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?
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?
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).maninahat said: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.Lightknight said:Both genders are capable of buying both expensive and inexpensive products. They are never charged differently for the same product.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.
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.
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?
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.Aesir23 said: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.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..."
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.
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.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.
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.Saetha said: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.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.
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.Ihateregistering1 said: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.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.
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.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?"
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.maninahat said: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.Ihateregistering1 said: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.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.
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.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?"
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.Saetha said: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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.ravenshrike said: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.Eclipse Dragon said: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.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.
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.