Chicago Rock discrimination?

magyar

angellotz wrote: »

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=8855741&postcount=16

perfect example! admittedly, men get charged more, more often. but i'm a girl so i'm biased. if i was a bloke i'd probably feel like OP does.

I'm not sure that's a good example, because women's hairstyles are usually more complex and so need more time spent on them.

I can't think of an example where women get the same service as men, but pay more.

By the way, on the point about students paying less, there is a logic here, because students are assumed to have less money. It's not as if women have less money than men. The point about the men/women thing is that the whole point about sex equality is there should be no difference between the sexes in terms of opportunity.

mymatebob

" it may be discrimination, but is it really that important?"

So there you go - discrimination is just fine and dandy

Ephemera

Hmmm....

Yes, it's discriminatory.

And when all discrimination against women is abolished I will have a lot more sympathy with you

Seriously, the OP does raise an interesting issue. Interesting that sexual discrimination is supposed to have been outlawed but is still rampant in our society - hairdressing costs a case in point. I work in engineering and have in the past (and probably now too but my male colleagues are not open to revealing their earnings) been paid significantly less than my male counterparts for doing the SAME job.

And in sports too, funny that racial discrimination has been outlawed but it's ok to treat female footballers as rank amateurs. For a start they rarely get access to mainstream TV, no money in it. And other female sportspeople are similarly treated.

In business, how many companies have a proportional upper level of staff? You will see ethnic diversity but rarely sexual equality. Women do have children and at a 'certain age' may wish to concentrate on raising a family but that doesn't mean she can't contribute to a company.

I'll get off my soapbox now, :rotfl::rotfl: rant over.

Ephemera

magyar wrote: »

It's not as if women have less money than men. The point about the men/women thing is that the whole point about sex equality is there should be no difference between the sexes in terms of opportunity.

Ah, but they usually do!

Women in general take on the lower paid jobs - look in your local supermarket, bank, office....do you see a 50:50 split of men and women?

And where are (mostly) all the men?
Managers, engineers (except me!), tradespeople, all the skilled, higher paid work.

Yes, the theory is fine, but until women realise they're just as smart as men and get off their butts into skilled jobs things will not change. :cool:

maninthestreet

C_Ronaldo wrote: »

i dont see it as discrimination, pubs and clubs round here do the same thing and no one here has a problem with it

It's blatant discrimination, and illegal. Just because it maybe widely practised doesn't validate it in any way. If all the pubs and clubs served alcohol to under 18s, would that somehow make it legal and ok to do so???

woohoo_postingid

I still think it's wrong that women tennis players get paid the same as men despite only playing best of three instead of best of 5 sets.


****Ducks****

angellotz

magyar wrote: »

I'm not sure that's a good example, because women's hairstyles are usually more complex and so need more time spent on them.

I can't think of an example where women get the same service as men, but pay more.

By the way, on the point about students paying less, there is a logic here, because students are assumed to have less money. It's not as if women have less money than men. The point about the men/women thing is that the whole point about sex equality is there should be no difference between the sexes in terms of opportunity.

well thats not entirely true. a man with hair down to his bum would still pay less than a woman with a short hairdo! eg http://www.blushes.co.uk/pdf/Cheltenham_pricelist.pdf. if hairdressers charged for their time, then that would be a lot fairer.
and actually what about pay - up until dec'07, i was doing exactly the same job as my colleague, had even been there longer, and he was stil earning £2000 a year more than me. so on that theory, maybe women do have less money :P


" it may be discrimination, but is it really that important?"

So there you go - discrimination is just fine and dandy

i didn't say that - but i think there are more important issues regarding discrimination, than women paying £1 less to get into a bar.

fedupconsumer

this debate has gone a long way , face it pubs and clubs will run these sorts of promotions regardless of the complaint. Its perfectly fine to offer these sorts of deals pubs and clubs always have themed evenings and that indirectly cater for specific markets wethere that be age or sex (hen and stag eveings) and offer deals to those kinds of demographic groups.
On the hairdressers issue there is a lot of training that has to go into being a styleist and you are effecively paying for experienced technician there is a lot more complexities in a compleate resyle and colour over a simple cut and blow dry.
Put simply is £1 worth getting all het up about and potentially runing it for others who may be on low incomes who need these offers to go out ? No.

mymatebob

Its perfectly fine to offer these sorts of deals pubs and clubs always have themed evenings and that indirectly cater for specific markets wethere that be age or sex (hen and stag eveings) and offer deals to those kinds of demographic groups.

It may be fine to have themed evenings or events but what you cannot do is discriminate on the grounds of sex when it comes to charging an admision price.

.

Sammz

The thing I'm most surprised at is ...

people PAY to get in to Chicago Rock?!

Ours is free.