as women will often be buying new clothes for their boyfriends/husbands.
I first heard this stat on MN, and it’s funny how the presentation is different. Here it’s been used to imply that women are spending like billy-o but there the presentation was that women are responsible for 80p in every pound spent at UK shops, I think it may have been slightly higher at supermarkets.
Their point was that boycotting places that act against women’s interests is something that works. And I think it does. I’ve not set foot in any in person store that lets men in the changing rooms since they did it and I have told them why
(there’s a man in the changing room
oh yes trans women are women,
There’s a man in the changing room and I’d like to try this on before I buy it
That’s the only one we have
Oh dear, well (hands assistant large pile of clothes) I’ll need to go elsewhere, you have a lovely day now.
I no longer buy anything that has started with the ‘men have periods too’ or ‘front hole’ nonsense. Advertising your women’s swim kit with men? Not a penny more from me shall you see.
The bud light thing was probably generally a male boycott - I’d imagine that more men than women bought it. The brand has been destroyed, because men don’t want to be associated with the mockable tranny beer. That’s worked even with AB having sizeable other brands and ESG money.
My point anyway is that if women are holding the purse strings for most household level spending, then companies that screw women over can be dealt with quite effectively. ESG money made that hard for a while, it short circuited the ability to vote with your purse, but that money is drying up now.