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

Recommended Videos

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
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?
 

Redryhno

New member
Jul 25, 2011
3,077
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.
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?
A) actually what you just said is only technically true due to most car repairs and deals, seeing as everyone is going to get charged more in most places to begin with, and only the people that actually start asking questions lowers the price honestly(mom was a mechanic when she was younger, she's said the places she worked for pulled the same crap on everyone).

B)I think we can agree there's a problem, but there's not alot you can do beyond not buying the products if you want things to change. Hell, women can honestly spend a hundred bucks on a dress that goes with the majority of occasions, guys normally need to have at least three suits(work, party, wedding/funeral) if they needs suits at all, each of which is going to cost anywhere between 50 and 200 for the most part(unless you go to thrift shops, which again are very much more suited for women's clothing in this area due to how fucking rare it is to find a suit and jackets rarely fitting anyone that shops there). When are we going to talk about that inequality in fashion?

I'm not going to argue that there's problems, but it is not the company's fault if people keep buying the more expensive items when if they did any amount of research or hesitation after seeing the price, they'd be saving a helluva lotta money. Their entire existence is built on getting the most out of the smallest bit of what they have. When you make them start getting less and less(in large enough sampling that is), you force them to either give more to make the price worth it, or they lower the price itself. Or you just market yourself for a niche demographic that will drop a hundreds bucks on a single aspirin.
 

Burgers2013

New member
Nov 3, 2013
68
0
0
Aesir23 said:
Saetha said:
"You know you can just shop in the guy's section, right? Like, nothing there will be as cute or tightly fitted, but if you're looking for cheap and functional..."
This both works and doesn't. There are quite a few men's products I use (mainly razors) simply because they're more efficient, usually cost less, and wear out a lot less quickly.

In the case of clothing and pockets, specifically pants, quite a few pairs are cut in such a way to accommodate a certain piece of anatomy. That's perfectly fine since the pants are made for men but they end up looking and feeling quite odd on a woman. It's not as if adding deeper pockets or making pockets on dress/work pants functional would take much effort or add significant cost so the emphasis on form over function with women's clothing can be quite annoying even if it is a rather minor issue.

I have contemplated just cutting open the stitching holding the "pockets" on my work pants closed and just add some alterations to make them functional. However, I will have to do that when I can actually afford to mess up on the only pair of work pants that I own.
Seconded. It's the worst when they put fake pockets on the pants for..style? Cutting the stitching off hasn't hurt any of the pants I've done it to. Hopefully there's an actual pocket there. I have found one pair of slacks ever that have pockets large enough to carry things. Even then, the material is thin/tight enough that whatever I have in my pocket bulges out and tightens the material around my leg, looking like some sort of thigh-rection. Buying pants that are larger doesn't work particularly well either because at some point it gets difficult to keep them on you. The women's pant struggle is real. I'm glad I don't have to worry about this much anymore by working at a plant. No slacks allowed. For the ladies, ill-fitting flame retardant clothing designed by an evil mastermind instead. At least I don't have to waste my money on work clothes anymore. I feel a rant about how much I hate women's clothing coming on, but I'm going to stop now.

OT: Are they saying that pads are essential, but tampons are a luxury? That's really the only thing that gets to me. They are more expensive, but not everyone can take a ton of restroom breaks during work for that sort of thing. Tampons really decrease the number of trips to the bathroom. I would definitely say that's not a luxury.

As for the pink/female-marketed products...For the most part, people need to inform themselves and not allow themselves to be ripped off; information, access, and variety are how capitalism can work in favor of the consumer; this market has all of these. Like the whole JC Penny thing where they started being honest about their pricing. I loved it; I shopped there almost exclusively, and it was pretty cheap. Too bad their sales tanked because people fall for stupid marketing ploys before they pay attention to how much they are actually spending on a product.

I will admit that I waste a bunch of money on razors. I used to use the BIC disposables with 1 blade, and I tore up my legs and lady area all the time; it was pretty horrifying. I assumed I was just bad at shaving or that my skin was really sensitive. So, I gave up and got a fancy razor when I graduated from college. It is pink and costs $100+ per year, but at least I'm not bleeding and itching all the time.
 

Sampler

He who is not known
May 5, 2008
650
0
0
Dizchu said:
The Tampon Tax thing is complete nonsense and looking at the people defending it, it's almost exclusively spoiled men who think that the male equivalent of tampons is cologne. W...what!?!?

As for price discrepancies in other male/female products, it's not as simple as "the evil corporations are charging women more money". I've used male razors and I've used female razors, they're not the same (female razors are designed to shave a much larger surface area). As for hygiene products like soaps, shampoos and conditioners, men are more likely to buy very basic items.
That is true, as a balding man who seems to have equal amounts of hair stubbornly still growing as to that stubbornly refusing to grow, I have to shave me head on a pretty daily basis, women's leg razors last longer than men's face razors.

Though, I also agree, there's probably a level of market force too, you never sell at cost, always at what the market will bear (bare?).
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
Saetha 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.
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.
Yes, that is entirely the reason. But this kind of two tier price system based on gender was viewed as discriminatory by the EU, enough so that they have attempted to ban it. It substantiates my original point, which is that citing market forces as the reason for some form of price discrimination doesn't prevent it from being potentially sexist.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
Ihateregistering1 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.
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.
Strictly speaking, there is nothing stopping women from buying men's stuff...but notice how this arrangement still expects women to compromise if they hope not to be ripped off, where guys get to just carry on what they are doing. It means that a frugal woman has to buy jeans designed for male hips, or razors designed for facial hair. There is a financial punishment just for wanting things designed for women, and a relative lack of one for wanting things that are designed for men.
 

mrdude2010

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,315
0
0
Ryotknife said:
Isnt there a common saying that goes something along the lines of "the product is worth exactly what the customer is willing to pay for it?"
I'm fine with that in general, but some products are flat out required. If you can't not buy something, "market" rate is different from actual value.
 

Redryhno

New member
Jul 25, 2011
3,077
0
0
maninahat said:
Ihateregistering1 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.
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.
Strictly speaking, there is nothing stopping women from buying men's stuff...but notice how this arrangement still expects women to compromise if they hope not to be ripped off, where guys get to just carry on what they are doing. It means that a frugal woman has to buy jeans designed for male hips, or razors designed for facial hair. There is a financial punishment just for wanting things designed for women, and a relative lack of one for wanting things that are designed for men.
And again, there has to be a default somewhere, and the default is normally what is bought in bulk and/or is cheapest, and as a general rule guys don't give a shit so long as it works and it's cheap. Which means the stuff that's "meant" for guys is the default.

Is it shitty that women have to use it if they want to be frugal(not that they even have to do to be honestly), sure. But nothing is going to change unless people stop buying the expensive shit as a whole.
 

someonehairy-ish

New member
Mar 15, 2009
1,949
0
0
It would be sexism if a woman and a man picked up the exact same product (same branding, same ingredients, same packaging) from a shelf and took it to the cash-point, and the cashier charged the woman more for it. Otherwise all you've noticed is that men buy basic and women buy the shiny one...

The only thing that you could plausibly claim sexism for is the tampon tax. There's no good reason your basic brand female hygiene products should be classed as a luxury.
 

Magmarock

New member
Sep 1, 2011
479
0
0
Ryotknife said:
im going to take a stab and say the reason why women products are more expensive is probably the same reason why videogames are more expensive in Australia.

Because people will buy it for that much. It is well documented that women are higher spenders than men on average, which makes them the most enticing gender demographic for markets. Guys tend to be a bit more of a miser when it comes to common goods but will blow a lot of money on ONE product like a motorcycle, sport car, snowmobile, dirt bikes, jetski, boats and other needless excessive items.

Isnt there a common saying that goes something along the lines of "the product is worth exactly what the customer is willing to pay for it?"
A little off topic but you might be surprised to find just how anti consumer Aussie's can be. We pay more because, taxes, higher standards of living (lol logic) import costs. Consumers make more excuses for the higher prices then the people selling them do. None of those reasons are applicable.
 

Chaos Isaac

New member
Jun 27, 2013
609
0
0
Look, there's actually a few reasons for things being differently priced between male/female things. And that's generally differences of use. Women, in general, shave more of their body then men, which need a different design even if it's not entirely obvious.

While some of it is really just greed, some of it is also just difference in necessity, which depending can cost more due to it's use.
 

Saltyk

Sane among the insane.
Sep 12, 2010
16,755
0
0
Allow me to tell a story.

I was once looking at various pain medicines and debating what to get. You see I get regular headaches. Probably as many as three a week, though I may go weeks without any. On occasions they can get pretty severe, though those are rare, but have been so bad that walking up the stairs to my bedroom was agony. I was looking at an "Extra Strength" and "Migraine" medicine of a particular brand and trying to decide which would be better suited.

I decided to look at the active ingredients and was surprised to find they had the exact same ingredient in the exact same amount. And yet cost different. Curious, I asked the pharmacist on duty about it and she told me that it was to take up more space so their competitors wouldn't have the space. When I inquired about the cost discrepancy, she basically said that some people are dumb enough to pay more for the same product.
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
Most others here have ripped into this discussion enough, but I, personally, pay more for women's razors because they are just plain better for my goddamned neck and face, with some cheapo men's razors for touch-up. They are very definitely not the same product, and the premium is, in my opinion, quite worth it.

Much of the rest comes down to simple economics. If you're willing to pay more for something that's pink, businesses will be happy to take that money from you. If you don't like it, buy the blue one instead.
 

infohippie

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,369
0
0
Saetha 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.
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.
Not quite. From the statistics I've read about, apparently women tend to have MUCH more frequent accidents than men, but their accidents are usually small and at low speeds. They'll dent the bumper, scratch the side panel, break a headlight. Men, on the other hand, are much more likely to have no claims at all for years or decades, and then wipe out taking a corner at high speed, writing off the car completely, as well as someone else's car too, and probably causing a permanent injury or two. So while women may make claims much more often, men will cost the insurance company far more.
 

Reasonable Atheist

New member
Mar 6, 2012
287
0
0
This is dumb, things are not worth what you decide to charge. They are worth what the consumer will pay.

For instance, Men do not care as much about haircuts, so they will not pay more then 20 bucks. Thats what i pay with a 5 dollar tip for my awesome Egyptian barber.

Im dnot certain what my girlfriend pays, but i know its more then that! And dam is she picky about it. Best not leave one hair out of place or face her unbridled wrath.

This reminds me of how I respond to every comment about the gender pay gap, nobody is paid what they are worth only what you can negotiate for.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Reasonable Atheist said:
This is dumb, things are not worth what you decide to charge. They are worth what the consumer will pay.

For instance, Men do not care as much about haircuts, so they will not pay more then 20 bucks. Thats what i pay with a 5 dollar tip for my awesome Egyptian barber.

Im dnot certain what my girlfriend pays, but i know its more then that! And dam is she picky about it. Best not leave one hair out of place or face her unbridled wrath.
What's important to note is that women still have access to purchase all of the same items men buy for the same price males pay for it. Instead, women are choosing to pay an additional $5 for the same product that is packaged in pink.

The alternative here is the belief that we should somehow protect women from themselves as consumers. That would be nuts and ultra-sexist.

This reminds me of how I respond to every comment about the gender pay gap, nobody is paid what they are worth only what you can negotiate for.
Actually, the way you should be responding to the "gender pay gap" is to explain that the wage gap is just a statistic that does not control for ANYTHING but gender. When you compare jobs filled by persons of similar education and work experience the gap drops to around 1-4% and is therefore frequently within the margin of error and could still be responsible for a few other things like a male's willingness to negotiate for higher pay.

We should not be responding to absolutely horrible statistics with anything other than actual statistics that actually control for gender differences in choice of job and education.
 

Eclipse Dragon

Lusty Argonian Maid
Legacy
Jan 23, 2009
4,259
12
43
Country
United States
ravenshrike said:
No, it comes from wanting things which must be customized more. Women come in many more shapes than men, and their clothes are inherently more complex and varied. Then there's the fact that they like smelly shit, whereas when you really get down to it the average man prefers little to no scent in their bath products. Customization costs, end of discussion.
Men come in many different shapes as well, there are tall men, short men, thin men, round men, stocky men, muscular men, muscular short men, tall thin men, ext ext ext. Have you ever shopped for men's jeans? They account for both height and waist measurements, women's jeans do not do that.

If you are female and you are not average height, average weight (in this case, what works on the display manikin, which is not actually average) and average bust size, you are going to have trouble finding clothing. Women's fashion is made only to fit one shape and that shape is not the shape most women actually are.

Men have less variety in fashion styles, but what they do have, is more customized to the individual.
Women have more variety, but unless you're a runway model, you won't be able to wear half of it.
 

Eclipse Dragon

Lusty Argonian Maid
Legacy
Jan 23, 2009
4,259
12
43
Country
United States
ravenshrike said:
Eclipse Dragon said:
ravenshrike said:
No, it comes from wanting things which must be customized more. Women come in many more shapes than men, and their clothes are inherently more complex and varied. Then there's the fact that they like smelly shit, whereas when you really get down to it the average man prefers little to no scent in their bath products. Customization costs, end of discussion.
Men come in many different shapes as well, there are tall men, short men, thin men, round men, stocky men, muscular men, muscular short men, tall thin men, ext ext ext. Have you ever shopped for men's jeans? They account for both height and waist measurements, women's jeans do not do that.

If you are female and you are not average height, average weight (in this case, what works on the display manikin, which is not actually average) and average bust size, you are going to have trouble finding clothing. Women's fashion is made only to fit one shape and that shape is not the shape most women actually are.

Men have less variety in fashion styles, but what they do have, is more customized to the individual.
Women have more variety, but unless you're a runway model, you won't be able to wear half of it.
Extra tall, extra short, and extra fat men have to buy clothing at specialty outlets. It is commensurately more expensive to do so. Most men, however, are MUCH closer in body size than women. Combined with women's apparently intrinsic fashion instinct, and this means that you are having to create a wider array of clothing at significantly smaller volumes of sale.
I am aware of big and tall outlets for men, do men have such options if they are extra short? If extra short men are doomed to always hemming their pants because the fashion industry can't be bothered to make pants to accommodate, as a very short women who can never buy pants that aren't too long, they have my sincerest empathy. I would point out however, big and tall options do not typically exist for women at all.

As for whether women have an "intrinsic fashion instinct" that's a more interesting conversation topic IMO. I have stated before, in regard to shoe variety, men are getting screwed. I would put forth that men are also getting screwed in regard to clothing variety. Why do men have less variety? I would not say it's because women intrinsically gravitate to fashion, but rather that society has puts more emphasis on women being fashionable almost to the total neglect of men.

There are men out there that want to be fashionable, and there are women who really couldn't give a damn and I don't believe any sex is more naturally geared to it than the other, but it's more socially acceptable for women to be fashionable and so those who want to be have more basis for self expression, than those men who want to be but can't for fear of appearing "unmanly".