Women who want effective pockets need to buy clothing marketed to men, because the clothing marketed to women just plain doesn’t have them. (Even when there are pockets, they’re nearly always undersized and/or angled so that either it’s hard to get into them, or anything put in them falls right back out if you do anything remotely active.) Buying mens’ clothes works OK for farmers and roofers, at least for those of us who aren’t shaped like most of the clothes on the market for either gender in any case; but it doesn’t work at all for people supposed to ‘look professional’ at the office.
Interesting that you seem to assume you’re addressing only men.
I do think there is a pink tax, and I think it makes sense and is a good thing.
If you want a “personalized” version of a basic product, you usually have to pay more for it. No one is making women buy the pink iphone, or the pink deodorant, or the better fitting jeans. Women are choosing to buy those products themselves, in some cases because they simply like the appearance, and in others because they believe it gives them some advantage (better fitting clothes, better smelling hair, a phone elevates their status).
Men do the same thing when they pay extra for a stylized haircut, when they pay more for a blacked out car, and when they buy athletic fitted clothes. Men and women alike pay more for items that they believe enhance their appearance, status, or actual ability over the “basic” version.
That some people are willing to pay more for a rebranded item that is no different than the basic item is just foolishness on their part. No point in complaining about good marketing.
So you were providing a cite requested of another poster, but you won’t answer questions about how the cites are relevant because it was just to provide the cites? Do you think providing the cites was pointless? If not, can you explain how you think it’s relevant?
So maybe the so called frustration with the “pink tax” (which this thread has proven to be real) should be targeted, not at male dominated evil corporations, but at women themselves?
After all as was pointed out, women dress to impress other women. Women choose to buy things pink or with a certain smell.
Then what about stores? Lets say a couple of women decide to go clothes shopping. Will they go to the mens department at a store to find say pants with pockets or will they go to a womens department where all the sales people and other customers are women?
So why is this “pink tax” targeted at men when it really should be targeted at women?
My favorite clothing store is Duluth Trading Company. They sell work and outdoor clothing. About 10 years ago they introduced a womens department with the same general clothes like firehose pants but cut for women.
Also I noticed Amazon sells a line of tools designed for women because women have smaller hands. Yep, they are pink.
I think there’s a piece of the pink tax that women can own. However this piece
Is not it. As mentioned before, women are half the population, why should the “base model” of things appeal to male sensibilities rather than female sensibilities? It makes as much sense to have the “normal” version be pink and frilly so men can desire the higher priced “personalized” version that doesn’t make them feel emasculated.
Women are adults with agency, though so they deserve to shoulder some of the results of their own personal decisions. I think the “we want pants with pockets” claim is similar to the “we want the personalized service provided by mom & pop stores” that everyone says they want. Yes, we want it, but when push comes to shove, we’re going to shop at Walmart and choose the pants that look good, even if they have terrible pockets.
But that is shopping. A person often finds clothes at a certain store where they like the fit, price, and style and stick with that store. There are hundreds of stores out there.
BTW, there are whole lines of tools designed just for women.. They do tend to be pink which, btw, is I think good because a woman at a job site wouldnt have to worry as much about a man stealing her tools.
As was pointed out, women are charged more than men at dry cleaners, barbers, and auto mechanics. I guess they’re choosing pink auto mechanics with a certain smell.
For the other stuff, it’s just as easy to say that men are getting a discount for buying things that are black or silver with a certain smell.
Yes! It’s great, i can go all day without smelling like a man.
I’m shaped like a woman. Pants cut for men don’t fit me. I mean… They REALLY don’t fit me.
I actually buy women’s pants with useless pockets and take them to a tailor who inserts real pockets in place of the fake ones they come with. This can easily double the price of a pair of jeans. If, instead, those pants were manufactured with real pockets the difference in fabric would probably cost a penny or two.
No. See above.
And men’s pants fit men just fine. They also fit women who have no hips. That’s not most of us.
I’m about the height of an average Japanese man. I love visiting Japan. Everything feels just right. I can reach everything, i fit everywhere. I didn’t realize how much of the world is awkwardly designed for the average woman until i experienced being “default height”.
I think being a woman is like being left handed (I am both). Nothing is quite made for you, so many things right handed people take for granted just don’t quite work right. And you’re told over and over it’s only fair, there’s so few of you, you need to adapt. And in terms of handedness, I buy that. It’s true and appropriate. But it makes no sense with women.
I imagine it’s the same for people of color, and LGBTQ+ individuals. The world just isn’t made for you, and you can’t ever quite escape it.
What is remarkable is how defensive the “default normal humans” can be about that status, and how it’s natural and inherently appropriate.
Those two have wildly different ingredient lists. I have no idea if one is more expensive to make than the other, but for all I know acrylates copolymers are like gold in the cosmetics world.
