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

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[BarkBarker]

Price is only as high as it will sell, only fault are the people buying.

 

[s0denone]

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]

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.

 

[lacktheknack]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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.