One thing has been brought up a couple times: that this isn’t even a problem because women can “shop smarter”. In addition to the other good counterarguments, I’d like to bring up another. The way one shops smarter and overcomes deceptive marketing is by swapping information. But when women try to do that, like in this thread, they are shouted down and characterized as whiners and idiots.
Ol’ Urbanredneck is “just asking questions” again. I guess he got tired of hearing how women actually get cat-called and needed to ponder some other “so called” burden of being a woman.
I don’t think you understood my point so I’ll try to rephrase it.
I agree, the “average guy” doesn’t wear fitted or tailored clothing. But guys who need to dress better for a specific line of work, do, and it’s just as difficult and expensive for them to find well fitting clothes as it is for women. Follow me so far?
It just so happens that women are more likely to work jobs that require or benefit from wearing clothes that fit well, and as such they are more likely to complain about not being able to find clothes, or having to pay more to do it.
A lot of these jobs aren’t necessarily millionaire, “I have a personal driver” kind of jobs. Elitism and snobbery doesn’t have anything to do with it. Again, women are just more likely to need, or want to dress well than men. Get it?
Lol what?
I haven’t seen much info swapping in this thread. Mostly people saying women shouldn’t have to do that.
My thoughts exactly.
I say it just so happens that women more often have jobs that require them to wear potato sacks. My cite is my post, just like yours is.
If you have any evidence for any of your myriad claims, please provide it.
As to the point of this thread, it was a question asked by a poster about whether the pink tax exists. Since you agree that it does, I’m not sure what the point of your continued posts are, other then to accidentally offend women by seeming to imply that they are stupid consumers who enjoy getting screwed by marketing departments.
Arguing for the sake of arguing?
How much more likely? What jobs, specifically, are you talking about? I know about certain fields that are historically dominated by women–teaching, nursing, administrative work, caregiving, etc.–but none of those seem to require “clothes that fit well” more than jobs in general. Are there stats that support your claim?
If you lack statistics to support your claim, do you notice in yourself a history of, as a man, 'splaining to women the reasons why the sexist dynamics they perceive are either fictional or all their fault?
Is that “mansblaming?”
Moderating:
Please stop posting on this thread. You are threadshitting.
This is an official warning.
Couldn’t it be argued that even if there was no actual pink tax (i.e. women paying more for identical items and services), the gender gap in wages mean women are effectively paying a larger share of their income for the same things?
In any event I’m convinced after reading this thread (and other sources) that the pink tax is real.
Heck, I often worry the other way around, that labeling them FOR MEN and putting them in gunmetal-grey containers is going to sock me for extra. Anyway, I’ve been going for standard whatever’s-on-sale VO5 and Suave and H&S since my teens with no qualms about it.
In other words - its access to the women that is being marketed, the women are being commoditized, and they are getting “paid” in free drinks. Or, “if you are getting something for free, its probably because you are the commodity being sold.”
Network TV and most websites use that model, as well.
Exactly so.
On the topic as a whole
Type 1 - Same product marketed for women costs more. Bothers me, but unless there is really a difference … I buy cheap disposible unisex razors and unisex shampoo and soap.
Type 2 - Same product or service costs more for women - bugs the hell out of me. My husband and I have functionally the same haircut and have for years. His costs half to have it cut. I tend to go to Cost Cutters for the $15 it doesn’t matter which parts are under your jeans cut. When I know I have to play the game, I let my husband play it - i.e. buying a car.
Type 3 bothers me the most - particular around feminine products. Having hit menopause, its a relief not to have to buy pads any longer (except I do because being a woman of a certain age who has had a baby means I really shouldn’t go for a run without protection). Pads and tampons are expensive. Bras are expensive. And you don’t just get to skip these things (unless you are extraordinarily flat chested). Eventually I went to washable pads - which are expensive up front, but cheaper over the long term - but still expensive. There really isn’t an equivalent for men. There are other - more optional but not entirely optional - parts of being a woman - like buying makeup and having shoes to match outfits. Optional if you are in a situation where it isn’t necessary, but I almost always wore makeup to my office job and I don’t think it was really something I would have had much choice about - women who didn’t bother with makeup really had dead end careers (as did women who wore too much). I think this is changing (again, I’m of a certain age), but it was certainly the case when I was establishing myself.
I mean, aren’t we all stupid consumers who are constantly getting screwed by marketing departments?
off topic - Facebook is the king of commoditizing its own users. And we are so naive about it.
And I would argue that the time that is invested in applying makeup and coordinating outfits is a bit of a tax in and of itself as well.
As a guy, I spend maybe 30 seconds choosing which clothes have the fewest holes in them when I pick out what I will wear for the day. No one says anything about it unless I’m going to some sort of formal occasion.
If a woman were to spend that little effort, then I hear people talking behind their back disparagingly, and to their face with concern about them not taking care of themselves.