Video Game Forums

http://mic.com/articles/131141/being-a- ... .4QaCSvOIK

Turns out marketing/capitalism really likes to target women in general, from early age and beyond

Important to note:

-Currently, the pink scooter is the same price as the red scooter on Target. However, it's possible that the prices were lowered since the study was made.

-I don't know enough about clothing (or bladder control pads) to comment on the prices of men and women products. I do know that they aren't the same thing and it's possible the price is because it's more difficult to make one then the other, but that's just pointless speculation.

-Why do women's jeans have the pockets sewn shut? Just don't have pockets if you're gonna be like that.

- F**k Ambercromie and Fitch

- The two shampoos are different enough for me to see a reason behind the difference in price. The men's is meant to be all in one while the women's target's hair specifically. One may not be as good as the other. Therefore, I did look a bit further.

Men's shampoo at Walmart (Dove)

Women's shampoo at Walmart (Dove. Currently the shampoo is on sale so be mindful of that.)

3 in 1 Shampoo at Walmart (Dove does not sell 3 in 1 shampoo. Axe is the only 3 in 1 brand not for children)

So it turns out that 3 in 1 shampoo is really cheap. Let it be said that this is just a small sample size and this does not beat the picture in the article or vice versa.

Still, I find the logic in this article is still sound despite my notes. There is a lot of products sold towards men or women, partly for marketing and partly because of the difference between the two body types. I am interested in this subject, especially if the scooter picture is correct because I have to wonder what the reason would be behind that.

Tazy Ten, post: 1578966, member: 19345 wrote:I don't know enough about clothing (or bladder control pads) to comment on the prices of men and women products. I do know that they aren't the same thing and it's possible the price is because it's more difficult to make one then the other, but that's just pointless speculation.

Pro-tip: skirts aren't that hard to produce. Designer clothes are always expensive.

The two shampoos are different enough for me to see a reason behind the difference in price. The men's is meant to be all in one while the women's target's hair specifically. One may not be as good as the other. Therefore, I did look a bit further.

The men's is meant to be all in one while the women's target's hair specifically.

while the women's target's hair specifically

shampoo

I've noticed this before, & it is abhorrent.

...I do need to mention, though, that purchasing any Radio Flyer product that isn't red is inherently un-American.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

There's also tall people tax, fat people tax, and kid tax. Who'd imagine companies would do everything in their power to make a buck like greedy pricks?

Probably couples with the "all women love to shop" stereotype. I guess if they're still keeping higher prices for women's things, that it's a working business strategy. Oh well.

^^^^
1. I only see skirts once in this study

2. 3 in 1 shampoo is conditioner, shampoo, and BODY WASH which is not for your hair. Looks like the kek's on you. :p

literally the main difference tends to only be how a product is cut and stitched, you don't need to search the exact article to verify my point

[QUOTE="Tazy Ten, post: 1579024, member: 19345"]
2. 3 in 1 shampoo is conditioner, shampoo, and BODY WASH which is not for your hair. Looks like the kek's on you. [/QUOTE]

What are you even trying to argue besides for the sake of trying to prove me wrong. Let's look at the most popular definitions of shampoo

Learner's Dictionary: Merriam-Webster.

1
[count, noncount]
a : a special liquid that is used for cleaning your hair

Dictionary.com

1.
to wash (the head or hair), especially with a cleaning preparation thatdoes not leave a soap film.

Oxford Dictionaries

A liquid preparation containing detergent or soap for washing the hair:

Wikipedia

Shampoo/ʃæmˈpuː/ is a hair care product,

Also you're arguing with products that are 3-in-1, which are not only kinda weird to ever have around your household but are most associated with, get this, men. Meanwhile, I have a bottle of shampoo, a bottle of conditioner, and a basic body wash in my shower. Know why? I want to keep my hair healthy, and society is pretty awful of telling especially women to keep long, luxurious hair. Healthy hair is one thing but this is about spending absurd hours a week to keep hair looking picture perfect. This image involves selling products that have different selling points. My shampoo uses green tea leaves, and my past one had caffeine and menthol. My conditioner has sea minerals and is herbal based. So, no, it's not just about the 3-in-1 costing less than a 2-in-1, it also includes outright buying more to fit in the standards.

[Quote=I Loot the Tree]Also you're arguing with products that are 3-in-1, which are not only kinda weird to ever have around your household...[/quote]

Why? It is cheaper and easier.

I don't see the point in arguing over how many hygiene products a person should use, but the all-in-one stuff is bound by law to be all around worse quality just because.

^ That's what I'm saying. Especially since neither of those definitions say that shampoo is used for your body.

"Men's shampoo" so long as it's not 3 in 1 tends to sit in the middle of shampoo prices but that's because it sits between generic store shampoo and special "salon" brands. It's part of the marketing because calling it "Men's" WILL cause more people to buy it the same way people will buy a shampoo because "Salonists use it". People not only want what's best they want something made for them because they are an individual that desires the choice. Hell, some will buy the cheapest shampoo because it's the cheapest or because it takes care of dandruff, or dry hair. After all, shampoo is one of those things that can greatly differ from person to person.

Dirty capitalists, especially since women are (in theory) being paid 77% less, too!

I think you mean 23% less?

Unless you're saying that a woman gets paid 1 dollar for every 3+ a man is paid...?

right, 23% less. Because I keep hearing all these things about how women are being paid less than men for the same jobs - despite that it's actually illegal to do that.

Not paid less, they earn less over all as a group.

If you are more cynical, you might say it is more accurately a price increase on men who are likely to be buying for women, at least as much as it is for women buying for themselves. I do know that it is a pretty well established fact that men as a group have more money to spend and higher earnings(not the same as "wages") than women as a group. And when it comes to couples, this is more obvious. Women drive much of consumption and spending on certain things but have less money. Put two and two together on this. This is for a variety of reasons that are pretty understandable. These marketers no doubt know their game well. Even if they did not make that assumption, all they have to do is look at who goes through more of those products, especially clothing and shoes. No man I have ever known has wanted new and more clothing or shoes as much as women. I have known no men that gave much thought to things like kinds of shampoo either. I don't even know the difference between kinds of shampoo. It could be that I am wrong because I am from a primitive and savage cultural group; maybe men elsewhere in more effete climes are obsessed with such things.

If I were selling shampoo and clothing, I would do the same thing. If I wanted to make more money, anyway. There is no "right" anywhere I have seen that says that people selling things cannot use these differences to shamelessly make more money engage in honest capitalism. This is a bit old, but it makes the point about things like clothing. In the past, you would not have needed a chart to tell people that women like to buy "apparel", but these days such obvious statements need charts. I would bet that women go through more hygeine products than men do as well. I would even bet that women spend more time in front of mirrors than men. Also, see this at the bottom of page two under apparel and services. Women beat men when it comes to apparel.

Am I the only one who doesn't feel super clean after using 3-in-1 products? Kind of a jack of all trades, master of none type situation.

[QUOTE="Tazy Ten, post: 1579156, member: 19345"]"Men's shampoo" so long as it's not 3 in 1 tends to sit in the middle of shampoo prices but that's because it sits between generic store shampoo and special "salon" brands. It's part of the marketing because calling it "Men's" WILL cause more people to buy it the same way people will buy a shampoo because "Salonists use it". [/QUOTE]

Or it could be



Fragile masculinity. Who knows.

[QUOTE="Sim Kid, post: 1579180, member: 22276"]right, 23% less. Because I keep hearing all these things about how women are being paid less than men for the same jobs - despite that it's actually illegal to do that.[/QUOTE]

this just in it's illegal therefore never happens

by the way nobody murders because it's illegal

say my brother and mother said their cars were broken into over Christmas vacation, so by your logic does that mean they're liars? Because you're making it sound like women are lying about the wage gap

[QUOTE="Sonic 5 the Other Reindeer, post: 1579199, member: 26922"]Am I the only one who doesn't feel super clean after using 3-in-1 products? Kind of a jack of all trades, master of none type situation.[/QUOTE]
3-in-1 is basically the only hygiene stuff they have in places like mental hospitals so patients feel "sort of clean" and it's usually in those hand-dispenser things like soap. Whatever floats some people's boats but just throwing some cleaning agent on my hair and letting drip down my body isn't what I consider full cleaning

That probable drop in quality is defi
[QUOTE="I Loot the Tree, post: 1579213, member: 21459"]Fragile masculinity.[/quote]

Is that why men have ruled the world for so long? Because of their masculinity's fragility?

[quote="I Loot the Tree]You're making it sound like women are lying about the wage gap[/quote"]

I don't believe there's a wage gap unless it is for a legitimate reason. Perhaps men perform better and get raises more often, or something. Nobody goes, "Ah, Jack and Sarah, my employees. Time to calculate that 23% for Sarah since she is a woman and should make less for literally no reason aside from her being female and me being an evil, probably white, male." The idea is ridiculous.

[QUOTE="Sim Kid, post: 1579180, member: 22276"]right, 23% less. Because I keep hearing all these things about how women are being paid less than men for the same jobs - despite that it's actually illegal to do that.[/QUOTE]
It's totally true. Unenforced laws are so common in the US.[DOUBLEPOST=1451458919,1451458645][/DOUBLEPOST][QUOTE="I REALLY HATE PRESENTS!, post: 1579219, member: 18119"]Is that why men have ruled the world for so long? Because of their masculinity's fragility?[/QUOTE]
Ruled the world or do they just perpetuate that notion? Anyway, the expression 'fragile masculinity' is actually addressing the modern concepts of 'masculinity' which preclude men from showing affection from one another, etc, which is really just covert homophobia. You know, touching the color pink makes you gay, because it's girly. Liking flowers makes you gay, because it's girly. It's this encoded sexism which says 'feminine things are lesser' even though the definitions of what's currently feminine tend to only extend back a generation or two, anyway. If it weren't treated as 'wrong' to like feminine things, then nobody would feel the need to point it out or make a big deal out of it. 100 years ago, pink was considered a masculine color. The whole thing's just a fantasy without any practical applications.

Don't let people tell you that being a woman is undignified, and don't let people tell you what you can and can't like based on whether you have a dong.

[QUOTE="Hell Orb, post: 1579233, member: 25415"]Ruled the world or do they just perpetuate that notion?[/quote]

I'm no history buff but it seems that way.

[quote="Hell Orb]Anyway"]

Lol'd at covert homophobia. Pictured the physical manifestation of homosexuality as a secret agent. Anyway, I don't think there is any "encoded sexism" which says "feminine things are lesser." There is majority opinion that it doesn't fit what is perceived to be masculine, but that's different.

[quote="Hell Orb]Don't let people tell you that being a woman is undignified"]

How can existing as something different be undignified by default? Are there people who really think this or is it feminist propaganda? Seriously find it hard to believe there's a significant amount of men going, "Sure is great to be a dignified man, unlike those undignified women." Such a weird thought. And I don't think genital configuration has to do with liking or not liking things, I think it is in the male and female brain differences.