Women pay more for everyday items. Gender Price Gap. GOTDAMN!!

Recommended Videos

Eclipse Dragon

Lusty Argonian Maid
Legacy
Jan 23, 2009
4,259
12
43
Country
United States
Random Gamer said:
Parasondox said:
What do you all think? Yeah, handbags are expensive. Make my wallet cry and depressed expensive.
I've been around for a few decades and I still haven't understood why anyone would burden herself with such a big cumbersome shit like a handbag. Just use your pockets, trousers and jackets have them for a reason.
Handbags carry more stuff (including female hygiene products) and keep the important stuff all in one place. I never lose my things, because I know they're always in my bag, the guys I know on the other hand are always losing their keys, wallets, they don't always have their ID with them when they need it. Forget having things like sunglasses, reading glasses, medication (allergy, pain, ext). Handbags are extremely useful for carrying things that you don't need yet, but might need later[footnote]some of my more conservative or safety cautious relatives carry guns, pepper spray, ext in their bags[/footnote], that includes things for other people as I've found myself sometimes carrying my boyfriend's stuff because he didn't have enough room in his pockets.

That being said, handbags aren't always expensive, only the name brands are. You can buy a good, useful handbag for around $10 and nobody needs something the size of a diaper bag unless they have kids. Large bags are too cumbersome IMO and I prefer something with an across shoulder strap so I can use my hands without it slipping off.

I also forgo carrying a handbag at the gym, while hiking or if I'm just going someplace to hangout with friends.

Basically, it's really useful to have the extra room, you'd need a hoodie with the giant middle pocket or cargo pants to get similar functionality and then you risk your important stuff going through the washer if you don't remember to take it all out.

---------------------------

For the record, I have absolutely no qualms about using men's razors and shaving cream, my sister does it even cheaper, she uses bar soap in place of shaving cream. I can't even use the brands specifically made for women, such as Skintimate, there's something in them that makes me break out in hives.

I do like a nice smelling lotion, but I don't need to have it and I also like the smell of plain old Dial soap, which might actually be better for my skin than scented body washes.

Deodorant though, I don't need the baby powder scent, but I really can't go around smelling like Old Spice either.
 

Fallow

NSFB
Oct 29, 2014
423
0
0
Eclipse Dragon said:
Handbags carry more stuff (including female hygiene products) and keep the important stuff all in one place. I never lose my things, because I know they're always in my bag, the guys I know on the other hand are always losing their keys, wallets, they don't always have their ID with them when they need it. Forget having things like sunglasses, reading glasses, medication (allergy, pain, ext). Handbags are extremely useful for carrying things that you don't need yet, but might need later[footnote]some of my more conservative or safety cautious relatives carry guns, pepper spray, ext in their bags[/footnote], that includes things for other people as I've found myself sometimes carrying my boyfriend's stuff because he didn't have enough room in his pockets.
I cannot imagine anything less safe than rummaging around in a handbag where your finger might snag on the trigger of a gun. Has this been pointed out to said relatives?
 

Eclipse Dragon

Lusty Argonian Maid
Legacy
Jan 23, 2009
4,259
12
43
Country
United States
Fallow said:
I cannot imagine anything less safe than rummaging around in a handbag where your finger might snag on the trigger of a gun. Has this been pointed out to said relatives?
The safety is on.
 

Batou667

New member
Oct 5, 2011
2,238
0
0
Zhukov said:
That "tampon tax" thing is bullshit though. I mean, "non-essential luxury"? Fucking seriously? Do they count toilet paper and soap as non essential luxuries as well?
I dunno. Do sanitary towels have the same tax applied to them? Because if not, then I guess there's the (debatable) basis for calling tampons a luxury since cheaper alternatives exist.

Everything else is fairly irrelevant. Period pain tablets cost more? Buy generic paracetamol. Women's razors cost more? Buy men's razors then.
 

Batou667

New member
Oct 5, 2011
2,238
0
0
Eclipse Dragon said:
That being said, handbags aren't always expensive, only the name brands are. You can buy a good, useful handbag for around $10 and nobody needs something the size of a diaper bag unless they have kids.
Absolutely. A while back I sold quite a few handbags on eBay and you'd be surprised how much you need to mark the damn things down to get them to sell. Buy online or in a thrift shop and you probably *could* buy a branded bag for $5. Nobody *needs* this season's brandname.
 
Apr 5, 2008
3,736
0
0
Women are far and away bigger spenders and shoppers than men. Shops know this and market to women significantly more than men. It's not sexism, it's business.

Also, I should add that if men are buying the same products cheaper, then that means that either men are cannier buyers or women miss the cheaper products while browsing (or opt for the more expensive ones).

Sexism? Bullshit.
 

Eliam_Dar

New member
Nov 25, 2009
1,517
0
0
As many said before, this is because women are the ones that spend the most. And there is an easy way to check this, go to any mall, and see how many stores are aimed to women and how many are aimed to men. This is because men mostly tend to buy the things they need, while women tend to buy what they like.
 

Fallow

NSFB
Oct 29, 2014
423
0
0
Eclipse Dragon said:
Fallow said:
I cannot imagine anything less safe than rummaging around in a handbag where your finger might snag on the trigger of a gun. Has this been pointed out to said relatives?
The safety is on.
If one can accidentally snag the trigger one can accidentally snag the safety.
 

Eclipse Dragon

Lusty Argonian Maid
Legacy
Jan 23, 2009
4,259
12
43
Country
United States
Eliam_Dar said:
As many said before, this is because women are the ones that spend the most. And there is an easy way to check this, go to any mall, and see how many stores are aimed to women and how many are aimed to men. This is because men mostly tend to buy the things they need, while women tend to buy what they like.
My dad has a collection of palm trees, he buys palm trees, I don't think he needs the palm trees (I know you were speaking in general, I'm just having fun), but don't underestimate a guy's ability to buy stuff he wants, or a women's ability to withhold from buying things she wants.

You'll find more clothing stores aimed at women because women wear a larger variety of clothing. I worked in a shoe store for six years, half the store was for women, that's because women get boots, high heeled boots, fuzzy boots, short heeled pumps, high heeled pumps, flat sporty sandals, flat dressy sandals, dressy sandals with a short heel, dressy sandals with a high heel, athletic sneakers, all of these things in all the colors of the rainbow.

Guys on the other hand get...
Work boots, Sneakers, Flip Flops, Dress Shoes
In brown, black, white (only for sneakers), and maybe tan if you're lucky.

Personally, I think guys are getting a bit screwed by the fashion industry, but if women are spending more, it may be because women have more options.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Do said women not have access to the same items the men have and vice versa? If so, then you're noticing a difference in consumer spending habits between genders and not a difference in charge. If men bought the same items as women the price would be different, hence not discrimination.

This is basically just saying that women decide to pay more for every day items by choosing more expensive items than men. Whose fault is that?
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
Market forces and sexism aren't mutually exclusive. It may well be because of market forces that a company chooses to charge more for products aimed at women, but that doesn't stop it being sexist.

And yes, I can think of reverse examples of the problem as well, like how men are still often paying more for car insurance than women - an imbalance that was supposed to have been resolved by EU regulation.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
maninahat said:
Market forces and sexism aren't mutually exclusive. It may well be because of market forces that a company chooses to charge more for products aimed at women, but that doesn't stop it being sexist.

And yes, I can think of reverse examples of the problem as well, like how men are still often paying more for car insurance than women - an imbalance that was supposed to have been resolved by EU regulation.
Both genders are capable of buying both expensive and inexpensive products. They are never charged differently for the same product.

There is no discrimination happening. If a woman sees the color pink and can't stop opening her purse then that's her problem, not the company that decided to make a product she wants more than a product that is cheaper but less appealing.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
Lightknight said:
maninahat said:
Market forces and sexism aren't mutually exclusive. It may well be because of market forces that a company chooses to charge more for products aimed at women, but that doesn't stop it being sexist.

And yes, I can think of reverse examples of the problem as well, like how men are still often paying more for car insurance than women - an imbalance that was supposed to have been resolved by EU regulation.
Both genders are capable of buying both expensive and inexpensive products. They are never charged differently for the same product.

There is no discrimination happening. If a woman sees the color pink and can't stop opening her purse then that's her problem, not the company that decided to make a product she wants more than a product that is cheaper but less appealing.
a) That's not actually true about people not paying differently for the same product. For instance, women are notoriously likely to get over charged on things like car repairs and car deals, due to the stereotype that they know less about cars than men.
b) You seem to be of the view that as long as women can buy stuff aimed at men and not aimed at women to avoid being ripped off, there is no discrimination. Let's try it the other way around - if men's clothes and razors were so over priced you had to buy women's clothes and razors, would you not see the problem there either?
 

Siege_TF

New member
May 9, 2010
582
0
0
Lightknight said:
maninahat said:
Market forces and sexism aren't mutually exclusive. It may well be because of market forces that a company chooses to charge more for products aimed at women, but that doesn't stop it being sexist.

And yes, I can think of reverse examples of the problem as well, like how men are still often paying more for car insurance than women - an imbalance that was supposed to have been resolved by EU regulation.
Both genders are capable of buying both expensive and inexpensive products. They are never charged differently for the same product.

There is no discrimination happening. If a woman sees the color pink and can't stop opening her purse then that's her problem, not the company that decided to make a product she wants more than a product that is cheaper but less appealing.
Yes but expecting women to take the responsibilities that they don't want is oppression; they need to be protected from themselves by other women, because then it's not patriarchy, so it's okay.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
maninahat said:
Lightknight said:
maninahat said:
Market forces and sexism aren't mutually exclusive. It may well be because of market forces that a company chooses to charge more for products aimed at women, but that doesn't stop it being sexist.

And yes, I can think of reverse examples of the problem as well, like how men are still often paying more for car insurance than women - an imbalance that was supposed to have been resolved by EU regulation.
Both genders are capable of buying both expensive and inexpensive products. They are never charged differently for the same product.

There is no discrimination happening. If a woman sees the color pink and can't stop opening her purse then that's her problem, not the company that decided to make a product she wants more than a product that is cheaper but less appealing.
a) That's not actually true about people not paying differently for the same product. For instance, women are notoriously likely to get over charged on things like car repairs and car deals, due to the stereotype that they know less about cars than men.
Products and services are different terms. This article is pertaining to basic every day goods. If you walk into a store and pick up a bar of soap you will never be charged more than another person walking into the store and picking up the same bar of soap.

If you walk into a car shop with a suit on you will be charged more for a repair job than had you walked into the same shop at the same time with a t-shirt with holes in it. This is because they profile and as such are frequently perceived as crooks. I'd love to see the service industry take a hit for profiling price changes.

b) You seem to be of the view that as long as women can buy stuff aimed at men and not aimed at women to avoid being ripped off, there is no discrimination. Let's try it the other way around - if men's clothes and razors were so over priced you had to buy women's clothes and razors, would you not see the problem there either?
Am I wanting to pay extra for something that isn't a certain color or has a specific design on it as compared to another product that is out there? Then I've got to pay for said object because it is more valuable to me. That's how these prices have been decided. Are you advocating that we protect the "poor helpless women" from making financial decisions themselves? Because... that would be pretty interesting... Don't forget that in catering to a single demographic the companies are also forgoing the revenue typically obtained by the other demographics so niche products are more expensive to produce if you want to get similar revenue streams.

Right now there are a ton of gender neutral products too, but women choose to buy things like the specialty soaps or the extra high quality hair care products. Not only that, but due to style choices like long hair women also have to purchase these things more frequently.

Women also purchase things that are ultra expensive that men spend very little on. Like perfumes and makeups. That category alone would horribly inflate the difference.
 

Ihateregistering1

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,034
0
0
maninahat said:
Market forces and sexism aren't mutually exclusive. It may well be because of market forces that a company chooses to charge more for products aimed at women, but that doesn't stop it being sexist.

And yes, I can think of reverse examples of the problem as well, like how men are still often paying more for car insurance than women - an imbalance that was supposed to have been resolved by EU regulation.
Car insurance isn't really comparable because you don't have a choice in the matter. If I walk into an insurance place and ask them how much it will cost to insure my 2009 Honda Civic, and they say "$1000 a year if you're a man, $900/year if you're a woman", I can't say "oh well I 'll take the woman's rate then.". But nothing stops women from buying 'men's' shampoo or 'men's' soap (or vice versa). You can obviously argue over whether it's unfair that insurance companies charge people different amounts based on their algorithms, but that's a whole different topic.
 

s0denone

Elite Member
Apr 25, 2008
1,196
0
41
So now the free market is sexist because of supply and demand?

Is that some kind of in-joke that I am not understanding?
 

Saetha

New member
Jan 19, 2014
824
0
0
maninahat said:
Market forces and sexism aren't mutually exclusive. It may well be because of market forces that a company chooses to charge more for products aimed at women, but that doesn't stop it being sexist.

And yes, I can think of reverse examples of the problem as well, like how men are still often paying more for car insurance than women - an imbalance that was supposed to have been resolved by EU regulation.
My understanding was that men get charged more for insurance because statistically they tend to get into accidents more often then women. Sexist and discriminatory, I guess, but so is basically the rest of the insurance process. It's literally based around charging you based on how likely your demographic is to screw up.