- Smart women shoppers have known this for years and years: if there’s a men’s and women’s version of a product, you should nearly always buy the men’s version. They’re not only cheaper; they’re often better made.
- Salutes to them! Brave Muslims in Kenya risk their lives to shield Christians from an Al-Shabaab attack.
- Laird found this and posted it in comments days before the media discovered it. Colton Harris Moore, The Barefoot Bandit, has a blog.
- While Clinton clones in Virginia destroy ccw reciprocity (and Nicki rants), Texas teachers increasingly go armed. (H/T LA)
- We knew this was coming. The IRS gets the authority to effectively deny citizenship rights to people who owe substantial taxes. The authority to sic private tax collectors on us, too, who aren’t bound by some of the rules that restrict the IRS. Just like in the days before the Revolution, you know?
- Hm. Not sure this video Christmas card from a Google affiliate is quite as creepy as the article writer finds it. But … um, I won’t be sending it to my friends anytime soon.
On the price discrepancy between men’s and women’s goods, one aspect that the article didn’t address that might actually just be legitimate is the size of the production run of a particular good. For example, Radio Flyer might expect to sell 100K units of the boy’s version and only 50K units of the girl’s (pink) version. If unique tooling is developed for each version, then the cost of the tooling for the boy’s version can be spread out over twice the number of units than for the girl’s version, causing the girl’s version to be somewhat more expensive. If the manufacturer spreads the total cost of both sets of tooling across the sales of both product types, then the boy’s product is effectively subsidizing the girl’s product. Might make sense in the market, might not.
Eagle — That’s definitely possible in some cases. Not in others. For instance, razors. Or jeans.
Women most likely buy jeans as often as men do, if not more often because of fashion dictates. Yet men’s jeans — which are invariably constructed of heavier fabric — are less expensive, often dramatically so. Someone once tried to explain this to me by saying women’s jeans are more tailored, but that doesn’t wash because once you’ve come up with the basic design, no further expense is incurred. And I’m talking about basic blue jeans here, not women’s models that are rhinestone-studded or embroidered or whatever.
The greater cost — and lesser quality — of “women’s” products over men’s has been notorious at least since my mother’s day. Yes, sometimes there are sound market reasons. Other times, it’s the Martin Shkreli reason: because we can get away with it.
Main point, though, is that whatever reason for the higher cost, smart women shoppers should at least have a look at the “male” version of the product before ASS-U-ME-ing the “female” version is for them.
And then there are women like me with strange body shapes that don’t fit into women’s commercial jeans, much less men’s jeans. I gave up long ago and just make my own. They fit as well as anything, and they are much less expensive.
But I agree with you completely for most things. Buying the cute, pink stuff probably makes some ladies feel more feminine, but they are going to pay for it one way or another.
But it isn’t the fault of the manufacturer, of course. They will produce whatever people want, and whatever they will buy. 🙂 If the ladies continue to buy the more expensive, lesser quality things…
Ah, linky! Knitters With Hopelessly Knotted Yarn Call ‘Detanglers’ for Help
I wish everyone here a Happy Festivus!
Here at Domus Ursi, there is nobody to listen, so I am dispensing with the airing of grievances. Feats of strength, not so much these days either. Festivus dinner will likely be a burrito. I do feel quite inadequate about the lack of a Festivus pole, as I have no excuse for that.
http://www.slashgear.com/now-the-tsa-can-force-you-to-go-through-the-body-scanner-22419599/
I agree that often manufactures just make things pink and then place a higher price on them for women. Razors. Sometimes, even, oh, I don’t know, guns?
The TSA. Here is a fun topic. I just went to FL from MI and back. Coming back, after screening, while waiting at the gate to board, it must have been break time for the Thugs Slowing Airtravel. They were milling around, with nothing to do, no one to be screened, at St. Pete/Clearwater airport. There were at least 30 of the little drones in blue, looking like sheep who had no leader to follow. I took a picture of them, but too late, as most of them had scurried off, maybe to get donuts, like police wannabes. At least I felt much safer knowing that all of us had taken our shoes off, and had been irradiated like bagged lettuce or something. It made me almost proud to be an Amer-, oh, wait, the America I know would not do that to it’s citizens.
As to the privatization of tax collection. I make so little money that I am not directly affected by this, but I can hardly wait. I figure the I.R.S. has got an ulterior motive in all of this. I can see the T.V. ad now. New for the fall season, an epic tale never seen before. Fox presents.. Dog, the Tax Cheat Hunter! The royalties alone will make the bonus pool for the top executives at the I.R.S. huge. I wish I had kept that air sick bag from that flight.