Poll of the Day > I had to shave my face this morning with a ladies razor

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mine had a spot of rust on it so I opened up a pack of my wife's. It wasn't great to use but it got the job done.
---

Wait, does it matter if your razor has rust on it? I just rinse it off and shave anyway.

Am I gonna get tetanus?
---

Razors are all sharp metal. I stopped buying "women's" razors because they cost more for no good reason.

Zangulus posted...

Buy from dollarshaveclub. We got a four blade razor, 4 cartridges, and handle for $10.

They're really good yo.

Sounds like a good deal. I like how they advertise fairly regardless of gender because it really shouldn't matter.
---

Should get the job done? "Lady razors" only became a thing after WW2, because soldiers started using their own razors again and producers had a surplus of a product they had been able to sell a lot of during the war.
---

A typical disposable will usually last me about a little over a month if I rinse and dry it well.

The lady razor was difficult to use because of all the extra plastic (i.e. hard to use under the nose).
---

RCtheWSBC posted...

I stopped buying "women's" razors because they cost more for no good reason.

Because they are considered "specialty items", same thing with woman's deodorant.

shadowsword87 posted...

RCtheWSBC posted...

I stopped buying "women's" razors because they cost more for no good reason.

Because they are considered "specialty items", same thing with woman's deodorant.

Exactly! I buy a 2-pack of Degree for men for $5.49, while one stick of Degree for women costs $5.79. It's bullshit.
---

RCtheWSBC posted...

Exactly! I buy a 2-pack of Degree for men for $5.49, while one stick of Degree for women costs $5.79. It's bulls***.

There are some fun stats according to this podcast (and apperently an article too)

Studies have shown that girls toys cost more than boys toys 55% of the time.

Girls clothing cost more than boys clothing 26% of the time.

Women's clothing costs more than men's clothing over 40% of the time.

And even senior home health care for women costs more 45% of the time.

Women routinely pay over 25% more for haircuts than men – even though both take the same amount of labour.
...
Women paid a whopping 48% more for nearly identical shampoos as men. Razors and lotions cost 11% more for women. Body washes cost 6% more if you are female.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/undertheinfluence/guys-and-dolls-gender-marketing-1.4068879

Smarkil posted...

Wait, does it matter if your razor has rust on it? I just rinse it off and shave anyway.

Am I gonna get tetanus?

Rust itself doesn't cause tetanus. Conditions that favour rust formation, however, tend to also favour growth of Clostridium tetanii, so the two often end up correlated.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

RCtheWSBC posted...

Exactly! I buy a 2-pack of Degree for men for $5.49, while one stick of Degree for women costs $5.79. It's bulls***.

There are some fun stats according to this podcast (and apperently an article too)

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/undertheinfluence/guys-and-dolls-gender-marketing-1.4068879

It's a real shame that women are segregated from purchasing the items that men typically purchase. Otherwise this would be a moot point. Damn gender laws. Forcing women to buy shit they don't need.
---

Smarkil posted...

shadowsword87 posted...

RCtheWSBC posted...

Exactly! I buy a 2-pack of Degree for men for $5.49, while one stick of Degree for women costs $5.79. It's bulls***.

There are some fun stats according to this podcast (and apperently an article too)

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/undertheinfluence/guys-and-dolls-gender-marketing-1.4068879

It's a real shame that women are segregated from purchasing the items that men typically purchase. Otherwise this would be a moot point. Damn gender laws. Forcing women to buy shit they don't need.

Sure, women can just as easily buy the men's stuff to save money, but that doesn't change that there are multiple industries that pour sizable amounts of money into marketing that manipulates women into paying more for the same product. That's really not cool.
---

adjl posted...

Sure, women can just as easily buy the men's stuff to save money, but that doesn't change that there are multiple industries that pour sizable amounts of money into marketing that manipulates women into paying more for the same product. That's really not cool.

That's like...all of marketing. I mean, that's kinda the purpose of marketing as an industry. They're trying to convince you that an item has more value than it's actually worth.
---

Smarkil posted...

adjl posted...

Sure, women can just as easily buy the men's stuff to save money, but that doesn't change that there are multiple industries that pour sizable amounts of money into marketing that manipulates women into paying more for the same product. That's really not cool.

That's like...all of marketing. I mean, that's kinda the purpose of marketing as an industry. They're trying to convince you that an item has more value than it's actually worth.

But but... the poor women's! They must be coddled because they can't make informed decisions due to their smaller brains! They need gallant knights like adjl to save them from evil men's manipulation!

Women's things are more expensive as a carry over from single income households. It was easier to justify a frivulous purchase when the bread just comes to your basket.

adjl posted...

Sure, women can just as easily buy the men's stuff to save money, but that doesn't change that there are multiple industries that pour sizable amounts of money into marketing that manipulates women into paying more for the same product. That's really not cool.

This is the most cuck thing I've ever read.

Hey, you gotta do what you gotta do sometimes. I've done that once or twice.
---

Smarkil posted...

adjl posted...

Sure, women can just as easily buy the men's stuff to save money, but that doesn't change that there are multiple industries that pour sizable amounts of money into marketing that manipulates women into paying more for the same product. That's really not cool.

That's like...all of marketing. I mean, that's kinda the purpose of marketing as an industry. They're trying to convince you that an item has more value than it's actually worth.

In a general sense, yeah, but this is marketing that's targeting a specific demographic, such that that demographic needs to do more research in order to avoid being ripped off. That's not cool.

OhhhJa posted...

But but... the poor women's! They must be coddled because they can't make informed decisions due to their smaller brains! They need gallant knights like adjl to save them from evil men's manipulation!

I mean, you can look at sales data and the fact that these pricing differences continue to exist as proof that the manipulation works just fine, so yes, obviously some sort of intervention is needed to prevent it (whether by forbidding the difference or by doing more to prevent the spread of misinformation). That'd be true regardless of which demographic was being exploited; the Pink Tax just happens to be one of the more widespread and egregious examples of discriminatory marketing practices. I don't particularly object to expecting consumers to make informed decisions to ensure their money is being spent wisely, but when a subset of a product's user base has to sift through more lies to make those informed decisions than the rest of the user base, that's not okay.
---

Then why does my gf always tell me she feels bad for men bc it's easier to find good deals as a woman? If anyone's truly vulnerable to viral marketing campaigns it's the impoverished not women

OhhhJa posted...

Then why does my gf always tell me she feels bad for men bc it's easier to find good deals as a woman?

That's a vague enough statement that I'm not going to be able to give you an answer unless you elaborate considerably.

OhhhJa posted...

If anyone's truly vulnerable to viral marketing campaigns it's the impoverished not women

Discriminatory marketing campaigns that target the poor are also really scummy (probably more so).
---

adjl posted...

In a general sense, yeah, but this is marketing that's targeting a specific demographic, such that that demographic needs to do more research in order to avoid being ripped off. That's not cool.

No, they target specific demographics all the time. Again, it's a marketing thing.

Apple markets to people who don't know shit about computers

Beats (which I suppose is also apple) targets people who don't know anything about sound quality

Etc. etc.

You act like there aren't ridiculous ad campaigns and products that target the male demographic and charge them higher prices as a result.

Like, it's all demographic targeting. That's the point. They do it because it works. If customers are dumb enough to get duped by terrible marketing campaigns, then that's really their own problem.

If you don't like buying Vidal Sassoon whatever shampoo with extra volume agent, then don't. Buy V05 or Head and Shoulders like every other dude in the world.
---

Yeah, ultimately these major conglomerate corps only care about their bottom line. The only ways to realistically curtail these kind of marketing practices are via government regulation or via consumers voting with their wallets.
---

Smarkil posted...

Apple markets to people who don't know s*** about computers

Beats (which I suppose is also apple) targets people who don't know anything about sound quality

Etc. etc.

And those aren't discriminatory marketing practices. They target people based on their understanding of the products, not anything else. Targeting people who don't understand what matters in toiletries, charging them for pointless stuff? That's fair game. Specifically targeting a subgroup of people within that demographic and aiming to have them pay more for literally no reason? Not so much, because that's discriminatory.

Smarkil posted...

Like, it's all demographic targeting. That's the point. They do it because it works. If customers are dumb enough to get duped by terrible marketing campaigns, then that's really their own problem.

Even ignoring the highly questionable logic of blaming a scam's victim instead of the one perpetrating the scam, the issue here isn't that consumers in general need to educate themselves to avoid falling for marketing campaigns. It's that certain consumers need to slough through more lies than others. I certainly don't expect female-targeted toiletries to be held to a higher standard of advertising honesty than others. I just don't think it's right for them to be held to a lower standard.

Also, again, the Pink Tax is far from the only example of discriminatory marketing practices. It's no less scummy when companies manipulate men into paying more for the same thing (though there aren't nearly as many examples of that). That doesn't make the Pink Tax okay, though. Two wrongs don't make a right.
---

Zangulus posted...

Buy from dollarshaveclub. We got a four blade razor, 4 cartridges, and handle for $10.

They're really good yo.

Or, you can buy from the company that actually supply's Dollar Shave Club and get the same razors for cheaper.
---

adjl posted...

And those aren't discriminatory marketing practices. They target people based on their understanding of the products, not anything else. Targeting people who don't understand what matters in toiletries, charging them for pointless stuff? That's fair game. Specifically targeting a subgroup of people within that demographic and aiming to have them pay more for literally no reason? Not so much, because that's discriminatory.

Lol they operate on the same fucking principle. They only work when their customer is ignorant. No, it's not discrimination because it's colored pink.

adjl posted...

Even ignoring the highly questionable logic of blaming a scam's victim instead of the one perpetrating the scam, the issue here isn't that consumers in general need to educate themselves to avoid falling for marketing campaigns. It's that certain consumers need to slough through more lies than others. I certainly don't expect female-targeted toiletries to be held to a higher standard of advertising honesty than others. I just don't think it's right for them to be held to a lower standard.

First of all, calling them scam victims is tantamount to insanity.

Second of all, yes the issue absolutely is that consumers should educate themselves. When the amount of 'education' that's required is literally just taking a cheap item and an expensive item and putting them side by side to say, "Oh, the ingredients are the same", yeah I think we can safely place that onus on the fucking 'victims' lol.

adjl posted...

Also, again, the Pink Tax is far from the only example of discriminatory marketing practices. It's no less scummy when companies manipulate men into paying more for the same thing (though there aren't nearly as many examples of that). That doesn't make the Pink Tax okay, though. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Who cares if it's scummy? Vote with your dollar. Tell Herbal Essences that their bullshit doesn't work by not buying it.

The only reason this kind of advertising works on women and not on men, at least in the personal care aisle, is because men don't care. Typically men just buy whatever happens to be in their vicinity, looks like it'll work, and is cheap.

Shit, half the time I shampoo using a bar of soap because I don't give a fuck.

If this was half the issue you pretend it is then more people would stop buying the shit and a better/cheaper product would come along.
---

Smarkil posted...

Who cares if it's scummy? Vote with your dollar

So what if you think something is scummy, and you want to make more of a difference than a single person?
You tell people, "hey, don't do buy that, because they're scummy".

That's what we're doing.

Smarkil posted...

If this was half the issue you pretend it is then more people would stop buying the shit and a better/cheaper product would come along.

Are you proposing women stop buying toiletries?

The fragrances in men vs. women marketed items makes this an issue. There's no gendered toothpaste, or eye drops. There are gendered shaving products, hair products, antiperspirants, perfume/cologne... Grooming products with scents. That's not ignorance to purchase products made for you, that's preference that has been instilled from a young age.

There are different nutritional products promoted this way. Things like vitamins and supplements, protein powders, and even snacks and cereals. In some cases the difference is important - men and women have different dietary and vitamin/mineral needs. In some cases it's unhealthy or dangerous to consume the wrong things. So rather than sort through differences and hubris you may just opt for those products marketed to you and be charged more. And repeat this over and over.

Women may be more likely to find cheap items as they're more likely to purchase items on sale or shop around, as opposed to just picking something off the shelf.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Are you proposing women stop buying toiletries?

Uh. No. Unless you want to of course, that's your prerogative. I'm proposing you buy the product that is purportedly exactly the same as the more expensive version. I feel like this shouldn't even need an explanation.

Doctor Foxx posted...

The fragrances in men vs. women marketed items makes this an issue. There's no gendered toothpaste, or eye drops. There are gendered shaving products, hair products, antiperspirants, perfume/cologne... Grooming products with scents. That's not ignorance to purchase products made for you, that's preference that has been instilled from a young age.

There are PLENTY of scentless options of things to choose from. I as a toxic male happen to prefer the scentless versions of things myself and endeavor to find such items. I'm not really sure what to tell you. If you don't like the scent of a male item, I can't exactly force you to like different smells.

I guess your only choice is to lobby your Canadian...whatever congressman and have them force Gillette to create a more female friendly scent.

Doctor Foxx posted...

There are different nutritional products promoted this way. Things like vitamins and supplements, protein powders, and even snacks and cereals. In some cases the difference is important - men and women have different dietary and vitamin/mineral needs. In some cases it's unhealthy or dangerous to consume the wrong things. So rather than sort through differences and hubris you may just opt for those products marketed to you and be charged more. And repeat this over and over.

If they're different, then the entire point of the argument is moot, init?

Doctor Foxx posted...

Women may be more likely to find cheap items as they're more likely to purchase items on sale or shop around, as opposed to just picking something off the shelf.

Great. Keep doing that then. You have the power.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

So what if you think something is scummy, and you want to make more of a difference than a single person?
You tell people, "hey, don't do buy that, because they're scummy".

That's what we're doing.

No, you're arguing whether or not its wrong to market/price items in such a way that men apparently benefit.

This is not a wrong or right situation. A business makes a product that people evidently want. If enough people do not want it, the business will stop making it. That's really all there is to it. If you wanna tell your mother, girlfriend, sister, cat, whatever that it's exactly the same then by all means do so. But don't pretend the business is in the wrong for making money.
---

Smarkil posted...

There are PLENTY of scentless options of things to choose from. I as a toxic male happen to prefer the scentless versions of things myself and endeavor to find such items. I'm not really sure what to tell you. If you don't like the scent of a male item, I can't exactly force you to like different smells.

While I buy scentless when I can, the brands and products marketed to men are usually priced differently, and often cheaper.

Scent is more for other people smelling you, most people prefer to have it, and women generally do not want to smell like old spice. Men probably don't want to smell like baby powder and floral notes.

Smarkil posted...

I guess your only choice is to lobby your Canadian...whatever congressman and have them force Gillette to create a more female friendly scent.

Gillette also sells products marketed to women. They are not usually the same price. That's the issue.

Smarkil posted...

If they're different, then the entire point of the argument is moot, init?

They're minorly different like different proportions of items in vitamins or often smaller portions. Less of a product for more money.

Usually you can find the same product with different flavors and ingredients with a consistent price for the same brand. Variation is no guarantee of price difference.

Smarkil posted...

Great. Keep doing that then. You have the power.

Time isn't free, you sacrifice to save when there shouldn't be the difference

Unisex stuff is good and great. Unfortunately that's not always an option
---

Smarkil posted...

No, you're arguing whether or not its wrong to market/price items in such a way that men apparently benefit.

Of course it's economically better to say that women require premium products, literally nobody is arguing that it isn't, we have decades on decades of proof that it is better to do so.
But if it's economically better (and legal) to liquefy up poor people and turn them into juiceboxes for rich snotty children, that still would be a bad thing. Now it's a reductio ad absurdum argument sure, but the point is that what a business does isn't always in the best interest of the customer.

Smarkil posted...

Lol they operate on the same f***ing principle. They only work when their customer is ignorant. No, it's not discrimination because it's colored pink.

Uhh, literally by definition, if it's singling out a subpopulation and treating them differently, it's discriminatory. When that discrimination doesn't have a valid basis, that's not cool.

Smarkil posted...

First of all, calling them scam victims is tantamount to insanity.

They're losing money because they've been deceived into thinking something's worth more than it is. That's pretty much the definition of being scammed. Nice job fixating on an aside, though.

Smarkil posted...

Second of all, yes the issue absolutely is that consumers should educate themselves.

No, it's not. That is an issue, certainly, but it's a separate one. The issue here is that some consumers need to do more to educate themselves than others, because of discriminatory marketing practices.

Smarkil posted...

When the amount of 'education' that's required is literally just taking a cheap item and an expensive item and putting them side by side to say, "Oh, the ingredients are the same", yeah I think we can safely place that onus on the f***ing 'victims' lol.

And you think it's okay to expect half of the population to do that while giving the other half a free pass?

Furthermore, it's rarely that simple. If you've ever cooked, you know that having the same ingredient list doesn't mean having the same product.

Smarkil posted...

Who cares if it's scummy? Vote with your dollar. Tell Herbal Essences that their bulls*** doesn't work by not buying it.

Herbal Essences doesn't really care about my dollar, because they have so many other dollars. Hence I'm targeting all those other dollars. Why you're refusing to accept that these practices are scummy and that word should be spread about them, I cannot fathom.

Smarkil posted...

If they're different, then the entire point of the argument is moot, init?

That's not her point at all. She was saying that, because some things are different and others aren't, keeping on top of which ones can be freely substituted is an unreasonable amount of work for most consumers, a fact which companies are more than happy to prey upon.

Smarkil posted...

But don't pretend the business is in the wrong for making money.

They're not in the wrong for making money. They're in the wrong for lying. You seem to be extremely reluctant to accept this, and I'm not sure why. I can't help but feel like you just said "RAWR I HATE FEMINISM YOU'RE ALL WRONG" and are letting that take the place of actually thinking about the issue at hand.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

Studies have shown that girls toys cost more than boys toys 55% of the time.

Really? A lot of traditionally "boy's" toys like Legos and Erector sets are pretty fucking expensive.

Girls clothing cost more than boys clothing 26% of the time.

Women's clothing costs more than men's clothing over 40% of the time.

Well, all clothing is pretty generalized. But men's clothing is usually much simpler in design than women's clothing, partly due to how bodies are shaped. And again, pretty generalized. Is women's clothing a lot more expensive, or do women shell out more money than they need to to get "designer" brands while men don't give a shit as long as it's comfortable and looks ok?
Just went to a wedding and my wife found plenty of nice dresses for $30 - $50 and ended up paying $12 for one from a store that sells previously owned clothing.
Meanwhile, I needed a new dress shirt and that alone was $20. I luckily had everything else, but my pants were $35, dress coat $100, shoes $30 (payless FTW, otherwise dress shoes for men are easily 2x or 3x as much), belt...was so long ago I don't remember but probably $15, tie was around $15-20.... And I'm chea....err..."frugal" and only buy stuff on sale or at a really good price.
Just saying.

Women routinely pay over 25% more for haircuts than men – even though both take the same amount of labour.

LOL, that's fucking bull shit

streamofthesky posted...

Really? A lot of traditionally "boy's" toys like Legos and Erector sets are pretty f***ing expensive.

X is expensive.
Y is unknown.

Therefor X is more expensive than Y.

Cool thanks.

streamofthesky posted...

Well, all clothing is pretty generalized

And averages are generalized.

Doctor Foxx posted...

While I buy scentless when I can, the brands and products marketed to men are usually priced differently, and often cheaper.

Scent is more for other people smelling you, most people prefer to have it, and women generally do not want to smell like old spice. Men probably don't want to smell like baby powder and floral notes.

Some do like to smell like that, some don't. Either way, you can't expect an entire industry to cater to your personal preferences when the apparent majority prefers it the other way.

You just have to decide whether or not the extra cash is worth it not to smell like a dude. Most women seem to think the value is there.

Doctor Foxx posted...

They're minorly different like different proportions of items in vitamins or often smaller portions. Less of a product for more money.

Usually you can find the same product with different flavors and ingredients with a consistent price for the same brand. Variation is no guarantee of price difference.

As with the above, women have evidently decided that they value the product enough that they're willing to make that sacrifice. I feel like there's a real cart before the horse situation going on here.

Businesses will charge exactly as much as they think they can get away with charging. They don't operate as charities. So they've determined men are only willing to pay 10 bucks for their vitamins and women are willing to pay 15 bucks for theirs. You can rest assured that men are also paying as much as they're willing to pay.

Why do men not want to spend as much? I don't know. I'm not a psychologist or a sociologist. But the business evidently has that dialed in.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Really? A lot of traditionally "boy's" toys like Legos and Erector sets are pretty f***ing expensive.

X is expensive.
Y is unknown.

Therefor X is more expensive than Y.

Cool thanks.

55% is a huge difference, so wtf toys are parents buying for girls when plenty of boys' toys are expensive, too? You don't know any actual meaning behind the numbers and when called out for it, resort to passive-aggressive snide remarks. Cool, thanks.

shadowsword87 posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Well, all clothing is pretty generalized

And averages are generalized.

It doesn't answer if it's actually a lot more expensive or women have a greater tendency to buy higher priced clothing items, though.

adjl posted...

They're not in the wrong for making money. They're in the wrong for lying. You seem to be extremely reluctant to accept this, and I'm not sure why. I can't help but feel like you just said "RAWR I HATE FEMINISM YOU'RE ALL WRONG" and are letting that take the place of actually thinking about the issue at hand.

I'm not going to respond point by point anymore because I'm spending far too much (even if it's very little) energy on something so inane.

You, for whatever reason, feel that the business is doing something morally reprehensible by charging women more for products that you perceive to be the same. Or also charging them more for products that are different too. I don't know, you can't keep that straight.

You, for whatever reason, also feel the onus of responsibility is on the business to correct this issue instead of the consumer. Or, if you don't think its the business' responsibility then we shouldn't even be having this conversation because the business is doing exactly what is right for themselves.

The irony of your statement claiming that this is some anti-feminism rant is that I'm actually pro-women in this argument. I'm saying women are perfectly capable of making a smart, informed decision. You on the other hand seem to believe they need your knowledge and protection to resolve the issue. I'm empowering them to make their own decisions.
---

streamofthesky posted...

55% is a huge difference, so wtf toys are parents buying for girls when plenty of boys' toys are expensive, too? You don't know any actual meaning behind the numbers and when called out for it, resort to passive-aggressive snide remarks. Cool, thanks.

Let's be clear, you just gave an example for more expensive toys. Cool great, lets talk about Legos then.

Legos are marketed to be gender neutral, in fact that article actually talks about it.

Let's look through some of Lego's advertisements, saaaay, this one:
https://d35fkdjhhgt99.cloudfront.net/static/use-media-items/5/4626/full-806x1024/56701a4a/3718434254_c5e2b552b8_b.jpeg?resolution=0

Or this one:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8477/8199007964_31b356a478_b.jpg

Or this one:
https://massivehassle.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/kislanyok.png?w=809

And espically this one:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2315796/images/o-LEGO-REDDIT-facebook.jpg

Now, I'm not cherry picking these past the requirement "google 'lego advertisement' and click on the ones that include people". Notice what that has? A complete lack of gender bias for those images, both boys and girls can play with Legos, which for 1950 to 1960 is a f***ing massive dynamic shift for how things were advertised before.

streamofthesky posted...

It doesn't answer if it's actually a lot more expensive or women have a greater tendency to buy higher priced clothing items, though.

That's a question of the dog wagging the tail, or the tail wagging the dog.

People buy things based off of what's being advertised to them, that's literally what advertisements exist to do and why people pay for ads.
So, if you advertise for just expensive watches (and have a complete market for expensive watches, like a company who produces watches), and then people buy those watches because of ads. That doesn't mean you can claim that everyone wants expensive watches, just that the ad was successful.

Women are capable of making their own decisions. That doesn't stop the market from discriminatory pricing and gendering products. No company is going to intervene to correct prices with extra money they know they can get.

I'm not suggesting the government needs to intervene either. People should be aware of it and talking about it. Thankfully people are becoming more aware of this kind of pricing, the discussion continues, and I've seen more unisex products and prices becoming a bit closer to even.
---

I can't say I've noticed a gals razor is more expensive or less than a guys for example. They always seems to be the same price wherever I go. Than again I'm British so eh.
---

dollar shave club is bae
---

streamofthesky posted...

Well, all clothing is pretty generalized. But men's clothing is usually much simpler in design than women's clothing, partly due to how bodies are shaped. And again, pretty generalized. Is women's clothing a lot more expensive, or do women shell out more money than they need to to get "designer" brands while men don't give a shit as long as it's comfortable and looks ok?
Just went to a wedding and my wife found plenty of nice dresses for $30 - $50 and ended up paying $12 for one from a store that sells previously owned clothing.
Meanwhile, I needed a new dress shirt and that alone was $20. I luckily had everything else, but my pants were $35, dress coat $100, shoes $30 (payless FTW, otherwise dress shoes for men are easily 2x or 3x as much), belt...was so long ago I don't remember but probably $15, tie was around $15-20.... And I'm chea....err..."frugal" and only buy stuff on sale or at a really good price.
Just saying.

Did you see the wording? It actually says men pay more more often.
---

adjl posted...

And those aren't discriminatory marketing practices. They target people based on their understanding of the products, not anything else. Targeting people who don't understand what matters in toiletries, charging them for pointless stuff? That's fair game. Specifically targeting a subgroup of people within that demographic and aiming to have them pay more for literally no reason? Not so much, because that's discriminatory.

I'm failing to see how your refuted my argument. All marketing is discriminatory. They have a target audience that they're trying to convince to buy stuff. It's pretty much inherently manipulative no matter the demographic. There are just as many ads attempting to manipulate men into buying stuff by appealing to their need to feel masculine. I've seen many ads that directly attempt to emasculate men for not having their product. It's not advertisers fault that women likr to shop more than men