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

[mrdude2010]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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".

 

[Odbarc]

It's less about women have to pay twice as much as it is that women are willing to pay twice as much.

When no one buys something because it's too expensive, the price drops until they do.
Women's shoes cost $300 because they keep buying $300 shoes.
Men's shoes cost $100 because anything more than that and they look for shoes that cost only $100.


From what I hear from the higher end of salaries, like for actors and actresses, man actors get paid more. But the problem there is usually that they're competing against being replaced with a younger unknown actor whose hungry for a bite of fame. If they lose money on a bad performance guarantee, they make it up in the lesser pay.

Having lived in the lower end (minimum wage), these kinds of jobs required me to work twice as hard for equal pay. When a woman felt like she couldn't do a job, she stopped working until a man did it for her. I recently witnessed three women failing (or slowly succeeding) at a near-simple job that would have taken only one man to accomplish. (Putting some old TV on a trolly thing.)
At minimum wage, my job was to move all the heavy stuff and burn out all my energy. The women get to stand around the cashier. On a slow day, they just gossip to one another.



But I've only got a perceptive of a male and I've got a pretty neutral disposition on politics. Everyone can find their own problems with any system.

 

[Dragonbums]

I mean in a sense yeah. For one, clothing for women tend to horribly exploit their 10 million jean styles that don't actually mean shit. This goes for makeup and general 'for women' products.

Also we have to periodically pay for bras, tampons/pads, Tylenol for menstrual cycles, and more underwear when we inevitably coat our undies in blood because of mishaps.

 

[Dragonbums]

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.

You know there is a running joke among us that states that 'pockets' don't exist on womens' clothing.

 

[mad825]

Also we have to periodically pay for....Tylenol for menstrual cycles.

Nit picking like hell but I don't there's a person in the western hemisphere that doesn't consume paracetamol like smarties. I would go as far it to be the second biggest cause for liver damage....Maybe thirdish, I don't really know the popularity of co-codamol these days.

 

[DoPo]

Also we have to periodically pay for....Tylenol for menstrual cycles.

Nit picking like hell

If you are, then so would I.

I don't [think] there's a person in the western hemisphere that doesn't consume paracetamol like smarties.

If that is your statement, then, I'm in the western hemisphere (if only just) and I do not. In fact, from the people I know around here quite a lot do not do that, either. More like, most people I know.

 

[Schadrach]

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.

Clearly we should make it illegal to charge men and women different amounts for car insurance. Sure it'll raise women's rates, but that way it's more equal.

You know, like we do health insurance in the US where it's illegal to charge men and women different amounts for the same coverage, and coverage of pregnancy and of all forms of contraception for women (literally all, including barrier methods, so long as they can get a prescription written for it), and women are the cause of more medical expenses besides. As a single man buying coverage for only myself, that means that I'm paying more to subsidize things for women including things that I can't even theoretically benefit from, but that's OK because equality.

 

[Dragonbums]

Also we have to periodically pay for....Tylenol for menstrual cycles.

Nit picking like hell but I don't there's a person in the western hemisphere that doesn't consume paracetamol like smarties. I would go as far it to be the second biggest cause for liver damage....Maybe thirdish, I don't really know the popularity of co-codamol these days.

Oh no, definitely not, but if you have menstrual cramps like mine- for the entire week, if I'm not at least taking two Tyenols (or Ipuprofen) every 6 hours on the dot or your going to have a REALLY shitty couple of hours. ( At one point the pain got so bad I puked and dry heaved for a good total of 4 hours before the meds kicked in.)
Thank fuck that Tyenol is pretty plentiful per bottle because women (unless they are the no meds, hardcore pain tolerance types.) probably spend more on the stuff than the average person without chronic pains.

 

[mad825]

( At one point the pain got so bad I puked and dry heaved for a good total of 4 hours before the meds kicked in.)
Thank fuck that Tyenol is pretty plentiful per bottle because women (unless they are the no meds, hardcore pain tolerance types.) probably spend more on the stuff than the average person without chronic pains.

O.O
....You know what, once pain becomes that bad...It's gonna take more than OTCs to keep me satiated.