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

[Loonyyy]

Yeah, it's kind of silly.

The painkiller one is a bit dodgy, because brands like Neurophen and Panodol do their best to imply that one formulation or another has a different property, treats something different or "Targets" a specific pain. Which is nonsense, and Neurophen's been hit numerous times for their deceptive and misleading advertising on this front. They also sell other flavors of their drugs that're supposedly for other things. It's pretty bad, because two things matter-1) The actual ingredients and 2) The delivery and associated absorption. The first one anyone can check, the second one's kind of a nuisance, and not helped by the "Rapid" "Mini" and what have you.

BUT-on all the packets it says the dosage and formulation of paracetomol and ibuprofen, which you should be looking at anyway, since that is what you're ingesting, not the marketing.

Razors and toiletries costing more is some weak shit, but it's also 100% women's problem. You don't want to pay an excess for a "Woman's" razor? Well, razors are all around about the same, and for the most part is makes no difference, so just grab the cheapest. Same with deodorants and whatnot. People only get away with charging women more for that because enough of them buy it to make it worthwhile. Like, opting out of it's as easy as your next shopping trip.

I actually got into a debate about this the other day (moreso about branded versus generic) but if you are too dumb to read the list of active ingredients then you deserve to pay more. The funny thing is though that once you factor in the placebo effect you might get more value out of a fancy period tablet or high class pain killer even if it has exactly the same ingredients.

I'd check up on my reading on the placebo effect before insulting other people's knowledge of medicine first, if I were in your place. Mite embarrassing to be honest.

 

[Gorrath]

While I agree that the, "tampons are a luxury" thing is total BS, the rest of this seems an awful lot like false equivocation and/or is misleading.

The first article lists a series of products, some aimed at men, some at women, some costing more for men, some costing more for women and concludes by arguing that it's not fair because women MUST buy what's available to them. Now I'm not from the UK, so please correct me if there's some law I"m not aware of, but are women forced to buy these marked up items? Are they simply not allowed to skip the pink Bic pens and buy the black ones? The only way I can see one arguing that women "must" buy a product is if that product in some way differs significantly from the men's version of the product and that difference is done for serious reasons, in which case the product likely costs more because of these significant differences.

My razors cost a hell of a lot less than my wife's but that's because mine are single safety blades set in a straight razor. She could not possibly shave her legs with these effectively. So, she uses a huge four-bladed monstrosity of a razor with shaving cream built into the razor. Claiming that the huge price discrepancy between these products is sexist is pointless because the two products are in no way similar. If they were very similar and her blades cost more, then she would have the option of buying the "male" version for the cheaper cost. No one is forcing anyone to buy female branded/marketed products.

The second linked article is even worse, since at least the first, in all its vagaries, had the good sense to admit that there are many male marketed products that cost more than the female equivalent. Reading the second article, you'd think that the shopping centers made identical products for men and women, charged women 33% more and then forced women to buy these versions. Oh, but wait, women COULD buy the cheaper men's shaving cream, but then she'd smell like, and I quote, "a cheap man." No no, the solution is that these companies should make a third option, tailored to the author's wishes, that is unisex. Of course the author mentions several brands that do have lines like these, which makes me wonder why the author doesn't simply buy those if that's what she wants! The level of self entitlement throughout is hilarious.

The third article appears to just give a snapshot synopsis of the same material as the other two, except it also contains what appears to be factual errors. If you've read the first two the third is pointless. Well, they kind of all are, though the first does the best job of at least trying to inject some modicum of sense.

In short, it's all much ado about nothing. Despite what the first and second article claim, women consumers have a huge amount of control over this. No one in the UK is being forced to buy a more expensive product just because it's pink but are free to do so if they wish. I also need to do all my clothes shopping in the UK it seems, since here in the States I pay way more for jeans than my wife.

The funny thing to me is that I did see one example of a sexist pricing practice in one of the articles. It is mentioned that men being forced to pay higher insurance rates for the same insurance products as women is sexist. That's actually true because in the case of auto insurance, men don't have a choice. You are legally required to buy it. This is the only case of "must buy" coupled with gendered price gouging that any of the articles brought up, and quickly swept it under the rug of course. Glad the UK ruled that it was sexist, because it is. Find me an equivalent case for women and I'll yell sexism from the rooftops, but pink Bic pens aren't that.

 

[Gengisgame]

These articles exist because they bring in the weirdos who genuinely see a problem here and the morons who click on them to go on about how stupid it is.

They will exist forever and appear in greater numbers because there is enough people to safely sustain this flame bait.

 

[Politrukk]

There are definitely areas where this is aggressively annoying. Fashion being one of them. Whatever genius decided "layering" was in- having to wear three times as many items of clothing to go outside without being cited for indecency- ought to be flogged. No one I know likes this style- it seems to have been introduced just to sell three times as many pieces.

Likewise, jeans. Women's jeans seem to be flimsier than men's, cost more, yet don't use appreciably more fabric.

Conversely, though, I recently had a bit of a disagreement with someone over women being charged more for, say, cleaning a shirt at a dry cleaners. Unfortunately, that isn't sexism- men's shirts are all cast from essentially the same mold; women's have a lot more variety in form, use more delicate fabrics, and are more likely to have various kinds of trim and decoration- all of which mean they can't be run through the same kind of press as men's shirt. And they cost more to replace if anything goes wrong.

Ah yes fashion the bulwark of the patriarchy obviously aimed at men in every shape way and form, never has a woman ever had any say in the fashion industry.

By the gods has it not reached anyone's ears yet that the genderprice gap is something for which statistics only from the US have been used and even then there is an increasing amount of studies that shows that the entire story is ludicrous?


If women were paid even 5% less than men that would mean unemployment rates for males should skyrocket because we live in a capitalistic society and never have I heard a corporate fatcat who freely gives any percentage of his income away to his workers in this case the males who are supposedly earning more out of some sort of macho ideal.

 

[Gorrath]

Yeah, it's kind of silly.

Razors and toiletries costing more is some weak shit, but it's also 100% women's problem. You don't want to pay an excess for a "Woman's" razor? Well, razors are all around about the same, and for the most part is makes no difference, so just grab the cheapest. Same with deodorants and whatnot. People only get away with charging women more for that because enough of them buy it to make it worthwhile. Like, opting out of it's as easy as your next shopping trip.

I covered this a bit in my post below yours but I felt the need to respond directly since I didn't see you before I wrote my diatribe. Simply grabbing the cheapest razor can be a damned awful idea for, I'd guess, most women. If you think there's no appreciable difference between the cheapest one-blade disposable and the enormous blades my wife uses to shave her legs you're quite mistaken. There's no way her and I could swap razors. My face would end up covered in acres of needless lather and her legs would look like Brazilian rain forest clear-cut with TNT. We'd have to call in the WHO and doctors without borders to save her legs.

 

[Ishigami]

What do you all think?

I think that the argument lacks evidence that the sales price difference is due to sexism instead of natural free market mechanics.

Let's for example take the Nike's Studs from your linked article:

Women: 125 Pounds
Men: 30 Pounds

Where is the proof that this enormous price difference is due to sexism and not the economies of scale?
As a random person with no insight I would assume that Nike sells a lot (and I mean a lot!) more men shoes in this category compared to shoes for women simply because way more boys/men play football than girls/women.
Higher demand and production values lead to lower prices, normal free market mechanics at play.
To prove that sexism is involved the author would need to demonstrate that demand, production values and sales are roughly the same for women stud shoes.
Since the author doesn?t I have no reason to believe her.

So yea my opinion: Made up just the same as the pay-gab.

 

[Callate]

Ah yes fashion the bulwark of the patriarchy obviously aimed at men in every shape way and form, never has a woman ever had any say in the fashion industry.

...Excuse me, what were you reading? Because it wasn't anything I said. And the tangent gets farther and farther away with every sentence. Nothing I said says or suggests that women have never had any say in the fashion industry, nor does my argument depend on proving such an extreme claim.

But I will note, just for arguments' sake, that Gucci, Luxottica, Versace, Yves Saint Laurent, Christian Dior, Louis Vouitton, and Tommy Hilfiger are all headed by men, and Chanel, while run by a woman (since 2007), is co-owned by two men. Nearly every major fashion label is headed by men at the highest levels.

Does that mean there's some sort of patriarchal conspiracy to charge women more for clothing? Again, no... But it does suggest that selling impractical clothing at higher prices is likely to receive a more receptive audience among those who make decisions than it would if those at the highest positions actually had to wear the resulting products.

 

[lechat]

I actually got into a debate about this the other day (moreso about branded versus generic) but if you are too dumb to read the list of active ingredients then you deserve to pay more. The funny thing is though that once you factor in the placebo effect you might get more value out of a fancy period tablet or high class pain killer even if it has exactly the same ingredients.

I'd check up on my reading on the placebo effect before insulting other people's knowledge of medicine first, if I were in your place. Mite embarrassing to be honest.

How so?
I'm too lazy to do the research personally so I'll just point you to google --->
google [https://www.google.com.au/search?q=branded+pasinkillers+more+effective+placebo&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=t5qhVtKLGoLbmgWp8bKoDQ#q=branded+painkillers+more+effective+placebo]
If you get more out of medication even if it's all in your head then there is value there. It's up to each individual to decide if 5% more pain relief s worth 50% more cost but if your brain thinks a shiny packet with "New amazing Ibuprofen for women's backs!!" is more effective than the crappy generic alternative then it's your cash and I won't tell you how to spend it.

 

[Sozora]

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?"

Yep. Nailed it.

They can charge those prices because people, women in this case, are demonstrably willing to pay those prices.

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?

Wow, for once we're in agreement on something. Shoot, even if I DIDN'T think women were getting hosed over on that, I'd still give them a break in the interest of public sanitation.

 

[Doozie]

Advertising companies are horse shit.

QFT

This is why I buy basically next to nothing from major corporations if I can help it. Fuck them all.

 

[Aesir23]

"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.

 

[The Lunatic]

I do believe there's something here about businesses being able to charge whatever they want for a product and you being entitled to shop elsewhere.

 

[sXeth]

The tampon tax is pretty crap, though I can't think of an equivalent regular-use product for men-only to compare if its universal crap.

A lot of the rest would sort itself out if women all stood up against the marketing grain and just bought the men's version until the price equalized. Are you shaving for some sort of audience where it matters what color your razor is? I'd shave with a pink razor if it was equally effective and cost less. The pink stuff is again kind of enforced by the fact people keep buying it. Lululemon 200 dollar hoodies sell out in pink fast, but you can end up buying the blue/green ones at outlet for 5 bucks. If you don't have some absolute insistence on buying the product at the stupidly high price, it'll eventually be forced to drop just like the other ones..

The fashion industry is horse-s*** in general. Let me get that out of the way. But its pretty impractical and expensive for everyone. You start tallying up a mens suit (which is often considered required for work) piece by piece, and its bloody ridiculous. And hey, I like the look of suit, vest, tie, etc, but don't argue that its in someway practical attire.

 

[Fallow]

While I agree that the, "tampons are a luxury" thing is total BS, the rest of this seems an awful lot like false equivocation and/or is misleading.

The first article lists a series of products, some aimed at men, some at women, some costing more for men, some costing more for women and concludes by arguing that it's not fair because women MUST buy what's available to them. Now I'm not from the UK, so please correct me if there's some law I"m not aware of, but are women forced to buy these marked up items? Are they simply not allowed to skip the pink Bic pens and buy the black ones? The only way I can see one arguing that women "must" buy a product is if that product in some way differs significantly from the men's version of the product and that difference is done for serious reasons, in which case the product likely costs more because of these significant differences.

My razors cost a hell of a lot less than my wife's but that's because mine are single safety blades set in a straight razor. She could not possibly shave her legs with these effectively. So, she uses a huge four-bladed monstrosity of a razor with shaving cream built into the razor. Claiming that the huge price discrepancy between these products is sexist is pointless because the two products are in no way similar. If they were very similar and her blades cost more, then she would have the option of buying the "male" version for the cheaper cost. No one is forcing anyone to buy female branded/marketed products.

The second linked article is even worse, since at least the first, in all its vagaries, had the good sense to admit that there are many male marketed products that cost more than the female equivalent. Reading the second article, you'd think that the shopping centers made identical products for men and women, charged women 33% more and then forced women to buy these versions. Oh, but wait, women COULD buy the cheaper men's shaving cream, but then she'd smell like, and I quote, "a cheap man." No no, the solution is that these companies should make a third option, tailored to the author's wishes, that is unisex. Of course the author mentions several brands that do have lines like these, which makes me wonder why the author doesn't simply buy those if that's what she wants! The level of self entitlement throughout is hilarious.

The third article appears to just give a snapshot synopsis of the same material as the other two, except it also contains what appears to be factual errors. If you've read the first two the third is pointless. Well, they kind of all are, though the first does the best job of at least trying to inject some modicum of sense.

In short, it's all much ado about nothing. Despite what the first and second article claim, women consumers have a huge amount of control over this. No one in the UK is being forced to buy a more expensive product just because it's pink but are free to do so if they wish. I also need to do all my clothes shopping in the UK it seems, since here in the States I pay way more for jeans than my wife.

The funny thing to me is that I did see one example of a sexist pricing practice in one of the articles. It is mentioned that men being forced to pay higher insurance rates for the same insurance products as women is sexist. That's actually true because in the case of auto insurance, men don't have a choice. You are legally required to buy it. This is the only case of "must buy" coupled with gendered price gouging that any of the articles brought up, and quickly swept it under the rug of course. Glad the UK ruled that it was sexist, because it is. Find me an equivalent case for women and I'll yell sexism from the rooftops, but pink Bic pens aren't that.

I remember the days when the Guardian was seen as a shining beacon of journalism. Sadly the internet age has brought them all low, and now they aren't that far away from highly opinionated bloggers. Same happened to Forbes, a once-reputable news journal, and NYT.

In short, while they aren't as bad as some of the rabid crazies you might find in the darker corners of Tumblr, you can expect at least one resident nutterbutter to spew molten insanity every now and then (quite often on a topic related to gender issues).

Spoiler: Here is one of the more entertaining contradictions/eruptions of insanity (both articles are from the same author at the Guardian)

 

[Thaluikhain]

Certainly, this is nothing new. Of course, if people stopped to consider the products for men and compared prices, thus wouldn't tend to work so well, but then a lot of people just wouldn't click that that'd be something to do.

And, without wanting to seem "what about the menz?", this happens both ways to an extent. Take a gender neutral product, stick "FOR MEN!!!" in giant letters on it, rev up the price and it'll sell. The market has some weird gender issues.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.