I always thought that was pretty obvious. If it was marketed as free wine spritzers or mimosas or watermelon martinis, it would at least be a little bit hidden, but it’s ‘ladies drink free’. I could be way wrong on this, but my assumption was that most of the ladies were aware they were given free booze specifically because it would lure in guys.
Just like the sitcom trope of a packed bar with a line of people waiting to get in. The bouncer doesn’t let people in based on the order they’re standing but to maintain a specific female to male ratio, say, 2:1, inside the club.
I know who definitely isn’t. Cool gotcha though.
No. They have entirely blinked out of existence, they don’t exist anywhere in the world anymore.
Or, they don’t know that the woman’s product is the same as the men’s product, or they don’t know that it costs more. How do you explain the laundry and car mechanic examples?
“Women should shop around to find shops and products that don’t discriminate against them and research which products are the same, even though they are marketed to different genders.”
Here’s the thing, that in itself is a burden. A tax, if you will.
Anyway, when come back, bring cites.
Not generally true. Business clothing items (even required by your employer) are generally not deductible as a business expense, unless they are unsuitable for regular wear (unsuitable in an abstract sense, it doesn’t matter that you wouldn’t wear it). So you can likely deduct your employer required police or postal service uniform (as long as they are either distinctive enough so that you would not wear them off-duty or you are prohibited from doing so), or certain protective clothing. But not “professional attire”. (I suppose males are more likely to work in jobs that require protective clothing or distinctive uniforms–and thus are more likely to be able to deduct their work clothes).
Edit: The earliest citation I have for this is Drill v. Commissioner in 1947. I don’t know if the ruel predates that
I am reminded of this sketch re: how products are marketed differently:
It’s not that they perceive that, it’s that there is this whole huge complex social issue of gender identity that makes it difficult for them to consider the male version. It’s not just a women thing: shampoo for men is all labelled FOR MEN now, because apparently men won’t buy generic Head and Shoulders if they worry it’s a girl product.
Telling women “well, you don’t have to use the girl product. You can use the normal person product, instead” (as Ulfreida wisely articulated it) is really ignoring the underlying issue.
Oh, cripes-- here’re yet other things I buy in the men’s section. Men’s shoes run wider, and last longer. They also tend not to have any pink on them, and I despise the color pink. Unless I am buying dress shoes, I buy men’s shoes-- running shoes, loafers, totally always buy in the men’s section.
Always buy my jeans and shorts in the men’s section as well. They fit better (I have narrow hips), and they have real pockets. If women’s jeans do have pockets, they tend to be too small to actually keep anything in.
This means I have to take up jeans a lot, because I have trouble finding the right length, but heck, I own a sewing machine. It was free too-- inherited it from my grandmother.
Men may have often bought a suit just for the office, but it’s not really true that women had the option of wearing the same thing to the office and evenings/weekends more than men did. If jeans and Tshirts /khakis and polos are what is worn to work, men can wear them evenings and weekends just as women can. If suits are worn to work, women no more want to wear them evenings/weekends than men do.
It was a rumor - only clothing that is unsuitable for regular wear was deductible and even a uniform might not qualify. My parents had to argue to deduct my father’s uniforms when they were audited- the IRS auditor said my father’s uniform pants were suitable for wearing outside of work. And they would have been - if it wasn’t for the bright blue stripe down the side of the olive green pants.
That sounds like just being a savvy shopper. Just because they market something to you doesn’t mean that it forces you to buy it, or that you have to believe the hype. If that was the case, I’d be driving a monstrous pickup truck, drinking light beer, wearing Axe body spray, and buying all manner of gray-hair masking products from “Just for Men”. None of which are true.
The laundry and mechanic ones are just jerks getting away with charging more because they think women have less complete information about what the price should be for things versus men. Taking advantage.
But for consumer goods, the prices are RIGHT THERE. So are the ingredients. If you look, you’ll notice that they’re substantially the same. Which is also generally true across brands for the same basic product. Of course they’re going to say that it’s “for women” or “For men” and tailored to your special body chemistry, or cleans off your manly stink better, but that’s, to paraphrase Elwood Blues, not lies, just bullshit. Nobody’s making anyone buy honey and mango scented shampoo made with dolphin milk versus whatever the generic Suave is.
That’s absolutely it. I have some friends, who back in our single days, were quite visually appealing- one was particularly curvy in a Jessica Rabbit way that was visible throughout the entire bar.
WE would get free drinks when we came in with those two, as in the entire party of friends, not just the two good looking women. And it was common, not just at places they knew the bartenders. I’m absolutely convinced that they thought having B & K hanging out at the bar would get more guys to come in and stay in. And it probably worked; going out with them was sometimes a parade of dipshits coming up to hit on them, if there were more women than men at the table.
I’ve already addressed this above, but I’ll do it one more time just for you. Where men can go an just buy stuff for them, women have to know that, often times, stuff for them is priced higher than the equivalent men’s stuff, but not always. They have to know which products are different and which are the same, review the prices, etc., in a way that men don’t. This is part of the extra burden they face, a tax if you will.
This is aside from the services that I cited above, where women were just flat out charged more for a service on average.
I won’t be addressing this a third (fourth? fifth) time, so if you bring up the same argument, it will go unanswered by me.
I would love for the OP to come back and say, gee, it does look like there’s a “pink tax”. Note – not a literal tax, not actually pink, and your mileage may vary, consult your doctor if it lasts for more than four hours.
Men can get honey and mango scented shampoo too.
Anyway, I don’t think that’s the point. It is not that it is scented differently. It is that it is exactly the same product, except one says “For Men” and the other says “For Women” and the women’s is more expensive.
However, I will admit that I would be perfectly willing to pay a “Men’s tax”. I use knee highs as filters on the bathtubs to keep the drains from clogging with dog hair. Also use one for the clothes washer, both at home and for work. Even used to use them for my aquarium.
If they put them in a gray and black box, and put them in the hardware area marketed as “Nylon Filters”, then I would happily pay twice the price to not have to go wandering through the women’s underwear section.
That’s what amazon is for.
Won’t they have to figure it out once or twice? I mean–women aren’t going to study and research deodorant or disposable razors each and every time to go into the store to buy some are they?
Pardon me for the hijack, but you may have just solved my shower problem. Thanks!
This thread is exhausting.
Products for over 50% of the population are “specialized”, and the ones for under 50% of the population aren’t?
– I see that Ulfreida has also noticed this.
To the extent that that’s true, I’d classify that as a pink tax in itself.
There are also cases in which it isn’t true. Are the dry cleaners in question charging extra for cleaning harder to clean fabrics or more fragile clothing? That wouldn’t be a pink tax. Charging based on whether it’s marketed as a woman’s or a man’s shirt isn’t the same thing.
Have you read the thread? Your ignorance might be fought by doing so. There are repeated and multiple cites about different prices being charged for the same shirt. And again, they’re not charging by material or construction, but by gender.
On shirts, I think a womens “blouse” meaning a top with extra fringe, decorations, and buttons is different than just a plain shirt and would have to be pressed or ironed by hand do make it look right. I dont know I almost never do dry cleaning. All our stuff just goes in the washer.
If some cleaner really is charging extra for the same item I think they should be called on it because thats price discrimination.
On hair care products I know my wife only buys special brands purchased just from salons whereas I buy over the counter.