Free complimentary meal for all women and girls
Go Matilda's!
T&Cs
- 1 Complimentary main meal per Matilda.
- Membership discounts may apply on remaining parties meals.
- Only applies 5pm-9pm Wednesday 16th August 2023.
Complimentary Main Meal for Women and Girls - 5-9pm Wednesday 16/8 @ Rashays
6454
Fat Horny Ghost on 15/08/2023 - 17:40 instagram.com (2441 clicks)
Last edited 15/08/2023 - 19:43 by 3 other users
Last edited 15/08/2023 - 19:43 by 3 other users
Related Stores
closed Comments
But its ok to ask for a beer
I was considering the Homer Simpson Fat dress.
https://tenor.com/en-AU/view/homer-simpson-walking-fat-gif-1…
Ahh the mumu!
Yes… yes it does
Another sex discrimination on men?
Yep
i identify as a woman
Using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut there, champ. You can't deny the opposite scenario (say when the Socceroos were playing) would generate a lot of backlash, as it is very much discrimination, regardless of whether you find it worrisome (I don't, nor does anybody sensible tbh).
@JohnHowardsEyebrows: LOL can you imagine. "Free meals for men to celebrate the NRL Grand Final!" You'd get permanent tinnitus from the immediate and relentless squeals of those decrying the offer's disgraceful discrimination against women.
@dwarves: Your inability to distinguish between a targeted business promotion aimed at cashing in on the Matilda euphoria and actual discrimination is suggestive of an overactive persecution complex, and a complete lack of awareness of the real world around you. To be consistent with your inanity presumably you're going to target cheap/free kids meals whenever a deal next pops up?
@Igaf: @lgaf eh? How would free meals for men to celebrate the NRL GF differ from Rashays’ promotion? Other than the opposite sexes benefiting, of course.
If your purported point is instead that neither circumstance comprises discrimination, maybe you should look that word up in the dictionary.
@rightguy: Read my comment again - I just said I have no issue with the deal. I was merely correcting your over-the-top response to those who do have a problem with it. Spare me the mansplaining.
@rightguy: Short back and sides is unsurprisingly cheaper than a wash and tint, womens clothing is more likely to be tailored so more difficult to make and therefore costs more to manufacture. I have paid for my wife and daughters menstrual products for years with no complaints, there are reusable alternatives of course but they go largely unused as they are less convenient. Men get to go out worried that they're going to get the shite beaten out of them, something that is statistically more common than sexual assault, but that's just male on male crime so who cares amiright. Why have a conversation with a woman about what life is like for them when they clearly have no interest in how difficult life can be for a man, and hold such a limited view of history that they think men as a whole have had nothing but a life of luxury for centuries, instead of being the ones doing the majority of the dying while society evolved to the point where equality is even an option. Discrimination is only a bad thing when you don't agree with it.
@try2bhelpful: I don't care how many times you've described your haircut, I haven't read it so you can be as nauseating as you like. 'Similar' is not the same, I'll guarantee a barber takes half the time to cut a mans hair than your hairdresser takes to cut yours, you are of course free to go to a barber shop.
I said nothing of the sort regarding any violence being discrimination, if anything I'm pointing out that it is indiscriminate. Honestly I'm not astonished that you think seeking out violent offenders to chat with is a good idea, I certainly wouldn't suggest women do similarly, but that's just me!
The rate at which women died in child birth is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of children that died in child birth or as toddlers to either illness or infanticide, or compared to the men used as cannon fodder to protect the 'civilisations' in which they reside. You cannot possibly believe that those in power throughout history, be they male or occasionally female, ever gave two shits about anyone from the lower classes regardless of their sex, they structured the world to benefit themselves not 'men' as a group, believing otherwise is an 'apex fallacy'. Religious tomes were a method of control by the aristocracy and their second born sons in the church, again they didn't not care about the peasants only what they could tax or tithe. Life was fundamentally crap for everyone just in different ways, anyone claiming otherwise is being deliberately obtuse and only concerned with one side of the ledger.
@rightguy: Hey 'rightguy', you are deliberately trying to see how many negs you can get by babbling rubbish, right?
I'm on to you ;P
Classic male discrimination..
Try and get into a nightclub mid summer in shorts and a shirt as a bloke..
Women in G banger and no shoes…no problems..come in..
1st world issue.. But it's there.
@rightguy: Oh its very real. It ruined many night for me. What it says on the website has no bearing on reality. Ive pointed at said dress code signs on the door many times that says "neat dress shorts". It was 31C over night, but still it was pants and collar or you arent getting in..one bouncer punched me in the guts just for asking him to read the sign. Others say your drunk, go home. Hadnt had a single drink. So yeah..its very real.
Test it today if you want. Simple as this..
Dress up like a man, put on some thongs and see if you get in.
Now dress up as a woman, put some glitter on the same thongs and see if anyone even blinks an eye.
@tunzafun001: Not around me you won’t. One of the local clubs near me has a no open toe shoe policy and they, honestly, don’t care what people wear as long as it isn’t a suit. I assume the footwear is to protect toesies on the dance floor. The advantage in living in an area where the clubs are gay friendly is anyone could be wearing anything, including a dress.
G banger and no shoes…no problems..come in..
I can confirm I tried that and it didn't work for me…
And there's nothing sexually discrimination against providing discounts or offers to various human groups.
The "various human groups" in this context are literally defined by their sex… And there are exclusive advantages being offered to some - but not others - based on this.
What mental gymnastics are going on in there for discrimination based on sex to not be sexual discrimination?
When have men as a specific group ever been discriminated against in Australian society?
Multiple examples come to mind. Here's just one. Go to 10 stores in any shopping centre like Kmart, Just Jeans, the rubbish shoe shop in many shopping centres, Reject Shop, etc. Note how many employees there are in total and how many of them are male vs female. Women get the job 80% or more of the time, and that's without focusing on jewellery stores, hairdressers, Katies shops, etc where obviously a woman is AGAIN preferred but to the extreme. And I'm being generous to the men in that first estimate. Usually it's more like 95% or higher. Women even win most of the jobs at Bunnings. There will a guy or two in the builders area, one in tools, and the rest are nearly all female like plants, paint, plumbing, floor coverings, etc. Even barbers and menswear stores like those with male suits, ties, and dress shoes will have more females. As does the local KFC, pathology, whatever car rego department your state has, chemist, real estate - I'm hard up to think of any business I would expect to see a male behind the counter - oh yeah, one - the bottle shop at the end of my street. In fact the only guys I see are there because they own the business. Like that bottle shop.
Women aren't "marginalized" LOL! Let me guess… You believe in the tired and oft-disproven pay gap trope too.
@[Deactivated]: This study of women in the Australian retail industry seems to be at odds with your statements. 57% of the retail force is women which doesn't sound like discrimination against men whatsoever.
Can I recommend you try not to make up things in internet posts when such things as Google and Google Scholar exist? It might have worked to bullshit your way through an argument in 1995 but we're in 2023 and it's not hard to think critically or google competently these days.
https://www.sydney.edu.au/content/dam/corporate/documents/bu…
@rightguy: Made up my arse. I don't care what some study shows, done by people with personal agendas, who can pick and choose the location and businesses they survey. I trust what I see with my own eyes in my area and I've described that with as little personal bias as I can.
- I walked into Cotton On the other day - not one male employee.
- Then I went into Kmart… 1 pimple-faced guy just out of school checking peoples receipts upon leaving, 1 guy in the photo area with 1 girl, and about 8 women throughout the rest of the store.
- Some surf shop I forget the name of - 2 women.
- Rivers - 1 man, 2 women.
- Athletes Foot - 3 women.
- Hearing test place - 2 women.
- Just Cuts - 5 women.
- Allan's barber - 1 man, 4 women.
- Jewelers - 5 women.
- Combined newsagent and Oz Post - 1 man, 4 women.
- Best & Less - all women.
- Reject Shop - all women.
- Chemist - 1 man, 4 women.
- Cookware store I forget the name of (the ones always with stocktake sale signs plastered all over the front) used to be the exception. It used to have 2 gay male owners. Three years later it's now 2 women.
- Dental clinic - all women.
- Hair removal place - all women.
- Baker's Delight - 1 man, 3 girls.
- Lowes menswear - 1 man, 2 women.
- Aldi - 1 man, 3 women.
- Building Society - all women.
- NAB - 2 men, 3 women
- Library - all women
- Rego place - 2 men, 4 women.
- Optus store 2 men 3 women.
- Pathology - all women.
About the only places I see with more than 2 men are Coles, Woolworths, Dominos, McDonalds, and KFC. They're all about two thirds women. But even Dominos has some nights when all girls are on.
@[Deactivated]: It's probably the same study that is used to show the percent of women in construction… you know, the ones holding the lolly pop signs.
The 'men' roles in retail are probably cleaners or maintenance
@[Deactivated]: Do you want a job in retail & believe that women prevent you from getting a job in retail?
@[Deactivated]: Currently? No. Have I lost jobs and positions in courses with limited spaces and been told it was due to being a man/not being a woman? Yes.
@[Deactivated]: lol no you haven't, and if you have you can sue them because that is literally illegal.
well they sho goin' be discriminated agin at Rashay's tomorrow from 5pm-9pm…
Is elderly a sex? You have no idea what Sex discrimination is, don’t you? Or maybe you are one of the people believe Sex Discrimination only applies to female.
@michael128: No it's a human group. When did I say that elderly is a sex? Discrimination doesn't just mean by basis of gender.
This is discrimination
99% of men throughtout history have been discriminated against.
The reality is the minority 1% for much of histroy controlled the resources and wealth.
I hope self ID is used to show the hypocricy of this misandry.
Conscription? which is probably worse then any discrimination any woman has ever had to deal with.
Giving out a free meal to "women only" is far from giving them equal rights, it is literally the definition of discrimination. I thought the Matilda's represented Australia, not only women?
It is also absolutely discrimination if providing discounts or offers to various human groups. All you have to do is replace those "human groups" with 'white males" and see if you would be offended.
The irony of all your incoherent blabbering is that 99% of women cannot stand men like you. Thanks for the laugh.
"When have men as a specific group ever been discriminated against…"
Conscription
@Ughhh: Yo Ug boots, re:
'Did women even have the right to vote and/or fight in the war?'
Women have served in various branches of Australia's armed forces since before 1900, and women have had the right to vote throughout Australia since well before World War 1; so 'yes', and 'yes'.
And what point were you trying to make with those seemingly irrelevant questions, anyway?
@GnarlyKnuckles: Your logic is garbage, and your statement regarding women's right to "fight" is verifiably wrong. Women were not permitted to join official combat ranks until recently, although many gave their lives providing other critical services - including intelligence. Others as you know (cough) joined resistance movements doing exactly the same things as their male counterparts. Some of our great WWII heroes were women. That fact in no way diminishes the huge contributions men have made to this country during conflict. You and your ignorant parroting mates need to WAKE (lol) up and do some f'ing reading - and not just about this nation's history or the VERY obvious discrimination many women have endured over time. I somehow doubt it but it might help your blind rw persecution complexes.
@GnarlyKnuckles: Too tough for you to apologise for your ignorance of fact was it Gnarly? The fool who raised conscription as an example of discrimination against men obviously knows nothing about the topic. Worse still he doesn't even have the nous to work out who made the laws and decisions regarding conscription in this - and most other - countries.
Man Power! Man Power!
Are you hard yet?Actively discriminating against men is a national sport in Australia, and it has been that way for a long time.
Murica too, look at the sitcoms
Give us some examples Gnarly (great nick btw, very apt if I may say so). We can't help you with your completely unbalanced attitudes and opinions but we can probably help you understand what was behind that "discrimination" you perceive everywhere. Given your obviously strident views on the topic why don't you file a complaint with Commissioner Kate Jenkins? I'm sure she'll give your concerns the consideration and respect they deserve.
@Igaf: Here's a poignant example that may surprise you gaffer.
In Australia, employers are legally allowed to actively discriminate against men, when hiring for all sorts of jobs; and they do exactly that. A few years ago I took part in a lengthy dialogue here on OzB on that very subject, in which I supplied all sorts of incontrovertible evidence. I'll try and rustle up the link to that forum for you.
Maybe start here:
@GnarlyKnuckles: I can imagine how excellent that discussion would have been. Were any thinking or informed adults involved?
This might help you understand why it's possible: https://www.workplacelaw.com.au/posts/advertising-for-female… but you'll have to do some reading and soul searching to understand the background to the legal framework/political decisions involved.
Of course you'd then have to acknowledge that diversity, equal opportunity and balance are desirable aims which should (and will) ultimately benefit society, sometimes at the expense of the individual (male in this case) - which is where the pain starts. And there is real pain in righting the obvious failures of the past. Or perhaps you believe that the ~50% female population aren't as capable as males, and that they've all had/will have the same opportunity, despite the very obvious stats to the contrary? More likely you're having trouble adjusting to change and feeling left out. THAT is understandable. Experts have acknowledged the increased challenges facing many young males in the new millennium. Not a young male? Then you have no excuse whatsoever for your ignorance, although I acknowledge that nearly a decade of Ozbargain debate is very likely to entrench particular extreme notions, especially if you're the credulous type.
@Igaf: Yo Gaffer, re:
'Of course you'd then have to acknowledge that … equal opportunity [is a] desirable aim [that] should (and will) ultimately benefit society'
That is one of my central points. It baffles me how you have completely failed to grasp the fact that 'positive discrimination', which you clearly embrace, is quite literally a diametric opposite of 'equal opportunity'.
May I also ask that you try to leave juvenile rubbish like 'Were any thinking or informed adults involved?' at the door? If you bothered to actually read (and maybe even contemplate) the comments of others here rather than ethnocentrically focusing on your own soap-boxing, you may learn something. If indeed, you have not now become so set in your convictions that you are incapable of reassessing anything.
@GnarlyKnuckles: Sorry, you obviously don't understand what equal opportunity actually involves and how its aims are actually similar to those of diversity. Your attempt to interpret the words literally (to justify your black and white opinions) and in isolation are a looooong way away from reality. I'm not in the least surprised given your negging of this deal and you other comments . Closed minds and ideological blindness are rarely good starting points . Nothing that a few hours of reading couldn't fix if you tried though.
Equal Opportunity is NOT as you think solely about opportunity for all based on nothing other than so called "merit" (you might want to do some reading on the failures of that notion in many spheres) but also involves some attempt (often clunky and less than perfect) to remove barriers and out-of-date attitudes, hence improve what is OBVIOUSLY not a level playing field for many people. It also does NOT operate separately from efforts to improve diversity and inclusion, hence you're unlikely to win a case of discrimination where diversity has been given a higher value than you personally might expect. "Affirmative action" has as many drawbacks as it has positives, but in some cases it's been deemed to be the only way to bring knuckle draggers into the 21st century. I suggest you read about the economic effects of diversity/affirmative action (which is not equivalent to quotas in case you wander down that track) and why your progressive businesses and governments have long since moved on from your simplistic notion of "equal opportunity".
It might be difficult for you to assimilate (and probably impossible to accept) how diversity, positive discrimination and equal opportunity fit together because it involves nuance, and imperfect human interpretation and implementation (ie mistakes will and do occur at the margins of EO/diversity/'affirmative action'). But that doesn't negate either the principle or the CLEAR benefits of actions which right the wrongs of, and lift those left behind by, decades/centuries of ignorance, neglect, and what can best be described as misplaced paternity.
Yeh, this is really disappointing. This is what happens when you get a room of people who jump on an idea, but don’t think it through.
The whole ‘women in soccer’ thing should be about inclusion, not exclusion. It should be all about how female sport is REAL sport, which I’m really glad we’re seeing based on how the whole country is getting behind the Matildas and treating this like the usual men’s comp.
That achievement isn’t helped or furthered by now creating division of genders.
If you think gifting a free meal to women at a subpar pizza chain is creating a division of genders we are on two utterly separate planet.
I’m not triggered, it’s okay :)
But the underlying principle pushed by this deal is not consistent with the achievement of elevating female sport into the public consciousness as REAL sport that everyone enjoys. Which then brings flow-on benefits like more sponsorship, better salaries for female sportspeople, etc.
I think what you’re trying to say is that we shouldn’t riot in the streets over something like this. I agree. But your comment is a response to something different than what I actually said.
@rightguy: I wasn’t talking about whether men will lose out financially, which assumes men even have a female partner that they can bring. So, again, you’ve made a different point.
The irony here is that female sport being elevated to the male equivalent is about unifying the concept of sport as a whole, regardless of gender—but this deal underscores the idea of keeping it separate.
Anyway, I’m making an academic/conceptual point. No true real-world impact, hence why I really don’t care and am not triggered, etc. I was just commenting that, in my own opinion, it’s a shit idea.
But now, I shrug my shoulders, and I move on to other deals.
Cheers ✌️
EDIT: It’s the same as Albo offering a public holiday to women only, if the Matildas win. Whether you agree with a public holiday or not, having that for women only is stupid. As a nation, we all celebrate, just as we would for men.
@rightguy: You’ve heard of the epidemic of loneliness, right?
I think it’s awful to say that someone who doesn’t have a female in their life is “very ill”.
There are plenty of people, male and female, who have no friends. And there are countless other reasons why they might have females in their life, but not able/comfortable to invite them to a meal.
This is all getting way off point now.
Back on point: Go Matildas!
@rightguy: Re:
'And that level of sever[e] isolation where you literally don't have a single female in your life would speak to a major mental health disorder.'
What a load of toss. You're virtually just spouting random emotive phrases now 'rightguy' …
I can't understand how anyone has any negs left, given your seemingly never-ending torrent of utterly negworthy tripe.
@rightguy: LOLOLOL, hey 'rightguy', re:
'If men want Rashay's they can take their wife, girlfriend, sister, friend, colleague, mother, etc and get 50% off the bill …'
You do realise that you made the incredibly sexist assumption that the a bloke is naturally expected to 'foot the bill' for the women, right?
LOLOLOL … you may now fall down, witness
It would be nice to live in a sane society where we could have things like this without anybody even batting an eye. It's harmless, fun, and generous.
But the issue is that when men receive any slight advantage whatsoever, even earned or imagined, the entirety of the modern West goes into meltdown.
It's only natural that when women are on the receiving end of exclusive benefits, encouraged and celebrated in that same modern Western culture, a lot of men are becoming frustrated and incredulous at the hypocrisy.
@HarryBolt66: I think the point is that we don’t solve one problem by simply creating another.
Like solving domestic violence against women by teaching women how to inflict violence against men. The objective should be to end ALL domestic violence.
So, back to this deal: A shit idea is a shit idea.
@HarryBolt66: I get my haircut at a wonderful award winning barber here and it costs me $20-$25. I have never seen a woman standing outside going into meltdown because I'm getting a haircut $100 cheaper than them. No one is out there protesting. No one is doing anything. We are all just getting on with our lives.
So I don't know what world you live in where people get upset over men getting small insignificant advantages like a free meal. Men literally get the essential of free meals in society every day.
Maybe just stop picking on marginalized groups and actually spend some time with some real women in a positive way. Maybe actually talk to some women about what it's like to be a woman and to live in a society that historically marginalized women.
@rightguy: Not sure where you’re getting a $20 haircut but here on the Gold Coast, it Coast me $60
You’ve been making up some of weird situations to make your point come across stronger 🤦🏽♂️
@rightguy: @rightguy a woman could get the same haircut as a man and pay the same price. They are paying for a different haircut hence a different price.
Equally a man could grow their hair longer and get the same haircut women get and pay the higher price.
This "deal" is pretty sad as it is divisive based on gender to celebrate inclusion of women in soccer. Do I personally care? Not overly but on principle it is wrong no matter how much you want to justify it.
Fwiw equality for women is not equality for all and so is a flawed concept. We should be striving for equality for all irrespective of gender.
@rightguy: You're not getting a $100 haircut cheaper than a woman. A woman going to a barber and gettign the same haircut gets the same price as you.
Few woman want the kind of haircut a barber is going to give them.
But the issue is that when men receive any slight advantage whatsoever, even earned or imagined, the entirety of the modern West goes into meltdown.
Calm down. The reality is that no it doesn't, even if your overactive sensitivities tell you that's the case.
It's only natural that when women are on the receiving end of exclusive benefits, encouraged and celebrated in that same modern Western culture, a lot of men are becoming frustrated and incredulous at the hypocrisy.
A lot? You're exaggerating wildly, especially in the context of this deal. Small sample size but I can safely say that 100% of the males I know would have no problems with this or similar promotions. And, based on the lack of public interest, I'd have an educated guess that the hysterical response to this Rashays deal is almost totally confined to a particular Ozbargain demographic, which - fortunately for Australian society - is completely unrepresentative.
@Igaf: Yet again gaffers, you have it all wrong.
What 'the males you know' think/do is utterly irrelevant in the broader context of things. Any males who willingly dwell in your company are almost certain to be 'like-minded'.
Re 'lack of public interest', that is clearly a subjective summation solely of your own creation; particularly given that this 'so-called deal' has attracted an enormous number (and proportion) of negative votes, from a broad cross-section of Australian society.
@GnarlyKnuckles: Comprehension problems Gnarly? Yes I don't get around with rw nutters, Trump lovers, SKY fans, misogynists, misandrists, or other extremists be they right or left, but I do enjoy the company of normal people - men and women - who don't get hyperbolically enraged about things they clearly know (and in reality actually care) sfa about. As I said tongue in cheek, it was a small sample size. You might have overlooked where I backed it with demonstrably accurate anecdote about the obvious lack of public annoyance or media interest in what you and your juvenile Ozbargain mates consider intolerable discrimination by a business. I understand though. Ozb is your notion of reality and where you're most likely to get confirmation of your arcane opinions. Taking offence at trivial things is a new millennium characteristic of extremists at both ends of the political spectrum, and I can safely predict which end most of the deal neggers lie on that spectrum.
Ozbargain negative or positive votes are representative of views across Australia? Ozbargainers are a "a cross-section of Australian society"? Ffs, how old are you? The former is preposterous and laughable nonsense, the latter almost certainly incorrect. I might be wrong but think I can guess the typical demographic and it certainly is NOT a "cross section" of anything typical, other than those looking for a bargain. The age and sex profiles alone are hugely skewed, although you not noticing that is, ironically, typical of your own demographic. All I can say is 'God' help us all if your claims are even vaguely real.
Hang on a minute here…they offer other subpar meals too, not just pizza!
(confession: I don't think their other meals are actually subpar, given the cost)
I identify as a female
Username checks out.
Or just say you are non-binary
No dice bud…only women and girls are eligible.
Apparently there is a division there somewhere.
Reverse the genders on this promotion and imagine the social outrage.
TRIGGER 😡😡😡
trigger was a horse in a tv western in the 50's
don't know why he is so famous now
Is this even legal?
Sozlicitors
Discriminating against men has been legal in Australia since the 80s and has been legally compulsory in most states since around 2010.
But this isnt treating people equal, it is giving a specific gender an advantage, so your point is invalid.
How is:
"Women eat free.
Men must pay"
EQUAL rights?@Almost Banned: Because it doesn't make sense if you say:
Women eat pay
Men must free"
Right equals?
But elderly is inclusive as everyone becomes elderly… Not everyone becomes a woman. And I say that as a Victorian, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
Hey 'rightguy', if you get 1000 negs here in this thread I think you should change your username to 'wrongguy'. I think that acknowledging that your thinking is greatly at odds with that of the wider community in which you live via such a name change would be the right thing to do.
What is a woman?
Ha, sure pal.
Dressing up with burqa count for men?