then buy the hybrid 3 and ignore the fact that the handle of the other one is designed to hold diffrent (better control ) and the catrigdes have each 2 lubrication strips (smoother shaving)
She's making it so hard to take feminists seriously... the sanitation tax is a thing in some countries, and it's pretty unfair to women (because while things like condoms and men's razors are tax free because they're 'essentials' while things like tampons and pads are taxed because they're not 'essentials') but the way she's going about it is making absolutely sure that no one is going to take this tax seriously...
But surely the price would depend on the brand? Here, I could buy a supermarket brand of razors for 50p, or buy branded razors for £3 or more. Her point is invalid
I agree a razor is a razor BUT why is the mens razor almost always cheaper even if they're nearly identical to the womans as most store brand razors are? Personally I don't really care, it's just a few cents but I can see why some women find it upsetting
I use whatever razor my husband buys as I said "A razor is a razor".."they're nearly identical".."personally I don't really care". The point is not the razor the point is the price difference on products labeled as Womens
I bought that vintage shit I don't know how do you call it, and then I put razors in it, plane razors, those thin Gillette razors with hole in the middle... And I shaved for a year with only one of them. That's like 5 cents per year!! Fuck me!
I need a hypothesis at least before this information is useful.
Why would a company intentionally do this?
To get more out of women just because they can?
Well heck, that sounds like basic microeconomics. Not sexism. You charge what people will pay.
▼Reply
deleted
· 8 years ago
Basic business for yall: women do not shave as much so to make up for the money they woukd usually get from selling almost regularly to men they put it at a higher price. A good example of this way of thinking is a soccer player. Soccer players are paid per game, if they do not play the game they are not paid. That is why they are worth a lot, as to compensate for when they do not play. So a woman would use a razor 1 a week let's assume. A man would use it everyday. Meaning the company will not lose anything by pricing it cheaper. However the woman would rarely use it compared to males so the razor will last longer.
.
So in short: Men will be buying more often meaning the cash flow is high and good enough so that men can buy affordable razors more often. Women will be buying less razors meaning the cash flow will not be as high as mens razors. So in order for the company to make that money, they charge higher.
▼
deleted
· 8 years ago
Feminism doesn't really understand economics sometimes. The wage gap for instance. Or the whole "tax on tampons issue" (which I'll happily explain if anyone is interested).
Nicely put, this makes a lot of sense for someone who doesn't understand economics very well (me). Thanks for clearing that up
2
deleted
· 8 years ago
For the whole tampon tax: it is considered a "luxury item" even though it's a necessity. The issue is with the materials used and its process of being made. Those count as "luxury" which leads to the item being classified as "luxury". What feminists are trying to do is have the tax totally removed , which would be good. Except, that would mean that the materials used and the processes would have to change. Meaning you'd get the 1 ply, recycled version of tampons. What the feminists should be doing is asking the governments to make an excpetion, which should be possible.
7
deleted
· 8 years ago
Why am I being downvoted? Do you simply dislike hearing the causes? You wana live in a fantasy world where this shit isn't true. Ghadam man.
I think another reason tampons and pads are also counted as a luxury thing is because there are reuseable tamps and pads that you wash amd they last months
I think the whole razor thing is stupid but I would like to add that men may shave more often but women shave a much larger area.
As a woman who doesn't like the price difference either, I'm more bothered right now for the "For a two-thirds less of the product!" Is it really so hard to make the correct decision of either "one-third less" or "For two-thirds the amount"? (or more accurately 5/7 as there is a blade on the razors beyond the refill cartridges)
Why would a company intentionally do this?
To get more out of women just because they can?
Well heck, that sounds like basic microeconomics. Not sexism. You charge what people will pay.
.
So in short: Men will be buying more often meaning the cash flow is high and good enough so that men can buy affordable razors more often. Women will be buying less razors meaning the cash flow will not be as high as mens razors. So in order for the company to make that money, they charge higher.
I think the whole razor thing is stupid but I would like to add that men may shave more often but women shave a much larger area.
also, buy the boy-blades you piece of shit.