NationStates Jolt Archive

Haircuts. Insurance. CLOTHES. Women often have to pay more for these goods and services even when the goods and services in question are the same as those purchased by men.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110908196485_106317396/?hub=Canada

Liberal MPP Lorenzo Berardinetti has introduced legislation that would make it illegal for businesses to set prices based on what gender their products and services are intended for.

Do you support a law that would make it illegal to charge different prices for the same good or service based on gender?

Yes, I suppose that I do, but only moderately.

I get skiddish whenever the government gets anywhere near prices. I would like to think that any business who discriminates against women customers will hurt themselves, and would eventually suffer without government intervention. But if that is not the case, then I suppose government legislation would be the next answer.

SNIP

Do you support a law that would make it illegal to charge different prices for the same good or service based on gender?

sure would.........seems a bit daft in civilised society doesnt it!?

Do you support a law that would make it illegal to charge different prices for the same good or service based on gender?

Yes I support... I've honestly never heard this kind of thing happening...
Or I haven't realized that it's happening ;)

To me that law seems ridiculous. It's an issue of supply and demand as well as work put into the product, not a gender issue. i.e. a female haircut is usually more complex and takes more time than a male one, therefore the female gets charged more. It makes sense to anybody who has any kind of realistic look on reality. As far as clothes go, same concept. It's not necessarily that women clothes get more work put into them, but there is a bigger demand for women's clothing then there is men's, thus s & d. To force companies to charge equal amounts is not only illogical, but will hurt countries in the long run, since they will start to lose money, thus lay-offs will be made, and the economy will go into decline.
As far as Insurance goes, it's actually the other way around. Men's insurance is usually higher than females, and that is completely reasonable as well. Those figures are all determined by staticians that calculate what the chances of a man or a woman getting in an accident is. If a man/woman is ten times more likely to crash, doesn't it make sense to charge them more for insurance!!!!???!!

Yes, I will support it!

yes, i do. gender price discrimination is bad. reason: Rawls' 'Veil Of Ignorance' arguement (for distributive justice, but can be applied here). no time to explain more (maybe later?)

Haircuts. Insurance. CLOTHES. Women often have to pay more for these goods and services even when the goods and services in question are the same as those purchased by men.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110908196485_106317396/?hub=Canada

Do you support a law that would make it illegal to charge different prices for the same good or service based on gender?

Hard to enforce.
The typical haircut for a woman usually involves more washing, cutting, drying, and styling than a man's cut at the standard barber shop.

I can get a high and tight (a military style haircut) in about 3 minutes of labor - my wife's hair takes over an hour to get done.

Maybe we should charge by the minute. I would then have a really cheap haircut.

The other gray area of enforcement would be clothes. A man's shirt vs. a woman's blouse. Well, generally, the women's clothes are more expensive. Can't figure the reason for that, but if you said, "everyone must charge the same amount of money for a shirt made of the same fabric for the same size", then no manufacturer would make both women's and men's clothing, and no one would sell "women's shirts" - they would sell "women's blouses".

I can't for the life of me figure out the size thing either. WTF is a size 12? If I buy a man's shirt, I get an English or metric neck size and arm measurement. Pants are waist and inseam. Jackets are chest size - and short or long. No two manufacturers of women's clothing seem to be basing their sizes on the same template - and it's not an English or metric measurement.

Imagine a world where men's clothing were only measured in "stones". That's how stupid they size women's clothing.

Haircuts. Insurance. CLOTHES. Women often have to pay more for these goods and services even when the goods and services in question are the same as those purchased by men.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110908196485_106317396/?hub=Canada



Do you support a law that would make it illegal to charge different prices for the same good or service based on gender?

No. The only thing I you list that I can agree with is haircuts. A more standardized cost scale that takes into account length of hair, styling, etc. would be fairer. Of course, there are barbers & salons that do not base pricing on gender - You need to patonize them.

I can't speak to clothes. I'm sure I can pay as much for a suit as a woman pays for a dress - It all depends on where you shop and what you buy.

Insurance? The insurance industry bases everything they do on statistics. I'm sure they can mathematically justify any differences. BTW, there are some insurances that men pay more for.

Haircuts. Insurance. CLOTHES. Women often have to pay more for these goods and services even when the goods and services in question are the same as those purchased by men.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110908196485_106317396/?hub=Canada



Do you support a law that would make it illegal to charge different prices for the same good or service based on gender?
Nope, wouldnt make it illegal at all. Women's insurance rates are lower than mens though(in the US) anyway. Car insurance also.

As far as haircuts, I am sure a woman with a crewcut is charged the same as a guy with a crewcut. I am also sure that a guy with hair down to the middle of his back is going to be charged the same rate as a woman whose haircut would take and equal amount of time and skill on the part of the barber/hair stylist.

Yes, I suppose that I do, but only moderately.

I get skiddish whenever the government gets anywhere near prices. I would like to think that any business who discriminates against women customers will hurt themselves, and would eventually suffer without government intervention. But if that is not the case, then I suppose government legislation would be the next answer.
Companies have been doing this for years, with no 'harm' done to their business. It's not as though one company is offering women's clothing at a price comparable to men, while all the others overcharge. ALL of them are doing it. People say, "Then don't buy the good, and they'll lower their price". That kind of boycott would be very difficult, if not impossible to do...how are you going to convince women not to buy any clothes or get a haircut for x number of months, especially when there is no guarantee that it will work.

Haircuts. Insurance. CLOTHES. Women often have to pay more for these goods and services even when the goods and services in question are the same as those purchased by men.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110908196485_106317396/?hub=Canada



Do you support a law that would make it illegal to charge different prices for the same good or service based on gender?

Oh man, not this crap again.

Businesses can set their own prices, it's not for the government to intervene. Haircuts: this is obviously a generalisation and as such it certainly doesnt hold true for everyone but women tend to take longer in the hardressers getting their hair cut, getting that perfect style. Clothes: women tend to be better dressers than men and have more detailed clothes therfore you have to pay the designer more to design the clothes, forcing up the price.

To me that law seems ridiculous. It's an issue of supply and demand as well as work put into the product, not a gender issue. i.e. a female haircut is usually more complex and takes more time than a male one, therefore the female gets charged more. It makes sense to anybody who has any kind of realistic look on reality. As far as clothes go, same concept. It's not necessarily that women clothes get more work put into them, but there is a bigger demand for women's clothing then there is men's, thus s & d. To force companies to charge equal amounts is not only illogical, but will hurt countries in the long run, since they will start to lose money, thus lay-offs will be made, and the economy will go into decline.
Remember, this addresses goods and services that are comparable. I don't care if "on average women's haircuts are more complex". When I go in to get the ends of my hair trimmed, it takes 5 minutes, and on average I pay $20 more than my husband whose haircut takes about 20 (because he's got so many cowlicks...it makes it hard). If I get my clothes drycleaned, I want to pay the same amount as a man if our clothes need the same level of service. To charge me more is the illogical thing. Don't give me supply and demand...they are falsely inflating the prices to get more out of women.

California consumers have been protected by a similar law since 1996, when lawmakers decided to legislate an end to the practice of charging women more for services at drycleaners, tailors and hairdressers.

A brand-name man's suit, he discovered, cost almost one-third less than the equivalent woman's suit -- even though it appeared to use more material, he said.

So California already has such a law (though they have enforcement issues)...I wonder how it's affected things there.

And no suit should cost 2/3 more just because it is for a woman, no matter what your supply/demand argument is.

That's a bunch of crap, haircuts cost more for women because there's more involved for women usually. Clothes is more of a supply and demand thing, guys just buy less clothes than women, and as for the insurance... I'm a guy and it would cost about twice as much for me to insure a car than it would to insure a girl's car the same age as me.

So California already has such a law (though they have enforcement issues)...I wonder how it's affected things there.

And no suit should cost 2/3 more just because it is for a woman, no matter what your supply/demand argument is.

So would you be in favour of forcing insurance companies to charge the same for men and women? Because at the moment women pay less than men. edit:on average of course.

Oh man, not this crap again.

Businesses can set their own prices, it's not for the government to intervene. Haircuts: this is obviously a generalisation and as such it certainly doesnt hold true for everyone but women tend to take longer in the hardressers getting their hair cut, getting that perfect style. Clothes: women tend to be better dressers than men and have more detailed clothes therfore you have to pay the designer more to design the clothes, forcing up the price.
You're wrong. Business has to act in a manner that resects the Charter (in Canada). They can not hire using discriminatory standards, so why should they be able to operate using discriminatory standards? The fact that this discrimination still goes on has more to do with people just taking it for granted than (I believe) any real support for the practice.

Companies have been doing this for years, with no 'harm' done to their business. It's not as though one company is offering women's clothing at a price comparable to men, while all the others overcharge. ALL of them are doing it. People say, "Then don't buy the good, and they'll lower their price". That kind of boycott would be very difficult, if not impossible to do...how are you going to convince women not to buy any clothes or get a haircut for x number of months, especially when there is no guarantee that it will work.

I cannot imagine that ALL companies are so misogynistic that they would ignore price pressures and take a loss just so they could screw over women.

Honestly, the market would adjust the prices automatically if they prices were set artificially high.

That's a bunch of crap, haircuts cost more for women because there's more involved for women usually. Generalisation. Clothes is more of a supply and demand thing, guys just buy less clothes than women, Second generalisation. I know plenty of male 'clothes horses'. and as for the insurance... I'm a guy and it would cost about twice as much for me to insure a car than it would to insure a girl's car the same age as me.Also a bias that should be dealt with. This law would deal with gender bias...not just bias against women.

So would you be in favour of forcing insurance companies to charge the same for men and women? Because at the moment women pay less than men. edit:on average of course.
Yes, I do support that. My brothers pay higher premiums than I do after about seven years of driving. I JUST started driving (I'm 26, I just never lived somewhere where I really needed to drive before...yeah, I suck). I think that's utter crap.

I agree that I'm a bit skiddish when it comes to the government touching prices, but gender descrimination is gender discrimination. Men are victims of this too, since they also get charged more for certain things. Men's Suits are ridiculously priced, even at a place like JC Penney. I could go to the same place, and find a women's pantsuit for half the price, same material and every thing.

However, women do seem to get the brunt of this. I'll give you a personal for instance: I took a shirt to the dry cleaners, and got charged $5 for the service. The next time I needed it done, I didn't have time, so I had my dad take it for me. He got charged $3. I was shocked. Same damn shirt, but it was $2 less for my dad.

Another personal for instance. I went to a shoe store (which, for legal purposes, will stay nameless), and was looking for a pair of Sketchers tennis shoes (for some reason, those are the only shoes that fit my feet). I found a pair that I absolutely LOVED in the women's section, but I cringed when I saw the price tag. $53 (this was a DISCOUNT store, and it cost that much). I decided to look around somemore, and wandered into the men's section. I found a shoe that was almost IDENTICAL to the first pair. I decided to try on the smallest men's size, and it fit. I looked at the price tag, $38. A nearly $15 difference, for nearly the same shoe. Same fit, and same color, which meant no special materials were added to the women's shoe, nor was more material used. So why the difference?

I cannot imagine that ALL companies are so misogynistic that they would ignore price pressures and take a loss just so they could screw over women.

Honestly, the market would adjust the prices automatically if they prices were set artificially high.
Can't imagine? When was the last time you walked around a mall? I don't think they're doing it to 'screw over' women...but neither are they charging more for any real reason. The cloth is not of better quality, the haircut (a comparable haircut, meaning the same time and effort put in) is not better, so why? Why do it at all? Clearly, because they can. Prices will not 'automatically adjust'. They haven't yet...so what makes you think they will now?

Same goes with insurance for men. Do men really cause more accidents than women? (no female driver jokes please:))

Russasia:

agreed. I'm against such law too. But, in this bloody country they won't give me a cheaper car insurance because it's not "right" grr... still there is absolutely no problem to charge me more for a haircut.

Can't imagine? When was the last time you walked around a mall? I don't think they're doing it to 'screw over' women...but neither are they charging more for any real reason. The cloth is not of better quality, the haircut (a comparable haircut, meaning the same time and effort put in) is not better, so why? Why do it at all? Clearly, because they can. Prices will not 'automatically adjust'. They haven't yet...so what makes you think they will now?

Something I've wondered about, and I don't think I'm unusual:

I have a certain number of shirts, pants, and shoes. I buy a small number to replace any items over time.

Most women I've known buy clothing like it's disposable - at least compared to my habits.

What drives them to do this? Most women I've met have 5 to 10 times as many sets of clothes as I have - and far, far more shoes.

Same goes with insurance for men. Do men really cause more accidents than women? (no female driver jokes please:))

They make more claims at least and that whats its about. Do you really think the insurance industry is biased against men? If a business can get more money out of you without driving your custom away they will do everything they can to get that money. Its not about gender its about the willingness of the consumer to pay the prices.

Can't imagine? When was the last time you walked around a mall?

About 1 1/2 years ago, and that time I went to one store and left.

I don't think they're doing it to 'screw over' women...but neither are they charging more for any real reason. The cloth is not of better quality, the haircut (a comparable haircut, meaning the same time and effort put in) is not better, so why? Why do it at all? Clearly, because they can. Prices will not 'automatically adjust'. They haven't yet...so what makes you think they will now?

What I mean is that, in an efficient market, anyone who sets their prices artificially high will be undercut by businesses who charge less. So it has to be assumed that prices in primarily woman's markets are higher for a reason other than misogyny. I can only assume that women are willing to pay higher prices for goods and services than men.

Something I've wondered about, and I don't think I'm unusual:

I have a certain number of shirts, pants, and shoes. I buy a small number to replace any items over time.

Most women I've known buy clothing like it's disposable - at least compared to my habits.

What drives them to do this? Most women I've met have 5 to 10 times as many sets of clothes as I have - and far, far more shoes.
I'm not one of those women. Neither are most that I know. But yes, I would agree that on average women buy more clothes than men. I don't know why they do it. Gender roles are at play I think...

women are supposed to be well dressed and be up on fashion. A lot of the time, only other women would really notice that last bit, so I think women dress as much for other women (competition) as they do for men. Perhaps women are simply more attracted to those kinds of purchases. Men are more interested in other things (tools, games, or whatever).

I don't understand it myself. I buy 'classic' clothes and wear them until they are unwearable. I approach clothes-shopping with as much enthusasm as a root-canal. I only WISH I could get as excited about it as some do... :(

Something I've wondered about, and I don't think I'm unusual:

I have a certain number of shirts, pants, and shoes. I buy a small number to replace any items over time.

Most women I've known buy clothing like it's disposable - at least compared to my habits.

What drives them to do this? Most women I've met have 5 to 10 times as many sets of clothes as I have - and far, far more shoes.

Look at the advertising. Much of the clothing advertising is aimed at women, most of the fashion industry is aimed at women. Now women feel that if they don't have x amount of clothes, they're some how a failure, or "uncool". For women, it's considered Taboo to be seen in the same outfit more than once every other week, while it's not for men. A wonderful little thing called the Double standard.

I personally don't care about fashion, since they don't make good clothes for big girls like me, so I don't worry about having too many clothes. Most of mine have been given to me, and if I see something I like, I buy it, but other than that, I'm not a clothes horse.

also, some women see shopping as therapy, which is another habit that has been engrained through T.V. and magazines....

Remember, this addresses goods and services that are comparable. I don't care if "on average women's haircuts are more complex". When I go in to get the ends of my hair trimmed, it takes 5 minutes, and on average I pay $20 more than my husband whose haircut takes about 20 (because he's got so many cowlicks...it makes it hard). If I get my clothes drycleaned, I want to pay the same amount as a man if our clothes need the same level of service. To charge me more is the illogical thing. Don't give me supply and demand...they are falsely inflating the prices to get more out of women.

As far as haircuts go, you have keep in mind that woman's haircuts are "GENERALLY" more complex and time comsuming than a guys. It would be hard to run a business if they changed the prices for every customer. Besides, I prefer a flat fee. Many places also charge based on hair length. I know in high school when I had hair down past my shoulders I was charged a different rate than I am now.

Do you think business people wake up and think about who they can rip off? Run a business and you will soon start thinking of "what will the market bear". What are my competetors charging? How many less units will I sell if I raise the prices, how many more if I lower the price.

Lets look at the dry cleaning example. How do you know how much effort it takes to dry clean a womens bluese vs a guys shirt? How do you know what the male market will bear relative to the womens. If there was some advantage, a smart businessperson would open up a drycleaners next to an existing one and charge lower prices for women's stuff and steal all their customers. When this isnt happening it is because there are some other forces at play that you and the govt are failing to realize.

Nothing good happens when govt start micromanaging industry. Whats the next step, a cetralized board determining what can and cannot be charged for goods?

Same goes with insurance for men. Do men really cause more accidents than women? (no female driver jokes please:))

I can only imagine the car accident rate in a Female, Canada. Pedestrians must be like fish in a barrel there. ;)

They make more claims at least and that whats its about. Do you really think the insurance industry is biased against men? If a business can get more money out of you without driving your custom away they will do everything they can to get that money. Its not about gender its about the willingness of the consumer to pay the prices.
Okay, you're the one saying it. I don't know all that much about insurance, but frankly I don't think you should be judged by your gender or your age group. Even if you are a perfect driver, you are being judged on factors completely out of your control. Insurance, in as much as it is a government REQUIREMENT should be more fairly priced. You start with a clean slate. Every screw up costs you. To me, that seems fair.

So when (18th century?) did it suddenly become OK for men to not worry about their clothes?

Powdered wigs, hose, etc.? Men in another age seemed as well-dressed as any woman.

What I mean is that, in an efficient market, anyone who sets their prices artificially high will be undercut by businesses who charge less. So it has to be assumed that prices in primarily woman's markets are higher for a reason other than misogyny. I can only assume that women are willing to pay higher prices for goods and services than men.
So you think it isn't gender bias, it is women's willingness to pay? That might be true, if there were enough 'alternatives'. It's not as though store x charges the same price for men and women's clothing while y charges more for women's. Women's stores, period, charge more. You are blaming this on the consumer...what then should be done? A massive boycott? Good luck getting half of the population to agree on that.

I know there was thing done about razors, they are both the same apart from the handle, but womens are a lot dearer.

It would be better if companies were a bit more reasonable about this type of issue, but were all out for profit, so.

So when (18th century?) did it suddenly become OK for men to not worry about their clothes?

Powdered wigs, hose, etc.? Men in another age seemed as well-dressed as any woman.

Appearance is very important to me. Clothes can be used to establish credibility and stature.

As far as haircuts go, you have keep in mind that woman's haircuts are "GENERALLY" more complex and time comsuming than a guys. It would be hard to run a business if they changed the prices for every customer. Besides, I prefer a flat fee. Many places also charge based on hair length. I know in high school when I had hair down past my shoulders I was charged a different rate than I am now.

Do you think business people wake up and think about who they can rip off? Run a business and you will soon start thinking of "what will the market bear". What are my competetors charging? How many less units will I sell if I raise the prices, how many more if I lower the price.

Lets look at the dry cleaning example. How do you know how much effort it takes to dry clean a womens bluese vs a guys shirt? How do you know what the male market will bear relative to the womens. If there was some advantage, a smart businessperson would open up a drycleaners next to an existing one and charge lower prices for women's stuff and steal all their customers. When this isnt happening it is because there are some other forces at play that you and the govt are failing to realize.

Nothing good happens when govt start micromanaging industry. Whats the next step, a cetralized board determining what can and cannot be charged for goods?
Okay, I'm going to state this again.

We are talking about COMPARABLE goods and services.

Hair cut: man with long hair, woman with long hair, same price. Man with short hair, woman with short hair, same cut, same price.

Clothes: ditto

Drycleaning: man's suit, woman's suit, SAME PRICE. We are not comparing apples to oranges here.

No one is SETTING prices. They are simply saying that you better have a justification OUTSIDE OF GENDER BIAS to charge more for the exact same good or service.

So when (18th century?) did it suddenly become OK for men to not worry about their clothes?

Powdered wigs, hose, etc.? Men in another age seemed as well-dressed as any woman.

That was the upper class, mostly. And I can't tell you when it became alright for men to not care about fashion. That's just the way it is now. Although men's awareness of fashion seems to be increasing, thanks to "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"...

I can only imagine the car accident rate in a Female, Canada. Pedestrians must be like fish in a barrel there. ;)
There are no men anymore...we ran them all over :D

P.S...sorry if I sound snippy towards you in any of my replies...you know I can't stay mad at my favourite, grizzled Dutchman in plaid...

Appearance is very important to me. Clothes can be used to establish credibility and stature.

For me as well - but most men don't dress as well as most women, IMHO.

Now, to dress well as a man (three piece suits, ties of good quality, and decent shoes) starts to cost as much as good women's clothing.

But I only need a few suits, jackets, and shirts, and I'm good. Women dressing in this range seem to never wear the same clothes twice.

So when (18th century?) did it suddenly become OK for men to not worry about their clothes?

Powdered wigs, hose, etc.? Men in another age seemed as well-dressed as any woman.
Thanks, I didn't want to touch that one, but since you've brought it up...

Most men I know worry about their appearance...perhaps not to the obsessive extent as SOME women, but still. My husband has expensive leather jackets, new jeans and shirts, nice boots and all that because when he isn't working like a dog, he likes to feel 'dressed up'. Frankly, he spends more than I do on clothing.

By the way. I bought a leather jacket too. It was $250 MORE than his, from the same store, and it involved considerably less leather than his. :mad:

I know there was thing done about razors, they are both the same apart from the handle, but womens are a lot dearer.

It would be better if companies were a bit more reasonable about this type of issue, but were all out for profit, so.
Look at men's 'styling products'. My husband uses a hair gel that is about $3.00 a bottle (the cheapest brand). If I were to use gel (gag) the cheapest I could find a bottle for is $4.50. Not a HUGE price difference...but you add it up over time...same goes with shaving cream, razors, shampoo, soap....

Okay, you're the one saying it. I don't know all that much about insurance, but frankly I don't think you should be judged by your gender or your age group. Even if you are a perfect driver, you are being judged on factors completely out of your control. Insurance, in as much as it is a government REQUIREMENT should be more fairly priced. You start with a clean slate. Every screw up costs you. To me, that seems fair.

Yeah i said it, men are worse in some areas than women, in this example making more insurance claims, i dont have trouble admitting it. But the insurance industry or any other industry isnt going to change to accommodate what you think is "fair". They're going to operate the way they can to get the most money out of you.

So you think it isn't gender bias, it is women's willingness to pay? That might be true, if there were enough 'alternatives'. It's not as though store x charges the same price for men and women's clothing while y charges more for women's. Women's stores, period, charge more. You are blaming this on the consumer...what then should be done? A massive boycott? Good luck getting half of the population to agree on that.

There are alternatives. Women can go to a barbers and have their hair cut for the same price as the men. Women can buy men's clothes and wear them. Women accept the higher prices, through choice, for these things Why buy from a woman's store? You can always buy clothes from a department store or a men's tailors. There are some items, underwear particularly, that there may be a smal complaint about, but the same applies to men. There are always some items which are expensive and you have no choice.
If half the population accept paying these prices, then the businesses are within their rights charging them. What they should not do, is charge different prices for the exact same item depending on the gender of the buyer, and for retail, I have never heard of this being done. (Services are another matter, and some illegal practices are carried out there quite frequently.)

If you don't want to pay the displayed price, don't pay it, Do without that item.

Government can not be involved in comparative pricing between different products. The market is the only realistic way of setting comparative prices.

Appearance is very important to me. Clothes can be used to establish credibility and stature.
And your beautiful plaid shirt, canvas pants with snappy suspenders, logging boots and woolen cap...ay Vitt, you a vision of credibility and status....*sigh*

By the way. I bought a leather jacket too. It was $250 MORE than his, from the same store, and it involved considerably less leather than his. :mad:
Why you bought it? I would have walked out of the store and complain about it on the way out.

Neither would I pay 20$ for a haircut for short hair.

So you think it isn't gender bias, it is women's willingness to pay? That might be true, if there were enough 'alternatives'. It's not as though store x charges the same price for men and women's clothing while y charges more for women's. Women's stores, period, charge more. You are blaming this on the consumer...what then should be done? A massive boycott? Good luck getting half of the population to agree on that.

I think it does have a lot to do with gender bias. I do not, however, think the bias is unfounded. Does the article mention any mass movement of women purchasing goods and services from ordinarily men dominated retailers?

It is also that lack of alternatives that points to me that it is more on the consumer end than the production end. Like I said before (and I don't think you can disagree with this), if a company set prices artificially high, rival companies would spring up that would offer their goods at lower prices and undercut them.

To argue against that, you would have to assume that every corporation is so biased against women that they would forego profits in the interest of charging women unnecessarily high.

Yeah i said it, men are worse in some areas than women, in this example making more insurance claims, i dont have trouble admitting it. But the insurance industry or any other industry isnt going to change to accommodate what you think is "fair". They're going to operate the way they can to get the most money out of you.
Because the government lets them. The government REQUIRES that you be insured, but then lets those companies operate how they choose. They have a monopoly on your business. There is SLIGHT variation in prices depending on the company, but overall the prices are fairly static. There isn't a company out there saying, "We'll charge you based on a clean slate, and up your premiums when you screw up". There isn't real competition. Some governments are stepping in to regulate this as well. Again, that doesn't mean price setting. It means justifying your prices with more than, "everyone else charges this..."

And your beautiful plaid shirt, canvas pants with snappy suspenders, logging boots and woolen cap...ay Vitt, you a vision of credibility and status....*sigh*

I look so damn smart that I win most arguments before they start.

All I have to do is stroke my beard, look up slightly, and go "hmmmmm", and my opponent is rendered powerless by my philosophical aura.

I look so damn smart that I win most arguments before they start.

All I have to do is stroke my beard, look up slightly, and go "hmmmmm", and my opponent is rendered powerless by my philosophical aura.

My God, you're right!

There are no men anymore...we ran them all over :D

Ran them over in your collective rush to overpriced beauty salons, I am sure.

P.S...sorry if I sound snippy towards you in any of my replies...you know I can't stay mad at my favourite, grizzled Dutchman in plaid...

And alternatively, if I say something that gets you mad, just remember who your favorite man in suspenders is.

My God, you're right!

See, I wasn't even arguing with him, yet he was powerless to disagree with me.

There are alternatives. Women can go to a barbers and have their hair cut for the same price as the men. Women can buy men's clothes and wear them. Women accept the higher prices, through choice, for these things Why buy from a woman's store? You can always buy clothes from a department store or a men's tailors.

Hold on. Department store? Like they don't charge more for women's clothes too? The unisex sections are pretty darn small...department stores STILL have men's and women's sections. Go to a men's tailors? Do you have any idea how weird that would be? For one, the sizes are all out of proportion...trust me, I used to buy a lot of men's clothes for this very reason, but got sick of them never really fitting me right. The shoulders tend to be too broad, the pant length too long, the hip to narrow...even with extensive tailoring, you're racking up some high prices just getting it altered to fit.

There are some items, underwear particularly, that there may be a smal complaint about, but the same applies to men. There are always some items which are expensive and you have no choice.
If half the population accept paying these prices, then the businesses are within their rights charging them.
Again...what are women supposed to do? Because short of a boycott, I can't see anything else changing the pracitce.

What they should not do, is charge different prices for the exact same item depending on the gender of the buyer, and for retail, I have never heard of this being done. (Services are another matter, and some illegal practices are carried out there quite frequently.)
Then go to the GAP store. They have a rack of shirts on the men's side and the SAME shirts on the women's side. The sizings are a bit different, but the price for the women's shirts are $10 more. Look at Levi jeans. Women's jeans are always more expensive. Sure, they are a bit different in cut...but not x number of dollars worth of difference.

If you don't want to pay the displayed price, don't pay it, Do without that item.
Right. Don't buy anything. Because this applies to shampoo, styling products, razors, shoes, socks...so on and so on. Or are you suggesting we should just buy the men's stuff...and smell like 'old leather'....well don't complain when the dresses disappear and we're all wearing Vitt plaid!

Government can not be involved in comparative pricing between different products. The market is the only realistic way of setting comparative prices.If you believe that price fixing doesn't exist. I for one, do not operate under that assumption.

Okay, you're the one saying it. I don't know all that much about insurance, but frankly I don't think you should be judged by your gender or your age group. Even if you are a perfect driver, you are being judged on factors completely out of your control. Insurance, in as much as it is a government REQUIREMENT should be more fairly priced. You start with a clean slate. Every screw up costs you. To me, that seems fair.

What would be the net effect of such a law? Here is what I think would happen.

1)Insurance companies know based up your demographics what your cost to the company is going to be(generally).

2)They can either charge as little as possible based upon demographics or, ignore demographics and charge a much higher rate. Why higher? because they are going to have to charge a 30yr old guy with a wife and family who just started driving the same as they would a 17yr old who just started driving. Ill tell you, the 30yr with a family that he is responsible for is going to be a much safer driver(on average) than the 17yr who might be trying to pick up chicks. If the insurance company cant disguinish between the 2(by law) then they are going to have to charge to the 30yr much more than he would be otherwise and the 17yr much less than he would normally have paid.

This will have 2 effects 1) it will decrease demand in the safer group(30yr olds) and increase it in the more dangerous group(17yr olds). Perhaps some 30 yr olds will be priced out(choose public transport instead) and some 17yr olds will be priced in(choosing cars over public transport). The risk structure of the insurance companies portfolio is going to increase forcing them to further increase premiums exxacerbating this undesired effect.

Why you bought it? I would have walked out of the store and complain about it on the way out.

Neither would I pay 20$ for a haircut for short hair.
Uh huh. So again, the suggestion is 'do without' if you don't like it. Or 'buy the men's stuff'. I shopped around. The prices were the same within $10 dollars in every store for a woman's jacket. So the ONLY alternative is no jacket. Not a great alternative when I need one for bike riding.

I think it does have a lot to do with gender bias. I do not, however, think the bias is unfounded. Does the article mention any mass movement of women purchasing goods and services from ordinarily men dominated retailers?

It is also that lack of alternatives that points to me that it is more on the consumer end than the production end. Like I said before (and I don't think you can disagree with this), if a company set prices artificially high, rival companies would spring up that would offer their goods at lower prices and undercut them.
Nice theory. Why hasn't it happened then? You are saying that the prices are not artificially high. Justify them then. WHY are they higher? Is it just because we are willing to pay more? Willing, when there IS NO alternative? That isn't willing. That is us having no choice.

What would be the net effect of such a law? Here is what I think would happen.

1)Insurance companies know based up your demographics what your cost to the company is going to be(generally).

*snip for brevity*
I can't really argue this one well...so I'll pass. I don't know enough about it, and I'm not that interested in it (yet) to do any research:)

Supply and demand

So far, these are the arguments I've seen in FAVOUR of higher prices for women: (disregarding those goods and services that are NOT closely comparable)

1) Women are willing to pay the price. (supply and demand)

2) Actually, I think that's been the only real argument?

Nice theory. Why hasn't it happened then? You are saying that the prices are not artificially high. Justify them then. WHY are they higher? Is it just because we are willing to pay more? Willing, when there IS NO alternative? That isn't willing. That is us having no choice.

Now, I know you understand the way a market works. I can't imagine there being an across the board price fixing agreement against women. This means that it is impossible for a price to remain artificially high without government intervention.

I must assume that women are willing to pay higher prices, otherwise market forces would drive prices down.

So let's reverse this. If men's shaving products were more expensive than women's, would men be 'okay' with using raspberry shaving lotion, smelling like raspberry (aftershave), and shaving with pink razors? If that was the only alternative to expensive men's shaving products, would that be your choice?

Okay, I'm going to state this again.

We are talking about COMPARABLE goods and services.

Hair cut: man with long hair, woman with long hair, same price. Man with short hair, woman with short hair, same cut, same price.

Clothes: ditto

Drycleaning: man's suit, woman's suit, SAME PRICE. We are not comparing apples to oranges here.

No one is SETTING prices. They are simply saying that you better have a justification OUTSIDE OF GENDER BIAS to charge more for the exact same good or service.


It is very difficult understand what a COMPARABLE good is. In the case where a previous poster talked about drycleaning and being charged more for the same item of clothing, the only difference being who dropped it off(her vs her dad) then yes, it should not be happening. But I seriously doubt that that sort of bias is common, I have never seen it.

To say that a women's suit is comparable to a man's is a fallacy. The reason that they are more expensive to dry clean is not bias against women, rather there are more significant things going on. Perhaps in "GENERAL" it is more complex to dry clean womens suits than mens. Perhaps womens suits are more expensive to replace when damaged and this is factored into the drycleaning costs. Perhaps women are simply willing to pay more for the care of their clothes. The willingness of a customer to pay is an important consideration.

I can buy the same exact shirt, made in the same factory by the same company in India or the US. I pay a fraction of the USA price if I buy it here. Do you know why? Mostly its because if they charged USA prices they wouldnt be able to sell shirts here in India. The local population would not consume that good at that price. Is there discrimination going on? I dont think so.

Mcdonald's prices their hamburgers on what the local market will bear. Whether thats between two states or two countries. Is that discrimination. No, costs are going to be differant but so is the local population's ability/desire to consume a good. If they charged a man 1 price for a hamburger and a woman a different price THEN that would be discrimination. Or if a woman was charged one price for a ladies suit and a man was charged a different price for the same exact(type style whatever) then that would be discrimination.

Now, I know you understand the way a market works. I can't imagine there being an across the board price fixing agreement against women. This means that it is impossible for a price to remain artificially high without government intervention.

I must assume that women are willing to pay higher prices, otherwise market forces would drive prices down.
You are operating with the belief that the free market is actually free...that competition really exists. Prices don't vary all that much no matter WHERE you shop (except when quality varies). No, these companies don't get together and plot...but they do notice what their competitor charges, and charge accordingly. No one is dropping their prices to really provide competition. Price fixing is more and more prevelent, despite being *mostly* unofficial.

So far, these are the arguments I've seen in FAVOUR of higher prices for women: (disregarding those goods and services that are NOT closely comparable)

1) Women are willing to pay the price. (supply and demand)

2) Actually, I think that's been the only real argument?

I don't consider it to be an argument in FAVOR of higher prices as much as it is an explanation.

Why have I been ending up on the conservative side of arguments lately. At this rate I am going to be a racist, sexist, anti-government militant by June.

It’d be interesting to be sure but do you think that the prices will become cheaper for women or merely more expensive for men?

As for respecting the charter? Well they have to respect the legislation regarding human rights and discrimination but I think you’ll find that the charter does not have a lot to do with businesses. This can be seen by your method of recourse against a business, the human rights council instead of the Supreme Court.

I think what people need to realize that this is a supply and demand argument. Not as it has been presented here but as it appears on the demand side alone. A boycott was mentioned above and it was dispatched deftly as an infeasible solution. I concur, but this is also the flaw in the free market. Women have been socialized for a long time to accept that this is the norm, so their supply and demand graph is skewed.

To get my point let’s look at the shoes example stated above. Your absolutely right, that should not have happened based on the supply side of the supply and demand graph. On the demand side though, look at your other footwear alternatives and their prices. Those sexy strapy sandals you bought last summer for $150 because they were fashionable and perfectly complimented you dress? Congratulations on your find. You have however inflated the demand for the entire industry. The same thing happens to men, we’ve merely been socialized differently and (I generalize) do not accept that high of a unit price.

Let me ask you this, can you think of any man who would pay in excess of $100 for something that hurts his feet, has no long term usability, can only be used in specific instances, and will spend most of it’s time collecting dust? (If it was an electronic the answer is yes but we’re talking shoes here.)

This is a problem, but as stated with the boycott above it is not going to happen because you’ve already given up on fixing it on your own and want the government to do it for you. Gender inequality is a hard issue but it all comes down to the fact that for as much as feminism has been able to push through legislation and affect changes at the top it has not done a very good job representing itself to the public as a whole. I don’t want to tell you what to do but perhaps instead of changing the rules of the game you might get the players to understand the validity of the ones we have.

Sexism is a societal ill, and all more legislation will do is provide a nice veneer of equality. Crimes against women will rise in the background men who can’t get ahead will become frustrated and take it out on their daughters and wives. This is a horrible thing to say but it does seem to be happening.

Perhaps instead of making superficial changes you might participate in a grass roots movement that would change peoples minds, have a true social revolution as apposed to simple coercing the ruling class at the top. Change is definitely needed but any change brought about by the heavy hand of government will breed resentment and in the long term drive a wedge between those who do and do not understand the problem. It is not my opinion but can you not see people giving a frustrated snort and saying something along the lines of “typical, they need government protection”.

So let's reverse this. If men's shaving products were more expensive than women's, would men be 'okay' with using raspberry shaving lotion, smelling like raspberry (aftershave), and shaving with pink razors? If that was the only alternative to expensive men's shaving products, would that be your choice?

That is one of the problem. Men do not shop for specialized items, such as pink razors or scented lotions. Most men rarely note a difference between hygeine products, while women have much more stringent requirements. They have to pay for that specialization.

You are operating with the belief that the free market is actually free...that competition really exists. Prices don't vary all that much no matter WHERE you shop (except when quality varies). No, these companies don't get together and plot...but they do notice what their competitor charges, and charge accordingly. No one is dropping their prices to really provide competition. Price fixing is more and more prevelent, despite being *mostly* unofficial.

Do you actually think that companies don't try to beat competitor prices?

So let's reverse this. If men's shaving products were more expensive than women's, would men be 'okay' with using raspberry shaving lotion, smelling like raspberry (aftershave), and shaving with pink razors? If that was the only alternative to expensive men's shaving products, would that be your choice?

I'm sure not all women's razors are pink. And as for the shaving lotion, I''d switch to an electric razor if all i could get my hands on was rasberry lotion and not use aftershave.

It is very difficult understand what a COMPARABLE good is. In the case where a previous poster talked about drycleaning and being charged more for the same item of clothing, the only difference being who dropped it off(her vs her dad) then yes, it should not be happening. But I seriously doubt that that sort of bias is common, I have never seen it.
You probably haven't seen much racism either (I'm making an assumption here). I have. It doesn't mean it happens more where I live than where you live. You don't see a bias when it works in your favour (for the most part), but it becomes glaringly obvious when it works against you. One of my numerous student jobs was as a flunky in a post office/dry cleaners. I can assure you. Women were charged more than men, even when the items were identical.

To say that a women's suit is comparable to a man's is a fallacy.
Then please point out the differences in a designer suit for a man, and the same designer suit for a woman, because other than cut, I can't find one.
The reason that they are more expensive to dry clean is not bias against women, rather there are more significant things going on. Perhaps in "GENERAL" it is more complex to dry clean womens suits than mens. False.

Perhaps womens suits are more expensive to replace when damaged and this is factored into the drycleaning costs. Yes, they are more expensive to replace, but the drycleaner can not factore this into the cleaning process. They are well aware of damage that CAN or MAY occur, and if they suspect it MIGHT, a waiver is signed.
Perhaps women are simply willing to pay more for the care of their clothes. The willingness of a customer to pay is an important consideration.
This, I believe, is the most important factor. However, do you truly believe women are WILLING as in they WANT to pay more? The fact is, there are not alternatives for many of these goods and services that would really give us a choice. You aren't more WILLING to pay a certain price when that is the ONLY PRICE AVAILABLE.

I can by the same exact shirt, made in the same by the same commpany in India or the US. I pay a fraction of the USA price if I buy it here. Do you why? Mostly its because if they charged USA prices they wouldnt be able to sell shirt here in India. The local population would not consume that good at that price. Is there discrimination going on? I dont think so.

Mcdonald's prices their hamburgers on what the local market will bear. Whether thats between two states or two countries. Is that discrimination. Yes, costs are going to be differant but so is the local population's ability/desire to consume a good. No, these are not examples of discrimination, because everyone pays the same, whether they are men or women. That is not the case here.

I don't consider it to be an argument in FAVOR of higher prices as much as it is an explanation.

Why have I been ending up on the conservative side of arguments lately. At this rate I am going to be a racist, sexist, anti-government militant by June.
*smooch*
I doubt it.

Just say you DON'T support it, and that you are offering your ideas of WHY it happens, and I will love you again:)

Get your dry cleaning done here. I do.
http://www.321zips.com/pledge.html

Not a spam ad - it's just proving that in some places, you don't have to pay a different price for dry cleaning just because you're a woman.

So far, these are the arguments I've seen in FAVOUR of higher prices for women: (disregarding those goods and services that are NOT closely comparable)

1) Women are willing to pay the price. (supply and demand)

2) Actually, I think that's been the only real argument?

(1) is all you need. If you don't like it then you have problem with capitalism.

*smooch*
I doubt it.

Just say you DON'T support it, and that you are offering your ideas of WHY it happens, and I will love you again:)

I do not support it in the least.

In fact, I can even go so far to say that I will use my education in finance to exploit any market inefficiencies to bring women clothes at a fair and reasonable price.

As long as there's a profit in it of course. ;)

Actually, depending on the material, a Man's suit is more costly to replace than a woman's. The average women's suit (NOT designer) costs about $150 U.S.
The average Men's suit costs about $320 U.S. That's a BIG difference. Thus, gender discrimination works both ways...as I said before.

Because the government lets them. The government REQUIRES that you be insured, but then lets those companies operate how they choose. They have a monopoly on your business. There is SLIGHT variation in prices depending on the company, but overall the prices are fairly static. There isn't a company out there saying, "We'll charge you based on a clean slate, and up your premiums when you screw up". There isn't real competition. Some governments are stepping in to regulate this as well. Again, that doesn't mean price setting. It means justifying your prices with more than, "everyone else charges this..."

You are mistaken. Completely mistaken (at least with regards to insurance in the USA). Back when I was living there full time(2004) I switched from progressive to Geico. This cut my insurance premium in HALF. Of course, Geico wont give this rate to people with points on their license but mine was clean so joy joy. Progresive didnt offer me this savings so I switched.

Clean records do make the most impact on premiums, but you need a track record. A new driver is going to be and should be charged more.

Perhaps instead of making superficial changes you might participate in a grass roots movement that would change peoples minds, have a true social revolution as apposed to simple coercing the ruling class at the top. Change is definitely needed but any change brought about by the heavy hand of government will breed resentment and in the long term drive a wedge between those who do and do not understand the problem. It is not my opinion but can you not see people giving a frustrated snort and saying something along the lines of “typical, they need government protection”.
No offense, but this is the argument any time the government decides to regulate something. Seat belt law...resentment. Helmet law for motorcyclists....resentment. No-smoking bylaws...resentment. Child safety seats in cars...resentment. Resentment which has faded as these things become more normal and accepted.

We have made it illegal to have racist business practices (whether you take it to civil court or go through a tribunal, it is still not acceptable). Why is gender bias still allowed? Would you blame the blacks for policies that discriminated against them before the civil rights movement? Yet it is okay to blame women for biases they experience.

Women ARE fighting at the grass roots, against incredible odds, the most difficult of which are apathy and the belief that 'the battle is won'. You call yourself a feminist, you get slandered and laughed at. You complain about bias, or *gasp* try to do something about it, and you called an extremist, and are told that "women's rights are already won". But still we fight. Part of that 'change' you are asking for is making sure that biases that are blatant are not allowed to escape unpunished. That means lobbying law makers, government, people who can enact real change. No, a law does not solve everything, but it sets the stage. I for one think the wider issue here is not the bias itself, but rather the lack of analysis of this bias. Most women don't question it. Most men don't question it. Most men and women didn't question a lot of things that are now commonplace.

This law is one fruit of the labour of many men and women who have seen these practices as gender biased. That IS doing something. It won't be enough. Awareness must be raised as well. But it is still a step towards a goal.

That is one of the problem. Men do not shop for specialized items, such as pink razors or scented lotions. Most men rarely note a difference between hygeine products, while women have much more stringent requirements. They have to pay for that specialization.
Bah. Most men I know are extremely loyal to a brand. They don't like the smell of other aftershaves, or shaving creams, so they stick to the one they always buy. They most certainly DO notice a difference:)

I get your point, but I don't care about the 'specialisation'. I'll buy whatever is cheapest as long as it doesn't reek to high heaven. There are more options available to women, but that hasn't lowered prices, it's made them higher. Why?

Do you actually think that companies don't try to beat competitor prices?
Do you actually think that companies would price their items so much lower than other companies that though they may be selling more a bit more, they're still making less money?

Do you actually think that when stores offer to beat their competitor's prices, everyone and anyone will immediately rush out to shop at that store and only that store?

Do you actually think that most companies aren't out to make as much money in as short of time as possible?

Do you actually think that lowering prices will automatically increase profits even if the sales do increase?

The fact remains that when you lower the price on something, you are losing profit, and your increase in sales, assuming there is one, my not compensate for that loss of profits if you set it too much lower than what everyone else is charging.

First off, who's going to decide what is equal? Is a tux equal to a wedding gown? Is a massive trip to a salon to get a woman's hair all done up equal to my ten minutes at the barber to get the hair shortened?

I think there are far more factors to this than gender discrimination.

Get your dry cleaning done here. I do.
http://www.321zips.com/pledge.html

Not a spam ad - it's just proving that in some places, you don't have to pay a different price for dry cleaning just because you're a woman.
Too bad I live nowhere near you.

By the way, I hate drycleaned clothes. If they can't be washed in a washing machine, I refuse to buy them:)

(1) is all you need. If you don't like it then you have problem with capitalism.
Yeah, yeah I do actually. When a price is based solely on what the market will bear, without there being competition to any real extent, rather than on the work that went into the good, or the cost of the materials, then yeah, I have a problem with that. It's exactly what happens when a government completely regulates the production and distribution of a good...the price has nothing to do with the good itself. Like evil twins they are...

I do not support it in the least.

In fact, I can even go so far to say that I will use my education in finance to exploit any market inefficiencies to bring women clothes at a fair and reasonable price.

As long as there's a profit in it of course. ;)
Thank you. Seriously.

With stuff like haircuts and clothes, if they put the prices too high for men, most guys would just never buy them, and go round looking like hobos. So it's more profitable for prices to be lower.

Women, on the other hand, are willing to pay more for that sort of thing, so the companies can get away with charging more.

It's not some mysoginist conspiracy. I expect a large number of hair salons which service women are themselves owned and run entirely by women.

Bah. Most men I know are extremely loyal to a brand. They don't like the smell of other aftershaves, or shaving creams, so they stick to the one they always buy. They most certainly DO notice a difference:)

I get your point, but I don't care about the 'specialisation'. I'll buy whatever is cheapest as long as it doesn't reek to high heaven. There are more options available to women, but that hasn't lowered prices, it's made them higher. Why?

I don't know. It seems as women's markets become larger they only get more specialized. I can also only figure that low cost women's products are not profitable on a large scale. Otherwise companies would at least eventually start producing them.

With stuff like haircuts and clothes, if they put the prices too high for men, most guys would just never buy them, and go round looking like hobos. So it's more profitable for prices to be lower.

Women, on the other hand, are willing to pay more for that sort of thing, so the companies can get away with charging more.

It's not some mysoginist conspiracy. I expect a large number of hair salons which service women are themselves owned and run entirely by women.

I don't think anyone truly thinks it's a conspiracy. It's just that years of media conditioning, and stereotypes have backed us up into a corner. And, as I've said before, it's not just women who are being discriminated against...

First off, who's going to decide what is equal? Is a tux equal to a wedding gown? Is a massive trip to a salon to get a woman's hair all done up equal to my ten minutes at the barber to get the hair shortened?

I think there are far more factors to this than gender discrimination.
I'm not exactly sure how such a law would really work...I'd like to know how it's worked in California, since they've had such a law since 96.

I think that a complaint would have to be made first, and then investigated. So say a hair cut was automatically $10 more for a woman, regardless of hair length or complexity of style. Then I think the business would have to justify WHY the price is higher, proving it isn't a bias.

Hard to enforce, but hopefully it would make retailers and providers of services consider their current prices, and reconsider those that are unjustifiable.

So California already has such a law (though they have enforcement issues)...I wonder how it's affected things there.

And no suit should cost 2/3 more just because it is for a woman, no matter what your supply/demand argument is.
Now I am not taking one side or another but suppy/demand determines manufacturing costs why would that not be reflected in consumer costs?

You probably haven't seen much racism either (I'm making an assumption here).

Then please point out the differences in a designer suit for a man, and the same designer suit for a woman, because other than cut, I can't find one.
False.

.

A) I am a minority and B) I havent seen that much racism Even though where I grew no one looked like me or had my background, and worse, I grew up in a pretty homogeneous society(except for me). There were incidents, but nothing beyond what is nominally acceptable.

B) There is more to a product than the material and cut. How much effort went into its design? Was the designer paid the same as the designer for te mens suit? What is the size of their relative markets? How much advertising was spent on the mens line as opposed to the womens. How much impact does the brand have in the womens segment vs the mens ect ect.

The fact that its a suit and a mens suit is also just a suit. The fact that the material used might be similar brand ect still does not qualify it as a comparable good. Clothes are not commodities, they are not readily fungible.

With stuff like haircuts and clothes, if they put the prices too high for men, most guys would just never buy them, and go round looking like hobos. So it's more profitable for prices to be lower.

Women, on the other hand, are willing to pay more for that sort of thing, so the companies can get away with charging more.

It's not some mysoginist conspiracy. I expect a large number of hair salons which service women are themselves owned and run entirely by women.What about the women (like myself) that are NOT willing to pay more, but don't always have a choice? If every barbershop and salon in town charges a woman more for a trim, should I drive the hour to the next town to get a cheaper cut? Kind of defeats the purpose when you factor in the mileage.

The fact is, there is little alternative out there for women who don't want to pay more. And cripes...please explain to me why ANY woman would CHOOSE to pay more just 'because'. If alternatives, cheaper alternatives, were available, don't you think any thrifty person would be snapping them up? I buy a lot of second hand clothing...that's how I deal with it...but if I need a suit that fits me, I'm probably going to have to buy a new one. That's when the options narrow.

This isn't a 'misogynist conspiracy', but it IS a gender bias. The two are not always linked.

About hairstyle, women have way more complex haircut than men. The basic haircut for men take about 5 min, we already pay to much for it!

About clothes, the same argument still apply. Women's bougth more sophisticated clothes that are remade every years to follow fashion. While men's have been wearing the same freaking model of pant and sweater for ages.

Now for insurance. It's really about probability. Where I live, men pay 5-10 time more for car insurance because we tend to crash a lot more...

It's all about what the goods or services worth (supply) Vs how much people are willing to pay (women like fashion, men like car)

Now I am not taking one side or another but suppy/demand determines manufacturing costs why would that not be reflected in consumer costs?
Because the market isn't free. There aren't alternatives. There isn't a clothes store that charges less for the same quality of clothes (and by less, I don't mean a dollar or two off the other guy's price).

Do you actually think that companies would price their items so much lower than other companies that though they may be selling more a bit more, they're still making less money?

No, but if their prices are artificially high, that means that they are losing money. The free market price is based on an equilibrium price that maximizes the profits of a company by matching supply with demand.

Do you actually think that when stores offer to beat their competitor's prices, everyone and anyone will immediately rush out to shop at that store and only that store?

No, prices are sticky and so is supply and demand, but over a period of time the financial benefits of following the market price will become greater and greater.

Do you actually think that most companies aren't out to make as much money in as short of time as possible?

That is precisely the reason that an across the board price fixing against women is so implausible.

Do you actually think that lowering prices will automatically increase profits even if the sales do increase?

It won't automatically increase profits, it is all dependent on market factors.

The fact remains that when you lower the price on something, you are losing profit, and your increase in sales, assuming there is one, my not compensate for that loss of profits if you set it too much lower than what everyone else is charging.

The pressures of profit maximization will force producers to set a price that is a fair value on the market. It may come at lowering prices, it may come at raising prices. Sinuhue is making the point that prices are artificially high, and I am making the point that under free market pressure it is impossible for prices to remain artificially high.

Because the market isn't free. There aren't alternatives. There isn't a clothes store that charges less for the same quality of clothes (and by less, I don't mean a dollar or two off the other guy's price).
Free market has nothing to do with alternitives rather regulations? so I am confused as to your refference to free market?

A) I am a minority and B) I havent seen that much racism Even though where I grew no one looked like me or had my background, and worse, I grew up in a pretty homogeneous society(except for me). There were incidents, but nothing beyond what is nominally acceptable.
Lucky you. No, really!

B) There is more to a product than the material and cut. How much effort went into its design? Was the designer paid the same as the designer for te mens suit? That's why I said the same designer...let's say, Calvin Klein for the suit of both genders.What is the size of their relative markets? How much advertising was spent on the mens line as opposed to the womens. How much impact does the brand have in the womens segment vs the mens ect ect.
Granted. But still crap. I want an alternative.

The fact that its a suit and a mens suit is also just a suit. The fact that the material used might be similar brand ect still does not qualify it as a comparable good. Clothes are not commodities, they are not readily fungible.
Fungible? That's a neat word...now what the heck does it mean! :eek:

Bah. Bah to capitalism. Bah to expensive women's clothes. I'm wearing gunny sacks from now on!

Haircuts. Insurance. CLOTHES. Women often have to pay more for these goods and services even when the goods and services in question are the same as those purchased by men.


Its little known amoung feminists that there is an economic concept called "SUPPLY AND DEMAND" which expalins all this away. Women have a higher demand than men, ergo the price is higher. Thats just economic sense.

Free market has nothing to do with alternitives rather regulations? so I am confused as to your refference to free market?
Sorry. I mean that there aren't stores out there competing (with comparable goods) for women's money by offering alternatives in price (other than a few dollars difference). Meaning, women don't have an alternative to these high prices.

Because the market isn't free. There aren't alternatives. There isn't a clothes store that charges less for the same quality of clothes (and by less, I don't mean a dollar or two off the other guy's price).

Now you know that is not the definition of a free market. A free market doesn't determine what products are actually on the market, it determines what products could be on the market.

Sorry. I mean that there aren't stores out there competing (with comparable goods) for women's money by offering alternatives in price (other than a few dollars difference). Meaning, women don't have an alternative to these high prices.
Then someone should start one :) if it is economicaly viable people will flock to it (I think it is a rather good idea myself)

Its little known amoung feminists that there is an economic concept called "SUPPLY AND DEMAND" which expalins all this away. Thanks for jumping in with your anti-feminist rhetoric...yes, we are all stupid, stupid women who don't understand how the world works.

You're right. It has nothing to do with bias, and everything to do with women who are just willing to pay more, despite the fact that they HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO PAY THOSE INFLATED PRICES.

Its little known amoung feminists that there is an economic concept called "SUPPLY AND DEMAND" which expalins all this away. Women have a higher demand than men, ergo the price is higher. Thats just economic sense.

Ugh, I think that the market for Shaving cream is quite comparable...Men buy just as much, if not more of that than women....why does it cost 88 cents for a can of barbasol (that comes in many different scents thank you, so that's not an arguement), and nearly $2 for a can of women's shaving cream? (can't remember the name...I don't use shaving cream...soap works good enough for me...) I don't think that that is Supply and demand. And why does it cost $300 for a men's suit, but only $150 for a women's? That's not supply and demand. That's discrimination, in my book.

Now you know that is not the definition of a free market. A free market doesn't determine what products are actually on the market, it determines what products could be on the market.
But a big part of the free market is the idea of competition. It would make sense that some retailer would want to scoop the market by offering clothes at a lower price than its competitors...but then again, why bother when you can ALL keep your prices high and ALL make maximum profits? This is a flaw in capitalism that I don't really want to get into in this thread...but basically you are all saying (ok, not all of you, but most) that women CHOOSE to pay this price. I say they do not choose. The market has chosen for them. No one is offering cheaper prices that would allow women a real choice, and that would perhaps influence other retailers.

Then someone should start one :) if it is economicaly viable people will flock to it (I think it is a rather good idea myself)
ME TOO! I just don't want to have to do it myself:( I have the rest of the world on my plate:)

Ugh, I think that the market for Shaving cream is quite comparable...Men buy just as much, if not more of that than women....why does it cost 88 cents for a can of barbasol (that comes in many different scents thank you, so that's not an arguement), and nearly $2 for a can of women's shaving cream? (can't remember the name...I don't use shaving cream...soap works good enough for me...) I don't think that that is Supply and demand. And why does it cost $300 for a men's suit, but only $150 for a women's? That's not supply and demand. That's discrimination, in my book.

The men and womens suit arguement is fairly logical. More men wear suits to work than women do. Women have more options than men in terms of work clothes. Ergo there is less demand and therefore lower price. As for the shaving cream arguement, there are many diffrent leg hair removal products for women so there is a level of competition. Its not just cream, there are sprays and other things so that market is not comparable.

So let's reverse this. If men's shaving products were more expensive than women's, would men be 'okay' with using raspberry shaving lotion, smelling like raspberry (aftershave), and shaving with pink razors? If that was the only alternative to expensive men's shaving products, would that be your choice?

No problem whatsoever in using pink razors, or raspberry shaving lotion if it has the calming effect on the skin that I use lotion for. (On the occasions when I shave, I normally have a beard)

Yes, if it were the alternative to paying over the top for "men's" shaving products, I would use women's.

If in GAP, the shirts are the same product, then why don't the women buy the men's shirts? If they don't then there is a difference, this could be extra tailoring, better finishing, whatever. If there is a difference then this is not a case of a different price for the exact same product, is it?

By department stores I meant buy from the men's section, OK. You have however stated that there are differences. That the men's clothes don't fit. We men, in general put up with this. A little too tight here, too lose there, so what, it'll do. Women, it appears will not, so there is an economy of scale loss built into the market.

Next point, fashion. Go and see if you can find an item of clothing in the female section that has been there for more than six months, other than basic jeans and t shirts. You will not succeed. In the men's section there will be items that have been there years, but are still going to sell. Again, economy of scale. Why does fashion matter, I don't know, ask a woman.

I am suggesting you use the power you have as a consumer. Take your business elsewhere. As to men's tailors, I meant having the clothes measured and fitted, not off the shelf. (This is the only way men can get clothes that are comfortable unless you are extremely lucky and are the exact measurements of one of the manequins). If you think buying clothes is to expensive, make your own. Shampoo, as I said in another thread, is not gendered here, it is sold by hair type. Often the only difference is the bottle.

Price fixing does occur in some markets (OPEC comes to mind). But not across such a large range of international manufacturers of consumer goods. If it were at retail level, then the small local shops would be cheaper, and they are not, so it has to be due to market forces or regulation. You are asking for regulation, which implies that you do not think that the prices are regulated. This leaves market forces. How do you deal with those. To reduce prices reduce the demand or increase the supply.

Conclusion, ewither don't buy at those prices, or set up a factory/shop and sell for less.

The men and womens suit arguement is fairly logical. More men wear suits to work than women do. Women have more options than men in terms of work clothes. Ergo there is less demand and therefore lower price. If I were a guy, I'd be pissed about that. I for one would like to see men's clothes become more varied...why NOT wear skirts? I've seen quite a few men in skirts and it looks quite nice...time for feminists and men's groups to fight for a loosening in gender stereotypes and dress expectations!

Thanks for jumping in with your anti-feminist rhetoric...yes, we are all stupid, stupid women who don't understand how the world works.

You're right. It has nothing to do with bias, and everything to do with women who are just willing to pay more, despite the fact that they HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO PAY THOSE INFLATED PRICES.

Contary to popular opinion its not. Think about this for a second. Which sex in western culture is more naturally self consious. Women. Which sex has the greater varity in terms of fashion. Womens clothes by far. Ergo the demand for womens clothes is higher. Inflated prices would suggest actual inflation is to blame. But inflation cuts across everything so then it would effect mens clothes too. Contary to popular opinon not everything that seems to be bad that happens to women is not the result of some kind of patriarchal society which is holding them back at every stage.

But a big part of the free market is the idea of competition. It would make sense that some retailer would want to scoop the market by offering clothes at a lower price than its competitors...but then again, why bother when you can ALL keep your prices high and ALL make maximum profits? This is a flaw in capitalism that I don't really want to get into in this thread...but basically you are all saying (ok, not all of you, but most) that women CHOOSE to pay this price. I say they do not choose. The market has chosen for them. No one is offering cheaper prices that would allow women a real choice, and that would perhaps influence other retailers.

Ok, I am not familiar with the markets for women's products, but if there are no viable substitutes produced and companies do not compete with each other within the markets then prices will be inefficient and not free.

Haircuts. Insurance. CLOTHES. Women often have to pay more for these goods and services even when the goods and services in question are the same as those purchased by men.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110908196485_106317396/?hub=Canada

Do you support a law that would make it illegal to charge different prices for the same good or service based on gender?
Women's shoes are cheap! I wish I could find a pair of shoes for under $40! :(

The men and womens suit arguement is fairly logical. More men wear suits to work than women do. Women have more options than men in terms of work clothes. Ergo there is less demand and therefore lower price. As for the shaving cream arguement, there are many diffrent leg hair removal products for women so there is a level of competition. Its not just cream, there are sprays and other things so that market is not comparable.

Actually, the level of women wearing suits to work is comparible to that of men's. If you work in a Business environment (like in a corporate office, or an insurance office), you are required to wear business attire (i.e. Suits). Yes, there are more cuts and styles available to women, but the demand is basically the same. Plus, men can usually get by with having only 3-4 suits, while supplementing the look with ties and shirt, whereas it is generally expected that a woman should vary her outfit, thus she must buy more clothes (since we don't have the same options of accessories. We can vary a handbag or earrings, but due to the unique nature of women's suits, that doesn't really change the look too much). So it shouldn't be more for men than for women.

Yes, there are other options available to women as far as shaving goes, but I do not know of ONE woman who relies on one of those alternatives exclusively for hair removal. All of them have atleast one can of shaving cream on hand at ALL times. Thus, again, demand should be the same...

If I were a guy, I'd be pissed about that. I for one would like to see men's clothes become more varied...why NOT wear skirts? I've seen quite a few men in skirts and it looks quite nice...time for feminists and men's groups to fight for a loosening in gender stereotypes and dress expectations!

I'm a guy and I dont care. All i want to wear to work is a simple suit. Women care about these things. I dont know if thats ingrained or a cultural thing but it doesnt matter. They want more stuff to wear? fine, pay for it.

I think that is one of the great beauties of a free economy

If a price is artificially set too high, then another company will come in and beat that price


If that doesnt happen, then it must be one of the following reasons:

#1 there is a reason why the price is so high

#2 Monopoly...and there are already laws against that...





For further reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination

No problem whatsoever in using pink razors, or raspberry shaving lotion if it has the calming effect on the skin that I use lotion for. (On the occasions when I shave, I normally have a beard)

Yes, if it were the alternative to paying over the top for "men's" shaving products, I would use women's.
I for one would love to smell more men scented with raspberry instead of musky crap:)

If in GAP, the shirts are the same product, then why don't the women buy the men's shirts? If they don't then there is a difference, this could be extra tailoring, better finishing, whatever. If there is a difference then this is not a case of a different price for the exact same product, is it?

By department stores I meant buy from the men's section, OK. You have however stated that there are differences. That the men's clothes don't fit. We men, in general put up with this. A little too tight here, too lose there, so what, it'll do. Women, it appears will not, so there is an economy of scale loss built into the market.
Men's clothes will just fit a woman differently because of general differences in anatomy. Women's clothes are cut to 'fit' women (with variation of course) and men's clothes are cut accordingly. It isn't just us being PICKY that we don't buy men's clothes. You go try on a woman's shirt and tell me you're okay with how it fit. Better yet, try on some pants, and you'll get what I'm saying here. Ouch.

Next point, fashion. Go and see if you can find an item of clothing in the female section that has been there for more than six months, other than basic jeans and t shirts. You will not succeed. In the men's section there will be items that have been there years, but are still going to sell. Again, economy of scale. Why does fashion matter, I don't know, ask a woman. Duly asked. Answer...I don't know, but I do know that a frumpy woman is going to get more negative comments in the workplace, or ESPECIALLY politics than a frumpy man...and not just the women are the ones commenting. So you men out there, quit expecting us to be fashionable peacocks!

Conclusion, ewither don't buy at those prices, or set up a factory/shop and sell for less.So put up with it, or be the competition. Na. I don't care that much about clothes. Nor will I ever be able to cut hair to any acceptable standard. I DON'T buy at those prices when I can avoid it, but sometimes it is unavoidable. So again in summary, higher prices for women are the fault of women. Somehow I still find that to be a load of bull.

Haircuts. Insurance. CLOTHES. Women often have to pay more for these goods and services even when the goods and services in question are the same as those purchased by men.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110908196485_106317396/?hub=Canada



Do you support a law that would make it illegal to charge different prices for the same good or service based on gender?

Yeah, women do pay more for clothes - but let's pretend it's the fault of the businesses, so we can excuse women the responsibility of paying for what they pay for. And certainly, women do not shop for clothes in greater quantity or regularity than men...

Haircuts? Well again, I know few women who would be content with the "same service" most men get. There are basically male and female haircut places, though occasionally you'll have the versatile unisex one.

As for insurance... men and women are biologically different, and insurance must take that into account for the same reasons it takes into account things like whether you smoke or not.

But really, the end result is - if you really don't want to pay that much for a haircut, don't do it. Go elsewhere or get your friends to do it. It's not that big a deal.

My wife pays the same for pistols and ammunition as I do.

Her "holster" cost more, but maybe that's because it's disguised as a purse, whereas I have a small holster.

Contary to popular opinion its not. Think about this for a second. Which sex in western culture is more naturally self consious. Women.
You say nature, I say nurture. Women aren't BORN more self-conscious. They are taught to be.

In any case, I called your comments anti-feminist because you stated that feminists were not aware of supply and demand. Implying that they are stupid, or refuse to see a great truth.


Contary to popular opinon not everything that seems to be bad that happens to women is not the result of some kind of patriarchal society which is holding them back at every stage.
Popular opinion? I'd say that's a pretty UNPOPULAR opinion. Not to mention that no one has ever said here that this is some sort of conspiracy. Nonetheless, it IS gender based, whether you call it supply and demand or not. That supply and demand centers around the gender of one, and not the other. Gender. Based. Not conspiracy.

Ok, I am not familiar with the markets for women's products, but if there are no viable substitutes produced and companies do not compete with each other within the markets then prices will be inefficient and not free.
Everyone read this. This is my point.

Everyone read this. This is my point.

Then as long as men and women don't wear the same type of clothing (in general), you're going to have a problem.

Women's shoes are cheap! I wish I could find a pair of shoes for under $40! :(
I sure can't, and I'm a woman.

Good shoes cost dearly...but I wear them for many years....

Then again, you'll never see me in heels:)

So put up with it, or be the competition. Na. I don't care that much about clothes. Nor will I ever be able to cut hair to any acceptable standard. I DON'T buy at those prices when I can avoid it, but sometimes it is unavoidable. So again in summary, higher prices for women are the fault of women. Somehow I still find that to be a load of bull.

So give an alternative explanation that holds water. A worldwide clothing manufacturers conspiracy against women, really does not seem to be very probable.
Fashion, has to be a factor, as fashion items for men are as expensive, if not more so, than the equivalent for women. Most men know jack shit about fasahion, so the blaming of men for women having to be fashionable at work etc. is ungrounded. The peple who criticise women for being unfashionable are, almost exclusively, other women. (Don't equate being fashionable with being sexy, frumpiness can be fashionable, but never sexy)

I'm a guy and I dont care. All i want to wear to work is a simple suit. Women care about these things. I dont know if thats ingrained or a cultural thing but it doesnt matter. They want more stuff to wear? fine, pay for it.
It's not just that women want more things to wear. Men expect it of them too. Just listen to the talk in your office if a woman wears the same outfits over and over.

You say nature, I say nurture. Women aren't BORN more self-conscious. They are taught to be.


Which is why I said "Western culture". Read the whole post please.

It's not just that women want more things to wear. Men expect it of them too. Just listen to the talk in your office if a woman wears the same outfits over and over.

Unless there are sexual fantasies involved, men will usually not care if you wear the same outfit (as long as it washed and clean etc.. ;) )

Everyone read this. This is my point.

I did post that in hopes that it would point out the absurdity of the required conditions, not explain the definition of a free market.

i've only skimmed the thread (i know, isn't that in poor taste?), but here are a few comments on points i've seen raised:

-i'm female, and i wouldn't be caught dead in 90% of the "female" clothes out there. i go to thrift stores, i live in jeans and cords, and i buy men's clothing when possible. hot new trends turn out to be tomorrow's jokes, and i'm not about to pay three times as much for clothes i will regret having worn when the next hot thing comes along.

-yeah, women pay more for lots of things. you know why? because there are enough stupid women to keep that trend going. businesses are smart to charge whatever price the consumers will tolerate, and women consumers tolerate crap prices. i don't blame businesses for over-charging, i blame women for being idiotic enough to blow $150 on a pair of sandals, or $300 on a skirt.

-men should wear skirts. well, some of them. i know several fellows with splendid legs, and i deeply regret the societal restrictions which make it impossible for them to display their man-gams freely. put it this way, fellows: i would be far more likely to hit on you or buy you a drink if you showed off them stems! and hell, there are lots of women who look rotten in skirts, so the fact that some men would look rotten as well isn't really a big thing.

This thread is silly.

If you want a cheap hair cut, get a cheap hair cut.

If you want cheap clothes, go to a charity shop.

Stop the crazy magical fantasies where women are forced to buy million pound mink coats. It's not real.

So give an alternative explanation that holds water. A worldwide clothing manufacturers conspiracy against women, really does not seem to be very probable.
Not against. Focused on. Not a conspiracy. A market result of social expectations. Why should I, as a woman, have to pay more for clothes that are roughly the same as men's clothes, simply because I was born a woman? I didn't ask for the advertising. I didn't ask for the expectations. I didn't ask for the fashion designers. They ask for me...to buy their crap. I got born into this market, and I resist it. I don't see a problem with telling retailers to justify their prices...if they can show that the prices they charge are not just based on gender, then fine. If not, there is a problem.

Anywho...I have to get some work done...I'll be back in a while to continue:)

Which sex in western culture is more naturally self consious. Women
I did read your whole post. See where you said NATURALLY? That means they were born that way. I say they were not born that way, they were taught. You see the difference?

I did post that in hopes that it would point out the absurdity of the required conditions, not explain the definition of a free market.
Bumhead :D
I still say it isn't free when no competition exists.

Not against. Focused on. Not a conspiracy. A market result of social expectations. Why should I, as a woman, have to pay more for clothes that are roughly the same as men's clothes, simply because I was born a woman? I didn't ask for the advertising. I didn't ask for the expectations. I didn't ask for the fashion designers. They ask for me...to buy their crap. I got born into this market, and I resist it. I don't see a problem with telling retailers to justify their prices...if they can show that the prices they charge are not just based on gender, then fine. If not, there is a problem.

Anywho...I have to get some work done...I'll be back in a while to continue:)

If most women didn't fulfill societies expectations so energetically you wouldn't be stuck in your situation.

If most women didn't fulfill societies expectations so energetically you wouldn't be stuck in your situation.
EXACTLY.

Bumhead :D
I still say it isn't free when no competition exists.

Hey, no flaming. ;)

And I still say it is absurd to say that no competition exists.

Maybe prices fluctuations are unusual because women oriented product markets are well established and they have already began to mirror free market valuations.

I did read your whole post. See where you said NATURALLY? That means they were born that way. I say they were not born that way, they were taught. You see the difference?

I said IN WESTERN CULTURE. Naturally would imply that its true everywhere. I didnt say that. Please look more carefully at context. In western culture it is considered "NATURAL" for women to be more self consious. I could have replaced it with the word "NORMAL" but in the context of the words "WESTERN CULTURE" they mean the same thing.

i've only skimmed the thread (i know, isn't that in poor taste?), but here are a few comments on points i've seen raised:

-i'm female, and i wouldn't be caught dead in 90% of the "female" clothes out there. i go to thrift stores, i live in jeans and cords, and i buy men's clothing when possible. hot new trends turn out to be tomorrow's jokes, and i'm not about to pay three times as much for clothes i will regret having worn when the next hot thing comes along.

-yeah, women pay more for lots of things. you know why? because there are enough stupid women to keep that trend going. businesses are smart to charge whatever price the consumers will tolerate, and women consumers tolerate crap prices. i don't blame businesses for over-charging, i blame women for being idiotic enough to blow $150 on a pair of sandals, or $300 on a skirt.

-men should wear skirts. well, some of them. i know several fellows with splendid legs, and i deeply regret the societal restrictions which make it impossible for them to display their man-gams freely. put it this way, fellows: i would be far more likely to hit on you or buy you a drink if you showed off them stems! and hell, there are lots of women who look rotten in skirts, so the fact that some men would look rotten as well isn't really a big thing.


I'm glad you posted that and I agree. As long as people see corporations as masters, people will see consumers as helpless victims with no decision-making.

But uh... skirts? Dude whateva. :p I have good legs, but I'm not about to let the wind in.

Not against. Focused on. Not a conspiracy. A market result of social expectations. Why should I, as a woman, have to pay more for clothes that are roughly the same as men's clothes, simply because I was born a woman? I didn't ask for the advertising. I didn't ask for the expectations. I didn't ask for the fashion designers. They ask for me...to buy their crap. I got born into this market, and I resist it. I don't see a problem with telling retailers to justify their prices...if they can show that the prices they charge are not just based on gender, then fine. If not, there is a problem.

Anywho...I have to get some work done...I'll be back in a while to continue:)

You don't have to buy it. Go to cheaper shops. Like charity shops. Or eBay.

My girlfriend has got some really cool skirts of eBay for bargain price

Haircuts. Insurance. CLOTHES. Women often have to pay more for these goods and services even when the goods and services in question are the same as those purchased by men.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110908196485_106317396/?hub=Canada



Do you support a law that would make it illegal to charge different prices for the same good or service based on gender?

Clothes? Women pay a larger price but have way more of a selection and far more stores to go to. Men pay a cheaper price but have far less selection and far less stores to go to

EXACTLY.
Damn women. I should be fighting them I guess....that's it, I DECLARE WAR ON WOMEN!!!!! DOWN WITH YOU ALL!!!!

All I'm saying here is that:

1) the prices of which we are speaking are based on gender (call it whatever you will, and expalin it with market forces, but it still boils down to all of that being focused on women as a gender)

2) It's crap.

I think the law mentioned in the first post would only work to get people thinking about it, and therefore, perhaps just the debate about the law itself is sufficient. I don't think it would fix things.

Hey, no flaming. ;)

And I still say it is absurd to say that no competition exists.

Maybe prices fluctuations are unusual because women oriented product markets are well established and they have already began to mirror free market valuations.
Bumhead is a term of endearment to me:)

If you have examples of competition, please bring them to my attention.

Haircuts. Insurance. CLOTHES. Women often have to pay more for these goods and services even when the goods and services in question are the same as those purchased by men.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110908196485_106317396/?hub=Canada



Do you support a law that would make it illegal to charge different prices for the same good or service based on gender?

and yet, women are still getting paid less than men in the workplace for the same amount of work....

I'm glad you posted that and I agree. As long as people see corporations as masters, people will see consumers as helpless victims with no decision-making.

But uh... skirts? Dude whateva. :p I have good legs, but I'm not about to let the wind in.
If we keep allowing trade agreements that give corporations 'personhood' and allow them to challenge the soveriengty of nations, they WILL be our masters. Let's stop that before it happens.

Guys in skirts can be quite appealing...but I'm with you on this one...I hate them too. Too breezy for me:)

and yet, women are still getting paid less than men in the workplace for the same amount of work....
Oh no...don't open that can of worms...people here will fight to the death to deny that...

Funny, we have 'pay equity' (well, in some fields), but we don't have consumer equity. We pay out more of our earned pay than men who buy comparable goods. And it's okay because the market drives it.

Oh no...don't open that can of worms...people here will fight to the death to deny that...

Funny, we have 'pay equity' (well, in some fields), but we don't have consumer equity. We pay out more of our earned pay than men who buy comparable goods. And it's okay because the market drives it.

what comparable goods are you specifically talking about? give me an example.

Bumhead is a term of endearment to me:)

If you have examples of competition, please bring them to my attention.

I figure that if I really pissed you off, you could come up with a slightly more venomous name for me.

I can only assume that the current clothing manufacturers do compete against each other and that they set their prices accordingly. I also assume that it is legal for women to purchase men's clothes in Canada.

If we keep allowing trade agreements that give corporations 'personhood' and allow them to challenge the soveriengty of nations, they WILL be our masters. Let's stop that before it happens.

Guys in skirts can be quite appealing...but I'm with you on this one...I hate them too. Too breezy for me:)

A corporation is out to make profit, not to gain power. For ever bloodthirsty evil corporation intent on dominating the masses there are hundreds of businesses which are run and/ow owned by everyday people trying to get by. The whole point of a corporation is that it IS a person, or at least, a separate legal entity from the men and women employed by it. If you get rid of that, there is no point in starting a corporation, since you'll get your house repossessed the minute your waitress spills some hot coffee or whatever.

Anyway, yeah - I hate skirts, I hated wearing them. I mean, er. I hated hypothetically wearing them, of course. *nervous laughter* *shifty eyes*

what comparable goods are you specifically talking about? give me an example.
Again? man...you're making me work...:)

service: haircut: assuming same amount of time and effort for the same haircut...women will still pay more.

good: a gap shirt for women, no different except in the sizing on the tag than the men's shirt, $10 more for women.

I figure that if I really pissed you off, you could come up with a slightly more venomous name for me.

I can only assume that the current clothing manufacturers do compete against each other and that they set their prices accordingly. I also assume that it is legal for women to purchase men's clothes in Canada.
The level of competition is so slight as to offer no real choice at all..and this has nothing to do with the current argument specifically, but instead with all goods...but I will not stray into discussing capitalism...I WILL NOT...

Yeah, I can buy men's clothes. When I can, I do, but I've already explained sizing problems.

On the flip side, I still think it sucks that men can't buy women's clothes for fear of ridicule...and I'm not talking frilly skirts here...even shirts....

A more venemous name would remain locked in my mind and thought agressively at you, not typed here:)

Again? man...you're making me work...:)

service: haircut: assuming same amount of time and effort for the same haircut...women will still pay more.

good: a gap shirt for women, no different except in the sizing on the tag than the men's shirt, $10 more for women.

Mr Toppers over the road cuts ANYONE'S hair to ANY style for £6, so that's bollocks isn't it.

As for the shirt, buy the men's one?

Or don't shop at gap

So far, these are the arguments I've seen in FAVOUR of higher prices for women: (disregarding those goods and services that are NOT closely comparable)

1) Women are willing to pay the price. (supply and demand)

2) Actually, I think that's been the only real argument?

Sinuhue, I have a tendency to agree with you, but here you are just so far off. Supply and demand isn't just about the fact that women are willing to pay more, it's that there is more demand. Women's clothes, shoes, bags, etc. are purchased with far greater frequency than men's clothes, shoes, bags, etc. and thus are more expensive. There is just a much greater demand for such goods. You may not buy more clothes or more stylish clothes than the average man, but you are the exception. With haircuts, on average, a stylist for women has more training and more skill than a barber for men and thus cost more. Also, again factor in demand, my sister can have no heat because her bill is overdue and still go to get her hair styled.

Also, if you notice the market is changing. Men are starting to pay more for clothes because they have larger wardrobes and care more about style. Look at places like Zara's. Men's shirts there border on a hundred bucks a pop. Jeans are 75 dollars on the low end. It's almost exactly the same for the women's clothing there. On haircuts, I go to a stylist and I pay $60 for a haircut.

Look at the cost of Nike's in the 90's. One type of shoe suddenly shot up to around $200 a pair from about fifty. A type of shoe typically bought by young, black males. Was the industry biased against young, black males? No, the demand for shoes increased and the market bore and still bears that pricing.

You admit that you care about the fit of your clothes. For many men, they don't really. Men's clothes are less unique, less intricate and less in demand than women's clothes. Where men look for clothing that fits better and has more choices it cost more. That's the way the market looks.

As for insurance, men's insurance is higher because on average men drive more than women. I know there are exceptions, but men still have a tendency to drive when a man and a woman are both in the car. The gap in pricing of insurance has started to clothes as women have increased their driving frequency and have been involved in more accidents. I'll repeat, the gap is starting the close - market demands force it to happen.

No, it's supply and demand. I only buy guys clothes or stuff on clearance. If all women shopped like me, they would have to drop prices, but when I worked at a department store I saw women pay $60 all the time for the new brand name item. That is their own fault. If women boycotted expensive priced items, they wouldn't be there.

snip

As for insurance, men's insurance is higher because on average men drive more than women. I know there are exceptions, but men still have a tendency to drive when a man and a woman are both in the car. The gap in pricing of insurance has started to clothes as women have increased their driving frequency and have been involved in more accidents. I'll repeat, the gap is starting the close - market demands force it to happen.

don't forget that statistically men crash head on or into trees. Womyn crash at junctions or in car parks. Ergo womyn do cheaper damage - cheaper insurance.

I wonder whether womyn would want equal insurance too?

Of course I would support a resolution that prevents gender pricing. It's archaic and barbaric to charge a higher rate just because you are a woman. It has no right in society.

For me as well - but most men don't dress as well as most women, IMHO.

Now, to dress well as a man (three piece suits, ties of good quality, and decent shoes) starts to cost as much as good women's clothing.

But I only need a few suits, jackets, and shirts, and I'm good. Women dressing in this range seem to never wear the same clothes twice.

because, for some reason, we're not allowed to...yay advertising! you've done your frickin' job!

A corporation is out to make profit, not to gain power. For ever bloodthirsty evil corporation intent on dominating the masses there are hundreds of businesses which are run and/ow owned by everyday people trying to get by. The whole point of a corporation is that it IS a person, or at least, a separate legal entity from the men and women employed by it. If you get rid of that, there is no point in starting a corporation, since you'll get your house repossessed the minute your waitress spills some hot coffee or whatever.
I think I'm screwing up the terminology here...I'm focused on my toast right now, and thinking about how much time I'm wasting instead of working and my brain is heating up...:)

I'm talking about agreements like the proposed MAI which would have given corporations power to sue a government for allowing practices which would limit their ability to enter the market. Those limits included environmental regulations, labour laws and so on. That's what I mean by stopping it before it goes to far. I don't want big business to be able to sue my government for the laws and policies which benefit my people. I don't see an evil corporate conspiracy...well, not a global one anyway. I just think they'll go as far as we let them.

I'm all for small business. Too bad they've been driven out by the big boys...


You know, all this time I thought you were a woman...(the name), and I pictured you as having long dark hair, and strident, impatient manner...I pictured you as a feminist actually:) My mental picture is all screwed up now!

Mr Toppers over the road cuts ANYONE'S hair to ANY style for £6, so that's bollocks isn't it.
Good for you. Mr. Toppers doesn't operate in my town. I could drive to the city to find a deal, but that'd take me two hours, and it ain't worth the gas:)

As for the shirt, buy the men's one?That'd be my choice too. I just don't get why they would charge more for the women's shirt? Seriously...they are identical, except for the price tag.

Or don't shop at gapI support this more...I hate the GAP. I hate shopping for clothes period, unless they're second hand, then it's like a treasure hunt:) I just think women should pay more just for being women.

No offense, but this is the argument any time the government decides to regulate something. Seat belt law...resentment. Helmet law for motorcyclists....resentment. No-smoking bylaws...resentment. Child safety seats in cars...resentment. Resentment which has faded as these things become more normal and accepted.

If you are trying to garner support you should probably avoid citing pointless laws. Why do I care if you wear a motorcycle helmet? The only people that care, insurance companies and idiots who think safety should be regulated. Why do I care if you wear a seatbelt? (Non-smoking laws and child safety seats are the exception because they represent a danger to a person who is arguably unable to protect themself.)

*snip*
So once men become clothes horses, they will pay more, and the gap will no longer exist? I suppose it's possible. I still think the gap is wrong though...no matter the justification. Stubborn me:)

Good for you. Mr. Toppers doesn't operate in my town. I could drive to the city to find a deal, but that'd take me two hours, and it ain't worth the gas:)

That'd be my choice too. I just don't get why they would charge more for the women's shirt? Seriously...they are identical, except for the price tag.

I support this more...I hate the GAP. I hate shopping for clothes period, unless they're second hand, then it's like a treasure hunt:) I just think women should pay more just for being women.

men pay more for car insurance. At least you CAN get cheaper clothes.

No, it's supply and demand. I only buy guys clothes or stuff on clearance. If all women shopped like me, they would have to drop prices, but when I worked at a department store I saw women pay $60 all the time for the new brand name item. That is their own fault. If women boycotted expensive priced items, they wouldn't be there.
Or if women went back every week to wait for the price to drop (like my grandma always does)...

But men have the luxury of being able to walk in, walk out, and not be too terribly ripped off. Women have to work to get a deal.

If you are trying to garner support you should probably avoid citing pointless laws. Why do I care if you wear a motorcycle helmet? The only people that care, insurance companies and idiots who think safety should be regulated. Why do I care if you wear a seatbelt? (Non-smoking laws and child safety seats are the exception because they represent a danger to a person who is arguably unable to protect themself.)

because a person in the back without a seatbelt can kill a person in the front.

don't forget that statistically men crash head on or into trees. Womyn crash at junctions or in car parks. Ergo womyn do cheaper damage - cheaper insurance.

I wonder whether womyn would want equal insurance too?
You didn't just spell women that way....
...yes you did....
...you were HerPower's buddy, weren't you?

It's okay, I won't hold it against you. Much.

Of course I would support a resolution that prevents gender pricing. It's archaic and barbaric to charge a higher rate just because you are a woman. It has no right in society.
Apparently that's the way the market works, and it makes perfect sense. All the arguments so far have suggested that, and have made good points. It just doesn't sit with me though, and I'm finding myself losing my footing, but not the general belief that it is wrong. *sigh* Out argued....but still pissed.

There's is aboslutely no problem at all with setting price based on gender. No business will be able to charge more for their product than the market will bear, unless it's a monopoly. Women's product are charged more than men's product because they are different products. Men's cloth design can be used for years if not decades, while women's cloth design needs to be changed every year. Women's haircuts are infinitely more complicated than men's haircuts. Women's car insurance rate differ from men's because women and men behave differently in a car thus carry different risks. Everything where there's a price difference between men's product and women's product, I can show you a real difference between the two.

On the other hand, when there's no product difference, there's no price difference. Do you see women been charged more for movie tickets? How about a loaf of bread? What about a bag of salt pellets? Infant car seat? Coffee? Gas? Motor oil?

All those people that proclaim women are been taken advantage of have no idea what they are talking about.

You didn't just spell women that way....
...yes you did....
...you were HerPower's buddy, weren't you?

It's okay, I won't hold it against you. Much.

why not address the point about insurace instead of discussiing the language of your puppet

If you are trying to garner support you should probably avoid citing pointless laws. Why do I care if you wear a motorcycle helmet? The only people that care, insurance companies and idiots who think safety should be regulated. Why do I care if you wear a seatbelt? (Non-smoking laws and child safety seats are the exception because they represent a danger to a person who is arguably unable to protect themself.)

Pointless laws? Are you serious? Safety should be regulated because too many people think they are indestructible, or are pressured into not wearing stuff (helmets) that make them look 'geeky'. After having seen what someone looks like falling off a bike going 110mph with a helmet...and seeing the results of someone WITHOUT a helmet...I'd say I'm glad that that added protection is required. It didn't stop all the injuries, but it kept one alive.

because a person in the back without a seatbelt can kill a person in the front.

Um, most seatbelt laws only apply to the front seat of the vehicle so that's not a very valid argument. I might buy that if all occupants of the vehicle were required to wear seatbelts. Also, you might sight that the driver might be hindered by moving out of their seat or by the passenger moving into their seat but then explain air bags? Also, do a little research on the number of people that actually were in an accident severe enough to move them out of their seat and were still in control of the car due to seatbelt, it's by far the vast exception.

men pay more for car insurance. At least you CAN get cheaper clothes.
So shop around for insurance. The market is competative. At least, that's what everyone still keeps saying...

Setting laws to equalize the price? Only crazy women in some crazy organization would think of it.
Funny. The person proposing the law is a man.

Um, most seatbelt laws only apply to the front seat of the vehicle so that's not a very valid argument. [b]I might buy that if all occupants of the vehicle were required to wear seatbelts.[b] Also, you might sight that the driver might be hindered by moving out of their seat or by the passenger moving into their seat but then explain air bags? Also, do a little research on the number of people that actually were in an accident severe enough to move them out of their seat and were still in control of the car due to seatbelt, it's by far the vast exception.
like here in the UK...seatbelts all round

stops people flying about in the car in an accident and injuring others

Pointless laws? Are you serious? Safety should be regulated because too many people think they are indestructible, or are pressured into not wearing stuff (helmets) that make them look 'geeky'. After having seen what someone looks like falling off a bike going 110mph with a helmet...and seeing the results of someone WITHOUT a helmet...I'd say I'm glad that that added protection is required. It didn't stop all the injuries, but it kept one alive.

Why not require people to eat healthy and excercise? Or wash their hands more often? Or breastfeed? I don't ever ride a bicycle or motorcycle without a helmet, but whether I do or not is none of your business. My safety is my business. When the government starts telling me how to protect myself, where does it end?

Along the same lines, do you support anti-drug laws?

You didn't just spell women that way....
...yes you did....
...you were HerPower's buddy, weren't you?

It's okay, I won't hold it against you. Much.


I think spelling it that way just looks funkier. If I could be bothered devoting more time to my Y key, I'd probably spell it like that also. Not because of any political connotations, just because I like it.

I agree with you. For the same (or an almost entirely similar) service, or object or item of clothing, I don't see why anybody should be charged differently. Of course, when the service is more complicated or more skill is involved, the price should go up, but I don't think you've argued against that once so far.

why not address the point about insurace instead of discussiing the language of your puppet
Not my puppet's language (she at least was a joke)...yours. Are you really spelling women that way? Why? I did it to piss people off, but I don't support it in real life....

So shop around for insurance. The market is competative. At least, that's what everyone still keeps saying...

we cannot get cheap insurance. No-one gives it. There are in fact womyn only insurers.

Buy you can get cheaper clothes. Or buy men's clothes. We have no such luxury.

Equality?
Only when womyn are on the bad end.

Um, most seatbelt laws only apply to the front seat of the vehicle so that's not a very valid argument.
In the US? Because in Canada, it's a fine for every occupant in the vehicle not wearing one. And you can't have more people that seatbelts. So no, it doesn't invalidate the argument.

In any case, again and again, people thrown from the vehicle during a crash because they didn't have a seatbelt on, who are crushed by the rolling vehicle, or killed by the impact outside of it likely could have survived had they been restrained.

That being said, as a small person, I do worry about the airbag if I were in an accident...

like here in the UK...seatbelts all round

stops people flying about in the car in an accident and injuring others

In that case, at least the law makes sense. In the US, it mostly applies only the front seat passengers, thus the seperate law for child-restraints.

In the US? Because in Canada, it's a fine for every occupant in the vehicle not wearing one. And you can't have more people that seatbelts. So no, it doesn't invalidate the argument.

In any case, again and again, people thrown from the vehicle during a crash because they didn't have a seatbelt on, who are crushed by the rolling vehicle, or killed by the impact outside of it likely could have survived had they been restrained.

That being said, as a small person, I do worry about the airbag if I were in an accident...

Oh, I wasn't making the argument that seatbelts don't save lives, they of course do. I think people who don't wear seatbelts are idiots. I just don't agree with the reasoning behind enacting seatbelt laws in the US or helmet laws or similar laws. If I want to run with scissors I should be allowed to. I don't care how many adults do it, I don't want a law against it.

Why not require people to eat healthy and excercise? Or wash their hands more often? Or breastfeed? I don't ever ride a bicycle or motorcycle without a helmet, but whether I do or not is none of your business. My safety is my business. When the government starts telling me how to protect myself, where does it end?

Along the same lines, do you support anti-drug laws?
Well, we've had helmet laws where I live for quite a while, and after the initial protests, no one cares. They just wear the helmet. What's the big deal? It hasn't meant a wholesale invasion of rights...though you suggest that is exactly what would happen.

No, I don't support anti-drug laws, and increasingly, neither does my government. However, were they to be legalised, regulations similar to drinking ages would be enforced.

Helmet laws, and seatbelt laws, just as carseat regulations, are often there to protect the underaged. You can legally drive a motorcycle at 14, a car at 16. Kids...yes KIDS at that age aren't all that cognizant of danger. Adults are. But you can't just say, "Kids must wear helmets and seatbelts"...now can you?

I agree with you. For the same (or an almost entirely similar) service, or object or item of clothing, I don't see why anybody should be charged differently. Of course, when the service is more complicated or more skill is involved, the price should go up, but I don't think you've argued against that once so far.
No...if the service is more complex (perms for example), the price should be different. If we're talking a trim, my hair is easier to trim than my husbands, but I pay more. Silly.

There are more options available to women, but that hasn't lowered prices, it's made them higher. Why?

Specialization raises production costs and indicates a higher demand.

we cannot get cheap insurance. No-one gives it. There are in fact womyn only insurers.Check out Geiko...someone here said they managed to get half off their insurance. So yeah, it's out there too.
Gender based prices no matter who they target are crap.

Same goes with insurance for men. Do men really cause more s than women? (no female driver jokes please:))

what i've been told by my driving instructor is that men and women tend to have similar numbers of s it's just that blokes tend to get themselves positive s ie into a situation where a crash is inevitable normaly at high speeds where as women tend to have negative s where they just dont notice some thing ie the post at the end of the parking space so normally at low speeds therefore whilst equally numerous womens claims are for less as the damage is not a seveare

In that case, at least the law makes sense. In the US, it mostly applies only the front seat passengers, thus the seperate law for child-restraints.
Wow...is that all states? I had no idea...kind of weird, isn't it?

We can't allow people to ride in the back of a pick up truck anymore either...is that legal in the US?

Oh, I wasn't making the argument that seatbelts don't save lives, they of course do. I think people who don't wear seatbelts are idiots. I just don't agree with the reasoning behind enacting seatbelt laws in the US or helmet laws or similar laws. If I want to run with scissors I should be allowed to. I don't care how many adults do it, I don't want a law against it.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. It's the same reason I support speed limits. There will always be people out there with reckless behaviour, but too often that behaviour negatively impacts others, not just themselves. I'm for these kinds of safety regulations because they save lives. But that's part of my overall political philosophy, and we're never going to agree on that:) So. I take your points, you take mine, and we agree we are both right to some extent.

No...if the service is more complex (perms for example), the price should be different. If we're talking a trim, my hair is easier to trim than my husbands, but I pay more. Silly.


egads... confusion. You say no at the beginning... are you disagreeing with what I said, or agreeing and continuing?

Because we've essentially argued the same point. For the similar service, the price should be the same. For the complex one, the price should be different. Since your hair is easier to trim than your husbands, the price should technically be less... but I doubt that most companies will regulate the prices so much. Reasonably, if you both go for a trim, it should cost the same price.

So I fully agree that you should not be charged more.

If I were a guy, I'd be pissed about that. I for one would like to see men's clothes become more varied...why NOT wear skirts? I've seen quite a few men in skirts and it looks quite nice...time for feminists and men's groups to fight for a loosening in gender stereotypes and dress expectations!


it'll lead to androgyny in clothing...

egads... confusion. You say no at the beginning... are you disagreeing with what I said, or agreeing and continuing?....sorry, you said, I wasn't arguing that point, and I was saying no, I wasn't, meaning yes...terribly confusing of me, and I apologise. We are in agreement:)

it'll lead to androgyny in clothing...
Which would be bad why?

Women should pay more for everything in life. They are after all far more stupid with smaller brains and bigger mouths...

Women should pay more for everything in life. They are after all far more stupid with smaller brains and bigger mouths...
Don't you mean bigger boobs? :p

I'm a guy and I dont care. All i want to wear to work is a simple suit. Women care about these things. I dont know if thats ingrained or a cultural thing but it doesnt matter. They want more stuff to wear? fine, pay for it.

here's the thing:

once, I wore to school the same shirt as I had the day before just cause I wanted to...guess what? I got made fun of for it...why? why on earth would someone make fun of me for something so trivial? It didn't bother me, but it made me think.....

I will say this.

I realise that a law is only treating a symptom of the wider disease of gender roles. I think the controversy and the debate is more valuable than the law itself would be, so I wouldn't be upset it if was struck down. However, sometimes it takes these little issues to bring the wider issue to the attention of people. I 'discovered' feminism not by analysing gender bias and gender roles, but rather by having a particular gender biased practice pointed out to me. I'd literally taken it for granted up till then. If that's what this debate does...just gets people to THINK about it, then yay. The grass roots movement is still the key factor in change, but it takes awareness in the wider population to make this a real issue to be dealt with.

I've said this before about other issues, but I think it applies here as well:

1) First it's an issue.
2) Then its dealt with, and accepted.
2) Then it's no longer an issue.

here's the thing:

once, I wore to school the same shirt as I had the day before just cause I wanted to...guess what? I got made fun of for it...why? why on earth would someone make fun of me for something so trivial? It didn't bother me, but it made me think.....

Think what? At University I used to wear the same t-shirts for about a week then change them. Not many people said anything and I didnt pay any attention to the ones that did.

Haircuts. Insurance. CLOTHES. Women often have to pay more for these goods and services even when the goods and services in question are the same as those purchased by men.
Really? hmm..

Haircuts > 1. Most women have longer hair than men. If they have to cut more off they're going to charge more money.
2. Men typically get a much simpler procedure done when they go to the hairdresser/barber. Women pay more because they go for more expensive services.

Insurance > Women generally pay less for insurance because they don't crash into stuff so often.

Clothes > If you buy better clothes you're going to have to pay more money. Deal with it.

--------------------------

If you can give me an example of where women are geniunely discriminated against in pricing, maybe I'll support this law.

[QUOTE=Sinuhue]You say nature, I say nurture. Women aren't BORN more self-conscious. They are taught to be.

In any case, I called your comments anti-feminist because you stated that feminists were not aware of supply and demand. Implying that they are stupid, or refuse to see a great truth.QUOTE]

I would say that if someone thinks that women are naturally self conscious, then that would mean that every woman that isn't is fighting against her instincts. That's crap. Just look at the world of women, not only western culture, if you're going to make generalizations like that.

All you have to do is open your eyes a little and see what advertising is doing to this world, men and women alike. Men are now bred to have these expectations of women, whether conciously or not, and women are now taught that if you don't live up to them, you'll die alone, and be stigmatized. Just reading this, I'm sure you'll say, hey that's total crap! You're right! It should not be this way, but IT IS!

Really? hmm..

Haircuts > 1. Most women have longer hair than men. If they have to cut more off they're going to charge more money.
And if they don't, the prices should be the same. They aren't.
2. Men typically get a much simpler procedure done when they go to the hairdresser/barber. Women pay more because they go for more expensive services.
Generally. If it's the same procedure, the price should be the same. That goes for men with perms too:)

Insurance > Women generally pay less for insurance because they don't crash into stuff so often.
You haven't met my cousin:) She's a one woman demolition derby! Why should she pay less STILL than my brothers?

Clothes > If you buy better clothes you're going to have to pay more money. Deal with it.Granted. If you buy clothes of the same quality, the price should be equal.

So give an alternative explanation that holds water. A worldwide clothing manufacturers conspiracy against women, really does not seem to be very probable.
Fashion, has to be a factor, as fashion items for men are as expensive, if not more so, than the equivalent for women. Most men know jack shit about fasahion, so the blaming of men for women having to be fashionable at work etc. is ungrounded. The peple who criticise women for being unfashionable are, almost exclusively, other women. (Don't equate being fashionable with being sexy, frumpiness can be fashionable, but never sexy)


it's all about what pleases the man's eye, not much more...if you want to talk about what men think is 'fashionable' on a woman, that is...unfortunately, what a woman thinks pleases the man's eye, and what actually does usually are very different. :P

--------------------------

If you can give me an example of where women are geniunely discriminated against in pricing, maybe I'll support this law.
I already have. A number of times. But I won't ask you to read through the whole thread again.

I pay $10 more than my husband for a trim. My trim takes 5 minutes. His takes 20.

I paid $250 more for a leather riding jacket than my husband, from the same store, and my jacket was significantly smaller and used less leather.

If I want to get clothes drycleaned, my 'slacks' cost $2 more than men's 'pants' even if they are the exact same size and material.

Again, the GAP shirt...same shirt, different tag (saying GAP women) and it's $10 more. So I buy the men's shirt (if I shopped there, which I don't), but it's still more on the women's side.

Well, we've had helmet laws where I live for quite a while, and after the initial protests, no one cares. They just wear the helmet. What's the big deal? It hasn't meant a wholesale invasion of rights...though you suggest that is exactly what would happen.

No, I don't support anti-drug laws, and increasingly, neither does my government. However, were they to be legalised, regulations similar to drinking ages would be enforced.

Helmet laws, and seatbelt laws, just as carseat regulations, are often there to protect the underaged. You can legally drive a motorcycle at 14, a car at 16. Kids...yes KIDS at that age aren't all that cognizant of danger. Adults are. But you can't just say, "Kids must wear helmets and seatbelts"...now can you?

Uh, yes, you can and I would support it. When you make laws regarding a group that is, in general, not considered old enough to make its own life and death decision then I think it's fair to pass laws making those decisions for them (for the record, I think legal drinking age should be 18 since I'm allowed to enlist, and did, at that age). I don't feel this is true of adults. This is why I would support age restrictions for legalized drugs but I do not support illegal drugs as adults should be permitted to stab themselves in the eyes with pencils if they find it pleasurable.

Forcing me to wear a helmet is a wholesale invasion of my rights and it is not different than requiring me to eat healthier or to excercise. If I wish to risk death by poor eating habits, lack of excercise or lack of a helmet, then that is my business and not the government's.

I figure that if I really pissed you off, you could come up with a slightly more venomous name for me.

I can only assume that the current clothing manufacturers do compete against each other and that they set their prices accordingly. I also assume that it is legal for women to purchase men's clothes in Canada.

of course it's legal for women to buy men's clothes, why wouldn't it be?

Haircuts. Insurance. CLOTHES. Women often have to pay more for these goods and services even when the goods and services in question are the same as those purchased by men.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110908196485_106317396/?hub=Canada



Do you support a law that would make it illegal to charge different prices for the same good or service based on gender?

GAWD the liberals are idiots :rolleyes:
Its a market economy, look around for a better deal

egads... confusion. You say no at the beginning... are you disagreeing with what I said, or agreeing and continuing?

Because we've essentially argued the same point. For the similar service, the price should be the same. For the complex one, the price should be different. Since your hair is easier to trim than your husbands, the price should technically be less... but I doubt that most companies will regulate the prices so much. Reasonably, if you both go for a trim, it should cost the same price.

So I fully agree that you should not be charged more.


I can't believe that for someone who argue against seat belt law and helmet law would agree with setting laws to regulate price.

Business should be charged whatever price they deemed reasonable, as long as they are not a monopoly, and as long as the product is not a necessity. The law of supply and demand will take care of the rest. That's how market economy should works. Nobody forced those women to pay higher prices. If there's an overwhelming demand for lower priced women's goods, there would have been a supplier for it already, and those that charges higher price would be either out of business or lowered their price on their own. Law that regulate price only creates ineffeciency and shortages.

Uh, yes, you can and I would support. When you make laws regarding a group that is, in general, not considered old enough to make its own life and death decision then I think it's fair to pass laws making them for them. I don't feel this is true of adults. This is why I would support age restrictions for legalized drugs but I do not support illegal drugs as adults should be permitted to stab themselves in the eyes with pencils if they find it pleasurable.
As long as it doesn't hurt anyone else...again, there is the issue in the case of seatbelts of the people in the back harming those in the front during impact...and sometimes the kid is up front, and the adult in the back, or whatever. Everyone in a car should have to wear the seatbelts to keep everyone safe. We are in agreement on the drug issue.

Forcing me to wear a helmet is a wholesale invasion of my rights and it is not different than requiring me to eat healthier or to excercise. If I wish to risk death by poor eating habits, lack of excercise or lack of a helmet, then that is my business and not the government's.What right is that exactly? The right to die a yucky death? No seriously...what right is being infringed upon?

I can't believe that for someone who argue against seat belt law and helmet law would agree with setting laws to regulate price.

Business should be charged whatever price they deemed reasonable, as long as they are not a monopoly, and as long as the product is not a necessity. The law of supply and demand will take care of the rest. That's how market economy should works. Nobody forced those women to pay higher prices. If there's an overwhelming demand for lower priced women's goods, there would have been a supplier for it already, and those that charges higher price would be either out of business or lowered their price on their own. Law that regulate price only creates ineffeciency and shortages.


No shit! Look for a better deal commie hippies

GAWD the liberals are idiots :rolleyes:
Its a market economy, look around for a better deal

That's already been suggested. Numerous times. The fact of the matter is that commonly, a "better deal" does not exist within a practical distance.

What am I letting myself in for...? :D

Mr Toppers over the road cuts ANYONE'S hair to ANY style for £6, so that's bollocks isn't it.

As for the shirt, buy the men's one?

Or don't shop at gap


well, consider yourself lucky then, cause I have yet to find a place like that anywhere that I've lived in the maritimes of Canada

GAWD the liberals are idiots :rolleyes:
Its a market economy, look around for a better deal
Need I drag up your "Welfare is Wrong" thread to prove that liberals are not the only ones who are...poorly supported?

Where is the better deal, Jay? Point me there...

I can't believe that for someone who argue against seat belt law and helmet law would agree with setting laws to regulate price. Are you sure you got the right person here?

of course it's legal for women to buy men's clothes, why wouldn't it be?

It was just a sarcastic comment.

No shit! Look for a better deal commie hippies
Hahahahaha...oh wait, you're serious.

*sigh*

So you are essentially arguing: WOMEN LIKE TO PAY MORE FOR GOODS, THAT'S WHY WOMEN'S GOODS ARE MORE EXPENSIVE.

If only we could learn how to complain and ask for cheaper stuff...weak, non-whiny women...damn you all...

Are you sure you got the right person here?


That's what I thought... I haven't argued either for or against such laws. My opinions on it are an enigma wrapped in a mystery wrapped in a blanket.

That's what I thought... I haven't argued either for or against such laws. My opinions on it are an enigma wrapped in a mystery wrapped in a blanket.
Like a piggy in a blanket...mystery meat in a pancake...

Listen, there is a great opportunity for you people here...someone start a woman's clothes store, and charge less than the market price...we'll all flock to your store, and make you rich!

Or you could just rip us off like everyone else...

As long as it doesn't hurt anyone else...again, there is the issue in the case of seatbelts of the people in the back harming those in the front during impact...and sometimes the kid is up front, and the adult in the back, or whatever. Everyone in a car should have to wear the seatbelts to keep everyone safe. We are in agreement on the drug issue.

What right is that exactly? The right to die a yucky death? No seriously...what right is being infringed upon?

In the US, only the front seat requires a seatbelt and all children under 16, I think it's sixteen. If I'm driving everyone wears a seatbelt, but there is a difference between me having control of my vehicle and the government doing it.

For me drugs and helmet laws are the same. I have the right to do whatever I wish to my body as long as I don't impede anyone else's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. A helmet law only protects the rider. I have a right to tattoo Chinese symbols on my face, ride a bike without a helmet, stab myself in the eyes with pencils and smoke cannibis until my eyes are the same color as my cousin's camaro. You know what the right is called, personal freedom. Any law impeding my personal freedom is just that.

Now, simply because I eat healthy, wear a helmet and seatbelt where applicable, don't tattoo my face or stab myself in the eyes or ever smoke cannibis does not mean that I think it's okay to deny me the right to make decisions regarding these things myself. I don't care how stupid or pointless stabbing yourself in the eyes is, I do not agree with any government that chooses to require you not to do so through legislation.

EDIT: Sorry, I keep hijacking your threads. I am interested in your thoughts on this, perhaps we should start a thread on individual freedom.

Listen, there is a great opportunity for you people here...someone start a woman's clothes store, and charge less than the market price...we'll all flock to your store, and make you rich!

Or you could just rip us off like everyone else...

no, womyn wouldn't flock to the store.

How do I know?

Because I shop in cheap shops and the expensive shops still exist.

Why?

Because people like paying more. It makes them feel happier, like they are getting something better

people feel 'cheap' if they buy cheap clothes

So stop whinging. Go to charity shops and buy cheap clothes. Spend your time fighting pay inequality and sexism in the workplace, stop moaning about clothes prices.

That's what I thought... I haven't argued either for or against such laws. My opinions on it are an enigma wrapped in a mystery wrapped in a blanket.

I think MBA mixed us up.

*snip*
Ok, I see now how that person confused you with Jordaxia...the names are fairly similar:)

The right to personal freedom...well that's pretty vague. What right EXACTLY is hindered by a helmet law? Not the right to free speech...not the right to be free of gender discrimination...be specific. I get where you're coming with, though I don't fully agree, but I want to narrow this right down.

That's already been suggested. Numerous times. The fact of the matter is that commonly, a "better deal" does not exist within a practical distance.

What am I letting myself in for...? :D

Thats BS, do some looking :rolleyes:

The entire industry is doing this? riiiiiiigggghhhhhhtttttt

I know the clothing industry is not competative at all, not in the least :rolleyes:

The fact is, there is little alternative out there for women who don't want to pay more. And cripes...please explain to me why ANY woman would CHOOSE to pay more just 'because'. If alternatives, cheaper alternatives, were available, don't you think any thrifty person would be snapping them up?
This isn't a 'misogynist conspiracy', but it IS a gender bias. The two are not always linked.

I daresay if the price of cars were reduced to less than five dollars, 'thrifty people' would be snapping them up. The fact is, people are snapping them up just fine when they're expensive, thus the companies have no incentive to lower prices.

It's not a gender bias, it's the doing of the consumers themselves. If women want these products enough to buy them when they're overpriced, then overpriced they'll stay. Companies aren't going to reduce prices, just for your convenience. They want your money.

Haircuts. Insurance. CLOTHES. Women often have to pay more for these goods and services even when the goods and services in question are the same as those purchased by men.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110908196485_106317396/?hub=Canada



Do you support a law that would make it illegal to charge different prices for the same good or service based on gender?
Except that it takes more time and labour to create women's clothing and to cut a woman's hair. It's longer, thicker, and harder to manage. Women's clothing tends to use more materials. Just because the pricing is different doesn't mean there isn't good reason for it.

no, womyn wouldn't flock to the store.

How do I know?

Because I shop in cheap shops and the expensive shops still exist.
Cheap stores don't make expensive ones poof into thin air, but they DO provide choice. Not cheap stores with cheap goods...quality goods for cheaper prices. So far, I haven't seen any of those around.


Because people like paying more. It makes them feel happier, like they are getting something better

people feel 'cheap' if they buy cheap clothes
No. Some people do. If you want Manolo Blahniks, then spend your cash like a maniac to get them. I want clothes of the same quality as men's clothes for the same price. Period. Those who want minks and jewels will buy them regardless. Don't punish me for that. Provide me with alternatives.

So stop whinging. Go to charity shops and buy cheap clothes. Spend your time fighting pay inequality and sexism in the workplace, stop moaning about clothes prices.
I'll stop whining when you stop spelling women womyn.

No, no I won't. Funny, whenever someone hears something they don't agree with, they say, "Stop complaining and do something about it...but never, ever TALK about it". Well I am active, I do shop cheap, I do complain, I do question, I do fight, but not you, and not anyone else is going to keep me from talking about it. You seem to think that because I'm in this thread discussing the issue, that I'm just bitching and moaning but not acting. Don't make assumptions. Talk is part of it. If you don't want to talk, then don't. I do. And so do others. That isn't whining, that's PART of the action. Change comes from many directions, but it must start in the heart first. You want silent activism? Well it ain't here. Search on.

I know the clothing industry is not competative at all, not in the least :rolleyes:
Despite your sarcasm, you've actually said something true.

So once men become clothes horses, they will pay more, and the gap will no longer exist? I suppose it's possible. I still think the gap is wrong though...no matter the justification. Stubborn me:)

I once worked at the GAP, *shudder*, I needed the money, so I broke down and applied. They way they treat their customer/employee relationship is this:

1: greet all customers and tell them about promotions; once, I didn't greet a single male customer all day, and no one said boo. Once, a pair of girls decided they didn't want to talk and walked away before I even got a word out. I get growled at for not telling them about a promotion and told 'it's not an option'. So, I have to tell them about a promotion, even if they can read all the signs that are plastered around the store? That would make an employee assume that customers are stupid, and with enough time will give the employee a sense of superiority over the customer. That is wrong in so many ways.

2: make rounds around the store and ask people if they need your help, but you have to say it in a certain way, or you get dinged for it on your review. That again assumes the customer is not 'brave enough' to ask for help if they it, and it turns the employees into robots. People who follow the rules exactly, and act like robots are rewarded publicly.

3: do not try to sell sale items, try to sell regular priced items. (note: a regular priced shirt, of paper-thin fabric will cost between $35 and $80) the justification is that the sale items will sell themselves, true to an extent, but the customer is supposed to feel more pressured to buy something more expensive. I do not like feeling pressured, therefore, I do not pressure others. I didn't last very long. :P

It is very true that women's clothes are much more expensive than the mens, but the men's clothing at GAP ain't that cheap, either :P

Thats BS, do some looking :rolleyes:

The entire industry is doing this? riiiiiiigggghhhhhhtttttt

I know the clothing industry is not competative at all, not in the least :rolleyes:


of course entire industry is doing it, it's just not a grand conspiracy, simply because it can be done. Think about it. if there was a shop offering the same goods for a more reasonable price, it'd have more sales. Competition would force the price in other shops down so they wouldn't go out of business. However, when it comes to womens services, prices on the whole are higher than males, so the competition to lower the prices does not exist. With no competition or reason to, why should any company bother to? Like has been previously pointed out, a wholesale boycott simply won't happen, and to expect it to would be unreasonable.

And why should I shop around? I'm still at the stage where I'm unaffected by this. (qua-qua, I love injokes.)

Despite your sarcasm, you've actually said something true.


What are you on crack?

ME TOO! I just don't want to have to do it myself:( I have the rest of the world on my plate:)
Fair enough ... some day someone will make it (though unless there really is a reason costs are higher ... it is hard to imagine that no one has tried before now)

Cheap stores don't make expensive ones poof into thin air, but they DO provide choice. Not cheap stores with cheap goods...quality goods for cheaper prices. So far, I haven't seen any of those around.



No. Some people do. If you want Manolo Blahniks, then spend your cash like a maniac to get them. I want clothes of the same quality as men's clothes for the same price. Period. Those who want minks and jewels will buy them regardless. Don't punish me for that. Provide me with alternatives.


I'll stop whining when you stop spelling women womyn.

No, no I won't. Funny, whenever someone hears something they don't agree with, they say, "Stop complaining and do something about it...but never, ever TALK about it". Well I am active, I do shop cheap, I do complain, I do question, I do fight, but not you, and not anyone else is going to keep me from talking about it. You seem to think that because I'm in this thread discussing the issue, that I'm just bitching and moaning but not acting. Don't make assumptions. Talk is part of it. If you don't want to talk, then don't. I do. And so do others. That isn't whining, that's PART of the action. Change comes from many directions, but it must start in the heart first. You want silent activism? Well it ain't here. Search on.

this is whinging. There is plenty of choice. If everyone else wants to buy expensive clothes, then that's their own daft choice. But you can quite easily get clothes like men's for the same price, not least because cheap men's clothes are just as shoddy.

Dialogue is vital, but seriously, do you really think the greatest opression of womyn is clothes prices?!?

Shop around, like any sensible consumer. If you don't want designer labels, don't buy them. That's what I do, and it works fine.

EDIT: Sorry, I keep hijacking your threads. I am interested in your thoughts on this, perhaps we should start a thread on individual freedom.
Soooooo tempting...but I'm having a hard enough time trying to pull myself away from this one in order to get some work done here...I don't think I could resist that topic...rain check?

of course entire industry is doing it, it's just not a grand conspiracy, simply because it can be done. Think about it. if there was a shop offering the same goods for a more reasonable price, it'd have more sales. Competition would force the price in other shops down so they wouldn't go out of business. However, when it comes to womens services, prices on the whole are higher than males, so the competition to lower the prices does not exist. With no competition or reason to, why should any company bother to? Like has been previously pointed out, a wholesale boycott simply won't happen, and to expect it to would be unreasonable.

And why should I shop around? I'm still at the stage where I'm unaffected by this. (qua-qua, I love injokes.)
All industries try to charge what they think the target market will pay for the service … I see this less as a time to limit market freedom then a time for women to decide they wont pay for it … spend your time … shop for the bargain eventually the market follows your trend (even if you have to drive farther the price will equal out and eventually make the market move the way you wish it to)

Ok, I see now how that person confused you with Jordaxia...the names are fairly similar:)

The right to personal freedom...well that's pretty vague. What right EXACTLY is hindered by a helmet law? Not the right to free speech...not the right to be free of gender discrimination...be specific. I get where you're coming with, though I don't fully agree, but I want to narrow this right down.

I'm not talking about a right guaranteed by the US or Canadian Constitution (Bill of Rights or Charter of Rights and Freedoms). Individual liberty is a right that should be guaranteed by birth and protected by all.

Seperately, in the US, the constitution specifically states that if the subject is not mentioned in the constitution then it is a subject relegated to more local laws (states, municipality or simply personal decision-making) - Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people - Therefore, drugs laws, since they are mentioned nowhere in the constitution, are unconstitutional without an amendment. Helmets are more complicated since cars, motorcycles and bicycles did not exist at the time of the drafting of the constitution.

And why should I shop around? I'm still at the stage where I'm unaffected by this. (qua-qua, I love injokes.)
Hehehehe...and we love you....

What are you on crack?
Um...not the last time I checked...but read your statement I referred to again. It's true.

Funny, whenever someone hears something they don't agree with, they say, "Stop complaining and do something about it...but never, ever TALK about it". Well I am active, I do shop cheap, I do complain, I do question, I do fight, but not you, and not anyone else is going to keep me from talking about it. You seem to think that because I'm in this thread discussing the issue, that I'm just bitching and moaning but not acting. Don't make assumptions. Talk is part of it. If you don't want to talk, then don't. I do. And so do others. That isn't whining, that's PART of the action. Change comes from many directions, but it must start in the heart first. You want silent activism? Well it ain't here. Search on.

Sin, don't ever stop complaining. I think you're absolutely right. We're discussing it here so you are making a difference even if you're not fairing very well in the debate (sorry, couldn't resist). Making people think is activism and it's important.

this is whinging. There is plenty of choice. If everyone else wants to buy expensive clothes, then that's their own daft choice. But you can quite easily get clothes like men's for the same price, not least because cheap men's clothes are just as shoddy.

Dialogue is vital, but seriously, do you really think the greatest opression of womyn is clothes prices?!?

Shop around, like any sensible consumer. If you don't want designer labels, don't buy them. That's what I do, and it works fine.
Whining. Not whinging. Sorry, just sounds like a cross between winging and whining, which paints strange pictures in my mind...

The point is that no, I can not get clothes like men's for the same price. Women's clothes are more expensive, even if the quality is the same.

When have I ever said that the greatest oppression of womEN is the price of clothes? In fact, when have I ever said it is oppression at all? I have only said it is biased. The thread is specifically about that bias, not about the other biases that I feel are more problematic. I'm sticking to the topic. I'm funny like that.

But go ahead and call it whining...or whinging...or however you want to spell it. By your definition, every thread about anything is whining because it doesn't provide proof that people are acting on their beliefs. Or is that only when you don't agree with them?

I think GAP must have heard about this thread. I looked at their website, and....


men and womyn's jeans are the same prices!!!!!!

maybe it's a conspiracy?

Sin, don't ever stop complaining. I think you're absolutely right. We're discussing it here so you are making a difference even if you're not fairing very well in the debate (sorry, couldn't resist). Making people think is activism and it's important.
Bumhead to you too! :D
I know it. Doesn't mean I'll give up though:)

Whining. Not whinging. Sorry, just sounds like a cross between winging and whinging, which paints strange pictures in my mind...

The point is that no, I can not get clothes like men's for the same price. Women's clothes are more expensive, even if the quality is the same.

When have I ever said that the greatest oppression of womEN is the price of clothes? In fact, when have I ever said it is oppression at all? I have only said it is biased. The thread is specifically about that bias, not about the other biases that I feel are more problematic. I'm sticking to the topic. I'm funny like that.

But go ahead and call it whining...or whinging...or however you want to spell it. By your definition, every thread about anything is whining because it doesn't provide proof that people are acting on their beliefs. Or is that only when you don't agree with them?

I don't see how women are paying more. You are content to have cheaper car insurance (I certainly don't see armies of womyn demanding to pay more) but complain about haircuts?

Get a new hairdresser.
You can EASILY shop around. Look on the web, onn eBay, in charity shops, in cheaper high street shops.

It's not some all powerful anti-womyn conspiracy

Why have I been ending up on the conservative side of arguments lately. At this rate I am going to be a racist, sexist, anti-government militant by June.
Anti-government? The conservatives I have seen on this site are extremely statist and militarist.

Dialogue is vital, but seriously, do you really think the greatest opression of womyn is clothes prices?!?


I always love this argument. You must have thought it was important enough for you to come into the thread, read it, and chime in with your two cents. Do you think it's the most important issue of the day? Why are you here? Maybe because you wanted to talk about it just as much as she did. Why do people join a conversation and then tell you it's a stupid conversation to have? Don't join, just continue playing solitaire or whatever it is you do. We'll be here enjoying an interesting and intelligent dialogue.

I don't see how women are paying more. You are content to have cheaper car insurance (I certainly don't see armies of womyn demanding to pay more) but complain about haircuts?

Get a new hairdresser.
You can EASILY shop around. Look on the web, onn eBay, in charity shops, in cheaper high street shops.

It's not some all powerful anti-womyn conspiracy
No one said it was...except you seem to keep saying that...perhaps you protest too much? Perhaps there IS a conspiracy I've missed all along and you are trying to get us of the trail????

Look, I've already explained how 'getting a new hairdresser' doesn't work where I live and why driving someone else wouldn't make economic sense. WomEN are content to have cheaper car insurance...are men content to pay more? If not, they should be protesting it. I have already said I think that's crap.

Easily shop around? No. Not easily. I can shop around, but it's hard work...charity shops are a big time commitment in terms of finding anything good, and the web? I don't shop online. It's not like going from one store to the next to find a bargain...you have to HUNT for quality at equal prices.

But keep calling me a conspiracy theorist and whiner...it does wonders for YOUR argument. By the way, when I have already given many examples of the price disparity, and you continue to say, "I don't see it", then don't expect me to continue providing examples. You are clearly dismissing them.

I don't see how women are paying more. You are content to have cheaper car insurance (I certainly don't see armies of womyn demanding to pay more) but complain about haircuts?

Get a new hairdresser.
You can EASILY shop around. Look on the web, onn eBay, in charity shops, in cheaper high street shops.

It's not some all powerful anti-womyn conspiracy
At least in minnesota they have caught on our car accident rate is roughly the same so our insurance has evened out in the last 4 years ...
pluss I shave my own head most of the time so no barber fee's for me :D

I always love this argument. You must have thought it was important enough for you to come into the thread, read it, and chime in with your two cents. Do you think it's the most important issue of the day? Why are you here? Maybe because you wanted to talk about it just as much as she did. Why do people join a conversation and then tell you it's a stupid conversation to have? Don't join, just continue playing solitaire or whatever it is you do. We'll be here enjoying an interesting and intelligent dialogue.


I picked it up off the newest possts thing on the nationstates homepage...

I am still here because I am stunned at the lengths people go to create victimisation, while ignoring the real oppression that goes on.

well it depends on the circumstances, like of course a woman should be charged more for a haircut if she has twice as long hair, but not if shes buying the exact same jeans, unless shes buying them at a different store where prices are different. But it could also work in the opposite way, men could get charged more too.

Um...not the last time I checked...but read your statement I referred to again. It's true.


ummm no its not. How many hundreds of retailers are around? If the clothing industry is not competative what the hell industry is?

SHOP around, yikes, or perhaps move to a country with a planned economy then im sure all prices will be the same for everyone...

No one said it was...except you seem to keep saying that...perhaps you protest too much? Perhaps there IS a conspiracy I've missed all along and you are trying to get us of the trail????

Look, I've already explained how 'getting a new hairdresser' doesn't work where I live and why driving someone else wouldn't make economic sense. WomEN are content to have cheaper car insurance...are men content to pay more? If not, they should be protesting it. I have already said I think that's crap.

Easily shop around? No. Not easily. I can shop around, but it's hard work...charity shops are a big time commitment in terms of finding anything good, and the web? I don't shop online. It's not like going from one store to the next to find a bargain...you have to HUNT for quality at equal prices.

But keep calling me a conspiracy theorist and whiner...it does wonders for
YOUR argument. By the way, when I have already given many examples of the price disparity, and you continue to say, "I don't see it", then don't expect me to continue providing examples. You are clearly dismissing them.

one shirt in gap and hair cut prices is not really a tremendous illustration of price disparity.

look at the gap website. Jeans are the same sort of price for both sexes.

Where do the men get their hair cut? Why not go there, save some money?

I picked it up off the newest possts thing on the nationstates homepage...

I am still here because I am stunned at the lengths people go to create victimisation, while ignoring the real oppression that goes on.
No one is ignoring it. We are simply confining ourselves to a single topic. That's the point of a thread. If you don't know how that works yet, that's your problem, not ours.

one shirt in gap and hair cut prices is not really a tremendous illustration of price disparity.

look at the gap website. Jeans are the same sort of price for both sexes.

Where do the men get their hair cut? Why not go there, save some money?
*sigh*
The Gap website also does not illustrate the reality of the rest of the retailers, so my example is no less of a 'tremendous illustration of price disparity' that yours is a stunning example of fairness.

Men and women get their hair cut in the same places where I live. The prices are different.

Do you have a point other than denying price differences exist?

Which would be bad why?


a woman can dress like a man and it's acceptable, but a man dresses like a woman, and it's not...why? because it's degrading, it's degrading for a man to be like a woman, because being a woman is degrading...a woman dressing like a man can be often be seen as sexy, because she's 'elevating' herself...why does this double standard exist, but everyone ignores it and accepts it as 'normal'?

think about it...why do women ever wear suits? We never used to, think about only just over 50 years ago, when women were often referred to as 'skirts' for heaven's sake. :P The sixties and seventies, when women actually looked like women, not sticks with huge breasts and no personality. Now we have made such progress in feminine rights, but we've also managed to lose our feminity. Why? So that we can move forward? We should not have to lose feminity and be more male to be equal. We should be treated equally in the workplace, or any other environment whether or not we dress like a man. I don't feel it's nessesary, and it's wrong to think that progression is something only men can do. Many would agree, but it's evident in the way that 'successful women' are expected to act.

Women should pay more for everything in life. They are after all far more stupid with smaller brains and bigger mouths...


I hope you're joking :P

Men and women get their hair cut in the same places where I live. The prices are different.


There is a good reason for this. I know several hairdressers and they all tell me that womens hair needs far more expertiese than mens hair to style effectively. Its just diffrent. Thats fact.

*snip*
I get all that...and don't like it either. However, my comment was made to say, "Hey, androgyny or genderswapping of clothing would be fine". I'd prefer that to the strict 'feminine' and 'masculine' dress code.

*sigh*
The Gap website also does not illustrate the reality of the rest of the retailers, so my example is no less of a 'tremendous illustration of price disparity' that yours is a stunning example of fairness.

Men and women get their hair cut in the same places where I live. The prices are different.

Do you have a point other than denying price differences exist?

some things (like insurance) are based on economics.

Why don't you ask your hairdresser about the prices?

I have refuted your gap price disparity argument, what OTHER retailers are screwing womyn over then?

My girlfriend says the only time she is worried about prices is bras. And that's harldy men's fault, is it.