The title needs a colon or something. Right now it reads like only women involved in Gender Studies pay more for stuff.
The article is pretty interesting. There are a few stark contrasts where you see the exact same item costing twice as much in pink than red.
I think there is an interesting philosophical debate to be had here (which the article implies, but doesn't address): Is this gender-based price discrimination? I'm going to contend: no.
First of all, I think the article falls into some kind of Political Correctness trap by claiming that certain products are for boys and others are for girls. Why couldn't a boy want the pink scooter? Why couldn't a girl want red?
Building on that, if we see the pink one as "girls" and the red one as "boys" then it does look like discrimination. However, if we view the red one as "neutral/base color" and the pink one as a less popular "color option" it seems less like discrimination and more like paying for a unique customization. Do we know there isn't a blue scooter priced the same as pink?
Let's look at the jeans. Are the Men's and women's jeans actually the same? Probably not. I'm guessing the women's jeans are cut much differently. When I was in Boy Scouts I (male, with typical male proportions) bought the "Adult Womens'" uniform because it was cut different and fit me better. I didn't actually notice the price because that was back in the glory days of my parents buying me stuff, but I would have chosen the "womens'" uniform even if it were twice the price.
The conclusion states:
> DCA found, on average, that women pay approximately 7 percent more than men for similar products. Products’ price differences based on gender are largely inescapable for female consumers simply due to the product offerings available in the market.
This seems fundamentally contradictory to me. If the products are sufficiently similar but priced differently, why would women buy the "women's version?" What makes it "inescapable?" If product A is so much better than product B, such that buying Product A is "inescapable," I'd expect a difference of more than 7% in price.
The article is pretty interesting. There are a few stark contrasts where you see the exact same item costing twice as much in pink than red.
I think there is an interesting philosophical debate to be had here (which the article implies, but doesn't address): Is this gender-based price discrimination? I'm going to contend: no.
First of all, I think the article falls into some kind of Political Correctness trap by claiming that certain products are for boys and others are for girls. Why couldn't a boy want the pink scooter? Why couldn't a girl want red?
Building on that, if we see the pink one as "girls" and the red one as "boys" then it does look like discrimination. However, if we view the red one as "neutral/base color" and the pink one as a less popular "color option" it seems less like discrimination and more like paying for a unique customization. Do we know there isn't a blue scooter priced the same as pink?
Let's look at the jeans. Are the Men's and women's jeans actually the same? Probably not. I'm guessing the women's jeans are cut much differently. When I was in Boy Scouts I (male, with typical male proportions) bought the "Adult Womens'" uniform because it was cut different and fit me better. I didn't actually notice the price because that was back in the glory days of my parents buying me stuff, but I would have chosen the "womens'" uniform even if it were twice the price.
The conclusion states:
> DCA found, on average, that women pay approximately 7 percent more than men for similar products. Products’ price differences based on gender are largely inescapable for female consumers simply due to the product offerings available in the market.
This seems fundamentally contradictory to me. If the products are sufficiently similar but priced differently, why would women buy the "women's version?" What makes it "inescapable?" If product A is so much better than product B, such that buying Product A is "inescapable," I'd expect a difference of more than 7% in price.