Let's "Ax the Pink Tax" (FOR THE LAST TIME) - Shoe0nHead thoroughly debunks this blatant lie.

[+]wisty1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

If you demand a special product for your own gender, you pay more.

Go to a car dealership and ask for a really "manly" car, and see if they give you a really good value deal. Or get a really "manly" gaming pc. Or just about anything.

If you insist on purchasing something that's needlessly gendered, you're showing the company / salesman that you're entitled and insecure, and will probably pony up a bit of extra cash to make yourself feel better.

[–]Pseudonymble 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Who do you know that "needlessly demands" special products? When I go to the store to buy shampoo, I don't want a bottle that smells like flowers. Instead, I want something that smells manly. As far as I can tell, women do the exact same thing. They don't want one that smells manly, they want one that smells feminine. How do men and women differ in that regard? So why then, given that there are practically equal numbers of men and women, does a female scented product cost more than a male scented product? I've gone as far as reading the ingredients on deodorant labels, and while I acknowledge that the women's product has one or two more things that make the power feel softer, for example, I call total BS on the idea that such additions result in a 3.99 stick for women and a 2.99 stick for men.

[–]Zepherite 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pazz 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zepherite 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A supposed 'cop-out' answered with what is 100% a cop-out answer.

'Capitalism? Ridiculous!' is not an argument.

Here's some evidence to back up my assertion:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9516.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjDrMfFl9LaAhWiIMAKHbfZAHwQFjAFegQIABAB&usg=AOvVaw1bJaaa-GTPMSy35SeaBMaI

Interesting data from this first study shows that women deem personal care and cosmetic products as more important to their daily life than men do. Almost like women place more value on it, something market forces are more than happy to cater to.

It also shows that women believe it improves their quality of life more than men think it does theirs. Almost like women place more value on these types of products. Are you seeing the theme yet?

Similarly, women find it helps with their self esteem and makes them more confident in social interactions.

So there's the first side of the coin. Women, with their own voices, value cosmetic products more highly than men.

With just that, it's not difficult to see why women might buy more and be willing to be spend more than men.

But lets look at actual monetary figures:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/22/gender-based-pink-taxes-women

The guardian article (that misses the point in the same way that you do) here says that women pay on average 13% more for cosmetics.

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/07/men-spending-almost-much-women-beauty-products-fashion_n_1945960.html

An interestingly titled article by Huff post claims that men spend nearly as much as women while the actual values (£1786 for men and £2462 for women) show women are spending 38% more than men.

You'll notice that the supposed 13% 'pink' tax no where near accounts for the difference, i.e. women just buy more of these products.

So women see these products as more important, they value them more, they report increases in quality of life more often and they buy more.

Its just not that much of a stretch of the imagination that cosmetic companies are taking advantage of market forces.

As is often the case, women already have the power to stop this. They just need to start making choices that bring them closer to their goal. You know be powerful women with agency. Not damsels that can only complain whilw others do the acting.

They just need to stop buying the products. Buy men's equivalents wherever you can, buy cheaper supermarker 'own' brands. Whatever. Just stick it to the companies where it hurts: their bottom line.

Nothing will happen though. As usual, a loud minority of women will utterly abandon their own agency and just complain about it instead.

[–]ortho_engineer 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

There are so much more to COGs (costs of goods) than raw material prices.

First, tooling/capital. I dont know how deodeorant is made, but my guess is it goes through some sort of molding process. Different materials have different processing requirements, which may mean more complex and expensive tooling. Maybe the "softener" materials have different process requirements? Again, ive never manufactured deodorant, but i have developed a lot of plastic parts - and to just say "a part should cost the same in tooling regardless of which plastic you choose" is batshit ridiculous. Different polymers have different time/temp/pressure/dimensional rewuirements, and im sure to at least some measurable extent this also applies to deodorants with and without softeners.

Second, manufacturing volume. If a company sells more mens deodorant than women's, then it is going to manufacture more men's than women's... which directly decreases the cost to make the men's compared to women's. When i get things quoted to manufacture i always specify various volume ranges. The more parts you build, the less time you spend setting up the machines up compared to the full run time. Also, the more you make the more of a discount on material you get. The more parts you build, the cheaper they are. Period.

Further, all of the above gets compounded further when applying profit margins. Profit margins are generally applies as a flat percentage, with a bit of tweaking to get a nice number at the end ( e.g. a 30% profit may result in $3.75, which may be rounded up to $3.99... or $3.17 down to $2.99)... point is, COG disparity between men's and women's get compounded further when applying the profit margins.

I could go on, but the point should be clear that prices are affected by a lot more than just raw material, and all of which have nothing to do with the sex of the user.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ortho_engineer 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RaptorFalcon 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]BaconCatBug[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gbBaku 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RaptorFalcon 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]eulerup1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

That's what many women do. Sometimes the products are shelved in different sections, and it takes extra time/ effort to shop the other section.

[–]RaptorFalcon 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]eulerup1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but it's women paying the cost for sexist pricing.

[–]RaptorFalcon 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]eulerup1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

Until men are doubling their personal care shopping time by looking through the women's section as well, I'll consider it unequal.

[–]RaptorFalcon 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]eulerup1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

No, because, shocker, women doing the same shopping as you have to do the exact same thing. You're making arguments even you know are bullshit.

In a different example in the study, identical scooters (other than that the boys' version was red and the girls' was pink) were sold for 30% more in the girls' version. Certainly, there would be a social cost to the kid for just "picking the different product", no?

[–]RaptorFalcon 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

No, because, shocker, women doing the same shopping as you have to do the exact same thing. You're making arguments even you know are bullshit.

Ok, soooooo you are shocked that you have to search for better prices and that is sexist? You are an idiot.

In a different example in the study, identical scooters (other than that the boys' version was red and the girls' was pink) were sold for 30% more in the girls' version.

How do you know the cure time is the same for each color paint? How do you know the exact paint specs/clear coat/heated curing? How do you know the lighter color doesn't need more applications? How do you know there isn't a higher demand for the pink version thus driving the higher price?

You would be the same person saying "Why does the DoD pay $1.50 for a nut when I can buy one at Home Depot for 20 cents," and neglect that stress/strain diagrams, loading tests, heat stress tests, and manufacturing tolerances matter for the DoD compared to a 20 cent nut, and those $1.50 nuts are certified in those areas...your house doesn't need that.

You sound like an idiot.

[+]eulerup1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

How do you know the cure time is the same for each color paint? How do you know the exact paint specs/clear coat/heated curing? How do you know the lighter color doesn't need more applications? How do you know there isn't a higher demand for the pink version thus driving the higher price?

When presented with evidence that items targeted at women have systemical higher prices than items targeted at men, you are the one whose immediate reaction is to think of every possible explanation that could possibly be the reason.

I'm not a paint expert, but I would imagine that all of these properties for pink are somewhere between those for white and those for red, which makes it non-sensical that pink items have the highest prices.

Obviously, if the price of the pink item is higher and that's sustainable, market research has gone into it. But I think it's a sign of deeper issues (like most inequalities dismissed by men as 'just the way things are') that affect men and women.

May I remind you that the video in question here was arguing that women's products are not more expensive. The comments in this thread have turned to "even if they are, it's not a big deal." Just keep moving the goal posts and you'll never lose an argument again.

You sound like an idiot.

k

[–]Pseudonymble 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]James32015 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlondieMonster89 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[+]eulerup1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (27 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't change your beliefs based on this video. Her "debunking" consisted of selectively quoting a study in a misleading way, and appealing to sexist stereotypes of both men and women.

[–]atred 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]eulerup1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

Did you see the study I linked to?

[–]atred 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Did the study make the claim that "same" products rather than "similar" were priced differently?

The only thing I see "same" in the document is the claim of "same haircut" which I find that a bit doubtful, if anything women have a lot more hair on average on the head, and how many women actually get the "same" haircut as men? Not to mention that hair stylist even if they give the "same" haircut they might have different opportunity costs, if it's a stylist that gives expensive haircuts even if they give a simple one they charge for their time, so that might explain the difference in cost. So it's not always comparing apples with apples even if superficially it looks like that. Also, how often do women get haircuts? I mean men might need to get a haircut once a month, a woman might need one every 3 months or more, of course the price can be different because there are always other factors to consider. But let's simplify and make it all dumb and call it "pink tax".

[+]eulerup1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

There were many examples of products that were identical other than color/ branding that are priced higher in "girl" colors/ interests than "boy" colors/ interests.

At the end of the study, they actually do list all of the items they compared and many of them have identical names.

Here's an example from the study, since you won't click on the pdf. Since they are different colors/ patterns, the items are not the same. However, by any reasonable standard, this would be a fair comparison.

[–]gbBaku -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]eulerup1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I meant a princess vs a firetruck, not Walmart store brand vs Gucci. Come on.

[–]gbBaku 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+]eulerup1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (16 children) | Copy Link

She claims the source as one of her own, too. She repeatedly talks about how it says "SIMILAR" and then (unfoundedly) makes the assertion that they were comparing fancy women's products to "basic" men's products because women care and men don't. However, that's not at all what the study was doing.

As far as I can tell, the argument in the video breaks down to:

This is an ad that's playing on my site that's making misleading claims
Here in one of their own sources is "proof" that the claims they're making aren't backed up [selectively cite the source, ignoring all actual content]
Broad generalizations based on sex (ie sexist statements) that "support" the mischaracterization of the article she just made

Is there something I missed?

At no point does she challenge the actual research done in the article. If she were to (for example) go through and find that systematically there was a different comparison that could have been made that wasn't that would have materially changed the results of the actual study that was done, that would be debunking the argument. Selectively citing one word and then making up claims based on her own pre-existing sexist assumptions is not debunking.

I cede the argument that the statements in the video that the "exact same thing" is false, because inherently if one version is pink and the other is blue, they aren't the exact same thing. That doesn't mean the "pink tax" doesn't exist.

[–]BlondieMonster89 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[+]eulerup1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link

I linked to the NYC study in many of my arguements. If you actually look at it, you'll see that when they say "similar" they mean a pink scooter is a different price than a blue scooter. If you reject the premise that's (potentially) evidence for discriminatory pricing based on sex, I'm not sure how this is a good faith argument.

The NYC study you linked to actually does provide figures, just not aggregated across product categories. In most cases, the average women's product was 7-8% more expensive than the men's version.

I agree that the video she's responding has issues, but that doesn't mean the pink tax doesn't exist. It's the classic case of refuting your opponent's weakest argument and thinking you've proven them wrong.

Do you have any issues with the methodology or claims made by the NY study?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

The movement specifically is citing a source that is 24 years old. You see NOTHING that could be wrong with these statistics given the way our market has changed in basically every fathomable way in that time?

Edit: You realize your source here links to the exact same study that uses the same figure from the same study "ax the pink tax" is from, right? You basically just went in a full circle to get to the same study.

Edit edit: Just to make sure I get what you're saying here. With their methodology, they found an 8% average, yet somehow it's 42% female products are more, 40% equal, and 18% male products are more. Interesting extrapolation of data we have here.

So for those interested, the NYC study literally is using the 1994 study and also saying

Over the course of a woman’s life, the financial impact of these gender-based pricing disparities is significant. In 1994, the State of California studied the issue of gender-based pricing of services and estimated that women effectively paid an annual “gender tax” of approximately $1,351 for the same services as men.1 While DCA’s study does not estimate an annual financial impact of gender pricing for goods, the findings of this study suggest women are paying thousands of dollars more over the course of their lives to purchase similar products as men.

TRIPLE EDIT Apparently neither you nor the ax the pink tax bothers to do their research. https://www.target.com/s?searchTerm=radio+flyer+my+1st+scooter+girl Seems I was right that some things have changed in the years since 9'4 or October of 2015.

Continue with their sources of Abercrombie jeans sourcing:

Men's Women's

Interesting "differences" there.

Do your actual research rather than taking face value of a research study so biased it's terribly obvious. Also take into consideration that the things claimed are constantly in flux. Especially if the information being provided is based on a 24 year old study being quoted by a study that is 2.5 years old and already outdated.

[+]eulerup1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I agreed the video has issues. The 24-year-old study is different than the one I am repeatedly pointing to.

I find no issues with the NYC.gov study, which I think pretty clearly shows a sex difference in prices. Do you disagree?

Edit: You realize your source here links to the exact same study that uses the same figure from the same study "ax the pink tax" is from, right? You basically just went in a full circle to get to the same study.

It was one of the studies, yes. I should have been more explicit about that. I'd say their main source is the Boomerang analysis.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]eulerup1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

RE Edit: target may not be charging different prices but amazon is.

walmart actually goes the other way.

I agree the 1994 study is out of date. I hope you're right and this has disappeared in the last 2.5 years. I'm not about to go replicate an entire study on my Monday afternoon, but hopefully, more research on consumer pricing comes out.

There were hundreds of items in that study, and finding one that's now priced the same doesn't necessarily invalidate the whole thing. When shopping I've anecdotally noticed the men's version of something being cheaper much more often than the other way around, but, of course, that's not proper research.

[–]FatFingerHelperBot 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gbBaku 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

walmart actually goes the other way.

It's almost like the pink tax is bullshit!

Both takes are actually good business decisions. Parents wouldn't buy their sons the pink one, so they pay up for the gender neutral one. If parents want to buy the pink version for their princess, those people will pay up for that.

Now let's also take into account, that amazon sells the more expensive version cheaper than walmart sells the cheaper version. That tells me that the manufacturer probably also values the pink one more, which makes sense for multiple reasons: The scooters aren't stored unpainted. They are likely made by a specific colored plastic. You make more of the gender neutral version, as you expect that will sell more. That makes the pink one a specialty item, with a more limited supply (also supported by the fact that you can't buy the pink one anymore at walmart). That makes it more valuable, thus the price tag on it!

Even if we assume they can be made by the same machine, making the manufacturing of the pink ones more efficient (still not as efficient if you were only making one version with only one color), the materials probably cost more per unit, as you bought overall less of them, as you made less of them. Because, again, you expect the market to buy more of the gender neutral version.

And we haven't talked about the fact that they might not even be the same plastic. The pink one might be made from a lighter plastic, making it easier to carry around, and also break more easily (girls are probably not as rough with them as boys).

But again, all this is redundant, because you yourself have provided a counterexample of the pink tax.

Business decisions will always have better reasons for pricing than sexism. Another example, women's clothing usually cost more to both design and make (except underwear and suits, which are more expensive for men - further proving that sexism isn't what is important when it comes to pricing). If they wouldn't, they lose out of value from that. That is, make less money because of sexism. You think anyone in charge would allow that?

At the end of the comment, I just want to say that I don't argue against you (I'm not even sure if you are convinced the pink tax exists or not), but I argue against the pink tax existing.

[+]eulerup1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

What? The point of "the pink tax" is that women's products are more expensive than men's. One counterexample of one firm for one product does not invalidate the whole premise.

Unless someone is making an argument that something always/never happens, anecdotal evidence does not stand up to proper research. This applies beyond the pink tax. I actually didn't have an opinion on it going into this, and don't really now, but the quality of argument against it, in the video and in the comments here was abysmal.

[+]eulerup1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Edit edit: Just to make sure I get what you're saying here. With their methodology, they found an 8% average, yet somehow it's 42% female products are more, 40% equal, and 18% male products are more. Interesting extrapolation of data we have here.

That's not what I'm saying. On pages 7-12 of the study, they provide tables for each category of item they analyzed. They summed the total cost of the items and compared women vs men. (This is not a perfect comparison, but as the saying goes "good enough for government work".) I eyeballed the total lines in the tables and that's where my 7-8% average cost difference came from.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]eulerup1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

You're right that I was placing too much weight in that study. That said, the video is itself misleading and does not make at all compelling arguments for the case it was trying to make.

Thanks for an actual civil discussion.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlondieMonster89 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]BaconCatBug[S] 29 points30 points31 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Apexbreed 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BaconCatBug[S] 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DownTheFoxHoleWeGo 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]vonthe 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Apexbreed 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fengpi 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]curlyconscience 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]teatime89 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Let's "Ax the Pink Tax" (FOR THE LAST TIME) - Shoe0nHead thoroughly debunks this blatant lie.
Author	BaconCatBug
Upvotes	98
Comments	67
Date	April 23, 2018 4:17 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/8e8sv5/lets_ax_the_pink_tax_for_the_last_time_shoe0nhead/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/lets-ax-the-pink-tax-for-the-last-time-shoe0nhead.902411 https://theredarchive.com/post/902411

Comments