Research Shows That Female Products Cost More Than Male Products, And If That Upsets You You're An Idiot
Independent- Research by The Times found price disparities across hundreds of gender-targeted items, including toys, clothes and beauty products, with those marketed at women a staggering 37 per cent more expensive on average.The newspaper found “female” razors and “for her pens” among the products that appeared to have a premium just for being pink, although boys’ underpants were more expensive than girls’.
“Retailers have got to explain why they do this,” she said. “At a time when we should be moving towards a more de-gendered society, retailers are out of step with public opinion.”
Belinda Phipps, chair of feminist campaign group the Fawcett Society, wrote: “Gendered products are just a way of extracting more cash from you it seems.”
Men’s clothing was mostly cheaper than women’s for equivalent styles. In Topshop, a roll-sleeve white T-shirt for women costs £12 but a Topman roll-sleeve white T-shirt is £8.
In toiletries, shampoo, conditioner, shower gel and bath products targeting women tended to carry higher prices, but specifically male-marketed skincare products can be significantly more expensive than equivalent women’s or unisex items.
Comparisons of male and female versions of almost 800 items showed that women’s cost 7 per cent more on average across toys, clothing, accessories, personal care, home and health.
Guess what ladies, you reap what you sow. All these years of placing such a premium on more expensive clothes and beauty products have finally had an effect on the pricing. Retailers aren't sexist. They are worried about their bottom line. They aren't trying to keep women down. In fact, increasing the cost of primarily female products is their way of marketing towards them. You now why I am not upset that a woman's undershirt costs $5 dollars more than a man's undershirt? Mostly just because a woman is more likely to buy a $15 tee shirt than she is a $10 tee shirt based solely on perceived quality. Men's undershirts are only valued lower because businesses know that men are more likely to buy undershirts that are wrapped in plastic, sold in sets of six, and cost about $3 each.
Can we be honest with ourselves here? Women are superficial beings. I have a friend that bought his girlfriend an $800 purse for Christmas. He probably could have bought a purse that was just as nice for $100, but he didn't, and do you know why? Because his girlfriend probably would have spit in his face. Women love expensive shit. They can't judge something from how nice it looks on the surface, they have to judge how nice it is by the price tag. A price tag that is often inflated because that inflation makes it more appealing to the fairer sex. You know my favorite gift from Christmas? A hoodie. A fucking hoodie. You could buy a woman the most comfortable, fashionable hoodie on the planet and she would consider it an insult unless the price was double to triple what any normal sweatshirt should cost. The idea that clothing stores are trying to reenforce some gender price gap is absolutely ludicrous. Get the fuck out of my face. They are trying to sell the most shit, make the most money, and stay in business. It's females (or feminine males) that frivolously spend far too much money on shoes and clothes. It's women that have 90 different types of top-of-the-line lotions and creams. It's women spending hundreds of dollars on shit they don't need. If there is one thing I have learned about bargain shoppers, it's that most of them don't have vaginas. Why put cheaper feminine products on the rack if women's instinctual need to be high maintenance is sure to keep them there?