Things That Matter

A Restaurant In Peru Has Been Fined $62,000 For What Many Say Is Blatant Sexism

A famed restaurant in Lima, Peru received a $62,000 fine for what authorities felt was its sexist menu. The upscale seaside La Rosa Nautica had an unusual practice of giving one menu to men and a different one to women. La Rosa Nautica is an international tourist attraction and favorite of the country’s upper class. Featured in guidebooks and on major lists of the best restaurants, it will now be forced to change its practice. 

The owners never believed it was sexist in the first place (because double standards are the beacon of equality), but the courts disagreed. 

Two different menus. Two different genders. 

La Rosa Nautica servers would hand women patrons a gold menu that listed all of the items available to order except one detail is omitted: the price. Men are given identical blue menus with the price included. The idea being — you guessed it — men will always pay for dinner, women will not. Perhaps the owners at La Rosa Nautica don’t believe nonbinary people eat. 

During the legal proceedings, the owners defended the practice as ensuring that women “enjoy a romantic evening” without fretting over the cost of their meals — in 2019. 

The La Rosa Nautica owners denied that their menus were discriminatory and that menus without prices, “extoll the position of women, considering it a pleasure for them to enjoy a romantic evening with their partner, without taking into account the cost of the services.”

La Rosa Nautica fined $62,000 and forced to change their sexist menu practice.

Nevertheless, the National Institute for the Defense of Free Competition and the Protection of Intellectual Property found the practice sexist in a 3 to 2 ruling. Now the restaurant must give people of all genders the same menu. 

“These small things may seem harmless,” Liliana Cerrón, an official with the agency that issued the fine, told the Associated Press. “But at the end of the day they are the basis of a chauvinistic construct reinforcing differences between men and women.”

On top of the $62,000 fine, the restaurant will have to offer a single menu, train staff, and display a public sign that states, “it is prohibited to discriminate against consumers on the grounds of origin, race, sex, language, religion, opinion, economic condition, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or other grounds.”

This isn’t the first case of a sexist menu. 

La Rosa Nautica isn’t the first restaurant to offer different menus to men and women or come under fire for it. In the 1980s, the L’Orangerie, a renowned restaurant in Los Angeles, was sued for sex discrimination by customers who did not like that servers gave women a white menu without prices and a green menu to men that included them. 

According to DW, some upscale German restaurants have “ladies menus” available upon request. 

“Dresden’s Moritz is one of the country’s few restaurants where female diners with a male accompaniment receive a separate women’s menu without being asked. Restaurant manager Loretta Meister told the German newspaper that although the menu never stirred any problems, ‘it’s a bit old fashioned.'” 

There’s an important reason men paying for dinner is sexist. 

How individuals choose to split their bills is nobody’s business, but when society does not give people a choice about who pays for what is when we get into trouble. For centuries men have been conditioned to be the “providers” and society was constructed to follow that belief. This is the justification for paying women less  — the implication being there should be a man at home paying for the rest. Moreover, when a man pays for a woman’s dinner there is the misguided notion that he is owed something in return. 

A 1985 study published in Psychology of Women Quarterly found that “rape was rated as more justifiable when the man paid all the dating expenses rather than splitting the costs with the woman.” A more recent study from 2010 found that men were more likely to expect sex if they paid for an expensive date. 

Nevertheless, a 2014 study found that in 77 percent of heterosexual relationships men had paid the bill on the first date. 

“As social roles start to change, people often embrace the changes that make their lives easier, but resist the changes that make their lives more difficult,” David Frederick, a professor of psychology at Chapman University, told The Huffington Post. “Who pays for dates … is one arena where women may be resisting gender changes more than men.” 

While it is not inherently sexist for a man to pay for a date, it is important to be mindful of the reasons why he might feel compelled to do so. At La Rosa Nautica patrons didn’t have a choice — and that’s not good for men or women. 

Jane Roe’s Anti-Abortion “Conversion” Truth Is The Most Disappointing Revelation Of All Time

Fierce

Jane Roe’s Anti-Abortion “Conversion” Truth Is The Most Disappointing Revelation Of All Time

AKA Jane / Hulu

You might not know Norma Leah Nelson McCovey but there’s no doubt that you know her story. Or at least, you thought you did.

Norma McCorvey AKA Jane Roe was a woman who had one of the greatest impacts on U.S. history. Her role as a plaintiff in the landmark lawsuit Roe v. Wade of 1973 saw a ruling that determined that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that laws banning abortions in individual states was unconstitutional. The decision was monumental and yet, as great of a part in the historical decision she played, McCorvey quickly and publicly went onto reject her decision to have an abortion and became a mascot of sorts for the anti-abortion movement.

Recently, a documentary exploring the case “AKA Jane” uncovers the truth about McCorvey’s actual beliefs.

In a deathbed confession captured in the documentary, McCorvey admitted that her conversion to the anti-choice movement was “all an act.”

In the years after her abortion and landmark case, McCorvey became a Roman Catholic activist in the anti-abortion movement. In the documentary, McCorvey delivers the ultimate punch in the gut to women around the country when she admits that the only reason that she later became the face of the anti-choice movement was that she had been paid by the Christian Right Movement to do so.

According to the Daily Beast, AKA Jane Roe “finds documents disclosing at least $456,911 in “benevolent gifts” from the anti-abortion movement to McCorvey.”

In the film, McCorvey made the death bed confession.

“This is my deathbed confession,” McCorvey explained in response to a question about whether or not evangelical groups used her. “Of course,” she replies in the documentary. “I was the Big Fish… I think it was a mutual thing. I took their money and they took me out in front of the cameras and told me what to say. That’s what I’d say.”

The documentary reveals that McCorvey was a poor, queer, and a sexual abuse survivor.

While rallying for anti-abortion agendas, she was manipulated into becoming a figurehead and made to break up with her long time partner. But her 40-year long role in the anti-abortion movement, touting messages she didn’t actually believe is such a betrayal. Of course, it’s sad that McCorvey felt she needed to choose between a life of comfort and the values she believed in, but the idea that she went back on them at the expense of millions of women in this country for monetary reasons… ay ay ay.

No doubt, women on Twitter have been quick to express their frustration over the deathbed confession.

The U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team Demanded Equal Pay, Instead A Court Just Rejected Their Case

Things That Matter

The U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team Demanded Equal Pay, Instead A Court Just Rejected Their Case

Robert Cianflone / Getty

Women have been fighting for decades to achieve equality in the workplace: from being free from harassment or from being overlooked for promotions and new positions simply based on gender. But few fights have been as hard-fought and as important as the right to equal pay.

And few battles for this right have gone as mainstream and widespread as the fight being led by the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team – who have been fighting for the same pay as the U.S. men’s team. However, their battle just hit a major roadblock, but the team says they’re still moving forward.

A district judge in California has dismissed the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team’s claim of unequal pay. 

The reigning World Cup champion U.S. women’s soccer team is vowing to fight on after a judge dismissed their claim of unequal pay with their male counterparts. The judge said that their claims are not enough to warrant a trial.

The court caught many off guard with its May 1 ruling, which rejected before trial the team’s class claims under the Equal Pay Act and its pay bias claims under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The women say they’re paid less than the U.S. men’s team players because of their sex.

A spokesperson for the players, Molly Levinson, released a statement and said, in part, we are shocked and disappointed with today’s decision, but we will not give up on our hard work for equal pay. A couple of the prominent players, including Megan Rapinoe – tweeted, we will never stop fighting for equality. Tobin Heath said, this team never gives up, and we’re not going to start now.

According to the judge who handed down the decision, the women’s team actually makes more than the men’s national team.

Judge R. Gary Klausner said undisputed evidence shows the women were actually paid more per game than the men during the period at issue in the suit. And the women’s argument they would have made more if paid performance bonuses equal to the men’s was undercut by the women having negotiated a separate pay scheme with salaries and other fixed compensation instead of accepting the exclusively “pay-for-play” agreement the men play under, Klausner said.

The pay discrepancy is because of pay agreements that differ greatly between the two teams.

Credit: Robert Cianflone / Getty

The women’s and men’s teams ended up with substantially different agreements. The female players agreement allows the women to be compensated largely through salary guarantees, with additional opportunities for performance-based bonuses. On the men’s team, players do not earn salaries, but only bonuses, and therefore the men are only paid when they play.

The judge writes, “merely comparing what each team would have made under the other team’s CBA (collective bargaining agreement) is untenable in this case because it ignores the reality that MNT (men’s national team) and WNT (women’s national team) bargained for different agreements which reflect different preferences, and that the WNT explicitly rejected the terms that they now seek to retroactively impose on themselves…In May 2016, USSF offered the WNT a pay-to-play proposal similar to the MNT, but the WNT rejected it preferring an agreement that involved some element of guaranteed compensation.”

Though to be clear – that’s not how the women’s national team sees things and is why they’re pushing forward with their fight.

However, that’s not the way the women see it. On CBS This Morning, team co-captain Megan Rapinoe contradicted the judge’s assertion that the women turned down the men’s deal, “We asked to be under the men’s contract, and it was repeatedly refused to us, not only in the structure but in the total compensation. If we were under that contract, we would have earned at least three times higher.”

The women’s team still has substantial public support for their equal pay case. Joe Biden tweeted that if he becomes president he will not provide World Cup funding unless U.S. Soccer provides equal pay.