Depends on the bar/restaurant.
You’re shopping in the wrong stores, my friend.
I’ve bought running shoes two or three times a year for a decade, and I’ve never had to worry about remembering my shoe size in Hokas versus my size in Brooks versus my size in New Balances.
Arguable, but not the point of the thread. The OP was asking if the “pink tax” existed; it does, as multiple posts have shown.
Maybe women are shopping in the wrong stores, too 
Okay. I have your measure now. Won’t be wasting anymore time with you.
Oh, you mean you found the inconsistencies in your position. In that case, I’m glad I could help!
I’m lucky. Men’s pants fit me. Except for needing to be taken up, but that I can do myself. Or I can buy them online, and find the right length.
When I was in my 20s, and slimmer, boys’ pants fit me, and I could get the right length.
And Oh, my gawd, did boy’s pants in the 1990s have pockets. I loved those pants.
FWIW, women’s pants don’t fit me very well. They just look weird on me.
You don’t want to be bothered to read the thread, so you want me to be bothered to hunt back through those same 168 posts and sort them out for you?
That’s actually a lovely example of one of the multiple things wrong with your simplistic argument. And no I can’t sum them all up in a single sentence; because those multiple things are multiple, and depend on the item, the way it’s sold, and the circumstances of the particular woman doing the purchasing.
Look. You could read the thread, and seriously consider what various people have said in it; in which case you might learn something. Or you could not read the thread, and not post in it. Or you could do what you’ve been doing, which is to post in the thread from a position of ignorance, both of the subject as a whole and of what’s been said in the thread. It’s up to you. But don’t expect me to take anything you say seriously when you choose the last of those options.
I did read the thread, and I’m not posting from a position of ignorance.
My argument is simple because the “problem” is a simple one. You might not like that, but having difficulty accepting reality certainly isn’t a rare problem and you can rest assured you will find many who join you in your position!
Not as harshly as women do, though, which is the point.
Assuming that’s true…
Is the argument then, that because appearance is more important for women, they shouldn’t have to spend as much to look good?
I wouldn’t agree with that, either.
You apparently didn’t bother to read any of the posts or links with evidence directly contradicting your position, though.
For example, look at the link in my earlier post about Ace Hardware selling travel kits containing a few personal items which are identical in the “His” and “Hers” versions. The only difference is the color of the packaging (blue vs. pink) and the price.
Nobody’s arguing that women can’t in many cases avoid the unfair “pink tax” of gendered marketing by simply buying the cheaper “men’s” version of the item. The issue of this thread is whether such an unfair “pink tax” exists in the first place, and the responses have offered ample evidence that indeed it does.
So you can ease up on your defensive spluttering that “women don’t HAVE to buy more expensive female-coded versions of products if they don’t CHOOSE to!” Yes, Captain Obvious, we all already knew that.
Lol then what’s the problem
What was the point of this thread? Obvious thread is obvious?
Did you not even read the OP?
If you’re now upset that you’ve wasted your time and everyone else’s in this thread trying to argue a fundamentally different issue from the one the OP was asking about, well, deepest sympathy and all, but that’s on you. We did advise you to read the thread.
Reading cuts too much into his arguing time.
I’m not upset at all, I find the topic, and the various points of contention that surround it fascinating.
It’s amazing to me the mental gymnastics on display to make a point of a “water is wet” type of statement, and I enjoy discussing those gymnastics with those involved.
I’d add, threads often veer far away from the prompting question. In fact, often times a question or statement is posed to provoke further, perhaps somewhat unrelated discussion.
I don’t think anything is wrong with that and a lot of times it’s necessary to open a dialog that way. But I do think it’s a little silly to disqualify an argument later on, after the thread has deviated from the original post, simply on the grounds of being “off topic.”
I’m still curious what “abuse” you were referencing. Was there actually any, or were you just throwing that out there to obfuscate the discussion taking place?
Jeez. You still haven’t figured out that was a sarcastic joke?
I hadn’t, sarcasm is often difficult to detect with strangers over text. I’ve never interacted with you on this forum before, so I didn’t know that was something you’d make a joke about. Thanks for clarifying.
There’s an old Monty Python sketch. Monty Python was a British TV show from the late '60s or early '70s. In this sketch, there’s a person who wants to buy an argument. The woman working the door tells him to go into a certain room and the guy there, Graham Chapman, starts hurling invective at him. The guy complains that he just wanted an argument. “Oh, that’s room 12A. This is abuse.” So, the guy goes to the other room.
In that other room, the argument consists of the professional arguer just simply contradicting what the protagonist says, with no evidence or anything (much like you’re doing here). The guy says, that’s not an argument, it’s just contradiction. And, hilarity ensues.
You’re posting from a world in which it’s apparently normal to buy fitted polo shirts, and contrast that to buying “standard fit, crappy ones,” in which getting your jeans tailored is a normal activity and contrast that to people in “menial” jobs who don’t do that.
Straight up, dude, your understanding of normal market behaviors is not showing up in this thread. Perhaps instruct your chauffeur to slow the limousine down next time he drives past the grocery store, and ask him to narrate the economic behavior of the hoi polloi?