Sometimes the bigots even genuinely have benign intentions. Some of the people who want(ed) to prevent women from taking jobs perceived as physically strenuous, or to prevent women or black people from doing work perceived as requiring intelligence, honestly thought they were providing benevolent protection, as one would by passing laws saying that six-year-olds shouldn’t run power equipment.
Oh, good grief. This is utter nonsense.
The versions marketed to men aren’t unpainted, or painted without designs. They’re just painted different colors and with different designs. Men also wear fancy belts with braids, complicated designs on belt buckles, and so on. And pretty much everything has scent added to it – just different scents. Even most “unscented” products, if you look at the label, contain masking ingredients designed to hide the natural scent of some of the other ingredients.
This is nonsense, because men pay more for the “fancier” items too! And they don’t complain about it like you are now.
It’s common sense that a pink belt with braids will cost more than a basic black or brown belt. Whether it’s for men or women. It just so happens that women are more likely to expect the belt with braids as being the standard.
In the cases where women are actually paying more for the exact same item but packaged differently…I don’t know what to tell you other than that women need to shop better.
It shows how pervasive this is, doesn’t it? The men’s version is “normal”, the women’s is “weird”. We speak “normal” English, the British and the Australians and the Indians speak “accented”. Making a crash test dummy 5’10" is normal, making it 5’5" would be weird, and so more expensive.
A brown leather bag processed to be white with pink accents and extra stitching costs extra because there is extra work involved. It is “extra” compared to the basic version.
The lack of basic reasoning skills is pervasive in this thread lol
This has been addressed over and over in this thread. Please read the thread.
Exactly.
Yet again: that is not remotely what anyone is complaining about. The lack of basic reading comprehension evident in your posts is pervasive through them.
I’m not sure where this was succinctly addressed, the thread is 168 posts long at this point. You could probably sum it up in a single sentence if you’d like…I mean, you’re taking the time to say I don’t know how to read.
And, you’re taking the time to post again and again in this thread, with comments that have already been addressed upthread. You could, instead, take the time you’re spending posting, and skim the rest of the thread; it’s not like trying to read War and Peace.
I’ve noticed, on Brit tv shows at any rate, that “partner” has become the preferred term regardless of the genders involved. I think this is a great workaround because society has a greater privilege freighting for “married” than “partnered” regardless of the length and depth of the commitment involved. A couple who’ve been married six months is generally considered to be more committed than a couple who’ve lived together twenty years and that’s kind of short sighted and goofy. I use “partner” myself in general just because it’s simpler–most of my friends are gay, non-binary and/or in unconventional relationships that are basically nobody’s business so “partner” works for every situation.
I refer to the woman my brother has been with for more than a decade now as “my brother’s partner”. I, also, stole the term from gay usage. But it’s a very useful word.
it was kinda obvious from your own suggestion, that if women were paying more it was because they weren’t shopping well enough – something that men don’t have to do, as you pretty much acknowledged.