In a move that is designed to generate not one single solution (but sure to generate free publicity) word from Australia is one restaurant entrepreneur has taken a drastic step in the name of gender equality. A vegan cafe (just picture the stampede of male diners) has declared it will institute a 18% “man tax”. In addition the female patrons will be given priority seating over male diners.
This is supposedly a bold decision, and one with deep ramifications. In reality it is little more than symbolic posturing that will lead to two probable results: apathetic societal reactions, or insolvency. (Interjections my own)
The Handsome Her shop (you already get the sense of what a draw this will be for men), in Melbourne, Australia, had hoped to shine a light on the gender pay gap (as a sandwich cafe is apt to do) with its controversial new rules. (The “controversy” is entirely insisted upon.) Owner Alex O’Brien, who is also a feminist, (I’ll give you a moment to recover your seat, from which you surely just plummeted) told the Broadsheet website: ‘I do want people to think about it (sure, because it is cheaper than buying advertising), because we’ve had this pay discrepancy for decades and decades (a sexist panini tax will surely repair this) and we’re bringing it to the forefront of people’s minds. (Overcharging for kale smoothies has a history of restoring society’s inequities.) ‘I like that it is making men stop and question their privilege a little bit.’
Trust me Alex, the only thing men will be questioning is why they walked into your emporium in the first place. This could lead to other thorny issues, such as will couples deign to avoid this tax by having the woman pay for both meals? This seems itself a punishment, given the ladies are already making less, and now they get saddled with the bill!
Alex insists this is all done with the utmost happiness and support from her customer base.
One of the male patrons reportedly donated $50 (£30) because he was so in favour of them. She added: ‘There’s been nothing but positivity from everyone, males and females.’
Note the omission of just how many males frequent her cafe. I don’t dispute there are some wheatgrass chomping vagina-hat-warriors willing to frequent her cafe. I will dispute that there will be enough to keep the wicker doors open. As leftists tend to do with taxation, they only see compliant payers funding their dream; they rarely anticipate their tax driving away those with cash.
Alex is about to receive an unanticipated econ lesson.
As a counterpoint, in China, there is another restaurant example of preferential female pricing. This one however I doubt will get the feminists crowing in agreement. In the city of Hangzhou you will find the couture eatery The Trendy Shrimp. There you would encounter the creative promotional campaign aimed at female diners.
The company’s adverts showed a line-up of cartoon women in their underwear with the slogan “The whole city is looking for BREASTS”. It listed discounts for women depending on their cup size, with greater offers available to women with bigger busts.
The price scale begins by offering demure ladies with an A-cup a 5% discount, however the price drops as the circumference expands, so a lass with a generous G-cup can pay only 35% of the list price. This too however appears to be another calculated publicity-targeting gambit. While the discounts increase commensurate with the increase in balcony size, the likelihood of these women enjoying this discount actually decreases.
That is because the larger their breasts the more likely a man will be picking up the tab. And in opposition to that Aussie eatery however, there is a greater chance of men actually frequenting this establishment.