Being female really is expensive
Analysis of pricing from hundreds of retailers by The Times has discovered that the cost for many fashion, beauty and toys for females is routinely higher than similar products intended for men.
The first issue of course is the question of whether it’s sexist to assume that some products are male orientated and others are for women. We all remember the picture of David Beckham wearing a sarong.
Leaving the stereotyping issues aside, the report reveals that Tesco charge double for pink disposable razors compared to those for men and Levi 501 jeans were on average 46% more expensive for the women compared to the male version.
Across all products with different prices, those aimed at women were found to be 37% higher on average.
The Times say that out of the 100s of product price checked, only one male version cost more than the female version – a set of underwear. That surprises me, I’ve seen the price of minute bits of lingerie and they’re not generally cheap!
The Times suggest that it’s a sexist rip off and reports say that retailers may be called to Parliament to explain themselves. I however wonder if it’s entirely the retailers fault, could it be that the issue lies with the manufacturers? If female orientated products cost the retailer more than the male versions then they can hardly be the ones to blame for charging more.
Is your pricing for the products you sell inherently sexist? One might suspect that on marketplaces there’s so much competition that prices are generally driven down to the lowest sustainable costs which would suggest the issue isn’t so much with retailers but with the manufacturers and suppliers.
Of perhaps at the end of the day it is because we’re still generally a very sexist society and man will buy blue razor blades and women will buy pink razor blades and that’s just how it is until a manufacturer makes a unisex grey blade that will please no one? You tell me, I haven’t a clue.