Gender Biased Pricing

[Tawasakm]

I have to attempt to say something on topic here so that I can then make an off topic observation.

RB, I'm sure that the market and society are influenced in part by stereotyped gender distinctions etc. I very much doubt they are the universal, overiding, dominating, conspiratorial factors which you believe them to be.

Caesar, you appear to be knowledgable on this particular subject so I thankyou for sharing the information. In my day to day thoughts and musings it had never even occured to me that a universal clothes press may not be possible for women nor was I aware of all those potential difficulties. Thanks again.

Now for my off topic comment. Thelonius,

Does pragmatic agnosticism render transubstantiation mere jiggery-pokery?

I love that signature!

[RB]

theloniusfleabag Posted on Mar 19 2005, 10:49 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear RB,

QUOTE 

I am more incline to believe that the role of feminism can over power and dominate masculinity serving to neutralise this aggressiveness men seem to be born with.

You seem to want to fight fire with fire, trying to beat aggressive dominance with even greater aggressive dominance. That will never work, escalation's logical conclusion is annihilation.

I look at elements that would expand women and (oops!! androgenize men making them more male). Seriously now, I have seen and have an experience that the more achivement-oriented females had more avenues open for them to be active, participate, realise aims and be more accomplished.

These females knew and espoused the rhetoric of feminism that they had rights and expectation within society.

Furthermore, women have expanded into the men sphere and nowadays more readily pursue autonomy, their achievement and initiative so domination could not be too far off in my mind.

What I want to point out though men crossing into the sphere of feminine areas is not quite acceptable and of course negatively viewed, mostly they are sanctioned.

[RB]

Caesar

I join with Tawasakm to thank you for sharing your information on the laundry. I have visited thousands of business establishments in my employ but never a laundry facility, oh, but I recently visited a jute bag, linen cleaning operation, not the same thing is it.

]caesar Posted on Mar 18 2005, 05:39 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I ask, which gender designs the machines to process men clothing?. Isn’t it the men who are serving their own interest? Men have no desire to figure a machine to process women’s clothes in masses for efficiency and for cheap.

Now a days it could be male or female. 

I have had the opportunity to worked with the PEO & OSPE offices in Toronto and gone down to Ottawa to address the very issue of the lack of female representation in the engineering field. Perhaps a female might see the benefit of making a machine to save the female dollars at the laundry facilities. Until then I might as well support some regulation to monitor the price system.

[RB]

Michael Hardner Posted on Mar 18 2005, 05:04 PM

You admit that males get 'ruined' ?

Yes. I have no problems admitting to this - it is your own demise.

If you allow the females access to equality rights, to jobs, equal pay, give them 60% wealth in the estate will instead of 15% etc. plus you have to treat them nicely - one red rose a day, they will start to think independent of your finances and become less dependent on you males.

And... how many families have more than 3 kids ?

The more dependent the females are on the males the more kids they produce, I suspect wealthy families are not having more than 1.2 kids that leaves us with a struggling class of people. I have nothing against immigrants and various identifiable group but I suspect that’s where you will find greater than 3 kids.

I'll grant you that there are a lot of poor single-mother families, but how many of them have a wealthy male that's refusing to pay up ?

Only 53% of children for whom child support is court-ordered regularly receive it, and a third of the payments were in arrears for at least six months.

[PocketRocket]

women are burden with the helplessness of trying to get rich in a man's world and later handed the children.

Excuse me??? "Handed" the children??? Let's be a little more accurate in your statement. How about this "Women are burdened with the helplessness of having (in most cases) a husband to take care of the financial worries, and then, through separation litigation, rips the children away from their father, often without leaving him recourse to be able to see them".

Get down off the high horse, RB, guys don't "hand" the kids to their exes. Generally there is some sort of custody battle.

But in divorce court, men are seen as guilty until proven innocent..

And then there are the all-to-common bitches who play the "abuse" card. Lying about imaginary "physical abuses" doled out by the husband, either towards herself or the kids.

This is another case wherein men are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

(As a side note, a friend of mine who went through a divorce recently pulled a great trick. When his ex threatened to testify that he had abused both her and the kids, he arranged a meeting alone with her. He brought along a little voice-activated cassette recorder that fit neatly in the chest-pocket of his coat. At one point he said something along the lines of "I've never raised a hand towards you or the kids, and I've never touched the kids sexually, so why would you want to accuse me of those things in court". Her reply was something like "Because if I do accuse you, then I won't have to share custody, and they'll serve you a restraining order, so you won't even be able to come around".

When she did make such a claim in court, he brought out the tape. Of course her lawyer asked to have this evidence thrown out, but for once there was a judge with some common sense. She was conditionally charged with perjury and contempt. In addition, she was told that any further such contempt would cost her custody of the kids, and some jail time.)

And now, just to address a couple sweeping generalities which you seem to have quite a penchant for writing....

most divorces occur within 3 years of marriage 

But the women never gets rich off your tiny bits of assets since you saddle them with greater than 3 kids 

Okay. Average marriage dissolved withing 3 years. But we "saddle" you with "greater" than 3 kids.

All I can say is there are a lot of women out there with sore uterii.

"Greater" than 3 kids in 3 years. That's quite a feat.

[PocketRocket]

There is something called male privilege.  The mere fact that a male is born, he is already placed into an advantageous position in society.  It is difficult for men to acknowledge their position because then they would have to submit to giving up some of those unearned privileges.

That's a load of bull. The single most discriminated-against group in Canada today, is the white anglo adult male.

You've been crying this same song for many MANY posts here, but have only shown peripheral evidence to back up any of these claims.

Men and women are born with different genitalia, and that's about it. If we were living in Afghanistan, the situation would be otherwise. But in Canada, the claims you are making are largely a crock. I personally am acquainted with at least one of each of the following famale professionals: heavy-equipment operator, surgeon, dentist, lawyer, mining-explosives expert, airline pilot. Hey, I even know a couple female hair-stylists. And here's the funny thing, they charge their female clients more than they charge men.

Isn't that peculiar. Women, operating their own salon, and yet they charge their "sexual sisters" more than they charge men.

Perhaps women are doing it to themselves???

But the fact remains, in today's society, a woman can bitch and moan about how put-upon they are, or they can go out and get an education and a career. Unfortunately, you seem to prefer the former.

  My assessment of women's issues is usually shape by the discrepancies and controversies that I have observed. 

My assessment of women who claim to have their rights trampled is usually shaped by the feeble evidence they present, and the deception and twisting of words that I have observed.

  And I have observed that male privileges negates the needs and rights of others such as women 

Let's examine this statement. If something "negates" the "needs" of women, that logically means that the women affected no longer "need" anything. Cool. I wish I could be so lucky. Unfortunately, I "need" to work for a living, to pay my mortgage, the hydro, heat, insurance, etc etc etc.

My ex, however, did NOT have to work for any of these things, and when we separated, she felt she "needed" to keep my house, while I would still be paying the mortgage and all other expenses.

Fortunately, we were able to convince her that she "needed" no such thing.

As for rights, women all have the "right" to get men dragged through the mud simply by evoking the words "harrassment" or "abuse".

It's done all to often. "Abuse" comes in so many forms. Touching a woman's shoulder has been construed as "sexual harrassment" and "abuse".

There are two sides to this coin, RB. But it seems to me that more and more, our society is pandering to women at the expense of men.

  So you can't really conclude ... that the sexes should begin at the same starting point to pursue their own interest.  To start off there is unfairness, there is the usual inequitable opportunity, limited rights and now you want to turn around in expectancy and look for fair outcomes.  Question yourselves how come men are successful.  Oh, and I am fed-up with the conceited line men usually give "I am smart" 

And I am fed up with the line you personally continue to give; "Oh, I am so put upon and unfortunate to have been born female in a world wherein men all seek to keep me down. Oh, woe is me, WOE IS ME".

Gimme a break, RB. It is obvious that you are intelligent. But something obviously has turned you into a man-hater. Either that, or you've come under the thumb of some latter-day militant feminist group.

  I am glad you mentioned we are born with potential tools.  When I look at say men and war as in Iraq war it all conjures up imagery of maleness and power.  Here is the example of maleness and war.  It is all about weaponry with major thrusting of missiles with its piercing and explosive sounds. I mean these are all languages women know (that tool word), its mimics of the phallic side of sex.  How interesting, a major overgrowth of men. 

When I look at the war in Iraq, it conjures up images of an smiling ass who disguises himself under the umbrella of an elephant.

As for your war-related "phallic imagery" rhetoric, last I heard, they were trying to develop a vagina-shaped missile. Unfortunately it just wasn't very aerodynamic, and it tended to scoop up a lot of birds while in flight

Don't quit your day job. Psychology is not your strong point, at least not if this is the best you can come up with.

Although relating all this imagery does say something about your own mind. What that is, I do not know. I never claimed to be Freud. You would be wise to follow that example.

  Micheal Hardner seem to think that there needs to be a cultural shift and a rise to some conscious level of the available choices that people should not be influenced or pressured.

I am more incline to believe that the role of feminism can over power and dominate masculinity serving to neutralise this aggressiveness men seem to be born with.

So, in this statement lies your true agenda. You do not seek "equality" for women, but rather "dominance" over men.

Why didn't you just say that about 100 posts ago, and we could have saved a lot of time and bandwidth???

From what I hear, there a several underground clubs that accomodate such dominance fantasies. Buy yourself a leather suit and some handcuffs and go check them out. You'll probably have a great time

But, as has been pointed out already, have you ever gone into a barber shop (not salon) and asked for a brushcut??? Do so, and ask what you would be charged. Report back here with the result. 

14$ for males 45$ for females

You were told, AT A BARBERSHOP, that a brushcut for a man is $14, and for a woman is $45???

Did you specify "brushcut"??? Did you even really go to a barbershop??? If so, did you ask why the difference???

Sorry, RB. I'm calling you on this one.

Interestingly enough, for a couple years my ex-wife went for the brushcut look. It was really cute on her. We went to the same place, were charged the same price. $10 at the time.

Looking through Sears catalogues and the like, I don't see where women have to spend so much more than men.

Maybe the men are smarter in their buying habits,

Wait a minute. In an earlier comment you said...

Question yourselves how come men are successful.  Oh, and I am fed-up with the conceited line men usually give "I am smart" 

When it comes to getting wealthy, how you spend is as important as how you earn.

So first you say you don't want to hear men say they are smart. Shortly after, you say that men are "smarter in their buying habits".

So by your own admission men become more affluent than women because they manage their money more intelligently by spending it more intelligently.

If you want to be taken seriously, RB, you really have got to stop contradicting yourself.

well the males excutives usually order custom shirts from the stichers @ $12 per shirt and they order supplies to last at least 6 months. Recently some of the females have joined that group.  A comparable ladies shirt would be worth greater than 70$ and ladies suit cost 400$. 

Please post a link to somewhere that I can order custom shirts for $12.00. It seems pretty unbelieveable, but if you can give me the link, I caould use the source of cheap shirts.

The ladies wear variety because they are fashionable, it is an expectation, they want to be promotable and receive handsome rewards for dressing the part.

Fashionable = Pandering to one's own vanity.

Expectation (of variety). This is imposed by whom???

Handsome rewards for dressing the part??? In other words, they are dressing up with an ulterior motive, not because they are forced to do so. Not because that terrible "male dominated" society forces them to do so. But because they are hoping to score something. Just seems to me like another example of the "mating display" we see in nature. Putting on a display to get what you want. Either that, or more vanity.

At which point the woman's divorce lawyer secures for her the children, the house, and the vast majority of the "wealth" the man has accumulated. In addition, support payments guarantee that she continues to acquire a fairly large portion of the man's income for many years following the divorce.

The statistics don't paint the picture of divorce or single women with custody of the child being rich. They bearly survive and are mostly poor. But, one of the characteristics of women as was Eve is well just being vindictive and cunning. But, women also pay alimony to men even when they have the child - the law is fair.

Firstly, you didn't recognize the fact that my statement above was simply an unreasonable response to an unreasonable post. That's okay, because you simply responded to it with another unreasonable post.

You are making sweeping generalizations that all men are getting rich by trodding all women underfoot.

So, I am responding with sweeping generalizations that all women are cunning and use their wiles to ensnare, entrap, and take advantage of men, which many, but by no means the majority, do.

But as a specific response to your statement, in a divorce settlement, a man is required to supply the woman with a lifestyle similar to that which she grew accustomed during the marriage. In other words, if the guy is rich, the woman, will continue to live a rich lifestyle after the divorce. If the guy is middle class, she will get support accordingly. If the guy is poor, well, she's not going to get as much. But from the guy's end, what they peel off of his paycheck is often enough to leave him near-destitute while working 40+ hrs/week. Meanwhile, she can sit at home and collect more than half of HIS paycheck. More if there are kids involved.

As for your last statement, "the law is fair", when was the last time a man got away with claiming sexual abuse, and ended up getting the kids, the house, and a restraining order against his ex wife??? All a woman has to do is suggest abuse, and she effectively makes the guy a pariah in his own community. Guilty until proven innocent. Next.

As a disclaimer, RB, I want to make clear that I hold women in general in the highest regard. I simply have little stomach for people who constantly come up with reasons that "society" is to blame for their plight, and then, in trying to justify their claims, contradict themselves. As a person, and as a woman, I respect you and your place in society, WHATEVER YOU MAKE THAT PLACE TO BE THROUGH YOUR OWN EFFORTS.

I have, however, little respect for your men-bashing views.

[kimmy]

But the fact remains, in today's society, a woman can bitch and moan about how put-upon they are, or they can go out and get an education and a career.

Nowadays they have programs where you can do both at the same time!

Isn't that peculiar. Women, operating their own salon, and yet they charge their "sexual sisters" more than they charge men.

I asked my dad what he thought about the issue. He told me that if you go to a SuperCuts they don't have gender-biased pricing. He adds that in spite of that, for some reason he never sees women getting their hair done at SuperCuts.

I can't vouch for what he says, having never been to a SuperCuts.

As for your war-related "phallic imagery" rhetoric, last I heard, they were trying to develop a vagina-shaped missile. Unfortunately it just wasn't very aerodynamic, and it tended to scoop up a lot of birds while in flight 

BOO! BOOO!! I honestly don't know if this is one of the funniest things I've ever read here, or one of the most rancid! I can't decide whether to laugh or throw rotting vegetables.

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

This brings a hole new meaning to the expression "Holy Flying F..."!

[RB]

PocketRocket

If you want to be taken seriously, RB....

You are quite humorous but I have taken note of what you have written seriously - I am a non-serious rebel of some discourse of course, who write with a mere perspective, it is not ground breaking and new information otherwise I would have already capitalise in some money making venture.

I sympathise with the harm done in moving forward of the female agenda. Your response tells that there is some discomfort and some situations made worse for men. I attribute this divorce business, child custody that women produce guilt in men and do agree there are current injustices against men.

OK if I can proffer a suggestion that the best way to combat this order of men domination is to break your own limitations, just as women have struggle to overcome their limitations. Like start working with new rules.

From what I hear, there a several underground clubs that accommodate such dominance fantasies

Look I don't like underground activities at all. To tell the truth my aims are rather pretty high - Mt. Everest 2009 imagine, that’s how much I am not going under

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

QUOTE (PocketRocket)

As for your war-related "phallic imagery" rhetoric, last I heard, they were trying to develop a vagina-shaped missile. Unfortunately it just wasn't very aerodynamic, and it tended to scoop up a lot of birds while in flight 

BOO! BOOO!! I honestly don't know if this is one of the funniest things I've ever read here, or one of the most rancid! I can't decide whether to laugh or throw rotting vegetables.

I've heard that those new missiles also whistle like crazy in flight....But seriously, RB is right to a degree about culture dictating prices and position for the genders.

One of my customers is a teacher, and she asked me if I had any shoeboxes for her kids to use for a project at school. One of my other customers overheard this, and she said "I'll bring in some shoeboxes tomorrow..." Well, I happened to notice that the price tags of the 3 shoeboxes totalled $1750! One of them was a pair of Chanel high heel 'sandals' (as there wasn't much to them in the picture) for $870. Was she being taken advantage of? Well, she bought the shoes, so she obviously was willing to pay the money. Was it because of 'society-induced female-targeted vanity'? Quite possibly, but ultimately she bought the shoes, and helped create a market for them.

As for me, I gulped when I shelled out $130 for a pair of handmade Sika Clogs for work, but it turned out to be the best footwear buy I ever made. After a year and a half they are still comfortable and the leather is holding up fine.

[kimmy]

Chanel sandals? She's a teacher? I assume she's got a husband in a much more lucrative profession.

I'm sure that one could find men's footwear from an equally high-end designer with an equally absurd price-tag.

Let's talk about something that was explained to me as "utility".

I could go to Zellers, Walmart, or the clothes section of The Real Canadian Superstore ™ and purchase a perfectly reasonable shirt for $10-15.

I could go to my local Buffalo Jeans outlet and purchase a shirt of quite similar design for $80-$100.

I could also purchase a plane white undershirt for possibly $5 or so at a number of places.

In terms of *functionality*, all 3 of them are essentially equivalent. Any of the 3 would keep the upper half of my body covered.

But in term of *utility*, all 3 are not the same. The Buffalo ™ shirt is deemed more appealing and attractive than the Zellers house-brand shirt. The Buffalo ™ shirt might confer upon the wearer an image of stylishness or sophistication that the Zellers shirt lacks. Or perhaps it might just make the wearer happy to be wearing a Buffalo ™ shirt on their body. These additional benefits, actually or imagined, as determined by the prospective customer, are considered utility and are part of the price.

In the example of the Chanel sandals, I'm sure that the price tag can probably be broken down as:

Materials: $2

Production costs: $3

Chanel label: $865.

If a consumer decides to purchase an $870 pair of Chanel shoes instead of a $20 no-name pair, it is because she has made the choice that the style and name-value of a Chanel product is worth at least $850 to her.

If a woman decides to get a $50 cut at a salon instead of a $15 cut at SuperCuts, it's because she feels that the presumably better and more skillful service she receives at the salon is worth the extra $35 over what she'd get at the SuperCuts.

If womens' products and services in aggregate are more expensive than mens', it is because women, in aggregate, are more likely to spend the extra money for products they believe (rightly or wrongly) are superior. If more women changed their buying habits to place less emphasis (and dollar value) on the aesthetic aspects of utility, prices would respond.

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

Great post kimmy.

[theloniusfleabag]

dear kimmy,

I echo Terrible Sweal's comment, great post.

To be clear, the shoeboxes were requested by the teacher, not provided by her. Another customer, (a woman who was independently wealthy) owned the shoes.

[RB]

These additional benefits, actually or imagined, as determined by the prospective customer, are considered utility and are part of the price

Sorry, utility and price don't go together.

Utility is abstract, is the additional satisfaction gained to the point of diminishing is arbritray.

Utility correspond with consumption.

I would understand if I can take your 3 shirts and explain the prices using the demand theory.

What I mean is the value of the utility analysis for explaining price is somewhat problematical.

But, I can plot quantity and price in order to make the demand curve identical with a curve of diminishing utility

I am not sure that utility curves add to statements of utility or purchases are a function of price.

[PocketRocket]

Well, the QUOTE button doesn't seem to be working for me today, so, I'll take it backwards.

RB: This last post is incomprehensible, or else I'm losing it.

I don't think I understand a single sentence.

Could you perhaps rewrite it in plain english???

But to address the general tenor, if a certain blouse, of a certain colour, and a certain fit, can be purchased for $10.00, without a name-brand label, but another, near-identical blouse costs $200.00, then who is to blame if s/he takes the $200.00 blouse???

Some people complain about products being too expensive, other people thrive on it.

"Oh my gawd, I had to spend, like, $200.00, just to buy a t-shirt. Like, isn't it totally, like, outrageous??? I had to buy, like, four of them. Like, gag me with a Gucci handbag"

Basically, as long as consumers continue to spend money on overpriced items, rather than on their less-expensive, generic counterparts, then market forces will keep the heavy pricetags out there.

As long as some women keep on supporting these overpriced name brands, then other, more sensible women will have to put up with the same old crap.

But on a more serious note, part of the problem is that some women want "freedom", "equality", "equity" etc etc etc.

Some other women want to keep working the system, quite happy to be the "pampered princesses".

In other words, there is no concensus among women about what they want from society.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say "Hey, I'm just one of the boys, and I want to be treated like one of the boys", and then in the same breath say "Hold my chair for me when I sit, and hold the door for me when I enter".

This may be one of the largest impediments to credibility in the whole womens' movement, the fact that many women like things as they are, and play the system that way.

[PocketRocket]

And now, back to the whimsical....

KIMMY:

But the fact remains, in today's society, a woman can bitch and moan about how put-upon they are, or they can go out and get an education and a career. 

Nowadays they have programs where you can do both at the same time!

And so many do. Over and over again, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.....

I asked my dad what he thought about the issue. He told me that if you go to a SuperCuts they don't have gender-biased pricing. He adds that in spite of that, for some reason he never sees women getting their hair done at SuperCuts.

Perhaps because it's not expensive enough. It leaves nothing to bitch and moan about.

As for your war-related "phallic imagery" rhetoric,last I heard, they were trying to develop a vagina-shaped missile.

BOO! BOOO!! I honestly don't know if this is one of the funniest things I've ever read here, or one of the most rancid! I can't decide whether to laugh or throw rotting vegetables.

If it's the former, then higher praise, I could not ask for. If it's the latter, please make the veggies fresh, I want to do a stir fry tonight.

Seriously, this was a silly comment addressing a sillier one. Missiles are shaped the way they are because it makes them aerodynamic. No other reason. Scientists certainly did not sit around discussing how to make a missile resemble a penis when developing missiles. But hey, I certainly don't need to tell YOU that, READS-ABOUT-PLANES .

(I bet you thought I forgot that nickname. Heh heh heh. You're stuck with it now, Kimmy)

And regarding your UTILITY vs FUNCTIONALITY post, as others have said before me, good job.

------------------------------------------------------------

TERRIBLE SWEAL: (what is a "sweal" anyway???)

This brings a hole new meaning to the expression "Holy Flying F..."!

Re: your use of the word "hole" instead of "whole".

Was this a typo, a Freudian slip, or part of the pun???

Either way, LOL.

I've heard that those new (vagina-shaped) missiles also whistle like crazy in flight....

Yeah, but if another, conventional, phallic-shaped missile whistles at them, they complain about being harrassed.

------------------------------------------------------------

RB:

Look I don't like underground activities at all. To tell the truth my aims are rather pretty high - Mt. Everest 2009 imagine, that’s how much I am not going under

Wow. High aspirations indeed!!! Best of luck with that climb. Be careful, and return safe. (I wonder if you can see my house from up there???)

[RB]

....|xx\

....|xxx\

....|xxxx\

....|xxxxx\A

....|xxxxx|\

....|xxxxx|x\

P0|_______\

....|ooooo|oo\

....|ooooo|ooo\

....|ooooo|oooo\

....|ooooo|ooooo\

P1|____________\B

....|*****|*******|\

....|*****|*******|*\

....|*****|*******|**\

....|*****|*******|***\

....|*****|*******|****\

....|*****|*******|*****\

P2|___________________|C

....|_____|_______|______|_______Downward sloping Demand

................Q0.......Q1..........Q2

Hope this curve shows up well - I will be back to explain my problematic view of the utility and price concept presented earlier.

[RB]

Ok for utility we will say it is the satisfaction the buyer gets from purchasing goods.

The key point I wanted to make with utility is that it will generate declines as the buyer consume more. Hence the price that a person would be willing to pay also declines.

So if there was a shirt purchased for 10$, and then another shirt purchased for 80$ then more shirts purchased for 5$.

The satisfaction derived as in utility is in turn lesser for the 5$ shirt, similarly the 80$ shirt has even less satisfaction than the initial 10$ purchase.

At a marginal diminish point there is no satisfaction in buying more shirts. So what I am saying is that for each shirt the person buys the less satisfied they will be hence they will be willing to pay less for their purchase.

Consider this also money has a declining value. If you only had 100$ and you were going to buy 100 items @ 1$. Imagine you arrange how you value the items. Obviously, further down the list you go the less valuable the items are.

Here is the kicker, additional monies therefore is worth less to you the more money you have.

This sort of information explains why the more quantity you buy the less you pay. The Utility analysis is useful to determine consumer behavior and understanding of market demands. Because if the purchase of the next shirt is less satisfying, then a buyer is willing to pay less. As such, the demand price declines. Utility hardly sets the price.

But in term of *utility*, all 3 are not the same. The Buffalo ™ shirt is deemed more appealing and attractive than the Zellers house-brand shirt. The Buffalo ™ shirt might confer upon the wearer an image of stylishness or sophistication that the Zellers shirt lacks. Or perhaps it might just make the wearer happy to be wearing a Buffalo ™ shirt on their body. These additional benefits, actually or imagined, as determined by the prospective customer, are considered utility and are part of the price.

So according to me this is not true, there is usually less satisfaction buying more shirts when we speak of the utility analysis.

But also I cannot plot the utility analysis unless I have a demand curve which shows price and quantity like in the graph I drew above.

Now for the explanation of your prices. For the genders the prices are discriminatory. They exist in 2 separate markets with something unique, hence are less price sensitive.

A company can charge a higher price P1 and selling a level of output Q1 in the first market and a lower price P2 selling a level of output 'Q2 in the second market; profits are greater than in that firm charged a single price P* (P2 < P* < P1 ) for all units sold.

Companies usually make the attempt of price discrimination if the total costs are the same in either case.

In order for these sort of prices to be varied companies have to prevent engagement in arbitrage like (buying in the second market at a price slightly above P2 and selling in the first market at a price slightly below P1 forcing both prices towards P*) and profiting from the price differences.

The markets of the genders are kept separate hence the price differences.

The red parts in the graph are profits, the blue are consumer surplus

Ok lets talk about that 80$ shirt

Its about pricing the shirts around how much is available. The higher the price the less is sold. In this case the blue parts of the diagram is important. The company will extract a surplus value (blue parts) as profits from the person buying where the person pays over and above the actual price.

In my graph, there are three different prices for the same shirt. The price P0 is charged if the buyer chooses to buy Q0 quantity of the good. A lower price P1 is charged for a greater quantity Q1 and the price P2 is charged for the quantity Q2

I still blame the males for these price discrepancies – they are owners of the business.

Oh, I forgot to say they if indeed we can reconcile the 2 markets the haircut of males rises to meet the females, the give up the number of times they can cut their hair. So it really does not make sense to change things for the males.

[PocketRocket]

I still blame the males for these price discrepancies – they are owners of the business.

Well, it's your constitutional right to believe whatever you like.

But let me ask you this, are there any businesses, owned and operated by women, who charge higher rates to women than they do to men???

Personally, I know of at least one salon (a friend works there) that is owned and operated exclusively by women.

They make no bones about the fact that a woman's cut and style costs about twice what a man would pay for the same treatment.

I hate using it as an example because i cannot provide a link to prove my assertations, but I'm sure you wouldn't have to look to hard to find a similar example in your locality.

In that isolated case, how would you justify your wide-sweeping claim that men are responsible for the gender bias in pricing, when in fact many businesses owned by women are perpetuating the practice???

Could it be that even women have been infected by that most common of human frailties, greed??? Even to the point where they will victimize their own gender???

Could it be that most women do not, in fact, care so much about the gender pricing, but care more about the prestige implied by name brands???

Examples of this include women not patronizing "SuperCuts", or buying the $80.00 t-shirt instead of the $5.00 t-shirt.

I am sure there are plethora of further examples of women being trodden on by other women, I just can't be bothered spending that much time searching for them. It doesn't seem to be an easy search to find female-owned retail businesses, complete with pricing lists online.

But, as I stated earlier in this thread, if a woman is paying more because she is buying a "prestige" version, identical except for name brand, than she is not being victimized by gender pricing, but by her own vanity.

I do not disagree that gender-bias pricing exists.

I do disagree with your implication that it is a plot against women, by men.

Markets are driven by consumption. It's called supply and demand. If all women stop buying a certain, expensive product, even for a week, then demand drops off, and the price of that product will plummet.

Instead of bitching here about how unfair it all is, why don't you try organizing rotating boycotts of products and services that you feel are victimizing women in this way???

You'd be amazed at what a single week of low profits will do to motivate a major company to change their marketing strategy.

[RB]

PocketRocket

Women head up only about 11% of businesses in North America.

I of course cannot point to a figure of how many folks think that men are subtly conspiring against women.

But I am glad that it is one of the issues of discussion on the boards however disappointing.

I can understand some of the sensitivity and distress that men feel and experience when women are confrontational and making some seemingly justified statements.

But, also I have to question how do we expand ideas if were to hasten and dismiss anything unknown into extinction.

Look, taking some strong or mere perspective from a different viewpoint to explain and encourage some discussion while promoting some thoughts on issues, realities and images with regards to the gender is not foolish but necessary.

For example, if I don't let you know what women are thinking, you'd still be guessing as usual, or indifferent and making assumptions.

Engaging humour or theories, or serious or empirical discussion blends and brings a diverse voice to a common theme and a movement in some direction.

I do disagree with your implication that it is a plot against women, by men.

You mean I can still afford to have voice a freedom of believes. oops, the constitution is not limitless you know, so were you intent on relaying this information, the males are the law makers I know this, I mean women are terribly underrepresented.

[PocketRocket]

Okay, RB. I agree the issue needs to be addressed. Never denied that

My problemn was with the sweeping generalizations implicating all men as trying to victimize women at the cash counter.

But now you've expanded the problem into the courts saying women are underrepresented.

There may be fewer women judges than men, but this started out about gender pricing.

Now you're expanding it into the arena of law???

As an FYI, I don't think the legal system is responsible for price structures becoming what they are today.

Also, I don't think too many male judges rule against women simply for being female. In fact, if a particular judge is going to be swayed by the gender of the litigants, I think the opposite would hold true.

[RB]

I mean when you show up at the grocery stores which gender is mostly there.

Who you think regulates milk, sugar, flour, eggs, grain

I have experience with the agriculture sector. It is the worst sector for gender discrimination in the workplace to start off and they sell mostly to the females audience, the folks can go ahead and bake, and cook in the kitchen.

You know molasses is also regulated worldwide using the USDA pricelist release every Monday morning - but I was indeed surprise when Stelco and Defasco bought into to using molasses for briquetting on the steel rods. You know the price for molasses when down - I noted this because there was a noted trend trading with molasess where the demand for yeast rised, which meant more demand for molasses - but it had no outcome on the price

[The Terrible Sweal]

So if there was a shirt purchased for 10$, and then another shirt purchased for 80$ then more shirts purchased for 5$.  ... The satisfaction derived as in utility is in turn lesser for the 5$ shirt, similarly the 80$ shirt has even less satisfaction than the initial 10$ purchase. 

This is mistaken. If a person purchases a shirt for $10, they have determined that the shirt provides a utitly for them equal to $10. If they then buy and $80 shirt, they must have determined that that next shirt provided a utility to them of $80. Otherwise they would not have made the purchase.

Consider this also money has a declining value.  If you only had 100$ and you were going to buy 100 items @ 1$.  Imagine you arrange how you value the items.  Obviously, further down the list you go the less valuable the items are. 

No. If you're willing to pay $1 for each item, they all have $1 utility value to you.

This sort of information explains why the more quantity you buy the less you pay.

"Explains" it wrongly. The reason a seller will offer higher volumes a lower per unit prices is because she can acheive cost savings due to scale at the higher volume.

But also I cannot plot the utility analysis unless I have a demand curve which shows price and quantity like in the graph I drew above.

Which poses a problem for you, because your chart has mistakenly reversed the price axis by placing higher prices lower down.

For the genders the prices ... exist in 2 separate markets with something unique, hence are less price sensitive.

You say two separate markets, but there's a problem with that. You need to consider: Why are the markets distinguishable?*

In order for these sort of prices to be varied companies have to prevent engagement in arbitrage

It's more accurate to say that in order for a divided market to exist something must be preventing arbitrage. Something like ... oh, say ... insubstitutability of supply or different utility calculations in demand.* (I.e. market based reason).

The markets of the genders are kept separate hence the price differences.

What imaginary force ensure that they are 'kept separate'?

[Guest eureka]

RB, I don't know how you can "let (us) know how women are thinking since what you are saying would be mostly greeted with some amusement by women. You portray the victimization of the extreme feminists of the 60's. That is a breed that has almost died out in favour of more productive ways of attaing equality.

As Germaine Greer once said when regretting her own extremism; "Women may have to study North African womwn in order to relearn what a woman is." That is after her realization that a woman is not just a man with two more letters.

If the "lawmakers" are mostly male, that is up to women to correct: it is not any exercise of power by men. Womwn have no restrictions on their ability to seek office or to vote for the best candidate available, male or female - or just female if they follow your agenda. That ratio could be quickly changed by women if they so chose - as it has in certain countries.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Terrible Sweal,

What imaginary force ensure that they are 'kept separate'

Free enterprise. More precisely, demographic 'target' marketing. Kind of like the old 'vicious circle' theory, where the want creates the market and the market creates the want.

Then, there is the niche market, stores for the Big and Tall, for the petite, for the gothic and for the Fat and Ugly (actually, Wal-Mart has cornered that market). Then, somehow you must try to influence that person into becoming a 'loyal customer'.