It gave in the parallel Universe of Twitter: Catharina Lima, resident in Florianópolis, posted a photo of five pots of ice cream that his father had given him. Hazelnut, milk, chocolate, dulce de leche and pistachio, all from the Bacio di Latte brand.
“Me: I need to eat cold things for x days. My father: [foto dos sorvetes]”, he wrote.
Apparently Catharina had a tooth extracted or had surgery on her face. I do not know. It doesn’t matter, whatever, no father needs a reason to show affection for his daughter.
Still, the girl was massacred as if the paternal gesture were an act of ostentation of wealth. The most absurd comment read as follows:
“Here we see the wealth implicit in bourgeois society. A father who pays 300 reais in ICE CREAM is probably the one who flogged my great-grandfather in the past.”
Seriously, where are we? Relieve the fact that the father must be too young to be charged. What has one thing to do with the other? Ice cream with bondage? Dessert with oppression?
The discussion connects with my last two posts about an Easter egg sold for R$5,950 by a baker in São Paulo. Then I sounded the trumpet of ostentation and lack of sensitivity to misery. Eggs and ice cream are very different things – also in the symbolic field.
The nearly R$6,000 egg falls into a category of products designed for the luxury market.
It is in the interest of both the seller and the buyer that the price of the article is exorbitant: the fewer units in circulation, the greater the exclusivity. It is the abstract value of the object; the actual value of the chocolate itself is also above average. But it matters very little to the parties involved in the transaction.
Catharina’s father’s ice cream is made in large quantities for a network of stores present in 10 states and the Federal District, plus the jars that go to retail. It competes with Univeler’s Ben & Jerry’s in the same price range. They are more expensive brands than square-pot ice cream filled with vegetable fat and junk. Definitely not exclusive items.
In fact, Catharina’s father would have paid R$40 for the ice cream pot if he had bought it at the Pão de Açúcar supermarket. This totals BRL 200 (not BRL 300) without any applicable promotions.
So for the Twitter patrol, R$200 in a gift for their daughter is absurd. They’re going to pick up coconuts.
Just yesterday, I went with my son – 9 years old, but he already eats like an adult – in a restaurant by the kilo, without any sophistication, in the center of Atibaia (SP). Each helped himself to a plate. He had a passion fruit juice and accepted dessert (complimentary!), a tapioca cream.
The bill was R$ 101.37, more than half the value of the ice cream. Sorry for the ostentation, but we needed lunch.
Let’s propose another situation, this time hypothetical.
Suppose I had a living father and I was a young man returning, say, from a school year in another city. My father wants to have a barbecue to welcome me. Only the closest family.
A 1.1-kilo rump steak –well, it’s a special occasion– costs R$85.46 in the same market as the R$40 ice cream.
A kilo of Tuscan sausage, R$ 26.90. Little heart, pack of 620 grams, R$ 18.59. Two packages of coalho cheese, R$ 48. Ready-made farofa, R$ 5.79. Coal –coal is important–, R$17.99 for a 2.5 kg package.
The vinaigrette we make with what we have at home. But calm down. The account has already paid R$ 202.73. Brought the R$200 without a measly beer.
I doubt anyone would consider the barbecue described above luxurious. Eating ice cream isn’t either.
Ice cream is not luxury. Food is not luxury. We can’t normalize hunger and absurd prices, but you can’t embark on certain patrols.
(Follow and like Cozinha Bruta on social networks. Follow the posts on Instagram and twitter.)
