My Lack of A Cover Fee Does Not Compensate for Gender Inequality

Washington Square News ^ | September 29, 2017 | Tyler Crews

[SamAdams76]

“No, I totally don’t mind that girls get in for free. It’s only fair with all of the sh-t you have to deal with!” exclaimed a freshman boy while debriefing his night at an NYU fraternity party. I have heard so many variations of this statement from different people across campus, which all boil down to the same concept: it is okay that girls do not have to pay to get in at parties and clubs because it makes up for the gender inequality we face in our day-to-day lives. Frankly, this line of thought is ludicrous.

The reason men pay cover charges and women do not is so that there is a larger ratio of women to men, resulting in a greater range of women for a heterosexual guy to choose from. The entire model is founded upon the ideology that women are there to serve as attractions, while the man’s role is to pay for the all-inclusive experience. We are the scenery, and they are the wallets. While the lack of cover fees attract women, the men are inclined to pay more at a party or club that is full of women. It is a supply and demand model of sorts. More girls present means more guys will come, and more guys means more money. While the system may be beneficial for the hosts of the party or event, who are typically men, it perpetuates the values that women have been trying for decades to fight against. A man paying my cover fee is not out of sincerity or respect to the struggles of women, but rather to have a better chance of getting in my pants at the end of the night.

I understand that this system has worked in the past, however, we are at a time where what worked in the past will not make the cut anymore. This marketing strategy operates under the assumptions: men have the money, all people are straight and there are only two gender identities. However, these are false assumptions to make in today’s society. With a global movement towards personal pride and self love, we are starting to see an era where straight men aren’t the only ones running the game anymore.

We have been content with these conditions because they were comfortable. Women would be foolish to deny something that is free, and men would be ridiculous to go out to a club or event that had fewer women. Why would anyone want to change? Sometimes you have to sacrifice your own comfort for a long term societal goal. If we want to see improvement in our society, we better get comfortable with being uncomfortable.

[Secret Agent Man]

I’m thinking all the preferential treatment for women just goes away. And we treat them like real equals.

They hate that.

[norwaypinesavage]

Sounds to me like she’s having trouble getting dates. It’s clear why. Her rate of second dates must be close to Zero.

[reasonisfaith]

You are correct, Sphinx.

The subtle, low-IQ agenda to convince society that women like casual sex as much as men do is part of the plan to destroy western civilization.

There has never in history been a single argument coherently articulated explaining the reasoning behind Marxism, Maoism or any other such ideology, including the ideology of anarchy.

This is largely why none of them can be said to understand their own political beliefs or motivations, and it’s why I’m always accusing these beliefs of being low IQ.

[alternatives?]

“looking for the bigger better deal”,

monkey branching.

[reasonisfaith]

You are correct, Sphinx.

The subtle, low-IQ agenda to convince society that women like casual sex as much as men do is part of the plan to destroy western civilization.

There has never in history been a single argument coherently articulated explaining the reasoning behind Marxism, Maoism or any other such ideology, including the ideology of anarchy.

This is largely why none of them can be said to understand their own political beliefs or motivations, and it’s why I’m always accusing these beliefs of being low IQ.

[alternatives?]

It will be interesting to see where she is in 10 years.

[Mariner]

Gee, in my day they got in for free because they had nice boobs and smiled.

If I had a son that talks like this article, I’d beat his ass and disown him.

[Lurker]

“A man paying my cover fee is not out of sincerity or respect to the struggles of women, but rather to have a better chance of getting in my pants at the end of the night.”

So she does understand things.

L

[Jamestown1630]

Native IQ can be completely superseded by institutional brainwashing.

That’s been the Marxist/Maoist stock in trade.

[Bernard]

Couldn’t this same argument be used to charge more for women’s clothing or services such as hair styling? Just a few word changes and there you are.

[Trillian]

So don’t go.

[Chode]

and here i thought girls get in free to provide fresh meat...

[reasonisfaith]

Now that you mention it, what can we say about the communists doing the brainwashing?

What’s the IQ in their motivation?

I say it’s low!

[D Rider]

The last paragraph is what got me...we need to change it...and so on.

[Jamestown1630]

I guess that’s what happens when you put all of your eggs into the ‘materialist’ basket.

It may work for awhile; but the world, and the Spirit that dwells within humanity, won’t abide it for long.

Eventually, it will all fall down around the sheer materialist - whether that happens on an individual level, on on wider scales.

[Mastador1]

Horseshit, he is for it because that means there will be more girls getting in and possibly drunk for him to try and ‘tap’.

[William Tell]

Many years ago I lived in a co-op building housing 108 men.

When party time arrived (which was actually quite frequent) a team headed by one of our 21-year-old members headed to a nearby liquor store to fill up a station wagon.

A separate team in several cars headed to a women's college about ten miles away to recruit female volunteers to attend the party. I don't recall the plan always working out.

I also recall no time that a team from the women's college showed up at our building attempting to recruit our guys to go to their parties. It just doesn't work that way. What a shame.

[reasonisfaith]

Whoa, that was deep, for real.

The remedy for the kind of error you describe, though, is simple—put your eggs into the basket labeled “Truth.”

[Jamestown1630]

People have different definitions of ‘truth’.

There’s the completely ‘scientific’ and materialistic notion of truth, which is ascertained and limited by the perceptions of the human physical senses, or through double-blind tests, etc; and then there’s the definition of those who believe that there is a spiritual component to all of Life.

Sometimes, an inner and indefinable ‘sense’ speaks to us of truths that can’t be proved by science and materialism.

[reasonisfaith]

Truth itself has only one definition for truth.

Large numbers of people don’t grasp this concept.