Vegan cafe charges male customers 18 percent ‘man tax’

Correction: "There's been nothing but positivity from everyone, every single female customer."

I say that because no card-carrying, self-respecting male would support a business that promotes blatant discrimination against his sex.

It baffles me that this business is still open after alienating 48% of its customer base. Then again, it is in Australia, the mother ship of gynocentric nonsense.

I really wish someone would do a tax awareness bake sale where men pay one third what women do and get more than twice as much, much like women do when it comes to taxes and government services.

Comes as little surprise that feminists are rallying for ways to get men to subsidize women in general; this 18% man tax is just that, with insult added to injury by second-class citizenship seating.

Indeed, how any self-respecting man could darken that cafe's doorstep is beyond me. But there are a lot of guys out there who have drunk the Kool-Aid. As a contrast, look at how many women in the Muslim world are ardent supporters of compulsory hijab-wearing for women, etc.? *Anyone*'s mind can be poisoned even against one's own best interests.

As the marriage rate declines, men on aggregate are spending less and less subsidizing women and their lifestyles. In the past, men subsidized women directly on a personal level by making money and giving much of it to them to buy stuff with. Now that men are not doing that nearly as much as we used to, some women have concocted an alternate strategy: impersonal, but still gender-based, subsidization. It's already firmly in place, just not as widespread as certain women would like to see it. We see it in the federal WIC program, etc. And indeed, men tend to pay more taxes than do women, not just personal income but also corporate taxes, ie, the corporations men create are taxed, as well they should be. But to deny that much of the taxation on entities in terms of money being taken from them is on corporations, which ought to be no surprise, and that these entities are largely founded and operated by men, is to deny the obvious. Nonetheless, look at who is generating the tax revenue and to whom is that revenue going. Even if the intermediaries are men or entities operated/founded by men, the money eventually wends its way back to women as a whole. So long as men subsidize women personally, that is what will happen, because the money has to go somewhere. Women get subsidized by the government *and* the men in their lives. Some limited number of men get subsidized by the gov't, and virtually none of us get subsidized by women, or if we do, not for long.

Same shit, different day. Ironic that in the 70s, feminists held up any means that could be used to get women to become self-supporting people who did not need or want men to subsidize them. Fast forward to today and I have yet to meet one woman who does not think a man should in some way be paying for her to be in his life in almost any capacity. If women one day wonder why men turned to AI-enabled female androids for sex and companionship, they will have only to look at the price tag's difference. And yet, seems almost impossible to find a woman who will readily and openly admit that it is women who rush to commodify and rent themselves out to men despite millennia of evidence showing female primate hypergamy for what it is.