awesome. Why read the tabloids with you around hey?
As a woman, I will earn about 17 percent less than a man over my lifetime, so I'm quite happy to take advantage of the cheap car insurance and cheap nightclub entry.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=167
Here's a bit more about this - stupid title, but the article makes sense.
You really think it's accurate to describe those things as 'decisions'?
Yes, it's a difference of £4985. But it's discrimination, in exactly the same way. And based on your argument, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with charging men more, be it £5 more or £4990 more. I mean what sort of price difference do you consider it crossing the line from a simple business decision to one of outright discrimination? And would you have any problem with a nightclub that charged more for black people that white people?
Incidentally, I've never come across one of these clubs personally. If I did, I probably wouldn't go in. I probably wouldn't report them because I don't care enough, but that doesn't mean that I don't think there is an important principle at stake here, and that the only way of upholding that principle is to make it illegal to discriminate against any group in the way you offer a service without a legitimate reason. Now if you have the opinion that business owners should be able to do what they want and let the market decide, then we're never going to agree on this. But I think I'd certainly prefer my society to yours.
There are legitimate reasons for the difference in male and female earnings, but there are also illegitimate ones.
Incidentally, did anyone post this on here recently? If you have an African or Asian-sounding name, you will recieve a positive response to a job application 1 in 16 times, compared to 1 in 9 times if you have a "white-sounding" name. Only tenuously on topic, but since the discussion kinda went that way...
Oh dear. :no:.
What would you say if women DIDN'T take breaks to have children? How selfish of us to not want to further the human race? Having had to watch one of the girls I work with have to go home last week because she was having stomach pains I would quite like it if that time were made that little bit longer on the before-giving-birth end, especially in jobs like mine.
Only women born before 1950. Keep up. I'll be getting my pension at exactly the same time as any male born in the same year as me.
And don't even get me started on a woman's CHOICE to have a baby or work in a low-paid job or get passed over for promotion because she's recently married and of a childbearing age.
As it happens, I agree that the club entry is unfair, but this is not even in the same league.
No, it's not right. Not only is it against the law but the practice also treats women like a commodity to lure men into the establishment, which is pretty demeaning. If women had achieved equality in other areas, such as earning as much money as men, then I would put this issue higher on my agenda, but seeing as they don't...
Ultimately though, we have to live our lives! The best way is to adopt an egalitarian perspective and try and shape policy when we have the opportunity to. Obviously, currently none of it is in the political environment and so trying to get anything changed wont work as politicians will not want to push the agenda as it will more likely annoy people than get them votes. That's how democracy works
No.
Yes, quite. And what would happen to society if we all did decide to stop doing both those things, as they aren't financially lucrative decisions?
If you want a future generation of workers, and you want well staffed schools and hospitals, the least you could do is pay the workers well and not penalise them for doing work that everyone in society benefits from.
I'm With Stupid - I have my own anecdotal evidence that that is true. I have an Asian first name, and when I was applying for jobs I got far more interviews when I called myself Sarah on my CV than when I used my real name.
What if it's an event being held at a private members club but being offered to the public? i.e. anyone can turn up and walk in as long as they pay on the night.
Also I find it interesting to see how many women here are ready to see unfair treatment of the genders when it works in their favour ..
It's not just £5 more it's 50% more.
If you replaced the word male / female or men / women with black / white or straight / gay and said one group had to pay more then the other then I bet you'd be seeing a lot less people supporting the two different prices.
I think it's wrong, and I always have done, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go campaigning against it because a) I don't go to those sorts of places anyway, never have, and b) I have bigger things to think about than whether men are going to be stupid enough to pay an extra fiver to get into a club.
Franki - I think the concern rather was that people can be generally dismissive about equalities issues if they are not the typical 'young girl is discriminated against'. Even within the feminist movement itself there were issues (that a lot of progress has been made on now) where it was pushing rights for white women, but ignoring the issues that affected black women.
There is no instant-win situation, this is going to take generations to get to the point where things are fair. Where men and women don't have gender roles which ultimately are more destructive than glass ceilings or parental rights in court. The only way to make progress is to adopt a universal perspective that all people should be afforded the same opportunities (unless, of course, they're fat - see other thread
Imagine if it was the other way round, you say you have bigger things to think about whether men are [stupid enough? loaded language just serves to stoke animosities which is what we need to fight against] going to pay an extra £5 to get into a club - a man could just as easily say (and plenty have) that they have better things to worry about than whether a woman gets passed up for a promotion just because she's a woman.
The egalitarian perspective is that we are not men / women / white / black / gay / bisexual, but that we are all people, and that we need to stick together to bring down barriers and social constructs and social expectations or what we should or should not do because of our sex / gender / sexuality / colour.