Maybe it's a progressive commentary on the wage gap?

it looks like it's some kind of special diet based restaurant (like the zone) that calculates different caloric needs based on gender and has two versions of the menu accordingly.

Maybe it's like "ladies drink free" at some of the bars around here? An attempt to bring in more single men by having a large collection of ladies in the building?

Are the portions the same size? Very weird.

At one of the restaurants I've worked, we had dishes that were available in two sizes, an entree and appetizer size. I've also seen a price differance like that when the same dish is served at lunch and dinner. The idea is that the smaller portion (logically) recieves the smaller price. What's amusing here is that it looks as if they are assuming the woman will eat less, and therefore are just going to go ahead and serve her a smaller portion!

Ha! I noticed the same thing last week. I was at a rural diner and (unsuccessfully) tried to photograph the menu, which contained a "Ladies Cut" of meat.

Huh, I've never seen something like that before, but I think EJ is right, that it's like ladies night at a bar/club.

Personally, I think that if your bar doesn't attract an equal number of each gender, either deal with it, or change something that isn't your price.

It does look like some sort of diet-based restaurant from the crazy breakdowns of what's in the dishes. The assumption that women will eat less is a rather offensive acknowledgment of the fact that more women feel the need to diet. But what I really want to know is what the heck is "layaway fat"?

I wondered about "layaway fat", too.

Buy now, eat later?

Eat now, get fat later?

Eat now, puke later?

Who knows.

Hey, speaking of which, did you notice the NY Times food blog comments regarding women who receive menus with no prices on them, while the priced menus are given to men by default? A depressing number of folks thought this was fine and dandy, a nice "old world" tradition.

Look here.

The local Salvation Army store used to have a men's discount day. On a particular day all male customers got a ten percent cut on their spending total. I asked when they had the women's discount day, but they hadn't planned to have one.

This is actually a legal practice, at least within federal law, because we only have legislation on work and education nondiscrimination, not on different prices being charged to men and women.

Echidne,

I almost never do a "what about the men" thing, so I'm totally sorry about this, but how do you feel about Ladies' Nights (clubs, etc.)?

Several years ago when I was living in Boston, I was eating at an Italian restaurant known for huge portions. I ordered what I wanted, loving the thought that I'd have leftovers for days after the meal (I was a poor college student, after all). But when our meals came, the waiter had substituted my order for a smaller portion size. My date - a man - had gotten the size plate that HE ordered, but not me.

"I figured this is what you meant," he said. "A single girl could never eat what you ordered. This is more appropriate."

I was furious, and complained to the restaurant days later when the thought of his smug expression was still on my mind. I hope he learned his lesson.

Patronizing waiters - and menus - have got to go. We're women, we eat! Get over it!

Ladies Night at a bar would fit a different standard of discrimination. You're allowed to do it if you can show that it's necessary for your business. Having an equivalent Gentlemen's Night would bankrupt bars after they realized that there won't be strippers, so you can prove it's not discrimination.

Plus, a bar is different from a charity.

Still, I support banning Ladies Night, if only because there's no non-loser reason to go to one.

Plus, a bar is different from a charity.

The hell you say.

Fair enough, but from what I understand, Ladies Night is a charity for men.

Keep in mind that Ladies' Night is supposed to benefit BOTH men and women. Women are benefited by the cheap liquor and men are benefited by having a surplus of women to chat up.

I'm not saying the benefits are equitable, just that that is the proferred explanation I've heard.

The charity example *seems* to benefit only men. I can't say more on that because I don't know more. I does seem unfair, on the face of it.

I'm almost positive that liontamer and Jodi are right and this is some crazy-ass diet restaurant (god strike me dead if I ever go to such a place). It would then follow by diet logic that women's portions would be smaller, since women supposedly need fewer calories a day than do m en. (1800 vs. 2000, or something.)

According to the CSM, "California [was] the first state to make it unlawful to discriminate based on gender in the pricing of services. Similar legislation has also been passed in Florida's Miami-Dade County, New York City, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts."
Apparently, the article (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0810/p12s02-woam.html) goes on to say, gender-based pricing discrimination costs each woman $1,351 (in 1994) a year.
While there are all kinds of defenses (women require fewer calories and therefore eat less; women get more complicated haircuts; women's clothes don't fit "standard" dry-cleaning machinery) there seems to be one simple solution: Equalize the costs to all customers.
Call me a socialist. I can take it.
The kicker, of course, is that women make less, tend not to get those coveted corner-office jobs, and tend to bear the financial (and most other) responsibility for raising any kids if we're talking single parents. Way to cherish the next generation.

LOL.

My dad HATES that he has to pay the "womens" price for haircuts.

The funny thing is that they basically kept the same arrangement by saying that haircuts cost X, but washing, drying, coloring, etc. all cost more. Since those are things a male isn't likely to request, he's still better off as a boy! :D

Heh, true. I live in NYC and I still see differential pricing for "men's" vs. "women's" cuts. I mean, if you want the barber haircut, go pay your $6 at a barber, man or woman! If you want a little fancier, then you pay for it. I don't see how women's cuts are "more complicated"... I suppose add-ons do pick up the slack and I don't think if you're not getting them you should pay for them. (Though it would make MY life easier... sigh, but I long ago gave up the $300 vanity hair, so I guess I took matters into my own hands.)
I DO think they should charge double for mullets, though.

Ever notice how many products marketed to women cost more than a similar type of product marketed for men? Pink plastic and flowery perfume must be *really* expensive!

I'm curious about where this is. I can see someone doing this as a wage gap statement, but only in ultra-progressive cities. Elsewhere, it probably is a "Ladies' Night" thing, or a way to sell themselves as a "date restaurant," though I don't see the prices being different enough to matter much. Wouldn't it be easier to just say "women get $1 off their entree"? I also can't see the entrees being different sizes for a mere $1 price difference. Who'd get the smaller size? And why wouldn't they just call it "appetizer" and "entree," "small" and "large," or "half order" and "full order"?

Re the menus without prices: while I understand the idea that, when I'm paying, I want people to pick what they want, I can't imagine not seeing the prices when I order - that would probably cause me to order something that's obviously not as expensive as the host so that I know I'm not setting them back, rather than simply ordering what looks the best to me. (It also seems to me that if the commenters who complain about the "vulgarity of money" should give it to those who don't find it so vulgar. Stupid classist New Yorkers.)

Now I know you didn't mean that as an indictment of all New Yorkers, right? ;-) Some of us are relatively well-adjusted and thoughtful people.

Nah, just the East Side.

More seriously, there's a particular Manhattanite set that I encountered at law school functions or at the functions of the elite private school a friend of mine taught at, who seem unable to comprehend that some of us have to make "vulgar" decisions about what's affordable and what's not on a regular basis.

Ah, yes. I avoid them as a matter of principle.

This is a weird menu, although I have been to many restaurants with different sized portions. The PC ones call it small/large or some other neutral term but as with some of the other posters I have seen “for her”, “ladies”, and “her/him”. The weirdest I ever saw was “for cowboys/cowgirls”, but frankly I got what I deserved for going to a theme restaurant.

I am a bit confused about the fuss over gender-based marketing. It happens all the time and I don’t think it’s always the market being sexist but it simply re-acting to economic incentive. Ladies night work because if men think they can meet women they are more likely to go to the bar and spend extra money which from the bar’s standpoint makes up for the discount given to women. In the case of clothing, men (in general, and rumor has it this may be changing) have less interest in shopping for clothes so stores use different incentives to get them to come and spend money. Presumably the Salvation Army has a surplus of male clothing donations and hope that by offering a discount it will encourage men to come and purchase it (although I am doubt this will work effectively as the salvation army is discounted to begin with?).

We see variable pricing all the time in most sectors. If they think there is an untapped market based on gender they will try a promotion to fill that niche. Indeed in the marketing portion of business school we had a whole module on maximizing sales by using variable pricing. If companies do it based on currency exchange, geographic location, stage of product life (first wave high end boutiques, second wave mid level shops, third wave Target and Wal-Mart), why not gender? The one that ticks me off personally is the age one, cause like the well-to-do retired couple beside me with the indexed pensions at chez snooty need that 10-15% off, unlike the couple out for a quite night away from their kids and crushing mortgage. J

I'm just taking a wild guess, but I agree with the commenter that points out this might be a diet-based restaurant - or fitness center cafe that bases portions on recommended daily calorie intake for men and women. Note that the menu (which appears to be for a place called "Thin's In") details the exact weights of pasta, meat portions, and volume of oil used in entrees...and I suspect the "layaway" term is some sort of equivalent to dieticians' "exchange" meal planning.

Jeff, that bugs me, too. There were a LOT of posters in that price-less menu thread who were saying, "Who wants to know the PRICES? How vulgar!"

If this isn't proof that America is becoming scarily consumer-istic, I don't know what is.

Maybe I'm just poor or something, but I think it's reasonable to want to know if a salad is $75 BEFORE you eat it (one of the examples in the thread).

But (and this hadn't occurred to me, when I commented earlier) if this menu details portion specifics down to ounces and tablespoons, why should there be price differential for men and women? According to the menu, men and women pay different prices for the same weight and volume (and calorie content) of food. Very odd.

Here's a spaghetti measurer that offers one portion size for a man and one for a "woman or child 10-12 yr."

o_O Am I the only woman in the world who can hold her own at the dinner table? Course, part of that was when I was bulemic and was binging (note to impressionable children: REALLY bad idea), but still! I eat about as much spaghetti as my boyfriend. That portion is half the size of the man's portion!

Huh. So if you're a teenage female, do you use the portion for teenager or the one for woman?

It's definitely not half the size of the man's portion, though. It appears to be three quarters.

Side-note: In my experience, a teenage male can eat a lot more than an adult male. I've seen them slow down as they get into their twenties. So why is the portion the same size?

Prarielily, it's because women are "less visual" than men, and we're supposed to let grown men eat as much as they want without judging them on their waistline. ;)

As far as Ladies' Night, there's a cute bar in my neighborhood that has a nice one on Monday nights. I'm all for it - I have to put up with so much shit on a daily basis from the wage gap to street harassment, I deserve a Goddamn night of free drinks.

There's another place in my area in which the owner cleverly hired only ridiculously hot male bartenders (as opposed to so many places that hire mostly hot female bartenders). For a couple of years, my friends and I (as well as many other young ladies) would spend money to gaze at these specimens. Even more good looking men would follow the girls. It was definitely a great way to dodge criticism of the "ladies' night" label (with plenty of buy backs for regulars like us) while providing an excellent pick-up environment.