Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
I was mistaken for a call girl (drugstoreculture.com)
121 points by dpaluy 59 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 101 comments

If an old man shows up to watch the high school girl's volleyball matches daily, maybe he really likes volleyball, right?

An old woman would definitely have the privilege of that assumption. An old man wouldn't.

Welcome to society, it will never be perfect and that's ok. Trying to turn the dials and create a perfect one is the stuff of comic book villains. It looks like the west has solved so much that it is starting to go backwards. In the third world we have actual cases of families forcing daughters to stay home or worse, get married at 17. Give me a break with this Nerf ball stuff.

Yeah, I feel genuinely self-conscious when I take my son to the local park. Especially in the moments he is briefly out of sight and there I am just a lone male at a park with a phone in his hand.

The "all men are rapists" sexism is really getting to us too. I don't think I'm the only one.

I've come to the conclusion that life sucks in some way to some degree for everyone, everywhere and this is necessarily the case.

When you bend something into a shape that suits you it is bent out of shape for someone else. She even states it when she says now men are sometimes avoiding being alone with Women because it represents a risk they don't want to take.

It's the hard problem of delineation. We all need to take a little bit of crap in our lives but it's close to impossible to delineate what the parameters for yourself and others are such that everyone is taking the minimum amount of crap possible and the system is also stable.

An old man wouldn't.

Some time ago, there was this news article - an old man was turned away from a park, because he was alone and because everyone else in the park were "a family with kids" and they won't feel comfortable with a "single old man by himself" (don't remember the exact words, but this is the gist of it).

It gets worse. A woman with her son (just a kid) was asked by other moms to leave, because they were all mums with daughters and she was the only one with a son. I don't get the logic at all.

Society is weird...

Yup. And when I’m at the park with my kids and some other child asks for help with something like getting up on a structure I have to say politely say no (I’m a man) for fear of it being interpreted the wrong way by someone. Just the way it is and to some extent I get it.

I think this type of classifying phenomenon is a sort of low level Bayesian filtering. One of my best friends is African American and he tells me he notices staff at gas stations and grocery stores eyeing him intently like he's seconds away from shoplifting with higher frequency in lower income areas and people brazenly crossing the street in broad daylight if they are alone and approaching him on the same sidewalk.

I don't know if there is a easy solution to advance society other than the passage of time and I think it's unfortunate people face these daily injustices. Thoughts?

> In the third world we have actual cases of families forcing daughters to stay home or worse, get married at 17.

Uh... This happens in the US too.


Did you even read the article? Third world problems aren’t in competition with its content, so it’s weird that you’d bring them up here.

yeah, but does the old man really care what other people think about him? so it kinda didn't matter what's his purpose of watching volleyball, if he doesn't care and doesn't break a law

I find the conclusion took a strange turn from the story:

> Those women who were complicit in hashtag crimes have actually undermined the cause, taken us back years in our endeavor to be taken seriously.

The people fighting to prevent sexual attacks would generally also acknowledge other areas for improvement. Saying that you have different priorities is acceptable. But denying their priorities is not. That they are causing more sexism elsewhere is a long shot. It is not even connected to the main story.

Pretty sure you’re engaging in selective blindness to the nature of politicization among humans.

At a fundamental level the political winds are that of retaliation for past grievances. Not just immediate grievances with lving victims, but all grievances across recorded history, with no definite end-game.

This creates a politically charged atmosphere that polarizes players to exist in two camps, primed for conflict intended to escalate beyond a stated goal of fairness.

Now you have bitter, uncompromising rivals who will not negotiate, striving to enforce inflexible terms and who benefits? Those external to the fight. Those not dragged down and injured by the grudge match.

Pay attention to the ones looking for a fight, trace that back to those who egg them on, and a picture develops about what’s really going on.

Where there’s an “us versus them” tone, the divide and conquer tactic can be found.

Years of setback may be true, if enemies are alert and opting not only to defend, but actively destroy dissent and redouble dominance.

The war being fought isn’t something camparable to the abolition of slavery. To call our current climate tantamount to one of slavery is hyperbolic without question.

So beautifully put.

I noticed this after learning Japanese and then listening to how Asians talk about other Asians and then checked what the other sides were saying and I was like... Oh man... this is vicious. Then I noticed the same thing in other countries that share borders, there are cases where they are sworn enemies or have bad blood because of beefs going back hundreds of thousands of years. It's amazing.

How does what you said apply to the situation we're discussing?

The managers retreat into my business my rules is a common response from people unable to deal with being caught out wrong. If you're unwilling to apologize, acknowledge mistakes, asserted rights are the joker card?

My very optimistic explanation would be that "The manager had had other valued, single, female customers sit at the bar - and they'd been propositioned by men...and he was trying to protect.." Oh I'm not even buying this myself..

Haha, yes. In that case the manager would have explained that they were being paternalistic. Which could have enraged this customer too, but probably less so than labeling her an escort.

The idea of the manager being paternalistic is stupid, but manager as tool is not.

What if the narrative villifies the less charismatic individual sufficiently?

Instead of the manager arriving to rescue other customers, the manager plays the role of a tool.

What if the other customers used the manager as a tool, and being a dimwitted jerk, he took the cue as an opportunity to engaging misanthropic behavior. Other girls at the bar wanted to cause harm to someone they didn’t like the looks of, so they complain to the manager, craft a lie, and the manager takes the bait, enforcing the will of malicious tattletales?

Or, what if the manager is actually operating the bar as a front for a nearby hotel brothel, and at the request of a pimp, ousted an unfamiliar face that seemed to be a threat to business?

Would these versions be juicy enough to satisfy a quest for truth?

I'd like to hear the other side of the story.

Isn't it a bad smelling card to play anywhere? Rarely are one's rights the subject of actual dispute.

As a woman, I really think there’s more to the story then she’s telling us. I’ve seen this same story that she’s been blasting to several websites, and I honestly can’t picture this. I’ve sat at the bar alone eating, drinking, or just staring at my phone, many times in many big cities traveling. I’ve never gotten so much as a cross-word from anyone. So I call BS on this. There’s more going on here that we’re not being told.

I believe this story. If you were on a business trip and went to the bar at the Waldorf Astoria, then you would be around escorts. The bartenders would completely know you are not an escort because they haven't seen you before. Men may approach you, but looking for conversation and would quickly know you were a business traveller. Most men aren't looking for escorts at all, but ones that are, don't make it obvious.

Bottom line is there is a decent amount of high end prostitution around high end hotels near midtown during the weekdays.

It is nearly invisible which is why she didn't notice it for years. Now that I have told you, you will probably start to see the pay-for-play scene. It isn't huge, but it exists in the business traveller world.

It sucks that she got mixed in with it. That being said, it is a small number of women and men in that scene, it has a flavor of consent, and I personally think other harassment issues are a much broader problem to worry about.

As a guy, the pay-for-play scene is often super annoying. Get approached, have an hour conversation, then get asked for money. Just feels irritating to have a conversation that was financially motivated. The bars then start policing it... like not allowing the girls to approach men, e.g. making them sit at tables.

I know a bit too much about this scene because I have a policy against any shaming of sex workers. Thus after rejecting their pay-for-play offer, I often end up in a conversation about their lives and work. I make it clear that I don't look down on them.

I suppose the possible thing missing from the story is that she is a healthy adultly woman that enjoyed having sex and went home with interesting and attractive men from the bar. Normal thing to do, especially if you don't have time for a relationship because you are splitting continents. The bar could have misread the situation.

If you follow the story, then for years she was just like you. Same restaurant for years on end with no issues. All was fine until it wasn't.

This seems not worth the effort it took to write. She's an excellent writer though.

Now try being an “unaccompanied male” on a playground filled with children and see what happens.


People make judgments about other people. They base them on a mixture of accurate, incomplete and inaccurate data. They base them on their own biases and perceptions. They base them on their own agendas and lack of time to explain them.

These events aren’t article worthy.

I would encourage you to join people like the author as I hope she would join you in condemning the prejudice against me in places with children rather than try to say, "yeah but this is worse!"

It was all going ok until "These events aren’t article worthy." :)

They are worth us reading and thinking about, because it helps remind us that while our assumptions allow us to operate fairly efficiently as humans in a complex world, they also need to be tested periodically - especially where our assumptions can negatively affect others.

People do make biased, inaccurate, and incomplete judgements about others.

But should everyone really just shut up about it and accept it? If everything can’t be perfect, we shouldn’t try to improve anything?

People do make biased, inaccurate, and incomplete judgements about others.

But should everyone really just shut up about it and accept it?

If it’s something significant, then deal with it. If it’s something insignificant, then yes it’s better to move on.

You could spend your entire life correcting people’s misconceptions about you and people will still have misconceptions about you.

I felt immediately sympathetic to this article. The tale of everyday injustice is something that speaks to me, makes me want to change things. However when I see #MeToo, I feel much less sympathetic. Why ? Because it paints a single enemy : men, and as a man who does not feel at all like he behaves in the way often described next to this hashtag, I feel an injustice. The MeToo campaign is creating too camps, and a such it can create entrenched or retaliatory positions like this restaurant owner. A war is not something anyone should want.

I mean, how familiar are you with the MeToo movement? Did you see female friends and colleagues post on Facebook about their experiences? Read tweets? Or are you hearing about it through the news?

Because it's not about men as an enemy. It's about people saying that they too have been effected by sexual harassment, assault or abuse. It's someone saying, "That happened to me, too."

If it feel's pervasive enough to be a campaign, instead of a movement, that says more about our culture's response, or lack thereof, to sexual misconduct then it does about men.

I don't know directly anyone who is in that situation. I know about it only indirectly, through the news, blog posts and such, but it's affecting me all the same.

I think "MeToo" goes beyond simply exposing particular situations. It is also attempting to explain those cases of abuse by the gender of the perpetrator, as if it was the ultimate cause. Maybe the particular individual is an asshole, but not the whole category. Maybe that guy that "mansplains" things is condescending with everyone. I think that too quick generalization and broad accusation creates resentment and diminishes the potential of support from both sides.

I wish things were written like "many persons have been called out" instead of "many men have been called out", because the latter implies that only men can be, and also even if logically false it is easy to go from A => B to B => A in the eyes of opinion.

> I don't know directly anyone who is in that situation

Which situation -- do you mean "being harassed"? I'm pretty sure you do, as it is quite safe to assume that any woman you encounter has been harassed at some point in her life. The only question is how severely and how long ago, which still does not take away the effect on her emotions.

I meant someone who spoke as part of the "MeToo" movement. I certainly know women who have had some bad experiences with men, but none that expressed that publicly, as that was the question I was answering.

And your comment is precisely the reason why.

It this legal in New York?

Where a man is allowed to eat at a bar but a woman is not?

As with my rules and non-rules, it's ultimately a question of a court battle.

Particularly in the case of restaurants and businesses choosing not to provide service to homosexuals, it depends on the state. But it also still depends on the courts to enforce or clarify rules.

Unfortunately what this all means is that unless someone is looking for a potentially lengthy and costly legal fight, the rules don't matter.

The flipside of this is that even if there are rules, a motivated litigant can make it not worth the opponent's time or money to fight.

In this specific case, the best way to get "justice" would be to push a publicity campaign to make the restaurant feel pressure and change its ways. But that too requires effort and time to do, and success is iffy. Keep in mind that it's NYC, and there are more diners than good restaurants usually. So if she gets angry, and even if she gets a few thousand other people angry, that restaurant still probably won't suffer.

No. But writing this article likely accomplishes what she hoped to accomplish faster and cheaper (in opportunity cost) than filing a lawsuit.

This is awful! When these things happen, why don't people name names? What restaurant did this????

article it's missing name of the restaurant, so don't waste your time, might as well read Harry Potter. if it's not made up story she should name and shame them

I don't get the hn algo, but how did I click this, presumably on the front page, now to find it in the very very last place (entry 441) of hn?

srceenshot of page 15, showing older dupes with less votes above: https://i.imgur.com/ibnV65s.png

edit: now it's gone from p15

edit2: if this would have been transparently flagged as off-topic for HN I'd understand. But given the content of the article this is sadly ironic, I really hope there is a "mechanical" explanation for this.

Somebody might have flagged it, or it was a moderator.

That's why I generally read HN through http://hckrnews.com/, they show all frontpage items sorted chronologically.

oh sweet, thanks!

If it was flagged I'd still see it, no? (I have that enabled)

edit: now it shows as [flagged] [dead]

edit2: and back on the front-page again, thanks for undoing this mods

edit3: now vanished (even from "new"). weird mechanics or a mod-battle :) ?

edit4: I'll take the down-votes with pride

There is a significant cohort of users who flag this type of article. As there is no way for them to say why they dislike it, I doubt we will ever be certain. Obviously it isn't technical or scientific, it is anecdotal, perhaps valid reasons for not upvoting, but surely not flagging?

I've only flagged obvious spam and a dangerous pseudoscience article. And after that, I couldn't flag anymore, so I guess I'm not in sync with the powers that be.

I think it is just necessary to accept that HN is imperfect, only one venue, and reflects the biases of its users to a significant degree. It is a shame those biases are not more transparently revealed.

If you want to see things that people you respect recommend, go to twitter and curate your feed. Although the constant reordering and sometimes-showing and so on is even worse on twitter.

I don't see why you couldn't flag! Are you sure?

If we speak of biases that way, then I'm not sure there's anything outside of bias. This site has a bias towards a particular kind of discourse. It's not that Twitter doesn't have discourse, but it's a different style. Topics like this one can be quite controversial and flamewar-style, and Hacker News readers have a bias against flamewars. It's not that flamewars aren't discourse, but it's not our preference here.

Yes, it's only one venue, and it does reflect its users (and its history and its conventions and its table-based layout, etc.). How could it be any other way? Something that's a detriment to thoughtfulness and civility is when we project our own opinions onto the canvas of “bias” constituting the mechanisms of discussion which are invariably present. It's never what we think, and always a projection.

This is supported by the fact that everyone perceives moderation, flagging, etc. to be in support of the opposite side. Has anyone ever complained, “Boy, this really confirms my existing view without adequately representing what I disagree with. How biased!”.

Sorry for the rant! I'm of course generalizing and addressing more than you've actually said.

I can flag articles, but not comments. I'm not sure if this is just me of course, but given comments appeared marked as [flagged] it seems so. Inflation in kerma required for flagging? The rules are rather opaque.

I'm fine with bias, it is as you point out, expected and unavoidable. It is more obvious who likes/dislikes what on twitter, though they keep making that harder to determine analytically. I guess the problem boils down to there being no sense of who is voting one way or the other, and would you respect those people? Like, I'm not going to care if Jacob Wohl downvotes something, or if a bunch of Wohlites (or Chomskyists for that matter) are angry, but how can you tell?

As to articles specifically related to gender and women, I would say HN has a problem. It is up to HN owners to decide whether to damp down the jerk responses, the flagging, etc.

I prefer HN posts because they don't have to be absurdley short, and there are no memes. How I hate memes. Though the lack of respect for humour and wit really diminishes discourse.

It moved before it was marked as flagged and than it disappeared further. Either this was glitchy behavior or more than just flagging.

Articles about sexism seem to be particularly hard to do well. The ways in which they go wrong tend to not fare well on HN, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes not so good.

Well I'm more critical of the lack of transparency, which makes discussion of the mechanics impossible.

As said, I'd understand a flagging because of "off-topic" or something.

And while I strongly oppose a "no-politics" policy, even that would be fair game if enforced transparently.

As I understand it people flag politics more often, but it's not explicitly off-topic, but it also takes very little for discussion on posts like this to result in the type of comments that will result in moderation and/or further flagging.

I think the best response is basically that HN is not Reddit, and that's how most people here want it, though many of us (including me) are frequent Reddit users too. Different sites for different purposes.

I mostly like the more mature hn audience better than reddit, even for non-technical stuff. But yes, it's a fair thing to say this is not the right platform for it.

With roughly 5 million visitors a month and member actions, such as upvotes, comments and flags, being part of the formula, even the mods won't have all the answers as to why a thing went the way it did.

I replied in part because I post as openly female and have gone through periods where I paid a lot of attention to what happened to articles on sexism or from a woman's point of view etc. Quality of writing matters a great deal on sensitive topics and good titles matter a whole lot. This title is actually fairly click bait and technically a violation of HN policy.

I think it can certainly be made transparent. A small tag for a reason like the [flagged] wouldn't be that hard to do for moderator nerfs.

btw: I just noticed I don't read the names when reading comments.

Maybe it is because man usually arent call girls?

How would you know, unless you ask the men?

Well statistics says that. Prostitution is one of the oldest jobs and it was always a women domain, not men. It is of course a very bad thing and in my opinion it is sad that so many women are forced to enter this profession...

Eh, they can't prove who is or is not a call girl. They have blunt tools at their disposal for trying to "crack down" on this, such as saying "Hookers typically sit alone at the bar. So no more single women sitting alone at the bar."

I'm not saying it's fair. I'm just saying they may have valid reasons for the policy of cracking down on sex workers and they don't need to have actually mistaken her for a sex worker per se to decide this policy applies to her.

So there's a strong correlation with being female and being a sex worker, as opposed to male.

Now replace the correlation with other undesirable traits, like being a thief and having a certain skin colour.

Do you still call that a 'blunt tool to crack down on issues that don't necessarily apply to each individual' or can we just call that racial discrimination and agree no such tools should be applied?

The idea it's okay for your daughter, wife, mother etc to be denied a seat, where you can sit alone, because she's a priori categorised as a sex worker merely because of gender, is pretty insane to me. Of course your personal relationship shouldn't matter, but maybe it hits home a little bit more like this.

The whole idea about discrimination is that people are judged not on the basis of their own behaviour, but the behaviour (or stereotypical views of such) of a group they (often involuntarily) belong to. And that's inherently unfair.

Instead we should always try to make a fair assessment of the individual. Of course we use mental shortcuts that can be discriminatory, but we always have to try and allow recourse. That's why a 60 year old tends not to be hired as a security guard, because they lack the fitness. That tends to be viewed as reasonable age discrimination, but only in the context of explaining the underlying assumption, that age determines fitness, and that this assumption is not challenged by the applicant. But if the 60 year old can demonstrate sufficient fitness and challenges the assumption, denying the job based on age is no longer lawful. In short, the assumption must be reasonable, must be made clear, and must not be challenged.

I can imagine the owner's worry, and that he profiled her based on mental shortcuts. But if she then demonstrates she is not a sex worker, denying her a seat anyway is silly. Let's not forget, she came there for years. If she came with colleagues, she'd leave with them. If she came alone, she'd leave alone. She never engaged anyone else. The first thing you'd do is have an honest conversation and see if your assumptions are even correct in the first place. In this case they went straight to applying a policy based on a wrongful assumption, and then denied any recourse or apologies once they were given ample indications to be incorrect in their assumptions.

In this case, the assumption was made, was somewhat unreasonable given her familiarity with the staff (knowing faces, names), was not made clear initially, and was not allowed to be challenged. That's sex discrimination, a case handled incorrectly and it's not ok.

> I can imagine the owner's worry, and that he profiled her based on mental shortcuts. But if she then demonstrates she is not a sex worker, denying her a seat anyway is silly.

I'm not defending the owner's decision, but the problem with this is... other patrons might still consider her one, and they might think/tell friends "avoid that restaurant for your family dinner, escorts hang around there!". She's not just condemning the owner, but probably many in society who still have the same mental shortcut.

My ability to come first to bar where I will wait for other people (as opposed to have to make sure to be late so that they kick me out) is something I want to keep.

And as long as people in your thought experiment have zero consideration for me, I wonder, why should I be considered toward their bigotry? Because the conviction thay alone women must be escort is exactly that.

The example in former paragraph is quite relevant to me, because apparently stereotype people openly express here (sometimes as joke sometimes serioisly) is that women are often late. Come soon, understand that you are escort, come minute late you confirm stereotype.

That's reading an awful lot into my comment that's not actually there.

It's a click bait title. She may not have been mistaken for a call girl. The anecdote is told to try to introduce opinions about how the death by a thousand cuts is a larger problem than actual sexual assault. The piece isn't that well written overall.

I realize and stated in my very first comment that it isn't fair. Assertions that I'm saying sexism is totes fine seem wildly out of line to my mind.


While it would be easy to classify your comment as thoughtless racism, being HN I will call it being naive about statistics.

The FBI stats may well say 'x% of burglaries are committed by black males', which might represent a rate 3x the overall population. But that does not mean that any individual black male you encounter is likely to be a burglar.

Additionally, there is a much stronger explanatory variable -- poverty and lack of opportunity. It transcends race.


The parents point is that it wouldn't be acceptable to suspect all black people of being thieves, just because they were correlated.

I'm not sure if you're supporting or denying that correlation, I'm not sure that it matters, it was illustrating a point.

Recall the problem with rapists in India. The govt wanted a curfew on women. The PM suggested "Its men doing the raping; lets have a curfew on men".

So the sensible approach here is, to ban men from bars.

Doesn't sound so reasonable now, does it?

And if a man wrote an article about visiting India and how this curfew was applied to him and titled it "The night I was mistaken for a rapist" and I said "Eh, they may not have actually thought he was a rapist. It was a policy applied to all men." I seriously doubt I would have so very many people pile on to wildly twist that nitpick into "So, why are you so strongly pro sexism?" or some nonsense.

The point is, its unreasonable to restrict rights to make it convenient for policing.

We both know, there would be outrage if men were so profiled (by restricting their rights wholesale). To ignore this part of the issue is disingenuous.

Discussion elsewhere in this thread doesn't corroborate your assertion:


I also wasn't at any point suggesting it was okay. I posted several clarifications concerning that detail while new comments to the same effect continued to pour in, some of them snarky one liners.

I don't know what's going on here, but it's probably not what you and others are claiming is going on.

I guess its the skating by the 'restrict women's activity because {plausible enforcement reason}' that's sensitive. So often somebody casually reducing women's activities for 'good reason' that some can't let it slide any more. The 'handmaids tale' kind of thing.

Remember women couldn't buy property back in the 1970's, for plausible reasons (most didn't have jobs so no cash flow). Its that fresh in some folks' minds.

Or perhaps it's because I appear to be the highest ranked woman here, so pretending to care about women's rights while dogging me and twisting my intent out of shape is an effective way to keep women "in their place" while pretending to be allies to women, pro women's equality, etc.

Hypothetically and theoretically standing up for the author's right to sit at the bar and acting like my remarks on HN somehow undermine her rights while dozens of comments pile on to uncreatively beat a dead horse and say the same thing to me over and over and over is a great tactic for shutting women up on HN while pretending we are all doing the opposite.

Sexism, racism and other social ills tend to be kept alive by such events while the participants believe they are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

I'm not accusing anyone of conscious, intentional malice aforethought. I'm just trying to describe a common social phenomenon.

I apologize if I've been complicit in that. I admit I didn't look at your user name to begin with.

I didn't look at the names in this thread until you pointed it out either. It's not just you that just reads the comments and doesn't pay attention to the name of the other comment creator.

Thanks. Always nice to know it's that type of explanation.

Have a great day.

Sure, and blacks commit more homicides per capita, so perhaps they should have them segregated at the restaurant and other establishments.


>> Eh, they can't prove who is or is not a call girl. They have blunt tools at their disposal for trying to "crack down" on this, such as saying "Hookers typically sit alone at the bar. So no more single women sitting alone at the bar."

If you want to be rational about it, the information you need to make a decision is not limited to how many hookers sit alone at a bar, but also how many hookers there are in the general population. If that number is low, then you have no good reason to assume that a woman sitting alone at a bar is a hooker, and therefore no good reason to stop women from sitting alone at a bar.

That's Baye's rule, right? What's the probability that a woman is a hooker given that she's sitting alone at the bar? It's the probability that a woman will be sitting alone at a bar given that she's a hooker, weighted by the probability that any woman is a hooker, normalised by the probability any woman will sit alone at a bar.

Nerds should know those things, if nothing else, to avoid many awkward conversations: "Why do you want to know how much my spaghetti carbonara cost?".

As a woman who frequently eats alone in restaurants, I can tell you it is fairly aberrant behavior. Men eat alone. Old men frequently eat alone. Women are almost always with someone, whether children, gal pals or a romantic interest.

I only noticed that it's odd and began paying attention to other women in eating establishments because I was getting weird reactions from people.

/Anecdata to feed your hypothetical algorithm

Do you find anything consistent among these women who eat alone? Age, how busy/rushed they appear, how tough they appear, etc? Would you guess they are single with few friends in the area?

Perhaps they mostly just have more confidence in going out alone.

The pattern I noticed was that my behavior of eating alone in public as a woman was, in fact, unusual as other people seemed to think. I haven't noticed enough other women eating alone to notice any patterns concerning characteristics of women who eat alone. It really seems rather rare and my interest in the phenomenon was limited in scope to wondering why it got such weird reactions from other people and paying enough attention to verify that, yea, verily, it's genuinely unusual. People aren't merely making that part up.

I didn't pay attention beyond that. It's not some formal study with records, etc.

The strongest effect on confidence should come from the prevalence of hookers in the general population. Indeed, the normalising effect of women sitting alone at bars can be omitted.

Ah but with Bayes Rule if you don't know the statistics you take the starting prior as 50/50 in which case "she might be or she might not".

Also you can't just ask someone "are you a sex worker?" and get a straight answer as you'll notice people who indeed are the thing you accuse them of feign incredulity as a tactic to camouflage themselves and make you doubt yourself.

I noticed this watching a lot of those hidden camera shows with dodgy repair men. They know they are indeed crooked but get all in your face "are you accusing me of being a liar? That's outrageous!".

Life is impossible.

It’s blatant sex discrimination.

So are many legal definitions of rape. Many legal definitions of rape are framed such that rape is a crime only a man can commit and only a woman can be victimized by.

I've already allowed as how it isn't fair. Is there some greater point here?

The difference is that you're presumably not excusing those legal definitions, but you come across as trying to excuse and justify this discrimination when you write:

> I'm just saying they may have valid reasons for the policy

without any caveat about how this policy was applied only to women.

I don't know if it was your intent to come across that way or not, but that is how I read it.

The title of the piece is "The night I was mistaken for a call girl." It's basically a click bait title. She may not have been mistaken for a call girl. She may have simply been caught by a policy designed to address the issue, however ham-handedly.

The conclusion that she was actually mistaken for a call girl seems shaky.

I did give a proviso that I wasn't saying it was fair. So I don't know where you are getting this idea that I'm justifying sexism.

I was not responding to the title. I was responding to your question as to whether the person replying to you by pointing out it is blatant sex discrimination had some greater point.

That she was "simply been caught by a policy designed to address the issue" is pretty clear. The issue is that this policy is discriminatory. And in a way that would fall foul of sex discrimination laws a whole lot of places.

> So I don't know where you are getting this idea that I'm justifying sexism.

You suggested they may have valid reasons for a discriminatory policy. To me that reads like a pretty clear cut justification. If you don't think that's a valid reason for discriminating after all, then my apologies.

No, I suggested they may have valid reasons to want to crack down an a specific type of criminal activity occurring on their premises. In this case, sex work.

Sex work happens to typically be done by women more than men. I've never been to a restaurant that didn't have a sign posted saying "We reserve the right to refuse service." Given that general policy, they may have been cutting her slack to let her eat there.

While homeless, I spent a lot of time in public spaces. Most of them have policies that pets are not allowed, but service animals are. Most homeless people with pets claimed they were service animals. Establishments were generally legally barred from asking for proof.

No policy is foolproof. There will always be exceptions to any rule and they routinely complain loudly about it, often while not having either sympathy for the very real problems involved nor a better solution.

That doesn't mean I'm justifying sexism.

I'm a writer. I was primarily critiquing the click bait title, insufficient evidence that they actually believed her to be a call girl and poor construction of the piece.

But I'll drop it. It's late. I'm tired. Whatever.

Posting a sign does not allow you to break the law with impunity. Clearly they can kick everyone out, less clearly can they target one person.

They didn't target one person. What she wrote was quite clear.

If they similarly banned single black men from eating at the bar alone would you have the same position?

Not surprised you are down-voted, there is very little if any sensitivity to sexual harassment or crimes against men.

I also failed to state up front "I happen to be a woman." A lot of people here know that, but it's a big forum and mostly male. People routinely assume I must be male, and thus a misogynistic sexist pig, if I say anything pro male on such subjects.

Sometimes, I prefave it to try to avoid that. Sometimes, I don't. This time, I didn't. (shrug)

I already knew that from earlier your comment below . It does not and should never matter what your gender is, the points you talked stand on their own right.

This is how woman start getting serious for such silly issues.

The problem with citizens of developed countries or those with rich background is, they haven't seen how real problems look like.

They usually cry for very silly things.

Things cannot be perfect.

The more woman ask for equality, the more alone they are going to end up, because men feel fearful even for approaching, who knowns what kind of mentality the other person have.

Not the more they ask for equality, the more behavior is directed at past transgressions that had nothing to do with a guy.

Discriminatory divorce laws keep men from marrying. I see this very openly.

Overcorrection with MeToo will make many men hesitate to interact with a woman if he gets a vibe that she might misread his actions. It will also decrease interactions by men who planned on harrassing her though.

Discrimination? For a reason or another they thought she was an escort and they don't like that kind of activity in their establishment. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't.

She says no, but very few would admit. Either way, maybe they don't even like single, pretty women looking for their "knight in shining armor" at an expensive restaurant. It ruins their image and they don't that kind of a crowd. Just like they would not guys coming at the bar laughing and screaming with a couple of escorts.

Not exactly sexual discrimination, as they'd almost certainly ban guys that are touchy feely with female guests. More like trying to preserve their reputation and business, false positives and all. You can't really ask to see their Whatsapp or FB messages to investigate...

> Not exactly sexual discrimination, as they'd almost certainly ban guys that are touchy feely with female guests.

Of course it is sexual discrimination. What more is, you're skating close to it yourself by equating a woman eating quietly by herself with a guy being "touchy feely with female guests". If she was being touchy feely with male guests, and that was the justification, then that would have been an entirely different scenario.

You go on to compare it to guys "coming at the bar laughing and screaming with a couple of escorts".

Again you miss the point: If they set policies for conduct, such as "don't get touchy feely with the guests or you'll get sent to a table" or "no laughing and screaming at the bar", it'd be fine and not discriminatory.

But when they send women to tables but allow men to continue eating at the bar, it is very clear cut. I don't know if it is illegal in New York, but that clear discrimination certainly would be many other places.

I'm not convinced it would be illegal anywhere though. She isn't being prevented from eating there, simply being asked to sit is a particular place, chosen by the management. This is basically the definition of how seating works in restaurant. Your seats are selected for you, and if you don't like it you can go elsewhere...

We read an article, or her version. So we should keep that in mind. I doubt they did that the first time she sat there...

Read the article, or read it again. She was a regular customer and didn’t acquire “dates”. They knew she wasn’t an escort.

That's her side of the story. We don't know what the management saw, what they based their judgement on, whether they even considered her an escort or had this policy for single women in order to prevent other problems.

” had this policy for single women in order to prevent other problems.”

Right there, that’s sexual discrimination! You can’t have one rule for single men and another for single women.

>>So when doing an optics inventory on their patrons they treated the single woman in a patriarchal fashion: they automatically objectified, sexualised, put her (me) in a box – the treasure chest of pleasure.

Ummm...after 4 years of going there. I have no dog in this race just don't buy the worst thing here. Maybe they misjudged, maybe she lead them to believe otherwise...whatever. But maybe they just don't want people bothered at the bar by the opposite sex (or whatever they enjoy.) Some let ladies drink free to attract guys to the bar, some don't, and maybe pull the trigger too fast.

The callgirl thing is tricky. No one knows for sure unless they're there when you ask for the money? What if...she behaved like one? Maybe she was looking to meet a guy not have sex for money, but then, they judged it.

So ... because they could make decisions based on other citeria than the sex of the patron, it isn't sexual discrimination if they make a decision based on the sex of the patron?

Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact