STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Cafe Brags That They Discriminate Against Men
By Joe Jarvis - August 07, 2017

As a business, if you want to promote equality, the first thing you need to do is make sure you treat your customers unequally based on their gender.

I love when people empower themselves by becoming business owners. Running a business is certainly not easy, but it still frees you from certain constraints. For instance, pay is not decided arbitrarily by a boss, it is based on the services you provide.

Ironically, one business owner in Australia is using her success to promote inequality.

The cafe in Australia touts their discriminatory practices. An article about the cafe on The Mirror reads: Cafe charges men more than women – for a very powerful reason.

Yes, for a powerful reason. Their discrimination is powerful because statistically, women earn 18% less than men in Australia. That is why it is okay to discriminate in hiring as well; the cafe called Handsome Her only hires women. And they also give preferential seating to women. Men must get to the back of the bus–or cafe, whatever.

The 18% “man tax” is technically optional during the one week per month the tax applies, with the proceeds going towards women’s causes. I wonder how many women volunteer to pay the tax, seeing as it is for a cause they presumably agree with.

Also ironic: the fact that it is all women working at the cafe. About 81% of workers in the category, “Hosts and hostesses, restaurant, lounge, and coffee shop,” are women. This gives us a glimpse into the true issue of the pay gap. Sometimes is not actually a pay gap, it is a work choice gap.

But hey, if this cafe owner wants to discriminate against men, I fully support her right to do so. She will probably face legal challenges, and that is too bad in my opinion. I don’t think the government should interfere with businesses. No one is forced to patronize the coffee shop.

Likewise, I wish all proponents of fixing the wage gap would take up the issue in the private sector. But when you start advocating legal repercussions, you are limiting the freedom of others.

The media promotes certain types of discrimination. Discrimination is only okay when it corrects a historical wrong.

One headline from a 2015 Huffington Post article reads: Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces Without White People.

“Our” ancestors kept slaves, so affirmative action, all black schools, and white free zones are all now acceptable. Nevermind that my ancestors were in Italy and Scotland in 1865. In fact, likely the majority of white Americans descend from post Civil War immigrants. Not that it should matter anyway; since when are we responsible for the sins of our relatives?

Private organizations should absolutely be allowed to discriminate. I wouldn’t want to force a black tailor to sew the white robes for a KKK outfit. Nor do I wish to force a baker or a florist to provide services for a gay wedding if they don’t want to.

I still don’t understand why a gay couple would want to give their business to a florist or a baker who is anti-gay. Ironically the same people understand that boycotting Chick-Fil-A is the proper response if you don’t like the organizations to which they donate.

I want to know who doesn’t want my money so that I don’t fund the promotion of something with which I disagree. I am glad the cafe is vocal against their anti-man stance. Otherwise, I might accidentally spend my money there.

I want to know about “white free zones.” I will feel much safer staying far away from them.

Of course, we need to stay vigilant about the legal action taken against honest business owners. But the true solution is obviously only supporting businesses which match up with your values.

Another thought; is humor a good way to combat these media driven cultural memes? I think the tv show Portlandia does a pretty good job of that. Check out the video below, and let me know what you think.

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • mot bot

    dumb!

  • toddyo1935

    Last I heard there were 63 genders – up from 58 a few weeks ago. I hope they know what they’re getting into. These people are certifiably insane.

    • Joe Jarvis

      I was wondering the same thing, isn’t the establishment being intolerant when they assume certain customers identify as male? Haha

      • Col. Edward H. R. Green

        Have a meal there, and when the check arrives with the 18% “man tax” applied, explain that, although you physically appear to be male, you are actually an inter-species gilt.

        In order not to be hypocrites, they should remove the “tax”, and welcome you with open arms as one of them !

  • Dezine304

    Let the vicious lawsuits begin! Why shouldn’t this place get destroyed by the liberal boycotts, protests and court rulings for blatantly biased “intolerance” by the so-called tolerant PC crowd. Ha! Don’t hold your breath!

    • jackw97224

      Yea, we are not going to hear about this from the commie/socialist Demoncrats and their commie/socialists in the MSM. Reverse discrimination, raving prejudice is evident in these women and it is best to avoid them.

  • RED

    Another display of Arrogant, Neurotic Femi-Fascism !

  • Norma Susan Smith

    I wouldn’t do business there. What a bunch of annoying little snots.

    • jackw97224

      Good! You have evidenced freedom to think and choose and just as those women have chosen to freely discriminate, so by example they urge you to do the same. Prejudices are not all bad.

  • Donald

    Things must be different there. Here in the US women own most of the wealth so I suppose we’d need to have a female tax.

  • Rosicrucian32

    Nobody in business really cares about politics or inequality or the environment. All they care about is MONEY. These little soap box forays into kinder gentler business dealings are only to get people to spend their money in that particular establishment.
    Speak with your money, and chose where to spend it wisely. Don’t give money to panderers, especially when in their diatribe to correct inequality, they create a new one of their own……just not good sense.
    If you want to get someone’s attention, start taking their money away.

    • jackw97224

      Mostly agree, but I think there are people in business who care about that which affects their businesses and money, so they might in fact care about those things you mention if in failing to do so, that causes negative consequences for the businesses.

  • sebastian puettmann

    The said thing is that women don’t even know how unhappy they are.
    Stefan Molyneux always quotes the statistics about how women are the most unhappy in decades.
    Just watch a film from the fifties and see how much more classy and beautiful women were back then.
    Check out Suzanne Pleshette in Blackbeard’s Ghost and tell me a women like this would not force you to become a whole different man.
    Who wants to see Kristen Wiig be sad?
    Who wants to see Charlize Theron beat up people?
    Who won’t get bored watching another feminist fart.
    Honestly, a women who is proud to belong to a victimized class, as if there was such a thing on the free market, is just a complete turn off.
    I won’t go for her.
    Let her save 18% on her coffee.
    Let her miss out on the real thing: a man.

    • Jose Cuervo

      sebastian puettmann wrote:
      “The said thing is that women don’t even know how unhappy they are.

      Stefan Molyneux always quotes the statistics about how women are the most unhappy in decades.”

      To my eyes, it looks like nobody in the USA appears to be very happy. Most people seem extremely pissed off and aggressively obnoxious. I have never seen such a level of divisiveness in my almost seven decades of life. I don’t remember anywhere near this level of all around strife before Bush 2 and Obama came into power. Everybody has an axe to grind. Oh well, it’s going to be an interesting end of life experience.

      • Sebastian Puettmann

        Well, you should be happy. You are the richest anyone has ever been and you will survive the next war because you have the best weapons.

        • jackw97224

          Matthew 19:24
          And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            See, Jackie, even your fictional god discriminates.

            And your contempt for wealth as such–demonstrated by your obvious support of that biblical passage that expresses contempt for it–is as irrational, as metaphysically baseless as religious belief itself.

          • jackw97224

            You missed the point. There is not a contempt for wealth and so you are in error. You seem to have a hatred for something. I guess you hate Jehovah God. The parable was merely explaining that men can be rich monetarily but poor spiritually. Faith without works is dead.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            The parable is based upon a metaphysically false premise: metaphysical dualism and its disregard–its contempt–for material existence as such, for it mistakenly regards “things of the spirit”, i.e the supernatural, as true reality, and all aspects of material reality (including wealth) as inherently base and evil BECAUSE it is material.

            Given that the concept of faith is metaphysically baseless, and thus epistemologically unsound, the concept of “faith” is invalid, i.e. a metaphysical dead end. It is non-cognitive. Like uttering “ish-de-triddle-de-gloop”, or some other nonsensical sound in lieu of the sound “faith”.

            Build a time machine, and get thee back to the 12th Century.

          • jackw97224

            Sorry for you and will pray for you. Narrow is the way. Some find it and some don’t. Some choose and some don’t but I do them no harm and so long as atheists do me not harm it is of no consequence. Good day to you.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            I neither intend nor do harm to anyone, for I recognize and respect people’s legitimate individual rights to peacefully manage their own lives, their own minds, and their own private property as they choose.

          • jackw97224

            Do you have a driver license?

            Revelation 3:16…King James Bible
            So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot,
            I will spue thee out of my mouth.

  • Heywood Jablome

    I completely agree that the owners have the right to do business with whom and howsoever they choose. Let the market decide, after all if they have this kind of policy in place, then they are losing or alienating half their market, you cant fix stupid. If this pollicy actually addressed a real issue in the public sphere it might have some validity,
    Fortunately people such as the women who are promoting this doctrine are in the minority statistically. The majority of women out there are more intelligent, more grounded and dont act like these fem-nazis.

    • oxi

      Wrong!

      If a male goes into this place and gets charged more for being a male or forced to the back of the line, he can sue these feminist witches and win!

      • jackw97224

        Well, if the well known cases of cake makers refusing to do business with homosexuals operates, then maybe you have a point. But then insurance companies charge more for men than women and they get away with it.

        • Col. Edward H. R. Green

          No, he has no legitimate point.

          The cake makers, and all other business owners, have the right to discriminate based upon their private property rights, which extend to their business, and their logical corollary rights to freedom of association and contract. Their potential and existing customers have the same rights.

          • jackw97224

            Individual differences. The cake makers certainly have the right to discriminate but then the government and its lawyers punish them for discrimination and that is the reality, whether one likes it or not. I would be perfectly fine if business owners had full freedom to manage their businesses and then reap the rewards therefrom.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            It is entirely one’s own responsibility to defend one’s legitimate individual rights from those who have made a career out of violating them, namely, government employees, including legislators, police, and attorneys (officers of government’s courts).

            THAT is reality, too.

            It is a dangerous mistake to regard government as a god and its employees as demi-gods who are to be unquestioningly and meekly obeyed as if one were their and their employer’s slave, and to regard laws as if they were divine decrees from a supernatural entity, therefore, not to be defied and physically fought against when they are blatantly, demonstrably, objectively unjust and immoral due to their violation of legitimate individual rights (in this context, private property rights, and one’s logical corollary rights to one’s personal liberty, freedom of association/disassociation and contract, and one’s right to freedom of speech, thought, and conscience).

            Asserting and defending one’s legitimate individual rights always requires vigilance, courage, and risks, for there will always be sociopaths and psychopaths (government positions at every level attract them like flies to a corpse) in any society of which one is a member. It is one’s own responsibility to defend oneself against those who mistakenly regard one as the means to their ends, as their slaves.

            You need no one’s permission but your own to be free. Just withdraw your consent to be treated like a slave from those who have no right in the first place to treat you as if you were.

            For further elaboration and how to liberate yourself from tyranny’s advocates and enforcers, I recommend that you read “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude” by Etienne de La Boetie

          • jackw97224

            Well, I agree with you. Political government is violence; it is tyranny. If withdrawing from the tyrant was easy, then most people would do so as most people can and do see the utter evil of politics and politicians. In reality, most people enjoy their slavery and even immorally see government/politicians as tool that loots A to satisfy B. As a Christian, I see evidence of Satan’s influence on politicians as evidenced by their actions, e.g. the duplicity of claiming this is the land of the free while simultaneously using aggression/force/violence to impose “laws” on those who disagree and who have done no harm. And of course such “laws” net those scoundrels shekels for their pockets via all sorts of fines, penalties and fees. How utterly evil is that? The duplicities are evident in their imposition of the elements of the 10 Planks of the Commie/Socialist Manifesto.

            Yes, I have read much of Étienne de la Boétie’s “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude.”

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            I commend your familiarity with de la Boetie. You have separated yourself from the herd if you have taken his message to heart.

            I presume that you are also familiar with Spooner’s “No Treason No.6 The Constitution of No Authority”.

          • jackw97224

            Yes. And I frequently recommend Spooner and then Marc Stevens No State Project and The Zero Aggression Project by Perry Willis and Jim Babka.

      • Col. Edward H. R. Green

        No one should be able to sue anyone for discrimination where one’s own private property, including business property, is concerned.

        Since no one is anyone else’s slave, no one has a legitimate right to the goods or services that any business owner sells. No business owner has a legitimate right to have anyone be his/her customer.

        Anti-discrimination laws must be abolished, not enforced, and until they are abolished, they must be defied by acts of civil disobedience.

  • Praetor

    Once the fad is over they will be out of business. Why be in business to turn away business. One time promotional opportunity, in a blink of the eye it will be over.!!!

  • JB Say

    Some dudes need to go in w bad wigs feeling like women

  • lois

    This has happened since the 1960’s. I like being a woman, and I like good men.

    God made man and woman to complement each other. The enemy, the serpent seed have been causing BIG turmoil, to get control of the world.

    The serpent seed will do anything to destroy the white Christian nations. The broken home is but another way to destroy. Most confusion of the sexes, I believe is from the broken home, and pain.

  • georgesilver

    OK first. Video. The joke wore off after about 60 seconds.
    Second. I discriminate all the time but I don’t let it rule my actions.
    Third. It’s all a question of balance.
    Overt discrimination (like the sign above) is a threat the same as religious discrimination like the Muslims and Jews adopt that infer others are inferior.
    Overt discrimination is the action of someone who is asking for retaliation.
    The media promotes and highlights overt discrimination (usually by craftily opposing) because it’s all part of the control mechanism. Our ‘masters’ want everyone to wear their ‘differences’ as a badge of honour and look out anyone that criticises them.
    The Ashkenazi Jews have this down to a fine art by now making it a rule to brand everyone that dares criticise them anti semitic.

    • jackw97224

      Interesting. Maybe these women operators have opened the door to all sorts of overt discrimination such as no Christians, no Protestants, no Catholics, No Jews, No homosexuals, no transgenders, no bisexuals, no vegans, no heterosexuals. Oh but then that would be freedom to choose and the government cannot tolerate freedom to choose as that would admit that people have and always have had prejudices.

  • oxi

    These women are an affront to equality and support rabid sexism and discrimination!

    They need to be forced to shut down or risk massive fines for discrimination. Feminism is discrimination!

    • jackw97224

      No, no, no…don’t use force to deny freedom, just let the free market operate. Let the women only, blatantly prejudiced women operate their game. The are clearly duplicitous. And besides, women are worse tippers than men, so these women “operators” are doubly harming themselves. Evil has a way of sourcing its own demise.

    • Col. Edward H. R. Green

      “They need to be forced to shut down or risk massive fines for discrimination.”

      I hope you’re not serious !

      • oxi

        So open discrimination is proper in your community? What’s next, racism?

        • Col. Edward H. R. Green

          I cannot speak for any “community” because collectives by any name, as such, do not exist. I can only speak for myself, and point out the reality that only individuals exist, and all individuals–including YOU, oxi–have private property rights that extend to their business property, as well as their rights to self-ownership, and freedom of association/disassociation, and contract.

          This means that racists and other bigots possess those rights, too, REGARDLESS of ANY law, including anti-discrimination laws, may dictate to the contrary.

          On the basis of these rights, people have the right to be free to discriminate PEACEFULLY against others, for whatever reason, where their own lives and their own property are concerned–and do so with impunity from the government. They also have the right to verbalize it, privately, and in public, without being physically attacked for it, or arrested, fined, or imprisoned for it, in accordance with their right to freedom of speech, thought, and conscience.

          You are advocating slavery and dictatorship by wanting people who PEACEFULLY express their discriminatory preferences to be robbed of their monetary property by coercive fines, and forced–ultimately at gunpoint and the threat of murder–to pay those fines, and associate with others against their will, to do business with others, to force them to hire, to sell their real estate, to rent their apartments, and interact in all other ways with others against their own will.

          Since no one is your slave, you have NO legitimate right to other people’s lives, their time, their labor, their businesses goods and services (which are their private property until they sell them); just as no one has any legitimate right to force you to be their customer, or tenant, or employee, or friend, or spouse.

          Laws that penalize and imprison people for exercising their legitimate individual rights (self-ownership; personal liberty; peacefully-acquired private property, regardless of the type and quantity; privacy; freedom of speech, thought, and conscience; freedom of association/disassociation and contract) are unjust, immoral laws; therefore, they do not objectively morally oblige one to obey them. They deserve one’s defiance and civil disobedience, NOT one’s compliance.

          Such laws–the kind that you advocate, oxi–patently deny people their fundamental humanity by denying them their freedom to exercise their faculties of reason and volition–their moral agency–in a peaceful manner, where their own lives, minds, and property are concerned, and those rights, and the freedom that they encompass, include the freedom to PEACEFULLY be a bigot, to think and act irrationally where one’s own life, body, and property are concerned.

          You want bigots and their businesses “shut down” ?

          There are only two ways that you may do so in a free and civilized society, and both ways accord with your and everyone else’s legitimate individual rights:

          (1) Economic boycott

          “Shut them down” economically in your own life by PEACEFULLY boycotting their business, and encourage your friends and neighbors to join your boycott. Do not to vandalize their businesses, for unlike peaceful acts of discrimination, THAT is a real crime.

          (2) Social ostracism

          “Shut them down” by shunning them, silently giving them “the middle finger greeting” when you see them, and encourage your friends and family to shun them, and “greet” them, too. Do not physically attack them, for THAT is a real crime.

          • oxi

            So you are a fake flag waver?

            Do not pay any taxes and watch how fast the government points a gun at you! The biggest threat to Liberty and us, the citizens, is our own government! Not North Korea or Russia, but DC!

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            I do not wave any flag, for I worship no government, or geographical area (country), nor do I worship any god or gods, secular or religious.

            I agree that government as such, anywhere, is a threat to individual liberty and freedom

  • r2bzjudge

    Obama brought up the pay gap, as a political issue. Turned out Obama’s White House was paying men more than women. Reality and sloganeering are two different things. Michael Medved pointed out that the pay gap occurs when women bear children.

  • r2bzjudge

    “The media promotes certain types of discrimination. Discrimination is only okay when it corrects a historical wrong.

    One headline from a 2015 Huffington Post article reads: Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces Without White People.”

    What historical wrong is being corrected by re-segregation? The Huffington Post is promoting racism. The Democratic Party is promoting racism, as well.

    • jackw97224

      Discrimination is one’s free choice and he must live with the consequences. I would reject this restaurant and explain why to my friends. I would also say that cake makers have the same freedom to reject homosexuals and their requests for wedding cakes.

  • jackw97224

    Yup, women are selfish. They vote to sanction politicians to loot A to satisfy B, i.e. they approved of legalized plunder. The maternal instinct overrides economic and moral sense. Oh, not all women but enough buy the commie/socialist Demoncrat lies to nearly put criminals like hillary clinton in office and for sure they vote in droves for the criminals like feinstein, pelosi, boxer and maxine waters. Remember, voting is a criminal act as it sanctions politicians to use violence to impose one’s opinions to the detriment of others.

  • Don Duncan

    I supported MLK until he started the “sit-ins”. Picketing is fine. Bringing a business to a halt by forcibly invading it to stop commerce is a violation of property right. There is no right to another’s property or service. Discrimination is a property right. Boycott is a valid response, a right to liberty of association. People boycott based on race but no one would suggest (yet) that they be forced to patronize a business/service.

    Imagine: The gay couple got a court to order the baker to provide his service, then came in and told the baker to keep the cake and they wouldn’t pay for it because they found a gay baker and will only patronize him (even though it is more expensive and inconvenient). The baker gets a court to order the couple to buy from him because he resents being discriminated against for being straight.

    Maybe these examples make it easier to appreciate other people’s rights, and focus on how those rights must be defended, no matter how offensive, so that we can all enjoy our rights.

loading