I was handed a menu that had no prices. I did not comment upon the lack of prices to Mark because I was so overwhelmed by the environment – so aware I didn’t belong – that I didn’t have the wherewithal to do so. The waiter arrived and took our order. I chose some crab thing-y to start, and some steak-y thing as my main course. Mark ordered whatever he ordered. We enjoyed the food, which was delicious, and ogled the various older gentlemen and their seemingly younger ladies of the night.
Having finished the meal, I got up to go to the bathroom. This involved traipsing through the lobby and past a display case displaying the menu. This menu had prices. The cut of beef I’d ordered had cost no less than one-hundred and seventy-five dollars.
“OH MY GOD!” I screamed.
“Oui, Madam?” asked the maitre’d.
—Sara Barron wrote a delightful essay about that one time that she went on a date and accidentally ordered a $175 steak. It is cringey! But also pretty great. Also: I don’t go to fancy restaurants, so I had no idea about the-woman’s-menu-having-no-prices thing! What a terrible thing! “Is this feminist?” Um, you’re assuming the female half of a couple has no money, so: No. PROBLEMATIC.
It’s not that they assume the woman has no money, it’s that they assume the man is paying. Which is still problematic, but not the same thing.
@mishaps But assuming the man is paying is rooted in the idea that the woman has no money. That’s why men pay for dates, because historically women had no money.
@Genghis Khat My boyfriend and I make comparable amounts of money and take turns paying at restaurants, but we always have fun observing the times I explicitly hand the waiter my credit card, and they proceed to bring the check back for him to sign.
@Genghis Khat I think you’re confusing the symbolic and the actual. Even if you were taking Consuelo Vanderbilt out on a date, the man would be expected to pay, because historically, men are the ones with the power in the interaction. (See also: the history of engagement rings.) Being the one who pays is just another way of reinforcing the power dynamic.
And it’s not just women, it’s everyone else at the table. Still crazily retro.
Granted that the presumption that the man is paying is pretty sexist, but everything on that menu (because it has to be French Laundry from the description) is roughly that expensive. So it sounds like it was a bit of a blessing – otherwise she would never have ordered anything.
(I’ve only ever been to one restaurant that did this, and I’m sure my then-girlfriend, now-wife, would have literally passed out if she’d actually seen the prices on the menu. Instead she was able to thoroughly enjoy a meal we still talk about 10 years later. She was shocked to get a menu with no prices, because she’d never even heard of the practice. When I got a menu with the prices in pencil, I knew what was happening, because I at least had heard of the practice though never seen it. It took me 3-4 years before I finally told her what it cost…)
I didn’t know this still happened! My mom once had a meal like this when she lived in Japan. That was in the early 80s. So I sort of assumed this only happened in Japan and had died out on the grounds that it’s obviously stupid and sexist. I should have known better than to think that would stop anyone, anywhere. How common is this?
Also can I just say how much I appreciate the “IS THIS FEMINIST?” reference here? What a great tumblr.
Ridiculous sexism of the restaurant aside, Mark sounds fantastic.
Let me just say, if we go out for a nice dinner and this happens, we will get up and go to a different restaurant, where I am treated like an equal, paying customer, which is what I am. Honestly, I’m getting tired of this Mad Men shit.
” it has to be French Laundry from the description”
No, it can NOT be french laundry, as french laundry is a tasting menu place. There would be no ordering of an individual entree.
And, the “base” meal at FL is currently $270. youcanlookitup.