Until fairly recently, "ladies menus" were standard fare at restaurants.  This is exactly the same as the regular menu, but without the prices printed on it.  The man received the menu with the prices listed, and the woman received the price-free menu.  She wasn't to worry her pretty little head about it, you see - only the man, the one who was of course paying for the meal, needed to know the prices.

I had never heard of a "ladies menu" until today, and I'm not that young (37 if you must know).  But if you start asking around, many people remember them well.  The internet is chock full of comments from women chuckling at the silliness of it, the idea that women didn't need to know the price, the assumption that the man would be paying, that the man was the sole breadwinner, that the tab would not be split, or (clutch your pearls in shock!) paid by the woman.

In fact, these menus still exist, but in a different context.  I found this New York Times article about "blind menus," which are still in use at many restaurants.  They are most often used for business dinners, where a business person will be paying the tab for their guest(s).  And for the special occasion meal, like an anniversary or birthday dinner, where the person paying wants to be sure that the recipient doesn't feel awkward about ordering anything they want.

Of course, this only shifts the power struggle to a different footing.  But isn't that the point of footing the bill for a business client?  That it gives you the high ground, and puts them in the submissive position?  How else to explain the struggle at the end of the meal over who will pick up the tab, which can sometimes get quite heated?  From an economics perspective, it would only make sense to squabble over who DOESN'T pay the tab.  Clearly there is something more valuable than money at stake here, and that is power.

To quote Sidhedevil's recent Metafilter comment, "Chivalry is the consolation prize awarded in a sexist society."  I suspect that if you ask most women, even those who don't self identify as "feminists," they would tell you that they prefer to be handed the same menu as their male dining companion.  

Part of the problem with the "ladies menu" is that it would be handed to the women at the table automatically, with no regard for the circumstances of the meal or the diners.  Got boobs?  Then you get the "ladies menu."  End of story.

(Needless to say, this was a grossly cis-gendered practice, operating as it did solely on the physical appearance of the people at the table.)

The factor which may have repealed the ladies menu more than any other is the prospect of looming lawsuits, based on discriminatory practices.  Witness this warning from a 1981 restaurant industry magazine, "Menus Without Prices May Lead to Discrimination Charges."  Food politics have always been tricky with regards to gender issues, and this has changed little over the decades.  But at least now we all get the same menus.