NationStates Jolt Archive

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.
I have addressed this so many times...sorry to those of you who have actually been reading along for repeating myself...

Not all women get fancy haircuts. AGAIN. My hair, trimmed...5 minutes. My husband's hair, trimmed, 20 minutes. I pay $10 more.

If a man gets a perm, let him pay as much as a woman. If a woman gets a simple trim, let her pay as much as a man. Period.

I have addressed this so many times...sorry to those of you who have actually been reading along for repeating myself...

Not all women get fancy haircuts. AGAIN. My hair, trimmed...5 minutes. My husband's hair, trimmed, 20 minutes. I pay $10 more.

If a man gets a perm, let him pay as much as a woman. If a woman gets a simple trim, let her pay as much as a man. Period.

I look around and I don't see disparity in prices. What I see is womyn being conditioned to feel they have to look better, and get more elaborate clothes and hair cuts. But that's not a pricing issue, that's a social issue.

some things (like insurance) are based on economics.

Why don't you ask your hairdresser about the prices? I have. They can't defend the price, but it isn't the hairdresser that sets the price. It's the manager. And he ain't talking...

I have refuted your gap price disparity argument, what OTHER retailers are screwing womyn over then? No, you've provided one example of equity in price. That does not mean the example I gave is false. As for other retailers...let's just choose those that cater to men AND women, and are not specialty stores:

The Bay.
Sears.
Levi Jeans.
Tommy Hillfiger.

And so on. Women's jeans are on average pricier than mens. The same goes for 'unisex' shirts (not overly feminine or masculine, but sold in the women's section). Look around next time you go shopping.

I have addressed this so many times...sorry to those of you who have actually been reading along for repeating myself...

Not all women get fancy haircuts. AGAIN. My hair, trimmed...5 minutes. My husband's hair, trimmed, 20 minutes. I pay $10 more.

If a man gets a perm, let him pay as much as a woman. If a woman gets a simple trim, let her pay as much as a man. Period.
thats how my barber does it (at least when I go to one ... I usualy shave my head now) 15 min apt is 15 dollars ... if it takes longer then that it goes by groups of 15

Pretty simple here but ehhh lol

And by the way...why did you choose to spell women, womyn? What point are you making?

I look around and I don't see disparity in prices.
Ahhh...I must be lying...or delusional. I'll get my prescription checked.

Enough. You refuse my examples, fair enough. Don't ask me for more of them then, if you doubt my honesty.

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?


jeans, yes, but only because it's the staple of their store, their walls are covered in jeans..though oddly, you can't find a pair of *non low rise* jeans for women anymore....

the one thing I will give GAP is that they constantly have sales on, and do frequent markdowns, even though their women's shirts tend to be paper thin so you have to layer them and buy more :P

thats how my barber does it (at least when I go to one ... I usualy shave my head now) 15 min apt is 15 dollars ... if it takes longer then that it goes by groups of 15

Pretty simple here but ehhh lol
I wish they would do that...it makes more sense...they charge a 'rapunzel' fee here for long hair, regardless of the service, anyone (man or woman) with long hair pays $10 more. But I live in redneck Alberta...and I've yet to see a long-haired male here...

Womyn? Ahhh, a lesbian AND a retard then?

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.

Let me inform you of a trick I often use to avoid ending up in a thread I don't think it worth my time. I don't click on it. It works amazing well. I've never been magically forced to read through page after page of a topic I think is a waste of time just by using that one little trick. I hope that helps.

Womyn? Ahhh, a lesbian AND a retard then?
Flame. Added to your last one, merits a report to moderation.

jeans, yes, but only because it's the staple of their store, their walls are covered in jeans..though oddly, you can't find a pair of *non low rise* jeans for women anymore....

the one thing I will give GAP is that they constantly have sales on, and do frequent markdowns, even though their women's shirts tend to be paper thin so you have to layer them and buy more :P


This is the important point. Womyn are being forced to choose certain styles.

But I don't see disparity in prices.

Incidently, levi 501s are currently cheaper for womyn than men at sears, though the regular price is slightly more for womyn. Should we be up in arms that mens sales don't get so much off?

I wish they would do that...it makes more sense...they charge a 'rapunzel' fee here for long hair, regardless of the service, anyone (man or woman) with long hair pays $10 more. But I live in redneck Alberta...and I've yet to see a long-haired male here...
Hmmm intresting ... not sure it requires legilation but I dont think it really should be different unless there is a training or skill difference (I am not a barber so cant tell ya how much more ya have to know to cut long hair)

Flame. Added to your last one, merits a report to moderation.

Sorry Miss...

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.

Oh, and this is even better, we're actually interested in the topic and you accuse us of wasting our time. You're here, replying AND you don't care about the topic. DEAR GOD, what about all the oppressed children that you're not out there representing because you're in this topic with us!!! WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

Oh, and this is even better, we're actually interested in the topic and you accuse us of wasting our time. You're here, replying AND you don't care about the topic. DEAR GOD, what about all the oppressed children that you're not out there representing because you're in this topic with us!!! WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

now, now, don't try an demonise me. Show me I am wrong. I am open to evidence, after all, I am not a womyn so I don't know past what I see, can look up and my girlfriend can tell me

now, now, don't try an demonise me. Show me I am wrong. I am open to evidence, after all, I am not a womyn so I don't know past what I see, can look up and my girlfriend can tell me
Why should you? you said you are not intrested in the topic

This is the important point. Womyn are being forced to choose certain styles.

But I don't see disparity in prices.

Incidently, levi 501s are currently cheaper for womyn than men at sears, though the regular price is slightly more for womyn. Should we be up in arms that mens sales don't get so much off?

Yes we should... Like women should when they are forced to pay
too much for some stuff. Thread title was: Gender-based pricing. It just
happens to occur more often with products directed to women...

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.

That is true, there is a big however there. Depending on where you go, this varies, but usually when you go into a hair salon, especially a chain, they just have the average hair cut cost per man and per woman calculated out (my mom is a hairdresser so trust me on this one). Yes, some men's haircuts might be more expensive, some might be less, but on average they are more expensive therefore the hair dresser has to charge all women more just to make the calculation simpler. However, if you go into an independtly owned salon and ask them to get a buzz cut, I am willing to guarantee that they will charge you the same that they would a guy. And the difficulty has nothing to do with length of hair, but the fact that women's hair has to be blended more, more layers, as well as women tend to complain more about unhappy haircuts thus the money back has to be taken into account as well.

I am not a womyn
WOMAN.

No one is a womyn. The word is not an accepted part of the language.

Yes we should... Like women should when they are forced to pay
too much for some stuff. Thread title was: Gender-based pricing. It just
happens to occur more often with products directed to women...

that's the point I am trying to make. I am not convinced it DOES occur more often for womyn's products. I suspect the problem is womyn feel they HAVE to buy certain things - like perfume, jewellery or new clothes - that men DON'T feel they have to buy.

And that is a social factor that needs addressing. But I don't really see the price disparity. And no-one seems willing to offer much in the way of evidence. Except Sinuhue who told me some shops, but when I look at their webisites, prices seem to be much the same for men and womyn.

*snip*
Trust ME when I say that I have never paid the same as a man for a trim. Even though it takes much less time than a man's haircut. That's never...not sometimes, not often...NEVER. Explain it.

My mother-in-law does the trimming now, bless her. Saves me the frustration of arguing about WHY I am paying more.

WOMAN.

No one is a womyn. The word is not an accepted part of the language.

if it's good enough for your puppet troll....

now, now, don't try an demonise me. Show me I am wrong. I am open to evidence, after all, I am not a womyn so I don't know past what I see, can look up and my girlfriend can tell me

I actually don't agree with Sinuhue, but why should either of us give you evidence of either side? Didn't you say it's a waste of time to talk about it? I was pointing out that our actions support our beliefs, that this is a worthwhile topic, and yours do not support your beliefs, that it is not. It has nothing to do with the quality of your argument or which side of the argument you happen to fall upon.

On that note, I'm off. I was just told by a nurse over the phone that I should visit the emergency room for some abdominal pain and I suppose I should consider that more important than this topic. Y'all have fun.

if it's good enough for your puppet troll....
Well, if you want to emulate a puppet-troll...if that is your reason for using a word...go ahead...

Do you support mandatory vasectomies because she did too?

Everyone is jumping off bridges ma....

that's the point I am trying to make. I am not convinced it DOES occur more often for womyn's products. I suspect the problem is womyn feel they HAVE to buy certain things - like perfume, jewellery or new clothes - that men DON'T feel they have to buy.

And that is a social factor that needs addressing. But I don't really see the price disparity. And no-one seems willing to offer much in the way of evidence. Except Sinuhue who told me some shops, but when I look at their webisites, prices seem to be much the same for men and womyn.
Ok, so you don't think it exists. I wasn't the only one who gave examples, by the way, but anyway, since you think it is a non-issue, then stop posting. Seriously. We can't convince you, and you have no other point.

On that note, I'm off. I was just told by a nurse over the phone that I should visit the emergency room for some abdominal pain and I suppose I should consider that more important than this topic. Y'all have fun.
Cripes...good luck! I hope you're okay!

I don't think that the government should be dealing in price setting, especiallly not for the sort of goods that have been discussed.

and claiming gender bia in the auto insurance industry - well the statistics back it up ( not the gender bias but the fact that the genders, over a broad spectrum, do drive differently ) - so....

I shop a chain / state / local retailer ( several locations in my city and over the state ) - One side of the store has women's stuff and the other mens.

I'll use jeans as an example as they are what I buy the most of. On the ladies side they are set out by the ladies sizing guide of size 8, or 10, or 14 and so on.

Over on the mens they are laid out by brand name and in that break down by waist and inseam.

I shop on the mens side - 31 inch waist and 36 inch inseam. The quality is the same, the brands are the same -its easier to find waist and inseam ( womens are never damned long enough ) - a nice selection of colors and I save an average of $5.00 per pair, sometimes much more...

Looks gender biased right?

How ever I also happen to know something most people don't - that while this chain can buy in bulk - guess what - the ladies jeans cost THEM more ( ie from the manufacturer ) than the mens do...so it's not just the fault of the retailer.

Go into Wally World - theres a chain that can buy in the mega bulk range - and go look at the jeans in the mens dept and then go to the womens - there is a price difference there - and some how I really don't think it is gender bias.

women do seem to be willing to pay for that 'Name Brand', (that Jordace, or whatever - pasted on your butt ) more than men do.

So, sorry if its any one's fault its ours- we womens - willingness to pay more, to buy more - becasue on the whole we do and sure seem willing to pay for those Names...

But then again there are Names that are classics, that last forever and only get better with age - my Coach handbag is twenty years old and still has forever left in it!

and I agree completely with UpwardThrust

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)

Sorry and not trying to be offensive - but asking the government to step in and regulate where it shouldn't just to keep you from having to do ( gasp ) some work is not any too smart in my book as well as being damned lazy

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.

Bargains and low prices are out there but they do take some time and effort to find - nothing good comes cheap is an old saying.

It what the target market is willing to pay - not some witting, or unwitting bias...

Part of that what the target group will pay for IS the convience factor...spend the time looking for the bargains or spend the money for easier to find but higher priced goods...

You said that women's jeans cost the retailer more than men's jeans...why is that?

Also, if there are no viable alternatives in women's clothing, (same price for same quality as men's) on a regular basis, then the marketing and the focus of these goods IS biased...based on gender. What drove that first? Women's need, or the marketing towards women? Kind of a chicken and egg thing. What keeps it going? Underlying social attitudes, no doubt, however, a lack of alternatives is a problem. When a man can go, buy a good and get out, but a woman has to HUNT around, you can't argue that both are working for the deal. One automatically gets it based on his gender. The other does not. It isn't conspiracy, but it is based on gender.

WOMAN.

No one is a womyn. The word is not an accepted part of the language.

I read somewhere that it means "Vegetarian Jewish Black Lesbian Disabled Dwarf with large chip on shoulder".

You said that women's jeans cost the retailer more than men's jeans...why is that?

Who knows. Any number of a million reasons could be true. Perhaps designers of female clothers are on average better paid and require more royalties. Perhaps women are more trendy than men therefor leading to more wastage. By this I mean that women are less likely(as a whole) to buy clothes that are slightly behind the fashion curve.

Its not like my suits actually cost in material and time what they sell them for me for. I remember when I was in Florida that I bought a suit from a hugo boss store(I love the fit) and it cost me $1100(pre fitting and tax..2001 dollars). Later on in the day I saw (what appeared to me) to be the same suit in Bernini for only $500. Upon inquiry, I was told that the Hugo Boss suit in the Bernini store was 6 months out of style. Suit looked the same to me. At best they moved around the spacing of a button or two.

Turns out that Bernini gets the Boss Suits(and others) that are not "current". For the privelege of buying the "Current" version, I paid more than twice. Did being "current" have any value to me? No, It did not but I didnt know any better. Do I feel like a fool yes. Will I ever buy a Boss or Zena suit again at full price..no fucking way.

So maybe in general girls are more "current" and are more willing to pay this ridiculous premium.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8493743&postcount=186
Women should pay more for everything in life. They are after all far more stupid with smaller brains and bigger mouths...

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8494358&postcount=259
Womyn? Ahhh, a lesbian AND a retard then?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8494378&postcount=261
Flame. Added to your last one, merits a report to moderation.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8494407&postcount=264
Sorry Miss...
I take it, then, that you'll stop trolling? Good.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8494474&postcount=273
if it's good enough for your puppet troll....
Her puppet troll got modbombed. Do you really want to emulate that behavior? Do you really want to be next?

"Think about it for a moment."

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Thanks Cog...though he apologised after I made the report :cool: Sorry!

Coggie...do you still love me? Or am I going to be on your s-list for a while yet.... :(

Trust ME when I say that I have never paid the same as a man for a trim. Even though it takes much less time than a man's haircut. That's never...not sometimes, not often...NEVER. Explain it. I am a monkey.

My mother-in-law does the trimming now, bless her. Saves me the frustration of arguing about WHY I am paying more.
The problem is that companies believe women care more about how they look then men and are therefore willing to pay more for haircutting services and clothing products. I personally do not blame society for strongly encouraging a desire in women to look their best. Nevertheless, we as a society have also discouraged men from expressing this desire by portraying such men who do as less masculine. There is nothing unmanly in looking good.

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.

In that case, the obvious thing to do would be to go to a different barber shop. :headbang: If a business owner is treating his customers unfairly then he will lose customers. If every business that is accessible to you is treating 50% of it's customers unfairly, then it seems that quite a pretty penny could be made by someone (yes- I am suggesting that you do it) who opens a business and charges reasonable rates for women's clothes, haircuts, insurance, etc.

It's likely that upon doing so, you'll realize that these price differences are not based on the desire to rip women off.

The problem is that companies believe women care more about how they look then men and are therefore willing to pay more for haircutting services and clothing products. I personally do not blame society for strongly encouraging a desire in women to look their best. Nevertheless, we as a society have also discouraged men from expressing this desire by portraying such men who do as less masculine. There is nothing unmanly in looking good.
Very true. Not that I want men to have to pay these inflated prices too, just to make things equal:)

In that case, the obvious thing to do would be to go to a different barber shop. :headbang: If a business owner is treating his customers unfairly then he will lose customers. If every business that is accessible to you is treating 50% of it's customers unfairly, then it seems that quite a pretty penny could be made by someone (yes- I am suggesting that you do it) who opens a business and charges reasonable rates for women's clothes, haircuts, insurance, etc.
Honestly, if I had the time and money to capitalise on the 'charging women fairly' market, I would...but I don't. So right now I'm going to deal with it on the consumer side. Yes, that means bitching more when I get overcharged:)

It's likely that upon doing so, you'll realize that these price differences are not based on the desire to rip women off. No, they are based on the fact that not given another choice, women will have to pay these inflated prices. It also has to do with the advertising and market research focused on women. It may not INTEND to rip women off, but it does. Or do you deny that?

<semi related, and sorry if it's already been said>

In Britain at least (not sure about the USA), they charge VAT on "feminine hygiene products".

I find this ridiculous and it makes me mad every time I have to buy some (seriously what else are we meant to do? just not leave the bathroom for 5 days every month? honestly) :mad:

<semi related, and sorry if it's already been said>

In Britain at least (not sure about the USA), they charge VAT on "feminine hygiene products".

I find this ridiculous and it makes me mad every time I have to buy some (seriously what else are we meant to do? just not leave the bathroom for 5 days every month? honestly) :mad:
First of all, I love your name!

And second, if your VAT is like our GST, it is only supposed to be put on 'non-essential' goods. Toiletpaper would be one of those, you'd think, but no, it's taxed. I'd like to see the politicos wipe THEIR butts with the Sears catalogue...:)

Coggie...do you still love me? Or am I going to be on your s-list for a while yet.... :(
I still like you, but you've gotta stay on good behavior. Patience and civility are virtues.

Now let's get back on topic. :)

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

First of all, I love your name!

And second, if your VAT is like our GST, it is only supposed to be put on 'non-essential' goods. Toiletpaper would be one of those, you'd think, but no, it's taxed. I'd like to see the politicos wipe THEIR butts with the Sears catalogue...:)

Why thank you. That is what out VAT is (stands for value added tax in case anyone didn't know, if you all did then sorry for patronising you *pats heads*).

I can understand being able to live without ice cream and birthday cards and things, but really some of the stuff they slap VAT on (or GST as the case may be - what does it stand for?) is downright foolish! When I stage my coup and seize control of the country I'll make sure they only put VAT on sensible stuff.
I think they put VAT on condoms too - an advocation of safe sex if ever I saw one :P

I still like you, but you've gotta stay on good behavior. Patience and civility are virtues.

Now let's get back on topic. :)

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
Yes, gender bias, blah, blah...I loves ya Cogs, thanks...bias, bad... ;)

Why thank you. That is what out VAT is (stands for value added tax in case anyone didn't know, if you all did then sorry for patronising you *pats heads*).

I can understand being able to live without ice cream and birthday cards and things, but really some of the stuff they slap VAT on (or GST as the case may be - what does it stand for?) is downright foolish! When I stage my coup and seize control of the country I'll make sure they only put VAT on sensible stuff.
I think they put VAT on condoms too - an advocation of safe sex if ever I saw one :P
This might make a good thread actually...what items should be considered essential and non essential. It's hard to say that there is a bias against women in terms of 'feminine' products, when there really isn't an equivalent for men.

Before I get accused (again) of being petty, I just want to state that I am well aware of the fact that we women in the West have it pretty darn good. But I resent people like my dear old granddad saying, "We gave you your rights and you still complain?"

We always had rights. They were simply denied to us.

Anyway, back to the issue, which is simply a symptom of a wider problem...

Then again, we could open it up to analysis of that wider problem, which is gender roles.

Men: what aspects of your gender's expected role would you like to rid yourself of?

Women: same question.

Men: what aspects of your gender's expected role would you like to rid yourself of?

All of them

people can be forced into gender roles that dont fit them, but at the end of the day they will only be happy when they can break free of those roles and be what they want to be

No, they are based on the fact that not given another choice, women will have to pay these inflated prices.


Yikes! Not given another choice? Do you really believe that? I'm of the opinion that there is always "another choice" (and this does apply to "at gun point" situations), but apparently, in your case, overpaying for clothes is the most acceptable one.


It also has to do with the advertising and market research focused on women. It may not INTEND to rip women off, but it does. Or do you deny that?

I believe that in a capitalist economy, if the price of a product is being artificially inflated, then in 99% of situations (to be honest I think the % is a bit higher than that) a company will step in and make quite a bit of money by charging a reasonable price for the product in question. So, to answer your question, no I don't think women are being victimised by widescale overpricing. And if they are, then it's just a matter of time until someone notices this opportunity and takes advantage of it.

As a woman I'd like to not have to:

1) Be fashionable. I like comfortable. Not frumpy, just not uber-up on 'fashion'. That means I'd like to see more famous women in normal clothes, and not have them forced into 'fashions'. Some of them no doubt like it, but I suspect many of them are 'expected' to dress that way.
I can look just fine in out-of-date clothes thank you:)

2) Feel torn about being a mom AND a woman who works. I don't think I should have to choose just one or the other. My happy medium works fine. Still, the guilt lingers, and is exacerbated by people's opinions and their voicing of those opinions...

3) Watch bad porn. Women! Make porn good! (I know there is some out there, but it's hard to find!)

4) Be a trailblazer if I want to enter a non-traditional profession. Which many female construction workers still are:(

5) Work so damn hard to make sure my kids don't get weird ideas about what it means to be a girl or a boy. Cripes. Let them be themselves!

Just a few....

All of them

people can be forced into gender roles that dont fit them, but at the end of the day they will only be happy when they can break free of those roles and be what they want to be
Perfect. And true. I wish people could just be free to be themselves, and not question certain actions or feelings as being masculine or feminine.

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?

I would definately support a law for this. I find it ridiculous that women sometimes have to pay more than us, and usually less (for insurance and the like).

Yikes! Not given another choice? Do you really believe that? I'm of the opinion that there is always "another choice" (and this does apply to "at gun point" situations), but apparently, in your case, overpaying for clothes is the most acceptable one.
Yes, I do believe that. Because women aren't given another choice that involves the same level of effort as men's shopping. Instead, women who want an alternative spend hours in thrift shops looking for bargains, or revisiting a store until the price comes down and so on. Again, why should we have to go through all that trouble to get a fair price, when men have it automatically?

I use 'fair' loosely here...most of the prices in general are inflated....



I believe that in a capitalist economy, if the price of a product is being artificially inflated, then in 99% of situations (to be honest I think the % is a bit higher than that) a company will step in and make quite a bit of money by charging a reasonable price for the product in question. So, to answer your question, no I don't think women are being victimised by widescale overpricing. And if they are, then it's just a matter of time until someone notices this opportunity and takes advantage of it.Well, since women's clothes have been more expensive than men's for quite a long time, and no large-scale alternative has been found yet, I DON'T believe that the capitalist economy will solve this problem on its own.

Well, since women's clothes have been more expensive than men's for quite a long time, and no large-scale alternative has been found yet, I DON'T believe that the capitalist economy will solve this problem on its own.


Thats because you are most probably ignoring some basic considerations when it comes to women's fashion ware priceing. But hey, go ahead with your legistaltion.

If you are correct(unlikely) in that women are being ripped off then after the legistlation passes you will have the same access to the same quality goods.

If there are more factors that are involved than your understanding then you will experience the same things that have happened in every other society where artificial govt price controls have been put in place.


I am sure you are fully aware of these impacts(not) so i wont bother to detail them here.

Might I finish with that I think it should be manadatory for all people to take a basic course in micro and macro economics. Civics wouldnt hurt either.

the law sounds good, only i don't see any discrimination going on so i can't see where it could be used. as for insurance, women nearly all the time pay less, so i don't see why that was included in the original post. men's health insurance and car insurance is on average more expensive. i think the main thing to look at here is men and women *arent* the same, so shouldn't be treated the same. another important issue that's similar here is wages. in theory a mans wages should be *slightly* higher since you may lose your female worker if she gets pregnant. i disagree with the *bad for business* and lay-offs arguement though, business usually merely adapt and supply elsewhere, just means they'l make more crappy clothes and put the price of their good clothes up.

Thats because you are most probably ignoring some basic considerations when it comes to women's fashion ware priceing. But hey, go ahead with your legistaltion.
It isn't mine. I don't even particularly support it:) Why don't you list what you think are the other considerations in women's fashion pricing. Are any of those factors not based on gender?

If you are correct(unlikely) in that women are being ripped off then after the legistlation passes you will have the same access to the same quality goods.

If there are more factors that are involved than your understanding then you will experience the same things that have happened in every other society where artificial govt price controls have been put in place.
First of all, no price would be set by the government. It is my understanding that prices seen to be gender biased would be challenged, and would have to be defended.


I am sure you are fully aware of these impacts(not) so i wont bother to detail them here.

Might I finish with that I think it should be manadatory for all people to take a basic course in micro and macro economics. Civics wouldnt hurt either.I believe most social studies curriculum do deal with the basics in high school.

Now, I am not ignorant of the other factors at play here. However, those factors are almost all based on women as a market. Why is it that women are targetted? Why is the advertising aimed at us? Why all the attention? Did women create this need, this market, or did the market create the need? (I know, chicken and egg, but I'm interested...). You can not deny that this market is focused and organised with women in mind. Why are women getting the lion's share of the attention? Men are slowly being marketed towards as well, but instead of that lowering prices, I suspect it will just lift them to match women's inflated prices.

I don't care if the rule of capitalism is "charge what the market will bear". When the people making those goods are not benefitting from the increased prices, and when the consumer is paying more for advertising costs than the goods themselves, we have an artificial price that benefits the very few.

Yes, I do believe that. Because women aren't given another choice that involves the same level of effort as men's shopping. Instead, women who want an alternative spend hours in thrift shops looking for bargains, or revisiting a store until the price comes down and so on. Again, why should we have to go through all that trouble to get a fair price, when men have it automatically?

Not to be rude, but it seems you just contradicted yourself. There are clearly other options, as you sited one yourself. Note that I wasn't arguing whether or not paying higher prices was the the best option, just pointing out the falsehood in the statement "there are no other options".


Well, since women's clothes have been more expensive than men's for quite a long time, and no large-scale alternative has been found yet, I DON'T believe that the capitalist economy will solve this problem on its own.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here, as I see that as evidence that the price is in fact not artificially inflated. If clothes of the same quality could be made at a lower price then someone would do it and, as I said before, they would make quite a bit of money with this practice. The fact that it hasn't happened only proves that it can't happen and that the price of women's clothing is in fact not artificially inflated.

Not to be rude, but it seems you just contradicted yourself. There are clearly other options, as you sited one yourself. Note that I wasn't arguing whether or not paying higher prices was the the best option, just pointing out the falsehood in the statement "there are no other options".
No rudeness assumed:) It is a sort of contradiction, but I am trying to qualify the 'other options' instead of quantifying them. As in, a man doesn't have to hunt for bargains (though he can...and should), but a woman almost HAS to in order to get the 'same' price as a man. There simply aren't retailers out there that offer women's clothing at the same price as men's for the same quality. I don't mean going and buying men's clothes, I mean buying women's clothes of the same quality as the men's. So women are forced into the other 'options' which are qualifiably different than the options that men have (just going to another shop). We have to look at thrift shops, or buy men's clothes, or hunt for deals...men generally don't. Sorry if that is a bit confused sounding...the level of opportunity for a price that matches men's clothing is hard to come by for a woman.


I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here, as I see that as evidence that the price is in fact not artificially inflated. If clothes of the same quality could be made at a lower price then someone would do it and, as I said before, they would make quite a bit of money with this practice. The fact that it hasn't happened only proves that it can't happen and that the price of women's clothing is in fact not artificially inflated.Most prices are artificially inflated, with a huge mark up at the retailer end. I think a viable alternative hasn't popped up because the market likes the stability of the higher price. Which is why you just don't see a lot of price variation in anything these days. My parents remember things quite differently...you could compare prices at different stores and get wide variation. Not so anymore. The gender bias comes in where the mark up is often higher for women than men.

Then again, I don't know how much they end up spending on advertising for women versus men, and how much that revenue impacts the total price. Nor do I know how effective that advertising is in overall sales, but I doubt they'd be blowing millions just for the heck of it...

Hey, this would be a great and easy way to fix the problem of women earning $0.75 on the dollar when compared to men:

Either the ladies get a flat 25% discount on everything or the dudes get a flat 25% mark-up.

I'm certain it would also cause a lot of "Bosom Buddies" type hi-jinks at car dealerships and electronics stores.

I don't want to come across as completely obtuse. I understand your point that if the market hasn't produced cheaper goods, its probably because cheaper goods aren't viable. I however don't believe that is why the cheaper goods aren't being produced. Especially now. I think that the production costs are being slashed (finding cheaper labour and raw materials), but the mark up is increasing as much as is possible to provide maximum profit. Which is how capitalism works. However, I don't think anyone is stepping up and providing cheaper goods (with less of a mark up) not because it isn't viable, but because market competition isn't really the goal anymore. Production competition is. They want to keep the prices about the same, but cut it on the production end, meaning more profits.

Generally mom and pop shops don't have access to sweat shop labour, so their clothes are more expensive on the production end, so the retail price is probably the same. I buy those kinds of clothes to support them, and foot the cost because I think it's worth it. The chain stores make more profit because they can buy in bulk, and they have access to cheaper production. I don't think those stores deserve the markup. However, I think only another huge chain could provide real competition, because unless mom and pop get a sweatshop going (please don't!) they won't be able to offer lower retail costs. Those that can, don't, because there is no competition to force them to do it.

This is what I see as a flaw in the system...competition by all rights should regulate price, but with so little competition out there, it can't work. That women end up paying even more than men is a bias based on gender, justified by market demand. However, since there is no real competition in retail prices, that is only going to continue unless there is some incentive to make the prices equal.

Edit: and I don't think a law alone will do it. People need to say that it's crap, and complain more about the price disparity. Maybe enough of that would provide the incentive. Then again, we're talking about boycott...which has limited usefulness.

It isn't mine. I don't even particularly support it:) Why don't you list what you think are the other considerations in women's fashion pricing. Are any of those factors not based on gender?

I have repeatedly mentioned factors that might or might not be significant with regards to women's clothing. Given that I am not in the industry, that is the best that I can do.


First of all, no price would be set by the government. It is my understanding that prices seen to be gender biased would be challenged, and would have to be defended.


While the govt might not directly set a price, they would require justification and or penalties for prices they felt were out of line. This has a costs even if no penalties were imposed. So, retailers/manufactorers would have to factor this cost in to their sale/profit price. It would be a defacto price limit/cost upon the products being sold. If you understand this concept, great. If not then not.


Now, I am not ignorant of the other factors at play here. However, those factors are almost all based on women as a market. Why is it that women are targetted? Why is the advertising aimed at us? Why all the attention? Did women create this need, this market, or did the market create the need? (I know, chicken and egg, but I'm interested...). You can not deny that this market is focused and organised with women in mind. Why are women getting the lion's share of the attention? Men are slowly being marketed towards as well, but instead of that lowering prices, I suspect it will just lift them to match women's inflated prices.

If there something differant about women as a market as opposed to oversexed teen boys? Should Brittany Spears adjust her prices? What about posters of her relative to posters of say the grand canyon(prices wise)? Are horny teens being taken advantage of?

Should popular cars of the same horsepower and fuel milage cost the same as unpopular cars with the same features?

How aboutpopular clothing brands vs unpopular brands? Especially if they use the same materials. Is it wrong for the popular brand(the one with more demand) to charge more?

Where you see discrimination, I see market forces at work. If women werent willing to pay more, then the prices would be lower. If horny teens were not will to pay more for half naked pics of pop stars then companies would have to charge less.

If you dont understand this, then you dont. If you go through life thinking its a grand conspiracy then thats you headache.


I don't care if the rule of capitalism is "charge what the market will bear". When the people making those goods are not benefitting from the increased prices, and when the consumer is paying more for advertising costs than the goods themselves, we have an artificial price that benefits the very few.

Atrificial pricing is not the issue. It isnt because the customers in this case have a choice. Women can buy a $500 brand name suit or a $100 non brand name one in wall mart. By the same token they can buy a $100,000 wedding gown or one for $150. No one is being forced to pay any price they choose not to.

CHOICE is the factor that you are discounting the most. You can pay 4x for a ring from Tiffany's or you can pay less for the same quantity of gold and diamonds from another store. Tiffany's doesnt force you to buy from them. This is market forces at work.. And personally, I like the freedom I have to choose where and how much I pay for a 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.

We have a winner here! Unfortunately, I'm going to have to give you an amen on this one, sister. We women are sometimes our own biggest oppressors. We will always be looked upon in a traditional light, because there are women who fight to keep traditions in place (Don't think so? Look back at your mothers...those of you who have mothers who didn't care what tradition said are lucky). They will continue selling $300 skirts, because there are still women out there who buy it because they think that they "need" it to be "up-to-date" and "Cool", and well, because, isn't that what mother said women do? Isn't that what the television says is the essence of femininity? Who hasn't seen a show focused on women where the gals HAVEN'T gone out shopping for clothes? Many women treat it as therapy. "You're husband seeing another woman? Buying a new outfit will make you feel better. It might also make you more attractive to him..." or "Other women laughing at you in the office again? They won't when you outshine them in your new Prada outfit..."

It's not a big conspiracy. It's social conditioning. Until we can condition BOTH sides that this is not the way it should be, nor is it HEALTHY, we're going to pay more.

I have repeatedly mentioned factors that might or might not be significant with regards to women's clothing. Given that I am not in the industry, that is the best that I can do.


Sorry, I've skimmed through your last couple of posts, but I've only seen you refer to other factors, not list them. I'm not ignoring them, I just don't see them, so if you could please list them (again if such is the case), I would appreciate it.

CHOICE is the factor that you are discounting the most. You can pay 4x for a ring from Tiffany's or you can pay less for the same quantity of gold and diamonds from another store. Tiffany's doesnt force you to buy from them. This is market forces at work.. And personally, I like the freedom I have to choose where and how much I pay for a thing.
I am dismissing the choices you mention as too limited. I want a cheaper haircut...so I have to drive an hour and a half to get one. That doesn't make economic sense. So I pay more, because the 'other option' actually costs me more than getting a haircut in town. I want to pay the same for a shirt as my husband does (for the same quality), so I go to three different stores, don't find one, and have to come back on a regular basis to nab one when the price goes down. It's cheaper in time and money to pay the higher price. That isn't much of a choice.

I can't say how the law would work...I don't see it limiting choice any more than the market already limits them. Again, I'd like to know if it's had any affect in California.

I am dismissing the choices you mention as too limited. I want a cheaper haircut...so I have to drive an hour and a half to get one. That doesn't make economic sense. So I pay more, because the 'other option' actually costs me more than getting a haircut in town. I want to pay the same for a shirt as my husband does (for the same quality), so I go to three different stores, don't find one, and have to come back on a regular basis to nab one when the price goes down. It's cheaper in time and money to pay the higher price. That isn't much of a choice.

I can't say how the law would work...I don't see it limiting choice any more than the market already limits them. Again, I'd like to know if it's had any affect in California.
Maya cuts my hair for 5$ :D

We have a winner here! Unfortunately, I'm going to have to give you an amen on this one, sister. We women are sometimes our own biggest oppressors. We will always be looked upon in a traditional light, because there are women who fight to keep traditions in place (Don't think so? Look back at your mothers...those of you who have mothers who didn't care what tradition said are lucky). They will continue selling $300 skirts, because there are still women out there who buy it because they think that they "need" it to be "up-to-date" and "Cool", and well, because, isn't that what mother said women do? Isn't that what the television says is the essence of femininity? Who hasn't seen a show focused on women where the gals HAVEN'T gone out shopping for clothes? Many women treat it as therapy. "You're husband seeing another woman? Buying a new outfit will make you feel better. It might also make you more attractive to him..." or "Other women laughing at you in the office again? They won't when you outshine them in your new Prada outfit..."

It's not a big conspiracy. It's social conditioning. Until we can condition BOTH sides that this is not the way it should be, nor is it HEALTHY, we're going to pay more.
Again, no one has ever said in this thread that it is a conspiracy. It most certainly is the market taking advantage of (and encouraging) social conditioning. I kind of see this law (which I do not see getting passed) as a way of bringing up this issue and hopefully getting people to examine why women are paying more...and buying more....and focusing more on fashion. I think it just raises the dust on an issue that many let settle...and that's a good thing. Women need to examine their gender roles, and so do men.

Sorry, I've skimmed through your last couple of posts, but I've only seen you refer to other factors, not list them. I'm not ignoring them, I just don't see them, so if you could please list them (again if such is the case), I would appreciate it.

Sure,

just off the top of my head

1) different salraies paid to women's wear designers vs men's wear.
2)Different marketing costs.
3)different wasteage
4)different shelf life and pricing stability
5)different size of relative markets inc demand
6) different marketing costs(thats diff from advertising costs)
7)different brand name reach
8)different distribution channels
9) different pricing power
10) different levels of competition

I am sure the list goes on and on.

I was at a fashion show 2 sundays ago and out of all the models there were only 2 guys. I am sure that has some bearing on the market. In fact only 1 of the 3 designers even made mens clothing(a little). I dont know squat about the clothing industry(3 suits can easy get me through a week or two) but the simple fact that 80-90% of all the clothes modeled were womens ware has to be reflective of something.

Maya cuts my hair for 5$ :D
Yeah, well my mother-in-law now cuts mine for free now:) Too bad she can't make me clothes too!

Sure,

just off the top of my head

1) different salraies paid to women's wear designers vs men's wear.
2)Different marketing costs.
3)different wasteage
4)different shelf life and pricing stability
5)different size of relative markets inc demand
6) different marketing costs(thats diff from advertising costs)
7)different brand name reach
8)different distribution channels
9) different pricing power
10) different levels of competition

I am sure the list goes on and on.

I was at a fashion show 2 sundays ago and out of all the models there were only 2 guys. I am sure that has some bearing on the market. In fact only 1 of the 3 designers even made mens clothing(a little). I dont know squat about the clothing industry(3 suits can easy get me through a week or two) but the simple fact that 80-90% of all the clothes modeled were womens ware has to be reflective of something.
Thank you for reposting that list. You're right, we'll have to agree to disagree. I see the static nature of the prices as a flaw in the system that will continue until societal attitudes changes and another option is presented. Hopefully that option will be less of a focus on clothing by both men AND women instead of an increase on the men's end to match women's already insatiable need for fashion:)

Ok...time once again to earn my bread...thanks everyone for the discussion!

I am dismissing the choices you mention as too limited. I want a cheaper haircut...so I have to drive an hour and a half to get one. That doesn't make economic sense. So I pay more, because the 'other option' actually costs me more than getting a haircut in town. I want to pay the same for a shirt as my husband does (for the same quality), so I go to three different stores, don't find one, and have to come back on a regular basis to nab one when the price goes down. It's cheaper in time and money to pay the higher price. That isn't much of a choice.

I can't say how the law would work...I don't see it limiting choice any more than the market already limits them. Again, I'd like to know if it's had any affect in California.

Look, sorry, tough luck. There is a reason that a 1 bedroom apartment in NYC costs more that a 4 bedroom house in Sulfolk county(1 1/2 hours commute away). I am sure that freedom of choice in the NYC area contributes to this. Of course you have to give up something else in order to have this choice, but if people are willing to make this tradeoff then it is their right to do so.

I have moved to India, On the plus side I have a driver and a house boy for a few hundred $ a month. On the negative I am paying $2000+ a month for every 512 KB(non multiplexed) internet access at the office(and I can only fit 4 guys for every half mega bit). I was paying $49 dollars a month for 8 megs(server limitations)(gotta love optimum online) back in NY. I can get commercial T1 (no server limitations) for $450 a month in NY. I am paying almost 10x more here.

Life is a trade off. Deal with it.

Most prices are artificially inflated, with a huge mark up at the retailer end.


What would you consider a huge mark-up? I think you may be surprised as to what it costs to run a retail store.



I think a viable alternative hasn't popped up because the market likes the stability of the higher price. Which is why you just don't see a lot of price variation in anything these days.


That logic doesn't follow. First, widespread overpricing makes for a very unstable market as one company willing to not over price would force every other company to recreate their business plan. Secondly, the lack of price variation is evidence that the price is fair. If every company where randomly overcharging their customers there would be more price variation as it would be difficult for one company to guess what another company would charge and the chances of charging similar prices would decrease.


My parents remember things quite differently...you could compare prices at different stores and get wide variation. Not so anymore.


I can't say for sure because I don't know what time period your parents are talking about, but this is probably another argument for my case. Varied prices in the past were probably a result of it being more difficult to shop around and the higher prices were probably the result of a particular company overcharging because they knew it was difficult for customers to get to another store.

First: The products are not “essentially the same”. If you are a woman and think you are being forced to purchase “essentially the same” product at a higher price than a man would pay, fine... buy men’s clothes, men’s shavers, etc etc etc. If that suits you fine, wonderful. I really do not care.

Some products are different. Hair styling is much more involved for a woman and as a result it is more expensive. Labour costs money. There is nothing anyone can do about that.

Other products are differently only aesthetically. Womens versus mens clothing, for example. This is a simple case of supply and demand. Women tend to be a lot more concerned about their appearance than men. As a result they drive the prices up. Market-driven society looks at it this way: if people are willing to pay for it, then it must be worth the price to them. If it were not worth the price, they would find a cheaper alternative. If enough people find a cheaper alternative, the more expensive line of products eventually becomes unprofitable. Prices of shampoos and fragrances are similarly supply-and-demand driven. If you are willing to pay extra for a fragrance that smells “feminine”, you are helping to drive the prices up. Find something cheaper if that bothers you.

Finally, there are some products that ARE essentially identical. I recall reading that the only difference between mens and womens shavers is the angle of the head and the colour of the plastic body. If you are a woman and this bothers you, by all means, buy mens shavers. I personally think that is perfectly reasonable. The product is virtually identical, will never be seen by anyone but yourself, and I do not give a care what you choose to do.

Cripes...good luck! I hope you're okay!

I'm back and I'm fine. Stupid insurance makes them treat everything as if it were worse case scenario. It's a minor infection and I have to pick up some antibiotics for it.

Hey, this would be a great and easy way to fix the problem of women earning $0.75 on the dollar when compared to men:

Either the ladies get a flat 25% discount on everything or the dudes get a flat 25% mark-up.

I'm certain it would also cause a lot of "Bosom Buddies" type hi-jinks at car dealerships and electronics stores.

The .75 on the dollar number is not a properly evaluated number. If you're going to bring up the discrepancy in pay be more general or do better research.

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!!!!???!!
No need, somebody stole my post. I agree exactly.

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?

Why are you only concerned about the prices women pay? What about auto insurance or life insurance? Cocktails (ladies night anyone?), or child support? Men get hozed also. Also, you've not shopped for men's suits lately, have you? $500 is about par, but then you have to tak on $40 for a tie, $55 for a shirt and $100 for shoes. (I give you the undies for free!) In the end women probably come out ahead, but considering I support one (and a half) I don't mind.

Women pay less for insurance. I worked in the insurance industry. Women pay less for clothes. Give a man $100 and a woman $100. Shop at the same store and see what you get. Also women pay more for there hair normally because it takes more time to do. So the arguement should be for men.

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:)

I have several problems with this statement. Why should you have to pay? You don’t. By your own admission you resist the market trend and pursue other alternatives. The fact that you can do that means you don’t have to do that.

You lament that this is a societal problem and yet continue to demand market regulation. You earlier lambasted me about the government leading the way in seatbelts, smoking and what have you. Well each and every one of those was coupled with education programs. Perhaps the money spent on market regulation would be better suited teaching children in the public school system their power as a consumer and the dangers of gender inequality.

As for showing that their prices are not biased? It’s illegal and no amount of dithering in parliament will change that, short of a constitutional amendment. The burden of proof CANNOT lie with the public in a criminal manner. Unless you are suggesting that this need not be under the prevue of the justice system, in which case I’m sure there are a lot of businesses who will eat the fine and consider it overhead.

You seem to continuously point to the lack of choice as evidence of the absence of a free market. This is not the case. A free market is simply the absence or regulation or unwarranted regulation. By introducing this legislation you would in fact be making the market less free.

Now as for why the choice does not exist? I think I can answer that rather simply. Originally inferior products existed for women. It was a source of great consternation for the feminists of that day. As those feminists increased their disposable income companies began to market better quality products to fill that void. I’m sure Vittos can remember the term (I’ve only take a couple of economics courses) but certain goods do not see increased sales when disposable income increases. Prime example, Kraft Dinner(KD). I buy a lot of KD. I like the stuff but during the summer when I work, and have more money, I buy less not more. The reason being is that there is a threshold. When my income exceeds this threshold I no longer seek a greater volume of KD but by a better product. I might pick myself up some cans of Chunky soup. As women’s disposable income increased the cheaper, in quality and price, products became less and less sought after. Now with the income level where it is the products you seek have become rarities. If you really want to see a resurgence of cheap perfume, suits, and haircuts merely increase the size of the consumer base (ie create more lower income women) or START A GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT THAT GETS MORE PEOPLE THINKING LIKE YOU.

Now as I see it your problem is with capitalism in general. Personally I dislike it as well and think that there is a fair bit of validity to your complaints. It is impractical to rectify them under the current system. Perhaps rather than creating more inefficiency in an already strained system you might become a proponent of a planned economy.


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.


That is the difference brand is a viable marketable quality. The fact that it has the different tag is a testament to that. You haven’t noticed the same within the same gender commodities? Levi Straus vs. American Eagle.

In my town the Hyundai dealership sells their subcompact for the same price as a Ford focus (which is a compact) because for what ever god awful reason those cars are more popular here right now.

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?

I’m going to make a jump of logic here and assume you’re an American. I actually agree with a lot of your arguments but here they need to be tapered against the economic reality that my taxes, via healthcare, are paying for your idiocy. Of course I say idiocy about the helmets and one has saved my life so I find the argument too complex to be resolved in simple one liners.

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.

Actually this is slightly different because of government tinkering. Insurance companies know that they can get away with charging more because the government mandate of plpd (personal liability and property damage) insurance. While I don’t agree with public insurance I don’t think that the plpd should be left in the private sector as that part of the insurance is identical for everyone and mandatory. It should be built into the cost of the license (making sure that your victim is covered even if you jumped into someone else’s car, where you were not insured)

Actually bringing up insurance kind of hurts your argument more as it is a really good example of a market inefficiency created by mandatory regulation, which your proposed gender law is.

You also have to consider that the numbers are based on whose name is on the account. We’ve already established that there exist certain gender roles in traditional society. Some of the numbers are skewed as wives will crash the family car but the insurance chalks it down to the man, who in his patriarchal wisdom put his name on every piece of paper a traditional marriage comes across. Yup,… secondary driver for me thanks.

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.

That’s more what I like to hear. Mind if I ask what the practice that was pointed out to you was?

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

June’s hairstyling Fredericton New Brunswick

now, now, don't try an demonise me. Show me I am wrong. I am open to evidence, after all, I am not a womyn so I don't know past what I see, can look up and my girlfriend can tell me

GAH! Sorry nothing really to add to this other than the fact that it irks me to no end that people assume that a male perspective on this topic is less valid. Should all the assumptions about patriarchy be absolutely correct it would have to be men who accommodate the difference in an effort to end the battle of the sexes, as we are currently standing on the throats of women. Remember all that women are not a monolithic voting bloc and decision making centre. Intelligent discourse between all people is necessary for any real progression.

WOMAN.

No one is a womyn. The word is not an accepted part of the language.

I think unfortunately it will be within the next few years. I am dismayed that the English language needs to be neutered so badly, it is the only language where this is such a prevalent concern. I mean look at French, the language is divided by masculine and feminine verbs.

Men: what aspects of your gender's expected role would you like to rid yourself of?

Women: same question.

The trap of after establishing a strong pattern of stoicism I’m expected to stay firm in that regardless of, actually nothing I’m good thanks :D

I've noticed the opposite, men tend to pay more for things. Insurance is a perfect example.

Way to tarnish the idea of a free market and crap all over the supply and demand system.

While someone cast aside the idea of boycott earlier, that’s a load of crap for clothing. Stop buying Designer ware and buy less clothing. That alone would drive down prices because the stores start losing cash as their sales go down.

Same goes with insurance for men. Do men really cause more accidents than women? (no female driver jokes please:))
They cause less, but they generally incur much more expensive damage, especially to other people's cars, which liability insurance(one of the biggest gaps between men and women in price, comparable only to the difference in medical) is concerned with.

They cause less, but they generally incur much more expensive damage, especially to other people's cars, which liability insurance(one of the biggest gaps between men and women in price, comparable only to the difference in medical) is concerned with.
It seems to have leveled out here as for price in the last 4+ years

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.
Let's not forget cars and car repairs.

Let's not forget cars and car repairs.

I’d have to say that was a societal problem. The salesman or mechanic looks at you and decides how much you know about automobiles before he charges you. Unfortunately as a woman he’s going to make certain assumptions about you over me.

By the same respects if I went in there with a dress t-shirt pocket protector and seem indecisive he’d charge me just as much as you. It all comes back to that little expression you hate, “what the market will bear.”

Hence my plan to take a night school class in auto shop before I buy my own car. If I act like I have some idea of what's going on with my car, then it shouldn't be as big a problem, alternately, I take it to my friend's dad, who is a mechanic.

Also, the haircut issue: There are places that charge different prices for men and for women, but if you go to a good salon (instead of say, first choice) then you're paying more for length. Men and women get the same price, but if you come there with hair halfway down your back, they charge you a little more.

Hence my plan to take a night school class in auto shop before I buy my own car. If I act like I have some idea of what's going on with my car, then it shouldn't be as big a problem, alternately, I take it to my friend's dad, who is a mechanic.

Also, the haircut issue: There are places that charge different prices for men and for women, but if you go to a good salon (instead of say, first choice) then you're paying more for length. Men and women get the same price, but if you come there with hair halfway down your back, they charge you a little more.

There are several mechanics in my family. So I know enough to get by and when I go out for test drives I make sure one of them is home. Test drive it to their house for an inspection :P

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.
Oh man, you should see my closet. For one thing, it's a tiny little closet, for another, I coudl shove everything over to fill less than half of it.
I buy a new shirt or two maybe 4 times a year, the only reason I have as many shoes as I do is because my mom won't let me donate any of them and she always insists that I buy a new pair for each occasion. I think my bf has more t-shirts than me, though he usually has fewer, since his brother died no one's been taking his shirts.

Men have an advantage when it comes to shoes, for most any formal occasion, men really need one pair of shoes. Like really, one pair of black dress shoes will do you. For women, you wouldn't wear the same shoes with a dress that you would with a pantsuit... You probably wouldn't wear the same shoes with one dress that you would with another either.

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?

On haircuts and clothes, I don't see how that would work. Especially with clothes, the product is essentially different. I'm all for selling unisex clothing at equal prices, but sometimes a dress will just cost more to produce than a suit. In that case, how can you justify that the producer sells two different products at the same price? It's like asking for equal prices for newspapers and radios, because anything else would be discriminating against one of the two.

Men pay more for whores and porn than women.

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?
Nonsense. A woman's haircut costs more because her hair is longer and it needs to be layered. If a man's hair is that long, or if a woman's hair is much shorter, it's the same price.

On insurance, women tend to live longer. So, as a man, should I be demanding better healthcare?

And on clothes, that's debatable. Go to most department stores and you'll see that clothes for men and women are priced about the same. Yes, there's a larger market for designer clothes for women, but there's no dress in the world which does not have a suit equally expensive.

On women making 75 cents to every dollar a man makes (I'm sure someone's mentioned this)--women also tend to get significantly better grades in school and go onto better universities. Should I, as a man, be demanding a better education?

It's funny how feminists spout such nonsense, and yet, you never hear them demanding to be in the draft. You'd ban pornographic photography, but wouldn't define erotic literature as "pornography", because demographically, women use it, men don't. Feminism, nowadays, is often not a movement for equality, but a movement for superiority, which can be attained by exploiting the distorted views of women you claim to be against. Modern feminism is the gender version of "Christian persecution."

No, men and women are equal. But if we were all to accept that, you'd get absolutely nothing. And that's how it should be. You can't expect to eliminate inequality by creating more.

The .75 on the dollar number is not a properly evaluated number. If you're going to bring up the discrepancy in pay be more general or do better research.

Hey! In case you didn't notice, there was a punchline after that set-up, not a footnote.

Hey! In case you didn't notice, there was a punchline after that set-up, not a footnote.

Yeah, I did, AFTER I replied. Sorry. I'm used to some people on here being so ignorant it's sometimes hard to tell when people are just playing around.

...

On insurance, women tend to live longer. So, as a man, should I be demanding better healthcare?...

On women making 75 cents to every dollar a man makes (I'm sure someone's mentioned this)--women also tend to get significantly better grades in school and go onto better universities. Should I, as a man, be demanding a better education?...

No, men and women are equal. But if we were all to accept that, you'd get absolutely nothing. And that's how it should be. You can't expect to eliminate inequality by creating more.

For the first.. I sometimes wonder if the reason women live longer is because men work more than women.. thus more stress? But if it is just biology, it's no one's fault, obviously

I don't see why you justify a woman making less than a man is okay because she does better than him in education? Unless you are talking about affirmative action, if a woman is better than a man.. or another woman.. or transvestite... IF she is better at working/thinking/whatever she needs to do, why should she get paid less? I think it is even more dumb because women seem to spend more, but they get paid less... But if they were paid more they could be helping the economy. As for affirmative action.. I believe that interviews should be done with blind folds and those machines that make your voice all weird but understandable =P.

Yeah, I don't want anyone to be the superpower.. If men are the superpower, the women will be upset.. if women are the superpower, the men will be upset.


Just a Thought:
One thing that upsets me about this day and age.. in the world of working..
A lot of women are starting to work, with their husbands working as well.. I don't see why companies don't allow more part time positions, so that both the husband and wife can earn still a good living but then still have a huge amount of time to spend with family and to, you know.. LIVE. If a couple wants to have both work full time, that's cool, but you know, we should allow more choices I think.. I mean.. PFFT.. FAMILY.. WHAT IS THAT?

<semi related, and sorry if it's already been said>

In Britain at least (not sure about the USA), they charge VAT on "feminine hygiene products".

I find this ridiculous and it makes me mad every time I have to buy some (seriously what else are we meant to do? just not leave the bathroom for 5 days every month? honestly) :mad:

what's VAT? some kind of tax?

what's VAT? some kind of tax?
Value Added Tax...its 17.5%

not sure what value it adds, mind

Men pay more for whores and porn than women

Only cos they buy and use more! :D

Only cos they buy and use more! :D
They should be cheeper!!!! bulk discount!!!! :p

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 agree but in a general sense. There need to be less lawsuits in general. It's all good and well to have a justice system to call on, but when everyone and their dog can sue the state or other people for profit and real criminals go free, it sucks. It's a cultural problem, way I see it, more than economical. If people weren't so trigger-happy about legal-trials-as-weapons, I think we'd all be much better off and it would be a lesser problem in business too.

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

There's always small businesses to fill the niche. It's the same reason a communist, centralized government can't effectively meet the market needs of a large nation. It's just not as efficient. Monopolization should be watched, but in and of itself isn't bad - it's just when the market itself is being controlled, and then a more efficient small business is legally forced (or forcibly forced, in the case of extremist statism) and artificially prevented from competing.

My views on that. But I think we generally agree. It sucks to have a starbucks when there was an actual quality store of some kind there.


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!

Strident and impatient, yes. But ah, no womanhood or feminism here. :)

The name thing reminds me. Maybe I had difficulty conquering the world in roleplaying on this game, because no one thinks I've got balls? IS THAT WHAT IT IS? :sniper: :p

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!!!!???!!
:headbang:

I'm totally with Russasia on this one. Different charges for different genders is NOT sexist, just LOGICAL. the companies have to make money, they donr want to lose money because one group of people want equal prices for stuff that costs the company MORE/

:headbang:

I'm totally with Russasia on this one. Different charges for different genders is NOT sexist, just LOGICAL. the companies have to make money, they donr want to lose money because one group of people want equal prices for stuff that costs the company MORE/
But what about the cases like england where there are extra taxes just for being a female hygene product? it has nothing to do with supply and demand

Or in certian areas where there is the "repunsel" price markup regardless of time or effort it takes to perform a haircut?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taoist Wisdom
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



June’s hairstyling Fredericton New Brunswick



Never lived there...

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?

Did that study go into the qualitative differences between women's versions of the same products? When I was a bachelor, I bought the cheapest shampoo I could find, didn't (and still don't) care about brand names on my clothing, and generally went for 'cheap'-including haircuts.

Since my S.O. came into my life, I've discovered that a lot of the difference betwixt men and women comes down to what they'll settle for, allow, or require in the personal maintenance department. (also what constitutes "Looking good"- If a haircut costs more than a tank of gas, I'll do it myself. Tara's hair cost thirty bucks, and took over an hour the last time she went in for a a 'trim'.)

So there's a 'willing and able' to factor in here. Women tend, in my experience to be unwilling to settle for 'good enough' on a whole host of things that men will... and marketers know this.

Men pay more for whores and porn than women.


usually because most women don't buy whores and porn :P

we think that gender based pricing is a good thing..

we think that gender based pricing is a good thing..
Why is that?

*snip*
Noted. Agreed. It's a weak argument now that I've had it analysed by others:) Again, I don't so much support the argument as I support the need for dialogue about gender roles. So, I concede:)


That’s more what I like to hear. Mind if I ask what the practice that was pointed out to you was?
Sure. I was still studying at University, and doing a research job to pay my bills. I headed up an educational research team, and we went to schools throughout Alberta. Anyway, I hired an older man to help me. He used to be a principal, so he'd had experience in Education already, though I was just getting into it.

Anyway, every time we entered a school, the principal of the school would greet my partner first, and even after being introduced to me as the team leader, he would walk around with Carl while I explained the process. I honestly didn't even notice it. I just took it for granted. It wasn't until Carl (the partner) and I walked into another school and he said, "Just watch who this principal talks to," that I realised what was happening. Fine, the principal assumed the older person was in charge. But EVERY TIME, even after the mistake was made clear, they would speak to me THROUGH Carl. That's when I started looking, and realised that the majority of teachers are now female, but the majority of administrators in schools are male.

After having taught for a number of years now, I see this field as one of the few 'good old boy clubs'. But it was that one comment that brought my attention to something that hadn't even bothered me until I'd questioned it. I hadn't even noticed it. No biggy...but it was a real landmark occasion in my feminism:)

Just a Thought:
One thing that upsets me about this day and age.. in the world of working..
A lot of women are starting to work, with their husbands working as well.. I don't see why companies don't allow more part time positions, so that both the husband and wife can earn still a good living but then still have a huge amount of time to spend with family and to, you know.. LIVE. If a couple wants to have both work full time, that's cool, but you know, we should allow more choices I think.. I mean.. PFFT.. FAMILY.. WHAT IS THAT?
Good point!

I don't see why you justify a woman making less than a man is okay because she does better than him in education? Unless you are talking about affirmative action, if a woman is better than a man.. or another woman.. or transvestite... IF she is better at working/thinking/whatever she needs to do, why should she get paid less? I think it is even more dumb because women seem to spend more, but they get paid less... But if they were paid more they could be helping the economy. As for affirmative action.. I believe that interviews should be done with blind folds and those machines that make your voice all weird but understandable =P.

?

Yes it is true that women on AVERAGE are paid less than men. But this number doesnt account for many factors. When these factors are adjusted for, women make slightly more than men.

What are these factors.

1) Types of fields of employment. Men are employed more in fields that pay better(engineer, math related ect). Women are more dominent in fields that pay less(social worker, teacher ect)

2) Women generally preffer jobs with a more flexible work environments(meaning a job that lets them take care of the kids). these jobs pay less generally. Think of a person who needs to get off at a certain time each day to pick up the kids vs a person who is willing to spend weeks at a time out of town to make sales calls. Who would you pay more?

3) Years of work. Men on average work more years(thereby having more experience) than women. This is most probably due to the fact that men dont have to take time off to give birth to and raise kids.

My mom(a doctor) took close to 10 years off to raise me. She worked at a clinic part time to keep in touch but she basically took care of me. My dad(a doctor) has been pulling 12-16 hr shifts since before I was born and I had little interaction with him(whole life as in could go for day without seeing let alone talking to him) except on weekends(Yet I saw and spoke to my mom every day).

It was worse when he was interning, but that was before the govt put limits on the hours an intern could work(he used to be 72hrs on and 48 off I think)(told me he used to catch cat naps(2hrs) on stretchers to get through a 3 day stint while on duty). My mom went through only a minimal level of this abuse(6mo -1yr) my dad did this for years in the ER even after he wasnt an intern. He still takes naps in the car between offices, he has 3 though he doesnt go to every one every day.

Even if they were the same of type of doctor(they arent) which one do you think would earn more? Which one would you pay more?

3) The degrees that women get are generally less rewarded than those of men. By this I mean that women tend to go for degrees in the "soft" sciences while men are more prevelent in the "hard" science. Whether this is biological or cultural is a debate for another thread. but results are results. The hard science degrees generally pay better. Dont like that? tough, life is life. The market pays what it must for the skills it requires.

Is there a difference in pay? You bet. My moms salary wouldnt cover my dads malpractice insurance, let alone the tax bill.

Noted. Agreed. It's a weak argument now that I've had it analysed by others:) Again, I don't so much support the argument as I support the need for dialogue about gender roles. So, I concede:)



Wow, someone conceded a point, and it only took 24 pages of people repeatedly stating the same argument in different ways.

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.


This is the main reason prices are different. In general, women are willing to pay more. They may complain but in the end a lot of women will pay $50 for a blouse. Most men. on the other hand, will continue to wear the shirt thats falling apart, rather than spend even a bare minimum to replace it.

My mom(a doctor) took close to 10 years off to raise me. She worked at a clinic part time to keep in touch but she basically took care of me. My dad(a doctor) has been pulling 12-16 hr shifts since before I was born and I had little interaction with him(whole life as in could go for day without seeing let alone talking to him) except on weekends(Yet I saw and spoke to my mom every day).

It was worse when he was interning, but that was before the govt put limits on the hours an intern could work(he used to be 72hrs on and 48 off I think)(told me he used to catch cat naps(2hrs) on stretchers to get through a 3 day stint while on duty). My mom went through only a minimal level of this abuse(6mo -1yr) my dad did this for years in the ER even after he wasnt an intern. He still takes naps in the car between offices, he has 3 though he doesnt go to every one every day.


I think i know which one i'd prefer to treat/diagnose me. the one who has a full nights sleep and doesnt need to nap in their car!

Bloody hell, you still get away with this in the US? You value tired doctors? Hell, once you've trained here, no doctor would be required to take this crap, man or woman.

Many are campaigning even for the housemen's hours to be normal ones.

And you think because he worked like a demon, he has no relationship with his children and possibly opened himself up to multiple malpractice suits though overtiredness is the better doctor? :D

I think i know which one i'd prefer to treat/diagnose me. the one who has a full nights sleep and doesnt need to nap in their car!

Bloody hell, you still get away with this in the US? You value tired doctors? Hell, once you've trained here, no doctor would be required to take this crap, man or woman.

Many are campaigning even for the housemen's hours to be normal ones.

And you think because he worked like a demon, he has no relationship with his children and possibly opened himself up to multiple malpractice suits though overtiredness is the better doctor? :D
No but I think he may have more both real world medical experience and a greater depth of knoledge ... if he caught up on his sleep I would take him any day

I think i know which one i'd prefer to treat/diagnose me. the one who has a full nights sleep and doesnt need to nap in their car!

Bloody hell, you still get away with this in the US? You value tired doctors? Hell, once you've trained here, no doctor would be required to take this crap, man or woman.

Many are campaigning even for the housemen's hours to be normal ones.

And you think because he worked like a demon, he has no relationship with his children and possibly opened himself up to multiple malpractice suits though overtiredness is the better doctor? :D

You clearly do not have the slightest clue.

My mom works for the Department of health now as a school doctor.

My dad is a surgeon and one of the better ones in NYC. You couldnt find a major NYC hospital who doesnt know who he his.

He worked his ass of(still does at 65+ years). Our Radiologist(employed in one of his clinics) freely admits thats my dads readings are better than his(and my dad isnt a radiologist) but he has more experience and therefore more skill in the field.

In any case, the point of this was about disparate pay for men and women. The example of my parents was only used to illustrate why there are many reasons beyond bias why a man and a woman are paid differantly and this isnt encompassed by simply looking at total average pay.

And as to US doctors vs Canadian.. please..

I know a bunch of Canadian doctors here in the US. The good ones come here. Do you know why? Because they make MORE MONEY. The semi incompetant ones stay up north. My pops clears many times what his counterpart would in Canada. Logically speaking, why would you stay in Canada if you could make much more down south.

Given the pay differential and the govt restrictions, do you honestly believe that the good doctors are staying in Canada? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you. A big one in Brooklyn..cheap too.


EDIT: I just want to say something about our differances in philosospy

I just started my own business. Me and my partner easyily work 14 hour days right now. It never occurs to me that I am working too much, if anything I feel that there is not enough time and I am not getting enough done. When we were working out the VC funding part I was working easily 17hr days Sat and Sunday included for 2 weeks.

Socialist people (like Canadians and Europeans) dont understand this. When a man does something that he believes in and is also rewarded for it, time/sleep/off time ect dont matter. I go to work when I am sick, I go when I am exausted. Why? because it is a thing I believe in and enjoy doing. Unlike people who view working as a thing they must do to pay the bills. My employees take sick days, I havent yet found myself sick enough to bunk work.

To a capitalist, work isnt something you do to "get by". Its a thing to take pride in. Take pride in your work, or forever complain/wonder why there are people who are better off than you.

Just to break in here...gender roles being at the heart of the issue, a thread now exists to look just at those roles:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=406816

You clearly do not have the slightest clue.

No, i'm only a trained radio therapist who also worked for the BMA (British medical Association) for 2 yrs. I know crap obviously.

And i'd still take the non-workaholic doctor who sleeps and possibly has relationships outside of work, over the one who doesnt.

My mom works for the Department of health now as a school doctor.

Yes, but is the job worthy of her? why is she in such a low paying job being that she's trained? Shouldnt she still have a chance (now her children are grown) to take the surgical ruote her husband did? Maybe she has more important things in her life than working herself into an early grave.

I just started my own business. Me and my partner easyily work 14 hour days right now. It never occurs to me that I am working too much, if anything I feel that there is not enough time and I am not getting enough done. When we were working out the VC funding part I was working easily 17hr days Sat and Sunday included for 2 weeks.

I own my own business too. But i dont kill myself for it or nuglict my family.

Socialist people (like Canadians and Europeans) dont understand this. When a man does something that he believes in and is also rewarded for it, time/sleep/off time ect dont matter. I go to work when I am sick, I go when I am exausted. Why? because it is a thing I believe in and enjoy doing. Unlike people who view working as a thing they must do to pay the bills. My employees take sick days, I havent yet found myself sick enough to bunk work.

I have never taken a full day off work since i worked for myself. I took them when i worked for others but not any more. Even when i can hardly get out of bed i bloody well get my work done and i havent had more than 5 days holiday for over 4 yrs.

I am also european. i am also conservative in my beliefs. Doesnt mean i dont like my sleep, or that i would trust any doctor who lacks sleep, or that i think men are right to work their asses off. I would never ever trust the diagnosis of a houseman in the UK. They dont have the cognitive powers to diagnose on the shifts they work. Doctors are not god and should not be treates as such.

To a capitalist, work isnt something you do to "get by". Its a thing to take pride in. Take pride in your work, or forever complain/wonder why there are people who are better off than you.

I do take pride in my work, i also take pride in my family and friends. Why live life to work 14 hours a day? Live a little. I have built up 4 businesses (one in a new country, a 5th on the way) and i have never sacrificed my social or family life.

If working 14 hours a day is your thing, fine. I'd rather work efficently and still have a life outside work. It's just the way i am.

I just started my own business. Me and my partner easyily work 14 hour days right now. It never occurs to me that I am working too much, if anything I feel that there is not enough time and I am not getting enough done. When we were working out the VC funding part I was working easily 17hr days Sat and Sunday included for 2 weeks.

Socialist people (like Canadians and Europeans) dont understand this. When a man does something that he believes in and is also rewarded for it, time/sleep/off time ect dont matter. I go to work when I am sick, I go when I am exausted. Why? because it is a thing I believe in and enjoy doing. Unlike people who view working as a thing they must do to pay the bills. My employees take sick days, I havent yet found myself sick enough to bunk work.

To a capitalist, work isnt something you do to "get by". Its a thing to take pride in. Take pride in your work, or forever complain/wonder why there are people who are better off than you.

But the more you work in your business the more you get out of it. The same is not true of a mere employee. Employees only get paid for the time they work, and they only work for the money to get things that are important to them. There is a direct relationship between how important staying home is, and how much money they're going to get if they don't. You pay them enough to get them out of bed on a regular day. On a day that they were sick you'd probably get them to show up if you offered them more money.

People who can get money out of the things that are important to them are a rare and lucky few. There are a handful of people who earn a living playing video games? Would you credit them with a strong work ethic because they play video games all their lives? What's the philosophical difference between those who work playing video games, and those who weren't lucky enough to find someone willing to give them money for it?

Maddox posted his opinions on the internet for years for free. Was that a work ethic? Working for free doesn't sound very capitalist to me. We do the same thing here. But now he has a book deal becuase of it. Does THAT somehow make it a work ethic?

There are plenty of people who believe in things that just aren't profitable. Take a look at medicine for example. Which do you believe is more important. A cure for baldness, or a cure for malaria? If I was magically able to make one or the other, I'd go with malaria. Unfortunatly for me, people who need a cure for malaria don't have money to pay for it.

But the more you work in your business the more you get out of it. The same is not true of a mere employee. Employees only get paid for the time they work, and they only work for the money to get things that are important to them. There is a direct relationship between how important staying home is, and how much money they're going to get if they don't. You pay them enough to get them out of bed on a regular day. On a day that they were sick you'd probably get them to show up if you offered them more money.

Well, yes and no. My partner and I dont take any salary(except on paper) right now. We are the ones plowing money into the business(mostly in the forms of loans because there are capitalization vs taxation issues in Inida)

Employees do NOT only get paid for the time they work. Our office manager is currently being paid 20-30% less than his market rate. He is doing this because he feels that if the business works out that he will be aptly compensated. And he will, IF the business works out. There are also other advantages, he is given more responsibility and authority than he would be otherwise(in an established company). Some types of people respond to this(they want to have responsibility) others do not.


People who can get money out of the things that are important to them are a rare and lucky few. There are a handful of people who earn a living playing video games? Would you credit them with a strong work ethic because they play video games all their lives? What's the philosophical difference between those who work playing video games, and those who weren't lucky enough to find someone willing to give them money for it?


Work is work. If you are lucky enough to find a field that you enjoy, more power to you. I love playing video games and I wish I could make a living as a beta tester. But I can so I do other things that make me want to wake up in the morning.


Maddox posted his opinions on the internet for years for free. Was that a work ethic? Working for free doesn't sound very capitalist to me. We do the same thing here. But now he has a book deal becuase of it. Does THAT somehow make it a work ethic?


Yes, he did(love his site) something that gave him pleasure and he was good at it. Later on he learned to capitalize on it. The most successful people are those that do what they enjoy. Because to do something well you have to love it. I think about my job all day long. I think about it at night and I know that I dream about it periodically. Do you expect someone working 9 -5 solely for a paycheck to be able to compete with me? Come on, even if we are equally able I am still putting more time into it.



There are plenty of people who believe in things that just aren't profitable. Take a look at medicine for example. Which do you believe is more important. A cure for baldness, or a cure for malaria? If I was magically able to make one or the other, I'd go with malaria. Unfortunatly for me, people who need a cure for malaria don't have money to pay for it.


Maybe not, but if you could extract $0.01 from everyone who suffered from malaria then you would be much richer than people who charged $1000 from those that wanted to no longer be bald.

We already had a fix for malaria BTW. it was called DDT but the UN would rather see millions of children dead than a couple of bald eagles

No, i'm only a trained radio therapist who also worked for the BMA (British medical Association) for 2 yrs. I know crap obviously.

And i'd still take the non-workaholic doctor who sleeps and possibly has relationships outside of work, over the one who doesnt.

Pops gets enough sleep these days, I think he only needs like 6 hours. But I would much rather the workaholic doctor over the country club types.

And no offense, but UK doctos dont really compare to US ones. My dads 2nd eldest brother was a doctor in the UK(Manchester) but thats cause he couldnt pass the US exams. He would have preffered to have been in the US.


Yes, but is the job worthy of her? why is she in such a low paying job being that she's trained? Shouldnt she still have a chance (now her children are grown) to take the surgical ruote her husband did? Maybe she has more important things in her life than working herself into an early grave.


Worthy? I have no clue. She likes the hours and work load. Mom likes to be able to come come at 1pm and have lunch parties. She is a pediatrician and she did her stint in the critical care unit(childrens, almost broke her). She didnt like the stress and prefers this sort of work. She couldnt be a surgeon now even if she wanted. She didnt intern as one. She certainly would never want to operate on kids.


I have never taken a full day off work since i worked for myself. I took them when i worked for others but not any more. Even when i can hardly get out of bed i bloody well get my work done and i havent had more than 5 days holiday for over 4 yrs.


good for you, then you know what it is to have a good work ethic.


I am also european. i am also conservative in my beliefs. Doesnt mean i dont like my sleep, or that i would trust any doctor who lacks sleep, or that i think men are right to work their asses off. I would never ever trust the diagnosis of a houseman in the UK. They dont have the cognitive powers to diagnose on the shifts they work. Doctors are not god and should not be treates as such.


Everyone likes sleep. Beating the cra out of doctors when they are interns is intentional. Its there to weed out those who cant pull the load. I dont know what a houseman is, but I want my doctor to be tuff enough to pull the types of shifts my dad had to(the law limits it to 12 hour shifts now). By doing what he did, he showed that he had the mettle to do what it takes in adverse circumstances.


I do take pride in my work, i also take pride in my family and friends. Why live life to work 14 hours a day? Live a little. I have built up 4 businesses (one in a new country, a 5th on the way) and i have never sacrificed my social or family life.


I enjoy when I can. But making my business successful is more imprtant to me right now that anything else.


If working 14 hours a day is your thing, fine. I'd rather work efficently and still have a life outside work. It's just the way i am.


There is nothing in this discussion to say whether I am or am not working efficiently. For my business right now the time needs to be put in. And I dont mind putting in the time.

As to yours and whether or not you are working efficiently.. I have no idea, how could I

snip

Actually I kind of liked it when I was more blissfully unawares of stuff like that. I am not a proponent of ignorance in the least but since I started reading Young I’ve looked at certain things differently.

I actually find the motivations for these arguments more interesting than the arguments in and of themselves as I hope to better understand the ideology that drives them. I find Feminism very interesting but at the same time my efforts to better understand it are hindered by my gender. Try taking a women’s history class (35f vs. 5m) and when the debate starts play devils advocate, but here’s the kicker – have a penis. I play devil’s advocate a lot, not necessarily because I disagree but because through the process of having it explained and hashed out I learn. I know that these women see me as the biggest redneck that’s come their way in a long time but I actually enjoy the process of competitive debate. I am not merely sputtering a diatribe against femininity as it attempts to discover an equitable relation to masculinity. (As to me feminism is just as much about self revelation and personal gender interaction as it is political maneuvering.)

Where I started to become more aware of the process of placing some in a gender role was in a restaurant. (Smitty’s; great little chain.) When we go out to a restaurant I order for my date. Not because she’s unable or I think that I know better but because I generally enjoy the ability to provide an evening of entertainment for the woman. When she takes me on a date she runs the show, but when I take her on a date I run the show. (And when we go Dutch it’s everyone for them selves.) I could watch the waitress visibly roll her eyes when I spoke for my girlfriend. Certain assumptions where made.

As for the speaking through the male, yea I’ve noticed that. I took a friend computer shopping. She needed help, and rather than him explaining it to her I was put into a mediator role where I was pretty much running the show. Again, certain assumptions where made.

It’s little stuff like this that makes me see it as a societal, as apposed to institutional, problem.

I just got to say ... why bother quoting when you snipped the ENTIRE thing ... LOL

*snip(

Actually I consider my GP to be one of the best doctors around. She knows my medical history inside and is available to me within two days for an appointment.

I would hope some of the “good doctors” would be more interested in loyalty to their country. Barring that I would hope that some of the Hippocratic Oath might motivate them.

Let me reword this then. Let’s say the bottom fell out of the market in N. America. Would you immigrate to Europe because that’s where the money is?

I’m working towards a master’s degree in Political Science. I forfeited opportunities to go for an MBA because I feel that I could really and truly improve the region I live in. I also fully accept that an MBA would earn A LOT more than my chosen field, in both the US and Upper Canada. I however love the Maritimes and would not be comfortable leaving them knowing that I could honestly make a difference.

I just got to say ... why bother quoting when you snipped the ENTIRE thing ... LOL

Point taken, I was a bit over zealous.

Actually I would have to apologize Isanyonehome, I just realized you moved from NYC to India. So my question would be answered,….